Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was replying to what the hon. members opposite had said. While the hon. member for Newton Park was becoming vehement about the price of bread yesterday, I wondered what his party would have done in similar circumstances. I think they would do what the Filipinos do. Every time it has become necessary to increase the price of bread in the Philippines, they have reduced the size of the loaf a little. That makes it unnecessary to increase the price of bread. The Filipinos have been following this line of action until they have now reduced the loaf by half. Half a loaf of bread ought to suit the half an Opposition sitting here in front of us rather well; an Opposition of half-truths. I do not think they deserve more than half a loaf of bread for their share in developing the economy of South Africa.

Yesterday, while listening to the speeches made by members of the Opposition on inflation, they reminded me of the Hollander who wanted to escape from inflation. He bought himself a wheelbarrow, went to the bank and said to the teller, “Please give me all my money in cash.” He loaded his wheelbarrow with the cash and left. When he was passing the post office he decided to collect his mail and left his wheelbarrow outside the post office door. Upon his return the notes were still there but not the wheelbarrow.

The hon. member for Constantia said yesterday that South Africa had a strong economy, which was not attributable to the efforts of this Government but to South Africa’s resources. Surely this is a ridiculous statement to make. Had it not been for the enterprise and energy of this Government, these resources of South Africa would still have been unexploited today. How did the United Party not oppose the establishment of Sasol and Iscor? And today they want to know why there are not more Sasols. I still remember how the National Party met with a barrage of criticism, scepticism and suspicion-mongering at the time that Sasol was announced.

South Africa is grateful that it gained a Government in 1948 which stood for “South Africa first!” and which left no stone unturned in its efforts to develop South Africa’s resources to the full. In the 26 years which have elapsed since then, the National Party has developed South Africa into an economic giant in Africa and into a country which is able to take its place among the leading countries of the world. While the Opposition very often sat in sackcloth and ashes along the way, this Government was planning and undertaking projects with glowing enthusiasm and contagious optimism without its ever losing confidence in the future of South Africa.

The courageous struggle waged by the previous hon. Minister of Finance to win for gold its rightful place in the monetary world economy was disparaged and ridiculed by members of the Opposition in this hon. House at one stage. When the present hon. Minister of Finance predicted two years ago in the Other Place that the price of gold would rise to $80—and you must bear in mind that the price was only $40 at that time—he was derided by the Opposition in the Other Place. And today gold is fetching $180 and more. Now we want to know from the Opposition whether they are still laughing. No, they are no longer laughing, but the people of South Africa are laughing at them because their faith was so weak. The people have reason to laugh at them for just look at what remains of the once proud party of Gen. Smuts. Gen. Smuts would turn in his grave were he to see what they have done to his proud party.

Prior to 26 May 1948 the United Party and its allies had 107 seats in this House. How many of them are sitting here today? One must take a count every day to know what the latest figure is. It really seems as if there is something that is whisking them away at night. They are sitting here today, a pathetic Opposition party consisting of only 37 members. I hope I am correct in saying 37, for I have not yet read the newspaper this afternoon.

The hon. member for Constantia said South Africa’s strong economy was not attributable to the Government; but I want to ask the hon. member what his party’s contribution was to the development of South Africa’s economy. While the National Government was creating golden years of prosperity and peace for South Africa, they were being consumed by fraternal strife. They have squandered 26 years on quarrels without their having anything to show for it but half a dozen or more unsuccessful policies, and yesterday we heard of yet another one. [Interjection.] This Opposition has never had a share in the great adventure in which the National Government is engaged in this country. The Opposition stands accused before the people of South Africa for not having done its share as the official Opposition to develop South Africa’s economy. It stand accused of always having been a drag as a result of the fact that it has squandered a quarter of a century on internal strife. Here we have the official Opposition today, surrounded by its splinters, which continue to be a thorn in its flesh. And the end is not yet in sight. It still has people in its ranks who render it impossible for the Opposition to have any permanent guarantee of peace. Sir, I just want to say this to the hon. member for Constantia: This Government deserves full credit for the favourable conditions in this country. South Africa is in the particularly fortunate position of having virtually no unemployment, not even among unskilled workers, and this, Sir, while unemployment is assuming alarming proportions in other countries. This Government must get full credit for these favourable conditions. It sets about one major undertaking after another with courage and vision. Sir, according to estimates approximately R250 000 million will be spent in the next five to six years on the most important capital projects in the Republic. Sir, this is a breathtaking figure. This money will be spent on Sasols, Foscors, Iscors, Escoms, television, etc., and this amount does not even include the capital expenditure of the Railways and the Post Office, which will spend approximately R150 000 million themselves. Sir, this is a sign of vigorous growth and prosperity. It cannot but be a strong stimulus for our economy. It will create work for everyone who wants to work. Sir, it brings prosperity and development; yes, it even brings détente among the multiplicity of peoples within the borders of our country. Sir, South Africa’s vigorous economy is of the utmost importance to us at this time. To us it has become one of the strongest instruments for making break-throughs to the outside world, building bridges to other countries and making friends. The peace offensive of the hon. the Prime Minister has already opened numerous economic doors in Southern Africa to the Republic—we thank him for that—and more will come. Sir, I foresee a burgeoning trade with the countries of Southern Africa. Yesterday the hon. member for Constantia said in this regard: “I think that we in this country must back the hon. the Prime Minister’s efforts to establish political co-operation in Southern Africa with real effort also to establish economic co-operation.” Now I should like to put this question to the hon. member for Constantia: Why did he vote against the amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister in the no-confidence debate? The very thing the hon. the Prime Minister asked for in that amendment was the promotion of good relations among peoples, and surely this is exactly what the hon. member was asking for here? But the hon. member and his party allowed this wonderful opportunity to pass, this wonderful opportunity they had of demonstrating their attitude in this regard actively and earnestly. Sir, only one of them had the courage not to vote against the amendment and that is the hon. member for Yeoville who walked out and, Sir, had to pay for it: he was kicked out of his party.

Mr. Speaker, international trade is becoming the corner-stone of co-operation among countries to an increasing extent. Countries can no longer manage without one another, particularly in the sphere of trade. But I want to assert that the countries of Southern Africa have to look more to one another than any other countries have to do. There is no reason, Sir, why we cannot co-operate very closely with these people in the field of trade. It might not be far-fetched to repeat the optimism of Dr. the hon. Diederichs in this regard when he envisaged the creation of one great economic community in Southern Africa. Sir, at the present time we need optimum economic results in South Africa; we need exceptional economic achievements and sacrifices. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I will not deal with financial and economic matters. I should like also to be permitted not to respond to questions in view of the shortness of time available to me. Sir, I speak from the most junior section of the back benches, relegated from my position in this House, stripped of my office as the chief Opposition spokesman on finance, removed from my position of provincial chairman and expelled from a party that I had served for 27 years with body, with spirit and with my financial resources, like many of my erstwhile colleagues, and the question must be asked “Why?” The answer, Sir, is because I did not have it in my heart to vote against a proposal calling upon all South Africans to assist in improving race and international relations and commending the Government for those actions which have effected and will effect these improvements. Mr. Speaker, I have no regrets, as I abstained from voting on a sincere evaluation of the wording of a resolution which was in accordance with what I had stated in this House only the previous day. Mr. Speaker, South Africa offered me a home when I was a child and had none. It has been more than kind to me, and I have tried to repay that debt and have served it to the best of my ability and in accordance with my beliefs. I will continue to do so as far as I am able. The Prime Minister may feel that he needs to help to remove discrimination and to improve our international relations, but the least that we can do is not to obstruct him, nor to play petty politics. Opposition politicians in particular, in times which are crucial in the country’s history, have a responsible role to play, and their words and actions can do immeasurable harm both internally and externally. We want discrimination removed but, Sir, we do not care who does it or who gets the credit. It is in the interest of our people, who come first. Sir, what is more important, that the plight of millions of Black people be improved because the Government need fear no backlash, or that a debating point be scored in this House or a few politicians’ careers placed in jeopardy? We who sit in these benches and those who followed us in other legislative bodies and councils are content to risk careers in the hope that our actions will bring about some consciousness that in crucial times such as these the old sterile political debate must end and that a new approach to South Africa’s problems must be adopted. I commend the hon. the Prime Minister again for his action in travelling to other parts of Africa. We do not know if his endeavours will succeed; we hope they will, but if they do not succeed, then at least he will have tried, and for that I commend him. Peace in Africa is necessary for our survival and whoever can bring it about should not be hindered. Our approach does not mean that we do not differ from the Government on other fundamental policies and ideologies and actions. Where we do, we will oppose the Government. This opposition is as much in South Africa’s interest as the support we offer when they do what we believe is right. This is a fundamental belief of those of us who belong to the new Reform Party. Political divisions have in the past been based on a variety of grounds. The war issue created the United Party in its present form and the striving of the Afrikaner people the present Nationalist Party. The political divisions in South Africa are still historical and to a considerable extent artificial. There is no longer a need for a political party to be an Afrikaner-“volksbeweging” as the Afrikaner has established himself culturally, economically and in every other way, as he has been entitled to do. The war issue is today no longer relevant, though naturally it affects sentiment and old associations and loyalties, of which I am in no way contemptuous, and still keeps people in the United Party. But, we are now living in times where survival is at issue. There are broadly two approaches to the problems which face us at the present time. Firstly there are those who feel that the only hope is to stand firm on White privilege and domination. Every concession is regarded as a sign of weakness, in any case only to be made as a last resort. Secondly, there are those who wish to bring about an accommodation by peaceful means in terms of which all people, irrespective of colour or race, can live in security and in harmony. This, is the true political division in South Africa and which will come about in South African White politics. This is the choice, between enlightened and reactionary. What is significant, is that in the present political situation, the party divisions are not on this issue. The non-compromisers, who wrongly describe themselves as conservatives, are found in both the National Party and in the United Party. In the National Party there are those who regard changes, however limited they might be as the road to disaster, and they are kept in line by the benefits which they see in being in the party in power and by their adherence to the concept of belonging to what they consider to be the political wing of the Afrikaner national movement.

This latter fact also keeps in the National Party those who wish to move faster on the road of change. Those in the United Party who are anxious to find true and honourable accommodation—and I say there are some who remain in that party who have that belief—remain there out of personal allegiance to the leader, sometimes based on old comradeships, and in the hope that the road on which we helped to set the party in the last three years will be followed and that the verkramptes some of whom are believed to be negotiating with the National Party, will weaken and will seek to join the Nationalist Party. And the latter is not unlikely in respect of some people as you may believe. Those who seek peaceful co-existence and accommodation in all the political parties might differ on the method of achieving it but they all agree on the final objective which eliminates discrimination, ensures respect for human dignity, creates equality of opportunity, permits the exercise of basic freedoms and allows all to exercise political rights in the determination of their own destiny.

Should this not be the political division in South Africa? Both major political parties, and particularly the United Party, at this crucial time of our history consist of people of irreconcilable views kept together by lip-service to carefully phrased aims and principles, vague policy statements, personal ambitions and other issues such as personality adherence irrespective of policy. [Interjections.] We believe that if South Africa is to be put on the right road, the verligtes in all political parties should seek to come together. No one can claim the monopoly of infallibility; no one can claim that he has all the answers. There can be good in the ideas of all sincere individuals that in fact an accommodation can be found for all races, or call them nations, in South Africa, found, however, not alone by Whites and imposed by them on others, but arrived at together with Black, Coloured and Indian people. Enforced solutions cannot be effective in the long term. Only agreed and just solutions can bring lasting peace.

We believe, therefore, that despite our present small numbers in this House we can act as a catalyst to bring enlightened, sincere thinkers who are free of anachronistic party bonds, together to work sincere to resolve the constitutional, social and economic problems which our country faces. We are willing to talk to any others, irrespective of their present party affiliations, who share with us these beliefs and will work together with them to find the solution. We seek no offices, we seek no benefits but wish to be free from reaction, free from the exploitation of colour prejudice and free from petty politics. If we can be a catalyst to bring enlightened people together, we will have served our purpose. We believe that there are sitting in this House and that there are hundreds of thousands outside, who think as we do and this is why, to discharge our duty, we cannot retire from the political scene. We who sit here, as well as our colleagues in the Senate, in the Transvaal Provincial Council and in the Johannesburg City Council and elsewhere had a choice. We could have retired from politics and to attend to our families and to our careers, but if we did this we felt that we would have failed in our duty. We know how difficult the road is. We face vituperation and abuse. But we have had it inside the United Party for so long; now it is outside in the open. Viciousness is nothing new to us. We know what our duty is and we will try to do it.

Let me now state what are the basic concepts of the Reformists. Firstly, there must be security through a genuine sharing. Secondly, there must be protection of civil liberties and the safe-guarding of the freedom of the individual. Thirdly, there must be equality of opportunity and the creation of conditions under which these will and can occur. Fourthly, there must be a removal of discrimination based on skin colour or race and a genuine removal of that discrimination, not a sham and not lip-service. Fifthly, we have a genuine love of our country and of all its people. Sixthly, we believe in not imposing policies on people but evolving them by consensus with all our people in this country. We will seek to be sincere and we will seek to be credible in putting forward our policies. We will avoid double talk and will seek to act as a catalyst for verligtes to act together to find a solution for our peoples’ future. We will always be available to act as a bridge between the races of South Africa and to ensure that dialogue never ceases.

May I now deal with a campaign which has been launched against us with its characteristics of smears and personality attacks and insinuations. Sir, they speak at closed meetings where Reformists cannot put their case. They seek to entice people back and hold them by promises of office in the Johannesburg city council. [Interjections.] They allege that there are no policy differences. These are all signs of desperateness, for by holding on to public representatives they hope to retain a grassroot support which they are losing like an avalanche.

I do not want to get involved in the mudslinging. I want to deal with the alleged lack of differences in the policy which there is. Let me give you some very clear examples. We have had talk of the federal policy and you will remember, Sir, that last year in this House the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was questioned by the hon. the Prime Minister on whether the White Parliament could disappear or whether the White Parliament should disappear. The hon. the Prime Minister, who had not forgotten his days as a lawyer, succeeded in extracting from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it would disappear. That was on 9 August 1974. But it did not take until September 1974 for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to go on record by confirming “ ’n uiteensetting van partybeleid wat onverbeterlik is”, when this was said—

That was within days of speaking in this House and being questioned by the hon. the Prime Minister. Where do we go from there? We get the hon. member for Durban Point who is so anxious to say everything that can be said that he says it ‘‘would” disappear, it “should” disappear, it “could” disappear; and nobody knows in fact what the policy is. I want to say this to the members of the United Party: You talk about double talk and credibility in the United Party and you say that there are no differences of opinion in the United Party, but the whole country knows it; all of you who are sitting here know it, and yet you go on with the pretence and sham ’which has destroyed your credibility. [Interjections.] This is the truth of what you have done. You cannot pretend that there are no differences of opinion. You cannot pretend that in the United Party you speak with one voice. You call us high-jackers; you take our ideas, you take our labour, you take our money, and then you throw us out on technicalities and you speak of high-jacking. Mr. Speaker, they set out to destroy a cause by destroying men. They have forgotten that men may perish, but causes live on. We have been sent, so they believe, into the wilderness. But if they will read Isaiah, they will see that he said that the wilderness and the thirsty can be glad and that the desert may rejoice and burst into flower. Isaiah said: “Say to the anxious, ‘be strong and fear not’.” We will not fear and we will go ahead with the job which we see for ourselves in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a Press cutting that appeared in The Star of 19 April 1974. That was a few days before the general election which was held last year. I shall just read a few short pieces from that Press cutting—

He did not accept the challenge. [Interjections.]

I think the hon. member for Yeoville has given an adequate reply to that. He also said categorically that his party would seek to avoid double talk. This rings a bell. I seem to remember those words coming from him before. I think it was when he was elected leader of the United Party in the Transvaal. I also seem to remember that not very long after that he was again very hesitant to say certain things and that he was, in fact, accused in the Press of double talk. I trust that now that he is no longer provincial leader but the national leader of a party, he will be in a better position to carry out his undertaking not to make himself guilty of double talk. However, the question arises why the hon. member for Yeoville does not join the Progressive Party. If I remember correctly, it was the hon. member for Yeoville who enticed the hon. member for Edenvale to leave his job at a university and to come to the Transvaal to get a seat there. He was not the only one. Another person was also enticed to leave his job at a university and to stand for election, viz. the hon. member for Rondebosch.

You’d love to have him, wouldn’t you?

I would certainly not. He was enticed by the hon. member for Yeoville to leave his job, but for some reason he must have decided that the United Party is too guilty of double talk and that he would rather join the Progressives. Now for some reason these blood brothers, viz. the hon. member for Edenvale, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Rondebosch, are in fact in three different parties. The only opposition party that is not represented here—at least not yet because I do not know what the court case in Umhlatuzana is going to lead to—is the Democratic Party. We therefore have four opposition parties. These parties are all parties to the left. The Progressive Party can possibly be classified as the “far left”. To be kind, one can say that the Democratic Party can be classified as the “reject left”. Then—I will put it very kindly—we have the Reform Party which can be called the “Schwarz left”. Then we have the rest; they are “what’s left”. But many of them will probably object to the term “left”. Some of them would probably like to see themselves as the conservative centre or even as the right. If they regard themselves as the right, the picture we have here is of an opposition on the march. What we would then hear is left … left, right, left … left, right, left … Seriously, what is left of the four lefts of the Opposition, is no longer taken seriously by the electorate of South Africa. In fact, they are merely an anamoly in this House. The people of South Africa—I am absolutely convinced of this—have tremendous confidence in the National Party under the leaderhip of Mr. John Vorster.

You can make him a Bantu commissioner.

We now have Madam Rose …

Order! The hon. member must refer to other hon. members by their constituencies.

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. Sir, this whole escapade is not finished yet. Here we have a situation where a member of the United Party—I think he is still a member: probably until Tuesday of next week—challenges the Prime Minister that he will resign his Senate seat if the Prime Minister appoints a Black man to fill the vacancy. If that is not a publicity stunt, I do not know what it is, because this member of the United Party knows full well that the Prime Minister does not fill seats in the Senate which are the responsibility of an electoral college. The Prime Minister appoints two Senators for each province and those positions have been filled. There is no vacancy. The member concerned is not one of those who was appointed by the Prime Minister. If he wants to make such a gesture and resign his seat in favour of a Black man, he must present that fact to the United Party’s electoral college in Natal which put him there. If he is honest he must ask the hon. member for Durban Point who has just been described in To the Point as the joker of Parliament. He must ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana if they would be prepared to nominate a Black person if he were to resign his seat.

Will you change the law?

Obviously he was only speaking to the gallery and to the Press, as he has done so often since he first came to this House in 1966.

I think you should kick him out, too, Div.

Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point gave us an insight into the United Party’s federal policy. Not only is this federal policy not being taken seriously by the other Opposition members and by this side of the House; it is going to be of historical interest only to collectors of Africana because it is only of academic interest whether they say that this Parliament will phase out or not. They will never be in a position to have to make that decision because it is a fact that under the conditions prevailing in South Africa, in Africa and in the world, it is evident that in any country consisting of many different nations, i.e. a multi-national country such as South Africa, the policy of separate development, of recognizing the human dignity of peoples and nations, has been proved undeniably to be the most effective and most stable policy to maintain peace and good relations. I seem to remember, in 1961, that the United Party claimed: This federal policy of Cyprus is our ideal. That was when Britain put forward that policy.

It was Marais Steyn who said that.

It makes no difference even if it was Mr. Marais Steyn. He was the spokesman for the United Party at the time. He has since seen the light. I shall come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout presently. The United Party said that the federal policy in Cyprus was the ideal policy, in fact their policy. What did we have in Cyprus, however? We have had tension, occupation by the United Nations and war, and now Turkey has even intervened and conquered about 40% of the island of Cyprus and the Turks are thinking in terms of declaring their independence. A federal policy relating to minorities and majorities which differ inherently on national views and aims, will never succeed. The whole history of the world is littered with failures of federations consisting of such different peoples. For the United Party to say that they are serious in wanting to impose a federal system—or a federal idea as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout calls it—on the people of Southern Africa is an absolute fallacy.

Why did you propose it for South West Africa?

The people of South West Africa will determine their own future themselves. We are not imposing any future on them.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether he will elaborate on how they are going to dispose of discrimination in their unitary system.

I shall deal with the hon. member’s question first, before I come back to the Cyprus policy. The question of disposing of discrimination is a matter of the intention to dispose of those aspects that are hurtful to the dignity of individuals. That can be done, but to make an issue of the difference between discrimination and differentiation and to say that both will be abolished is an absolute figment of the imagination. Nowhere in the world, neither in the United States which officially opposes discrimination, nor in Britain or anywhere in the world will you find a lack of discrimination. There might be a lack of official discrimination, but discrimination is practised throughout the world by individuals. The most hurtful discrimination in this country is not discrimination that is official policy; it is discrimination which is effected by one individual towards another. It is the policy of this Government to try to do away with official discrimination that is hurtful to the dignity of human beings.

How about a Saturday night at the Nico Malan?

I shall not be distracted unnecessarily by a red herring, or is it a pink herring, coming from the source it has come.

Let me get back to the federation policy of the United Party. The United Party came with the idea that they wanted this Parliament as the White leadership organ which could in fact phase itself out after the United Party policy had been carried out. In their policy they make provision for four White Parliaments, viz. the provincial councils, and then they want to form two separate Coloured Parliaments, eight Bantu Parliaments for the homelands and— though they are not quite sure themselves of how many—a number of Bantu Parliaments for urban Blacks, and an Indian Parliament. The hon. member for Durban Point, who has now left the House, said that they will have a regulating factor in the federal assembly. He said they will have a regulating factor of 120 members who are to be elected on the basis of their contribution to South Africa. That is the very crux of the question. What is to be the basis of the election of these people? What is to be the basis on which the contribution of these people to South Africa is to be determined? Will it be by means of taxes, by contribution to the culture of the country, the amount of labour they provide for the country’s industry and mines, or what is it going to be? How will they determine on what basis those 120 people will be elected? This is purely an academic practice or game that has been played in politics. There is no reason whatsoever why the United Party’s federal policy should be taken seriously. What is important is that in the multi-national situation in South Africa where there are many different peoples in different stages of development and with different ideals in life, the country should be governed in a way that is most beneficial to all people concerned. This can be done on the basis of separate development, because there can only be real development of the various groups of separate peoples such as the Bantu, the Coloureds, the Indians, etc., on this basis. It is only on the basis of separate development, whereby their development is specifically guided because their restricted progress is being taken into consideration, that there can be justice for them in respect of what is being done for them. If there were no restrictions on what White people could do I am convinced that if all the areas in South Africa were thrown open to them, it would not be very long before the Bantu instead of having 13% would be left with 3% of South Africa. It is because their interests are being protected and special measures are being taken to provide industry and commerce to them in protected circumstances, that there can be real progress and real development Obviously there are also various restrictions. In the same way people are being brought from Africa and Asia by development aid to study at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford and at various universities in France, Germany and other countries. They are brought there for the purpose of development, the prime intention being that, after they have completed their studies, they should not as individuals remain behind in Paris or Berlin, in Britain or any other country and enjoy the fruits of the developed society there. The intention is that after they have acquired that knowledge, they should go back to their countries and act as leaders in the political and social fields, in education and in industry to uplift their own people. The development taking place in South Africa is a protected development which must obviously include certain negative measures. If those negative measures were not applied, the Bantu would never want to go back to their own areas to uplift their own people. For that reason it is essential that, apart from the protective development being given to them, there must also be some negative measures, measures which make it possible to carry out the protective development policy in respect of the various non-White peoples.

In Europe there is the European Common Market in terms of which there is economic co-operation and economic interdependence between the countries. The question is frequently asked whether the various Bantu areas in South Africa are economically viable. They may not be economically viable on their own, but they are economically viable in economic cooperation with the rest of Southern Africa. In exactly the same way not a single country in Western Europe, including West Germany, would be economically viable today were it not to lean heavily on economic co-operation with the other countries in Europe such as France, Holland, Italy and Britain. The economic viability of every single nation in the world today depends on economic co-operation. It is on the basis of this economic co-operation that Lesotho and Swaziland have reached a degree of viability; that the Transkei will be economically viable in co-operation with South Africa and that Mozambique becomes economically viable in co-operation with South Africa. Therefore, in terms of economic interdependence or economic cooperation, there is the possibility of various people, various nations, co-operating with one another while they remain politically sovereign and independent of one another, as France is independent of Germany and Lichtenstein is independent of Europe. However, it would be folly to expect any single country in Europe to be so politically independent that it could act on its own without liaison or co-operation with other countries in Europe. There must obviously be dialogue; there must be discussion; there must be agreement. However, the final effect given to any agreement made by means of discussion in the (European Council) has to be sealed by the decision of the Parliament of each independent sovereign country. In South Africa, too, we have the suggestion by the hon. the Prime Minister of a Cabinet council in which members of various nations in Southern Africa will discuss matters on common interest and reach agreement or fail to reach agreement thereon. The final approval, however, in respect of any decision taken will have to be given by each separate Parliament of each separate nation. By means of separate development and on the basis of discussion or of dialogue; on the basis of economic co-operation, there can be real peace and progress in South Africa. However, under the policy of a unitary political State, a state with unitary political power, be it federal or whatever form it may be, this co-operation can never be forthcoming. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point spoke about a Progressive Party policy reflecting in microcosm the same problems of the whole nation. Those problems would be exactly the same if a federal assembly or a federal Parliament, having final control over the destinies of all the peoples, were to have the final decision. In the same way it would be folly if America or China were to agree that the United Nations should become a sort of super parliament. I am convinced that neither America nor Russia nor China would agree to the establishment of a super world Parliament. There are discussions and decisions are taken. Some of those decisions are made binding provided that the individual nations agree thereto, but they can also opt out. For this reason the federal policy of the United Party, or for that matter of the Reform Party or the Progressive Party, is unpractical in terms of the Southern Africa situation.

Before I resume my seat, I think it is necessary to join issue on one point with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It has been said that he is the spiritual father of the Reform Party. We saw the cartoon in the Press recently in which he denied fatherhood of the baby that had been born.

*Mr. Speaker, I think one could possibly compare this case with that of a gelded goat. A gelded goat is the goat which leads a flock of sheep to the slaughter-house, but just before it enters the slaughter-house the gelded goat turns back. That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has done. At the moment there are only four of them here. He led them to the slaughter-house, but then he decided, “So far and no further; now I am turning back.” I wonder if this is not analogous to the example we have seen in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom there was an esteemed political figure in the Conservative Party. He quarrelled with his leader. He waged such a fierce campaign against his leader that he even went so far as to tell his supporters during the last election that they should vote for the Labour Party, and he did so himself. I am referring to Mr. Enoch Powell. Because he did so, he has now been repudiated by the Conservative Party, including those members who used to support him. I recently spoke to a member of Parliament of the Conservative Party. He said that if Enoch Powell had not done this, he would undoubtedly have stood a very good chance of being elected leader of the Conservative Party recently. Because he broke with his leader at that stage, however, he is an outcast and was not elected leader of the Conservative Party. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher was elected. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout learned the lesson of what had happened to Enoch Powell, and then decided, “No, I shall not break away so finally that it will not be possible for me to be elected the next leader of the United Party.” Last year he was asked whether his tender was still open. I wonder if his tender for accepting the leadership is still open at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party’s problems are not over. The remaining conservative part of the United Party will win in the caucus; they may also win at the national congress; they may also win at the provincial congresses of the Cape Province, the Free State and Natal. They would probably have gained a narrow victory in the Transvaal as well if the conservative rural supporters of the United Party had been a little better organized than they were on the occasion of the previous congress. But, Sir, the tragedy of the United Party is the tragedy of the Opposition. The tragedy is that they will not win in the Press, and on the Witwatersrand and in the Peninsula, where the core of the members sitting here come from, they will probably not win in the next election either because they do not have the Opposition Press behind them. Consequently they will, lose there. Natal, Sir, is a different province. There was a time when Natal was regarded as the outsider in politics; in fact, it was a thing apart, because at one stage all the political bugs of the country came from Natal. But Natal has now had political stability for quite some time, and today we have only two parties left in Natal. The real instability in politics, provincially spoken, is now to be found in the Transvaal. You will recall, Sir, that Bailey Bekker’s party also originated in the Transvaal. The Progressive Party originated in the Transvaal; Mr. Cor du Preez’s party originated in the Transvaal; the HNP also originated in the Transvaal; even Mr. Gerdener’s Democratic Party only came into being after Mr. Gerdener had left Natal and gone to the Transvaal, and the new Reform Party also originated in the Transvaal. Therefore I think I may compliment Natal on having achieved political stability, and for that reason the National Party is now on the road to success in Natal as well.

Mr. Speaker, my predecessor. Adv. Pik Botha, is a youthful, energetic young man who, in the short time he represented the voters of Wonderboom in this House, and afterwards, has taken long strides in national and international politics, strides which will probably not be easy to equal. Sir, to have been able to work with him was a privilege; to tell the truth, it was in fact an experience. We thank him for that privilege. We pray that he will receive much wisdom and guidance in the long road which lies ahead. Sir, owing to the specific location of Wonderboom, its voters have to live from day to day with the growing pains of the national economic development of our policy. In some facets they are experiencing these pains in all their intensity, but in spite of that voters of Wonderboom are people with an unshakable faith and confidence in the guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister. These people also believe unshakably and confidently that it is the task of every citizen of this country to follow the example of President Kruger and in these times in which we are living and in this era which we are entering, to find for themselves a place of seclusion where they can go down on their knees every day to pray for guidance and that this great peace effort in Africa will proceed successfully and lead to a peaceful conclusion. This is the message which the voters of Wonderboom want to bring to the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to refer briefly to Prof. Samuels, to Mr. Lutsch, the manager of the Armaments Board, to the Armaments Organization, and I should like to include here the hon. the Minister of Defence himself. To them I want to say thank you very much for the privileges which I enjoyed on the Armaments Board Thank you very much for the opportunities which were created for me and which enabled me to make a humble contribution to the preparedness of the defence forces of the Republic. Thank you very much, too, for the privilege I had of being able to make many friends for South Africa abroad in the process. Usually, when we discuss the preparedness of the Defence Force, the immediate reaction of the ordinary man in the street, of the ordinary member of the public, is to ask whether the Defence Force has enough people with which to protect our country and whether the Defence Force has enough arms and ammunition for these people. These are perhaps questions which are quite justified and correct in view of certain elements which constitute a threat to our country, but the question which one cannot help asking is whether this is in fact the essence and the substance of preparedness. With preparedness it is not so much a matter of people and their arms and ammunition. Does the general public understand the situation and appreciate the extremely important contribution and role which it can and must play in this regard? In order, perhaps, to obtain more clarity in regard to this matter, I should just like to indicate quickly the most important concepts of preparedness which we can ponder. The first is strategic preparedness; then there is physical preparedness; mental preparedness; preparedness against threats or, in correct Defence Force parlance, appraisal of threats; operational and tactical preparedness; and lastly technological preparedness.

When we consider strategic preparedness now, we could state it in the following way—

Sir, what this amounts to is that there should be a strategic plan in which all the elements of the national economy have to play an effective role. Perhaps we could now consider these elements briefly. They include a national and international economic plan, an available manpower plan, a transportation system plan, a communications plan, an industrial plan and a financial plan. It is, after all, the practice to express the defence appropriation as a percentage of the Government appropriation and as a percentage of the gross national product. Then there is the energy plan. After all, we have taken cognizance of this effective action because there was an energy plan which enabled the Government to deal to a certain extent with the energy crisis. In addition there is a diplomatic plan. Sir, the world is taking cognizance and is aware of the attempts being made by the hon. the Prime Minister in Southern Africa and in Africa in this regard. What it amounts to is that there is a strategic philosophy in which all these elements are combined to make certain that it is possible to ensure the security of the State in peacetime conditions and under physical threat. If this philosophy is played correctly and if the strategic plan is planned correctly and is a good one, it might be possible to achieve the political objectives of a nation without military action. When it comes to physical and mental preparedness, I do not want to discuss the question of physical preparedness at all; that goes without saying.

However, I do want to exchange a few ideas on mental preparedness. The question which immediately arises is for what reason a nation arms itself. Is it to serve as a deterrent? Yes, certainly, Sir. Is it to be able to ward off the physical onslaughts on a State and nation? Yes, certainly, Sir, that, too. However, it is also very important to maintain the self-respect of a nation and our national pride and honour and the will to protect what is our own. That is the essence of mental preparedness. No Defence Force is an isolated compartment or an island in the ocean. The members of the Defence Force are part of the nation. The will of the individual is the will of the nation and the will of the nation is the will of the Defence Force. The mental preparedness of the Defence Force therefore has its origin in the mental preparedness of the people and the mental preparedness of the individual. Another important factor related to this is that a part of mental preparedness should also be the faith of the individual in his Creator. If we do not have that, then we do not have mental preparedness. Let us take cognizance of the fact that the mental preparedness of the Defence Force grows out of the nation. Let parents in South Africa take cognizance that they should inculcate love for what is one’s own and the will to protect it in the child from his earliest days. The child should imbibe this with his mother’s milk. It is our bounden national duty. Our educational bodies and institutions should take cognizance of the fact that it is their calling to inculcate and develop national honour and pride in the young people. Our churches should continue to proclaim the love of Christ purely and without any fear. Our parents, educational institutions and churches should accept the mental preparedness of the nation and the Defence Force as a national command, in the knowledge that mental preparedness is a prerequisite and an essential quality of good and responsible citizenship.

In respect of the last concept of technological preparedness, section 3 of the Defence Act lays down the defence objectives of the South African Defence Force. This is a defence mandate emanating from the people through the Government to the Defence Force, and it states briefly: The defence of the RSA, prevention and suppression of disorder as well as coping with national disasters. Knowledge of the elements posing a threat to a nation is a vitally important prerequisite, for without it there cannot be a strategic plan or a concept of preparedness. A defence Force may exist, but it will not meet the objectives of the South African Defence Force as defined. Operational preparedness amounts to the ability of the Defence Force to be able to carry out these instructions, and to be able to do that, the Government has to place means at its disposal. In practice these means are known as the four M’s: Manpower, material, money and machinery.

You will recall that I said that the traditional concept of strategy is “the art to employ military force”. This is tactical preparedness: The purposeful development of these needs to satisfy the objectives of the Defence Force in the most effective manner. When one discusses means, two ideas immediately emerge. The one is quantitative and the other is qualitative. Unfortunately it is the case in the world today that no nation has an over-abundance of means. Means are scarce, and only obtainable at a premium. When the quantitative concept has a limitation, the emphasis shifts to the qualitative—in other words, the fewer the materials, the better they have to be. It is to this that I should like to couple the idea of technological preparedness.

In the defence situation there are two approaches. The one is technological preparedness which has to do with the quality of the skill of the armaments operator. In this modern century this is becoming increasingly important because armaments are technologically becoming increasingly complex and sophisticated. The other is technological preparedness which has to do with the quality of the armaments, the industrial potential to manufacture and to service, and the skill of engineers and technicians in the industry. No country, with the possible exception of the USA, can be self-sufficient in these skilled fields of military technology. It is therefore imperative for any nation, and particularly South Africa as well, to be able to be self-sufficient in carefully selected fields which have to fit in with its strategic plan and with the available means. This entails technical equipment and facilities for the manufacture and servicing of armaments, which is primarily a financial problem. In addition it also comprises the building up of technological skills, which is on the other hand a manpower problem. This is something which one finds in the fingertips and in the minds of people. However, one can never develop these technological skills if the opportunities for doing so are not created. I am thinking of opportunities of manufacture, production and servicing. Let us glance briefly at the opportunities which exist in South Africa.

According to Unisa’s Market Research Bureau there are 4 258 mechanical industries, 505 electrical industries, 580 chemical industries and 260 plastic industries. Including miscellaneous and textile industries, the total amounts to 6 600 industries, which on the face of it seems to present wonderful opportunities. But let us consider the manpower which is available according to the HSRC. There are approximately 12 300 technicians, of whom only 9,4%, or a meagre 1 200, are available for the industries. There are 11 674 engineers in all professions, of whom only 9 200 practise the profession. Twenty percent of them are mechanically and electrically qualified—in other words 1 800. When we collate these figures, we see that there is one technician for every 3,9 industries, while there is one engineer for every 2,5 industries. I am aware of the disturbing factors in these particulars, but the picture which results from this is one which arouses great concern. In view of this pattern it is clear that it is an impossible task to establish armaments skill in the country. The heart of the problem lies in the fragmentation of the available manpower as a result of an unrealistic fragmentation of the industries.

I conclude. If the Republic wants to be technologically prepared within the specified limitations, and also wants to make a fundamental contribution in Southern Africa and in Africa, this matter will have to receive serious attention, and thought will have to be given to the rationalization and co-ordination of industries with special reference to the fields of armaments technology.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Wonderboom on his maiden speech. He has entered a debate at an early stage after his election to this House. I have listened with interest to what he had to say and was gratified to see with what care he had prepared himself for what he had to say. I should like to congratulate him on having made a speech which has treated this House seriously, if I may be permitted to say so. He put forward a serious argument on the basis that this House is a place for serious debate, a happy contrast with the hon. member for Klip River who spoke before him. I wish the hon. member for Wonderboom a happy stay in this House. As a politician he will understand if I do not wish him a lengthy stay in this House, but nevertheless, the good wishes of this side of the House— and I dare say of the whole House—go out to him on his election to Parliament.

I should now like to address myself to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. In his address to the House he used expressions, with regard to my party, the United Party, which I should have thought he would have been wise to avoid. There were references to “personal ambition”, “personality differences” and there were allegations of “double talk” in our ranks. There were references, with great emotion, to “smear campaigns” and to the denigration of individuals. I believe that I am in duty bound to deal with some of these matters, I being the first spokesman for the official Opposition after the hon. gentleman has spoken. One of the greatest difficulties I have had with the hon. member for Yeoville—and I speak with some knowledge as a provincial chairman—has been his predeliction for double talk. Indeed, we have had a classic example of it this very afternoon when he attempted to justify his refusal to vote with the Opposition—the combined Opposition, I may say—on the amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister. He sought to justify his stand on the basis that all that amendment did was to praise the Government for its détente in Southern Africa. He has done that very thing on two occasions. His Press statement was double talk of the same kind. If one has the amendment at hand, as I do, one sees that it states in the clearest possible language, language which was understood similarly by the entire combined Opposition, other than Mr. Schwarz, as follows—

I emphasize “in South Africa”. It then goes on to deal with matters outside of South Africa and then states, in the second part —which the hon. gentleman always omits—

With the utmost clarity it seeks endorsement by this House of what the Government has done and proposes to do in South Africa. It can only do that in terms of the Government’s own policy, a policy which this side of the House, the United Party, and the hon. member for Yeoville, have for years been opposed to.

Nonsense! Utter nonsense!

Indeed, his criticism of some of the hon. members of this party is that they have been too prone to praise the Government for what it has done in terms of its policy. I point that out merely as an example of double talk. Regrettably we have had this kind of thing over and over again from the hon. gentleman. I believe that the part which the hon. gentleman and what they now call the “Reform Party” have played over the years should be summarized this afternoon.

Not the “Hervormde Party”.

I do not propose to go into great detail but I do propose to summarize it The hon. gentleman began his speech by saying that the United Party was a body which he had served with his finance and his energy for some 26 or 27 years. In telling us what he had done, he omitted one word which I thought was significant. He made no reference to the fact that during the years he devoted his energy and his money he also devoted his loyalty to the United Party. That is significant because I believe that a political party if it is to serve a useful function, is not merely an amorphous mass with a number of ideals. Ideals are fine, but you have to have a vehicle in order to implement those ideals. The vehicle which we have always had is the United Party. A vehicle to implement ideals which one feels strongly about—I concede that the hon. member feels strongly about his ideals—an effective vehicle must have a number of attributes. It must be unified and it must be able to demand from its people, particularly from its leaders and its provincial leaders, self-discipline and loyalty. The principle difficulty that this party of mine has been through during the recent months, I emphasize—and I shall deal with it in detail—has not been differences of policy and principles, but the inability of that group of persons to compose themselves in terms of self-discipline and loyalty.

How did the group operate? First of all it had to establish an identity, which it did, as a group of persons separate from the party to which they gave their loyalty. That had to be emphasized and it was emphasized through the media by their having formed with one or two individuals of the Press, a closer relationship than I would have thought the ethical standards of the journalistic profession would demand because in my view it impinged on one of those standards, i.e. an objective approach to events. Well, having established a group with an identity of its own, they then secured friends in the media to compare constantly in the public mind the value of the group as opposed to the value of the party of which they said they were a part. That is done always on the basis that the group has credibility and merit while the party has no credibility and very little merit. This is constantly done and was constantly done, very cleverly and with great skill, to bring about this identity and to give it dominance in the political scene.

Where does Japie fit in?

One of the greatest disservices that has been done throughout this campaign—and I hope my friends will listen to me—has not only been the denigration of groups of individuals within the party as verkramp, but the association with this reformed group of individuals who were not involved. This is something which this House and the South Africans outside should appreciate. What was the next stage? The next stage was to send emissaries to the other provinces to make contact with people, including public representatives, and with certain organs of the Press to discredit the elected leadership in the other provinces. That was the next move.

That is untrue.

Then there was the take-over of power. Basically the whole of this operation was a bid for power and it is extraordinary—it brought to light a very strange point of view. The point of view is: The party is dead right, it is a wonderful show, its principles are fine, its membership is excellent—as long as I am the boss; but if I am not the boss, then it really is a “shower”, as is sometimes said. That is the attitude of mind behind the thinking of this group. The power struggle was won by this group in the Transvaal, it was attempted but lost in the Cape and it was attempted but lost in the parliamentary caucus of the party.

I would like to deal with some of the points upon which it is alleged that this party is at fault. After the brief summary I have given. I hope you will bear in mind. Sir, that the hon. member condemned this party for having people in its ranks who place personal ambition before the interests of the party and for the question of personality differences. The first point the hon. gentleman made was that he, seeks security through a sharing of power. We have been criticized by these gentlemen in Press statements over the last few weeks that we are not genuinely in favour of a sharing of power.

Tell us your version.

I propose to do precisely that.

It will be different from that of everybody else.

What is the very essence of any federal structure? The very essence on which it is founded is a sharing of power. The federal structure of the United Party was brought into being by a committee—and the hon. gentlemen in this House all know who was on that committee. They formulated the federal structure which was praised at the time in the Press. I have the cutting here. It is headed: “Courage, this is what this plan has”. That is what was said not two years ago. That committee was joined by the hon. gentleman only after the original principles were established. What are those principles? They are for giving maximum power to the various legislative councils, which will be racially based—it is known to this House that that is the basic ground floor of our federal plan—and for those councils then sharing power with a multi-racial federal assembly. That is the ultimate destiny to which we are moving. If that is not a simple example of shared power at the constitutional level, I do not know what the term “shared power” means.

That is your problem.

How are we going to bring that about? I assume that the hon. gentleman still believes in that policy. They say it is the greatest thing and they still believe in it. There is only one sovereign authority which can bring that about, namely this Parliament which has sovereignty at the present time. It is an essential element of this federal scheme that there is to be a sharing of sovereignty between the federal assembly and the legislative councils, because a sharing of sovereignty between the upper and lower echelons of the various legislatures is also an essential element of any federal scheme. So there is to be a sharing of power and a sharing of sovereignty, and I have never heard any member of this party say otherwise. How is that to be achieved? There is only one sovereign authority at the present time which can do it, namely this Parliament.

And it will not do it.

We are criticized on the basis that there is a difference of opinion with regard to the phasing out of this unitary Parliament and the coming into being of a federal system. I have never had the slightest difficulty on this score. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point yesterday put our philosophy and our general and ultimate direction perfectly clearly. They made it quite clear that we propose to set up a federal scheme which will gradually have various powers transferred to it and that when, as the hon. member said yesterday, the confidence of the people has been won by the efficient working of that federal machine, this Chamber will become redundant. No one has ever run away from that. However, there is a long path to follow between this moment in time and the ultimate creation of that federal scheme. How will it be done? It is our philosophy that this will be done through policy, which is what one puts to the electorate at an election. If we were to go to the electorate and, I imagine, if the hon. member for Yeoville were to go to the electorate at the next election, he would not seek a mandate for the abolition of this Parliament because if he were to do so he would not be able to introduce a federal scheme. He would seek the continued existence of this Parliament in order to bring a federal structure into being. I venture to suggest that thereafter, at the following election, the mandate that he would seek from the electorate would not be the abolition of this sovereign Parliament because if that were to happen he could not clothe the new federation with any powers. Once again he would require a mandate from the people and his policy at that election would be the continued existence of this Parliament in order to be able to transfer powers to the new federal legislatures which had been set up.

And so you’ll go on for 300 years.

I hope the hon. member will hear me out. Finally, the stage would be reached when he would seek his special mandate from the electorate which is the guarantee which the leader of this party has given with the authority of that hon. member. This guarantee will be that what my leader has called the keys to the safety of the State will not be transferred to the federal assembly without the specific authority of the electorate. The ultimate philosophy is as clear as day and the steps that have to be taken to achieve that end are also as clear as day. In what field is it permissible within that philosophy for there to be differences of point of view? In my view it is perfectly permissible for individuals to differ in their calculation of or in their speculation as to the length of time that process is likely to take. People who are accustomed to associating with the more sophisticated of the non-White peoples may well take the view that this will be a rapid process after the party gets into power. Those who are accustomed to deal with the less sophisticated or more rural communities, particularly in the non-White world, are entitled to take the view that this may well be a longer process than some imagine. However, differences in emphasis of that kind do not amount to double talk. They are legitimate within a party which adheres to one philosophy. To attempt to describe this as a basis upon which men leave the party is playing with words. I have dealt in that summary with the question of the White Parliament and a sharing of power. There is also the question of White leadership.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Certainly.

Does the hon. member agree that the United Party policy is correctly explained as follows: “Die Blanke-parlement mag verdwyn ingevolge die federale konsep van die party maar dit is nie die beleid van die party dat dit sal verdwyn nie.”?

That statement must be related to a point in time and in the remarks I made just a few moments ago I related it specifically to a point in time.

Let us deal with the question of White leadership. It is said that there is division in the party on White leadership and that there is double talk in the party on White leadership. All the hon. gentlemen will remember the triumphant Congress of 1973. They will remember that it was described in the Press as a triumph for the Young Turks or the Reformists. This programme of principles I have here was adhered to unanimously by the party at that Congress. What does it say on the question of White leadership? This is what it says, and I have never known anybody in the party differ from it—

Sir, all these gentlemen agreed with this; it was said to be a triumph and success for them.

Lip service.

It goes on to say—

Sir, there has never been the slightest difference; this is in our programme of principles and I have never known any individual in the party to differ from it.

May I ask a question?

We have had enough of you.

My hon. friend was not prepared to answer any questions.

I got 15 minutes, and you have got half an hour.

I have just been handed a note that I have three minutes left. Mr. Speaker, the two final points that I should like to touch on are, firstly, the suggestion that all the verligte initiatives, which have achieved broad acceptance over the last year or so, can be attributed to the existence of that group in the United Party.

[Inaudible.]

I am not accustomed to give away caucus secrets.

You are not in caucus now.

Sir, my leader has stated that this is the myth of the century, and I do not think that that is an exaggerated description of it. I have already dealt with the federal plan which was devised by the constitutional committee which was appointed in 1971 and which my hon. friend here joined later on.

I still like Harry.

The assaults on petty apartheid came largely from the recommendations of a committee of which the chairman was the hon. member for Hillbrow and of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was a member. Sir, the aims and principles of, the 1973 congress, which was hailed as a triumph for the Young Turks and for the Reformists, was originally drafted by a committee set up by the hon. the Leader of the party, and only minor changes to it were made by the head committee. Then, Sir, there was the 10-point initiative raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the first caucus last year and made public in the Press. Where did those 10 points come from. Sir? number of them came from the Leader of the Opposition himself; a large number came from the Division of Information under the hon. member for Hillbrow, and I think a point came from the hon. member for Edenvale. Now, Sir, let us take the statement on Coloured policy. It came from the parliamentary group that is concerned with Coloured affairs. The statement on multi-racial sport came from a committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Green Point, and the policy initiative dealing with labour and collective bargaining for the Black people came from a committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Hillbrow. So much. Sir, for the myth which has been assiduously cultivated by these gentlemen that every worthwhile initiative in this party has come as a result of their representations.

Finally, Sir, one of his lieutenants, the hon. member for Bryanston, attacked me and the party in Natal because, so he said, we only paid lip service to any attempts to move away from discrimination and petty apartheid. Sir, I want to say another word or two in the few minutes which are left to me. I would not normally appear to be critical of my colleagues in the Johannesburg city council. We are moving in this field of trying to remove discrimination. I also administer an executive authority, Sir, as did my hon. friend in the Transvaal with the Johannesburg city council, and I know that one is moving through an extremely difficult field, a field in which one has to move with a measure of care. I think everybody in this House will accept that. The changes which have been made in this field under the administration of the hon. member for Yeoville. I believe, are the following: The parks have been opened to all races. The museums have been opened to all races. Black traffic officers have been appointed recently, but without the power to arrest Whites, and some libraries have been opened. This is the extent of the initiatives taken under the auspices of his regime, Sir.

Now let us look at what has happened in Natal. The parks in Natal have never been closed. The museums in Natal have never been closed. The Provincial Administration has made it abundantly clear to the local authorities that they are free to open any of their libraries which they wish to open. We have had Black traffic officers appointed with equal powers to their White compatriots since 1966, and there is no discrimination against them as to whom they may apprehend for offences and whom they may not, and we have some 30 of them in the employment of the Provincial Administration at the present time. We have for years had multi-racial boards for our large regional water supply corporations. We have three fully-fledged non-White town councils and some 20 elected local affairs committees. We have for years had mixed hospital boards in Natal, multi-racial boards. We have mixed membership of our Tattersalls. The Provincial Administration has persuaded the Book makers’ Co-operative to change their constitution so as to allow for the appointment of non-White bookmakers. Sir, at all the State dams where we are in charge of the pleasure resorts, we have absolutely equal facilities, chalets, restaurants and the rest, for all those racial groups whom the Government allows us to make provision for. We are proposing to appoint a multiracial consultative committee to advise the province in regard to multi-racial affairs and to advise the Natal Parks Board.

Now, Sir, I have in the short time available to me tried to give this House a résumé to show that Natal, where a United Party provincial council is in office, far from being worthy of the criticism which the hon. member for Bryanston attributed to it—I imagine largely out of ignorance— is in fact leading the way in South Africa in easing the difficulties of multi-racialism and petty apartheid. There is one other aspect which I could mention. In some of our municipalities, like the municipality of Pinetown, 90% of their traffic officers are Black men, and that has been so for some years, but we do not get on to the roof-tops and shout about it. We have for years had complete road maintenance units operating under the provincial council, entirely staffed by Black men.

Do you pay them equal pay for equal work?

We have training schools operating for the heavy work operators in this field. Now, what one finds irritating is that in this campaign to make a take-over bid, to secure dominance in the United Party, there has been a resort, I regret to say, to smear campaigns, to use the words of my hon. friend, and campaigns of denigration of elected leaders of the party with whom they disagreed or whom they saw in a position which they disapproved of because they would have liked to be there themselves, on a scale unheard of in this country. Sir, I say to those hon. gentlemen that a party which is born in circumstances of dishonour, deceit and disloyalty deserves not to survive, and I believe in this instance that it will not.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this side of the house is very interested in the palace revolution that has taken place on that side of the House. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat will remember that a year or two ago I addressed a warning to them and said that they should be careful; a leader is being cultivated in the United Party. I refer to the “leadership stakes” and to the fact that a young colt was being groomed by Joel Mervis to take over the leadership in that party. The hon. member would do well to go and look it up in Hansard. Then that same hon. member rose and said that he did not know what I was referring to. It so happened that last year he followed me in this debate, and at that time I told him that he should see who was sitting behind him; who was breathing down his neck. Now they are exposing the rash that has afflicted them here in the House. These are things they should have settled in their caucus. I do not believe the people of South Africa are really interested in their personal and party problems.

Have you ever heard of the H.N.P.?

I want to point out that last year I appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to take a photograph of the United Party members of the House. You turned down my request although I said that such a photograph would be an historic one. Just look how they are sitting there today! It is a disintegrated United Party. There we have the representatives of the Oppenheimer Group, called for short the “Progs”. Next to them are the “deserters of Graaff”— probably one would not be allowed to call them the “DOGS” for short. An expression of that kind would be unparliamentary, but those “deserters of Graaff” comprised the Grow Group. Alongside them we have the rest of the United Party. That is what the Opposition in South Africa looks like today: A pathetic Opposition. In any event, I leave them at that.

I want to come back to the debates that have been carried on over the past few days. It was a privilege for us to be able to listen to the farewell message of the former Minister of Finance a few weeks ago. In his characteristic and extremely capable manner he gave us a survey of the financial and economic situation which, as he sees it, prevails in the world. He also informed us of the spirit that prevails in the world, which is being threatened to such an extent by inflation. I am not a pessimist; I regard myself as a reasonable realist, but after the speeches we have heard over the past few days, I think the threat of inflation and its increase in the world causes us all concern. We in South Africa are, perhaps, less affected by it than people in other countries and we are very grateful for that. Perhaps we are not threatened to the same extent, but at the same time it is very clear that we in South Africa will not entirely escape this, either.

Since I am a representative of a constituency that is comprised exclusively of workers and is situated exclusively in an area in which major and heavy industries are established, I want to exchange a few ideas concerning the role that can be played in the fight against inflation by man and the machine. If time permits, Í shall also say a few words about the role that man will play in the future of the Republic of South Africa.

A few decades ago—that was in our youth—the Republic of South Africa was exclusively dependent upon the income received from agriculture; that is, if the income from the gold mines is not taken into account. At that time our country was not dependent on its labour to the degree that it is today. However, as time passed, the machine made an appearance and began to replace man to an ever-increasing extent. As we know, the machine plays a vital role. If we consider when our industrial development began, we see that it began after the depression of the thirties. In the years after the Second World War the tempo speeded up, but after the declaration of the Republic there was a rapid increase in tempo. When this young country, South Africa, became a Republic, its enemies in the world thought that since it stood on unsteady legs, they would be able to bring it down. Sanctions and boycotts were then instituted against us and it was necessary at that time for us to speed up the tempo of industrial development in our country tremendously. I can remember that as a child, and I think this goes for many other hon. members, because it is not so many years ago—we used the ox-waggon and the scotch-cart on the farm as a means of transport. At that time wheat was still cut with the sickle, bound by hand and carried by hand. I can still remember how, as a young child, while the horses threshed the wheat and there was no wind, I called out “moya, moya” and whistled up the wind to blow away the chaff. In those days maize was probably threshed with sticks. These are things which many of us sitting here have experienced. In time, however, the machine made its appearance and partially replaced that human labour. Thus the cutting machine, the threshing machine, the self-binder and the combine made their appearance. But even with all these machines, it was still necessary for people to service those machines. In the same way there is the man who worked in an office. He had no aids. If he was lucky he had a “Ready Reckoner”. Later came the adding machine or the “calculator”, as we called it. Also the Hollorith machine, and eventually the computer as well. Today it is virtually inconceivable that any firm of any stature should be able to get by without the computer. Let us take the mining industry. In those times the cocopan was drawn by animals. The holes were bored manually while the loading and off-loading of cocopans was done manually by means of spades. This development has taken place in all spheres. In this way the machine has replaced human labour to an ever-increasing extent. Thus, in time the machine came, and with the machine, of course, mechanization. In spite of the machine and mechanization, the demand for people and manpower has continued to increase. It is as plain as a pikestaff that although it has replaced man, the machine is totally incapable of operating without the hand and the knowledge of man. Man has remained the essential link in this entire revolution; without man the computer stands useless, the aeroplane stands useless, yes, even the moon rockets, because although it is unmanned, it is still controlled from the ground. It goes without saying that by means of this process of mechanization, productivity is increased. Both of these factors have acted as a counter to this dragon, inflation, if I may express it in those terms. That machine is unable to produce without a properly trained operator. One can have two similar machines and two tradesmen with the same qualifications to service them, and then one finds that one can deal with the task within two minutes, while the other will take five minutes over it. The factors that make the difference here are dexterity and skill. Mechanization and automation can make no contribution towards the combating of inflation if that machine is not operated effectively and properly occupied and utilized. Machinery is an expensive article in any industry. If it is not fully occupied and utilized, it can have the opposite effect and be a cause of inflation.

Now, however, I want to deal with the person, the individual. We in South Africa are particularly fortunate because we have the mineral wealth, the metals, the raw materials, the water, the necessary infrastructure and even the human material for sound growth. With all these means I believe that we can build and maintain a growing economy. However, we are now being accused every day and on all sides of a failure to utilize our human material properly in this process. Let us now analyse the human material we have at our disposal. In our multi-national country, we have 3,7 million Whites, about 2 million Coloureds and about 600 000 Asians and about 15 million Bantu, a total of 21,4 million people representing the labour force of South Africa, the source upon which we may draw. Once again we must take cognizance of the fact that this source is multi-national in composition; in other words it has a complicated composition. It is the task of the State to ensure, in the first place, that there is a happy and satisfied labour force. In the second place, the elimination of areas of friction on the labour market must be ensured. Proper training and the obtaining of optimum productivity from each worker must be ensured. The last, but probably the most important aspect is that industrial peace must be ensured. If one has all these things, one is well armed to combat inflation. However, the following arises out of the above-mentioned factors. There must be good relations between employee and employer. All these factors I have mentioned will be of no avail if we do not have the correct relationships. We must bear in mind that when we are dealing with people, we are dealing with a living being. It is an enormous task, an almost superhuman task, to comply with the above demands.

I now want to test the National Party and its policy against all these aspects. To what extent have we succeeded in carrying out these things. In the first place I want to look at industrial peace and then at relationships between employer and employee. When we compare ourselves with any country in the world as regards industrial peace, we shall find that we are far ahead of the other countries. We are right on top. I am not referring to strikes that occur sporadically. We know what this sound situation is ascribable to. After all, there is a reason for it. It does not come of itself. The most important reason lies in the creation of the Industrial Conciliation Act, as amended, by the National Party. This is an Act of which the world is jealous and one of which South Africa has a right to be proud. Strikes and work stoppages, when they take place, are minimal. Strikes and stoppages do, of course, occur sporadically. After all, we admit that. However, we have made an analysis of them. In many instances we have found that it has not been a question of the working conditions of these people nor has it been a question of their conditions of service. It has been foreign influences that have been the cause of those strikes. Under this same Industrial Conciliation Act, that jewel of an Act, provision has also been made for due negotiation between employer and employee. Provision has been made for industrial boards, for conciliation boards. The employer and employee may sit around a table and negotiate properly. In other words, to a large extent the employee governs himself in this country. Under the Industrial Conciliation Act we have also provided for job reservation—yes, the enemy of the Opposition! We must never see in job reservation those dragon’s teeth which so many people see in it. On the contrary, the job reservation measure is a protective measure. It protects all groups of our people. This measure has not been included in the Act to protect the Whites only. It is also there to protect the Bantu and the Coloureds. It is therefore an instrument with which to eliminate friction if necessary. I know that I shall immediately be told: “Yes, but the Bantu does not have trade unions.” But we have created negotiating machinery for the Bantu. Just think of the works and liaison committees under the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. Some people will now say that this machinery does not work. However we are grateful that recently a thorough investigation was carried out by the University of the Orange Free State, by the personnel research section of the Department of Industrial Psychology. The subject of the investigation was the functioning of liaison committees. They sent questionnaires to 326 of the largest organizations in the country. In those 326 organizations there were 471 liaison committees which, at that stage—on 30 June 1974 —comprised 41,1% of the recognized liaison committees. What were their findings? They found that in 39% of the cases, productivity had increased. They also found that in 82% of the cases grievances had been reduced, that communication had improved in 97% of the cases and that 82% of the organizations were satisfied with liaison committees. These questionnaires were not sent to “tuppenny-halfpenny” organizations, but to large organizations such as African Explosives and Chemical Industries and other large organizations.

Where do you get those figures?

The hon. member may obtain them at the University of the Orange Free State. Trade unions have not necessarily brought only peace to the world. I also know that in certain cases, trade unions have caused the greatest misery to their members. After all, we know what misery they have caused in some countries.

As far as the training of our people is concerned, surely it cannot be doubted that we in South Africa have done our rightful share. We need only analyse the Budget to find that an enormous amount is being done with regard to the training and education of our people. When I say this, I am not speaking about the Whites only, but also about the Bantu. When we look at the increase in the number of schoolgoing children over the past few years, we are dumbfounded, because there has never been anything like it in the world. In the meantime the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has come up with in-service and pre-service training for the workers. We are grateful that they have come up with this and that rapid progress is being made in this regard. It is not the duty of the State alone to undertake this pre-service training; it is also the duty of each industrialist to do his part in that regard. The labour is used by that industrialist. They cannot, therefore, always remain at a distance and continue to point a finger at the State, because this is their duty, too. Today I want to make an earnest plea that we should also consider extending pre-service training and in-service training to include even the Whites.

In these few minutes I have tried to sketch the role played by the machine, Man, the individual and the State in increasing productivity. It goes without saying that when all these things are done, they must add up too a means to combat inflation. Now, however, a question occurs to me and in my opinion it is the key question. The question is: What, then, is wrong? I can only come to the conclusion that in South Africa, the problem lies with the worker and his attitude to his work. The essence of the problem is the attitude of the worker to his daily task. Is the worker’s approach to his work the same as it always was? I am starting to doubt whether in fact it is. Why has the worker’s attitude to his daily task changed? He has changed his attitude to his daily task owing to the prosperity we have enjoyed over the past number of years. I find this to be the most important reason for his attitude having changed. He has become lazy. He thinks that he may no longer do certain types of work because they are beneath him. It is not only among the Whites that we find this, but also among the non-Whites and the Coloureds. They no longer want to do certain work. That attitude has not only changed as regards work, however, but also as regards the church. Then there is another important aspect that helps inflation. We all know that the value of money has dropped over the years. Do people still attach sufficient value to the money they have today, even though that money has a reduced value? No, I believe not. We decided to buy a pair of shoes and we walk into the first shop we see and say: “Take that No. 9½ off the shelf for me. Here is the money.” Prices are no longer compared and people spend too easily. This is one of the reasons why we encourage inflation.

Speak for yourself!

I think I could give that hon. member many examples. If he were to come to my house, I should give them to him. I say that we have this phenomenon owing to prosperity. Peoples’ attitudes towards their work must change again and this is a task that the State will have to perform. However, it is also the duty of the Opposition to help to change that attitude, because it affects everyone. We shall not have this problem if people perform their daily task with dedication again. I want to tell the Opposition that they are the people who will have to help. If we are able to succeed in changing the attitude of the worker we shall ensure that we still have a future in this country and that we shall leave our descendants a worthy inheritance. I want to plead that the Opposition, particularly the representatives of the Oppenheimer group, should stop this nonsense of constantly inciting the Whites against the non-Whites. I want to ask all of them, in all seriousness, to consider desisting from constantly playing off the Black worker against the White worker in South Africa. They can perform a task as a worthy opposition. It is their task to be a worthy opposition. Training a “crash training programme”—call it what you will —increased wages, automation and mechanization—it will all be pointless if we are unable to instil that correct attitude in the worker. This is an urgent problem for us.

Having referred at the outset to Dr. Diederichs’ speech, I want to close with Dr. Diederichs’ words, viz. that we must work, work more, because only then will we still enjoy many golden years in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, right at the outset, to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his first appearance in the House in his new capacity. He is following in the footsteps of a man who has won great prestige both here and outside South Africa. We on this side of the House are convinced that the hon. the Minister possesses the qualitative characteristics to win great prestige for himself here and abroad in his own right. Our best wishes accompany him.

This afternoon I want to level a few accusations at the United Party. Since I have been taking an interest in politics, it has struck me that the United Party has been affected by failures of understanding to such an extent over the years that not only has it remained simply unacceptable as an alternative Government, but has even been regarded as dangerous for South Africa. I want to say that it is with a degree of reluctance that I discuss this with the Opposition, because when a man has just emerged from a fight to the death and the pieces are still scattered across the floor of the House as a result, one is unwilling to deal out blows as well. Nevertheless I want to make a few accusations this afternoon and the first is that there have been failures of understanding on the part of the Opposition which they have suffered since their formation and which are apparently going to remain with them to the end of their days, and that is no longer very far off. I want to accuse the Opposition, in the first instance, of displaying a lack of realism and understanding of the situation in South and Southern Africa as it exists at present and as it has been over the past decades.

In the second place I want to accuse them of displaying an absolute lack of understanding of the national aspirations of other peoples and of displaying in the process, an attitude that has caused their followers, and particularly the youth falling within their sphere of influence, to attach a very unpleasant connotation to the concepts “patriotism” and “Nasionalism”, something that will definitely not be to South Africa’s benefit in the future. I want to begin by quoting the words of the Leader of the Opposition from the latest Hansard. He was speaking about what has occurred in recent times in Africa and said the following (Hansard 1975, col. 18)—

With the collapse of Portuguese authority in Angola and in Mozambique—that is the implication of these words of the Leader of the Opposition—they realized for the first time how important it is to bring about diplomatic contact and détente in Southern Africa as has in fact been achieved by the hon. the Prime Minister.

It is a little late.

He goes on to say that they have advocated these things through the years and eventually he states that he warned the Government last year to bring about an improved social and political structure for the Coloureds. This indicates a lack of realism and understanding which, if it had been displayed by the Government in power today, would have been fatal for South Africa in the exceptional circumstances we are living in. There is no shadow of doubt about that. Surely it is obvious to any logical, thinking person that this effort to reach détente must be the culmination of diplomatic contact with Africa north of us that has been built up over a long period at a high level. To say that if one wants to bring about détente one need only board an aircraft to go and visit these people and tell them: “Let us discuss peace”, could not have been the modus operandi of the Government because then it would have been unable to succeed as it has, in fact, succeeded. Surely that ought to be clear.

I now want to deal with my other accusation, namely that over the years the Opposition have shown themselves to be lacking in the slightest understanding of the national aspirations of the other groups and peoples in this country. The implications of this failure are much wider and more unfathomable that those of the first one I mentioned. Because in a multinational country like South Africa it can only eventually lead to chaos and anarchy if peoples’ national aspirations are continually disregarded. It is an historically proven fact that the Opposition has always shown itself to be a party with no understanding of the national aspirations and ideals of the nationalistically minded people of this country. I refer specifically to nationalistically minded people because these national aspirations are the aspirations not only of the Afrikaans-speaking people but of a substantial section of our English-speaking people who support the National Party. Through the years it has been proved that the National Party, and the National Party alone, has fought for political development to the glory of South Africa and for its total independence.

In this process the United Party not only dragged its feet; it literally dug its United Party heels in and fought against it fiercely. This is a simply astounding inconsistency. Much of the bitterness between the various political groups in South Africa must be attributed to this inconsistent way in which the United Party has set itself against every effort to bring about political development and emancipation of South Africa. I also want to say, with regard to the Republic, that this same United Party has as yet failed to learn anything and that this same method of theirs has appeared in a still more bitter form and more extensively. And do you realize that during the debate, at the time of the referendum for a Republic, the Opposition referred to the bone of contention cast in our midst. They therefore call the Republic a bone of contention.

Ask the Minister of Finance what he said.

Then they went further and said that the Republic would hamper national unity in South Africa. Once again this only goes to show what a lack of understanding of the situation in South Africa it displayed. It was, in fact, the Republic that put an end to divided loyalties and which, for the first time in our history, offered us hope in the sphere of nation-building. After all, Sir, the signs are very clear. We have almost become a one-party state. There are hardly any seats left that are occupied by the Opposition. I also call to mind the speech by the Leader of the Opposition on the evening before the Republican referendum. Hon. members will remember that he made a tragic speech that evening and said that if we were to become a Republic, we would be out of the Commonwealth and that we would be lonely and poor and alone. Sir, I want to quote the following, in order to give yet another indication of his lack of insight, from Hansard of 23 March 1961 Vol. 107, col. 3524)—

Here again we see that lack of understanding, Sir. He insinuated that this would definitely not happen again and we all know that it has in fact happened recently. Once again this simply shows up his lack of understanding. But he went further and, on 23 March 1961, in his speech the night before the referendum, he said on 23 March 1961 (Hansard, Vol. 107, col. 3525)—

Sir, in addition to its lack of understanding, the Opposition has shown itself to be a pessimistic party as well. All this time they have also been talking about “too little too late”. When we refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s détente offensive in Southern Africa, which is described throughout the world as dramatic, it is passed off by him and his party as “not far enough and not fast enough”. Sir, I say that they have shown themselves to be a pessimistic party. That reminds me of a very good German saying I heard recently to the effect that pessimism gets one no where. This is true of that party too. In fact, over the past three decades the United Party has not grown at all; there has only been a process of dying off and defection. Just look at the seats taken next to them by the late members of the United Party— almost a third of the Opposition benches. Sir, I want to go further and say that I am grateful that the United Party is with us today in accepting the Republic of South Africa and being proud of it. But the irony of the matter is that in this process they have learnt absolutely nothing because just as they had no understanding in the past of the national aspirations of the nationalistically minded people of South Africa, in the same way they display a lack of understanding of the national aspirations of the Coloured people of South Africa. Their lack of understanding is proved by the fact that they have had a number of policies in recent years, so many that owing to lack of time I am unable to mention them all here. They have continued to insist— and it is unnecessary for me to quote from Hansard although I have it here— that South Africa represents one big nation, but in that conglomeration of people there would be White leadership; in other words, a negation of the Black man’s highest aspirations and ideals in the political sphere. Sir, I now come to their latest policy, the latest federation policy that displays a new facet with every new session, because in 1971 the Leader of the Opposition was still talking about a sovereign White Parliament. Eighteen months later, in 1973, one of the chief policy architects of the United Party, the hon. member for Durban North, said that he wanted to be honest. He said that he could foresee this White Parliament eventually disappearing, because if that were not the case, the whole concept would be a fraud. How true that is!

Harry said so.

I am still coming to the hon. member for Yeoville. It would in fact have been a fraud towards the non-Whites, to whom full independence and self-realization was held out as a prospect but who would never have got it. But then, like people who are fast asleep and who have no idea of what is going on around them, when they came to their senses they went so far as to abdicate, as has now been done once again by the hon. member for Durban North. Then they reached the stage when they capitulated as Whites in this country before the numerical superiority of the non-Whites. Sir, it is unnecessary for me to give you a résumé of the United Party’s new federal policy, because the hon. member for Durban Point did so yesterday in the House in a very enthusiastic and dramatic way. Then a new facet, which I want to discuss in a moment, became evident. But I want to tell you, Sir, these people eventually abdicated as Whites because this overall federal parliament, the umbrella parliament, will become the sovereign body.

Now you are talking rubbish.

But it is so, and I shall prove it to you. Surely it is true that it has been said that the White Parliament will eventually disappear. They spoke in terms of “it is going to phase out”, and then, after all, it is only normal for the numerical superiority of the non-Whites to dominate this federal parliament. Surely that is a hard fact, Sir. [Interjections.] But before I come to what the hon. member for Durban Point said yesterday, I still just want to add this. At the stage when this capitulation was taking place, the United Party began to disintegrate again. Surely that is why the hon. Minister for Tourism and Indian Affairs is sitting on our side of the House—he refused to throw in the sponge as the White man in South Africa. That, after all, is why he is sitting here. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point declared with great verbosity that when this system of theirs is eventually implemented and all the people of South Africa have confidence in this federal parliament, a referendum will be held concerning the continued existence or the abolition of the White Parliament, and he said with emphasis: “All the people of South Africa”, which implies that it will be White, Black, Brown and Yellow who will decide on this. Now I just want to ask the United Party whether they will allow this to take place on the basis of one man, one vote. [Interjections.] Sir, I am very sorry for the United Party. They say I do not understand it, but there can be no other interpretation of these words. I can quote his Hansard to you. He said very clearly that if all the people were in favour of and had confidence in the federal Parliament, a referendum would be held by all the people in South Africa.

What Hansard is that?

It is his very own Hansard.

I have the Hansard here, unfortunately for you. He said—

Then he goes further and states—

In the mind of the United Party, as we have learnt to know them over the years, “all South Africans” means all the people of South Africa.

A few days ago, when the hon. member for Bloemfontein East took part in the no-confidence debate, he elicited two replies from the hon. members for Simonstown and Edenvale. The hon. member for Edenvale said that the White Parliament would disappear, but the hon. member for Simonstown said that it would not disappear. I want to know from the United Party how they explain that. On what grounds does the hon. member for Edenvale understand that the White Parliament will disappear? Does he, too, understand it wrongly, just as I do? After all, he sits in in the inner circles of the United Party! How can the United Party continue to exist like that? I want to ask them, in all honesty, how they can continue to exist while accommodating within their party such diverse ideas and policy directions. That, after all, is what is really happening.

The United Party has become a party that commits suicide in the most painful way imaginable, because recently, during the palace revolution, when they had the chance to rid themselves entirely of the elements who do not think like the Old Guard, they let the chance go by, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is really the spiritual father of this palace revolution, is still sitting in the United Party. When the splintering off of the new group took place, the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Edenvale ran to the Press and issued a statement that they were staying in the United Party. Why did they find that necessary if they had not been associated with the people that have now broken away from the party? Why did the hon. members for Newton Park and King William’s Town not find it necessary to issue such statements? Surely that is clear proof that the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Edenvale were in contact with those who broke away, but that they did not have the courage of their convictions to follow through what they had started.

The United Party members say that we do not know what we are talking about when we referred to the referendum that can only be a national poll. That is the only explanation I can find for this. By means of a national poll, finality will have to be reached concerning the continued survival of the sovereignty of the White Parliament. I say that this is a policy with such dangerous implications for White South Africa, that it is unthinkable that any White voter should ever cast a vote in favour of that party again.

And then they say you are enlightened!

I want to come to my second accusation, namely that owing to its actions, owing to its blind condemnation of and resistance to the National Party and the idea of Nationalism, the United Party has caused an unpleasant connotation to be attached to the concepts “patriotism” and “nationalism” among its own people and particularly among its studying youth. It is possible to distinguish between these two concepts, but never to separate them. Let us seek a brief but meaningful definition for patriotism. All it means is that a person is driven by his love for what is his own, to guard it jealously and protect it, because it makes one so much more mature. Because the true patriot has love, respect and appreciation for what belongs to him, he can also understand that those who are different, of a different colour or a different language, can also have an understanding, love and appreciation for what is theirs. However, we have had the disturbing situation that the youth that has fallen within the sphere of influence of that party opposite, has begun to act unpatriotically, has started doing things that have really been unpatriotic and which would have disturbed law and order in the country and could have caused chaos and ultimately, possibly anarchy. Through their student organizations they even collaborated with the enemy. When the Police acted timeously and vigilantly to restrain the rebellions of these people, the United Party condemned the Government in an irresponsible manner. I can only call it irresponsible If the hon. members want me to quote Hansard in this connection, I can do so. The hon. member for Durban Point was one of those who talked about a fascist government and in spite of the fact that he knows that the entire hostile world attaches a particularly unpleasant connotation to the concept “fascism” he used that word when speaking before students about the behaviour of Police towards them. The United Party condoned and tried to defend these people’s conduct until they found themselves in the Schlebusch Commission, and indisputable facts, which they were unable to reason away, opened their eyes. Only then did they realize—again they displayed, initially, that lack of understanding of the real situation in South Africa—that they were feeding and pampering a monster. Surely such people who always realize too late exactly what is going on in South Africa and what the prevailing tendencies are, can never govern a country. Surely the voters are only fundamentally right when they reject the United Party to an ever-increasing extent at election after election. And now I am pleased to be able to say that the Opposition, when they eventually realized, with the facts before them, what they were dealing with, at least continued to sound a positive note. This applies to a large section of them and not to the whole Opposition, because again there was that dividedness among them. In spite of the most extreme abuse ever directed at any body in the country by the English Press, they continued to sound a positive note. During the previous session the hon. member for Mooi River almost became my hero on the Opposition side when he addressed a timely and positive warning to the English-speaking youth of South Africa. I think all of us still remember that speech. However, the important question is: “Why only now?” These people are always accusing us of “too little, too late”, but why did they only wake up to the problems they themselves had cultivated when the alarm bells in South Africa were already ringing insistently? The Progressive Party has been guilty of precisely the same, and of even worse, by leading our studying youth at the English-language universities along the path of unpatriotic deeds. We know that through the years the hon. member for Houghton has been the spokesman for every liberal and radical faction in this country. However, they are not a factor in South African politics, nor will they ever be one, and therefore I leave them at that.

But why are you making such a noise then?

In conclusion, I want to say that the United Party are the people who are always talking about change. This is the refrain they took over from Mr. McMillan. In our thoughts we can still hear him making his “winds of change” speech several years ago in the coffee lounge of the House. The winds of change have already blown Mr. McMillan into oblivion and has blown the United Party towards a stage virtually identical to that of Mr. McMillan, because they, too, have virtually been blown into oblivion. What Mr. McMillan and the United Party did not take into account is that the winds of change in South Africa are represented by the National Party Government. Every important change that has taken place or has been effected in South Africa over the past three decades has been initiated by the National Party Government. In fact, the National Party Government represents the winds of change in South Africa. I want to tell the Opposition this afternoon that under the strong leadership of our present Prime Minister these winds of change will continue to blow, and blow so strongly that if the Opposition does not begin to build up an understanding of what is really going on in South Africa and what the latest tendencies are, they will be blown right off the scene. These winds of change will bring South Africa to a stage at which there will be a meaningful future for all its people, self-realization for each nation and group in this country, and to the stage at which everyone will be grateful to the National Party for the leadership it has given over many years to make their future meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member who has just sat down will accept my not replying to his speech. I want to take this opportunity of dealing with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana before the Natal Supreme Court comes to its final decision. The fundamental dilemma of White politics in South Africa can be reduced to two main questions, i.e. whether the Whites of South Africa believe that it is necessary for the preservation of their civilization, identity and culture to dominate the other groups in this country and whether discrimination on the grounds of race and colour is essential for the preservation of the civilization and identity of the Whites. One can set aside all the other questions and considerations. If the Whites of South Africa can reach finality with regard to these two fundamental questions, we shall be able to determine our future and solve our problems. In fact, we shall be able to ensure our future and our identity in this country. The fact of the matter is that the line which divides those who believe in domination and discrimination on the right from those on the left who do not believe in domination and discrimination is the ultimate line running through White politics in South Africa. It runs through the political parties, in particular through the Nationalist Party and the United Party. I would say that my party stands to the left of that line. We do not believe that one group should, in any way, dominate another group. We do not believe in discrimination based on race or on colour. That line cuts a wide swath through the caucus of the United Party. The difficulties and divisions that have occurred within the United Party are wholly the result of the fact that there is a group of people in that caucus which believe that Whites must dominate. There also sits in that caucus a group of people which does not believe that the Whites can or should dominate. The first group mentioned namely the reactionaries—believes that discrimination based on colour cannot be dispensed with. The second group mentioned namely the reformists, the enlightened people on the left, believe that discrimination based on race must go. This is the dilemma of the United Party and of White politics in South Africa. The United Party must solve that problem before it can regain the respect of the South African electorate and become an effective and serious opposition. I have absolutely no ideological, principle or policy differences with the hon. member for Edenvale or the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] As far as I know, their ideas and beliefs are entirely the same as mine. However, there are people sitting in that caucus whose attitudes on race I find repugnant and abhorrent. It is impossible for a person, in conscience and with a sense of responsibility to his country and people, to sit in a caucus where there are two groups so totally opposed in their fundamental philosophy and thinking. When the differences are pointed out, there is always a denial. I wish I had the opportunity …

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

No, Mr. Speaker. I have only ten minutes for my speech and there is no time whatsoever to answer questions.

Why did you not point out these things?

I hope the Leader of the Opposition will give me dispensation to reveal the conflicting statements made in the United Party caucus. I shall then be able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, all these contentions.

Why could you not point out the differences?

I shall point out the differences with pleasure. The hon. member who has just spoken pointed out that in this very House when the split was taking place, the hon. member for Simonstown clearly indicated that he stood for a dominant White Parliament having veto rights over all others. The hon. member for Simonstown is at least honest, he is at least a man with courage who says what he believes, but why do the hon. members for Maitland, Newton Park, Albany, and other hon. members who believe in exactly the same things as the hon. member for Simonstown, not stand up in this House and back him and say that they believe in a sovereign White Parliament for South Africa? [Interjections.] That is the difficulty which we have. While they are talking about a sovereign White Parliament, why do they not stand up and say that they are not prepared to carry out to its fullest consequences the policy of doing away with discrimination based on race? Why do they not come clean with South Africa? Why do they not come clean with the electorate?

You have the nerve to use the word “clean”!

I have the nerve to use the word “clean” and if the hon. member for Durban Point is not careful he will come off second best. Let us put it on record that the hon. member for Simonstown stands for a sovereign White Parliament in South Africa while the hon. member for Edenvale is opposed to a sovereign White Parliament. I agree with him. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not agree with either side. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the White Parliament must remain, but that it must not be sovereign and that it must not control other peoples. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says one day that it will go, the next day that it could go and the hon. member for Durban Point does not know whether it should go or whether it should not go. In that caucus, reduced to 37 members, you will find 37 different interpretations of the United Party’s policy.

Let me get down to discrimination in Natal. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke about discrimination. When the United Party in Natal do away with discrimination by employing non-Whites in positions previously held by Whites, I applaud them. I look at their motives, however, and I find that they are often ulterior in nature. I shall tell hon. members why I say this. When non-Whites are employed in positions previously held by Whites they do not pay them the rate for the job; they pay them rates of pay which are consider ably below the rates paid to Whites. What do we have here? We have the removal of discrimination, but the introduction of exploitation of people of colour which is just as despicable as discrimination. Let us be absolutely honest about this. It is all very well for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to get up and give us a long list of things which they are doing in Natal. I applaud Natal for it, but until that hon. member can get up and tell this House that they have done away with discrimination based on colour and at the same time that they have introduced the rate for the job, the credibility of that hon. member and his party remains in question.

Order! The hon. member may not question the credibility of an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw those words. I say that until that hon. member is prepared to stand up in this House and tell South Africa that the United Party in Natal has not only done away with discrimination based on race, but that they are paying the rate for the job, South Africa will suspect their motives and until that time South Africa will know that they have replaced discrimination with exploitation and all their fine statements and noble sentiments will mean nothing.

Like the hon. member for Randburg?

The hon. member for Hillbrow mentions Randburg. I wish I had had the time to tell the hon. members what the United Party is doing in Randburg, but I will leave that for a later occasion.

But you were in charge of it.

We shall then see whether that hon. member and his leader are going to do anything to force their people in Randburg to carry out the United Party policy in a situation where they, the United Party in Randburg, are carrying out not even the Nationalist Party’s policy, but the policy of the Herstigde Nasionale Party. [Interjections.] I shall leave that contention for a later stage when I shall prove it with facts.

Mr. Speaker. what the hon. member for Bryanston to whom we have just been listening really did was to run away from Randburg to Bryanston. Then he ran away from the United Party to the Reform Party. In these difficult times in which South Africa and the world find themselves, one is grateful, particularly after having listened to a speech such as the one made by the hon. member for Bryanston, and hon. member who represents those people in South Africa who have a guilt complex about the non-Whites and who want to cause other Whites in this country to develop a guilt complex as well, that the National Party and its leaders have at this particular juncture emerged, not only in South Africa, but also in Africa and the world, as leaders and responsible people to whom the government of this country may be entrusted. One is grateful that this is the case, for it makes one shudder to think what would happen if one of those parties were to come into power in South Africa. The parties on that side have on various occasions told us, in season and out, of the responsibility of an opposition in South Africa. We do not want to deny that an opposition party in South Africa has a responsibility and has the right to castigate this Government and this side of the House when it thinks the Government is erring, but if one considers the highly irresponsible way in which the Opposition parties have been acting recently, and particularly in this debate, I want to say, as one of my good United Party friends in my constituency who is a respectable person, said …

Can a United Party supporter be respectable?

Yes, there are some of them. Surely that hon. member has heard that there are disputes in that party. That United Party friend of mine said that although he did not vote for the National Party, he prayed every evening that the National Party, particularly in these difficult time, should remain in power. [Interjections.] Yes, there are good people among them. However, if one considers the irresponsible manner in which the party on the opposite side states its case here, one becomes afraid, for it consists for the most part of a babel of tongues. The hon. member for Bryanston has once again indicated very clearly how many differences there are in the ranks of the Opposition. If what the hon. member for Bryanston said is true one may well expect the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to be the next person to establish a new party. If that happens, one can expect him to take one member with him, namely the hon. member for Edenvale. In that case we will have in this House an opposition party consisting of some 30 members, a Progressive Party with seven members, a Reform Party with three members and a Basson Party with two members.

When we conduct a debate such as this, we must be serious, for to conduct a debate such as this to its conclusion, a debate which can last 12 hours, costs the country thousands of rands. Under those circumstances it is pathetic that, whereas one has on the one hand the highly responsible attitude of this Government and of the speakers on this side of the House, that put South Africa’s interests first and that have a policy which can do justice to everyone, one has on the other hand, in contrast, Opposition parties that are scratching one another’s eyes out and disembowelling one another. This is the luxury which an Opposition Party in South Africa can experience under the sound administration of a National Party because it can also, like that United Party supporter in my constituency, feel that it is safe under a National Party government and can allow itself the luxury, as a white party, of carrying on as it is doing in its own ranks. Our people have taken cognizance of this as well, and for that reason they returned this National Party to this House as they did at the last election.

I think we should return to the debate a little. This is a financial debate, and I think that since we have a new Minister of Finance we should confine ourselves to matters relating to his portfolio and to matters which are of importance. If one considers the arguments raised on the opposite side concerning the financial position in South Africa, we see that they were nothing but haphazard statements. One would have expected the parties opposite to have accepted this Government’s word with regard to what it has recently been saying. Even people abroad are prepared to accept our word. They should have accepted our word and considered the components we have brought into our financial policy, the monetary and fiscal measures which the Government is trying to make applicable. One could have expected hon. members opposite to have attacked our policy on those points to which we have given sharp prominence to the components we have established for growth and progress and the necessary development, and for harmony between races —the way in which we want to develop this country further, how we should utilize our capital resources, our resources and our manpower to best serve South Africa. One would have expected them to have levelled positive criticism at this overall image which we have established. That was not the case, and for that reason I want to indicate briefly on this occasion what goals this Government and this side of the House have set themselves.,

This Government has repeatedly put a high premium on the fact that we have a capitalistic economic structure in this country in which free competition and free enterprise has to play its part. Furthermore, I want to say that the State does not want to venture into the domain of private initiative, because that domain should be left open to the private initiative and commerce. Only recently the Minister stated that he was prepared to have an investigation instituted into the question of whether the State is not erring in venturing into this domain which is in fact reserved for private commerce within our capitalistic structure. That is our first standpoint.

Secondly I want to say that we ought to give a little consideration to what factors the authorities in South Africa should take into account in regard to economic growth. The first one I want to mention here is our political policy. In this country the National Party is advocating and implementing a policy which is in the best interests of all people in South Africa, which recognizes the objective of having to afford everyone a right to existence, each within his own area. To be able to do this we must give prominence to this excellent policy of the National Party consistently, every day, and try to realize it to the best of our ability, and since this country is being governed by the National Party it is the duty of the Opposition parties in this country to support this Government when we are taking steps in the interests of all, for in any economic set-up it is, firstly, necessary for one to have a stable government in the country. Sir, nowhere in the world today will you find such a stable Government as we have here in South Africa. The United Party is also aware of this and that is why they can afford to squabble in this manner, for they know that they find themselves under the wing and the protection of a stable National Party Government, which cannot be defeated in an election, which does not indulge in double talk, and which is able to state its standpoint to the entire world.

Upon further consideration of the monetary measures, one finds it is important to have advance planning. It is also important to have a division of costs within our department. In the past we adopted a standpoint in regard to these matters. We accepted a budgeting system which contained certain objectives: How we should undertake the necessary financing; how we should ensure our economic stability by taking other steps, by a system of income tax which would not cause uncertainty as is the case in many other parts of the world, but in which initial and investment grants would also play a role and the pressure of taxation would be distributed as evenly as possible. Sir, these are objectives which the National Party Government set itself. In the same way we adopted standpoints in respect of the financing of housing. In respect of agriculture we have a certain financing policy. In respect of export promotion, of industrial financing, of industrial decentralization, we have also stated our standpoint. All these aims are clearly circumscribed and built into the fiscal and monetary policy which is being applied in South Africa. Sir, these things are important, but the picture should also be seen as a whole, and for that reason one would expect an intelligent Opposition, if there is anything of that nature in South Africa, to have come forward with positive criticism and to have pointed out to us where we were erring, but that we did not get from them. They do not, like patriots, speak with praise of what this Government is trying to do. Sir, we have a country with many problems, with its diversification and its various peoples, lust think of the question of the water supply during the next few years; of the infrastructure, the power and railway networks, which had to be established; of the development of the homelands; of the creation of an ever-increasing number of work opportunities. Let us consider our economic development programme which was instituted, in which all these components are contained and evaluated, and in which we adopted a standpoint and at what rate South Africa could grow over a period of five years. Sir, let us consider how we have fared within that economic development programme of ours. Sir, we have achieved great success, for the policy of this Government is to bring about balanced development in South Africa in the long term, with maximum growth and the minimum of inflation. Sir, these two things are not always reconcilable. Very thorough computations have to be made; the correct standpoints implemented and extended, for one is dealing here with complexities, complexities which daily occupy our Minister of Finance and his department, our Cabinet Committee, and most of this Government in steering the South African ship of state along the best course, along the course of growth, at the highest possible growth rate, with the greatest possible degree of stability, with opportunities for all, but also with sound relations. I think the National Party deserves the praise and the gratitude of a great many people for what has recently been accomplished, for the achievements it has attained. To our United Party and Progressive and Reform Party friends I say that they should not talk so much; they should look more and listen more. Then they might still be able to learn something from the National Party.

Sir, you will permit me to turn to another matter. In my constituency, in the catchment area of the Vaal Dam, i.e. on both sides of the Wilge River, and along the banks of the Vaal River on the Free State side, and along the edges of the Liebenberg Vlei, great losses have been suffered by the farmers owing to the heavy rains of the past few days, the flooding of those rivers and the fact that the Vaal Dam is overflowing. While we are grateful for the good downpours in our sowing areas throughout the entire country, particularly now in the planting season, even though they were a little heavy in some places with the result that we were unable to plant, one should like to express sympathy here in public today with those farmers in my constituency and also in other constituencies which have suffered damage. I want to tell you, Sir, that this is perhaps not as sensational as when a gale tears through a town and rips off the roofs of eleven or twelve houses. These floods and flood damage have taken place quietly, over the next hill where many people cannot even see it. On this occasion I should like to bring this very pressing and very serious matter to the attention of this hon. House. According to a survey which was made by the District Agricultural Union of Frankfort, a total of 3 866 morgen of maize fields have been flooded in the seedling and cob stage, and it is calculated that farmers will suffer an overall loss of approximately R483 628. Lucerne lands to the value of R14 991 have also been devastated, as well as wheat to the value of R4 200 which still had to be harvested, grain sorghum to the value of R3 200, and sunflowers to the value of R2 000. This has all been lost. In addition 1 354 morgen of grazing land has been silted up and will be unusable during the next season. Some farmers have lost almost everything. With the exception of 25 morgen the lands of one farmer, Mr. Ben Wilkinson of Villiers, have all been flooded. I have been informed that the harvest of this entire flooded area has been destroyed. Plusminus 600 morgen of maize fields belonging to another farmer, Mr. Gert van Rensburg, of Schweinemunde, near Frankfort, has been flooded. You know, Sir, it is good land there, along the rivers, and conservatively calculated his damage amounts to nothing under R76 000. Large areas belonging to other farmers have been flooded, and the total losses in crops which had reached an advanced stage are calculated at R529 628. This is quite apart from miles and miles of fencing which was also destroyed in the process. Sir. I say that we must think of these people this afternoon, and also of our neighbours in Standerton and lower down the river at Vereeniging. We want to thank the Department of Water Affairs and the Government for the timeous steps which have been taken to control the floods to the best of their ability. We appreciate this, and we are grateful for it. We also want to emphasize that this damage has been considerable, not only for individual farmers, but also great damage for South Africa owing to the loss of food which one cannot afford at this stage. In our towns at least, the damage has not been as extensive. Vacation resorts, etc., have been flooded and rondavels are under water up to their roofs. We are pleased that there has been no loss of life, not as far as I know. We hope it will be possible to control the mass of water lower down in such a way that farmers and towns there will suffer the least possible damage. I should like to ask on this occasion, because we feel ourselves at liberty to do so and know the National Party Government, and because we know what they have done in the past, that after it has been established what the situation is, the necessary auxiliary measures will be taken which will place them in a position to deal with the problems which they are left to deal with alone.

Mr. Speaker, it is already half past five and we have listened to a number of Opposition speakers, but not a single one of them has discussed the Part Appropriation which was introduced here. On the contrary. All we saw them do was to wash their dirty linen in public. These are the people who are supposed to constitute a responsible Opposition. These are the people who have at times called themselves the watchdogs, the people who have to guard the interests of the people outside. In this way they waste the money of the people outside, by discussing their own problems in public in this way.

A few nights ago a few of my colleagues and I went along to a professional wrestling match. It was an entertaining evening and something of a farce. In the last fight, when the huge American, Jonathan, was wrestling in the ring with a certain Apollo, it put me in mind of the United Party. Apollo seized the huge American and led him around like a lamb. He darted across the ring with him and rammed his head against the pole. Then he turned round and ran back to the opposite side of the ring and dashed his head against that pole. I then called to mind how the hon. member for Yeoville had taken the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by the hair last year as he also did quite recently, had darted across the ring with him and rammed his head. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition only managed to shake his head before the hon. member for Yeoville seized him once more and dashed his head against the other side. The promoter of that fight was standing on the outside looking very smug. He was satisfied and not concerned about the outcome, since he was able to fill his purse. They then announced the next fight. That is precisely what we have here. The next fight for the United Party will involve Mr. Winchester the hon. Senator, who will seize the hon. Leader and will dash his head first again this side and then against that. Do you know who the promoter is? No one but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is the promoter of this fight and at the moment he is standing smugly outside the ring, watching them bash one another’s heads and seeing some of them become punch-drunk. The hon. member for Bryanston told us more about them here. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the hon. member for Edenvale was trailing behind them at his leisure. They cannot get him to move faster. He has the same principles as these Reformists. They must please not speak about “reformers”, for then they would be raising a delicate matter as far as our people are concerned. In Jameson’s day a small group of people tried to employ the same methods to take over the régime, the same methods as those which these Reformists have used. Surely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the father of this child. He is the man who conceived this child but who does not want to admit now that he is the father of the child. Nevertheless, in my opinion he has accepted the role of being the child’s godfather. After all, it was the English Press that cherished great expectations as far as he was concerned. It was the English Press that held him up as the future leader of the United Party. When he could not have his own way, however, and the Old Guard was not satisfied with him, he looked elsewhere, to someone in the Transvaal. He looked at the Transvaal leader of the party, the hon. member for Yeoville. These Reformists, too, cherished great expectations of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Edenvale. After all was it not the hon. member for Yeoville who persuaded the hon. member for Edenvale to leave the University and to stand for election at the last election? Actually, the hon. member for Edenvale was a Progressive, but he has now left the hon. member for Yeoville in the lurch completely. I think, however, that the hon. member for Edenvale is doing some deep thinking, for his executive committee moved an unanimous motion of no-confidence in him and rejected him and his school of thought because he had left the hon. member for Yeoville in the lurch. As I have said, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout conceived this baby but does not want to admit now that he is its father. But at what time did he and the others think they could take over the United Party from the inside? It was when the hon. member spoke behind his Leader’s back —I am speaking of Sir De Villiers Graaff, the official leader of the United Party— and told everyone how disappointed he was in the leadership of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He was the one who told the head executive of the United Party on the Witwatersrand that he had been sitting in the Opposition benches for 13 years and that they had lost every no-confidence debate up to that time. He was the one who gave this testimonial to his leader and he was the one to whom the hon. member for Yeoville was referring when he said that one of the qualities of a member of a party was that such a person should at least have self-discipline and loyalty towards his leader and should reveal his principles. At that time it was not simply a matter of his having no confidence in his leader. He had confidence in the hon. member for Yeoville. He saw him as the new leader of the United Party. It was on that same occasion that he told the new leader of the United Party in the Transvaal that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was too weak, “Then you, Harry, must do the job”. That occasion also afforded him the opportunity to show that he had backbone and would be prepared to accept responsibility for this baby. However, he refused to do so. The reasons for this are, in the first place, that he, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it, first wanted to watch developments from a safe distance in order to see what was going to happen and how many followers they would have. After all, we are an fair with the political past of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. When he thought things were not going well for the National Party, he got out and formed his new party. When things went badly for him there, he returned to the United Party. At the moment he is again watching developments to see how things are going for these Reformists. If there is any hope for them whatsoever, I predict that the hon. member will join them one of these days. If, however, he were to see that the chances were slender, he would simply carry on as of old and be the promoter of further fights in the ranks of the United Party. The hon. member told us that they had set their house in order. They swept out all the dirt, if I may put it that way. But surely one does not set one’s house in order that way? A house in which there has been such confusion, in which such fights have taken place, also has to be disinfected, for there are still many germs around, Basson germs, Olivier germs, Winchester germs and Scheepers germs. They are all still there, and until that house has been completely disinfected, the sore in the United Party will never heal. It would be quite interesting to know how the estate is going to be divided now that this splintering has taken place. I am thinking of Dr. Anna Scheepers. Half of her belongs to the United Party and the other half to teh Progressive Party. A portion of the part which belongs to the United Party will have to go to the Reformists now. Actually, it was with the aid of the Reformists that she came to be in the Senate. We should like to see the division which is going to take place now. The hon. member for Yeoville said here that they had made use of his financial resources, and I believe it. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the organization had collapsed in the Transvaal and that the whole lot of them were bankrupt. Subsequently Sister Anna—I mean Dr. Anna Scheepers …

Your opponent.

Yes, my opponent. She subsequently sent out begging letters in order to collect funds. She sent one to the Garment Workers’ Union, inter alia, in which she told them about the financial difficulties of the United Party. She also complained about having had to give a month’s salary to the United Party and asked whether the trade union would not be so kind as to make a small contribution to the United Party. Fortunately the trade union saw the matter in such a way that they said: “Anna, we did not ask you to go to the Senate”—and I do not believe they would ever have supported her either —“and therefore we are not prepared to contribute a cent towards getting you out of your difficulties”. I wonder whether a part of the contribution she collected will go to the Reformists, and whether the Progressives are also going to get their small cut?

Yesterday the hon. member for Newton Park labelled various people and said, inter alia, that the hon. member for Waterberg was a good Nationalist. In this way he tried to play people off against one another here. I see the hon. member for Newton Park is not present at the moment, but I may just as well put my question to a few other hon. members here. Can they tell us whether the hon. member for Simonstown, Mr. John Wiley, is a good United Party man? I wonder whether there is anyone who can tell me whether he is a good United Party man?

Of course I am a good United Party man!

The hon. member for Simonstown says he is a good U.P. man. Perhaps he can reply to another question: Is Mr. Winchester, the Senator, a good U.P. man too?

What about Tony?

Here we have two people in the same caucus. The hon. member for Simonstown says he is a good U.P. man, and he sits in the same caucus as Senator Winchester. Now I ask him: Is Senator Winchester a good U.P. man too?

Ask Tony!

I wonder whether the hon. member for Maitland will tell us; is Senator Winchester a good U.P. man?

You are a very bad Nationalist.

He says I am a bad Nationalist because I am getting under their skin. Now I want to put the question to the hon. member for Simonstown for the last time. He can merely nod his head and indicate to us whether Senator Winchester is a good U.P. man. He refuses to do so. [Interjections.] However, I can understand this. Senator Winchester wrote a letter to the chairman of the caucus and said that as long as John Wiley was sitting in that caucus he would not attend another caucus meeting. What he has against him I do not know, for he tells us that Senator Winchester is a good U.P. man. I wonder whether he is going to tell us at some time what personal animosity there is between them.

I want to say a thing or two about labour. In my view it was quite striking that in every major debate we had, labour matters were one of the first subjects they raised.

We are discussing that tomorrow.

Labour matters are raised each time. Hon. members will recall that last year during the motion of censure, which was moved in the second session the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose in the House and said—and this was bruited abroad by the English Press —that they were in favour of Black trade unions and were also in favour of Whites having to work under non-Whites. That was their new policy.

Are you not in favour of that?

We told them at the time that we knew what the origin of that change in their policy was. We said we knew that it had become their policy as a result of the pressure which had been exerted by the Young Turks— i.e. Messrs. Dalling, Van Rensburg, Schwarz and Enthoven. Its origin was in the pressure which was exerted by that leftist wing. Now I should like to know from the hon. member for Maitland, who is so talkative, whether it is still their policy; are they still in favour of Black trade unions and are they still in favour of Whites working under non-Whites. The hon. member can simply say “yes” or “no”.

Yes.

Yes, it is still their policy. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Bryanston or the hon. member for Sandton what the origin was of that change in United Party policy last year? Was it as a result of pressure on the part of those hon. members or did it come from the Leader of the Opposition? The hon. member must say whether the pressure came from their side. The hon. member for Sandton goes not want to reply. I know the hon. member for Bryanston will have enough courage to tell us. He is honest. He will tell us whether that change took place as a result of pressure which was exerted by their side.

I could, but I am saving it for some other time.

The hon. member says he will reply at a later stage, but I can tell you now what his reply is going to be. He is going to say it was as a result of pressure from their side that the United Party moved in that direction. We have discussed trade unions many times in this House, but never before, until we assembled here last year, did the United Party express itself in favour of Black trade unions. On the contrary, last year during the election campaign, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced that they were not in favour of Black trade unions and that they were satisfied with these liaison and works committees since they functioned very efficiently. Only afterwards did we get that sudden volte face. As I have said, the volte face came as a result of pressure exerted by the leftists in their own ranks. After this breakup we shall listen with interest to hear whether it is still their policy. What does the Old Guard say? Do they still feel that we should be delivered to Black trade unions and that Whites should work under non-Whites? Last year, these liaison and works committees were spoken of with scorn and derision. The U.P. men delighted in the strikes which took place here for they saw another possibility in them. They hoped that those strikes would cause chaos in the country so that they could make political capital out of it. But the opposite happened. The National Party did not take fright and surrender. The National Party did not yield to the pressure exerted by a certain group of people, pressure which was fanned by irresponsible agitators. The National Party did not yield to that leftist pressure in the ranks of the United Party. On the contrary, in 1973 the National Party introduced legislation to extend those bargaining possibilities between employer and employee. We said, however, that we would not allow Black trade unions, but that we would use the liaison and works committees as cornerstones, to let them serve as a bargaining channel between employer and employee, as is the case in most Western countries.

What is the situation today in this regard? Now those people are disappointed because there are no more strikes. Now they are silent about the functioning of the liaison and works committees. The wind has been taken out of their sails. Now we shall not longer hear them plead for the establishment of Black trade unions.

You will still have to accept that.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark told us a few things about the inquiry conducted by the University of the Orange Free State into the functioning of those liaison and works committees. He pointed out what success had been achieved by them and what satisfaction they had already brought. In my opinion, the most important finding in the report is the fact that only 5% of the Black workers asked for bargaining machinery. This story which we heard from the United Party and the Progressives day in and day out, i.e. that it was the Black people who wanted Black trade unions, was negated by this finding. It was quite simply a case of agitation which had been sparked off by certain Whites. There are quite a number of them sitting here in the United Party. In that way they tried to incite the Blacks against the Whites so as to cause chaos in the country. All day long we hear reproaches against the Government, as though the White man had a guilty conscience towards the Black man in South Africa. The impression is always created by the Opposition …

Order! Is the hon. member insinuating that hon. members are guilty of inciting other races?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember whether I used that word, but if I said that they were inciters, I shall withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member may not assert that other hon. members encourage racial disturbances in the country.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that the hon. members of the Opposition used their influence to get the Black people to ask for trade unions here. They know to what end they did so.

Well, to what end was it done?

To create chaos in the country by means of strikes.

Order! The hon. member may not assert that other hon. members encourage racial disturbances in the country.

No, Mr. Speaker, I said they had used their influence in order to get a request for Black trade unions. That is what I said, Mr. Speaker. They used their influence and we know that the hon. member for Yeoville advocated them at the time that he was still in their ranks. Half of their Senatrix, Dr. Scheepers, also advocated them. So they did use their influence so as to influence the Black people to try to get Black trade unions, did they not?

The impression is created by the Opposition that it is the White man who is the suppressor of the non-White in this country and that it is the White man who does not grant the non-White or the Black man in South Africa a right of existence. That impression is created not only here but also in the outside world.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do believe that the hon. member is ignoring your ruling by continuing in this particular manner.

I shall follow the hon. member’s speech.

As I was saying this impression is also being created in the outside world. We have ample proof of that. South Africa has been spoken of repeatedly as a police state and we have often been referred to as Nazis. It is often said, for outside consumption, that the Black man is being suppressed here in South Africa and that it is this very National Party which exploits the Black man for its own gain. However, I shall tell you who the guilty ones are. It is the United Party and the Progressives; they are the people who should have a guilty conscience since they are the people who constantly tell the outside world that the non-Whites in South Africa are being treated unjustly. I want to tell you who has that guilty conscience. That guilty conscience belongs to the United Party and the Progressive Party. They do so because their own consciences are troubling them. It was the United Party, when they were in power, who were the suppressors; they are the people who were the exploiters of the non-White and the Black man in South Africa. It was particularly in the years when they were in power that they had the opportunity to display their goodwill towards the Black man here in South Africa. They did not make use of that opportunity and that is why their consciences are troubling them. By placing the National Party in the dock they want to try and compensate for the sins the committed. They now want to give everything to the non-White in South Africa in that way. We have no objection to pleas being made for rights and privileges for the non-Whites in South Africa. However, the National Party says it will not do so at the expense of the White man in South Africa. To salve the conscience of the United Party the White man has to be sacrificed. That is as they want it and as we have heard from various members of the Opposition, i.e. that they are prepared to sacrifice the White Parliament, that the White Parliament has to disappear in South Africa and that the sovertignty of the White Parliament has to disappear in South Africa and that the sovereignty of the White Parliament has to disappear. I do not know whether their policy is still the same as the one they advocated yesterday. Perhaps the hon. member for Durban Point could tell us whether he still feels as he did yesterday, i.e. that in terms of their policy the White Parliament has to disappear.

What did the United Party ever do for the non-Whites when it had the opportunity? Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. Let us see what they did in the field of education. They left it to the churches. What opportunity in any field was ever given to the non-White here in South africa as to enable him to hold his own and preserve his own identity? Sir, we reject these accusations which have been levelled at the National Party because the National Party has no guilty conscience at all. On the contrary, it has a very fine record because it provided for the survival of every population group here in South Africa.

Sir, in conclusion I just want to say this: As long as the United Party continues in this vein the statement of the hon. member for Durban Point, after the election last year, will hold true; the hon. member said: “The Nats are in for ever”. Sir, I also want to quote what the hon. member for King William’s Town said last year at a meeting of the head committee; I quote from Die Transvaler of 7 November 1974 (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to listen to the hon. member for Boksburg, or at least to the first half of his speech, because I find myself enlightened by a graphic description of all the political cartoons which have appeared in the last week or two. The second half of his speech I do not find so interesting.

Sir, the question of trade unions raised by him will be dealt with in the course of this debate by other hon. members on this side. I do not propose to deal with that question at any length, except to say that our policy of giving Black workers access to trade unions is a policy which was formulated by a committee of which the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Maitland were the two conveners.

Obviously, Sir, I cannot deal with all the points raised by the hon. members for Sasolburg and Heilbron. I want to refer to just one or two. Sir, in this debate, at a time when the Government is committed to eliminate, as a matter of urgency, discrimination based on colour, there has been no contribution from any member on that side of the House to show how that is going to be done under their policy. We have had nothing but generalities from them. We have been told that we want to sell the White man down the river. We have had generalities from them about the wonderful fiscal and financial policies of this Government. I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Finance will be good enough to tell us why, if this infrastructure which is required for our economic development has been so carefully planned and constructed, it is necessary to levy an additional surcharge of 20%, making a total of 40%, on imported goods carried by the Conference Lines. Sir, can you imagine what that is going to do to the cost of living of the ordinary person in South Africa? Let us hear why this increase is necessary instead of having this boasting in general terms that everything is well under this Government.

Sir, I was also interested to listen to the speeches of two of my former colleagues who are sitting behind me. I would have thought that on an occasion such as this one would have had something constructive from them. As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, we had a certain number of platitudinous political ideas from him about civil liberties, the removal of discrimination and the sharing of power, but there was no constructive attempt to spell out how he intends these things to be done. One can only assume, Sir, that that is so because he finds no fault with the policy of the party which he has now left. As far as the hon. member for Bryanston is concerned, I could not believe my ears this afternoon when I heard his description of this terrible party, the United Party, and its terrible caucus, made up of verligtes and verkramptes, of people like the hon. members for Newton Park, Albany, Maitland, Simonstown and myself. When did he suddenly discover that this was there? Until he was expelled from that caucus, he happily enjoyed all the amenities and privileges of being a member of that caucus and he exercised his political activities within the framework of this party and enjoyed all its facilities. But now that he has been expelled, he suddenly finds that this was the terrible life he had to live, with no complaint, I might say. But what does he do now? He now enjoys the one relic of what he had; he retains the seat he won as a United Party candidate.

I believe that we are in this House at this time concerned about the fact that the time has come that we must be precise and not vague as to how we view certain matters and as to what steps must be taken in the future. I say it is necessary because this is a time when the hon. the Prime Minister is making endeavours to achieve detente in Southern Africa, an effort which is being supported, I believe, by every right-thinking person in this country and in this House, an effort which is being watched with anxious anticipation by the whole of our population. Sir, this is a time when it is basically essential that we should seek common ground in an approach between State and State, when we have to seek an approach to find a place for the individual which will lead to peaceful co-existence in this country. This is a time when we must realize that we are of Africa and that our future lies in Africa, and that our future and our security depend on the goodwill and the understanding of the nations in Africa. Sir, as regards discrimination I think there can be no argument that we have in South Africa reached a position of common intent among the Government, the official Opposition and the Progressive Party, a common intent which accepts that discrimination based on the grounds of colour alone and race alone is indefensible. The Nationalist Party have said that discrimination on the ground of colour alone is indefensible and that we, the Whites, cannot deny in terms of a policy which has been basic to their idea of separate development, that we cannot deny the non-Whites the political and economic opportunities which we demand for ourselves. That is according to Dr. Verwoerd’s original statements when he first discussed separate development. The Progressive Party has announced the four lovely aims it has, and according to The Argus I see that it has a commitment to get rid of race discrimination. We of the United Party have also spelt out that we stand for a just and fair society aimed at the removal within its federal framework of all discrimination on the basis of skin colour alone, and I assume for the present that the group which sits behind me similarly intends to remove discrimination. From what I have said, there is unanimity on the objective which we want to achieve, and if we have got that, it is a good start. Then surely, in heaven’s name, we must set about finding the means to attain that end. Sir, there is no dispute among us. There is no dispute in this House that discrimination on the grounds of colour must go. Now we must work out the details and provide the mechanism to achieve that end. Sir, we each have an inescapable—and I say it with due respect to my colleagues who have been here longer than I have—obligation towards the electorate that put us here, to find the means of achieveing that particular objective. To this end there is need for us to discuss the simple question of where we go from here. None of us would have expressed these intentions unless we realized that indefensible discrimination does exist. We would not have said that it is our policy to do away with discrimination, as has been said also by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if discrimination on the grounds of colour did not in fact exist in our way of life. If that is so, we must accept that the elimination of discrimination requires from us adjustments and adaptations in regard to the personal status and respect as individuals for non-Whites where that respect is now missing. I am not saying it is missing in all cases. We must face adjustments and adaptations in regard to the opportunities and the rights and the economic life of the non-White-people in the Republic. We have to face adjustments and adaptations in respect of the political rights and responsibilities of the non-White people, and most of all, individually in this country, we must have adaptations and adjustments in regard to personal attitudes. To be meaningful, these must of necessity be basic and fundamental adaptations and changes.

I am grateful that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is here because I want to deal with the situation that has arisen in regard to the Nico Malan Theatre complex. This issue is no longer a minor local affair of theatrical entertainment which concerns Cape Town only. What is done in regard to the Nico Malan has and will have national and international repercussions and consequences. Any action which is taken provokes a reaction and the reaction which has been provoked by the decision of the Executive Committee of the Cape Province has undone every good reaction that resulted when the hon. the Prime Minister through the Administrator said that Capab could decide how they were going to handle that theatre. What is the sequence of events? The Government authorized the use of that theatre on an open basis. There was some approval and some disapproval expressed. Capab then considered the matter because it was referred to it as the controlling authority. Capab then requested the fully open use of the theatre. However, yesterday the Executive Committee of the Cape declined this request and came forward with some idea of Saturdays and Mondays for Whites and all races in between.

What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

If there is an hon. member on that side who says “what is wrong with that”, then I believe he has no intention of eliminating discrimination on the grounds of colour alone which is the policy of his Prime Minister.

Double talk!

The decision of the Executive Committee is unreasonable and I believe it is repulsive. In fact, the decision which has now been made does more harm than having the theatre closed to non-Whites. [Interjections.] I believe that this is a blatant affront to the statement and decision of the Prime Minister when he said that this theatre could be used for multi-racial purposes.

Monday night’s Amami night!

We believe in provincial autonomy, but by its own statutes the Government has assumed an overriding authority in these matters. The Exco decision will not be supported by the citizens of Cape Town. The Exco decision cannot be endorsed by this Government; it will make a mockery of everything that has been said about race discrimination. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development here and now whether he will issue an open permit to Capab which they have asked for. He has the power to do it; he cannot be overruled by the Cape Provincial Executive Committee. It is in his power to issue this permit in terms of the Group Areas Act. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do it and to do it today so that the world can see it tomorrow in the papers.

Such a permit has been issued.

The hon. the Minister is in control of permits.

He says he has issued it.

Has the hon. the Minister issued such a permit? I am sorry, but I could not hear him.

I said that I had issued an open permit.

Have you issued a completely open permit for all times, for all races and for all performances? Has such a permit been issued?

I cannot decide how the Nico Malan shall be used by Capab.

If it is left entirely in the hands of Capab to carry out their policy, then I welcome it and I trust that we shall have no more of what happened yesterday in the Cape Provincial Executive Committee. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister is wrong. If he has issued an open permit, does that entitle Capab to use that theatre at all times for all races and for all performances …

The Executive Committee of the Cape Provincial Council can decide what use they are going to make of that permit.

This position of permits is becoming rather ridiculous. When a sporting body asks for a permit to play sport and it happens to involve Bantu, the decision is not made by the hon. the Minister but by the Department of Bantu Administration or the local committee. They say whether the permit should be issued or not. Where is his discretion? The authority that was given to the Executive Committee of the Cape Provincial Administration by the Government and which was announced by the Administrator was that Capab would be asked how they wanted to use this theatre. Capab has been quite open, definite and explicit. It wants to open it at all times, for all people and for all performances. Now the Executive Committee decides otherwise. I know how the hon. the Minister of Defence feels about it. I am sure that this Government can use its authority and its power to see that the outgoing Administrator revokes that decision and that he does so quickly before he gets out. I believe this is an urgent matter.

Let me go on to some other adjustments and adaptations which cannot be delayed. Naturally there are differences on methods; there will be differences between us on the methods for and the timing of the elimination of discrimination. The changes that we have to make in this country to fulfil the undertakings we gave before the United Nations must be meaningful. They must not violate but reconcile the reasonable needs of the White people and of the Black people; they must calm the fears of minorities. I make no apology for repeating what I said last week. I repeat the view which we in the United Party have accepted and which we believe are the needs which have to be reconciled. I quoted from our federation policy in that regard. What we have to do in handling questions of race relations is to reconcile the needs of the Whites who want security in a country where they are outnumbered, who want to be sure that their civilization and their achievements are protected, that their standards, property and enterprise will be safeguarded, with the needs of the Blacks and the other non-White communities. They want relief from political impotence and economic stagnation. They want the right to greater opportunities in self-government, education, work, medical services and social welfare. They want a fair share in the progress and growth of South Africa which could end without their contributions. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves, namely to reconcile these two needs. The first thing we have to ask ourselves is how we are going to set about doing this. Let me deal with one basic issue. A question which must be very squarely faced and honestly answered is: Can we reconcile these needs and eliminate political discrimination within a unitary form of government?

Yes.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom says “yes”. I hope that some time during this debate we will have this spelt out for us. Perhaps the hon. member will be good enough to reply to this argument which I want to put to him. As I see it, a sine qua non in a unitary system is one sovereign Parliament Even accepting the establishment in South Africa of all the Black states having independence, the Republic will remain multiracial. I even go so far as to say that that will still be the case even if all the urban Blacks are politically attached to their homelands. South Africa will still be a multi-racial state with White, Indian and Coloured communities. How can one in that situation eliminate political discrimination on the grounds of colour in a unitary state with a single Parliament? The only way is for Parliament to become multi-racial. That is the only way. If one has a unitary set-up, that multi-racial Parliament must function on the basis of one man, one vote or again there will be discrimination in respect of the people who are entitled to representation. The position is aggravated by the fact that when we look to the future we find that with two exceptions only, the Black homeland leaders have said that they do not want independence. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that if the Black homeland leaders do not take independence, the position will stay as it is. That means political discrimination against the Black people of South Africa because of the unitary system which we have. I do not believe that this can be the end of the road. I hope that someone will spell this out for us. Where does one eliminate political discrimination on the grounds of colour in a unitary system even if one assumes that all the homelands are established and all the Blacks are attached, for political purposes, to the homelands? Here we will still have the Coloured, Indian and White populations. The realistic position, however, is that the homeland leaders do not want independence and must therefore be accommodated where there is no political discrimination.

That is what you want.

Surely attention must be given to the other side of the picture. It is not a question of whether it is “ons beleid” or “julle beleid”. I am stating facts now. Let us look at the alternative, which is the federal system. Let us forget for a moment all the details and look at the principle of a federal policy. The Progressive Party agrees with us that a federal policy is the right one for South Africa. However, they want theirs on a geographic basis while we believe that it can be approached on a community basis. A federal system of government can accommodate the peoples of this country and eliminate political discrimination. I believe that that can be done and that the matter should be discussed. Let me turn to one particular point. I asked the hon. the Prime Minister this session about the appointments to various boards. The hon. the Prime Minister replied that he would deal with the question during the debate. In the debate he said that he was engaged in compiling lists of the boards and of representation on the various boards. He went on to say:

That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said. That is a recognition of the fact that there are fields of government and administration where it is impossible to separate and to create separate authorities on a racially separate basis. That is why he said he was going to make the appointments. There are matters of common and indivisible concern which cut right across race barriers. These appointments to boards, however, are not meaningful political rights.

They involve basic administrative functions in which the non-Whites are to participate. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister in one respect. He said that all separation is not necessarily discrimination. I now come back to the question which the hon. member for Waterberg asked yesterday: Do we believe in group areas? We as a party are as much opposed to compulsory integration as we are to compulsory separation. What we do believe in is that there should be a freedom of association which is basic. We accept the need for separate residential areas but they must be fairly allocated and justly determined. The discrimination arises in the manner in which those separate areas are provided. Let me remind the House of what has happened when group areas have been determined by this Government. 80 000 Coloured and Indian families have been required to move while only 1 500 White families have been required to move. Could there not have been a dispensation which places less of a burden on one group than on another?

Are you giving the complete story?

Yes, I am giving the figures of the families who are compelled to move. They have not all moved yet. I am giving the figures relating to this argument of discrimination. The hon. the Minister must also face the fact that there has been discrimination in the allocation and siting of areas for the non-White people. There has been discrimination and it cannot be denied. That is why I say that separation can be effected without discrimination, and I cite this as an example, provided that it is fairly and justly done.

Last year during the debate on the motion of censure I listed a succession of statutes which have imposed separation, apartheid, or whatever we want to call it in this country. I believe that if the Government is determined to remove indefensible discrimination on the grounds of colour, one must note that we have no legislation before us as yet for this session to amend the vast number of statutes which will have to be amended, nor have there been proclamations or Government notices in the Gazette in which there is an indication of change and adaptation. I think these questions must be asked of this Government and must be answered soon. These questions are important and they must be answered in this House. Are we prepared to reopen professional and scientific associations and councils to all qualified persons irrespective of colour? Will lawyers, advocates and scientists have their associations irrespective of colour? I do not expect anybody to give me the answer now, but these questions have to be answered. Are we prepared to permit those persons providing public amenities such as restaurants to decide on the customers that they are prepared to serve? Will the people who have established these amenities be able to decide whether these amenities will be open to all races, to Whites, Blacks or whatever they want?

You speak too lightly. Have you ever thought of what will happen?

Is the Government of our country prepared to eliminate pay discrimination, which can be done and can be afforded in respect of the professional classes employed by the State? A continuation of pay discrimination in those classes can only be regarded as discrimination on the grounds of colour alone. Is the Government to continue with job reservation whilst saying that it is doing away with race discrimination? Are we still going to have section 16 of the Immorality Act in this country whilst saying that we are doing away with race discrimination? Are we in this country still going to refuse to recognize the legality of mixed marriages contracted by South Africans, which were perfectly legally contracted outside of South Africa?

Why must we recognize those marriages which were contracted outside South Africa but not those which were contracted inside South Africa?

Because the non-recognition is due to one thing only and that is the question of colour. When I look at these things I find myself driven to say: “How long, O Lord, how long must we wait for this to take place?”

Quite a number of years.

I say this because this has to be done. There are other matters which I wanted to deal with, but the time which was allotted to me is about to expire. In conclusion I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Justice—who unfortunately is not here —in connection with the students who are still under restriction in terms of the Communism Act I want to remind this House that the present hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism said on 27 February 1973, and I quote from Hansard col. 1509:

That was a statement made by a present Minister of the Cabinet. At that stage I asked that these papers should go to the Attorney-General or that these students should be released from their restrictions. Last year I asked again that that should be done and although the papers were sent to the Attorney-General no decision was taken. There is no earthly reason why these students should continue to be placed under these restrictions which have been imposed upon them, contrary to the opinion of a man who is now a member of the Cabinet. Obviously the then Minister of Justice thought otherwise, but it is contrary to the opinion of a man who is now sitting in the Cabinet. I want to appeal to him to use his influence in the Cabinet to persuade his colleagues to accept his point of view because, after all, he heard the evidence. The Government wanted a parliamentary Select Committee to go into this matter. He heard the evidence and perhaps he will be good enough to convince the hon. the Minister of Justice that the time has come that these restrictions on the students should be terminated. I hope that it will be done; it should be done soon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point is someone who is always listened to attentively. I think that it was worthwhile to listen to what the hon. member had to say. I am glad that he made a few statements this afternoon with which we agree. To begin with, there was the appreciation which he expressed for the line of action followed by the hon. the Prime Minister with his policy of détente in Southern Africa and Africa, and his proposed standpoint, as far as relations in South Africa are concerned, to bring about détente as well, so that there may be ethnic and racial harmony on a basis of no discrimination. But I think that if one thing has become clear from the speech of the hon. member for Green Point then it is that we are speaking at cross purposes as far as the concept “discrimination” is concerned. We use the same word, often in the same sense, but the substance of that concept differs noticeably. The hon. member for Green Point also used the word and attributed it to the hon. the Prime Minister, but I think that he must go and read again what the hon. the Prime Minister said in the no-confidence debate in August last year when he pointed out that the concept “discrimination” could be used in two senses. The one, he said, was in a good and more positive sense to which he actually preferred to link the word “differentiation”, and the other was in a bad sense where it had the meaning of prejudice, and of drawing a distinction to the disadvantage of somebody else. I do not think that the hon. member for Green Point drew an adequate distinction as far as this was concerned. He said, for example, that the Immorality Act amounted to discrimination against the non-Whites. I want to ask the hon. member whether the abolition of the section concerned in the Immorality Act would not mean precisely that there would be discrimination against the non-Whites. I asked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on a previous occasion with reference to what he had said, which party would suffer if immorality or free sexual liaison between White and non-White were to be allowed in South Africa. If children were born as a result of that immorality, those products would not normally find their way into the White community, but the non-White community would become the dumping-ground of the products of immorality Between White and non-White. I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point whether that would not be tremendous discrimination against the non-White. Should the non-Whites not be protected against this?

The hon. member for Green Point made a fuss about certain facilities which must be thrown open. When he addressed this House on a previous occasion, he also spoke about the Nico Malan Theatre. He said that he really hoped, “it will be open to all races at all times for all performances …” and he continued in this vein. He also said, “There must be no niggardly separation or differentiation as regards seating in this complex”. I do not want to speak about this subject straightaway, but I shall indicate the implications of the standpoint of the hon. member in the course of my speech.

You are against it?

I am not going to answer that now. I shall tell you shortly. Before coming to that, I want to dwell for a moment on what the hon. member for Newton Park said. The hon. member for Newton Park, in an attempt to escape the miserable situation on the opposite side of this House, tried to sneer a little at the logical standpoints and consistent implementation of the standpoints of certain people on this side of the House. If a person opens his mouth to speak, it is assumed that he will present a logical argument. Therefore it was strange to me that he wanted to employ the logical to discredit logic. If a man has a standpoint, he must carry its implications through after all. Then, surely, he must enumerate the things which proceed logically from it and that is what I have been trying to do, in all humility, as far as my standpoint is concerned, viz. to carry what is inherent in one’s standpoint to its implications in practice, in other words, logic and the consequences thereof. That is what Dr. Verwoerd did and that is what our present hon. Prime Minister does, viz. to carry through the practical implications from a standpoint of principle, a policy standpoint. However, we must not use or abuse logic to discredit logic. The logical is a certain aspect of reality, just as number is an aspect of reality, just as the ethical, the aesthetic, the legal, and others, are all aspects of reality. One must not discredit the logical, because then one distorts reality. I just wanted to explain this to the hon. member for Newton Park on the basis of philosophy. He looks intelligent enough to me to be able to follow it.

The hon. member for Newton Park also made an attempt—a very feeble attempt —to show how there would supposedly be a difference of opinion on this side of the House. It was a feeble attempt, because look at the diversity of opinion on the opposite side. Look at them. I do not even have to elaborate on this. His attempt was so feeble that it fell flat immediately. He tried to draw a distinction between the pragmatists and the dogmatists. I supposedly belonged to the dogmatic group and others to the pragmatic group. Sitting on this side of the House we have people who have a certain policy and standpoint based on principles, who lay down a policy dogmatically and from that dogmatic standpoint, work out the practical implications pragmatically and apply them in practice. We are dogmatic and practical at the same time. We have certain fixed standpoints from which we depart. In a moment I shall come to the dogmatism of these hon. members and indicate how they have learned a great deal from Dr. Verwoerd, especially the hon. member for Durban Point. He spoke a language in this House which corresponded almost to the word to the standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd in respect of certain matters. As far as dogmatism is concerned, those hon. members can lay no reproach at our door. As far as pragmatism is concerned, there is certainly a difference between pragmatism as a sort of ideology or way of life and a practical approach. The practical approach one does find on this side of the House and in its leader.

Hon. members on the opposite side want to play us off against one another. For example, they want to play the hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, me and others off against one another as if the one were a dogmatist and the others pragmatists. I want to refer hon. members to statements by the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made certain statements which are as dogmatic as a statement can be. For example, I want to refer to his statement about the authority the sovereignty which the White man wants to retain and will retain over himself. I do not know if it is necessary to read it to the House. But this is what he said (translation)—

Now, is that purely a pragmatic approach or is it a tremendously positive declaration, a dogmatic premise, viz. that a certain authority, a sovereignty is seated in the White and I refuse to share it with anyone else? [Interjections.] I am glad that you are listening to this. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say (translation)—

When we speak of a sovereignty which a people has over itself, it is not just a power which it exercises in the abstract or a power which is demonstrated here in Parliament or wherever. When it comes to the sovereignty of a people over itself or, in other words, the right of self-determination which a people exercises over itself, then it has to do with its highest function in legislation and the implementation thereof, but it also has to do with the self-determination of that community down to the minutest segment of social life. Then there is no area which is neutral ground to one. Then each area is seen from the point of view that the right of self-determination of a community also applies to that area. From this point of view of the right of self-determination of a community, its authority and its claim in every area is determined. That does not mean that it cannot make a concession to other members of other communities. It does not mean that a distorted image has to be created, as the hon. member for Newton Park tried to do, viz. that if one stands for apartheid or separate development, one can never come into contact with somebody, can build a bridge or have a gate in one’s fence. The point is, that if one builds a bridge, one assumes that there is a river and if one has a gate, that there is a fence, and if one provides a door, that there is a wall. Those hon. members want to suggest by their approach that the bridge is there to be lived on. To my mind the bridge is there to be used when one has occasion to do so, but it emphasizes the very fact that there are separate areas, and in the separate areas there is separate authority. That is the standpoint from which we on this side of the House depart.

The hon. the Prime Minister emphasized another point very strongly, viz. that one must protect the identity of one’s people; one has a right to the protection of one’s identity. I read a passage to you from what he said in a speech at Potchefstroom (translation)—

That is a very strongly stated standpoint, but a standpoint which is directly at odds with the standpoint which the hon. member for Green Point took up here, viz. that the Immorality Act must disappear. The Immorality Act does indeed have to do with the preservation of the identity of the White man and even with the protection of other identities in South Africa. That is a very definite premise. It is not purely a pragmatic premise; it is a premise based on the assumption that here is a community which has a right to its own identity, which has a right to self-determination and to safeguarding itself, also by means of legislation. One can also refer to other standpoints of the hon. the Prime Minister— inter alia, that we maintain order and want to eliminate friction thereby. Everything is linked to the idea that there are different communities. The hon. members on the opposite side also speak of communities, and even want councils for these communities. We also depart—they learnt it from us —from the idea of communities, each of which has a right and wants to maintain that right, if need be by means of legislation, and if that does not suffice, by means of violence as well. That is our standpoint. The approach of the opposite side of the House is that they merely recognize that there are different communities, and that they live in different residential areas. For the rest they do nothing about it. Therefore one must not obstruct people if they want to move from one residential area to another and have mixed residential areas. For our part we are prepared to go further than merely recognizing that there are communities. We are prepared to pass legislation and apply it to protect the specific community in its identity and in its right to what is its own.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Is the hon. member prepared to reply to a question?

I am afraid that the hon. member should rather listen, because I still have quite an argument which I want to develop.

Don’t forget about the Nico Malan.

The hon. member’s reaction to the decision on the Nico Malan theatre makes it very difficult for different people, they are making it difficult for people to come there, rather than facilitating it. Their standpoint arouses a resistance and an aversion in many of our people who do not want to be pushed into integration in this liberalistic way. [Interjections.] I am coming to that. Sir, when one speaks about discrimination, one has to do with the typical liberalistic or individualistic approach on the one hand, which amounts to any individual, of whatever colour or race he might be, having equal claim in any community or any place in the country with any other individual in that country. This is the typical liberalistic approach. It is not just a case of “one man, one vote,” but that each person has the same right in any situation as any other person.

That is the Christian view.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that this is the Christian approach. May I quote a Biblical text to him? I quote to him what the Apostle Paul said on the Areopagus when he said that God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth and determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. Now the hon. member may go and read any book, whether dogmatic or exegetic, and he will find that everyone appeals to these words from the Scripture for the fact that there are not only different peoples, but that the peoples, in order to exist peacefully, must exist separated from one another. I can quote to him—and since I am dealing with this point, I shall do it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout allows me to get to the top of my form. I quote to him from a study, not even of my church, but of the Reformed Church, in which they say, that (translation) “from the fact that God gives every people its place (Acts 17, verse 26) it follows that if two peoples or races live in the same area and each wants to preserve its identity (and they do want to do that) there will be indescribable tension; territorial separation between peoples is one of the real factors in opposing undesired mixing and the national existence being threatened”. It goes on to say, “The idea of a multi-racial people in one territorial area must be rejected on Scriptural grounds.” That is the Christian standpoint and I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will do some studying and will bring us a few good Christian books from which he can prove the contrary. [Interjections.]

Sir, I say that the typical liberalistic approach is that each individual has an equal right in any place in the world. But it is simply not the case. Our approach is an ethnic approach, one of different communities, and that side of the House also accepts different communities. Sir, they speak so often of discrimination. Which party introduced segregation—in those times it was still the term—into the Post Office? I was a student at Stellenbosch in the forties and it was that party’s great predecessor who applied segregation in the Post Office, first at Stellenbosch. But now it is apparently not good enough any more, because change is the fashion in that party. Take group areas. They, too, have been saying now that as long as they are applied justly, it is in order. But, Sir, suppose someone is not satisfied in his group area and he prefers to stay in Constantia, or someone there is not satisfied and wants to stay in Athlone, will those hon. members then pass a law to prevent such a person from going outside his group area, or do they want to give him the freedom to stay where he wants to and to mix with whom he wants to and to create problems, even problems for their own voters’ roll, because that is compiled on a racial basis? What are those hon. members going to do? They will be obliged to adopt measures to protect people in their residential areas and to safeguard them against instrusion by others. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Waterberg the chance to make his speech, also members on the hon. member’s own side.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you are not suppressing applause on my side!

The hon. member for Newton Park quoted from an article of mine in Die Transvaler on a previous occasion, but he quoted very badly, because there I stated the very standpoint which I am now trying to state, viz. that if one’s premise is that of liberalism or of individualism, it means that one cannot take up the standpoint taken up by the United Party, because they accept group areas and separate voter’s rolls. With separate voter’s rolls they will experience major problems if the Immorality Act is abolished, because how is a child to be classified who is born from a mixing of people who are on different voter’s rolls? I think this is an answer which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout owes us.

The hon. members speak a great deal against discrimination, but I have said that they must take cognizance of what the hon. the Prime Minister said. The hon. the Prime Minister said that cognizance must be taken of the use of the word “discrimination”, because it could be used in a bad or a good meaning. I wonder what the hon. members will say if I quote a person who is very often quoted by them in support of their standpoint. I refer to Prof. Nic Rhoodie who wrote in New Nation—

Therefore, when the survival of a people is at stake, it will make those arrangements which will safeguard its survival. To some this is discrimination; we say that these are arrangements which it makes for its own safeguarding. If it does not want to discriminate, it must see to it in any case that the same arrangements are made for the survival and the rights of other communities co-existing with it. One eliminates discrimination if one gives the same right to others co-existing with one. I can continue to quote from what Prof. Rhoodie wrote. He said—

Therefore he uses the word “discrimination” in respect of groups with whom the Whites come into contact and against whom the Whites safeguard their existence and identity. I suppose the hon. the Prime Minister will call that action “differentiation”, where one distinguishes between one’s interest and those of others and protects one’s interests against the interests of others, as long as the others co-existing with one, are granted equal opportunities and one makes provision for them as well and provide facilities for their convenience which are equal to those of one’s own.

The hon. Opposition must realize one thing, viz. that as far as the National Party is concerned and whatever substance they give the concept “discrimination”, the National Party’s policy is a policy of separate development. In practice separate development means separate facilities as well. It is for these reasons that we had heated debates in the ’sixties on separate universities for the various ethnic groups. What did we do? With the establishment of separate universities for the separate ethnic groups we said that it was normal for a people to have such institutions of their own, but because those universities, at the time of their establishment, could not offer their students a choice of all subjects, the concession was made that such students could be accommodated at White universities on the understanding that full provision for those students at their own universities would be made as soon as possible. That is separate development, but it is also separate development with justice where one is in the position, from one’s position of laying claim to one’s own, to make a concession to others who do not as yet have the same facilities and opportunities. This is the example, I think, which is used in connection with the Nico Malan theatre, viz. that we grant the non-Whites an equal facility in their own area, and until such time as there is an equal facility in their area, the concession is there so that they may indeed use the Nico Malan.

Is it a concession?

That is purely from our standpoint. The hon. members on the opposite side accept just as we do that there must be group areas. If their group areas idea has any substance, it means that the non-Whites must get full facilities in their own group areas. The hon. the Prime Minister said during a debate last year that this was the shortcoming and that it was a reproach which could be hurled at us, and that private bodies, local authorities and even the Government could be reproached because equal facilities had not been created in time for all people. This is what separate development is. Separate facilities which are provided on an equal basis. If it can be done on an equal basis, there is no discrimination, because then what one demands for oneself is being granted to others.

I want to come to the explanation of the hon. member for Durban Point of their policy. I am sorry he is not here, but perhaps he will read what I am going to say. When the hon. member for Durban Point spoke about discrimination he said something very interesting. In reply to the Prime Minister’s question he expressed himself as follows—

Therefore the hon. member speaks of “one community, the White community …”. In other words, he demands for the White community the right to discriminate—that is the word which he uses—not against others, but between its own community and other communities. If there is an attempt to encroach on the rights, the freedoms and living space of the White community by someone else, it has the right to discriminate between its right and the demand by the other person, on the understanding—and I think hon. members will agree with me here—that if one puts up such a barrier, it is one’s moral duty to help the other person to obtain a similar and equal facility alongside one’s own; otherwise it could suggest discrimination. I just want to point out that when we speak of an absence of discrimination, there evidently is a difference of opinion in the ranks of the Opposition. As far as this question is concerned, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Green Point differ. Those are two “points” which are very far from each other, Green Point and Durban Point. The one says, “Discriminate”, but the other says, “No discrimination”. I think the Opposition must settle that point for themselves.

They have many points to settle.

The hon. member for Durban Point gave a survey of their policy and said what their committee had done. This committee considered the conditions which exist and what he called the “facts of life”. Now what are these “facts of life”? They were interesting and I agree with many of them. When one looks at the realities in South Africa and does so objectively and with a little understanding, there cannot be much difference of opinion as to what one sees. At the beginning of his speech he said: “We found that there were in South Africa different, identified and identifiable racial communities.” Surely that is an obvious truth! Even the United Party has perceived this great truth after all these years. The hon. member also said: “We found different ethno-cultural identities amongst our people.” Of course we go further than that. We do not merely observe it, but accept that these communities are the subjects of rights as well, that those rights are enforceable and that legislation can be passed in respect of these rights.

Why cannot they participate in mixed sport?

Order! All questions about sport are blocked.

The hon. member for Durban Point also said the following: “We found that to a large extent they lived in separate identifiable residential areas.” It is a fact in South Africa that things came about and developed in that way. When the National Party came into power, it did not merely observe this phenomenon as a fact, but it also observed a situation in which there was integration and mixed residential areas. No less a body and none other than the Afrikaans churches appealed to the authorities to consider the evil consequences which arose from the mixing in such residential areas and insisted on legislation in this connection. In other words, the difference between this party and that party is that we do not merely observe, but do something about it. The United Party only wants to observe, but look what has become of all that observation. This Party is prepared to do something about it. [Time expired.]

Before calling on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to speak, I should like to make the following announcement: I wish to point out to hon. members that, in view of the election of the State President, which will take place at 11 a.m. tomorrow, the House will not meet at 10 a.m., but at 2.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I gained the impression that the real reason for the hon. member for Waterberg rising to speak this afternoon was to instil a little courage into the right wing of his party for once. I must say that he did it very well. We on this side welcome his contribution. When I think how frequently we have struggled to have a debate between this side and that side on discrimination, I am particularly pleased that we have at least made a start now and that the hon. member for Water berg has afforded us the opportunity of debating the matters which he raised. I should very much like to reply to what he said this afternoon, but in view of the hour, I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.