Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, a new political party has grown up among us recently, and in the debate we had last week a great deal was said about the turbulence which it brought about in the ranks of the United Party. This afternoon I want to refer to both.

Our attitude to the new party which has been founded, is completely uncomplicated. We believe that there was no good reason or any necessity for the formation of another party on the part of the Opposition. In particular we believe that the new party as such cannot contribute to better government or better opposition, and their actions until now have proved this very clearly. That does not detract from the fact that it is every man’s democratic right to form a new party if he wants to. It is true that there are strong feelings within the United Party about the manner in which some people went about it, and those feelings are justified. In general, however, I can say that our attitude is that we do not condemn a person simply because he wants to walk a different political path or belong to a different political organization. I want to add that nobody has been expelled from the United Party as a result of his political views. Anyone who implies anything of the sort, is either doing so deliberately and fabricating reasons after the event, or he is uninformed. In connection with the disciplinary measures which were taken against certain members on this side, there were no differences of principle involved. There are people, and one will find such people, who believe that the disciplinary measures which were taken, were too drastic. That can be debated. However, what is not true, is that anyone was expelled from the party because he was a Reformist or a Young Turk or a verligte. Of course there was never any such thing as a Reformist group in the United Party in any organized sense. As far as I am concerned, I was never a member or a forerunner of an organized group in the party which encouraged people to break away from the party. “Reformist” was the label which the Press—not the relevant members themselves—from time to time gave to at least 18 individual members of the United Party caucus. Of the 18 members who bore the label of “Reformist”, 13 are standing by the party solidly as ever. I mention this purely to indicate that nobody was driven from the party because of his political views. I do not believe it was ever a secret that I and others did in fact stand for certain adjustments in the policy of the United Party. I refer chiefly to the unequivocal rejection of baasskap, both White baasskap as well as the possibility of Black baasskap, and secondly the eradication of petty apartheid or to put it more precisely, the ending of all discrimination on the grounds of the colour of a man’s skin. These adjustments have been made and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of this party, played a decisive role in those adjustments. Therefore we are justified in saying that if there had ever perhaps been a reason in the past for a so-called Reformist to leave the party because of its unadaptiveness then that reason no longer exists. Here we have it before us once again in the form of our amendment, a clear statement from the party which reads that—

And if there should be people among us, as some speakers have implied, who vote for this, but cannot accept it, then this cannot be held as a complaint against the party; then they are quite simply being dishonest with themselves. The United Party is not a mouldy conservative party in the stuffy sense in which the word “conservative” is so often used in South Africa. It is not a party of stagnation. It is a party of definite and radical change. Throughout this session we shall put the emphasis on the removal of the baasskap and discrimination which exists in South Africa.

†I want to deal further with an accusation that is often made against this side of the House and which emanates from hon. members on the side of the Government. I am referring to the statement that we of the United Party only have eyes for the interests of the non-Whites and not for those of the Whites. I find it extraordinary that people can come to this House as Members of Parliament and be so clueless as to make a statement of that nature. We on this side of the House will never be afraid to defend the just cause of any man, no matter what his name or his colour may be. We will defend the rights of all South Africans and we regard this as our duty. It would, however, be unnatural for us not to be aware of the fact that we as an Opposition of White people cannot divorce ourselves from the fate and the future of the White community as a whole.

Sir, we do know for certain that the biggest threat to the White man is not the existence alongside him of Black people and Coloured people and Indian people. The biggest threat to the White people in South Africa is White domination, White arrogance, White selfishness, discrimination against others and the humiliation of others by an all-White Government. That is the threat to the White man in South Africa. Because of the fact that this Parliament, this Government, is all White, the coloured people of this country see every law, every action by the Government, as the deed and the responsibility of the White community as a whole. Every injustice by the White Government, every deprivation of rights which coloured people have to suffer, is debited against the White community as a whole. Our battle for the removal of discrimination, for a policy of co-operation between White and coloured—I use “coloured” with a small “c”—it is not because we are liberals or liberalists, although I do not care a scrap what I am called, or because we are “obsessed with the affairs of the other population groups”, as one member on the other side put it. It is precisely because we are White realists and because we have the deepest concern for the future of the White community. If we have any obsession, then it is the obsession of White people who firmly believe that there will be no peace and stability for South Africa, or for any population group in South Africa, and least of all for the Whites, unless all our different communities seek to co-operate politically and otherwise on a basis of no domination and no discrimination.

Sir, every person whose political eyes are situated in the right holes must be aware of the fact that by reason of the pressure of events, politics is on the move in this country today as never before, and every political party in South Africa will be affected by this. But, Sir, let me say this: Time will show no political party will be more affected by the movement of politics than the ruling Nationalist Party; it will all show up in a matter of time, and that is why I must admit to a measure of surprise that so many political writers and commentators on the English language side have developed an obsession with the personnel affairs of the United Party. Sir, the real political news in South Africa does not lie on this side. The real political news in South Africa lies on the other side, on the side of the Nationalist Party. As far as this side is concerned, let me say that despite all the existing party-political divisions on the Opposition side, far more common ground exists today between Opposition groups in South Africa, particularly on matters of discrimination, than ever before, and not by contrivance and certainly not because of any effort to bring about artificial unity, but because of events. We on this side are utterly opposed to any opportunistic artificial unity. We have full confidence in our party and in our policy, but, Sir, that has developed because of events. I therefore regard it as very nearly irrelevant that a few people have changed their seats in the broader political spectrum of the Opposition. Sir, the side that is going to be most affected by the movement of politics and policies in South Africa is the Nationalist Party and not the Opposition Party.

I listened with absorbing interest on Friday to the hon. member for Waterberg. That hon. member has always been and still is one of the stalwarts of apartheid. He was full of confidence in the past. Now he is noticeably full of apprehension. He does not like what is happening on this side of the political scene. I say this with due respect to him, because I have respect for the hon. member. But, Sir, he now employs the same intellectual strategy as Jaap Marais and others employed in this House before they broke away from the Nationalist Party. They fall back on the letter of their party’s old handbook, and they cleverly try to bind the Prime Minister to his past utterances, all in a desperate effort to stem the tide of change. Sir, it will be interesting to watch the outcome of it all. I shall return to the hon. member for Waterberg in a few moments.

*Sir, first I want to turn to the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister. Our role as Opposition to the Government has always been a consistent one. We have always supported legislation and Government action which to our minds was in the interests of South Africa. In fact, the attack has often been made on us in certain circles that we support the Government too often, but, Sir, we shall continue to adopt the standpoint that if the Government takes steps which in our opinion are in the interests of South Africa, we shall not hesitate to support them. I might just say in parenthesis that this is not something the hon. member for Yeoville thought out. For years we have been adopting this course in this House. But hon. members will concede that there would be no benefit in, no reason for, the existence of this Parliament if we did not subject all actions on the part of the Government to close scrutiny and level criticism where it is necessary to do so. Sir, we should like to say the following to the hon. the Prime Minister: He knows as well as anyone that he has no hope of improving and normalizing South Africa’s relations with Africa and with the world—that part of the world which matters—if he does not effect internal changes in the field of human relations. We realize that it is not going to be pleasant for him and that it is not going to be easy for him. I think that he might well find that in respect of some matters he is going to get less support from his own side than he will get from the Opposition. We want to say to him as well that we do not expect him to be able to do all this overnight. We accept that it will take some time. But he has no choice, Sir. Changes will have to be effected, and as long as that party is in power, it is he who will have to effect those changes. In the first place, Sir, it seems necessary to us that the Government must ensure that the form of its adjustments has been finalized before causing announcements to be made which arouse public expectations. We saw what happened last week in the case of the Nico Malan; there we had a good example. If one creates expectations and then disappoints people, one always has a bitter reaction, and the partial opening of the Nico Malan only for a few evenings a week immediately evoked a damaging reaction in the rest of the world, and not only at home but also in certain Africa states where we can least afford it. Therefore we want to say to the Government that we hope that future adjustments will be effected in a more finalized manner than has just happened in the case of the Nico Malan.

The second point we want to make is this: When a step is taken then we believe that it is best that it be carried through logically to its full consequences, otherwise it gives rise to lingering agitations and angry feelings. Let me give an example: Last week, after the initial confusion, the Nico Malan was thrown open to everyone including the Blacks, but at the same time the Nico Malan was thrown open to everyone, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development turned down a request to throw open the open-air theatre at Maynardville, which is already open to Coloureds and Indians, to the Blacks as well. Sir, the result is an indefensible position in which the Government finds itself through its own doing and which arouses bad feelings everywhere. We believe that the Government would be acting wisely in such matters if it were rather to end all Government interference in cultural and entertainment matters at one stroke, as a matter of consistent principle, and if it were rather to leave it to the controlling bodies in each case to decide for themselves who they want to admit and who they want to cater to. Then matters will very soon find their own natural level.

The third remark I want to make, is that the Government’s undertaking to move away from discrimination was unqualified. Go and read it again, but what do we find now? The hon. the Minister of the Interior says in Pretoria that the Government will bring back the apartheid signs if it feels like it—in other words, it will re-introduce discrimination if it feels like it. The hon. member for Waterberg came here on Friday and declared that the Nico Malan Theatre has only been thrown open temporarily, until each population group —imagine it!—has its own Nico Malan. Sir, we must know what the standpoint of the Government is; we must know whether it is the policy of the Government which these two hon. members have now announced, and we must know whether the Government intends watering down and qualifying its statement on the elimination of discrimination.

In the fourth place we want to advise the Government not to look for political loopholes with a play on words. I shall mention a few examples. Sir, recently we have been forced to listen to it being said that the Government’s policy is no longer one of discrimination now, but in any event still one of differentiation. I do not want to debate the difference in meaning between differentiation and discrimination here. I can tell you that the difference between the two words is far more one of nuance than one of a real difference in meaning. But this we must say here at this point: If any action on the part of the Government which is called differentiation amounts to unequal treatment on the grounds of a man’s race or colour, then it will be nothing but discrimination. Then there will be no difference in meaning between the two words and consequently we shall not accept that there is any difference between the two.

Another concept which has been frequently employed in recent times to justify discrimination, is “identity”. It is a new word about which a great deal is being said. We are told that all sorts of laws and provisions are necessary to protect people’s identity, inter alia, the Immorality Act. The hon. member for Waterberg used these words on Friday—

Sir, I have never heard such a lack of logic before. The Immorality Act is only 26 years old, while the identity of the Whites has already been associated with South Africa for 323 years. I shall be pleased if the hon. member can explain that inconsistency to us. We also know that different peoples are scattered over the face of the earth and that many of them are existing alongside one another and intermingled with one another within the same political boundaries. In spite of this they all succeed in such situations to preserve their identity in a natural way. However, the hon. member says that we alone, only the Whites in South Africa, suddenly discovered 26 years ago that a racial law, such as the Immorality Act, was necessary to prevent us from disappearing. Sir, does the hon. member really want us to believe that? But his argument is still a great deal more incomprehensible than that. Each one of us who is sitting here has a different identity. Alongside our South African identity we also have a White identity and most of us in this House have an Afrikaans identity as well. I do not believe that the hon. member will deny that we have an Afrikaans White people in South Africa, but this Afrikaans White people is living in the closest social proximity to other non-Afrikaans people without an Immorality Act. How is it possible that the Afrikaner has been able to preserve his identity against Whites of other languages in a natural way, while, according to the hon. member, this cannot be done against the non-Whites who are so much further removed from him than the other White people, without the Immorality Act. This is what the hon. member’s argument amounts to. It is all a play on words. The Immorality Act is simply a remnant of the old negative apartheid programme, something which has brought nothing but harm and endless misery to South Africa.

Therefore it is our standpoint that false gods such as the Immorality Act will have to go. The hon. member also elaborated at length on another concept which we are hearing more of all the time, viz. that of sovereignty. Every people, he says, has the right to retain its own sovereignty, and he quoted a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister to the effect that he, the hon. the Prime Minister, would refuse as White leader to share the sovereignty of the White people with any other people, and “that it has nothing to do with baasskap”. Unfortunately it has everything to do with baasskap. It is a very acceptable idea that every people should have sovereignty over itself. “Sovereignty” means sole control, full control. No reasonable person can be opposed in principle to a people determining its own future. Of course it is easy to apply this principle when the ethnic boundaries coincide with the national boundaries and where you have an homogenous people within one political boundary. Now it is fortunately, or unfortunately, the case that we are one of the many countries which are multi-national. There is not only a White people living here. South Africa is a fatherland for many people. Consequently it is easy enough to arrange that each of these peoples retain cultural sovereignty over itself. In fact, within the White community the Afrikaner people has its own cultural institutions, such as its schools, churches and universities, and nobody is seeking to destroy these. But if anyone of the peoples living in this multi-national South Africa demand political sovereignty, in other words, sole political control, for itself over the country, in other words, over everyone, then it is simply baasskap and nothing else. And that is what the hon. member for Waterberg advocates. [Interjections.] The concept of sovereignty as they support it is nothing else but the old baasskap policy in a new guise.

Let us concede—I am prepared to concede it—that one or two Bantustans may perhaps become independent. However, once that process has been disposed of, is there anyone in this House who will say that South Africa will not still be a multinational country with a diversity of peoples? South Africa is destined to be a multi-national country. Now the hon. member for Waterberg says that every people has the right to demand sovereignty over itself. In other words, every people in South Africa—I am referring to those who remain after a Bantustan or two has become independent—then has the right to demand sovereignty. I say that this is a nice idea, but that it is not capable of implementation in the circumstances of South Africa. I shall be pleased if the hon. member, or any other member, could explain to us how he would apportion authority over foreign affairs, defence, posts and telecommunications, railways and air transport, immigration, water affairs, economic expansion, police, tourism and whatever else one might mention, among the different peoples. One cannot apportion these; surely this is impossible. If one of the peoples in South Africa should demand therefore, that he wants full control over everything, it amounts to nothing but baasskap.

We on this side of the House have finally rejected any one of the peoples in South Africa having the right to exercise sole control over South Africa forever. Therefore we are not seeking an escape in words or concepts which are meant to deceive peoples. All the people who remain in South Africa can enjoy all the cultural sovereignty or exclusiveness which they want, but in the field of political control they will have to seek to co-operate as equals and if this is done in a federal way, there is no reason why anyone need fear that he will be dominated or that he will lose his identity.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for the moment. I prefer to make a speech in the course of which I shall furnish him with a reply.

One cannot reply to a lot of historical lies.

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must withdraw the word “lies”.

I said “historical lies”.

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw the word “lies”, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I shall furnish the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with a reply in the course of my speech. At the outset I want to ask the hon. member whether, since he alleged that the Immorality Act is 28 years old, he is not aware that the Immorality Act between Bantu and Whites is much older than that? Never in all the years of his party’s government did they withdraw that Act. When the National Party eventually came to apply it, in so far as it concerned the other races as well, it was something terrible. If the hon. member will be so friendly as to listen, I should like to put a question to him and I expect a direct answer from him. If the United Party repeals the Immorality Act, will they also repeal it in respect of the Whites and the Bantu? Why do they only tell half the story, and not the full story? When we debate here, I think we owe it to each other to put the facts in full. Over the weekend I read that the three splinter groups of the United Party are engaged in attempts to form a coalition and to found a new party. I want to warn the hon. members of the Opposition that they must prevent such an eventuality occurring. If that were to happen, their time would be up. To begin with I just want to say that they should not all cross over to the National Party, particularly not the frontbenchers. I am now sitting here on the very last front-bench of the National Party, while many Opposition members are senior to me. If they were to start rapidly crossing over to the National Party, I should have to move back to the back-benches or the middle benches and no one likes promotion of that kind. Hon. members opposite must please ensure that they bring along sufficient backbenchers to enable me to retain my place in the front bench. Our benches are already so full that we should then have to take over the Opposition benches.

I now want to pass from these remarks in lighter vein to the more serious business of politics. Thirty years ago, when I was a young man—believe that if you will—I was looking at an Opposition even smaller than the present Opposition. A mightier Government side was sitting here whose benches extended right around and further than my present bench. Some people are now maintaining that history is repeating itself. However it cannot repeat itself this time, because there is one basic difference: As far back as 1945, that small Opposition party, under the leadership of the late Dr. D. F. Malan and a small group of stalwarts, was taking a world situation into account. They knew that they were at a juncture at which the non-White peoples of Africa would be emancipated. They knew that the immediate future held a new dispensation for the people. They concerned themselves with that new dispensation and worked out a policy that would make it possible for the Whites and the non-Whites to live together in harmony in South Africa, a policy that would enable the Whites to stay here as Whites and the non-Whites to stay here as non-Whites in such a way that there would not be constant friction between them. At the time that policy was called “apartheid”, a policy that was slandered by the other side of the House until it acquired a certain odour overseas. It was a policy in accordance with which the peoples had first to be separated before the policy could be developed into what it is today. There had first to be a process of emancipation by means of separation and separate development, the creation of good neighbourliness and the promotion of the concept of multi-nationality. That is the stage we have reached today. That is what many members of the Opposition— they are a very honest Opposition—cannot and do not want to understand. The policy of multi-nationality and separate development contains certain inherent components. Without those components it would have had no right of existence. It would then have been a policy which could have existed neither in South Africa nor in the world of today. Those components I call obligations on the one hand and guarantees on the other. There are obligations in respect of every person living in the country—White, Brown or Black—to whichever race group he may belong. Inherent in the policy, too, are guarantees to every coloured group. This does not apply to the Whites alone.

To begin with I now want to deal with the obligations inherent in the policy. The various races will eventually be developed into peoples and be emancipated in a dignified manner. The human dignity of other groups is one of the basic requirements of the policy of multi-nationality or the policy of neighbourliness in South Africa. I must be prepared to emancipate a man of another national group or colour group so that he may become a full and dignified citizen in his own right. Our policy must be a policy of friendliness or—let me use another good description for it—courtesy. We must be courteous towards other people and be willing for them to have everything in the world which we claim for ourselves. This is particularly applicable to us as the guardian nation. The policy of the National Party is to move away from discrimination as quickly as it can and it very much wants to move away from it. That is its stated policy. Of course one cannot move away from it faster than one’s policy can develop. These aspects of emancipation, namely human dignity and development, must go together in any policy. In the last instance there must also be absolute honesty. These people must not be misled by promises. Carrots must not be dangled in front of them for them to chase after. They must be informed of the policy in an honest way.

I now want to deal with the aspect that so offends the hon. member, namely what the hon. member for Waterberg supposedly said on Thursday. Of course there are, on the other hand, the guarantees to each people that its identity will be retained. After all, one’s identity is something that no-one else can claim. A person who does not have enough self-respect for his own identity to be of value to him, is not worthy of being a person. He is not worthy of being a member of a nation. He is not worthy of being a member of a specific group. If that identity means nothing to him, why, then, do family ties mean anything to him? Surely there are many ties that link us in this life, and our identity is one of the most important. The second guarantee that people will demand is the indivisibility of power over their own people. The hon. member said, at great length and with much gesticulation: We are now slowly but surely going through a transition and the people behind the Prime Minister do not understand him. Where could one find a clearer statement of policy than that made by our Prime Minister at the end of last year?

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

Yes, certainly.

I want to ask the hon. member whether the Nico Malan Theatre is going to be open permanently or whether it may later, again …

I am coming to that and I shall reply to the question with pleasure, but then the hon. member must just give me a chance to complete the argument. The hon. the Prime Minister told us that one of the absolutely basic foundations of the National Party’s policy is the indivisibility of power of each national group over its own people in its own area. This applies to every people and to every race group in South Africa because apart from the homelands, we also have group areas. Just as we demand it for ourselves, we also promise the indivisibility of power to every national group over its own people in its own area. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us so many times what his policy is in respect of those who do not have homelands, viz. the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. What applies to these national groups also applies to me as a White person and in time it will press upon me quite as hard as it will press upon those nations that are in the process of emancipation. The day those people are emancipated, they will have to share with me what I must share with them. This is our argument and until we have reached that point there will be a degree of differentiation and differences. This must be so, because it cannot be otherwise. This policy is a policy that is taking shape or a policy that is unfolding. The National Government stated this policy years ago and as we move forward every day, adjustments take place. However, those adjustments are absolutely in accordance with the policy of the National Party and if the hon. members can show me one adjustment that is not in accordance with it, I shall concede it to them, but they are unable to do so. It is the policy of the National Party that every national group shall have undivided power over its own people in its own area.

Like the Coloureds?

Yes, of course. Has the hon. member never heard of group areas? The hon. member is sitting here in South Africa and I now want to ask him whether he lives in a Coloured group area or whether the Coloureds live in White group areas. Is the hon. member unaware that every day we are extending our group areas that have been determined by the Group Areas Act? That hon. member is sitting almost in the front benches, but one day when it penetrates to him, I know that he will be one of the first hon. members who will come and sit just behind me. There is no homeland for the Coloureds, but we call their areas group areas. The Coloureds live in their own group areas where they will be given the greatest possible sovereignty over their own people. [Interjections.] Of course that is so and what of it?

You do not have much hope.

We shall give them what we claim for ourselves or do you not know what that means? If I claim for myself …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to ask the hon. member sitting next to me here whether he knows what rights I claim for myself. I claim the greatest possible sovereignty for myself. In time, those people will have sovereignty over themselves, too. At present we have an interim policy and we shall apply this policy during the period of emancipation until we are able to make it a permanent policy in the future. It goes without saying that in terms of that interim policy it is our ideal to make it possible for every national group to have all possible facilities, development and cultural facilities, each in its own area. As long as a national group does not have those facilities in its own area, it will share them with us. I say this particularly for the benefit of the hon. member on the other side. The day a people has its own facilities, it will no longer share ours with us.

Why did it take you five years to find that out?

That is not so. We have been saying for a long time that we decide on these matters from time to time. We consider from time to time whether these people require certain facilities and whether they have developed to such an extent that they should be granted the necessary concessions. Sometimes it takes 20 years. After all, people are developing and progressing. When a population group has reached a certain level of development, the White administration, in its wisdom, decides that the time has come to grant them certain facilities that they do not have. Thus, for example, it was decided that we should share the Nico Malan Theatre with them. However, such a population group does not have a permanent right to it. If they were to acquire it, I should in fact be giving them a right in my own area.

But they are paying for it.

Yes, but they will also have to pay for the facilities created in their own areas. We shall also have to pay a share of the facilities established in the area belonging to another population group. What those poor people are, unable to understand is that there are two sides to everything. What I claim for myself I also give the other man, and where he pays for my help, I, again, help to pay for him. I find it so childish that the hon. members opposite are unwilling or unable to understand those things.

At present the other population groups are enjoying it together with me. However, I want to go a step further today. I have not heard my Leaders make a statement about this, but today I want to tell hon. members opposite that I believe that if and when the other groups have similar facilities, they will have a say in respect of their facilities while we shall retain our say in the White area. As the other groups develop, we shall be able to attend each other’s extraordinary functions, either by invitation from the White man and, conversely, the Brown man, or on application. There will probably always be exceptional occasions which, for example, can only be arranged at a university in the Western Cape. In such a case other people may be invited to attend. If we omit to invite them, they can come on application just as we shall be able to go to them. This is precisely what we are doing today. I am a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and I am proud of it. Until last year I was an elder of the church and I am proud to be able to attest that when the Mission Church opens a new church or receives a new clergyman. White or non-White, we go to that church by invitation. When this occurs we regard it as an honour and they regard it as an honour that we should come. There is no friction in such circumstances. If I go to their church again the following Sunday, it becomes silly, which the hon. member so likes to be. It then becomes an absolute farce because there is no possible excuse for it. That is the difference. Is the hon. member unable to understand that? If we have arranged something exceptional, we invite them and we treat them decently. As those people become emancipated and improve their position socially, economically and otherwise, as they develop, to that extent they will live alongside us on a different basis, but in their own areas. These facts will remain. Now the hon. member or the hon. member over there on the other side of him, who can argue a little more reasonably about the facts, must tell me that if we develop further he would like to see them having a full say in our group area. He must also tell me whether we must constantly be interfering in their area, or does he agree that this policy of the National Party at least possesses morality and honesty? The hon. the Prime Minister can at least go overseas and travel in Africa with this policy. Our hon. Prime Minister always tell us that he tries to create good relations and seek détente in Africa. He seeks it by way of separate development, because this is nothing to be ashamed of. Separate development is not something one needs to hide. It is not immoral. On the contrary, it contains every moral aspect and every grain of morality an ordinary person could want to have towards another person. This is exactly how it is in daily life with regard to the emancipation of people. When one emancipates one’s own child or a step-child, one does not share one’s personality with him nor one’s most intimate family circle. One emancipates him to enable him to have his own house and his own identity and display his own personality. If this is true of daily life between people, then it is far more true of national life in South Africa. After all, the hon. member knows and understands these things. Today I want to make the allegation that as it penetrates to our people, and as they become aware of the realities of multi-nationality and of neighbourliness with the other peoples in South Africa, so those hon. members will come over to this side. The Government’s benches will expand towards that side until they extend right to that corner on the other side. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will retain his place there if he understands well enough how to join the new parties that will be established. He is a master in that respect and I believe that he will join them. I want to predict that the men who are still young now and who will be sitting there on the gallery in 20 years time as I sat there in that time, will see one great and powerful Government side that will extend right round until the last bench. On the last few benches the whole conglomeration of parties will sit, one behind the other, possibly with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as the leader of that group. But I leave it at that.

I just want to extend my sincere sympathy to those parts of our country … Did you want to ask something else? I shall continue to discuss the subject with pleasure.

Will the Nico still be open?

The Nico will still be open, we hope. It will be open to Whites and to people (belonging to other colour groups to come on invitation and to come on application. [Interjections.] What is wrong with that? It has definitely been opened to them temporarily because they do not have similar facilities. And what of it? How long the temporary will be, I do not know. That depends on when we are able to provide them with a similar facility. That is the policy. What is the trouble now?

If it is only temporary now, where is the money to come from to build a new Nico Malan for the Coloureds?

My good friend, where does all money come from in South Africa? If we do not have the money, they come to our facilities for the time being. The fact remains that they do not have the right, because this is my area and in my area they do not have a say. He has his area and in his area I do not have a say, and my hon. friend knows this and he understands it. [Interjection.] My friend, you might as well go ahead; fortunately you are sitting behind me.

Order! The hon. member is not at a political meeting now.

Sir, I said that it was my intention to proceed to a more serious matter. I want to concern myself with those parts that have been inundated by the terrible floods in the Transvaal. Since the Vaal River has burst its banks and since even parts of the Orange River are threatening to burst their banks and cause a great deal of damage, I just want to tell the people in those regions that we are thinking about them and have the fullest sympathy with them and that we understand their difficulties, because the Lower Orange Region had a similar experience last year. We had to see our crops and our lands being washed away while we were unable to do anything about it. Sir, I want to tell the people in those afflicted areas that man is a wonderfully adaptable being. One is struck by natural disasters but one survives them and soon forgets them. In these days we feel particularly close to those people, because the water in those rivers that are now bursting their banks in the Transvaal and in the Free State are going to flow down the Lower Orange River. Sir, all we can do is hold our breaths and wait and see what is going to happen, but I want to tell those people in advance that we will be with them in our thoughts and that they can be sure that the Government will be sympathetic towards them. Having only just completed major and expensive works, on which they still owe a great deal of money, and having had virtually no income from that land, they can expect very sympathetic treatment from the Government and from the people as a whole. I thank the people and the Government for their sympathetic treatment of those people, and I want to ask my people not to lose their courage and faith.

Mr. Speaker. I get on so well with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that I would rather not clash with him, but I must say quite honestly that his explanation about the Nico Malan is only spoiling the Government’s case. The Government has taken a good decision, but the hon. member is now spoiling the matter with this excuse of temporariness and attendance by invitation. Why does he not say, as the Government should have said, “This was crass discrimination: we made a mistake and we have now rectified it”? This is what the Government should have said, and if it had said so. everyone would have praised it, but explanations of this kind only spoil the Government’s case. Then the hon. member wants to imply that Coloured people’s sovereignty will be limited to the group areas. I ask members on that side: Is that the future of the Coloured people; are they to be limited to their group areas here in the Cape Province? The hon. member on my left is a friendly person, but he really spoiled his case today when he spoke about what the Government had done in connection with the Nico Malan. There is less clarity on the Government’s policy towards the Coloured people now than there had been before he delivered his speech.

Sir, during the no-confidence debate as well as during the course of this debate, various hon. members pointed out that the Government’s policy of separate development is inconsistent with the realities of modern developing South Africa. While the Government’s plans for political development are moving in an apartheid direction, the rest of the South African society is moving in another direction. In the field of sport, in the social field, in the field of culture, in the field of education and in the important sphere of our national economy, we are in a sense being drawn closer to each other, regardless of our race or colour. Especially in the field of our national economy the policy of separate development is running into difficulties, for the good reason set out by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The fact is that hon. members opposite will have to accept one day that separate development cannot be reconciled with economic development in South Africa. Therefore, even if we are not able to convince them across the floor of the House that that policy is not going to succeed, it will be driven home to them one day by the hard economic realities of South Africa. And because that policy is going to collapse one day, I want to confine myself at this moment to saying something about the alternative policies available to all of us in South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, my time is limited, but if there is time later on, I shall be glad to answer questions.

†The hon. member for Durban Point gave us an exposition of the United Party’s federal policy. I think this House is indebted to him for having put it in a nutshell and clearly. I presume that it was neither reform nor orthodox, but centrist and I would assume that it is authoritative. The hon. member for Durban Point has given us his policy in a nutshell and with a considerable degree of clarity. As I understood him the prime objective of that policy is to create a situation in which there will be no domination of one group over the other. This seems to be the rationale behind the United Party’s federal policy. Going through the main point he made, he said that they found that there were in South Africa different, and identifiable racial communities, and that basically people lived according to their ethno-cultural identities. The concept therefore was that there were different racial communities with their separate ethno-cultural identities. There were problems and, on examining the situation, the hon. member’s commission found that as long as you had a unitary system of government it meant domination by numbers, of the majority over the minority, as he put it as long as the central Government was based upon a unitary Parliament with direct representation of the people from the bottom to the top. This was the problem as he saw it and in view of this the commission decided to recommend to his party that it should abandon the unitary concept and that it should accept the federal concept. He described this as follows—

The hon. member said that in 1972 there was a fundamental change in political thinking on the part of the United Party. He seemed to attach considerable significance to this date and to this event. I want to say that I am not with him that this was a fundamental change. I have pamphlets relating back to 1961 and to 1966 in which the United Party declared itself in favour of a race federation. I have pamphlets and statements by Mr. Marais Steyn on behalf of the United Party, saying that race federation must be based on groups and not on areas; the federal Parliament would not necessarily be sovereign. This was in 1962. Then we had the hon. member for Durban North in that celebrated no-confidence debate in which he described changes in their policy and said “it is now what it is”, and he went on to say to the Prime Minister that no change had taken place—

So, I doubt whether there is any need to suggest that there was special significance in the change which took place as the result of the report of that particular committee. The hon. member went on to describe the key problem and said—

And he then said—

So, pivotal in the thought of the hon. member—and I do not want to mislead anyone on this—is the concept of separate racial communities with ethno-cultural identities controlling their own affairs. This was in essence the protection which would be provided to racial communities in terms of the United Party’s federal policy. This is as I see it. I would like to look briefly at both the efficacy and the feasibility of such a scheme.

As expressed in practice I find this philosophy of having groups recognized for constitutional arrangements, both executive and legislative, in direct conflict with the philosophy which has been propounded for some time now by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and, to a lesser extent, by the hon. member for Edenvale. I find this in direct conflict with what these two hon. gentlemen have been saying. Here is the concept of racial division for legislative and executive purposes entrenched in the Constitution and the hon. member …

Do you not want a racial Senate?

I will deal with my policy shortly. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asks for “the removal of all discrimination based on the colour of a man’s skin; in other words colour apartheid must be buried and the colour curtain must come down in South Africa.” Colour apartheid must be buried and the colour curtain must come down in South Africa, but he says we must divide the people of South Africa on an ethnic or colour or race basis for the purpose of administration and the legislative and the executive control of their lives. I have no objection to him advocating either of these concepts, but what I want to say is that the two are in direct conflict, one with the other. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout goes further. He does not only argue that the colour barriers must come down, but he says that we must have an open society. I believe that it was unfair of one of the newspapers to say: “Sap pleit vir gemengde woonbuurte.” I do not think that the hon. member said so in so many words. But speaking to the Coloured Labour Party in South Africa, he said that the apartheid society should go. He said—

He went on in this House the other day to say—

I repeat—

And yet the hon. member for Durban Point, supported by the hon. member for Green Point, said that we must structure our society on race and colour; we must have separate group areas, separate educational institutions, separate hospitals and separate social and welfare institutions. I have no objection to this being the United Party’s policy, but I say that it is in direct conflict with the philosophy which has been propounded time and time again by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He cannot say that the colour curtain in South Africa must come down in South Africa and that apartheid must go, that individuals and societies must be free, without Government restrictions, to find their own place and then still say that we must nevertheless have constitutional provisions for seeing that peoples’ lives are regulated on the basis of ethnic, race or colour grounds.

The same thing applies as regards the hon. member for Edenvale. He tried to define what discrimination and enforced aparthheid were. He condemned group areas, separate universities, separate trade unions, separate nursing professions and separate academic associations. Yet you cannot have separate educational institutions for the various race groups and still have mixed universities. Surely, if you are going to have separate hospital and health services for Coloureds, Blacks, Indians and others it is natural that you should have separate nursing institutions and nursing associations. I am not objecting to this being the policy of the United Party, but what I do want to point out is that it is in direct conflict with the liberal, laissez-faire approach which is aimed at getting rid of colour discrimination and pulling down the colour curtain, as has been stated time and time again inside and outside this House by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Edenvale and, perhaps, some others.

What about university autonomy? They have the right to admit whom they want to admit.

If there is university autonomy, why should it be regulated on a colour basis, by a separate section of the population? Why should provision be made in the Constitution for universities to be regulated either by Coloured, Indian or White race councils?

But let us look at the protection, to the extent to which there is protection. Protection, in terms of any constitutional device, whether the United Party’s, the Progressive Party’s or the National Party’s, is limited by the powers of the councils which are being created. You cannot have greater protection than the powers which are accorded to the particular councils. Bearing in mind that the United Party’s policy says. “We reject the concept of a geographic federation: ours is a communal federation, a race federation in which we will not draw on the map of South Africa but deal with it on the basis of separate communities”, one has to ask what powers there are. The hon. member for Durban Point talked about pensions, but what have pensions to do with the ethno-cultural unity of either the White, Coloured or Indian communities? He mentioned social welfare; so we will look after the Red Cross, the Roy Scouts, the Girl Guides and 101 social welfare organizations on a compartmentalized basis in terms of a Constitution which says that groups shall be separated one from the other. The hon. member also talked about local government. Here in the Cape the hon. member for Green Point will recall how we all went to the City Hall three years ago to protest against apartheid being brought into the municipal voters’ roll. We said that as far as the Cape was concerned, every ratepayer must have a vote. Now one gathers that it is United Party policy to have separate votes and separate rolls for separate institutions. What about education? Do we not want open universities? If we do want open universities, why should they fall under the separate control of separate racial councils? I presume that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would in due course envisage some multi-racial schools and that this is a natural evolution of “the colour curtain must come down.” If there are going to be these schools, why do we try to put them into racial compartments today? Why do we want to structure our constitution on the basis of separate facial ethnic compartments when at the same time we are advocating an open society? I have not the time to deal with all the other aspects, but the report which the hon. member for Durban Point signed also listed a number of other matters which would be under the control of these non-geographic councils. These matters include traffic and roads, building services, horse-racing and betting, licensing, shop hours, cemetries, road transportation and liquor laws. What do these have to do with racial identity or with ethno-cultural activities? How do you control them if you do not have a geographic federation? How do you control roads and traffic without having a geographic federation? This is not going to work. It is not going to provide protection. What is more, it is going to entrench petty apartheid in South Africa because we are not dealing with a grand design for the future of South Africa, but with small everyday matters. If you are going to structure your constitution on race and colour as is the intention of the United Party, you are going to perpetuate race division and discrimination in South Africa.

As far as the federal government is concerned it is structured on separate voters’ rolls in which there will be a qualified franchise based on a group qualification and legislators will be elected on a group basis. Whatever formula you like to use, if there is no discrimination in pay, job opportunities and education, in a very short space of time it is understandable that group which is not White will be the dominant group within that council. I have no objection to this as far as the principle is concerned, but there is no protection such as is claimed by the United Party because this federal assembly is in due course going to take over from the White Parliament as the sovereign parliament of the country. In that parliament, which will be the dispenser of powers, there will be no protection whatsoever. I believe that this is a half-baked scheme which will do no more than preserve prejudice in South Africa, entrench racialism and race discrimination while at the same time it will not provide the protection which the United Party claims for it.

The Progressive Party adopts a different approach. It does not claim to give the absolute protection which the United Party claims it can give; it accepts that South Africa is one country and, in a constitutional sense, one nation, it accepts, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does, that there is a plural society and that there are groups, but that those groups must find their own level without dictation either by Pretoria or by the race ideology enshrined in the Government. We believe that there is enough common in South Africa, while recognizing the existence of groups, for some common bond which will bring people together in a common loyalty and a common desire to work together within a single political structure.

As far as the homelands are concerned, let me make it quite clear that if when a party like the Progressive Party were to come into power there were independent homelands, we would quite naturally have to recognize their independence. If there are other homelands which have opted for independence but which have not yet attained that status, we will ask them to reconsider their position and come back into a federal arrangement in South Africa. But where they have committed themselves and where it is their intention to continue, we will respect their wishes in this regard. What is more, we will not make the land set aside in terms of the 1936 Land Act the maximum but the minimum amount of land for a reasonable settlement. We believe that within what is left of South Africa …

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

No, I have only limited time. We believe that there should be a federal form of government in an orthodox geographic federation. That is the policy on which this party was founded. This would limit the danger of authoritarianism. This would take the government back to the people and because of the fragmented authority which is implicit in a federal system, we believe that some of the fear which people have of domination by a central authority will be removed.

With a qualified franchise.

Our policy is that sovereignty should not be vested in a White Parliament, but that sovereignty should be vested in the Constitution which should be rigid to the extent that it cannot be altered save by a two-thirds majority of both Houses, or in matters affecting the provinces, by the provinces concerned, themselves supported by a two-thirds majority. In matters affecting racial communities, their approval should be sought in a referendum.

You have time to tell us about your qualified franchise.

Secondly, there should be maximum decentralization of powers in favour of self-governing provinces, and within those provinces in favour of regional and local authorities. Thirdly, we believe that there should be the maximum separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government at all levels of government. The key factors, which we believe should be entrenched in the Constitution, would be the powers of the federal and State Governments, the powers of the legislature, executive and judiciary and perhaps, what is most important of all, the financial relationships between the federal government and the various provincial governments. One cannot merely have subsidies from the central authority. There must be a specific financial arrangement written into the Constitution and entrenched. We believe that in the self-governing provinces new boundaries should be determined on the basis of community and diversity of interests. We say that in doing this quite clearly the development which has taken place under the National Party, in relation to the homelands, will have to be one of the factors which are taken into account. None of these areas will be racially exclusive and they will all have a geographic base. We would be able to give them the really significant powers which can only be administered on a territorial basis and not on a racial basis. In the self-governing provinces, the form of government and system of representation, we realize, will have to be negotiated and will have to take into account the situation one finds when coming into power. This will have to be taken into account in any situation.

As far as the Central Government is concerned, we believe that there should be a bicameral legislature, a House of Assembly and a Senate with equal and co-ordinate powers. As far as the House of Assembly is concerned, we favour a non-racial franchise rather than a racial one. He favour a proportional system of representation rather than the exclusive winner-take-all constituency system which applies in South Africa at the moment. While one is extending the franchise from its present exclusive White elite to the people of South Africa, it will be necessary to have a phasing-in process to see that there is an orderly transition from an exclusive White situation to a multi-racial situation. The United Party has its qualification on a group basis; we believe that in this period of transition there should be qualification on an individual basis. We realize that in this system certain people will initially not qualify. Therefore we have said that 10% of the seats in this House should be set aside for people who do not qualify. We have said, further, that when the number of unqualified people—in other words those who are voting for Parliament on a limited basis—reaches 20% of the total, the voter’s roll for the unqualified voters can be phased out and in due course the qualification could fall away because the overwhelming majority of the people would in the ordinary course of events be qualified. We make no apology at all for this kind of phasing-in operation. We believe that our federal system, with its decentralization, its separation of powers and its evolutionary nature, will do much to relieve anxieties and fears and promote political cohesion and unity. In spite of this, there will still be people who will have fears and there will still be the risk of discrimination, and so we incorporate three additional features. We say that there should be a Bill of Rights which should apply at all levels and which will prevent adverse discrimination against individuals either by the executive or by the legislature. Where there are racial communities who wish to identify themselves as such for the purpose of protecting themselves, they should be free to participate in the Senate elections on that basis. Any candidate who cannot get one-fifth of the votes of the voters who do not belong to his racial community, should not be elected. We make it quite clear that no one will be forced. If any racial community does not want to identify itself for the purpose of this protection, that protection would fall away automatically. There is no compulsion: it is an offer, a permissive situation within our Constitution.

Similarly we believe that there should be no change in the Constitution adversely affecting any group, and any group should therefore have the right to reject that change at a referendum. Once again, if groups do not wish to identify for this purpose which is purely to protect them from discrimination, there is no compulsion and they are not required to do so.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, unfortunately I only have a few minutes left. There will be plenty of time for discussing this over the next three months. We believe that no constitutional proposal, whether it is made by the hon. members on my right or by the hon. members opposite, by essentially White political parties—no matter how much consultation takes place—will be able to be forced on the other racial communities in South Africa. No matter how good it is, in the present circumstances of Africa it will be unacceptable to the other racial communities unless they are brought in to work out the details of this proposal. Therefore we believe that a national convention should be called, a convention which will be representative of the various communities and the various factors in the South African community and that these peoples …

Who will call it?

Who called it last time? This House will have to call it if it is the authority, but the important thing is that there should be a convention, a meeting of people, where Black, Brown and White can feel that they together are working out the details of a proposal.

Is this your commission’s new policy?

No, this is no amendment whatsoever to our policy. I believe that what I have outlined here very hurriedly today does provide the framework within which we can get rid of race discrimination. I believe it provides the framework within which we can do what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says we must do, viz. to get rid of the colour curtain in South Africa, and I believe it provides the framework to do what the hon. member for Edenvale wishes to do. We can get rid of race discrimination and at the same time we can create a political unity and we can create both a climate and a constitution in which South Africans can work together and build a prosperous and happy South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely not rising to take part in the debate which is at present in progress on the opposite side of the House. I am rising with the specific purpose of making my modest contribution to this House—I know it will be modest in relation to reality—to demonstrate how well things are going for South Africa under the National régime. In the course of my speech I shall try to submit facts to hon. members and to indicate to them by means of figures why things are going so well for South Africa. In passing, however, I just want to say that it was quite pathetic to see an Opposition with such limited numbers being divided to such an extent that it has now become necessary for members to argue among themselves about their policy for hours on end. They do not argue about the policy of the National Party, which is crystal clear, but…

Such as the Nico Malan episode.

Everyone knows what the policy of the National Party is, for the simple reason that it is not merely advocated but also put into practice. Now we have to listen for hours to what the policy is of one party and what the policy of the other party is, where this one deviated and where the other one deviated.

Should we ask Connie Mulder or Piet Koornhof what your sport policy is?

This is really a pathetic show. But what really upsets me is that a new sickness has broken out among the Opposition, especially among the United Party. Now they suddenly want to out-do the Progressives. Now the four opposition factions are suddenly confronting one another, and one is keener than the other to eliminate the so-called discrimination.

Do you mean there is no such thing?

Yes, wait a minute, I shall still come to that matter. At this stage I just want to say that by doing so hon. members are not doing South Africa a service. On the contrary. They are doing South Africa a disservice because they are holding up so-called discrimination to the world and making a big fuss about it as though it were a terrible atrocity that was being committed in South Africa.

But it is indefensible.

There is not one of them, however, who is not guilty of discrimination himself. The hon. member for Sea Point, for example, is also guilty of discrimination. If time will permit me I should like to return to this matter later on.

I have followed this debate quite thoroughly. I have listened to what was said about economic and financial affairs, and more particularly to what was said about these matters at the start of this debate.

But you are the Minister of Transport.

Yes, but I nevertheless take an interest in these matters. At the start, while I was listening to the hon. members for Constantia, Cape Town Gardens and Johannesburg North, it became clear to me that they want to pretend that things are going very badly for South Africa. What is the truth? Exactly the opposite is true, because things are going exceedingly well for South Africa. I cannot emphasize enough how well things are going for South Africa. The hon. member for Constantia has a way of telling a sad story in a very sad way. While I was listening to his exposition of how badly things were going for South Africa, it struck me as a sad story. I just want to say that if he were chosen to play the role of Jeremiah, I think it would be an outstanding choice. He would be excellent at it. Other hon. members opposite are good at that role too.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should just like to explain to the House how well things are in fact going for South Africa. The past year, 1974, which we are referring to in the economic sphere in this debate, was an outstanding year for South Africa. What is more, the prospects for 1975 are very good as well.

In spite of the Government.

Not in spite of this Government, but as a result of this Government. On the other hand, the world economy is in a bad way. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House mentioned this and there is no doubt that in the economic sphere the rest of the world is in fact in a very bad way. Most countries of the world are having to contend with a combination of recession, unemployment, inflation, balance of payments problems and still many more factors. Attempts at international monetary reform have failed. The Committee of Twenty, did not succeed in reaching an agreement in respect of monetary reform. On the other hand, here in South Africa—I shall emphasize this repeatedly—things are going very well. In recent times we have experienced circumstances which were unprecedented in the world of today. Hon. members on the opposite side might tell me that I should not draw comparisons with other countries. When we speak about inflation, for example, we point out that the rate of inflation in South Africa is not as high as it is in many other countries of the world. But the hon. members say comparisons are odious. However, we are not living a life of isolation in this world. We are part of it. If one wants to determine how great one’s achievements are or how sound one’s position is, there is only one way in which one can do so and that is by making comparisons with other parts of the world. Now, if we compare South Africa’s position with other countries of the world, we find that South Africa is quite sound financially and economically. If it is true that South Africa is quite sound financially and economically, there must be certain underlying foundations on which that sound condition in South Africa has been constructed, even if it is not only financial and economic matters. I should, like to analyse a few factors here to sketch South Africa’s sound position in the world.

In the first place there is the growth rate we have had here in South Africa. From November 1972 to the third quarter of 1974, we experienced a strong upward1 phase in our economic cycle. We in South Africa, as a growing, developing country— I want to state clearly that we are not a developing country in the same sense of the word as is the position in France or Germany or Japan or other countries of the world—are still a developing country and we have, over the long term, had an upward trend in our productivity and in our economic cycle. Within that upward trend in our economic cycle, however, we also find what are referred to as business cycles. These go up and down. So we showed phenomenal growth during the past year, up to the third quarter of 1974, a strong upward trend in our cycle. This upward movement which we experienced is largely attributable to our increased exports and the increase in the gold price. This was followed by an increase in capital investment in South Africa. As a result of these splendid economic conditions, more machinery was purchased. More equipment was purchased and more money was spent on the construction of buildings. As a result of this the stock position in South Africa improved and there was also, as one might have expected, an increase in Government spending. Eventually there was an increase in private spending too. This is what we experienced during 1974, during this period in which, according to the Opposition, things went so badly for South Africa. During this period our real gross domestic product showed the following trends: in 1972 it showed an increase of 3,6%, in 1973, 4,1% and in 1974, viewed in the light of the economic conditions in the world, we had the phenomenal growth rate of 7% in respect of our gross domestic product. Considering world conditions, this is a particularly high figure.

Tell us about this year.

I shall come to that. I should also like to make a prediction as far as this year is concerned. Since the third quarter of 1974 we have experienced a normal downward movement in our economic cycle. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that in 1974 we experienced a golden year in the field of agriculture. We have probably never before in the history of South Africa …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Certainly.

Would the hon. the Minister agree that the restriction on the upward trend in the business cycle in this country, is quite simply, labour?

At the end of his speech the hon. member asserted that we should eliminate discrimination in the field of labour. He stated that, by so doing, we would encourage production. As though the elimination of discrimination in respect of labour would encourage production! Surely this is the biggest nonsense on earth. This is the only drum he beats, because he belongs to that party. It is not we who are colour conscious; it is they who are colour conscious. They think of nothing but colour. [Interjections.] Their entire political philosophy is based on colour.

Sir, I was dealing with our agricultural position a moment ago. 1974 was a record year. I do not believe that we have ever in our history had an agricultural year such as the one we had in 1974. In 1974 agriculture contributed two points to the increase in our gross domestic product. We expect a negative figure of one point this year, because the production figures will not be as high as they were in 1974, but, nevertheless—and this is the reply to the hon. member for Constantia—we expect a growth rate of between 3% and 4% again this year. Furthermore, we expect a greater acceleration in 1976. Sir, please allow me to quote the following extract to you from the report of the Bureau for Economic Research in Stellenbosch—

Sir, I do not have time to quote any more, but what is interesting is the following: They make a prediction here in respect of what they term “quarterly figures on an annual basis”, and their prediction for 1975—and this is again in pursuance of the question of the hon. member for Constantia—is that the increase in the first quarter of 1975 will be 4.5%, in the second quarter, 3%, in the third quarter, 2,5% and in the fourth quarter, 3,5%. In other words, it is expected that this downward trend we now have in our economic cycle will change in the third quarter and will again reflect an upward trend in order to increase the likelihood of 1976 being a better year. Sir, if we compare these conditions in South Africa with the conditions in other parts of the world, this is very revealing. The growth rate was negative in many countries of the world; in other words, their gross domestic product decreased; their position deteriorated. Last year the United States showed a negative growth rate of 1,75%. Whereas our growth rate was 7%, the United States had a negative growth rate of 1,75%. The United Kingdom had a negative growth rate of 1%. Japan had a negative growth rate of 3¼% and there are many other countries which had a low growth rate. West Germany had a growth rate of 1% and, what is more, their prospects for 1975 are particularly bad in comparison with those of South Africa.

And Rhodesia?

The hon. member can provide that figure himself. According to an estimate of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is anticipated that the combined growth rates of the United States of America, Western Europe and Japan will be only ½% in 1975. This figure represents the combined growth rates of those areas, i.e. ½% in 1975. Sir, this is pathetic when one considers that in 1974 the combined growth rates of those same countries was only approximately ¼%. The figures I have mentioned here in respect of growth rates, speak volumes for South Africa and its sound economy. It is true that the gold price has made a major contribution in this regard. In 1971 the value of our gold production was R922 million; in 1974 it was R2 560 million and the expectations are that it may rise still higher, so that we may have an income of R3 000 million from gold even in 1975. But in spite of these impressive figures in respect of gold, gold comprises only 9% of our gross domestic product, 9% in spite of those large figures. The other sectors which make major contributions are: the manufacturing sector, 23%, trade, 13% and agriculture, 8%. Those three, therefore, make a 44% contribution, while the contribution of gold is only 9%. Therefore, it is obvious that although gold made a major contribution as a result of its rising price, the progress which was made in respect of the other industries, too, must inevitably have been impressive during the past year.

The next point I want to deal with is inflation. I think that it is right and that it befits us to see inflation against the background of the economic growth here in South Africa. One cannot examine inflation in isolation. One also has to take into account the conditions of growth in South Africa. I think that any charges that are levelled by that side in respect of inflation must be weighed up against our growth performance during the past year. Of course, inflation is an evil. It is a tremendous evil, and not one of us wants it. It is also correct to say that we are combating it with all the means at our disposal, and it would be untrue to say that the Government is not doing everything in its power to combat inflation. But—and we have to emphasize this—price increases in South Africa, or inflation, or call it whatever you will, have not caused the standard of living in South Africa to drop. On the contrary. Notwithstanding rising prices and inflationary conditions the economy of South Africa has been sound enough to leave our people better off than they were before. In other words, wages and salaries have risen more rapidly than the rate of inflation has done up to the present time. It is true that the purchasing power of money has decreased, but the real income of the people has increased. In the non-agricultural sector, i.e. exclusive of agriculture, the real salaries and wages per White worker have increased. In 1973 there was an increase of 1 %, after provision had been made for inflation. In 1973 there was increase of 1%, and from the first to the third quarter of 1974 there was an increase of 2,1% in the real income of our people, excluding the agricultural sector. I have been speaking about Whites, about White workers. The figures for the non-White workers were far more impressive. Over the same period, i.e. in 1973, the real income of the non-Whites increased by 6,4%; in other words, their standard of living rose by 6.4%. In the first three quarters of 1974 it rose by no less than 9%. These figures apply to the non-White workers outside the agricultural sector. The real increase in respect of all races rose by 1,6% in 1973, and by 4% in 1974. Profits also rose. I think one will find throughout that profits also rose and that income derived from profits rose to a larger extent than did the rate of inflation. But inflation is a worldwide phenomenon. We cannot escape it. From December 1973 to December 1974 the U.S.A, experienced a rate of inflation of 12,2%, the United Kingdom, 19,1%, Italy, 25,3% and Belgium, 15,7%. I know the figures have already been mentioned here, Sir, but in order to substantiate what I am trying to prove I unfortunately have to repeat them. Even in Switzerland and West Germany the rates of inflation were material, i.e. 7.6% and 5,9%, respectively. But what is illuminating, is the fact that the wholesale price index figure in the rest of the world, in countries which are our trading partners, was no less than 28% in respect of our imports. The wholesale price index in the United States of America rose by 20,9%, in the United Kingdom by 28% and in Japan by 17%. And our imports cost us 28% more than they had cost us the previous year. That is why we can say that we, being one of the important trading countries of the word, have imported inflation. Internally, too, we have factors which contributed towards the higher rate of inflation, factors which we cannot avoid. For example, we have the higher wages that are being paid to the non-Whites to narrow the wage gap. No one objects to that, but it is inflationistic. Of course it is inflationistic to pay higher wages for social reasons and not for reasons of productivity, greater productivity. From the nature of the case it is inflationistic and we have to take it into consideration. In the light of these circumstances, we did particularly well this past year to be let off with a rate of inflation of approximately 14%.

Another factor which is of major importance, is the balance of payments. What is our position in respect of our balance of payments, particularly in comparison with the rest of the world.

What would our position have been without gold?

Yes, what would our position have been without gold? I have just indicated to the hon. member what a major role gold plays, but there are other factors as well which help to make our balance of payments look less unattractive. One of these is the fact that we are dependent on the use of oil to such a limited extent. The 28% by which our imports rose during the past year is largely attributable to the tremendous rise in the price of oil. In spite of that our balance of payments position is one of the soundest in the world. During 1974 we did indeed have a deficit of R800 million on our current account, but that is not much when we relate it to the tremendous growth rate we had. From the nature of the case, the high growth rate we experienced means that there were increased imports, that capital goods, raw materials, etc., were purchased at a faster rate than before. And it is in fact healthy for South Africa, as a developing country, to have a limited deficit on the current account, particularly when it goes hand in hand with an inflow of capital, as we did in fact experience during the past year. During the past year we had an inflow of capital amounting to R700 million. In actual fact our gold and domestic reserves decreased by only R70 million during the past year. This is insignificant when one relates it to our growth rate and particularly when one compares it with other countries of the world. Just look at the other countries of the world, at their balances of payments. During the past year the following countries showed a large deficit on their current accounts: The United States of America showed a deficit of 3¼ milliard dollar, the United Kingdom, a deficit of 9 milliard dollar, France, a deficit of 7¼ milliard dollar and Japan, a deficit of 4¾ milliard dollar. Italy showed a deficit of no less than 8¼ milliard dollar. And what is more, expectations are—I have the figures of the predictions here—that the anticipated deficits will more or less be of the same order as those which were experienced during the past year. At present the rand is regarded as one of the strongest currencies in the world whereas, besides the German mark and the Swiss franc, which are relatively strong, there are various other currencies which are candidates for devaluation today.

Apart from other considerations, which I do not have the time to mention now, there is employment as well. I think employment is the most important consideration for any country in the world today. In South Africa we have certain labour problems. We have always had them. I am thinking of the shortage of skilled labour. Recently the mining industry, too, has been experiencing certain problems. In the field of labour, however, South Africa is a paradise in the world—nothing less than that. There is no unemployment in South Africa and there is peace and calm in the sphere of labour. Who will deny this? Does the hon. member, who is so fond of interjecting, want to deny this? What is the position in other countries of the world? In the United States of America 74 million are unemployed today, i.e. 8,2% of the labour force. In Japan no fewer than 1 000 000 are unemployed. Compare this with South Africa. The official unemployment figure for December 1974 was 8 700, or ½% of the labour force. According to all international standards this is regarded as no unemployment at all. Our problems are limited, especially when viewed in the light of the tremendous economic growth we have experienced recently. Things are going far better for us than for many other countries in the world in the financial and economic spheres. However, these things have not come about on their own, but have come about as a result of the sound domestic policy laid down by the Government of the day. Hon. members opposite may speak to their hearts’ content about discrimination which allegedly has to be eliminated. By doing so they are doing South Africa a disservice rather than a service. The hon. members opposite may fight to their hearts’ content about their policy, but all that fighting will be of no avail for they will not come into power. This Government will govern the country for the next quarter of a century or more. All the stories they are dishing up and the arguments they are having about whose policy is what, will not help them at all. It will be this Government which will govern this country with a policy which, firstly, is based on the maintenance of the identity of the various ethnic groups and, secondly, is intent on eliminating friction in South Africa wherever it might be present. This Government will continue with that policy and not only will it develop fine and sound economic conditions in South Africa but it will also ensure peace and calm for all the population groups of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have been allowed a few brief moments to enter this debate, a debate which I had not intended to enter. However, to allow the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to go by unanswered, I believe, would in effect be a confirmation of his words.

If I could say from friend to hatchet-man, I would have expected a speech like that from the hon. member for Simonstown, but not from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He says that there is no such thing as a reformist group. Yes, he was correct. There was no constitution, no membership and no formal meetings, but there were large numbers of people, some of whom are still in the United Party, who thought and believed and who were inspired by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] He says that he was never a member. That is right; he was never a member of a formal organization. He merely inspired the movement and encouraged the people with the ideas which he had. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has only a few minutes at his disposal. Hon. members must please afford him the opportunity of making his speech.

The hon. member nurtured and helped build up the pressures which led to the explosion of last week. Of course, the hon. member was not always in full agreement with what happened. There were differences of tactics and strategy. Sometimes some people would prefer to talk and other do. Here, however, is someone who, more than anyone, persuaded some people—myself included— that the United Party is no vehicle for change in South Africa, that it is functus officio.

Here is a member who, among others, correctly persuaded us that under its present leadership the United Party is destined for the pigeon-holes of political history. It has been said that there are no differences of principle and yet we have a member who believes, as I do, that while principles may appear good in print, and while some of the causes fought in the United Party may have been won, principles mean nothing if they are not believed in and if they are not unequivocal. While we have disputes and differences, and different interpretations relating to federalism, group areas and even the definition of discrimination, these principles are not even worth a row of beans. It has been said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that there is no reason for the Reformists. Perhaps that is correct because it is true to say that one cannot reform a corpse. The hon. member says that no one has been put out of the United Party because of their political attitudes, and I ask: who believes this? Who believes that the political attitudes of the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Simonstown are even remotely the same? The truth is that for over a year there have been members of the United Party—who will today admit it —who have been devoting their time to getting rid of certain other members. They failed as far as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is concerned. Perhaps he is politically somewhat more canny than others of us. [Interjections.] I wish to say only that it is easy enough, and requires little courage, to start a revolution, but it is another thing to face the consequences and see it through.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down is to be forgiven for his jealousy of the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is within the United Party and not leading his group. They must indeed be in a serious position if they are pleading still for the hon. member, who stated his position so clearly and admirably this afternoon, to associate himself with a breakaway group of which they are members. I have been in politics quite a long time. I have been in this House nearly 27 years. In all that time I have never known a party to break away or be formed in respect of which there was such universal agreement in the Press and on the part of political correspondents that it had no future. The entire debate seems to be asking: Who is to swallow them? That is the only argument that is going on. Let me tell the House who is going to swallow them. They will be swallowed by the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Houghton. They are going to swallow them into the Progressive Party.

Very indigestible.

I wonder, however, whether they are going to succeed in digesting them.

It is like swallowing a porcupine.

The hon. member has said that there were no differences in respect of aims and principles. That is correct. There were no differences in respect of aims and principles. Already, however, they are trying to manufacture differences to justify their existence and give themselves an identity of their own. I have no doubt that they will persuade themselves in due course that there are differences, just as I have no doubt that they will persuade themselves in due course that they have enough common ground with the Progressive Party to sit with them and fight with them in the future.

It was interesting that the hon. member for Sea Point should have chosen today to outline the policy of his party. Obviously he tried to make it as attractive a piece of bait as he could to the people who are sitting on the one side of him and whom he hopes to attract into his spider-web. It was rather amusing to listen to him because he too is wooing the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Has he no confidence in his own powers of leadership? [Interjections.] If he is without confidence himself, there is the hon. member for Yeoville who might well be at his disposal or he might go into the business world and get his former colleague, Dr. de Beer, to come along and give them a lead in the future. What was so interesting was his attempt to show that the removal of discrimination based on colour would not be achieved under the federal policy of the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the colour curtain must come down. What he meant by that was that discrimination on the grounds of colour must cease. Discrimination on the grounds of colour will cease under the federal policy of the United Party. Despite all the hon. gentleman has said he is still faced with a Senate, an Upper House, which is going to be based on the different racial groups.

You do not understand it.

The hon. gentleman says that I do not understand it. All I can say is that I have read the report of the Molteno Commission on many occasions and I believe that I understand it perfectly. Perhaps the commission which was appointed under the hon. member for Rondebosch will make things clearer in due course. After what we have heard this afternoon, one wonders whether that commission has any function at all because here the hon. member has come along and he still has tied around his neck that qualified franchise which is like a millstone on the South African political scene as he well knows.

What about yours?

He does not sneak only of the franchise but of a federation based on geographic units. Do hon. members realize that each of those geographic units will be a little bit of South Africa in microcosm? Such units will solve absolutely nothing because they will find that in virtually every one of those geographic units, as in South Africa, that the Blacks will be in the majority. He has no answer to that problem otherwise than his qualified franchise which he knows is not an answer itself.

We also had some words from the hon. the Minister of Transport who seems to be thinking back with longing to his days as Minister of Economic Affairs.

With a bit of nostalgia.

Yes, with a bit of nostalgia. He told us that the policy of his party was so clear that there could be no confusion about it at all. I seem to remember that when one hon. Minister was asked about the sports policy of the Nationalist Party during the last election he said: “I am afraid I cannot tell you; I have not seen Piet Koornhof this morning.” [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I know you will not allow me to discuss sport in view of the motion that is still on the Order Paper, but it does seem as if there is a little confusion between the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation and the hon. the Minister of the Interior as to exactly what their sports policy is.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he has done his best to paint a picture of a prosperous South Africa, a South Africa that is doing extremely well, but he has not convinced this House that the cost of living burden being borne by the man in the street need be as great as it is. It is excessive in the light of the circumstances at the present time and it is proof that the Government is falling down on its job. He has used selected figures, he has tried to persuade us that inflation was imported, he has tried to minimize the effect of the increase in the gold price, but the one thing of which he has not persuaded the ordinary man in the street is that the latter should have such a hard time as he is experiencing at present under this Government.

The internal battles fought last week in the United Party and in the Opposition ranks have created a good deal of dust. This may have led to a certain loss of political perspective. Therefore I believe I owe it to the House and to the country to state in unambiguous terms where the United Party stands, where we stand in relation to the Government and where we stand in relation to the aims and principles of the United Party itself. Let me say that the short answer to that is that we stand exactly where we stood before. Perhaps I should expand a little on that. In doing so, I think I should say that, as far as the Government is concerned, we are highly appreciative of the steps taken towards detente by the hon. the Prime Minister. Our pleasure is all the warmer and more exuberant not in spite of the delay attendant upon such steps being taken, but perhaps because of it. We have waited for nearly a quarter of a century for something like this to happen. We have waited for nearly a quarter of a century for just such a beginning. Now that the beginning has been made, we are all the more impatient to see the fruits of it. We are impatient because every day that passes means less time for South Africa to ensure its safe passage into a new future. I want to say straightaway that our appreciation will show itself in continued support for every move on the part of the Government to do, inter alia, two things. The first is to remove discrimination based purely on the colour of a man’s skin and to remove such discrimination from our Statute Book, and the second is to re-educate the people of this country to accept a more fair and more just society at every level in South Africa. I want to say that until steps of that sort are taken, there is going to be no real substance in the Government claim of having achieved détente either at home or abroad. On the contrary, I want to warn the Government that there will be grave disillusionment and more determined hostility than we have yet known in South Africa unless those steps are taken.

Over the past few weeks there has been further evidence of growing contact with Africa. There has been evidence released of booming trade with Africa. There have been visits by African trade delegations. Diplomatic contacts with Zambia have become public knowledge. News of the hon. the Prime Minister’s visit to Liberia have been released. Nevertheless, I want to assure hon. members opposite that, from what little I know about human beings and about Africa itself, particularly in the climate of Africa today, these moves, whether they are in the field of cementing trade agreements or broadening diplomatic contacts, are going to fall on very stony ground indeed once foreigners of colour begin to move freely and frequently on the South African scene. Such contacts are not easily going to survive brushes with our absurd petty apartheid laws and practices which by world standards have been very little ameliorated as yet by the initiatives taken by this Government. Something much more fundamental is necessary. A fundamental change in the philosophy of this Government in respect of this issue is required. Much more will have to be done than what this Government has already done in respect of our own Blacks. They are much less interested in how Nigerians, for instance, are treated at the Carlton Hotel than they are interested in how they themselves live in Soweto or how they are treated in the cities, offices, factories, buildings and public places of this country.

It seems to me that three things are necessary. Firstly, discrimination on the grounds of colour alone will have to be removed from our Statute Book. Secondly, there must be an end to compulsory segregation and compulsory integration; neither must exist in South Africa. Thirdly, all race groups must have an effective share in the government of the country. Those are the fundamental things that we have got to accept if we are to resist the charges that are made against us of “baasskap”, domination and discrimination, charges levelled so readily against South Africa under this Government and so harmful to harmonious race relations in this country. Nobody on that side of the House can deny that this Government discriminates statutorily against our Black and Brown people in the labour field, against Black women in the urban areas, against all people of colour in the social field. No one can deny that this Government’s policy in respect of the political rights of the Coloured and Indian people is still “baasskap”, domination, and that in spite of all the charming talk of Cabinet committees and consultation at that level.

Recently there has been much talk of the position in the Other Place. Would it be too much to suggest to this Government that where Senators are to be appointed for their special knowledge of Coloured and Indian Affairs, or their special knowledge of Bantu affairs, people of colour should be appointed to sit in the Senate and give the Senate, the Other Place, the benefit of their advice? That would be a gesture of goodwill that would have far-reaching effects throughout South Africa and throughout the whole continent of Africa.

I said that we would show appreciation for steps that the Government took in the right direction. At the same time I want to warn that we are going to show our impatience at the lack of understanding of the depth of change that is needed and at the slowness of the rate of change and at the backsliding that is always in evidence to placate the verkramptes on the other side of the House in the ranks of the hon. the Prime Minister’s followers.

I hear you.

The hon. gentleman hears me. Let us take the Nico Malan Theatre as an example. What happened? We all know the story. The Government gave an open permit for all races at all times and great expectations were aroused. There had been the speech of the hon. the Minister of Defence at his Cape Congress in which he made most enlightened noises. Even Rapport of 2 February expected the theatre to be completely open. Die Burger here in Cape Town expected that “open” would mean “open”. Then came the let-down. It was promptly defended in a halfhearted sort of way by Die Transvaler on that very day. Then came the reversal under pressure from the Government or perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Defence, we are not sure which. What about the harm that was done in the meantime by this shilly-shallying? Internally the harm is serious. It was well summed up in the leading article of Rapport on Sunday. This is what they said—

Sir, that was the harm done internally. But what about the harm done outside South Africa? What about the harm done in respect of other countries in Africa? What about the harm done in respect of the countries of the Western world whose diplomats will be reporting back to them as to what the situation was? What about the harm. Sir, that is still going to be done by verkramptes on that side of the House grumbling at the final decision that was taken? Mr. Sneaker, there is another example concerning what appears to be a statement by the hon. the Minister of the Interior—

Sir, the world knows what trouble those notices have caused South Africa. Can a responsible Minister make a statement like that at this time? Here the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, the possible crown prince of the Government party, makes a statement of that kind at this time. Why? Because there is a by-election on. Sir, is this not the height of irresponsibility? Let me give another example. For years we pleaded with the Government for the abolition of job reservation. Despite the small number of people who are involved, the Government has steadfastly refused to give way and they have continued to justify job reservation theoretically. But more and more exemptions are granted and in many trades the exemptions are the rule rather than the exception. Sir, a short while back job reservation for Coloureds in the building industry on the platteland was done away with. As far as I know, everybody welcomed it except Mr. Gert Beetge of the Bouwerkersbond. Everybody welcomed it because for years these people had been doing skilled work in the building trade in our rural areas because there were no Whites to do the job. Sir, why did we have to wait so long for this relaxation, and why is it only in the rural areas? Hon. members opposite know what a shortage there is of skilled artisans in the building trade. Sir, the Government is having to make changes today, but they would be far less painful and would cause far less trouble amongst their own people if they were more logical in their actions and if they prepared their people properly for what they know has got to come in due course.

There is another example. Sir. There was a debate on labour here last week on a private member’s motion, and it was quite clear from the speeches of certain hon. members opposite that they would not under any circumstances consider trade union rights for Blacks in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister, unless I am misinformed, has agreed that this is one of the matters that will be discussed by homeland leaders and others connected with labour in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that a change is going to have to come sooner or later. Has the time not come. Sir, for him to prepare his people for that sort of thing? Otherwise we are going to have the sort of speeches that we had from the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and others last week on this issue and we are going to have a wall of prejudice to overcome when the changes have to be made. Surely, Sir, it is common cause amongst all parties in this House that South Africa must deliberately and systematically divest itself of statutory discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. Not only is it accepted as a general principle, but it has become almost an international commitment, openly and irretrievably stated by this Government overseas. On its fulfilment not necessarily and obviously not in a day, but systematically and with deliberate intent, depends the conclusion of real detente in our future relations with Africa and with the world. On it also depends our hopes for a peaceful and prosperous future in our own country. On it depends the achievement of that greater South Africa which is our true destiny. Sir, as political parties we have disagreements, some of them fundamental, about the political method and the constitutional consequences of non-discrimination, but surely we are all convinced of one thing, and that is that progress must be quick and that it must be visible. It must be seen to be done. Now, let us be realistic about this and recognize that quick and visible progress is most urgently needed, and that it will be most readily accepted in those situations where the most economically and educationally advanced people of all races have already become interdependent. We have seen this in our consultations with the leaders of the homelands and the various ethnic communities in this country. We have seen it in growing co-operation within the higher technical institutions, the higher councils, the higher services; we have seen it successfully implemented in our national airways and soon we shall see it, I hope, being successfully implemented in the Nico Malan complex. It already works well in certain private fields, in the professions and in business. I believe it is important that these areas of goodwill should now be extended. I believe that there would be three benefits which would flow from that.

Firstly. I think we will be giving proof that race and colour discrimination is not fundamental to the South African way of life and that it can in fact be discarded as fast as the cultural gap closes. I think that is the first advantage. I think the second advantage is that we should be removing the most acute and dangerous area of frustration by ensuring that all civilized men may enjoy the amenities to which their personal achievements entitle them. I believe, thirdly, that we should be creating standards at the highest levels which will serve as a living example to those who are still unwilling to discard the rigid and outmoded prejudices of the past. Those are three reasons why I believe that progress must be rapid and that it must be visible.

Sir, I want to suggest to the Government in all sincerity that a striking advance in this field could now be made if the Government was prepared to restore the residential area of District Six as a prestige area for the Coloured people of the Cape.

Hear, hear!

It is not my intention to embarrass the Government in any way. I believe there are few situations in which so significant an advance could be made at so little political and economic cost to the Government itself. What have I in mind? I have in mind the redevelopment of this area—it is already clear that the slums and the poverty are the result of neglect in the past—into a new residential, professional and skilled craftsmen’s district which could become one of the showpieces of South Africa. There are thousands of members of our Coloured community with professional and technical occupations which require them to be in close touch with the centre of the city and its sophisticated markets. They need to be conveniently in touch with our urban institutions, with business, with their suppliers and those engaged in allied crafts and trades. They need to be in touch with each other and to be so in a place where their highest economic aspirations can be realized and higher social standards maintained. The purpose of this prestige Coloured residential area would not be to detach the Coloured leaders from their own people, but to provide a focal point of achievement for their entire community. It is one of the tragedies of our group areas that there is no adequate residential provision for those successful and professional leaders who wish to emancipate themselves from the poverty of their corresponding social environment. The upliftment of the Coloured people cannot succeed if the achievements of the few, the higher achievements of the few, are forever diluted by the lower standards of the many. Sir, I believe a project of this kind could be a symbol. It could be much more than that. It could symbolize the potential attainments of the Coloured people. It could symbolize the willingness of the White people to recognize those potential attainments and to respect them. It could create a new dimension in race relations, because it would provide real evidence to all those communities who must forever remain part of our plural society in South Africa that within the diversity of South Africa there is room for generosity, for dignity and for hope for each community in this country. I want to urge the Government most earnestly to re-evaluate all the special considerations that apply to District Six. I believe that this single act of imagination and generosity could do wonders for the policy of détente, not only in international affairs, but in South Africa itself.

These are internal matters which I have mentioned. I have indicated in previous debates in this House that we are impatient also at the dimness of vision of the Government in regard to its task in Africa. That ground was covered in a previous debate when I mentioned things like a migrant workers’ charter, the question of power, economic co-operation and transport, and I do not propose to cover that area again. However, while the Government still stands in the field of race relations as we have indicated in this amendment, for “baasskap”, domination and discrimination, we stand for policies which, put in a nutshell, can be expressed as the elimination of discrimination and the putting of differentiation to work in the interests of the greatest possible contentment and security of every South African, whether he be White, Black or Brown.

You cannot get that into a nutshell.

The hon. member should not be so unambitious. I want to show him in a moment how to get it into a nutshell.

One can put his head into a nutshell.

First we must be clear as to what we mean by “discrimination” and what we mean by “differentiation”. I know it is perhaps difficult for us to talk about discrimination because we are not at the receiving end. I do not think we understand what it is to be discriminated against and I do not think we will ever understand it completely, but there are many examples. What I want to get clear is that you cannot equate discrimination with differentiation. Differentiation is the acknowledgment of the existence of a difference which for instance nature has decreed shall exist between people. There is a difference between men and women, there is a difference between the various groups in South Africa, the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians and it can be generally accepted that there are physical differences.

You are learning.

Yes, I am learning. That is differentiation, but that does not imply discrimination. Discrimination only arises when there is an action, a decision, which treats one of the differentiated groups in a different way from another to its disadvantage—that is discrimination. There is differentiation between men and women; there is no discrimination unless women are not allowed into the clubs to which men go—that is discrimination. However, it is quite different from differentiation I want to make it perfectly clear that as far as the United Party is concerned—here I want to help the hon. member for Piketberg—our policy does differentiate. Our federal scheme, which is the pivot on which all else hangs, is a federation of different communities and why is it so? So that the minorities, such as the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, shall always be secure and so that they and the Blacks shall enjoy all that to which their birthright as South Africans entitled them. While differentiation is employed at a constitutional level as a means to secure the political rights of all, there is no discrimination. The stability of our political institutions has to be maintained by differentiation, the ascendancy of civilized values, but discrimination against individuals is not part of our policy. I want to make it clear that that is the essence of our federal scheme. To assist the hon. member for Piketberg again. I have drawn up a brief summary of what I believe to be the most important practical aspects of United Party policy at this time. They are practical issues which I believe are topical and on which the party’s stand should be clear and unambiguous.

Firstly, we believe that our federal policy is the only solution to the problem of protecting the rights of minorities—by that I mean the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians—and sharing political power and responsibility and economic wealth with all races in South Africa.

Do you look upon the Whites as a minority in their own country?

Of course they are. They are outnumbered by the Coloureds and the Indians to begin with, or they will be very soon. Take the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Africans and one will see that they outnumber the Whites. Not even taking the homelands into consideration, there will still be more people of colour in the rest of South Africa than Whites. The second principle is that we will respect the sovereignty of homelands which have become independent when we return to power and we will permit those on the brink of independence at such a time to determine for themselves what they want. We will actively promote the economic development of the homelands by whatever means and at whatever cost sound economic policy employed in their interests dictates. This includes the question of land purchases which may well exceed the limits laid down in the 1936 legislation. Thirdly, we believe in a just and fair society aiming at the removal, within the federal framework, of all discrimination on the basis of skin colour alone, but allowing for personal choice in that people who do not want to mix and those who do will both be provided for. We believe that the Immorality Act should be removed from the Statute Book as quickly as possible. We aim at economic growth as a priority for the future, not as an end in itself, but as a means to raising the standard of living of all our people. We believe in the specific rejection of job reservation which involves the logical consequence that some Whites may have to work under the direction of non-Whites as they are doing today under this Government in certain fields. In the labour field also we believe in the extension of all training and employment opportunities now enjoyed by the more advanced group to all race groups, the right of Black workers to join or to form legally recognized trade unions as well as to make use of the works committee system where desired. We also believe in the realistic application of the principle of equal pay for equal work and responsibility. Our education policy is aimed at free and compulsory schooling for all races. We believe urban Blacks must be accepted as permanently resident in the Republic of South Africa and given all the necessary amenities including the right to own their own homes and businesses in their own urban areas and to a civilized family life.

With regard to the Coloured community we believe that our federal policy will afford them full citizenship and autonomy within their own community. Beyond that there is full freedom for the White and the Coloured communities to develop a closer association in all matters of common interest and, if it is the eventual desire of both communities, to merge their rights and interests, and to the extent that both communities agree, to share their powers and responsibility within a single legislatie assembly. We believe that sportsmen at all levels, through their elected bodies, should run their own affairs and determine questions of membership, the selection of teams and participation in voluntarily constituted leagues and competitions. We believe in the furtherance of the ideal of true equality between the Afrikaans and English languages and cultures. We uphold the power and the right of our courts to protect civil liberty. We reaffirm the principle of the freedom of the Press and freedom of association, and are determined to uphold this. We believe in the maintenance of a strong Defence Force, but that our greatest security lies in binding the loyalty of all races in love of South Africa. We look to strengthening South Africa’s ties with the State of Capricorn African through mutually agreed bonds of friendship and mutual aid. That is the credo of this party. Those are the things we stand for and those are the things that those who join us will have to accept unequivocally.

Join you?

Yes, join us. May I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the door is open if he accepts these principles unequivocally, with the addition of one further aspect. He must recognize the importance of consultation at all levels in the evolution of policy in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that I have suggested to him before that although a lot of consultation is taking place in South Africa at the present time, it is high time for that consultation to be institutionalized. That is why I suggested the formation of what I called a Council of State, something like the Council of Ministers operating in the European communities at the present time, in which there could be consultation to seek agreement in all matters of common concern. I suggested that such a body should not take the place of any existing Governmental body, nor have the power to conflict with any such Governmental body. I did suggest, however, that it could evolve by mutual consent and that it would be purely advisory in character. Its object should be to seek out common ground and to define the common purpose. Its object should be to advice and not to instruct. It would be an advance, from the present sporadic consultations between the Government and leaders of individual communities, to a new stage of regular consultations between the leaders of all the communities. Let us make a beginning by talking together in an institutionalized body.

Why does charity not start at home? Talk to your own people.

I have no trouble talking to my own people and I have no trouble talking to the hon. the Prime Minister. However, I know what difficulty the hon. gentleman has in talking to the hon. member for Waterberg and I know what trouble he is going to have reconciling the views of the Minister of Sport and Recreation and those of the Minister of the Interior.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 85.

Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps not expect me to reply to all the political developments which have taken place during the course of this debate. I am, of course, referring to the hon. the Opposition. One surprise followed another in such rapid succession that one would hardly keep up. I also want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all kindness that there is no need for him to be concerned about our policy aimed at relaxing tension. Nor is it necessary for him to be concerned about our détente policy in Africa and Southern Africa. As I understood him, he had certain reservations. I think what the hon. the Prime Minister has already achieved in this field is of such a spectacular and far-reaching nature that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do well to leave this matter in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister. I also do not think he need be greatly concerned about our race relations policy. Our policy is based on separate development and we are in the process of implementing that policy consistently every day of the week. We shall continue in this manner, and I think South Africa is in very safe hands with this Government and this Prime Minister in power. Hon. members referred to various matters in this debate. Perhaps I may confine myself to the economic and financial matters which were raised. I want to convey my sincere gratitude to everyone on both sides of the House for the kind and encouraging sentiments they addressed to me in regard to my appointment to the post I am holding at present. I can assure them that I am greatly appreciative of their kindness and consideration. Unfortunately I cannot mention everyone by name, but hon. members will allow me to say to my old friend, the hon. member for Paarl, that I find it gratifying to see that he has managed to reach the second best school in the country. I wish to thank my hon. friends on this side of the House for the interest they displayed in this debate, and I want to congratulate them on the contributions they made.

I want to turn my attention to the hon. members of the Opposition, and I want to start off immediately by referring to the hon. member for Constantia.

†I should like to congratulate him on his appointment as chief spokesman for his party on finance. I am looking forward to some good tussles with him in this important field. As far as I am concerned I shall try to deal with the merits of the issues before us in what I hope will be a constructive and amicable manner. The hon. member for Constantia began with what I think was just a preliminary skirmish when he started by asking me why I had not given him far more information. He asked me why I had not said whether there would be a surplus or deficit for the financial year ending 31 March. Over the years a certain tradition has been built up in these matters and I shall certainly try to maintain that tradition. I must therefore remind the hon. member that it is simply not customary to go into details of that kind in the Part Appropriation debate.

Of course the main point of his attack has been inflation. We know that inflation is world-wide and that it is running rampant. No country in the world has been able really to combat it effectively. We know that the inflation in South Africa is certainly higher than we wish it to be. However, we are constantly dealing with it, taking whatever measures we can to counteract it. I must remind the House that our policy is clearly a policy of countering inflation without at the same time stifling a substantial rate of economic growth. That has been our policy for some considerable time and certainly is still our policy today. That is the position against the world background, which is indeed sombre. Today many of the countries of the world are in a state of recession and the term “recession” is being applied more and more even to the powerful United States. All over the world we find falling growth rates and unemployment—which we have heard of in this debate—on a scale which we probably have not seen since the years of the Great Depression. I can just remind the House that unemployment has risen by more than one million in the nine countries of the European Common Market over the past year. That is the sort of background against which we in South Africa are conducting our economic affairs. I believe that we have indeed succeeded, where we have propounded our policy very clearly, because although our rate of inflation is very high—I do not dispute it—it still remains one of the lowest in the world. The facts are there to prove it. What is more, unlike practically every other country in the world, we have succeeded in maintaining what amounts to virtually the highest real growth rate of them all. I believe therefore that within the clearly defined ambit of our policy we have indeed succeeded remarkably well. I want to remind the House that the consequence of the high growth rate which we have maintained in this country, is that our gross national product per capita—that is per head of the population, men, women and children— has risen by no less than 6% in the past two years. That is the real overall measure of the rise in living standards in this country for the whole population. It has increased by 6% in two years which, as anybody will say, is an exceptionally high rate of increase. I want to say again that, despite that, the Government is constantly looking at this evil of inflation and we are tempering its harmful effects wherever we can. We do employ price control on a limited scale in an endeavour to control the prices of basic necessities but we do not want to hamstring the whole economy by applying price control throughout, and nation-wide. If we wanted to, we could ofcourse stop this inflation. We could simply apply price control and wage control right through the economy; we could freeze profits and dividends, and we could stop all further issuing of credit. In other words, we could even restrict credit beyond the present level. We could take all these negative and extremely far-reaching measures but I believe that, although in this way we would stop inflation, we would thereby halt the economy in its tracks in the process, and that is certainly not our policy, because we want to ensure a rising standard of living for a population that is increasing probably as rapidly as that of any country in the world today. I mention that and want to go further and point out that, apart from applying this limited measure of price control, we are paying out large amounts in subsidies. We pay subsidies on bread, on dairy products such as butter, on maize and on certain of the commodities that go into the production of fertilizers. We do so in order to keep down the costs to the public of those basic necessities. In addition we have been raising social pensions every year for I do not know how many years in an attempt to alleviate the hardships of inflation experienced by pensioners and those who are living on fixed incomes. Beyond that, we have been endeavouring for a long time now to build up a forum of interested parties such as producers, financiers, consumers and workers, a joint committee of such people under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Commerce, in order to discuss these problems constantly to see if we cannot find ever more effective measures. The hon. member for Constantia made a very interesting remark. He said in the course of his speech that there had been a lot of talking on the subject of inflation. Well, I think that that is a very good thing because inflation is a very intractable problem. If ever a case warranted saying quot homines tot sententiae I think this is it. At the beginning of August last year my distinguished predecessor called a meeting in Cape Town of 70 or 80 of the top financiers, industrialists, labour union people, economists, and others. It was a very representative gathering. For one full day we discussed solely the issue of inflation. It is worth looking at the proceedings of that meeting. Talk about a concensus—every possible view imaginable was put forward there. I think this simply goes to show what an exceptionally difficult issue this is.

The other point is of course that we have also been trying to place a curb on the importation of oil by trying to conserve the use of fuel. Over the last 15 months oil has risen more in price than any other commodity. In that way, too, we have been endeavouring to counter the very substantial element of imported inflation. I draw the attention of the House again to the extreme importance which the Government attaches to that particular issue.

Coming back to the hon. member for Constantia, I want to say he made an interesting statement. He said that probably the majority of people was suffering as a result of inflation. We have also heard today that the salaries and wages of the lower income groups have in fact risen faster than those of the upper income groups. The non-Whites, in particular, have had the biggest wage increases over the last year or two. That being so, if the standard of living, overall, has risen by 6% in two years, it must be a statistical impossibility for the majority of people to have suffered as a result of inflation. I think that one must be careful to look at this matter from a factual point of view. He also said that inflation discouraged savings and productive investment. It is quite possible that in certain countries at certain times that may happen, but I must point out that in South Africa both savings and investments increased substantially in 1974 when our inflation was 11,6%, as an average of month to month increases. Notwithstanding this fact, both our savings and investments increased very substantially. The hon. member also quoted the Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research, I think with approval, which stated that during the fourth quarter of last year price increases had actually accelerated. I have the greatest regard for the work of this bureau and I do not wish to criticize it in any way; I think it is doing extremely valuable work. I do not think, however, that that particular statement is correct. If we look at the quarterly increase in the price index, we will find that it was 2,6% in the first quarter last year, 2,9% in the second, 4,3% in the third and 3,3% in the fourth. The rate actually declined in the fourth quarter.

The hon. member then raised a point that we have heard quite often. He said that the Government introduced a tight money policy with high interest rates. He said, moreover, that we do not have a situation where inflation is caused by excessive demand. He said that the main effect of Government policy is to dampen down investment. I want to say that I agree that there is not a great deal of demand inflation but surely the Government must be given credit for this. Surely it is the policy of the Government that has prevented that type of inflation which has played such havoc in many other countries and is still doing so at this moment throughout the world, from doing the same thing here. In relation to his point of our having introduced a tight money policy, surely, if that had been our aim we would have increased the liquid asset requirements of the banks? That would have been the most effective way to carry out such a policy, but we did not do it. We have not touched that for a long time. I want to suggest that money became tight at certain times last year precisely because bank credit to the private sector had expanded so fast. In actual fact, the annual rate in the first half of 1974 was no less than 29%. In fact, too, I want to mention that the quantity of money and of what they call near money increased by 22% in 1974, as against 23 in 1973. In other words, the position was virtually the same. There was no worsening of the money supply position in this respect. Indeed, if we look at the fourth quarter of last year, we find that the increase was 43%. That certainly cannot be classified as imposing a tight money policy. As I have said, we agree that interest rates are high but if interest rates had not been at the levels at which they have been recently, we would not have experienced the inflow of capital to this country which we have experienced. As I have said, investment increased considerably last year as well.

The hon. member for Constantia listed I think five steps which he said the Government had taken and which had specifically aggravated inflation. He talked about labour policy. This is a hardy annual. There is hardly a debate in this House in which the labour policy is not raised. We are told that this policy is wrong and that it is causing inflation. I still have to be convinced that that statement can conceivably be supported on the facts.

Then inflation is going to continue.

Surely the relaxation of labour restrictions has been an important factor in restraining inflation over the past year or two. Surely labour shortages have not been an important feature of current inflation. Where does that show? I want to suggest that we should view this matter more critically especially, too, in the light of the very great encouragement the Government had given, financially as well, to the training of labour both in technical institutions and on the job.

The hon. member also spoke in a condemnatory fashion about our policy of self-sufficiency and in that context he listed the local content programme for motor vehicles. Sir, where is this self-sufficiency as such? We are one of the greatest trading nations in the world in relation to the size of our gross annual production.

Our imports and exports amount to something like 35% or more of the value of our gross national product. We are prepared, Sir, to test our products and prices on the world markets and we are doing extremely well in the process. If the hon. member means that our policy is to put South Africa’s interests first, then I agree with him, because we are certainly doing it; that has always been our policy. Sir, in that respect I would like to come now to the local content programme for motor vehicles. The hon. member says that he was appalled that I did not accede to the request last year that the so-called two-year standstill period, which will now be 1977 and 1978, was not brought forward by two years. Sir, what are the facts? The facts are that at the end of last year the local content target was 62%, and in fact many car manufacturers had by then gone over 62%. The aim this year is to reach 64%, 66% next year, and then to have a two-year standstill period to allow the whole industry to catch its breath, as it were, and to consolidate and make further adjustments and investments for the future, which will be clearly set out in agreement with the industry.

Sir, the hon. member has overlooked the fact that when this application came to me, I referred it immediately to the Board of Trade and Industry, which in this respect and many others is the most experienced and highest qualified body to investigate such an issue. The Board of Trade and Industry, in its usual way, went into this matter most thoroughly and came to the unqualified conclusion that we should not change this programme, that it would be quite wrong, and against the best interests of this country and against the best interests of the motor trade and the motor manufacturing industry. Sir, at the same time I asked the Department of Industries, which has great experience in these matters, to make a thorough investigation. This was done, and the Department of Industries came to exactly the same conclusion.

I myself had interviews with practically every party interested in this matter. While it is true that the majority of the members of NAAMSA, the motor manufacturers’ association, did ask for an advancement of this standstill period, nevertheless very important members of NAAMSA, and big manufacturers, strongly opposed it. The motor component industry, which is a very important industry and which is independent from the manufacturers—there are some manufacturers which also make component parts, but there are many manufacturers of motor components which have nothing to do with car manufacturing as such—were unanimously against it, and they gave very sound reasons for their attitude. They have made big investments in this industry. I also spoke to the motor traders, and you will be surprised to know, Sir, how many motor traders told me that they would not support this, although there was not unanimity amongst them. Sir, this was a very thorough inquiry, and the argument that by not acceding to this request when I was Minister of Economic Affairs, I took a decision which will in fact increase inflation, is one which I simply cannot accept on the facts. As I say, we have gone into it factually and we find that that is the position.

Then the hon. member spoke about television and said he wanted an industry which was competitive and efficient, which is surely what we all want. That is why the Government has taken the greatest possible care to see that the industry is in the hands of firms which can carry out their contracts and carry out their manufacturing schedules. Sir, surely if there are six important manufacturers, one cannot say that there is no competition. There are six, all of them competing the one with the other and in the first stage, while we are waiting for the sets to be produced and put on the market on a big enough scale to meet the demand, we are allowing imports to the extent of 240 000 sets. So I think we have taken very careful note of the issues involved and we have gone out of our way to see that there is competition and efficiency. I hope the hon. member, if he disagrees with me now, will be able to substantiate his statement.

Then the hon. member came with a very interesting statement. He said the Government had been reluctant to treat the rand as a strong currency. Now, this really did surprise me. Last year we had very big imports and we allowed these imports in because on account of the very rapid rate of growth we needed capital goods on a vast scale, but our exports also rose very well indeed. The fact is, though, that on the current account there was a deficit of nearly R800 million. Surely, in those circumstances it would have been foolish to force an undue appreciation of the rand. Surely, we would simply then have discouraged exports and encouraged still more imports. I want to say that with the improvement in the balance of payments during the latter part of last year, the rand has been appreciated in fact several times, several times since June 1974. We have a policy of what we call independent managed floating of the rand whereby the rand is allowed to adjust its value by small amounts from time to time. We do not slavishly follow the dollar any more. I can remind the House that in fact the effective exchange rate of the rand is today only 11% below its level in June 1974, so that there has been practically no change. Indeed, it is approximately the same as it was before the devaluation of sterling in 1967. That is the sort of magical date which many people still take as a criterion. If you take that, the exchange rate of the rand today is virtually identical to what it was in 1967.

In relation to the dollar?

Yes, and in fact in relation to a group of currencies. That is so far as the appreciation of the rand is concerned. The rand is a very strong currency. We recognize it and I think our policy has undoubtedly made it so. I do not want to comment on the hon. member’s references to apartheid measures and ideology, which he said had a restrictive effect. I merely want to tell the House that where we have a growth rate of 7% to 8% in real terms, the Government’s other policies must surely be very correct and effective to make that possible, because no other country in the world has done it.

*No other country in the world has yet achieved this. If we have a growth rate of 8%, they still say that our policy is a restrictive one; the growth rate should have been much higher. I should very much like to know how much higher it should have been.

†Then the hon. member returned to the duties which we imposed on textiles on 20 September 1974, and he criticized us there. I just want to remind the House that the textile industry is an extremely important industry in this country, employing hundreds of thousands of people. But due to dumping and to the free importation of very cheap textile goods there was a real problem arising in this industry round about August and September last year. It was a very big problem indeed, the same sort of problem that Australia had. Australia however sat and did nothing with the result that their industry virtually collapsed to the ground, with hundreds of thousands of people becoming unemployed within a few weeks. Sir, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Labour I went into this matter very fully. We pulled in the Department of Industries and we discussed it with the Board of Trade, and in the result we imposed those duties by a tax proposal in the House, as an urgent measure by the Minister of Finance, on 20 September 1974. Now, it is perfectly true that there were certain goods on the water at that time and that we did not exempt them. We did not exempt them because we asked the Board of Trade to make a very thorough investigation of this whole issue and of all the implications of this emergency measure. I call it an “emergency measure” because I am quite sure it was. The Board of Trade immediately did that and because it is something very farreaching, the Board of Trade worked for three months on it. In December the Board of Trade came forward with its report and I should like to quote (translation)—

*That is the Board of Trade and Industries.

I want to inform the House that we are now giving attention to the recommendations and a decision will be taken within a matter of days.

†I say that it was a much more complicated issue than I think some hon. members may have realized. I am quite certain we took the right step; it was the only way to do it. We saved that industry. I should like the hon. member to see some of the letters which we received from people in that industry after that measure was taken. It was freely said that the Government saved the industry under those conditions. So, we are, in fact, handling the matter and we are going to dispose of it within the next few days.

I should like to come very briefly to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He quoted the Stellenbosch Burea for Economic Research that living standards are threatened as the economy cools; that standards of living will be seriously hit by a continuation of sharp price increases, etc. I have not been able to find that passage in the latest report of the Stellenbosch bureau. I am not quite sure from which report the hon. member took that, but I have the latest two reports and I have gone through them with some care over the week-end. However, I have not been able to find that specific passage. What I did find was this in report No. 84—

That is of 1975—

The hon. member also said that capital obtained from the gold mines ought to be used for the manufacturing industry. Surely, this has been the Government’s policy ever since 1924 when it took measures to get this country really industrialized. Surely, we have diversified ever since we have been in power and we have used capital from the mines and other sources precisely to build up the manufacturing industry. I think that is a very clear-cut case.

The hon. member also said that we should take specific measures to encourage overseas capital to come here. I want to remind the hon. member that last year we brought in a net capital in-flow of R700 million while the most difficult circumstances prevailed in the world capital market. I think that was not a bad achievement for South Africa.

I do not want to deal with his proposals about easing taxation and that sort of thing, because obviously I shall try to do that in the Budget. However, he did say that the Government ought to revise its attitude towards the blocked rand and consider removing most of the prohibitions on the movement of capital. We are constantly looking at exchange control and how to apply it. I have had proposals to abolish exchange control, but I wonder what country in the world can, under present conditions, abolish exchange control. The hon. member did not say so, but others outside this House did. Whatever restrictions We have are pretty reasonable and are certainly not discouraging foreign capital from coming here.

I would like to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said. I want to thank him and other hon. members opposite for their kind remarks towards me when they started their speeches. I think the hon. member’s whole approach can be summed up in his assertion that the Government refuses to allow South Africa to turn its resources to best possible account. How on earth do you justify that statement where your growth rate has been increasing by 7 to 8% in real terms, where the per capita growth rate has risen by 6% over two years and you have the state of affairs we see around us every day, even with your eyes only half open? Yet that is what the hon. member said. He then said that the expectation was that our growth rate in real terms will be of the order of 3 to 4% in 1975 as compared with 7 to 8% in 1974. He is not the only person to talk of a growth rate of 3 to 4%, but I think the hon. member ought to tell us whose expectation that is. Although I agree that there has been an easing off in the growth rate I cannot possibly at this moment see a growth rate of 3%. If the hon. member has an opportunity he can tell us what the source of that rather far-reaching statement is. He said that we should have done better than we have, i.e. better than a growth rate of 8%. Here, too, perhaps he will tell us in what sectors we could have raised our overall level of production by more than 8% in real terms. He does agree with Government policy that the great aims are to have sustained growth and to reduce the rate of inflation, as he put it, and makes the interesting statement that the remedial action to achieve these things is “simple”.

*He said it was easy, it was simple to contain inflation and, in doing so, bring down the rate of inflation, I have read the speech of the hon. member in Hansard with great care in order to see what the prescriptions for such simple action are.

†He gives us a six point prescription, which he puts very concisely and tersely. He says, firstly, that the Government should continue to recognize that we are part of the world capital market and should refrain from excessive interference with its workings. How on earth can we interfere with the workings of the world capital market? The world’s capital market consists of the capital markets of many countries. We have a capital market in South Africa and we do our best to keep this capital market as effective as possible. Indeed, I believe we have succeeded extremely well in doing so. Only last week, about the time the hon. member was speaking, the Reserve Bank was able to announce that it had abolished the fixed interest pattern on maturities of three years and longer. These are primary securities with a term of three years or more on which the fixed interest pattern was abolished. It means, of course, that our capital market has developed out of all recognition. It means that, whereas some years ago we were able to abolish the fixed interest pattern on maturities of less than three years, we have now been able to do it on maturities of more than three years as well. It is an extremely efficient capital market. Obviously the hon. member was meaning that we should have as small an interest rate differential as possible compared with the sources of capital abroad. In fact, he later said so. Well, we did raise our interest rates specifically in order to make it possible to attract capital from a very competitive market abroad. We succeeded to the extent that whereas in 1973 we had a net outflow of capital of R116 million, last year we had a net inflow of R700 million. Surely, the hon. member will appreciate that that is a very substantial achievement. Then the hon. member says the Government should follow a policy of refraining from excessive interference in the world capital market, viz. not to allow too large a gap to develop between domestic and international rates, particularly by not artificially inducing too low rates, because it will inevitably increase the rate of inflation. What we have to do in this country, surely, is to promote and encourage production as much as possible. This relates to our growth rate. Surely, by holding interest rates within bounds, we have gone a very long way towards achieving that. If we simply let our interest rates rise out of all proportion, would we have achieved the growth that we have? Would we then have countered inflation? Surely, the hon. member would agree that, other things being equal, the more one steps up production, the more are one’s chances to bring down average costs and prices and to control inflation. The hon. member was very terse in this respect and may perhaps have had other ideas which he did not express.

The hon. member said that the Government must, at all times, keep expenditure down very substantially. It must exercise self-discipline in regard to its expenditure. He made the interesting statement that it was no use creating a railway line while denying people the opportunity of opening up mines. It is very easy to say that. Our expenditure is set out in detail in the Estimates of Expenditure, Vote by Vote. Surely, the hon. member should then come to us and tell us exactly where we should make cuts. He should tell us this particularly in respect of infrastructure, railway lines and expenditure for mines. Surely, he should tell us precisely what we should not be doing if, in fact, we are doing it. His statement is a very generalized statement. I do not think it assists us a great deal unless we know precisely what he has in mind. I actually think it is a case of the shoe fitting the other foot. The demand for infrastructure is such that we simply have to go on spending certain essential moneys, virtually whether we like it or not. However, these aspects are placed under the closest scrutiny all the time. I think that anyone saying that the expenditure is wrong or is too high ought to tell us precisely where that expenditure should be reduced.

The hon. member said we should remove all discrimination. I hope the hon. member will draw up a list of what he considers to be discrimination and tell us exactly which of those examples of discrimination should be removed. What does “removing all discrimination” really mean to a person who has the responsibility of carrying out policy? I really think that we should ask here for a specific explanation of discrimination, item for item. We must then be told how discrimination should be removed.

There is, for example, the swimming bath in Sea Point.

Yes, the swimming bath in Sea Point. The hon. member says that by those means we would maximize productivity. This question of maximizing productivity is a very difficult one, however. In the United States, where they have made the most exceptional efforts to raise productivity in the last year, their industrial productivity has nevertheless dropped by 3,6%. I do not know whether the hon. member would ascribe that to discrimination in the United States. It certainly does not compare with our record of industrial productivity last year. The hon. member made the point that he disagreed fundamentally with the hon. member for Paarl. He said—

I think the kindest thing I can say to the hon. member here is that in this instance he is right out of his depth. Perhaps if he stays here a few years more, keeps his eyes open wide and sees what is going on, he will realize that many of this country’s achievements at present are directly attributable to this policy of separate development.

Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether in his view South Africa now has the money, will have the money in ten years’ time or will have the money by the end of the century to support or build ten separate nations and economies?

Mr. Speaker, I will answer that. We are engaged in a very carefully planned policy of separate development under which these different homelands will be in a position, if they should want it, to ask for their independence, which we will then give to them following the proper negotiations. Believe me, when that happens it will be possible to do it. We will see to it. If the Transkei wants its independence next year, we will make it possible. We are not a bankrupt country. Of course, we shall be able to do it. It is quite easy because we have planned carefully.

The last point I want to touch on is a very interesting one. I was very interested to see the reservations the hon. member for Johannesburg North had about gold. I would have thought that if there was one member in this House who would have stood up and put the case for gold—in this uncertain world today where gold is making such headway—it would have been the hon. member for Johannesburg North. But if you read his speech you see that he had considerable reservations about the prospects for gold. I for my part want to put the case for gold and I want to remind the House that since I spoke last, a week ago, there has been an extremely significant international development in regard to gold. I refer to the decision of the Common Market countries to recommend to their Council of Ministers that the central banks should be able to buy and sell gold at market prices or, if you like, market-related prices as they sometimes say. Apparently that will also include the IMF. I think that the Ministers of these countries are going to be hard put to it to turn that down. However, we shall see. I think that it is an exceptionally interesting and far-reaching positive factor for gold. I think that it means that here is another one of the supporters, you might say, of the myth of the so-called official price of gold, i.e. 42,22 dollars per fine ounce, crumbling before our eyes. It is perfectly true that gold production has declined. Gold production by volume has declined lately because we are mining lower grade ore made possible by the higher prices. But I would like to remind the House that the value of output has risen very appreciably, as we have heard earlier today. The revenue received last year was very nearly R2 600 million. I believe that, as far as gold is concerned, we have not only an extremely valuable commodity but also a most strategic commodity today. The greater the uncertainty that overwhelms the world, the greater the economic and financial difficulties, the greater the difficulties with the international payment system, the more people turn to gold whether the Americans or anybody else like it or not. That is the situation and I for one have said it before and I would like to say it again: I am not so pessimistic as some people that gold can simply be demonetized, as they say, that you can take gold out of the monetary system. I would like to see that day, if I may express my view.

*Finally and by way of summary, I want to emphasize again that the short term economic situation and prospects in most countries of the world, the major oil producing States being the only exception, are extremely unfavourable. Many countries have been grappling for many months simultaneously with an economic recession, large-scale unemployment, inflation and a serious disequilibrium in the balance of payments. These problems were in the process of developing even before the so-called energy crisis, which began in October, 1973, but were considerably aggravated by it. However, everything is going very well indeed with the South African economy. As a matter of fact, the year 1974 was perhaps one of the best years the Republic has ever experienced economically, and as I see them, the prospects for 1975 are in the main particularly favourable. What makes it so remarkable is the fact that these economic achievements have been realized and are still being realized despite the detrimental effect the unfavourable international economic situation necessarily has upon us. In order to illustrate the striking contrast between the present and the expected economic situation in South Africa and that in most other countries of the world, my colleagues on this side of the House and I have only applied the normal criterions of economic soundness to various countries, i.e. the real growth rate, the ex-ployment situation or, let me rather say, the unemployment abroad, the balance of payments position and, finally, the rate of inflation. Mr. Speaker, you have seen where South Africa stands in this comparison. The combination of a high growth rate, a moderate current deficit, a surplus on capital account and, for all practical purposes, an equilibrium in the balance of payments as a whole, serves as proof of a sound underlying economic situation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have said enough to prove my great and unqualified confidence in the economy and financial situation of our country.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a short Bill and consequently it is not necessary for me to add anything to what I have already said about it during the Second Reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 48, to omit “did not obtain cession thereof” and to substitute “has not obtained cession thereof and a period of not less than two years has elapsed after the date on which he became so entitled”; and
2. (2) on page 4, in line 49, after “share” to insert “unreasonably”.

Hon. members will recall that I undertook, when we were discussing clause 4 on the previous occasion, during the Committee Stage, to move certain amendments in the Other Place. But as a result of the fact that a reasonable time has elapsed since the debate was adjourned here, I caused the amendments to be printed on the Order Paper and it gives me pleasure now to move them. I wish to express the hope that hon. members who had objections to clause 4 will now be completely satisfied. One of the Opposition members wished to effect a grammatical correction in clause 4, viz.—

That amendment also appears on the Order Paper now.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments as printed in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) On page 10, in line 27, after “shall” to insert “unless he or the secretary has been notified by such owner as contemplated in paragraph (d),”;
2. (2) on page 10, in line 28, after “shall” to insert “subject to the provisions of that paragraph,”;
3. (3) on page 10, to add the following paragraphs at the end of sub-section (1):
   1. “(d) No right to acquire any land shall be vested in the State by virtue of any notification under paragraph (a) if the owner of such land has, in response to any representations referred to in that paragraph and before the receipt by him of any such notification, notified the Minister or the secretary in writing that he desires to retain the ownership of such land irrespective of the extent to which such land is or is likely to be used for mining purposes or purposes incidental thereto by the person referred to in that paragraph.
   2. (e) The Minister shall in writing notify the person referred to in paragraph (a) of any notification under paragraph (d) received by the Minister or the secretary.
   3. (f) If the owner of the land in question has notified the Minister or the secretary as contemplated in paragraph (d), neither such owner or any subsequent owner of that land, nor any person who has or may acquire any interest in that land, shall, while the person referred to in paragraph (a) is entitled to mine on that land for the base mineral in question, be entitled to apply to any court for an order prohibiting the last-mentioned person or his nominee from commencing or continuing on that land with mining for such base mineral or operations incidental thereto.
   4. (g) An owner who has notified the Minister or the secretary as contemplated in paragraph (d), shall within a period of one month from the date of the notification submit his title deed in respect of the land in question to the secretary for transmission to the registrar, who shall make such endorsement thereon and such entries in the appropriate registers as he may deem necessary in order to reflect the effect of the provisions of paragraph (f) with regard to that land, and if such owner fails so to submit the said title deed within such period, the registrar shall nevertheless make such entries at the written request of the secretary and make such endorsement if the title deed is at any time lodged with him for any reason.”; and
4. (4) on page 12, to omit subsection (6) and to substitute the following subsection:
   1. “(6) (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, but without any derogation from the provisions of subsection (1) (f), no person shall, in respect of land in connection with which representations referred to in subsection (1) have been made, be entitled during the period of nine months following upon the date on which such representations have been made, to apply to any court for an order prohibiting any person entitled to mine on such land for the base mineral in question from commencing or continuing on such land with mining for such base mineral or operations incidental thereto, unless the Minister has before the expiration of that period notified the owner and the person referred to in subsection (1) in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of that subsection or notified that person in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of that subsection.
   2. (b) No order referred to in paragraph (a) shall be granted by any court in respect of the land so referred to if the person entitled to mine on such land for the base mineral in question has given security, to the satisfaction of the registrar of the court, to cover any loss or damage that the person applying for the order will suffer or is likely to suffer as a result of mining for that base mineral, or operations incidental thereto, on such land by the person entitled as aforesaid or his nominee.”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill now before this House for consideration, is a short one, and it is hoped that the few amendments which are of necessity being effected to two sections of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, will meet with the approval of everyone in this House.

The first clause amends subsection (2) of section 108 of the Act relating to Police traps. When considering this clause I should like to see that we do not become involved in a controversy about the humaneness or the moral aspects of the Police trap system, for the fact of the matter is that in a country such as South Africa with its scattered occurrence of diamonds, this system, which has been in existence for many years now, is, absolutely essential.

During 1973 we sold diamonds to the value of more of R162 million, and few people realize what tremendous proportions the smuggling trade in South Africa is assuming, despite every effort on the part of the Police to combat and restrict it. I want to content myself with saying that the illicit diamond trade in all its forms are still increasing; that the State has suffered vast financial losses as a result of this smuggling trade; that Police traps are used as an absolutely last resort in each specific case, and utilized with the greatest circumspection only when there is sound reason to believe that someone is involved in the illicit diamond trade, and that any impairment of the Police trap system may lead to the evil of smuggling getting completely out of hand.

To return to the contemplated statutory amendment, I want to explain briefly that the existing provisions of section 108(2) of the Act are inter alia to the effect that when a member of the S.A. Police has transferred possession of any uncut diamond to any person upon payment or delivery by such person to such member of an amount in money or other consideration, etc., and such person is subsequently convicted of an offence in connection with such transaction, the money, etc., which had been so paid over or delivered is automatically forfeited to the State. This provision was specially inserted as a further deterrent to illicit diamond trading, for experience has shown that the heavy penalties which may be imposed do not in themselves have the desirable effect.

In most cases where the Police offer uncut diamonds to a suspected illicit dealer, it is the practice—particularly if it is a valuable packet—to take receipt of the money and then, as soon as the money has been counted, to make the arrest without the diamonds having been handed over.

Until recently the Police experienced no problems with this procedure and the application of section 108 of the Act because the forfeiture to the State of the money paid over (even in cases where the Police did not transfer possession of the Police trap diamonds to the accused) was not disputed. However, the position changed in 1972 when, after a trial had run its course in one of our Supreme Courts, after which the accused had been found guilty, the considerable amount of money which he had paid for the valuable packet of Police trap diamonds was returned to the accused by the court. The State appealed by way of civil proceedings against the court’s decision to return the money to the accused, but the appeal failed on the grounds of a finding that section 108(2) was not applicable because possession of the diamonds had not been transferred to the person in question before the arrest was made.

†People who do not have an intimate knowledge of transactions of this nature may wonder why the possession of diamonds used in these Police traps could not be transferred in each case to the person concerned before the arrest was made, but suffice it for me to say that such a great variety of circumstances and factors are involved in these matters that it is not always possible or advisable to do so.

The Commissioner of Police has, with due regard to all the aspects of the matter, submitted strong representations for a suitable amendment to the provisions of section 108(2) of the Act, and all that we are doing now is to amplify the existing provisions so that money or other consideration which has been paid to the Police in connection with such an illicit diamond transaction will, if the person concerned is convicted of an offence in connection with that transaction, be forfeited to the State, i.e. irrespective of whether the possession of the diamonds which were the subject of the transaction was transferred to the convicted person prior to his arrest or not.

Clause 2: The few changes which are being made by this clause to section 123(1) of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, are intended to improve provisions which are aimed at combating the theft of diamonds and the consequential illicit trading which flows from such thefts.

As will be noted, the section deals with the powers of search by producers of diamonds and not by the S.A. Police whose powers of search are set out in another section, viz. section 99. The position under the section with which we are dealing here, i.e. section 123(1), is that only a person carrying on prospecting, digging or mining operations, or his representative, is permitted to search other persons, vehicles, etc., but what is more to the point is that such persons may only be searched if they are on the land where those operations are being conducted or on the area where or in buildings in which employees are being housed. In other words, a mine owner, etc., is vested with powers of search, but he may not conduct searches of persons and things away from the mining property.

Although most diamonds which are involved in the illicit diamond traffic are diamonds which have been stolen from mines, alluvial claim workings, etc., it has been brought to my department’s attention that the matter of security at the diamond sorting houses in Kimberley was cause for considerable concern since the company responsible for the operation of the sorting houses did not possess any statutory powers to search persons employed by it.

I may mention in this connection that all the large producers of diamonds in South Africa, which include the State as owner of the State Alluvial Diggings at Alexander Bay, have formed themselves into the Diamond Producers’ Association and that all the diamonds produced by them are sorted and valued in Kimberley prior to marketing.

It is therefore considered imperative that the provisions of section 123(1) be amplified in order that the Diamond Producers* Association and the company responsible for the functioning of the sorting houses will have the necessary statutory power to search employees on the spot.

Large quantities of diamonds are also handled by employees of the Diamond Trading Company which is responsible for the marketing of the association’s diamonds through an associated London-based company. In the circumstances, the proposed additions to section 123(1) have been worded in such a way that the Diamond Trading Company would likewise have the necessary power to search employees, etc., within its premises. In addition, manufacturers of synthetic diamonds will be vested with similar powers.

*Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the amendments which we wish to effect here are quite simple, but at the same time very necessary. They comprise only the amplification of an existing principle, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the existing section provides explicitly that the searching of any any person has to take place with meticulous consideration for the requirements of decency, and that the searching of a female may only be carried out by another female.

Mr. Speaker, we are willing to agree with the hon. the Minister that the two clauses which are being introduced by this Bill are, in fact, necessary in order that the diamond industry should receive the protection it requires in respect of these two offences.

The diamond industry is a very particular kind of industry in that it produces objects or commodities very small in size and very large in value. These particular commodities, therefore, impose a special temptation on employees of the diamond industry or people associated with or attracted by the stones to operate illegally in respect of the product of the industry. In the case of an ordinary industry such illegal operations, such abstractions or thefts of the commodity, would involve the company concerned in a certain loss, probably no greater than the value of the commodity stolen. In the case of the diamond industry there is a particular consideration, i.e. that of controlled scarcity. If there were, in fact, a large-scale leakage of this material through illegal activities, not only would the industry stand to lose the actual value of the stones in question, but through the loss of control there could also be a loss in the value of the commodity as such. It is quite clear that this imprtant industry must be protected, and it must be protected by means which perhaps go beyond what one would contemplate for the agricultural or some other industry.

So far as the Second Reading of this Bill is concerned, we agree that the measures proposed by the hon. the Minister are necessary in principle. Since we agree that they are necessary in principle, we shall not oppose the Second Reading. I wish to say at this stage, in order to give the hon. the Minister time to consider his position, that we would like to see certain improvements effected in the Committee Stage I shall not argue as though we were in the Committee Stage, but merely give a brief indication of what I have in mind in order to assist the hon. the Minister.

In the case of clause 1 provision has been made that where a Police agent sets a trap and actually transfers or receives money from the victim or the suspect in that trap, and no diamond has actually changed hands, that money may be surrendered or forfeited to the State. The hon. the Minister has explained the reasons and the circumstances in which this may take pace. We accept his assurances that trapping is necessary in the case of the diamond industry provided that it is subject to certain safeguards. If those safeguards were always applied and respected, one would perhaps have less to say about this particular clause. However, the fact is—and it is common knowledge—that despite the best intentions, the traps are sometimes set contrary to these caveats which the Minister has expressed; that agents are sometimes over-zealous in the way in which traps are set; and that people who are easily tempted— I will not say innocent people—have been led, by the manner in which traps are sometimes set, into the kind of situation contemplated in clause 1. I believe an argument can be made out for a discretion in this case. I do not believe that the person who has perhaps been unwary, rash or immature and who has been led into a trap by an over-zealous policemen should suffer exactly the same penalties as would be the case if the person trapped were, let us say, an old lag, somebody who has been operating for a long time. In principle, of course, this should not happen but in practice, as we all know, these things do happen. Therefore I propose to move in the Committee Stage—and I wish to give notice that I shall do so now—that in line 21 of clause 1, instead of the word “shall” be substituted the word “may” in order that the court, when the case comes before it, may exercise its discretion. If it finds that it has a hardened sinner before it, somebody who deserves to lose the money he has unwarily placed in the hands of the agent, the court would, of course, have the right to cause its forfeiture notwithstanding section 108 of the Precious Stones Act or what has happened in the past in respect of this section. The court will still have the right to impound that money and to hand it over to the State If the court finds before it, however, a person who is inexperienced, who has been tempted and perhaps even misled by an agent who is over-zealous in the execution of his duties, I believe the court should have the discretion to allow that money to be handed back to the accused who may well suffer other penalties. The money should be returned to the accused on the grounds of non-completion of the contract between the two parties. This is something I wish to leave with the Minister for his consideration. I shall not press the matter any further. We shall, however, certainly return to it in the Committee Stage.

With regard to clause 2, once again, as I have said, we are in favour of the amendments because we know that there has also been a change in the operational conditions in the mining industry which necessitates a change of some of the words in clause 2. However, the words as they stand here do have rather wide implications. Whereas the Minister has consistently referred to mine owners having rights of search in various places, these words can now also apply to people such as diamond cutters. When rough or uncut diamonds leave the mine property, they are delivered to certain diamond-cutting operators, and with this legislation these extremely wide powers of search are now also being given to people who do not fall into the category of mine owners. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the industry to say whether the ramifications are not wider even than those I have stated.

They are.

I believe they are. Even though the provision is limited to rough or uncut diamonds, which are restricted in circulation, a number of people are engaged in this industry and it seems to me that in terms of clause 2 there could be widespread rights of search which I do not believe are truly contemplated by the amendments proposed. I frankly cannot suggest how this clause can be improved, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, in consultation with his advisers, will have a look at the wording of clause 2 and see whether it cannot be made more precise and restrictive than is the clause which we have before the House this afternoon. That is all I have to say as far as the Second Reading is concerned. We shall not oppose the Second Reading. We shall raise these matters with the lion, the Minister again in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, may I avail myself of the opportunity of welcoming the hon. member for Von Brandis back in the House after his operation. I am delighted to see him back and hear him speak on this technical Bill now before the House. May I also express my appreciation to the Opposition for supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I can assure them that I appreciate it very much indeed. I agree with the hon. member that the matters he raised can be discussed at length in the Committee Stage. In clause 1 the hon. member proposes substituting the word “may” for the word “shall”. I shall take this matter up with the Police and with my legal advisers to obtain their opinions. We can then discuss the matter in the Committee Stage. If the substitution will not change the Bill materially, I see no reason why the substitution should not be acceptable to us. I shall, however, have to go into the matter fully and I shall then convey to the hon. member the results of my investigation.

With regard to clause 2, the hon. member desires a more precise wording to make sure that people such as diamond cutters are not adversely affected. I also undertake to go into that matter and we can discuss it further in the Committee Stage. That is all I have to say provisionally. However, let me once again express my thanks for the support for this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.