Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me, I cannot deal with all the points raised by various speakers. There is, however, one speech which stands out in my view and which requires a reply, and that is the speech made by the hon. member for Vereeniging. He accused this party of making panic speeches. He accused this party of sketching a false picture of crisis. He accused this party of sowing the seeds of doubt. Mr. Speaker, was he really serious in this assertion? Would the hon. member disagree with me if I said that South Africa was approaching its darkest hour?

Yes, he would.

Would that be a disloyal statement, Mr. Speaker?

Yes.

Would he agree with me if I said that the immediate future is the most crucial in the history of our country, or would he say that I am in a state of panic? [Interjections.] Sir, having listened to the reactions of hon. members, let me quote from yesterday ’ s Argus—

Sir, I think that deals very adequately with the point made by that hon. member. The hon. member for Newton Park described us as irresponsible, and yet his own colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow, last night spoke of “Operation Survival”, and called urgently for a “political life-raft”. Either this is a serious debate about the future of South Africa and South Africans; or it is not. Certainly the time of this House and of South Africans is being wasted by the ill-founded assertions which we heard yesterday from that hon. member.

He went further and was very angry that apartheid had been equated with communism. He said South Africa was not a totalitarian state and he believed that to make such a statement bordered, as he put it, on the undermining of the people of South Africa. Those are strong words, which were supported by many hon. members on that side. Let us, however, look at the position. Let us look at this Government’s armoury to stabilize and control the pace of change in South Africa. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to Nationalist attitudes, Nationalist legislation, Nationalist actions, geared to the retention of privilege by one section of the community, formulated and enacted as a means to discourage and suppress change outside the confines of the dogmas and the aspirations of the majority of the White peoples of South Africa. Like many viewers, I was greatly struck the other night by the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He has since been quoted by many politicians and by many Pressmen in support of Government attitudes towards communism, towards foreign affairs and towards the state of the West. Two of his less quoted thoughts struck me particularly. I quote—

He went further and said—

You see, Sir, freedom means the same thing to people all over the world. It means the same to Solzhenitsyn in Russia as it means to a man of colour in South Africa, and despite the anger of the hon. member for Vereeniging, despite the annoyance of hon. members opposite, it is none the less disturbing—and I find it disturbing—that despite our antipathy for and our fear of the communist system, there are in fact remarkable and ominous similarities between Russia today and South Africa as it is governed by the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] I shall motivate what I have said, because I shall not speak irresponsibly. The first and basic point—and let us hear this—is that as in Russia the supreme and sovereign arbiter of the fortunes of the entire population, i.e. Parliament, is not a representative institution deriving its power from the consent of those governed; it is and has become the controlling instrument for a ruling caste. This being the situation, and as a real representation both in Russia and in South Africa is denied to all except a minority, it has become necessary there and here to prevent extra-parliamentary activities from being used by aggrieved persons to achieve their goals.

Only two days ago Dr. Anton Rupert spoke of three kernel issues. He spoke of the interdependence of Black and White, of the fact that internal conflict in South Africa could lead to external interference and external control, and of the importance of developing a truly free enterprise society, which by implication, should include people of all races in South Africa. Yet, in South Africa, as in Russia, this concept of a free enterprise society is a foreign and unexperienced concept by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country. The vast and enormous masses of Black people work for free enterprise, draw their wages from free enterprise, buy from free enterprise and yet they are prevented by laws in this country from sharing in the profits of that free enterprise and in the profits of the South African economy. That is a fact of life in the part of South Africa which we call White South Africa and which will have a non-White majority forever. Increased wages are in, but a share in capitalism, except in very limited circumstances, is out. We read that in Russia, in the all-prevading interests of the State, arbitrary orders are given for the compulsory removal of people to specific areas. We read of the restriction of groups of people to certain types of work and that is performed only under prescribed conditions. This is not the philosophy of the West, but the philosophy of an authoritarian State. Russia is such a State. And what is the position in South Africa? Here a free and mobile work force is not permitted. Entire communities are moved annually in the furtherance of a grand strategem. Individual choice and freedom play but a small role in deciding careers, economic benefits and job satisfaction so far as millions of people are concerned.

Even in the development of our law this similarity is noticeable. Years ago, before I was born …

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

No, the hon. member may not ask me a question. Before I was bom, in the time when Stalin was calling for the stability of law, he was, at that moment, busy with his purges. Thus in Russia a dual system was introduced. I oppose that kind of system. Certain problems, especially problems of a civil nature, were dealt with by normal legal rules and procedures whilst other problems, especially problems in the political sphere, were dealt with largely by arbitrary means. In the Soviet Union the words “political sphere” emcompasses a very broad field, it even covers the views of intellectuals on literature, science and the like. So we also have in this country, South Africa, special political commissions, the power to ban, the power to restrict, the power to silence by decree, and even special procedures to ensure, by censorship, that nothing which is not acceptable to Government-decided norms, penetrates our blinkered society. There are many more examples of this, but time does not allow me to quote them all.

In reflection, I would like to ask some questions. Are we not establishing the same hated duality in law which exists behind the Iron Curtain—the ordinary law for civil matters and special laws for political matters; ordinary courts for economic disputes or matters of common criminality and special rules, commissions and decrees for political noncomformity; free enterprise and capitalism for the Whites and restrictive rules for the Blacks? Does a Black man feel any freer in South Africa than Solzhenitzyn did in Russia? I would say that I am not certain as to the answer. We are here dealing with the hearts and the minds of people. The second issue in the mind of all of us today is whether restrictive legislation, greater defence expenditure and stricter control of the media will be sufficient to ensure lasting peace in South Africa, to maintain a state of racial peace? Surely the answer to that is “no”. To prevent escalating unrest, to neutralize and de-activate the fuse of potential disaster or explosion, lies only in one direction, namely to guarantee the respect for all races, for the constitution and for the system under which we all live.

In order to do this, all races must have a hand in shaping and deriving benefits from that constitution and that system. [Interjections.] Hon. members may shout and scream and carry on as much as they like. I have a truth to impart and I am going to state that truth here.

Are you a communist?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Boksburg allowed to ask whether the hon. member for Sandton is a communist? [Interjections.]

Order! It is the Speaker’s duty to protect all hon. members of this House and he will do so. But hon. members themselves also have a duty to the House, and that is at all times to express themselves as responsibly as possible and not to be provocative. I should be glad if the hon. member for Sandton would also bear that in mind. I ask the hon. member for Boksburg to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: I merely asked a question. I did not say that the hon. member was a communist. I merely asked whether he was a communist.

I know, but in that way one can put anything in the form of a question and get away with it. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly observe your ruling, as I believe I have done throughout my speech. About one thing, however, we must be in no doubt: Acceptance of the hypothesis, i.e. that in order to have respect for the constitution and the system all people must share in it, means real tangible and evident change which will see White, Black and Brown urban dwellers sharing in the making of laws and the shaping of the system. This will mean change which must inevitably lead to a truly free enterprise society such as Dr. Rupert called for. This will mean change which will see all men equal in dignity, free of artificial ceilings and free of bigoted restraints.

There are only two alternatives in the broad sense, i.e. the White laager, with guns and no butter, which will be increasingly totalitarian—defending a system which is of value only to those persons within the laager—or a new look at the whole fabric of our society and a recognition of the true values of Western society. By those values I mean the freedom of the individual, the equality of economic and political opportunity, the freedom of movement and association and the freedom of the written word. In the light of these values, it will then be our task to move towards a new strategy, a new plan. My party and I are not alone in these views. These views are shared, at least partially, by many Nationalists.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer any questions. One has only to read the writings and listen to the utterances of certain Nationalists and Afrikaans political thinkers to realize the symptoms of concern. Dr. Jan S. Marais has posed questions, the answers to which mean radical change. Dr. Jan Moolman of the Africa Institute, who has been a Nationalist throughout the years, has written a treatise questioning the very basis of separate development. Dr. Wimpie de Klerk, a relative of that hon. member I believe, wrote this week of a sharing of power among the races in South Africa. I should like to read his whole article, but let me quote a few words only. He sums up in his article and says—

He goes further—

Having taken note of the writings and of the words of these people, one cannot but come to the conclusion, as I have done, that the Government is losing touch with its philosophers, its intellectuals, its thinkers, its political mentors who speak in a language and of concepts which are not being reflected from the benches of the Government in this House. The NP has over the years derived its strength from its Afrikaner thinkers. If we on these benches cannot in all good faith convince the Nationalists as to the urgency for change, then we ask the Government at least to look to its own thinkers, its own commentators, academicians and entrepreneurs and the like, whose warnings are as dire as ours. I believe very sincerely that the furtherance of our very society depends on that.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, and particularly since yesterday, the debate has taken a turn, as a result of the entry into it of a few hon. members of the PRP, which in my opinion has to receive the necessary attention. The hon. member who had just resumed his seat, made a very serious point of our policy, our actions and mode of action supposedly conforming with that of the communist system, with their way of making laws, imposing restrictions, etc. However, I want to point out that South Africa and the party which is at present in power, are not prepared to stand by with their hands at their sides and watch while all the foundations are being dug up from beneath them, and do nothing about it.

From the outset this Government has had the courage of its convictions to take action against every subversive element within or outside the country. The Government had the courage of its convictions to ban the Communist Party in South Africa inspite of world opinion. We did it at a time when those hon. members were still prepared to co-operate them. I now want to ask the hon. members again whether they have altered their standpoint as far as the Communist Party is concerned, or whether they still adhere to the standpoint that for the sake of freedom the Communist Party should be allowed in South Africa at the present time? [Interjections.] I am putting this question because we have never received a clear standpoint in that regard from that party. The standpoint which they adopt is that we should, for the sake of freedom, also allow the communists to exist as a party in South Africa as long as they do so democratically.

No, that is not true. [Interjections.]

Of course it is true. We are still waiting for an honest reply in this regard, and until such time as we receive an honest reply, we shall continue to lay this at the door of that party. The Government had the courage—we are not making any apology for this—to adopt a standpoint openly in respect of certain subversive factors, such as permissiveness, pornography and drugs, in the spirit of the nation, and to introduce legislation with which to carry it through. We are making no apology for that. On the contrary.

The Western world, which the hon. member is waxing so lyrical about—it is ostensibly so perfect and so worthy of emulation—has failed completely in these spheres. What is the position in some of the Western democracies, including Britain, as far as drugs are concerned? What is the position as far as permissiveness is concerned? How many voices are not being raised at present to try to control this now that it has already got out of hand? I am making it very clear that the Government has the courage of its convictions to make the necessary laws, when anything is spiritually or physically prejudicial to the nation, regardless of opposition from any quarter whatsoever and regardless of world criticism. The Government believes in the maintenance of law and order, and in this country law and order will be maintained, regardless of whom we have to take action against or under what circumstances we have to do so. One begins to wonder, if the hon. members carry in the manner in which they are carrying on now, whether action will not have to be taken within the foreseeable future. I think it is necessary that I say this. [Interjections.] I should also like to know whether the hon. members still support the standpoint which was stated by the hon. member for Houghton in this House when the legislation on drugs was being dealt with. She implied that the use of dagga for household purposes should be legalized.

No.

Her standpoint has never been repudiated.

Do you not accept my word then?

Yes, that hon. member says “no”, but what does the hon. member for Sea Point have to say about the use of dagga?

I disapprove of the use of dagga.

The standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton … [Interjections.] Wait a minute! She is a member of the hon. member’s party; she is the hon. member’s predecessor, his foster-mother. The hon. member for Houghton said in a speech in this House that she was in favour of the legalization of the use of dagga for household purposes. What is the standpoint of the hon. member for Sea Point in that regard? [Interjections.] Those hon. members stand for all those things which are totally unacceptable to South Africa with its traditional way of life. That party is becoming the champion of all those things which are rejected in South Africa by the vast majority of decent people. Therefore I am making it very clear to the hon. member that we are not prepared, and that we shall not be forced or intimidated by those hon. members into giving way to them and running away from the standpoint we have so far adopted. We shall continue to apply it because we know that it is in the interests of South Africa. I want to leave the hon. member for Sandton at that. He did not have much time to state a standpoint.

I want to return to the hon. the leader of that party, who spoke yesterday. Today I want to deal with the irresponsible speech of the hon. member. It was definitely an irresponsible speech. It was an inflammatory speech. It was a speech which was aimed at increasing racial tension in South Africa. That was its object. In truth, I am not certain whether that speech was not perhaps inspired with a specific object from outside.

That is nonsense!

I shall deal with the speech in full. I have his Hansard here, and I shall quote from it. The hon. member said, inter alia (Hansard, 7 April, page J. 1)—

What are these “warning sings”? Against what is a warning being directed? What is going to happen? I am asking in all sincerity: Where is all this heading?

May I quote what you yourself said?

Wait! I am coming to that. The hon. member referred to “warning signs”.

Then what did you mean when you referred to the “darkest hour”?

I did not use the words “darkest hour”, nor shall I ever use them.

May I quote this?

Wait a minute! The fact of the matter is—let me say this at once—that I and many other thinking people say that South Africa is at present experiencing watershed years, years in which the lines are going to be drawn up according to which the future is going to be determined. This is the standpoint I have always adopted. These are watershed years, years in which decisions are going to be taken. I went on to state—the hon. member would do well to listen to this—that the international limelight shifts historically from place to place. For a time it was on the Far East in Vietnam; it was on the Middle East; for a long time it was on the developing African States and at present the international spotlight of limelight is directed at Southern Africa, as a result of Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique and South West Africa. At this moment, therefore, we find ourselves in the international limelight. I did not say that this was our “darkest hour”. Only a pessimist such as that hon. member would say such a thing. I did not say it. I do not say anything like that, because I simply do not believe it. My entire viewpoint is completely different. I am not pessimistic about the future at all.

It is getting close to midnight, as the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has said.

I ask again: Why is a warning being issued? Is reference being made here to things which the hon. member hopes will come about, and in which he believes because he and his party represent only a few small White groups here, and are now seeking assistance across the dividing line of colour in order to force his will upon the people of South Africa in that way? Is that the idea behind it? [Interjections.] Is this the direction in which it is moving? I quote again—

“ … is in ruins”.

Yes “ … is in ruins.” Very well then, that is the standpoint of the hon. member. But surely it is an infamous lie, and the hon. member knows it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that what the hon. member said is an “infamous lie”?

Order! The hon. the Minister must please withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. But I can say from my own experience of two weeks ago in Africa that it is not true.

I referred to “Southern Africa”.

No, the hon. member said that détente had failed. Less than two weeks ago I travelled throughout Africa and spoke to quite a number of Black leaders.

I referred to “Southern Africa”. Just read my Hansard.

The theme of the hon. member’s entire argument was that détente was dead.

I referred to Southern Africa. Read it again.

Well, where does Southern Africa end? Let me ask the hon. member this question as well: What does the hon. member know about what is happening in Southern Africa and about the talks which are being held? What does he know about whether we are talking to African or Southern African States?

Tell us about it.

No, why should I tell the hon. member about it?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is impossible for the Minister to make a speech because of the spate of interjections from the hon. member for Sea Point.

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point must not make constant interjections.

Liaison in Africa and in Southern Africa is more alive than that party. We are liaising from day to day with States of which that hon. member does not even know the names. Liaison with Africa today is as real as it was two years ago. Only it is more subtle now than it was then, as a result of international circumstances. That is the only difference, but the liaison is there. The fact that I could venture into Africa two weeks ago and be openly accepted there, and openly participate in an official visit and hold talks with leaders of various African states, and that I could discuss the problems of Southern Africa and ascertain their standpoint and state our standpoint in contradistinction to theirs, surely proves that there is liaison. What are the thoughts of the African states, and what do they say? I do not want to link this to the specific standpoint of the president of the Ivory Coast, but in general to talks recently held by us in Africa.

What is the standpoint of the African states, a standpoint which completely belies all the pessimism and flaccidness of the Progressive Party? The standpoint of African States is to an increasing extent that they say they do not like our internal policy but are prepared to accept us as an African state because we, as they did, have followed the same course in Africa, because we were able, more than 300 years ago, to throw in our lot with this Continent, because we have ploughed everything we had into this Continent, because we are not a colonial power who came here to grab as much as we could get and then go away again, but who established ourselves permanently here in this country, and because we also, for many years, waged our struggle against the colonialists and the colonial powers. They say we waged the struggle for many years, and even lost a war, but we fought ourselves free after many years and were one of the first countries in Africa to become an independent State and a Republic. They say we cried uhuru long before they did, and consequently they are prepared to accept us. One Black leader said to me: On what grounds would we be able to refuse to accept you as White Africans if we accept the Arabs, who are not Negroid either, who are people whose forebears sold our people into slavery and shipped them out of the country, while the Whites of South Africa never did that? This is the language we speak to African leaders, and these are the replies we get, and what does the hon. member know about these things now? Sir, these people are prepared to accept South Africa on those grounds. We are making a breakthrough in various spheres in Africa, but the hon. member does not want to know this. He does not wish it to be mentioned, for he wants to paint a dark picture. That is the policy of his party, and it suits his friends outside this Parliament.

I want to continue on these lines. There is one thing more I want to quote to the hon. member before I return to my own speech. He said—

What is the insinuation? Why does the hon. member use the term “tinder-boxes?”

The leader of the Nationalist Party in the Johannesburg city council said …

Wait a minute! The hon. member went on to say—

What is this “explosion”? Is the hon. member trying to foreshadow something? Is he trying to insinuate something? Is he trying to stir up ideas? With what object is he doing that? Sir, I can continue to quote him. Here is another passage—

What crisis is this? Why create an atmosphere of crisis?

You said it yourself.

I have never used the word “crisis”. The hon. member is completely bereft of his senses. I repeat: We are living in serious times; we are living in watershed years, and the lines for the future will now be drawn up. After that we shall have a safe future for the years which lie ahead. This party is looking forward to the future with optimism and not in such a weak-kneed and spineless way as that party is doing. We know what we want and we are not prepared to bow down before the pressure from outside, or a few shots in Angola or a few votes at the UNO. We know what we want and we know what we can do. These are the facts. Let me go further—

But is the hon. member completely uninformed? Is he not aware of the fact that talks on Government level are taking place almost daily with Black and Brown people? He referred to a “Black and Brown conference”. Because he is unable to be present, and cannot sow dissension, he wants to hold another conference. That is the idea behind it. The fact that we are finding peaceful solutions to the problems of Africa with Black and Brown leaders does not suit the political pattern of those hon. members, and therefore we should call him in or afford him the opportunity of plotting afterwards, as he often does with the Black people. Let me ask a few questions. Is the hon. member conveniently forgetting completely what has been spent on housing for the Black and Brown people in this country over the past 25 years? Of course there is still a backlog, but show me a single country in the world in which there is no housing backlog. Look at the progress which has been made.

Then there is education. Has the hon. member lost sight of what has been done in regard to education for the Brown and Black people in South Africa completely: The universities with everything that is required; schools, high schools and teachers? And how much money has been spent? [Interjections.] The hon. member says that in that sphere we must simply go faster and faster. Then there is the creation of work opportunities. How many work opportunities have not been made available for these people in recent years, so that their standard of living has in many cases doubled during the past four or five years? Conveniently all these things are simply forgotten. All the developments, the question of the appointment of people to statutory boards, the narrowing of the wage gap—how many more things do I still have to mention to the hon. member? Is he living in a complete fool’s paradise? Or let me rather state it as it really is: It suits him not to know this, so that he can find sensational headlines to send overseas. That is what suits him. I now want to ask the hon. member another question. On whose behalf is that hon. member and his party speaking in South Africa? Whose vote do they represent here? Sir, I want to content myself by saying that that hon. member and his party are at present in this Parliament the voice of big capital in South Africa, and nothing more. That is all they are. They won a few seats under their own steam, and four additional seats they got indirectly via the United Party.

Walk-over votes.

Yes, with walk-over votes. That is what they have. There they sit, a small, bare minority. And where did they gain their seats? Mention one seat to me in which the Progressive Reform Party and the National Party engaged in a trial of strength in which the Progressive Reform Party did not decline. But when they are dealing with the United Party, they are able to make progress. But the moment they come up against the National Party, they meet their match and fall flat on their backs. [Interjections.] They are not able to boast of winning a single seat in which they engaged in a trial of strength with the National Party.

I want to go further. What is the view of those hon. members in actual fact? They see South Africa as one multi-racial Unitarian state, and in that one multi-racial Unitarian state there must naturally, because they are democratically orientated, be political rights for the people. [Interjections.]

Rubbish!

The hon. member looks like “rubbish”. That is my difficulty with him. How does the hon. member see South Africa, as a Unitarian state?

No, I see it as a federal state. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to continue his speech now.

I want to take my arguments further. Those hon. members talk about moving away from discrimination and say that we are not causing this to happen quickly enough. But when will they move away from their principle of discrimination on the vote for the Black man in South Africa?

What discrimination?

The standpoint of your party that there will be a qualified franchise. [Interjections.] Of course it is discrimination. When will those hon. members move away from the principle of discrimination with regard to the franchise of the Black man in South Africa?

What discrimination are you referring to?

I am referring to the standpoint of the Progressive Party that there should be a qualified franchise.

That is not discrimination.

Of course it is discrimination. A qualified vote is discrimination.

[Inaudible.]

On what grounds is that person being discriminated against?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must please allow the hon. the Minister the opportunity to proceed with his speech.

That party does not advocate franchise on the basis of merit. They discriminate against people on the basis of wealth or poverty. That is discrimination. The rich man may and the poor man may not; the educated man may and the uneducated man may not. This conforms precisely to the world tendency of “haves” and “have-nots”. That is the standpoint. Of course they try to camouflage it in all kinds of fancy ways and with fine words such as “checks and balances”, “federal situations”, etc. The fact of the matter is, however, that that party adopts a standpoint that the system of “one man, one vote” must ultimately apply in South Africa. A federal system, whatever shape it takes, is the same. However it may take place, the matter will culminate in Black majority rule. [Interjections.] I want to put a further question. The alternative …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, please. You can send it to me later.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot read it now; I shall read it after my speech. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, those hon. members are advocates of a concept of integration. However, I want to ask them who in South Africa supports that concept. Let us analyse the position in a level-headed way. Who supports integration? The National Party, as it is represented here, with all its supporters in South Africa, does not support integration. The United Party, with all its supporters, does not support integration. Only the Progressive Reform Party, with its modicum of support, are adherents of the idea of integration. But what is the attitude of the other peoples in South Africa? Does the Coloured population support integration? The Coloured population supports integration only as far as the integration of the Whites and the Coloureds is concerned. The Coloured nation is completely opposed to integration of the Coloureds and the Blacks. They are to illy opposed to it. In other words, the concept of integration is in general unacceptable to the Coloureds as well.

[Inaudible.]

Please allow me to complete my speech. The hon. member is shaking his head so vigorously that I can hear precisely what is going on inside. [Interjections.] The Asiatic community does not welcome integration. They have never tried integration. As Easterners they have always, with their religion, their language and their culture, kept themselves separate. On their part there has never been any question of integration. They have no need for it. What is the case with the Black peoples of South Africa? Do the Xhosas support integration? No. On the contrary. The Xhosas support the principle of separate development, because as a separate nation they are obtaining their independence by means of it. The Tswana do not support integration. They support the principle of multi-national development. They are obtaining their independence in terms of that principle. The same applies to every other population group in South Africa. Where do we stand in practice, therefore, when we analyse the matter in its entirety? That hon. member tries to make us believe that we are on the wrong course altogether, that we are being warned that we have to give way, that we have to make concessions, and that we have to abandon our policy, that we have to throw in the towel and that we have to effect large-scale changes immediately in order to get away from the present dispensation. What are the facts? The hon. member is unable to advance any evidence to support his allegations. Eventually it may happen that he and his party, a small number of the Labour members of the CRC, and Buthelezi and a group of his friends, will stand together. The rest of South Africa rejects them and their policy, as well as their integrationalism. These are the facts. To try to scare us now, as though the whole world were coming to an end …

There is another matter I want to raise in regard to that hon. member and his party. I am referring to a statement he made recently, i.e. the division of wealth in South Africa.

What?

The division of wealth. What precisely is the content of that? I want to ask this question at once: What is stopping that hon. party from immediately sharing its wealth with any person, of immediately dividing up its possessions equally? There is nothing to stop it from doing so. Why do they not start doing so today? What is stopping Anglo-American from dividing up its assets today and giving all its Black workers shares in the company? There is no law prohibiting that. They are fond of hiding behind legislation, but there is no legislation prohibiting them from doing that. Their entire argument on the concept of equal ownership, however, is nothing but mere lip-service. They now want the wealthy man in South Africa to share the things which he earned with people who did not earn them. That is the premise. I am asking the hon. member this question: What is stopping him from doing this, and what he ultimately envisages with this? I believe that South Africa and the voters of South Africa, are entitled to a reply with regard to the question of the division of wealth in this country. I believe that the voters of Durban North ought to know this in the coming by-election. The voters have to decide whether they are in favour of a division of wealth. The hon. member for Sea Point says that wealth should be divided.

I did not use those words.

The hon. member referred to a division of wealth.

He referred to “redistribution” of wealth.

One may word it as one likes, but this is what the hon. member advocates.

Redistribution of wealth!

Mr. Speaker, what are the true facts now? In contradistinction to them I want to state the standpoint of the National Party.

The hon. member’s words were “redistribution of wealth”.

“Redistribution of wealth”. Very well then. It is a redistribution, and what is the difference? It is a redistribution of wealth. [Interjections.]

Order!

In contradistinction to that I want to state the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I think the time has arrived for us to give serious thought to this matter. We are at present living in times in which it has become necessary to give thorough consideration to every step taken. These are not times for scare-mongering and for running away, but times in which to decide on the future with sound judgment. I am convinced that the years which lie ahead, the next two or three years, will be watershed years, years in which the lines are going to be drawn up in Southern Africa, lines which will determine the distant future. Because it is a serious matter, however, it is not necessary for us to flee. Nor should we become afraid of these things. Nor should we suddenly surrender our estate and wreck everything which we have built up over so many years. Who is asking us to do that? I can give hon. members the assurance that Black Africa is not asking us to do that. Not Europe either. What is being requested is that we should act with wisdom and insight and adopt a sensible approach to problems. This is the case at present, and our leader at the moment, the hon. the Prime Minister, is capable and extremely competent to do so in precisely this manner. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that South Africa—and the more I am involved in this, the greater my conviction—will open up a pathway for itself to the international world via Africa. That is how we shall do so.

For years we tried to open up a pathway for itself to the rest of the world via Western Europe. This caused us to be associated with the colonial powers and with the history of colonialism. That was wrong. South Africa should open up a pathway for itself to the international world via Africa, and should bring about a positive approach on the part of Europe and the rest of the world to this country in that way only. That is why we are concentrating on Africa, and shall continue to do so. We have to do so. We are an African country like any other African country. When the Afrikaner chose the name “Afrikaner” for himself more than 200 years ago, he eternalized the name of the continent of Africa in his own name, and in that way confirmed his indissoluble ties with Africa. Precisely the same can be said of the language of the Afrikaner. In this way we are here as sons and daughters of Africa, and we shall continue to be such. We occupy a position in Africa, and we speak a language which Africa understands. The idiom of our language is understood in Africa. What is the point of departure of African leaders in regard to the problems of Southern Africa? There is concern among the Black leaders with whom we associate—not only among one or two, but among all of them. They are extremely concerned about the influence of and the infiltration of the Cubans and the communists into Africa. Their point of departure is that the problems of Africa ought to be solved by White and Black Africans. That is their point of departure. They want to do everything in their power to keep communism out of Africa. They are dismayed at the expansion of Russian imperialism in Africa. They are just as dismayed at it as we are. So great is their dismay that some of them believe that the day will arrive when an alliance of anti-communist and anti-Marxist African States will be formed. As history takes its course, and as we realize what is happening in Europe and elsewhere, it becomes more clearly apparent all the time that in practice there is little good to be expected from Europe. We shall have to continue the struggle to maintain our own survival ourselves. Africa and South Africa will to an increasing extent have to rely on its own people. Hence, too, the origin of our task and our duty to liaise with African States and to co-operate with them for the sake of Africa, and to deal with and solve our own problems as Africans.

It is very clear—as I have already said—that we shall have to open up a pathway for ourselves via Africa. However, there is another interesting argument emanating from Africa, not specifically from the well-known African States, but from other African States with whom we held talks. It is a very logical argument. Those African States urge us not to be so seriously dismayed at the actions of the OAU at the UNO. We must be realistic and must understand it. The only bargaining power which the African States have in the international world today, is a political bargaining power. They have no economic bargaining power. Their only strength lies in their political bargaining power at the UNO.

Therefore, according to African leaders, they have established an organization called the Organization for African Unity. They believe that their strength lies in unity and that, if they were to become divided, they would also lose that bargaining power because their votes would then be divided between the opposing parties. That is why they are asking us not to pass too harsh a judgment on the idea of a unifying organization in Africa. But let me go further and add at once: If South Africa could become a member of the OAU at some time in the future—and we hope that this is possible—Africa will be able to speak with a far stronger voice in the international world. Then Africa will be able to speak with a strong voice in the economic sphere owing to South Africa’s economic strength, and it will have a say in the military sphere owing to South Africa’s military strength. It will have a strategic voice as a result of South Africa’s strategic situation, and it will have political strength as a result of the position of political rights and the Unitarian idea as such.

Why do you not apply it?

Of course everything is in order. This is what the position is, but now the hon. member is asking: “Why do you not apply it?” Any baboon would know that he would have to bide his time and first consider the situation to establish what the position is. Work is in progress daily to make ourselves acceptable in Africa. I want to say at once that I have not yet encountered a single African State which stated as condition that we should first reject everything in which we believe before they will accept us. I have never experienced this.

They say: “We do not like your policy; we do not understand it; we think it is wrong.” And then I say to them at once: “I do not like your policy I do not like a one-party state; I do not like a military government system; we think it is wrong; we are democrats.” Then we are on an equal footing, and we can convince one another whose policy is right and whose policy is wrong. This is the language that is being spoken. And let me add to that at once that we are not being expected to throw everything overboard. We are being expected to act in a reasonable manner. We are being expected to respect human dignity, the human dignity of the individual and not to judge according to the colour of his skin, but to accept him as a worthy creature of God. This is being done. But no one has yet asked me to sacrifice my identity as a White South African in the process. No one has yet asked me to share political power with him in the process as long as we afford him the opportunity of giving expression to his own political aspirations. These are not conditions. Our point of departure is different to that of the hon. member. Our point of departure—and it is perhaps necessary for this to be stated again by way of repetition—is that South Africa is not a single State; South Africa is a sub-continent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, one of the disadvantages of having in the House a party as vulnerable as the Progressives, is that it enables Government spokesmen, by attacking the vulnerability of the Progressives, to detract from the vulnerability of the Government itself. In the few minutes available to me this afternoon and before I return to the PRP, which I shall do later on, I would like to say a word or two with regard to the Government’s situation in relation to race relations in South Africa and the concept of the sharing of power. I hope to indicate in the short time that I have that the Government has already embarked on a power-sharing concept in South Africa and that it will proceed inevitably, in the course of time, to a situation much closer to the federal thinking of the UP than it likes to admit at this stage.

The concept of shared power is symbolic of the federal thinking of the UP. It is rejected by the Government; we know that and it is rejected also by the PRP. Government policy, so far as White South Africa is concerned, is a total denial of any share in the political rights or activities of South Africa by the majority of the Blacks—that is to say, the majority who happen to live permanently in White South Africa. That, in frank language, is a policy of rejection. The Progressive Party’s policy is a simple one, namely majority rule.

Nonsense!

I am very glad to have had that interjection from the hon. leader of the PRP, because I shall show later on that this is one of the major complaints from formations within his own party, about double talk of that kind when we all know that majority rule is in fact their concept.

The Government’s attack on this side of the House is, firstly, that you cannot have a sharing of power. It is the principal plank of their platform in Durban North at the present time. In any event they say there is no need for it. What in essence is the concept in so far as we in the UP are concerned? It is the formalizing in the form of a federal structure, of a division of responsibility and function between the various racial groups. I think that that is a fair definition. There is consequently, in terms of our thinking, a sharing of power and function by various races at the level of the community on a permanent basis and there is a sharing in the law-making process and probably of Government at the federal level also on a permanent basis. The fact that distinguishes us from the federal thinking of the PRP, is that we believe, firstly, in a sharing of power and, secondly, a sharing on a permanent basis. The Government says that a sharing of responsibility and decision-making is unnecessary and that, in any event, it will not work. I would like to draw the attention of the House for a moment to the position of the Coloureds and the Indians under the Nationalist Government at the present time. There is already at the level of the councils— the Indian council and the Coloured council—a sharing of power, identical in theory to that of the UP, but of course very different in practice from that which we propose. At the centre we are apparently to have a Cabinet council, which so far is a shadowy body. We have not been given any details, but I wonder if we might think for a moment as to how that Cabinet council is likely to work. Presumably there will be regular meetings of the Cabinets of these groups: White, Indian and Coloured. Proposals will be put forward, they will be debated, and they will either be accepted or rejected. If, accepted, they will be implemented. Whilst in theory this will be government by consensus, in reality, and to an ever-increasing extent, the White Government will be unable to resist the legitimate demands of the Coloured and the Indian representatives. And whilst this system lacks the formal clothing of a shared institution, it will grow inevitably, in reality closer and closer to shared power at the level of a Cabinet council.

Now let us look at the Bantu people. Shortly, so the Government believes, we will have eight Black States in South Africa entirely independent of us, but with a majority of their nationals living and working permanently in South Africa. That is the factual situation. Some of the Ministers of these various States will be moderate people, as we know at the present time, whilst others will not be so moderate. Some of them may even be persons at present being held on Robben Island. The bulk of their voters whose opinion they will seek at times of elections in their independent States, will be living here in South Africa. Their Cabinet Ministers, having no responsibility in respect of the State in which the majority of their people live, will nevertheless be campaigning for votes here in South Africa. As I have said, they will not all be moderate. Their demands for change—not in the homelands, but here in South Africa— will become increasingly strident as the years go by. I believe that this is facing the facts. The Ministers of these States will be in the happy position of having power in the sense of influence with voters living here, but no responsibility for what they do or say in so far as South Africa is concerned. Viewing this situation, where you have a mass of nationals of the independent States living and working in South Africa, essential to our well-being, having the election campaigns by the parliamentary representatives and particularly the leaders of those States, to a large extent taking place here—and we have examples of it at the present time and in the recent past—you will have the situation where the heat of the political activity will take place here and will be generated by those taking part, but they will have no responsibility for maintaining law and order in the area where this is taking place.

Now, Sir, what courses are open to the South African Government in these circumstances bearing in mind, as I have said, that all the persons taking part in those elections may not be moderate in their outlook and in their utterances? What are the courses open to the South African Government as the pressure and the discomfort of this system grows? And it will grow, Mr. Speaker, because you have people with power and no responsibility involved in this game. The hon. gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches, whoever they may be at that time, will have the responsibility but no power to influence the events. Sir, what are the courses that are open? The first course is to prohibit the campaigning of foreign politicians amongst the permanent residents of South Africa, in which case the Black voters who would be living permanently in South Africa and who would constitute the majority of all the Black people would be disenfranchised in effect, and you would then throw overboard, if that were to take place, a cardinal principle of the homelands policy. You will have them living and working here but they will exercise their franchise in the states to which they are attached by their nationality. If you seek to overcome this discomfort by prohibiting campaigning in your territory then, Sir, you throw overboard a cardinal principle of the policy which is being enacted. Sir, there is another point of view. One could send them all home permanently, back to the homelands, so that the politicking takes place there and not here. There is nobody in this House, Sir, who will accept that. We all know that it simply cannot be done because our whole economy is dependent upon these people. There is a third course which I believe will be adopted and that is that the Government of the day will be forced to accept that it must meet the political leaders of the Black people permanently living in South Africa to reach a consensus in regard to their legitimate demands. In other words, Sir, you are going to have to accommodate the aspirations of the Black people living permanently in South Africa on the basis of consensus with their leaders, and their leaders initially will be the homeland leaders. I believe that you will then have a change and that their leaders will be indigenous to White South Africa. Under the policy of separate development, Sir, you will then inevitably be sharing responsibility and decision-making with the Black leaders but it will lack the formality initially of a parliamentary institution; it will lack a formal structure. I will make one further prediction, Sir, and that is this: When that stage has been reached where there is a meeting in order to acquire consensus as to the legitimate demands of the Black people living here, it will be found wiser and safer to have the bulk of your population accepted as South Africans and not as foreigners because, Sir, you can handle South Africans whereas you cannot always handle foreigners.

I believe it will be found also to be better that they should be represented at these decision-making sessions by South Africans rather than by foreigners, and when that stage is reached the basis for differentiating between them, on the basis that they are foreigners, will obviously have gone and you will have to accept them, through some formula, into the formal decision-making processes of South Africa and that, I have no doubt, will be a federal arrangement not unlike that proposed by the UP. I believe, Sir, that this will come sooner rather than later and you will have the ironic situation that a federal solution will be resorted to to put right both the dangers and impracticalities of the homelands policy.

Now, Sir, I should like to say a word or two to the PRP on my left. You know, Sir, one of the things which I find most distasteful about that party, which always masquerades under a cloak of high moral purpose and high moral activity, is the double talk and the duplicity with which they go about their affairs. It comes up on a variety of occasions. It came up this afternoon when you had this double talk on the question of drugs, but it comes up principally on three issues. One is the issue of majority rule on which we had a bit of double talk a moment ago. The other is the position of the Communist Party, and the third is shared amenities. As I said earlier, because of this double talk there has been pressure and complaint from formations within the party itself on this very issue of the double talk of the party, and I challenge the leader of the party to deny that there have been formal complaints from formations within his own party complaining about the approach of the party on these three issues. I challenge him to deny it, Sir. Of course he cannot deny it because he knows as I know that that is in fact the case. What is the complaint, Sir? The complaint is that there have been deliberate attempts in the Bryanston by-election and in statements by the party to hide the sensitive issues of their policy from the public. That is the complaint, Sir, and it is not only those of us outside the party who have seen it but also formations within that party itself.

Sir, let us come to the question of majority rule. It is quite clearly the party’s policy to accept majority rule. One has only to look at their policy statements to see that. We had the very leader of the party himself attempting to deny it this afternoon.

I was just answering your simplistic remarks about majority rule.

Does the hon. member deny that majority rule is an accepted concept in his party? You see, Sir, he will not deny it because he knows that this refusal to accept in public the concept of majority rule has been the subject of formal complaints by formations within his own party in recent times. The view taken by that party is that the party is committed to majority rule. Anyone who reads their policy pamphlet, which has an unflattering picture of the leader on the front page, will see that majority rule is their concept. But, Sir, what do you get in the by-election in Durban North? Here is an article written by the candidate himself who is a trained lawyer. I am going to read out to you what he says, Sir. This appeared last Sunday in The Sunday Tribune—

Sir, can you believe it—a trained lawyer writing this sort of thing to mislead the people? But that is not the only one, Sir; listen to this. It goes on to say—

In other words, the public are being told that the franchise qualification of the PRP is 10 years’ schooling or Std. 8. What is it in reality? It is stated here in the pamphlet that half the roll is basic literacy, which is of the order of Std. 2, and the other half is that standard of education which is made compulsory, which I am prepared to concede in theory may be Std. 8. Here, Sir, we have a gross distortion in the clearest terms—in fact a lie—as to what their policy is. And this is not the only occasion, Sir, because three weeks or a month before in the same Sunday Tribune of 29 February he stated quite categorically a second time that citizens will exercise the vote when they attain Std. 8. Sir, this sort of double talk and duplicity is what has been complained about by formations within the hon. member’s own party itself, formations which have put up resolutions bitterly complaining that this is taking place.

Let us look at the position of the Communist Party, Sir. The hon. member for Houghton at least is honest. She says the Communist Party should be free to operate in South Africa provided it operates within the law. Well, we all know that is nonsense, but for once in my life I agree with Senator Winchester of the PRP, because this is what he said in Durban, as reported on 4 December last in the Daily News—a mouthpiece for the PRP—

The report continues—

This is what the Progressive Party’s representative in the Other Place has to say. He goes on—

One of the other complaints by the formations within the Progressive Party itself, made formally to their leader, was the following: How can he allow to go unchallenged double talk of this kind which is directly in conflict with the point of view of the Progressive Party?

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

I am sorry; I do not have the time. Then there is a third aspect which is complained about bitterly in formal resolutions by formations of that party. The complaints are that this aspect was clouded deliberately from the public at Bryanston and in the policy statements put out by that party. I refer to shared amenities. There were bitter complaints as to the manner in which that matter was clouded from the electorate by that party in the Bryanston by-election.

Sir, not only did the duplicity and double talk take place at Bryanston. It has been repeated at even greater length in Durban North at the present time. I am very glad, Sir, that they did not deny that this is the subject of bitter controversy in their party at the present time, because they know, as I know, that it is in fact taking place. Where does that lead us, Sir? It leads us to say that it is very unfortunate indeed that we should have a political party, with a clear policy which is unacceptable to the voters, which does not have the guts to put its policy to the voters in its nakedness. What is worse is that we have in some organs of the English-language Press persons who are prepared to go along with this sort of duplicity. I regret both with everything that I can muster.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly enjoyed the last portion of the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It is very clear to me that hon. members of the Opposition and the members of the PRP are fighting the by-election at Durban North. While I am on my feet, I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in all honesty that when I look at the UP I do so rather sorrowfully to think that that mighty party of a few decades ago which filled this Chamber is today the party it is. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana criticized the Government this afternoon on its policy and he also put the policy of the UP. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I think the time has come for the UP to get itself a new policy. In spite of the fact that the policy of the NP is criticized and in spite of the fact that the policy of the UP is put, we find in election after election that the majority on this side of the House becomes greater and greater. That is why I think that the time has come for hon. members to get themselves a new policy.

When one talks about the deterioration of the UP, one can mention numerous examples. Unfortunately I do not have the time available to mention all these things here today, but there is one point to which I do want to refer and I do so with all the responsibility at my disposal. Hon. members on that side of the House may laugh about this but I believe that the deterioration in the UP is due largely in the present circumstances to the fact that there is still a conflict of opinion within the ranks of that party. I say this because I believe there are members of the UP who are bitterly unhappy within that party. The hon. member for Albany is not in the House at the moment but I want to say that I am convinced of the fact that that hon. member is not at all happy within the ranks of the UP. I should like to read out to the House what was written in the Sunday Times of 24 June last year—

Sir, an hon. member like that is certainly not happy within the ranks of the UP. The hon. member for Simonstown who made a resounding and excellent speech here yesterday, is also certainly not happy within the ranks of that party. In this I also want to include the hon. member for King William’s Town. The only reason why those hon. members are still sitting there, is that they do not have the courage of their convictions to take their hats and go.

You are talking nonsense.

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that I am talking nonsense. [Interjections.] I am convinced of the fact that that hon. member is also not happy within the ranks of the UP, but in fact for another reason. We know the hon. member for Bezuidenhout very well. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a person with enormous political aspirations. Now the hon. member has received a “bonsella” in the Transvaal. He has now become the leader of the UP in the Transvaal and that is hard lines for him, because since he has become the leader of that party in the Transvaal things have gone even worse with the Up in the Transvaal. As I have said, that hon. member is also not happy in the ranks of the UP; I believe that he actually feels far more at home in the ranks of the PRP. However, he has political aspirations and as a result of those political aspirations we know that he will remain within the ranks of the UP because he still wants to become the leader of that side of the House. However, Sir, I want to leave those hon. members in their immense and tragic sorrow. We will watch the position at Durban North with great interest to see what is going to happen there. While I am on the subject of Durban North, I want to point out that this has been a safe UP seat over the years. It is a seat which is situated in the heartland of Natal and I want to say that those hon. members are today fighting for their lives in that constituency. These are the facts of the matter. However, as I have said, I want to leave them at that.

I want to come back to the hon. members of the PRP. I want to ask them whether they know what South African patriotism means. I want to ask them whether they know what responsibility means. I want to ask them whether they know what loyalty to South Africa means. I want to ask them whether they realize what it means to stand up in this House in a responsible way without becoming involved in petty political disputes.

The reply is “Yes” to all those questions.

The hon. member says “Yes”, but it is certainly not so. I want to ask them whether they know what it means to stand up in this House with the exclusive purpose of acting responsibly and, by so doing, not to harm South Africa and her people. Having said that, I cannot do otherwise than to tell those hon. members that if they wanted to prove their bona fides to South Africa and her people, they certainly did not have a better opportunity than at the beginning of the year when the hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to the motion of no confidence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to that motion against which no right-thinking person in South Africa, nobody with the interests of South Africa and its future at heart, in view of the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves today, could vote. However, those hon. members voted against it. Simply in order to refresh their memories, I should like briefly to indicate the content of that amendment. I quote—

1. (1) this House expresses its grave concern at the Communist aggression committed in Angola by Russia and Cuba with a view to imposing a Marxist State on the unwilling inhabitants by force of arms; …

Why did hon. members vote against this? I quote further—

1. (2) it is obvious to this House that it is a further object of the aggression similarly to subject other territories and states, inter alia, South West Africa and South Africa;
2. (3) this House takes note of the steps already taken to halt the aggression;
3. (4) this House directs the Government, in view of these objects and threats, to take all reasonable steps to foil this aggression and to safeguard our country as well as the territories and borders for which we are responsible; …

Finally, simply in order to refresh the memories of these hon. members once again I wish to quote the following—

1. (5) this House in conclusion conveys its sincere thanks and appreciation to the Defence Force and all officers and men for the courageous and heroic manner in which they have acquitted themselves of their task in the operational area and expresses its deep sympathy with those who have lost loved ones in the struggle.

This was an amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister and against which no right-thinking person in South Africa with the interests of South Africa at heart could vote at all. In this respect I want to express my thanks and appreciation to hon. Senators on that side of the House. In a debate subsequently the hon. member for Yeoville—who is not in the House now—told us quite piously how those hon. members were opposed to communism and how they were opposed to everything that was bad for South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Community Development then asked the hon. member by way of interjection why they had voted against the amendment. His reply was that he regarded it simply as a little game between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister. Just imagine, Sir! A little game when one is dealing with important matters such as these! In view of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about a little political game, I want to tell hon. members that if ever there was an expert in the sphere of little political games in South Africa it is the hon. member for Yeoville himself who a few years ago gave his all to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Just listen to the following quotation—

Is this not also the hon. member in regard to whom we have the following report—

I cannot put it better than Die Transvaler put it at the time. I want to make the following quotation to hon. members—

And now this important fact—

I am honest when I say that in respect of loyalty and patriotism in South Africa I question the good faith and loyalty of those hon. members. The hon. Leader of the PRP made a speech a few months ago in Johannesburg in which, inter alia, he lauded his great hero, Chief Buthelezi enormously. To the great acclamation of the about 1 000 people at the public meeting of his party in the Johannesburg City hall, he praised the editor-in-chief of Die Transvaler, Dr. Wimpie de Klerk, and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi of KwaZulu, as great South Africans. Does the hon. member agree that Chief Buthelezi is a great South African?

Yes, just as great as Wimpie de Klerk.

Just as great; in other words, he is a great South African. Is our hon. Prime Minister a great South African?

Yes.

I agree with the hon. member. Our hon. Prime Minister is a great South African. The hon. member quoted large portions of the speech of Chief Buthelezi and he regarded him as a great hero. However, we know those hon. members. People who are harming South Africa and who say things in this country to the detriment of South Africa are praised by those hon. members. Let us just see what Chief Buthelezi had to say at that meeting in Soweto. As he is the great hero of the hon. leader on that side of the House, let us see what he actually said. I quote—

I quote further—

This then is the hero of the hon. member for Sea Point.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior elaborated in detail in regard to the détente question. In this connection I should also like to say something to the hon. member for Sea Point. Those hon. members opposite can say anything they like about John Vorster but it cannot be said that the hon. the Prime Minister did not make positive, honest and sincere efforts to improve South Africa’s image abroad. It cannot be said—and I say this with all the earnestness I have—that the hon. the Prime Minister has never gone out of his way to promote détente and good relationships for South Africa. In a week’s time the hon. the Prime Minister will be leaving for Israel. He is not going there on holiday. We can all relax and rest during the Easter recess but the hon. the Prime Minister is going to Israel to keep South Africa’s flag flying there as well. He is going to Israel to promote good relationships and strengthen bonds of friendship with that country. I think therefore that it is reprehensible that the hon. member for Sea Point has tried to cast a reflection upon this détente effort of the Prime Minister. Those hon. members are however people who during the recess travel around from one Africa state to the other. Here I am talking to the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Yeoville and also the hon. member for Houghton in her absence. What sort of discussion takes place in Africa between those hon. members and the various Africa leaders? Does the hon. member for Sea Point put South Africa’s standpoint there unequivocally? He has nothing to say now; he is just sitting there and writing. Does he act loyally towards South Africa when he negotiates with those Africa leaders?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order is the hon. member for Welkom allowed to question the loyalty of the hon. member for Sea Point? [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that I doubt and question the loyalty of the hon. member for Sea Point when members of the PRP travel around among the Africa states.

Order! The hon. member for Welkom has not just said what he said previously. He may not question the loyalty of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Speaker, let me then put the matter differently. I do not think that they speak the truth when they negotiate with those Africa leaders.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In terms of your ruling, is the hon. member not required to withdraw the statement he made?

Order! Yes, the hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words. However, I am now going to make a serious statement, and this is my personal opinion. That party is a small party. The hon. member for Vereeniging indicated very clearly yesterday that they represent only about 5% of the electorate of South Africa. Although we live in a democratic country, I sometimes wonder whether we are not stretching democracy in South Africa too far. If there are members in this House who are always trying to damage the image of South Africa, domestically as well as abroad …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order!

Order! The hon. member is now going too far. When the hon. member says, “They are trying to do it”, there is the insinuation that it is being done deliberately, and the hon. member may not say that. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. The time has come when we in South Africa must however review certain aspects of democracy. If there are people in South Africa who are continually trying to harm our fatherland and its people, then the time has come for us to give serious attention to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to insinuate that we in our party are trying to …

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that they were unlawful.

Order! I shall first give my ruling. The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member for Welkom by his words imply that we are trying to support movements that are doing damage to South Africa? [Interjections.]

Order! I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member for Welkom. The hon. member for Welkom may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Every person in this House of Assembly has certain priorities. As all of us in politics have certain priorities, I want to indicate what my priorities are and what they were in the past. I have always had priorities in my constituency where those people had the effrontery to put up a candidate. However, on that occasion their candidate only received about 300 votes. On another occasion they received only about 250 and on another occasion only about 200. It is going to be my priority to eliminate even those few votes which they still receive in my constituency because by getting rid of those people we will be doing South Africa a great favour.

Mr. Speaker, in the short time at my disposal, I shall not attempt to react to the arguments of the hon. member for Welkom. I do not like a “bitterbek” in politics, and what the hon. member for Welkom said here this afternoon, is beyond my comprehension.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “bitter-bek”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word, but the hon. member knows exactly how I feel about the matter.

†Last year, when the budget debate was in progress, I made a speech drawing the attention of the country and the hon. the Minister to the question of socialism and the dangers it posed to this country and its development. In the period since then, I must admit, there has been a growing chorus of concern. People throughout the country, for example leaders of commerce and industry and others, have been voicing the sentiment that there is a growing danger to the future of this country—and here I am thinking of both Whites and Blacks—as a result of the increasing socialization of the economy of South Africa. In the few minutes available to me, I wish to deal with that point.

The budget we have before us today, is a budget that basically stifles growth in our country. The hon. the Minister admitted that last year growth in the economy was basically growth in the public sector and that the private sector evidenced zero growth. Obviously the position is the same this year. Growth in the private sector is going to be absolutely minimal. At a time like this, when we are at a low point in our economy, I think it is time for us to pause and re-assess our priorities. Let us look what the future holds for us in this country and decide in what direction we are going to develop. Our clear task—and let everybody accept this—is going to be to create enough in this country to satisfy the aspirations of all our people. I think everybody can accept that that is the clear task we must set ourselves. I said last year that there was a swing to the right taking place throughout the world. Since that time there have been two socialist governments swept out of power in Australia and New Zealand. There has been a tremendous swing to the right in the United States, where even a most liberal candidate such as McGovern would not be able to draw any support in an election. I want to draw the attention of our country to the fact that I have said repeatedly—the hon. member for Sunnyside apparently attacked me for saying so—that the Government we have in South Africa today is going increasingly in a socialist direction. I want to prove that today. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the hon. members on the other side on what our future growth will be based. On what basis are priorities to be given? Is priority going to be given to the growth of the State sector, or is more and more attention going to be given by the Minister and his department and by the Minister of Economic Affairs to strengthening the private sector? Let it be clearly understood that the Government lives on the private sector. The Government does not generate wealth of its own. It does not make a profit, but lives on the profits generated in the private sector by the private entrepreneur. I think it is vitally important that we should understand that.

In order to bring what I wish to discuss to a point, I want to quote from a joint statement made very recently by Chief Buthelezi— referred to by the hon. member for Welkom—and Dr. Beyers Naude. In this joint statement they took to task the capitalist economy of South Africa. I should like to quote four little passages from that statement as recorded in a newspaper article. The first is that—

Secondly—

I want to come back to that point in a minute. Then the author said—

We, the members who served on a certain commission, have seen the emergence of the phrase “the radical redistribution of land, wealth and power”. I believe that the parties in this House must take a stand on that matter. We saw and established in our report that the attitude of “a radical redistribution of land, wealth and power” was introduced to us in South Africa by a certain organization, viz. the University Christian Movement, of which the hon. member for Pinelands was an enthusiastic member at the time. That slogan resulted in the radicalization of our whole student movement in this country, the development of Saso and the radicalization of Nusas. I think we have to take cognizance of that. I want to ask—I ask it of Chief Buthelezi, Dr. Beyers Naude and anybody else who supports that attitude—on what basis this radical redistribution is going to take place. I think that the Government side, we of the United Party and the PRP must make clear our various attitudes on the basis on which it is to take place if it is to take place.

The hon. member can put that question to Japie too.

If there is to be a radical redistribution of these things, on what basis is it going to be undertaken? I want to say that if it is accepted that it is the function of the State to bring about a radical redistribution of land, wealth and power, this can only mean punitive taxation and nationalization and deprivation of the White community who today have in their hands a large measure of the land, wealth and power of this country. I want to know what the attitude of the Government and of the PRP is in this respect. I also want to make it clear what our attitude is with regard to this process, concerning which we are all agreed that there must be a continued sharing, in other words, the share the Black man has must get bigger in certain spheres. However, on what basis is that to be achieved and what steps are to be taken to bring this about? I want to put this question to the leaders of the Nationalist Party at this point in time. We are engaged in a process which, to put it quite bluntly, is aimed at increasing the size of the slice of cake the Black man is to get in the future. No one can question that because that is what we are going to have to do if we, as a society, are to survive. If we are to survive we have to make bigger and bigger the slice of cake the majority in this country are to get to satisfy their aspirations. We can do it at no cost to ourselves if we make the cake itself bigger; that is to say, if our economic growth is such that we can satisfy the aspirations of all the sections of our population by giving them the excess of what we are creating.

If the Blacks will help us to do it.

I agree with the hon. the Minister entirely. I now wish to question the hon. the Minister. I want to ask whether the leadership of the Nationalist Party is set up for such change? Do they realize the priorities? Do they have in mind that this change must come and that they, being the Government of the country at the moment, have to be the agents of such change and have to understand that it is their mission to create more for the Black man? Sir, I have said that the Nationalist Party is a socialist party. On what basis is the development of the homelands being undertaken? The hon. the Minister can supply the answer when he answers to the Second Reading debate. On what basis is the homeland development taking place other than as a socialist development undertaken by a State corporation which is merely reinforcing the tradition of communalism among the Black people of those homelands? I invite the hon. the Minister to refute that. What steps is he taking to effect the change? He said the “Black man must help us”, but what steps are the hon. the Minister himself, his department and the Government generally, taking to break down the traditional communalism of the Black people in the homelands which the Nationalist Government purports to be the very heart and soul of future Black South Africa? I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what he intends doing. The whole idea of the agency basis is still under the control of the Government, the department, the Xhosa Development Corporation, the Bantu Investment Corporation, etc. In every instance there is a State official, a public servant, directing and controlling all development that is taking place.

The reason is that they do not have the initiative to do it themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has a choice. He can quite easily leave it to private enterprise and assist private enterprise to establish businesses in those areas. To mention an example, the O.K. Bazaars could be given funds to set up businesses in the homeland areas. I believe that that would be far better than the activities as they are at present being undertaken. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if it is a question of the conscience of the White man which makes him wish to raise the standards of the Black man, to create more and to give them more, which is going to be stronger—the conscience of the Government and the public sector or the conscience of private enterprise and private initiative, who can see for themselves that what they have to protect is being eroded and endangered by the activities being undertaken which are failing to create enough opportunities for the Black man so that he will be satisfied with his share of the economy?

Bill, you have a guilty conscience.

As regards the question of liberation, Chief Buthelezi says that his people can see real liberation for themselves across the border. Where is there real liberation in Africa? Do we see liberation in Mozambique? People are starving there. Is that liberation? I want to say categorically that the free enterprise system of South Africa, the system we are carrying, is the only real liberating force in Africa. We are the real freedom fighters in Africa, we with our private initiative, our private sector, our private enterprise, which today is centred in the White community and which we should be trying with all the power at our command to extend and graft on to what is basically the alien, traditional communalism of the Black people. If there is going to be a chance for us to survive, it is going to be on that basis, an economic basis through which we shall reach the mind of the Black man by reason of what is in it for himself as an individual. On that basis the Black man will come and help us, as the hon. the Minister says, because there is real liberation in it for the Black man, liberation from the traditional plagues of Africa, viz. ignorance, poverty, disease and squalor—all the things that made this continent a Dark Continent for so many centuries. We, the White people of this country, are now the liberators in Africa. From this country we can go beyond our borders into Africa as a whole and take that message to them of the free economic system which I believe it is our job to maintain and strengthen as much as possible. I do not believe that the Government in its present form is strengthening or maintaining that system at all.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the hon. member for Mooi River later, but I want to deal with the hon. member for Walmer first. I am very sorry that he is not here at the moment.

He will be here in a moment.

In the Cape Provincial Council, and in this House, too, the hon. member for Walmer has shown the ability to snoop around everywhere, and then to come up with things and make very irresponsible statements. I think I have been in public life a little longer than he has, and I shall therefore presume to give him some advice. If he wants to get any further, he will have to learn to give up that very unpleasant and bad habit. I know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has many problems, but nevertheless I wonder if he should not summon that young man to his office now and again and speak to him. The hon. member for Walmer launched an attack on the Klein-Karoo Landboukoöperasie yesterday afternoon, a Co-operative which is situated in the main town in my constituency. The hon. member actually launched an attack on an industry of which we are very proud, namely the ostrich industry. It is a great pity that when the hon. member did this, he spoke of foreign exchange which was lost and made the statement that—

I want to urge the hon. member to keep his hands off the institutions of the Afrikaner. If he wants us to fight the old battle over again, the consequences will have to be laid at his door. I cannot remember ever offending the Jewish people and its institutions and customs. I find it very unsavoury that the hon. member for Walmer should have dragged the Broederbond and an Afrikaner institution into this debate. It is a great pity that he referred to the Afrikaner farmers, who are expanding this industry in Oudtshoorn, as a few people who are building an empire for themselves.

I should like to refresh the hon. member’s memory. In 1914 there was a complete collapse of this industry. At that time there was chaos and bankruptcy in that part of our country. In 1917-’8 a parliamentary Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the industry. Even that committee was unable to make any recommendation and its investigation simply came to a dead end. In 1924, the South African Ostrich Farmers Co-operative Limited was founded, and two dealers served on the board of directors of the co-operative—one of the very things the hon. member asked for yesterday was that the industry be placed in the hands of the traders—one of whom was Max Rose. I think that possibly the hon. member will know who that was, and I do not believe it sounds very Afrikaans. In 1944, that co-operative went bankrupt and the State lost a great deal of money because it had issued guarantees in favour of the co-operative. The co-operative went bankrupt as a result of undermining activities. Shortly after the co-operative went bankrupt there was a tremendous upswing in the price of feathers. In the twenty years of its existence the co-operative had had a turnover of only R230 000. This is less than the present turnover in the co-operative’s feather trade in the course of a morning, when a feather auction is taking place. The bankruptcy in 1944 was the result of undermining activities. I say frankly that at that time the farmers were exploited; they were sold down the river. The Klein-Karoo Landboukoöperasie was founded in 1945 to protect the interests of the farmer and to see that the farmers of Oudtshoom would not be delivered in to the hands of people who only wanted to exploit them.

Come to the present.

With that aim in mind, modern abattoirs were established there in 1966. I want to point out to the hon. member for Walmer that the private trade, to which he referred yesterday, was responsible for the skins before 1966. At that time the skins lay there and rotted and the farmers received no income from the skins. Those are the people whose cause the hon. member championed yesterday, but who do not have the interests of the farmers at heart.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

When the hon. member was absent I said that as a young man it would behove him to be more worthy of this House and not to run around everywhere digging up malicious gossip.

I lived in Oudtshoorn long before you were there.

I know that the hon. member lived in Oudtshoorn, and was educated there too. Unfortunately the education was not sufficient and he did not stay there long enough, either, because if he had stayed there longer, he would have known what went on there. Yesterday he kept saying: He “was informed”, “he was told” and “he hears”. It was therefore nothing but a lot of malicious gossip which he collected together to serve up in this House.

What did the farmers say about it?

In my previous job I also dealt with people who were scandalmongers. The hon. member should turn such people away and rather confront himself with facts so that he can stand up as a worthy member of the House and present matters as they really are.

How many skins are lying there at the moment?

I should like to point out that in 1957-’58 …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member of approximately how many skins does he know that are unsold at the moment and held by that co-operative?

I shall answer that question later; I shall deal with it in the course of my speech. When the industry was out of the hands of the farmers they only received R6 per ostrich. However, last year they received R80 per ostrich. This amounts to an increase of 1 200%. Anyone can work that out: an increase from R6 in 1957-’58 to R80 last year means an increase of 1 200%. Let us look at other products. What was the increase in the price of lucerne seed?—185%.

I was not talking about lucerne.

Let us look at the feather industry which is in the hands of private dealers—his people. What has been the increase in price in that industry? Only 150% over the same period. In 1972 we had a production of only 15 000 skins, but in 1975 this was increased to 48 000 skins. This being the case, I cannot understand how an hon. member can insult an honest agricultural corporation in such a manner.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: is an hon. member entitled to say that another hon. member has shares in the company of which he is speaking?

What is wrong with that?

Order! The hon. member for Oudtshoorn may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask if there are ten of the more than 400 members of the co-operative who share the point of view of the hon. member for Walmer?

No, there are definitely not even ten such members. I can motivate my answer by saying that it was during this very period that many of the people who were concerned with the private trade, bought farms and made greater investments in agriculture. They did so because the industry was flourishing.

The hon. member for Walmer spoke about the supply of skins. We do not sell skins, and if he had stayed in Oudtshoorn longer, he would have known this. We sell leather. We have a very good tannery there. After the session the hon. member would do well to pay a visit to Oudtshoorn so that he and I may visit the abattoir and the tannery. I shall then show him everything so that he may learn a great many things. We have a supply of skins. There must be such a supply, because there must be continuity. America, for example, expects a year’s supply of leather to be guaranteed in advance. We can therefore not tell people who place an order that we regret that they will have to wait a few months. Like any leather business, this co-operation also keeps a supply of skins in stock. Now the hon. member said yesterday that he knew of people who could sell all those skins immediately. I shall not differ with him on that score. It can be done, but then one takes the risk of flooding the market. I know what those people would do. They would sell 10 000 to 20 000 of these skins, but then the market would be flooded and absolute chaos would result. Then the ostrich farmers would suffer. It does not seem to me as if the hon. member knows much about the international market. He does not know how these things work. All he does is run around Port Elizabeth, then he goes to Wavecrest and then back to Oudtshoorn. In this way he runs around everywhere, snooping as he goes. But let me tell him now that the international market works in a completely different way. Yesterday the hon. member spoke of a commission of 2% given to foreign traders. I do not know where he gets this figure. We sell the leather direct to dealers abroad and I want to reveal here that there are dealers in Tokyo who make up to 30% and 40% profit on this leather. We spoke to them and told them that the profit was too high and that they should reduce it to 25%, which is quite realistic. But the hon. member speaks about 2%. Yesterday the hon. member insulted the board of directors and said that they wanted to build a little empire for themselves. Do you know that they advertise this industry every day and recently launched a R60 000 advertising campaign in Europe? Does the hon. member not know that we recently appointed a marketing consultant in the United States to investigate the market, and that these people are occupied with this matter? No, Sir, I think I should rather leave the hon. member for Walmer at that. He is young and I think he might possibly come right later on.

May I put a question? I asked the hon. member just now how many skins were unsold, and he said he would answer but he did not. Does he know that a petition has been circulating in his constituency, of Nationalist farmers, people who belong to his side of the House, who are unhappy about the situation?

I should very much have liked to answer that question for the hon. member, but at the beginning of December, the members of the Little Karroo Agricultural Co-operative decided at a general meeting last year, which information would be published and which information people would have access to according to the Co-operative Societies Act which we amended here last year. I therefore want to ask the hon. member very nicely: Let us not bandy figures about here, or in the Press. [Interjections.] I am not ashamed of the figures. In any event I want to tell you that the figure of 50 000 is completely wrong. Sir, the hon. member really knows so little about the industry.

I spoke of R5 million.

Now the hon. member speaks of R5 million. How does he calculate that R5 million? Later on, when you have the opportunity under the Agriculture vote you must tell us how you calculate that figure.

50 000 skins at R100 per skin.

I should like to leave it at that and return to the general drift of this debate over the past few days.

If one had listened to some of these speeches, one would have the impression that we in South Africa are dealing with a totally troubled relationship, troubled human relationships and a troubled relationship between peoples, and one would have gained the impression that total disorder prevails in South Africa, that total chaos prevails and that South Africa is going under. Now I am very sorry to say that certain people are responsible for the creation of this impression.

There are certain academics and certain scholars who are responsible for this, people who, at every opportunity they have to address some organization or other, make certain statements and put certain questions and then leave matters in the air. Sometimes these are people who have very little to do with politics and political realities. We find that in these days everyone is rushing in and that a vast number of new terms and expressions are being coined. With those new terms and expressions and all those series of questions which are put—and some of these questions are published in beautiful volumes—I want to say that we will achieve absolutely nothing and that we are only confusing people further. Now we have this PRP, who are also creating this impression which leaves our people in total confusion so that they do not know exactly what is going on. What is actually happening within and without South Africa? Let us agree on one thing, that outside South Africa—and this Angola proved to us—we are dealing with a West which has become slack and a West which is unable to help itself, as well as with a communistic Russian intervention. There must be no mistake about this. But within South Africa we and the Government are carrying out its policy in an orderly manner, a policy which was begun in 1948 with the word “apartheid”. Now I see that there are people who say that it is extremely unfortunate that we ever used this word, but I want to tell you that we are not apologizing for having used this word, because it was absolutely necessary in 1948. Everyone who was aware of the circumstances in South Africa and in our cities will know and will be able to say this afternoon that things simply could not carry on like that. We were dealing with complete mixing of the races in this country which would have resulted in friction and chaos and which would have plunged South Africa into misery. This hon. member does not know what was going on at that time. He does not know of the circumstances which prevailed then. Perhaps he is not even aware of them today. We changed over to separate development, after we had separated these nations, which was essential, and we emphasized development and we are going ahead with this today. But neither this Government nor the National Party has ever said that it wants to divide nations and people into watertight compartments so that they will not have contact with one another. Sir, it is true that we in South Africa live together as different races, complement one another and help one another and need one another, and it is probably the case that in this process we can be allies in our mutual struggle against communism and against other things.

But I want to tell you that there are factors which bedevil this alliance, and one of those factors is the Opposition parties in White politics. They want to draw a line through South Africa’s historical background. I want to tell the PRP in particular that they will never succeed in drawing a line through the history and the historical background of South Africa. There are things which are inherent in our history, things of which we are proud, things for which we have fought, things for which we have lived and things which we will uphold at all costs. There are people in South Africa, such as those in the United Party as well, who laugh about these things, who do not have respect for these things, who do not know what value they have for people. There are also these Opposition parties that want to draw a line through the multi-national composition of South Africa. After all Sir, we in this country belong to various nations and no one can escape this, or else one has to do what certain people have done recently, leave one’s home and one’s country, and we do not want to do this. We must face up to the multinational composition. But there are also people who mislead the non-Whites in this country. I have in mind in particular the UP and its policy in respect of the Coloureds. I have in mind the PRP which is dishonest in its policy and cannot present it clearly. We have seen what disorder and lack of clarity there is in respect of their policy. Yesterday, and again today, we saw that after their amalgamation, after the marriage they entered into, they could not tell us precisely what their policy actually was. And then there are some leaders among the non-Whites themselves. I want to make the statement here this afternoon that as far as our Coloured people are concerned, we would have advanced much further if certain Coloured leaders had acted more responsible. You know, Sir, I have not yet heard one of the members of these Opposition parties standing up for Coloured cricket players such as Carelse, Bergins, Barnes and others, who had the courage to play in the invitation team and who were suspended by their unions and are now no longer allowed to play here for Western Province. I have not yet heard that the hon. member for Pinelands said anywhere that he thought it a disgrace that those people were suspended by their own people because they played in a mixed invitation team.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. I want to tell you what was said by Dr. Bergins, the former member of the executive of the CRC, and I quote from Die Burger of Monday 20 October—

Let me be very honest now. We will get far with my people and I am doing this in my constituency. We know that things must be done and we shall do those things without giving up our principles. One is slowly getting tired of the expression “move away from discrimination”. Let us do the things which must be done in South Africa. Let us do them, let us take people into consideration and let us also take the Whites into consideration. After all, they also exist. They also have a right to exist; surely they too have things of which they are proud, things which are their own, things which they want to uphold and develop.

I should like to conclude by saying that we shall go very far in South Africa and shall be able to do many things in South Africa if people can only learn to act responsibly— non-White leaders, when they appear upon a public platform and when they make statements to newspapers, as well as White politicians when they do the same. Then we shall go far in South Africa, we shall progress and we shall be able to solve our problems.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn discussed two matters, i.e. ostrich farming on the one hand and race relations on the other. I should not like to confuse the two, because I do not know much about ostrich farming. I have listened very carefully while the hon. member was discussing ostrich farming and he …

The ostrich taught you a very good lesson.

I hope the hon. the Minister of Defence will remain quiet for a while, because I should like to quote him something presently. It will interest him. I just want to ask the hon. member two questions concerning ostrich farming. Firstly, the hon.member painted a picture of the tremendous prosperity of ostrich farming in Oudtshoorn. Does the hon. member want to imply with this that the ostrich farmers in general have no problems whatsoever? He says they are doing very well. [Interjections.] The second question the hon. member did not reply to, is the following. It is said that a circular was sent to the White farmers informing them to diversify ostrich farming. Is the hon. member aware of that? Why try to change when these people are supposed to be so prosperous? [Interjections.] I think the hon. member has a few problems with his ostriches, perhaps more than I. Another point which the hon. member made, was that he said that we should stop talking about moving away from discrimination.

I said we should do something.

Was it not his party who told the world with great acclaim about “moving away from discrimination”? Now he is the man who is running away. I am afraid he will not get away from that term, because as I say, a promise was made on that matter in the highest world forums and the hon. member will have to abide by it.

What I have found an interesting phenomenon over the past two days, was that we did not have any explanation whatsoever from the other side of the Nationalist Party’s race relations policy. This afternoon we had a speech from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, a speech which dealt with the crux of the philosophy of the policy of that side.

There is no need for us to explain it any longer. The voters know it already.

We do not hear a single word. They are as silent as the grave. Not even an attempt is being made. I know why this is the case. I have a cutting here from today’s Die Transvaler. The heading reads “Gesprek oor kwelvrae” under the title “Die Tuislande” by Johan Snyman. I listened to the historic review we had from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn on the homeland policy and how it came into being. The writer poses the following question—

This newspaper reporter—and I do not think his testimonial would be very much in my favour—poses the question and he also furnishes the answer. He says, and I quote—

The basis of the Nationalist Party’s policy requires serious consideration. I do not blame them; I am, in fact, very pleased that they have reached a point where they appreciate that they are experiencing problems with this matter.

We never stop working.

But you have been carrying on for 28 years as if your “thinking faculties” have stopped functioning. But I want to leave high politics and high finance at that.

That is good.

I shall tell hon. members precisely why. There is an old lady in my constiuency who said the following: “Mr. Hickman, what are these ‘leads and lags’ I hear about? All I know of is a ‘mutton leg’ and this I am never able to buy.” The point of my story is that this budget will have a tremendous effect upon thousands and tens of thousands of the people of South Africa. A budget does not only deal with finance; it also has an effect upon the human being, upon the population. And when one is up in the clouds, no matter how serious things are, one dare not forget that here on earth one is dealing with human beings and with thousands of poor people.

How do hon. members look at the budget? We hear from the hon. member for Johannesburg West that this is a bitter pill to swallow. We hear from the hon. member for Langlaagte that it is not a bitter pill to swallow, but “You have never had it so good”. The truth must lie somewhere. To thousands and tens of thousands of people in South Africa this budget is a bitter pill to swallow, a pill as bitter as gall, and we shall be hearing from the people to an increasing extent because the people will have to pay for it. But when one says that the people are complaining about it, the Government comes along with numerous excuses and asks in the first place: What are you complaining about? After all, we are winning the elections. That is the main answer. Here I have an advertisement in my hand. Let us see how they win elections. This was the advertisement on inflation which the hon. member for Constantia quoted. The question in the advertisement reads—

To that the advertisement replies—

The advertisement then concludes by stating—

How can I tell people in my constituency that the Government publishes an advertisement such as this in a newspaper? Who pays for it? The people pay for it, and then we are told something which is not true. It is on this basis that elections are won. This is the kind of information that is being disseminated in South Africa. Then hon. members opposite say that they win elections. To win an election on this basis, i.e. that the workers themselves pay for being informed incorrectly, is after all not that difficult.

The other question posed, is the following: Why are you complaining about fuel prices and tax? The Government says people should consider the position in overseas countries. Has it ever entered hon. members’ minds that London is as far from Rome as Johannesburg is from Cape Town and that we in Southern Africa are dealing with thousands of transport miles more than any other country on the continent of Europe, that fuel is therefore a cardinal factor when it comes to cost accounting and that it has a tremendous effect upon the cost spiral in South Africa? One cannot compare the two, Mr. Speaker. One cannot compare the two at all. I can continue in this vein. But then the main excuse is this: You have to pay, because we have to make ourselves militarily prepared and capable of defending ourselves.

What point do you want to make in respect of fuel?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must please listen now. My point concerning fuel is that they have no excuse whatsoever for increasing the price of fuel. Neither can their reference to overseas countries be used as an excuse. This is no excuse at all.

Because our distances are greater.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members however have a good case when they say that we have to be able to defend ourselves militarily. The people then obviously say that they will pay for military preparedness, because which nation would not be prepared to pay for its security? Mr. Speaker, this is, however, not the only question which should be posed. The question is really whether we are not paying too much, because we have a political system in South Africa which costs money. Is the price which is being paid now not the price of a political policy? Once again my friends say that this is not so. How can apartheid cost money? Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance, more than any other person, will know that increased productivity lies at the root of our economic problem in South Africa. The hon. the Minister will also know that skilled labour lies at the root of increased productivity. The hon. the Minister and every member on that side will know that every industrialist of note in South Africa today experiences a shortage of skilled labour. Also, every member on that side ought to know that the Nationalist Party has been refusing for 25 years to recruit skilled non-Whites in South Africa, and this because of political reasons. This is what I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Defence. For political reasons the Nationalist Government refused to train Black people for skilled labour. This is what I want to tell the hon. the Minister.

You are talking nonsense now!

Now it is right. Now, the question is the following: If I can prove that what I am saying is correct, what will the hon. the Minister say about the colleague of his who adopted precisely the same standpoint?

If you would only state it correctly.

I shall do that. I am not afraid of doing so.

Just do not give your own version of it.

No! No! I shall give it to the hon. gentleman so that he can read it himself. I cannot quote the entire passage now. It appears in Hansard of the Other Place in column 152 under the date 15 February 1972. On that occasion the then Minister of Labour had a long story to tell on the preservation of a White Government. He concluded after he had made this remark, and the hon. gentleman can read it himself. He said—

That is to train Black workers in White areas. I quote further—

Simply because of political reasons the Nationalist Party, for 25 years, had allowed the Bantu to be excluded from the sphere of skilled labour.

But you are talking nonsense now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Bantu labour … [Interjections.]

You are running away completely now.

Mr. Speaker, the White area is the economic battery of South Africa. We should make no mistake about this.

I repeat my statement. This has been the position for 25 years—only recently, thank heavens, it has changed. Although, I do not know; I shall first have to ascertain whether this is so. For 25 years the Nationalist Party, purely for political reasons refused to train Bantu in White areas to perform skilled labour. Here we have a perfect example of how South Africa is, in the economic sphere, paying for the implementation of the policy of apartheid. I can continue in this vein, Mr. Speaker. How many tens of thousands, how many millions of rands have not been spent on the Bantu homelands? How many millions of rands have not been spent to purchase land, political land? This was done without ascertaining beforehand what the production potential of that land was. I need not go very far to find examples. I need only walk out of this hon. House and I would be very close to District Six. Millions upon millions of rands were spent on housing for people who had lived in District Six. Now District Six has to be rebuilt. This will also cost millions.

Did you want to leave it as it was?

Just consider the Civil Service structure which revolves around apartheid only. Millions upon millions of rands are spent on the ideology only. Then the people ask what they are paying for. I have not finished yet. The question which is actually before the House, is what South Africa has achieved with separate development. What has been achieved by it? It offers no answer for the Coloured people.

It saved your skin for you.

It offers no answer for the two million Coloured people in South Africa. They do not know hither or thither. It offers no answer for the Indians either. It offers no answer for 60% to 75% of the Black people in the cities of South Africa. This is what we have after those people have been sitting on the opposite side of the House for 28 years, people who were supposed to have the answer, people who made the nation believe that they in fact had the answer. But now we find that the Nasionale Pers says that the NP is thinking. Good heavens, they are thinking! They are thinking, Mr. Speaker. It is a torturing process. That I can see.

Your political consumption will still consume you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote you from Die Transvaler of 7 April of this year. The leasing article concludes as follows—

This is the NP—

They are proceeding peacefully to stimulate a dialogue, while South Africa—in the words of the hon. member for Johannesburg West—is on the threshold of a crisis period. Mr. Speaker, of the two things South Africa cannot afford, the first is the wasting of the labour force. I know of no other country in the Western world where the labour force is being wasted as it is in South Africa. The second factor is time. Years ago I said in all modesty in this House that the NP should bear in mind that time will catch up with it. I say today—and not with malicious joy—that time is catching up with the Government. However, the tragedy is that this does not only apply to the Government. The time is also catching up with South Africa. Now I want to tell the NP that I am very pleased that they are beginning to think. I wish them well, Sir. May they think constructively.

However, I want to tell their friends not only to stimulate thoughts, but to think themselves and to start doing something. There is less time than they think.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Maitland. It was impossible not to hear him so loudly did he shout at times. However, I want to tell him that I sincerely believed that he would have used this opportunity to sell his party’s policy to the voters of Durban North. Of course, he did not do so. Do you know why? It is very interesting. He started off by discussing ostriches of which he knows nothing. However, the UP has an ostrich policy. When one asks them to set out their policy about a certain aspect, they hide their heads in the sand. One can then see clearly that they have “Federation Plan” written on their backs. However, we do not know what the further particulars of that plan are. We do not know whether it offers a solution for the problems of the Indians. We do not know what their plan is.

The hon. member for Maitland referred to today’s issue of Die Transvaler. He asked whether we were still following the road indicated by Dr. Verwoerd. In fact, certain questions were posed in Die Transvaler. Do you know why those questions were posed? Die Transvaler posed those questions for the following reasons, which were furnished in the newspaper itself: On the one hand there are increased indications that the homelands concept is being accepted in official Opposition circles. That is why we have to pose these questions, because these people now also accept it. I want to tell the hon. member that nowhere in article in Die Transvaler anything is planned which is not included in the acknowledged policy of the NP, which has run through the history of this party like a golden thread since 1948. The principle is not affected; questions are posed; that is correct, Sir—we have not stopped thinking—but it will be solved within the framework of our policy.

Sir, we are dealing here with the budget. A budget reflects certain aspects. One of the aspects reflected in this budget, is the will of the nation to exist. The other aspect it reflects, is the degree of the existence the nation demands for itself, and the third aspect reflected in the budget is the priorities for the continued existence the nation demands for itself, and in this respect this budget indicated that the people of South Africa have a will to survive and that they can be trusted to survive. I am specifically mentioning the fact that the hon. the Minister thought it fit to issue bonds on a voluntary basis. Sir, this indicates confidence; that the people will subscribe to these bonds voluntarily. When we consider this absolutely cardinal point and compare South Africa with the rest of the Western world, we notice that our people, compared with the sluggishness of other nations which refuse to take steps against Russia, are a nation with backbone which is prepared to fight for its survival.

Sir, I do not think that I can allow certain things which the hon. member for Sandton said to pass unchallenged.

†The hon. member for Sandton says that there are certain similarities between Russia and South Africa. The hon. member did not mention any dissimilarities. I wish to say to that hon. member that a cat and a cow and a horse all breath and all have four legs and on his argument must therefore be similar. That is the type of argument that we have from the hon. member who, with his intellect, must obviously know that it is fallacious. Knowing that that argument is fallacious, I ask myself why such an argument is advanced here at all. I want to say to the hon. member for Sandton that both he and I are White; we can both speak English; we both eat and we both talk, but I would say that there the similarity ends. I will do my utmost to be as patriotic towards this country as I possibly can, Sir. I will endeavour to give to the Black peoples whatever I insist upon for myself. I will endeavour to give them exactly the same things. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Sandton, who unfortunately is not present at the moment …

As usual.

… that when we look at the dissimilarities between South Africa and Russia, they are really worth noting. I want to say to that hon. member that in Russia he would not be allowed to speak as freely and as vehemently—I will not say “as poisonously” because it may be unparliamentary—as he spoke here this afternoon. He has freedom of speech in this country, second to none in the whole world. I would remind him that in Russia there have been purges under Stalin involving, if I am correct, about 66 million people, and the hon. member cannot mention one purge in South Africa. I would remind him that there is no sharing of profits in Russia, but nothing stops him from sharing all the profits he makes in this country with Black, Brown, White or Yellow. This is a free country. In conclusion, I would say to him—there is much more that I could say—that in South Africa we are a religious people. We are not anti-Semitic; we are not anti-religious, which is exactly what the position is under Marxism.

*Sir, I have now said enough about the hon. member for Sandton. I think we must talk about the PRP a little. I would just like to mention a few points to you, Sir. In the first place I find that they have chosen the wrong name. I do not think they are progressive and I do not think that they are reformative. When we consider the relations between peoples in South Africa, I am convinced that they are a retrogressive party which bedevils all relationships in this country.

In the first place they are creating a new language here in South Africa. With a new language, with new words, they are deliberately animating feelings. They often choose words with an ambigious meaning. They can clothe their words in such a way so as to mean different things. Sir, the hon. members often use the word “revolution”, and I think it is time they spelled out exactly what they mean by “revolution”, because one has various kinds of revolutions. One has an industrial revolution; one has a bloodless revolution, and then one has a revolution by force of arms. But hon. members of that party do not tell the people exactly what they mean by “revolution”. I now want to tell that hon. member who supposedly “castigated” the Prime Minister a few days ago, that in the connotation of Africa, the word “revolution” has a meaning of violence, and I want to tell the hon. members of the PRP that when they use that word, they must also bear in mind the spirit of Africa if they do not bear it in mind already. Those hon. members know that they speak in Africa and I am convinced that they know that Africa listens to them.

They use this House as a platform.

They are creating a psychosis of fear among certain Whites who are easily scared. They are creating a psychosis among certain Brown people who are easily scared, and also among those Black people. Sir, what is the effect of this? Certain Whites feel that their security is being threatened. They listen to these sermons of revolution and they draw a laager and say: “Now we must arm and protect ourselves and discriminate against those whom we fear.” The result of this is that we have politics of racial hatred. And here I am referring specifically to the HNP. Sir, I want to put it in this way: The PRP is indispensable for the survival of the HNP. What the PRP preaches, gives the HNP their right of existence. They are a frightened party; they are frightened and they become racists because the PRP predicts revolution. But, Sir, on the other hand the HNP is a supply source to the PRP, because the PRP says in their turn: “Look what racists these people are”. Sir, I want to say to the PRP that South Africa can in these times neither afford the PRP nor the HNP, who incite one another. The second point I want to make is the following: Only 5,8% of the Whites support the PRP. They have only 11 seats. I will not say how they got those 11 seats. At first they had only seven. They are people who speak highly of how important they are, but as far as I can remember—they must correct me if I am wrong—they did not have the courage in Alberton, which is the most densely populated area of the Witwatersrand, to put up a candidate. But these are the people who want to pretend that they have wide support for their policy. Sir, what do they really want to do in South Africa?

They want to convene a national convention of all ethnic groups, and the first question I asked myself, is: What are they going to do at that national convention? Are they going to that convention with an open mind? Is their attitude that there is no aspect on which they are not prepared to compromise? Is their attitude that there is not one aspect which they are not prepared to change at this national convention? If they go to that convention and there is one principle which they are not prepared to sacrifice at that national convention, it is time that we learnt about it. Which principle are they not prepared to sacrifice at a national convention? They must not tell me that they are not prepared to sacrifice general aspects of freedom. They must not try to avoid the question in vague terms. Let us come to the detail, because the people of South Africa, who will vote in Durban North one of these days, want to know the detail of their policy. Sir, I want to put it this way: I think the hon. members want to establish a policy there at the National Convention. They want to look for a policy there. They are prepared to have discussions so that they can work out a policy together. They are looking for a policy, and I cannot understand that the voters of Durban North can vote for people who still have to look for a policy. Sir, do you know what their hon. leader said recently? I quote—

Sir, he says that party is not there to determine priorities; these must now be determined at a national convention, and they dare ask the voters to vote for them so that they will be able one day to determine a policy at a national convention.

There is another question which I want to pose: With whom are they going to talk at such a national convention? Are they going to talk to all groups, or are they only going to talk to the democratically elected leaders of the groups? Do they want to talk with people at all levels? Would Kaiser Matanzima be welcome at such a convention? If he is, do they want to persuade him not to accept independence? Then the Transkei policy, would be determined already. What is the Transkei doing at a national convention if it is going to become independent? Another similar question I want to pose in this regard, is what will their attitude be in regard to chief Mangope?

There is another question I want to put to them. When was chief Buthulezi elected democratically as the leader of the Zulu nation? This is an important point. If it is PRP policy to talk to people who are not even elected leaders, on which basis will they keep Nelson Mandela away from there? On which basis will they keep Sam Nujoma out? My question is therefore: With whom do they want to speak there? Sir, it is time to spell out clearly to the voters where the hon. members want to go, because they will not do so themselves. Perhaps it is also time for us to put a question to the Bantu leaders who are prepared to co-operate with these people. I want to ask the Bantu leaders who are prepared to co-operate with these hon. members, whether they think it is the correct principle for the White man’s voice to be heard by way of a little minority group. If that principle is accepted, then those same leaders must accept that our White people may talk to minority groups in their countries to hear what should be done about their people. I am sure that they will not want this to happen.

A third point I want to mention, concerns the “equitable distribution of wealth”. Much has been said about it, but I want to pose another question in this regard. On which basis are those hon. members prepared to allow this distribution to take place now? Do we have to throw everything together, count how many people there are who have to share in, this wealth and then divide among them? Must it be divided in this way, or must it be divided on the basis of ethnic groups? Let us hear the details in this regard. I want to point out that that party is an urban group. The plot which each of them have, in those areas of wealthy people, cannot be divided any more. Do they want to give away our rural areas even further? I think this is probably an example of what is going to happen. Sir, I think it is time that those hon. members should tell the voters in detail how they are going to allow this division to take place. If they are serious about doing it, they can start doing so in the mines immediately. They can immediately begin by paying their workers more, because it is our policy that the wage gap must be reduced and we should not like to subsidize the transportation costs of the workers working for those people, because these people themselves do not believe in it. They believe that it must be “equitable”. Now I want to tell them: Do share you treasures and your wealth as well.

Finally, I should like to say that those hon. members must take note of what Solzjenitsyn said in his “Letter to Soviet leaders”. He said the following—

Sir, we in the NP are in favour of developing the national awareness of the Zulu, the Xhosa, the Venda and everyone in this country. Those hon. members want to create a grey mixture of the nations. They want to destroy that which must be retained. They want to destroy nationalism and further internationalism, but with the NP in power they will not succeed in doing so.

Mr. Speaker, on 26 October the Government will put into effect the practical consequences of its policy as enunciated by Dr. Verwoerd over 20 years ago. This will be proof of their bona fides that they intend carrying out the policy of establishing separate nations through separate development, and carrying that policy to its logical conclusion by giving these nations their own independent States. This of course ignores the claims of the Coloureds and the Indians, which were referred to by the hon. member for Maitland earlier. I do not intend dealing with the fallacy of their policy as it affects these other people, the rest of the South Africans. Suffice it to say that the granting of independence is not the consequence of self-determination as is so often claimed by the Government. There is no question of choosing what they want. The choice was simple for the African leaders, the two who have now chosen to take independence: Either they accepted independence and became independent States or they continued to live as they were, subject to discrimination and domination by a minority group. Chief Sebe of the Ciskei who, for a long time was regarded as being very well disposed towards the Government, made a speech on the fifth of this month. He is reported as having said the following—

The independent African States will get, according to the Government’s promises, 13% of the surface of this country.

Do you want to give them more?

If the policy is to succeed at all, the only way it could succeed would be by dividing the country up fairly amongst the different races or nations, if you wish to call them that. You cannot have over 75% of the population being satisfied with 13% of the land, and they have been given the assurance by the hon. the Prime Minister that they will not get another inch of land. [Interjections.] Chief Sebe went on to say the following. He told the meeting at Port Elizabeth that some Ministers, i.e. our Ministers, were insincere about the homeland policy. He said—

That is a warning from one of the leaders of the African people.

Chief Kaiser has accepted the policy of separate development, of independence, as I have said, but he has made it clear in his house of assembly to the Opposition there that in fact there was no other choice for them.

There have been consultations over the years. The Transkei constitution as we have it at the moment was passed in 1963 and there have been further discussions and consultations in regard to the drawing up of a new constitution for the Transkei, a document which will become their freedom charter. Now, millions have been spent in the Transkei in preparation for this great day, and I submit, too, that millions have been wasted. Sir, there is a crash programme at the moment to put up prestige buildings for the day of independence. The presidential palace is going to cost about R2 million, and four more houses for Ministers will cost R300 000 each. A Holiday Inn is being built, and it is being rushed through in a crash building programme, with workmen working night and day, so that it may be finished by 26 October. Another administrative block is also being built. The workmen are working night and day, and every time a man works overtime it means additional expense and the building costs are so much more. These buildings which are being erected now are costing more than they should because of this crash programme to get everything ready by 26 October.

That is to satisfy the Blacks, but what about the Whites? The Whites want to know what their position is going to be. We want to know what the constitution will contain. In February this year the Department of Information issued a statement on behalf of the Minister, Mr. M. C. Botha, after a meeting of the Constitution Committee, and portion of it reads as follows—

This was in February of this year, and independence is to be granted in October. Subsequently we saw in The Argus of 7 April that on 6 April, just a few days ago, the committee met again with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and with the two Matanzima chiefs. They issued a joint statement saying that outstanding constitutional and fiscal matters were discussed and agreed to in principle, and that the draft constitution would be published by the Transkei Government for general information during or at the end of April. In principle they have come to some agreement and the draft will be published by Chief Kaiser. Why must Chief Kaiser publish the draft constitution? Why can it not be published here as well? It is his constitution, but we have to pass it in Parliament and we are affected as well by what happens in the Transkei. The Minister shakes his head, but the White people want to know what is to be their position, and the Coloured people also want to know what their position will be. It is not only the Blacks in the Transkei who will be affected by this constitution. The Black Transkeians living in the rest of South Africa also want to know what their position is going to be.

In the statement issued in February it was also said that municipal officials who do not wish to continue in municipal service after independence can be taken over by the Republic. These men joined the municipal service as a career, because they want to do that type of work. It is said that they will be taken over by the Government of the Republic. What is to be their position? They have written to the Minister and they have put up a memorandum to him. If they are to leave, they want to know in time so that they can find other jobs. Will their pension schemes be the same? I have had communications from the provincial authorities saying that they are negotiating with the Government, but that there is no finality yet as to what the position is to be. Sir, we cannot go on treating people like this. This statement says further—

They want to know what their position is to be. Are they going to be denied their citizenship which they got by birth, without consultation and without agreement? What is their position going to be in South Africa after the Transkei becomes independent? Are they going to be treated in the same way as other foreigners? Are they going to be foreigners, like Belgians or Germans? The Minister shakes his head, but they are entitled to know. The Minister should let us know what the position is to be. The Whites living in the Transkei also want to know what is going to happen to them. We know that the Minister said there would be no dual citizenship, but they want to know what is to happen to their property. They have formed an association and they sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister at the end of January. We asked for a meeting with them but we got no reply and nothing was done. They have raised queries. They have pointed out that now that Port St. Johns is being added to the Transkei, there are many more people who will have to be compensated. Herschel has been included too, and they had hoped that there would be an increase in the amount set aside for compensation to be paid to the Whites in the Transkei. But what do we find in the budget? We find that an amount of R3,56 million has been set aside, whereas last year an amount of R4 million was set aside, and we find, too, that only R30 million has been set aside for purchases of land elsewhere, whereas last year much more than that was spent. Now, the Whites in the Transkei have pointed out to the Government that they are not in the same position as other Whites whose land has now been declared released areas which can be acquired by the State for Black occupation. These people living in the Transkei, willynilly, are going to be living in a foreign State and they cannot get out. They cannot get out. They cannot simply walk out there. They have all their money invested there and there is only one body who can compensate them and buy them out, and that is the Government. By setting aside only R3½ million to compensate the Whites in the Transkei the Government cannot hope to pay for even half of Port St. Johns, let alone the rest. This Government is going to force them to stay in a foreign country, whether they like it or not, and nobody knows what the conditions are going to be like in this foreign State. After all, they have seen what has happened elsewhere in Africa, and I submit that this Government should let us know now so that the Whites in the Transkei will know what their position will be. You cannot leave them living in this state of uncertainty, only six months before the area is to become independent.

Even Britain did better than that.

The least the Government can do is to let us know during this month, as Kaizer Matanzima is going to let his people know, what is involved as far as the constitution is concerned.

Talking about the purchasing of land, we have had scandals—I can describe them as nothing esle—concerning land deals in Port St. Johns and in the Ciskei. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who is here now, whether he authorized Senator O’Connell to make a statement in King William’s Town that the offers which had been withdrawn would be made again and that all the farmers in the King William’s Town area who suffered because of the withdrawal of the offers would have their properties purchased this year? Did he authorize Senator O’ Connell to say that?

I shall give you my answer.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says he will give me his answer. He agrees with me, of course, that it appears from the answers we got before that Senator O’Connell was telling an untruth. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us the answer. He says “no”. I want to know then why he gave Senator O’Connell authority to make such a statement and why he did not tell the House, when questions were put here, what was to happen to these people.

You will get my answer.

I take it I shall get the hon. the Deputy Minister’s answer during this debate.

Concerning the properties bought in Port St. Johns, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows that the people who bought properties from Henning and Schoeman have not yet been refunded the purchase price which they paid for the plots and which had been re-paid to Henning by the Minister? Has he done anything to check up whether these people are being looked after? The people there are worried about what their position is to be. Are they to get their land eventually? I submit that the hon. the Minister cannot simply wipe his hands of this as he did in the past. It is up to him now to tell us that any White person in the Transkei, after it becomes an independent State, will be properly compensated by the Government so that they can leave when they want to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me about the matter in connection with Senator O’Connell. Unfortunately the hon. member’s colleague, the hon. member for King William’s Town, is not here. The hon. member’s difficulty is that his colleague, the hon. member for King William’s Town, is fighting with his back to the wall, since Senator O’Connell almost gained a victory over him in the previous election … [Interjections.] I think they suspect and realize that they will be beaten at the next election. I shall tell the hon. member what the position is. There are people in that area who are involved in the consolidation. They could choose whether they wanted to go to the MP of that constituency or whether they wanted to go to the hon. Senator. It was their right and they made use of it. The Senator came to me and asked if I was prepared to address the landowners there and discuss matters with them. I said that I was prepared to do so; that I was prepared to speak with the people concerned anywhere in South Africa where land was being purchased, in order to discuss our land purchase programme and the manner in which we are going about it. I told the Senator that he could convey this information to those people. There is nothing strange about this. Any MP may ask me to hold a meeting and address landowners and I shall do so. I have already done so this year. The hon. member for Griqualand East referred to a newspaper report according to which the Senator had made certain announcements in connection with land purchases. Surely every member of this House should know that money is appropriated for this purpose in the budget every year.

That is not what he said.

Yes, Sir. I was not present at the meeting, but the Senator told me what he had said there and other people who attended the meeting, confirmed that that was so.

What did he say?

The Senator said that after the budget offers would be resumed. This is so. Every year, after the budget, offers are resumed once again.

Why did O’Connell not correct this report?

The hon. member must ask the Senator himself. [Interjections.] That is the position. The Senator said that after the budget, land purchases would be resumed and surely this is general knowledge. But apparently the hon. members on the other side do not have a general knowledge of how this country functions. Apparently they are not capable of conveying such information to the voters. I cannot help it if the hon. member for King William’s Town, who is not here now, cannot manage his own affairs. Therefore I am not going to reply to the statements which he made the other day either, and to which three replies have already been given in this House. Let me give an example. The other day the hon. member said that in 1974 a circular had been sent out in which it was promised that the land in that area would be bought out in 1974. There was no such circular. The hon. the Deputy Minister at that time, my predecessor, sent him and other hon. members a programme of proposed purchases. In that programme it was stated that land would only be purchased in that area in 1975-’76. Last year offers were also made to the people there. I cannot help it if that hon. member cannot deal with facts made available to him by the hon. the Deputy Minister and as a result of that experiences difficulties in his constituency. Then he wants to tell us that we in this House should help him. I do not care what happens to him if he cannot manage his own affairs.

You need not help me; you must help the people there.

I shall help those people. I shall be able to help them better without the hon. member. The other evening he could not even count to 100. How will he be able to help his voters? This afternoon the hon. member said once again that the land has not been fairly divided and that the homelands are not viable. That statement is made to the detriment of South Africa. I want to refer to one example to illustrate this for the hon. member. The hon. member could consider the position of Israel. Israel is just as big as our medium homelands. 60% of the surface area of Israel consists of desert. Israel’s population is smaller than that of the Bantu homelands in South Africa. Naturally I am referring now to the total population of the homelands and not only to the people living within the homelands. Therefore I am also taking into account those who live outside a homeland, but who form part of the population of the homeland. If the total population of the homelands is taken into consideration—i.e. those people who live outside the homelands as well—then the population density is lower than that of Israel and, as I have already pointed out, 60% of Israel’s surface area consists of desert. However, the hon. member alleges that there is no chance of the homelands being viable.

I actually want to deal with the PRP and its policy. In this connection I want to associate myself with hon. members on this side and also with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is a jurist. Very little has appeared in print concerning the policy of the PRP. All I could find, was the pamphlet with an unflattering photograph of the hon. member for Sea Point on the outside cover.

You could rather digress a little on the NP’s Coloured policy.

Besides the pamphlet, there is also the speech which the hon. member made the other day. The pamphlet is drawn up in such a way that it is very difficult to understand what the PRP’s policy actually is. One has to draw conclusions and decide for oneself what their policy is. If I had to believe what I read in the pamphlet, I would be absolutely convinced that discrimination cannot be eliminated by means of integration. However, discrimination can in fact be eliminated by means of the policy of separate development. I want to come to the political issues because they are the essence of the matter. The Transkei becomes independent this year and as soon as it has received its independence, there can be no further question of political discrimination against the citizens of the Transkei. Is there political discrimination between a person with the franchise in South Africa and another person with a franchise in Britain or in Malawi? Surely there is no discrimination. All three nation’s have a right of self-determination and the citizens have the franchise. According to the NP’s policy, there will be a system of “one man, one vote” in every homeland and as soon as the last homeland becomes independent, it will be quite impossible for political discrimination to occur in South Africa.

But what about the urban Bantu?

No, I first want to deal with the policy of the hon. member’s party. If I discuss the urban Bantu, my time may run out. If there is still time after I have dealt with the PRP’s policy, I shall return to the urban Bantu.

Discrimination cannot be eliminated in terms of the PRP’s policy. I want to go even further by saying that in essence, the PRP does not advocate a democratic system. The PRP is not a democratic party—we must understand this very well. I now want to quote from the PRP’s statement of policy as follows, and the hon. member must tell me whether I am quoting correctly—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a pamphlet of the hon. member’s party. Should I throw the pamphlet away? Is it no longer relevant? The hon. member should tell us whether we are not to attach any credibility to the documents which his party distributes. [Interjections.] I also want to quote from a speech which the hon. member made the other day, but just to make sure that it would not be a waste of time to quote from it, I want to ask the hon. member if I can believe what he said in his speech. Is that speech still valid?

Read further.

I put these questions because I know that they might perhaps have changed their policy in the meantime. I am fully aware of such a possibility and therefore I am being extremely careful. I shall read the section which I quoted a moment ago once again—

I emphasize that for half of the constituencies voting will take place proportionally on the grounds of basic literacy. I want to ask the hon. member to explain what basic literacy is. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that it was Std. 2 or something of that nature. However, I am not so sure whether that is the case, especially not if I read the speech the hon. member for Sea Point made the other day. I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, a jurist, to interpret certain of the words of the hon. member for Sea Point, but before I do that, I must perhaps go one step further. For half of the constituencies voting takes place on the grounds of basic literacy, but then the PRP policy goes on to state …

Die ander helfte van die setels wat aan ’n Staat toegeken word …

This is in the federal parliament.

This therefore means that for half of each state’s constituencies in Parliament voting will take place on the grounds of basic literacy, while for the other half voting will take place on grounds of the required level of education. The question which now arises, is this: What is basic literacy? The hon. member told us what the required level of education is and he also told us what basic literacy is. I assume that the speech which the hon. member made on Friday, 27 February this year, in the House, is still applicable and therefore I quote as follows (Hansard, col. 2153)—

I would like to read the following again so that everyone can understand it properly—

He continued—

Std. 8 is therefore what the test should be for both votes for the House of Assembly. I now ask the hon. member if I am interpreting it correctly. [Interjections.] Judging by the many interjections, I am interpreting it incorrectly and therefore I ask the hon. member to please tell me what basic literacy is.

The ability to read and write.

Oh, is the ability to read and write basic literacy? I now want to know who the hon. leader of the PRP is deceiving when he says that the required level for both votes is the compulsory level of education.

I can give the assurance that the requirement for two votes is Std. 8.

According to their system there are people who would vote twice. This is definitely the case because there is a general qualifying level for two votes. Others will be able to vote if they have a basic literacy only. Let us now see whether that party’s policy amounts to discrimination or not. Let us apply the arguments which they use in respect of South Africa, to another country. A certain number of people who have basic literacy—in other words who can read and write—may vote for 50% of the seats. The others who have compulsory education qualifications, may vote for the other 50% of the seats. Those who have the compulsory education qualifications, however, may vote twice. However, the people who do not have basic literacy, are eliminated. They have no share in the election of a Government. Now I want to apply this system to other countries to see what the position would be there. Let us take France, which is a highly developed country, as an example. Before I do so, however, I first want to give a general review. According to the report of the UN’s educational committee, if one should apply this system to the whole world …

But we are not applying it to the whole world.

No, I am discussing the application of this system in South Africa and by means of a comparison I want to apply the system to other countries. I only want to ascertain whether this system would be acceptable to other countries.

Are you applying apartheid to other countries as well?

That is not relevant. We are now concerned with that hon. member’s policy. If that policy were applied to the rest of the world, 34,2% of the people would not have the franchise. If one were to apply it to all countries of Africa 73,7% of the people would not be able to vote. If one were to apply it to America, 41 million would immediately be without the franchise.

That is a nonsensical argument.

No, it is not. According to this report 41 million people would immediately be disenfranchised. I maintain that those hon. members are discriminating. I ascertained whether a person in America should be able to read and write in order to vote, and I can assure hon. members that this is not the case. If that party’s policy should ever be applied in America, 41 million would immediately be disenfranchised. If the policy were to be applied in Algeria, 86% of the people would not be able to vote while at the most 2,1% of the people would be able to vote twice. Therefore 2,1% of the people would have two votes, while 86% would have no vote. What sort of fairness is this? For the sake of interest: How many votes would the hon. leader of the PRP claim for himself? Because he is leader, will he perhaps have three votes? If this policy were to be applied to Kenya, 75,9% of the people would not have the franchise, while 3,6% of the people would be able to vote twice. It cannot be more than 3,6% because here I am taking into consideration all the people who are attending high school. I am also including those who have not passed Std. 8 yet. Now I come to a developed country such as France. The most recent data which I could obtain refers to 1962. According to this 59,4% of all people had incomplete primary school education or no education at all. Therefore if this policy should be applied to France, just look at the percentage of people who will be without the franchise. Is this a democratic system?

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared in principle to ask the people in South Africa by way of a referendum, whether they prefer our system or that of separate development?

Surely the people of South Africa do choose. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the hon. member wants?

Answer my question.

I am going to answer the question now. This is typical of the way the hon. member reasons. He does not see the 86%: he is busy with Buthelezi and a few others. The hon. member forgets about the 86%.

Which voters gave an opinion?

The White voters gave an opinion.

I am not referring to that.

Very well then. The Transkei is going to accept its independence. It has announced that it is going to do so.

That is not the question.

Bophuthatswana is also requesting it and other negotiations are still in progress. Everyone is participating in this system of ours.

They have no option.

No, that is not true. What happens in practice proves that this thing is decisive. Therefore I want to conclude by saving that these people say that they want to go to the national convention with their type of policy, as I quoted it here. Now I want to ask whether this national convention is going to include people who have a basic education, a basic literacy and compulsory education, or is it going to be all the people? Hon. members must tell us how this national convention will be constituted. Are the 86% going to be excluded? If they exclude the 86%, it cannot be a national convention. If they come to the national convention with this monstrosity which they call a policy, can we expect any honest person in South Africa—White, Black or whatever—to accept such a proposal? I want to submit that this proposal will not even reach the Table. The proposal will not even reach the Table. And if the proposal does not even reach the Table, what will they do then? Then they will walk out naked, without anything. And this is precisely what they will do. What is important to me is the fact that these people are gnawing at and eating away the roots of the democracy, because they are prepared to suggest an undemocratic system as a policy for South Africa. Those people’s sympathy lies with those who want to destroy democracy, their sympathy does not lie with those in the West who want to preserve democracy, to maintain it, to expand it and raise it to greater heights. Therefore that little party is the greatest danger which South Africa has ever seen in its political system. Therefore I believe—I do not doubt it—that the voters and the Black people will still find them out and reject them with the contempt which they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the fine contribution which he made by exposing those people sitting here so that we may see what type of people are sitting in this House and what type of people are speaking on behalf of the people outside. Listening to the debate which has been conducted here on this budget, I cannot help not being able to congratulate all the hon. members who have participated in it, and in this regard I am referring particularly to the speakers of the Opposition. All they did was criticize. I do not hold this against them, because that is what they are here for. But their criticism was never constructive. On the contrary, all their criticism was negative, and this is not all. They also tried to cast suspicion on this budget, which I consider an excellent one, in the eyes of the taxpayers outside. While listening to them, I was reminded of the fact that there was a certain item on the agenda of the United Party’s national congress at Bloemfontein last year. That item called for all candidates of the UP to follow a course before standing as candidates in future. I do not know whether any such resolution was passed. It does not concern me either. But having listened to these hon. members, I am sure that such a course would indeed be necessary for them. I also think that many of the hon. members sitting here, would not have been able to pass that course. What would have been interesting, is who would have been the leader of the course. I think, if I may hazard a guess, that it would not have been the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. My opinion is that the hon. member for Walmer would definitely not have passed that course. The behaviour of that hon. member from the backbenches of that side towards an hon. Minister on our side, is simply too outrageous for words. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Oudtshoom in his request to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to summon that hon. member and to read him a lesson or two. While listening to him, I thought of a description which I read in the Volksblad of 6 April. It was a very apt description of the hon. member, one which applies to him alone. I should like to read what the Volksblad wrote. I quote—

We shall not be able to get a better description of the contribution of the hon. member for Walmer to this debate, because he scratched around in television, ostrich skins, the broadcasting corporation, land purchases and even as far as the Free State. But we did not get an egg from him.

Only a wind-egg.

The hon. membe for Walmer said—and now the hon. member must listen attentively—that the Government imposed crippling burdens on the taxpayer and the less well-to-do.

That is the best part of your speech.

He went on to say and I quote—

Surely that hon. member knows that inflation does not exist in South Africa alone. Surely he knows that the whole world is waging a struggle against inflation. So how can he say that this is a mess in which the Government has landed us? With those words he is trying to create impression among the taxpayers of the country.

Is that the money you are spending on housing in the Free State?

The hon. member maintains that crippling burdens have been imposed on the taxpayers. The hon. member should look at the taxation being levied. I should like to dwell on that for a moment. As far as income tax is concerned, 10% of the population pay 51% of that tax, and 90% of the population pay the remaining 49%. This being so, surely crippling burdens have not been imposed on the people outside.

A better name for indirect taxation is, in my opinion, voluntary taxation. This is the taxation which is levied on cigarettes, alcohol and fuel. I regard this as voluntary taxation, because I do not believe that anybody in this country is being forced to buy a packet of cigarettes. If he buys one, he does so voluntarily. I do not believe that anybody in this county is being forced to buy a bottle of liquor. If he does so, it is voluntary. Savings can be made as far as the consumption of fuel is concerned. This morning I drove at a speed of 90 km per hour and all the other cars passed me. If one resigns oneself to travelling at the expected speed, then one will save more fuel than this tax will cost one. In other words, the tax on fuel is also a voluntary one, because it is in the power of everyone to save that extra fuel. The hon. member for Walmer should give the matter proper consideration before telling the public, the taxpayers, that crippling burdens have been imposed on them.

It has also been said that this is an inflationary budget. I should like to remind hon. members, however, that this Government has prepared budgets for the past 27 years. I should like to remind them that this Government has spent a great deal of money on combating inflation. Does the Opposition really think that this responsible Government is going to undo everything now by preparing an inflationary budget? After all, the people sitting there are responsible people and they will not promote inflation by preparing an inflationary budget. I want to tell hon. members who do not know this that this Government prepared this budget on the basis of the experience they have gained of preparing budgets over more than a quarter of a century. I want to assure hon. members that they would not prepare a budget which would promote inflation. They would not prepare a budget imposing crippling burdens on the taxpayer, but would prepare a budget which would be the best for this country at this time. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said last night and agree with him that things first have to go badly for us before they can go better. This reminds me of what the well-known Till Eulenspiegel said—I believe that if he did exist, he would have been sitting on that side of the House. Till Enlenspiegel said that when he was riding a bicycle and reached a downgrade he would cry, because he would know there was an upgrade ahead. However, when he was riding his bicycle and reached an upgrade, then he would laugh, because he would know that there was a downgrade ahead. We have now reached the upgrade, but we are laughing because we know that the downgrade is ahead. We know that good times follow hard times. However, a few concealed lessons have emerged from this budget for us. I should like to state these warnings which have emerged from the budget in very simple language so that every taxpayer and every citizen of the country may know them and understand them. It is true that we in this country buy too easily and injudiciously. It is also true that we buy too much on credit. If we take these points into consideration, we shall reach the downgrade sooner and the upgrade we have to traverse will be shorter. When one compares South Africa to other countries in the world, South Africa is like a five-star hotel. A five-star hotel has numerous luxuries and comforts but one must be prepared to pay for those comforts because it costs money to provide them. South Africa’s comforts are to be found, firstly, in the security of the country, and, secondly, in economic security. In order to live in this five-star hotel, South Africa, we must be prepared to pay for those comforts at this stage.

Several speakers have already dealt with a certain group in the House. Our hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria West as well as other speakers, did so in a very thorough manner. I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North and say—and I am now speaking to that specific group—that as I was driving home last night I was a worried man. My hair was standing on end because of what had been revealed here last night by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. I could not understand the fact that these people who act behind closed doors in the dark, could live with me in this five-star hotel of ours. I think every member in this House must return to his voters and tell them from platform to platform what these people are playing with in this country. We owe it to the voters of South Africa that they should know what these people are engaged in in this five-star country of ours. I want to predict that their presence in this House will not last longer than the next election.

I want to conclude by addressing a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to thank him for sparing the agricultural industry the extra levy on fuel. Agriculture is going through a difficult period at the moment and this concession is greatly appreciated by every agriculturalist. The hon. the Minister should not take the criticism of the Opposition too seriously. That lot of hens scratched last year, they are still scratching this year and they shall do so again next year, but there will never be an egg where they have scratched.

Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously tempted to answer the many attacks which have been launched upon this party today and yesterday and to deal with the many problems and propositions which have presented themselves during that time. In view of the time, however, I feel that it is now an appropriate moment to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.