In view of the fact that Government business will have precedence for the remainder of this Session, private members who in terms of my statement on the Opening Day, wish to give notice of motions, should hand such notices in at the Table of the House. The notices will be placed on the Order Paper.

Before the House adjourned last night I took leave of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) as a member of this House. I intend leaving it at that, since it is not a process one should draw out unnecessarily. If I have the time, I may in the course of my speech refer to the hon. member again.

We in this House who have had the privilege of following this debate on the no-confidence motion, virtually on the eve of a general election, have gained the impression that never at a stage such as this have we had to deal with such a confused and dismayed Opposition. This is an Opposition which clearly shows, and they have in fact demonstrated it here, that they can have as little hope for a future as they can pride themselves on the past. The reason for this is that the Opposition is not taking into consideration the fact that no matter how hard they want the people to forget, the memory of a people is not as short as that. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition comes along and says that this Government finds itself in a terribly embarrassing position, because on the eve of this coming election they cannot say what they will do, but that they will be tested on the basis of what they have already done. Well, in 1948 impotence was replaced by action; as a Government we have a proud past and it is for that reason that we are looking forward to the coming election with so much optimism. Surely, we have nothing to be ashamed of. These high ideals and objectives held up to us by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I believe that he does perhaps strive after them—which include real national unity, a strong, vigorous and healthy economy, racial peace and harmony, all sound very fine. However, he maintains that the concept of “national unity” is merely a hollow gesture and an empty phrase. Let us now test the different ways in which one can obtain national unity. If the desired measure of national unity exists, that measure of national unity which is necessary to develop a country, particularly a young country such as South Africa, so that it might retain its place and position of leadership in Africa, as well as make a contribution towards the promotion and reinforcement of the Western world in everything the latter stands for, then it is only logical for one to wonder what has actually stood in the way of the achievement of that measure of widely and sincerely desired national unity. If one takes our own history, then one has to admit that it has never been those things which we hold dearest, those things which are truly South African, which have caused or brought about disunity or stood in the way of the achievement of that contrary, it has always been foreign influences, love of foreign things and the pursuance of foreign ideals which have had the effect of disuniting our people. In contrast to that, those things which are one’s own always have a unifying effect.

What contribution has the Opposition made over the years towards removing from our national life these disuniting factors which have been present in it? It is not my intention to repeat the whole history of the past, but in passing I should like to call attention to one or two of its aspects. There is, for instance, the basic presumption that one cannot have a dual love and at the same time maintain that one is fostering national unity. Ever since 1948 the National Party Government has deliberately endeavoured to ban from our national life those factors which cause friction and obstruct the development of true national unity. And, Mr. Speaker, it has done so in spite of the Opposition. Not in a single case did we get their support or co-operation. Consider the establishment of a citizenship of our own which we had to carry through in the face of resistance from the Opposition. It was merely our good fortune that we had a strong and energetic Government at the time to carry that through, because if we had not done that, we would not have rendered them the service we have rendered them against their will over the years since the Act was passed, by teaching them to have more national pride and to adopt a true South African nationalism. So I could continue.

I could also mention the struggle in connection with our constitutional development. They offered resistance at every stage of that struggle, and not only did they offer resistance, but what was the nature of that resistance? Constant use was made of intimidation—just as in this debate they are again trying to win the coming election by means of intimidation. What predictions did not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition make when we became a Republic! In fact, if there is anybody in this House who ought to be ashamed and would like people to forget it, then it is the Leader of the Opposition. He predicted that South Africa would decline. However, that is not all he predicted. He also predicted that those things which were valuable to the English-speaking section of our population, people who for historical reasons had stronger sentiments about the British Royal House and Great Britain would be neglected. He said that they would lose their language rights. Mr. Speaker, their passions were stirred up to such an extent that the leader of the United Party in Natal, the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), called them up to march. But, as is the fate of all of those who chase up phantoms, if they chase them up long enough, and if they chase up enough of them, they eventually become convinced that those phantoms are real and not imaginary. It also happens that one becomes so afraid of those phantoms that when the day comes that you have to march, you flee—you are simply missing.

What was the Opposition’s contribution towards the development of a sound national economy? In the attitude they adopted in this House or on public platforms outside they made no attempt whatsoever to establish confidence in the economic future of our country. No. what they tried to do was to frighten away capital. As a matter of fact, at one stage they took delight in the fact that sufficient capital was not flowing into the country. I mention these things merely in passing. There are many other examples I can quote, but I want to content myself with these. The fact of the matter is that in spite of all that resistance, and particularly since our becoming a Republic, the Government has succeeded in surmounting all those obstacles. The present position is that the Republic offers the best field of investment to any investor in the world. I think I can say that without any fear of contradition. And that is the position, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Opposition.

What is the position as far as race relations are concerned? How often have we not had to hear how we were oppressing the non-Whites by means of our apartheid measures and heaven knows what else. But when we look at the fruits of the actions of the Government, we can say without any fear of contradiction that there has never been a time in our history when greater racial harmony and a greater measure of hope for the future prevailed amongst all race groups—except amongst the Opposition—than at the present moment.

I should now like to proceed to a discussion of the new “Operation Agriculture” which the United Party is now launching. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition started off by saying that this Government was known for the fact that it has so often done the wrong thing. But, Mr. Speaker, if that is true, surely the United Party should have been in power a long time ago, because surely their only hope of coming to power is to thrive on our mistakes? The first statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and which concerned my Department was that soil conservation was being sadly neglected. He suggested that in the past few years virtually nothing had been done in that field. But what proof does he have for such a statement? The evidence he achieved was that not even half of the works planned for the period 1946 to 1964 had been completed. A few years ago, however, the charge was that we did not have the necessary staff to undertake the planning. This time the accusation is that we have planned so rapidly that we have not even been able to complete half of the planned and approved works. He then went on to allege that half of the works planned for the period from 1960 to 1964 have not yet been completed either. That is true. But what he omitted to say was that an amount of R62,500,000 would be required to complete the works which have already been approved. That is the estimate. But nevertheless works to the value of R37,000,000 have already been completed. Does that look like stagnation? Does that look like decline? Besides, surely it is not the State or the Government which has to undertake these works? The Government merely has to provide the stimulus, the encouragement.

It has to carry out the surveys; it has to emphasize the necessity of works and to do the necessary educational work, because, after all, it is the farmers who have to carry out the works. The backlog that does exist is not due to the farmers being lazy or not conscious of soil conservation, but there are various circumstances which restrict a farmer in his activities. If we looked up the figures to see what progress has in fact been made and at what rate it has been made, we would see what a major part drought has played in connection with soil conservation works. I for my part want to give the farmers of South Africa the fullest credit for what they have done in this regard and for their response. I say that I give the farmers of South Africa the fullest credit for the contribution they have made towards conserving our soil. Subsidies have continually been altered and adapted with the aim of providing greater incentives for the carrying-out of soil conservation works. I do not want to go into details, but I do want to mention that only a very short while ago we introduced a higher subsidy, which will vary from 50 per cent to 85 per cent. It may even be higher. That subsidy applies to those soil conservation works which, because of their extent, are beyond the financial means of individual farmers, but which are nevertheless extremely necessary and will in fact increase the value of minor works undertaken by the farmers themselves. We are continuing with research work in this sphere and progress is continually being made. At this stage I shall not go into all the methods of reorganization which are being applied. There are too many of them.

Another objection raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that we have too few technical and extension officers. The fact of the matter is that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, with all the training facilities which it has provided at agricultural faculties and colleges, has to train people not only for our own service, but also for all the other industries related to agriculture. Salaries have been supplemented. What was the position in this respect in the past? I admit that not much could be done in the years after the War. But what was the position regarding technicians in 1947 in the then Department of Agriculture? There was a total of 1.180 research workers, extension officers, technical officers, field veterinarians and soil conservation technicians. In the year 1958, before the Department was divided into two—when the division took place, some of the technicians of the Department of Agriculture went to the other Department—there were 2,285 professional technicians, an increase of more than 1,000. And the position has not deteriorated since 1958, because the number was 2,653 in 1965. There are probably few Departments which can boast of having made so much progress in such a relatively short period and in such difficult times as we have and are still experiencing. The present position in my Department, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, is as follows: 92 per cent of the professional posts are filled; 94 per cent of the technical posts are filled; extension officers, 97 per cent; field veterinarians, 98 per cent; soil conservation technicians, 96 per cent. And there will be no difficulty in creating additional posts should they be required. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests that the agricultural industry was a sick industry long before the droughts. Well, if this industry were as sick as he suggests it was, or still is, then one would have expected stagnation or only very little progress in this field. But is that the case at present? Let us see. When we came into power in 1948, there were agricultural shortages in many spheres. We had to queue for practically everything. Yes, then the interests of the farmers were neglected! I do not want to go into that. We know that some of the agricultural colleges were closed down. But not many years after the Nationalist Government had come to power there was new life and new development and a revival in the field of agriculture. Last night the hon. member for Drakensberg pointed out that in 1962 the United Party’s chief critic in the field of agriculture, the present hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Connan)— had to introduce a motion in this House that the Government should seek markets for the agricultural surpluses. Yes, there were agricultural surpluses, and now we are being accused of not having made provision for them. Shortages have been turned into surpluses. Does that look like a terribly sick industry ! Let us examine a few figures in regard to this matter. In 1948 the contribution made by the agricultural industry to the total exports of the country amounted to R151,000,000. The figure for 1963 was R444,000,000. In 1948 the net value of inland produce was R1,700,000,000. In 1963 it was R5,481,000,000. I realize that the agricultural industry has many problems. It is, of course, an industry that is fraught with many problems. No other industry in the country is faced with more unpredictable factors, factors beyond human control, than the agricultural industry. I know that the drought, which has been prevailing in certain parts of our country for many years and is still becoming more severe, will most certainly leave its mark. But as far as assistance, an alert attitude and quick action are concerned, in various circumstances and in the face of various natural disasters, whether on a small or on a large scale, there has been no government since 1910 which has taken more rapid and more active steps to come to the assistance of our farmers than the Nationalist Government, and particularly the present Government.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the Government was neglecting the farmers because, allegedly, only large dams were being built. I remember that when the late Advocate Strydom was still Minister of Water Affairs, they ridiculed him by calling him the “Small Dam Man.” He was doing what the United Party wants the Government to do at present. They maintain that this is essential at present, and I agree. But at that time, when he was doing the most important thing first, they called him a “Small Dam Man.”

The hon. member for Drakensberg said, reference to the figures quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to what was going to be done in the field of water affairs over the next five years, that they were merely election promises. But that hon. member does not know what she is talking about. She suggested, inter alia, that the hon. the Prime Minister was only waking up now as regards the Tugela. But the truth is that she herself has only woken up now. She is the stranger in Natal, because apparently she is not aware of the fact that in the Tugela three Government works have been completed during the past six years.

Where?

I shall name them to the hon. member. We have the Craigie Burn Dam, the Chelmsford Dam and the Wagendrift Dam, all situated in the catchment area of the Tugela.

May I ask you a question?

No. Those are not schemes we are envisaging. The schemes which we referred to and which will cost these phenomenal and staggering amounts, are schemes relating to irrigation land, new land and many morgen of land which will be supplied with supplementary water. I have at hand particulars concerning these schemes. These particulars show that certain schemes have already been approved by Parliament and that we are already working on them, while other projects which have not yet been commenced will be completed in the course of the next five years. The total area of new and supplementary irrigation land which will be incorporated into proposed schemes during the next five years is 217,000 morgen. Talk about water provision, aid to farmers and boring-services! Mr. Speaker, just think of it: during the past six years this Government has spent R4,000,000 more on boring-services than the total amount spent by all governments up to 1948.

Mr. Speaker, my time has almost expired, and I shall now conclude. I want to repeat once again that this Government plans ahead. This Government is aware of circumstances which may give rise to difficulties and also of the fact that people may suffer as a result. The necessary adaptations are continually being made. Just as it is realized in England and other European countries it is realized in this country, too, that with the change taking place in the entire economic structure, in the cost structure, and in view of the fact that a decent standard of living is desired by all, one cannot keep all the farmers on their farms. The British Government recently announced that they were going to tackle schemes in terms of which smallholders whom they could not keep on the land, not even by means of consolidation, would be offered the choice of allowing themselves to be bought out. Some other means of gaining a livelihood will then be provided to them, or otherwise they can retire on pension. That is happening in England at present, a country with such a large number of extension officers that one would imagine that the agricultural industry there would be so sound that farmers would not need to leave their farms.

In South Africa we have already started with a revolutionary programme which includes agricultural stabilization and the reclamation of land. And this Parliament will soon be asked to vote funds for that programme.

Those are all just promises.

Yes, the hon. member says that we only make promises. But I am referring to deeds, to positive steps which are being taken. Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the future of the agricultural industry in South Africa. I have faith in the ability of our farmers to brave every adversity and all setbacks. I believe that the assistance rendered by this Government, and the assistance it will still render in the future, will bring about a proud and flourishing agricultural industry in South Africa.

Yesterday afternoon the hon. the Minister, in his customary lighthearted manner, told the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) that she had most probably made her last speech in this House when she spoke just before him. But I want to warn the hon. the Minister to take care that the tables may not perhaps be turned, so that he may soon be making his last speech from the ministerial benches!

The hon. the Minister concluded his speech by telling us about the wonderful plans envisaged by the Government, plans which are to be submitted to this Parliament in due course. But should not those plans be submitted to the electorate of South Africa before being considered here? Does not the hon. the Minister and the other members of the Government want to tell the people what major plans they have in mind as far as the farmers of South Africa are concerned? Let the people first approve those plans before they are considered in Parliament.

The hon. the Minister said that the people were satisfied with the vigorous action taken by the Government over the past 17 years, with all their wonderful schemes and with the wonderful progress they have made in the field of soil conservation. Well, I have a cutting here which deals with a speech made by Dr. J. C. Ross, an adviser to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. He was the first Director of Soil Conservation in South Africa. I quote what he said—

when he was the Director, the annual loss was 300,000,000 tons a year—

Here you have the reply as regards soil conservation and curbing erosion from the horse’s mouth, from the mouth of a man who knows. If the hon. Ministers are so satisfied with all the schemes introduced by this Government in the past 17 years, they should go to their own congresses. Is the South African Agricultural Union so satisfied with the Government’s schemes? I have before me a report of the congress of the South African Agricultural Union Congress which was held in Bloemfontein, and I want to read what one of the delegates said there …

In what year?

I quote from the Argusof 26 August 1965—

That is the kind of statement made by delegates at the congress of the South African Agricultural Union, and then the hon. the Minister comes here and says that they have given South Africa the most wonderful schemes over the past 17 years. He boasts about the veterinary surgeons and the extension officers, but listen to what Mr. J. de Villiers Loubser, Chairman of the Cape Agricultural Union, had to say last year, according to Georganiseerde Landbou of October last year—

It cannot be developed before these essential services are provided, and then the hon. the Minister comes here and says that the people are satisfied with the wonderful progress made by them. He quotes figures to show us how his Department has grown. We told him last year that he had built himself that wonderful departmental castle; we know that, but we ask him once again: How much of the wonderful work done by his Department, which we appreciate, reaches the farmer himself, the man who needs it? Because the hon. the Minister does not have the extension officers to pass the results of that research on to those people, and he knows that. And he comes here and boasts that the Government has done so much for South Africa over the past 17 years!

The hon. the Prime Minister also told us that the United Party was going to make large-scale propaganda with regard to the position of the farmer in South Africa. We on this side are not ashamed of the fact that we are going to act in the interests of the farmers. We are not going to beat about the bush. If that side of the House is not prepared to look after the interests of the farmer of South Africa, who must look after them? Is it not then the task and the duty of the Opposition to look after the interests of those people, and to fight for their interests? The hon. the Minister knows that the farmers of South Africa are not only fighting in their agricultural unions, but are also fighting at the congresses of his own party. I am not surprised that the Government will not listen to the South African Agricultural Union; I am not surprised that they will not listen to us; but the very least the Ministers of Agriculture can do is to listen to what their own supporters have to say at their congresses.

How many farmers do you represent?

I want to refer to one example; take the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Last year the Prime Minister told us that the people of South Africa were not worse off; that they merely wanted more, and then he announced at his congress in Bloemfontein that the injustice which had been done would soon be remedied.

What injustice?

He announced that to the Bloemfontein Congress in very serious tones and everybody was glad to hear it, but then a delegate at their own congress got up, according to the Burger of 23 September last year, and asked: “But cannot we also get increased maize prices now? We have just promised the salaried workers, the public servants and the Post Office workers that their salaries would be adjusted.” We have no quarrel with that; that is correct; but then the farmers asked: “Now, what about us; cannot we get a small increase in our mealie prices?” And what did the hon. the Prime Minister reply to that? His reply was—

But then there was no election in the offing.

Shortly after that he said—

But, Mr. Speaker, promises can be made in respect of the salaried workers, the teacher, the minister of religion, the post office worker, etc.; all of them can get increased salaries, but he cannot make any promises in respect of the prices of the farmer’s products. Is the Government surprised that they are being criticized by the farmers? It is far-fetched on the part of the Ministers to argue to-day that the farmers are in fact sharing in the prosperity of the country. What are the facts of the matter? What is the financial position of the farmer to-day? Let us assess the financial position of the farmer on the basis of the income-tax paid by him. I quote from the 1959-61 report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue—

Fifty per cent!—

In the case of the farmers, however, 50 per cent had an income of less than R1,000! In that year the total profits in South Africa were R2,034,000,000; the profits from farming were R154,000,000. The total losses were R35,000,000 and farming losses were responsible for R21,000,000 of the R35,000,000. But there is even more to come—and I quote from one of the reports of the Transvaal Agricultural Union—

They concluded by saying this—

Nearly 40 per cent of the people with a taxable income of less than R600 per year were farmers. And then the Government is trying to suggest that the farmers of South Africa are sharing in the country’s prosperity, while that was the position in 1959-61. What must the position be to-day, after all the tremendous droughts South Africa has suffered? That is why I am surprised that this Government, which has had a study group on agricultural credit and agricultural financing since 1958, should only now, after seven years, introduce legislation. Not only does this Government hopelessly neglect the interests of the farmers, but the Government is far too slow. They lack drive. I shall tell you what the great difference between them and us is as far as agricultural policy is concerned. According to the Government the farming industry itself must shoulder all the blame, and there is nothing wrong with the direction in which the industry is being guided. The Government sits with its hands folded while thousands are leaving the land. They deny—and to-day the hon. the Minister again tried to create that impression—that they are trying to decrease the number of farmers in the rural areas, but at the same time they are doing nothing to discourage the de-population of the rural areas. The Government says that it has faith in the industry, as we heard again this afternoon, but its actions belie its words. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the farmers of South Africa cannot live on sympathy. The farmer in South Africa cannot live on sympathy any more than Ian Smith’s vehicles can run on sympathy. What the farmer in South Africa demands from the Government, and what will save him, is an act of faith. The Government’s approach is that farming is merely a way of life. We do not only regard it as a way of life. Farming should afford the farmer a decent living. Our approach is that the industry is not only basic, but that it should also be brought more into line with commerce and industry as regards profitability. Confidence in the agricultural industry can only be restored if one adopts that approach, and only then can agriculture survive as a basic industry in this country. We have been told that every farmer would receive individual attention. How is it possible to give the farmer of South Africa individual attention? Who will do that? We know that this Government does not have the manpower to do that. That promise is absolutely meaningless, and the facts show it to be an empty one. But not only has the Government’s attitude disturbed the farming industry; it has also affected other sectors of our economy, and the main charge we can bring against this Government is that the agricultural industry lacks planning. The drought we have recently experienced is a fine example of that.

“Fine example!”

At one stage we were told that the plans would be announced once the drought had passed. Now the opportunity has come, but we hear absolutely nothing from the Government. For example, a few years ago when we had a lucerne surplus in South Africa—and we know that lucerne is one of the best products with which to combat droughts—what was the Government’s advice? Their advice to the Orange River farmers and to the farmers in the more densely populated settlements, such as Vaalharts, was, “You have a lucerne surplus; plough it up, there is no price for your product.” And to-day we have this great shortage of lucerne, but hon. members on that side persist in telling us that there is no lack of planning on the part of the Government. We know that lucerne is an essential type of fodder and is most needed in times of drought, and we know that drought is a recurrent phenomenon in South Africa. Should one not see to it then that one has the maximum supply of lucerne in South Africa? We find, however, that the lucerne farmer was advised to plough up his lucerne, because the Government could not give him a proper price for his product. Then there is another fine example; during the past few years dozens and hundreds of farmers have been driven off the land as a result of droughts. What are the Government’s plans for the rehabilitation of those people? In contrast, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out what could be done to return those people to the land and to keep them there, but from the hon. the Minister, who should have used this opportunity to announce the Government’s plans, we have heard absolutely nothing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing: “Why this secrecy? Why do they not tell us their plans for the resettlement of those people on the land? They told us they were going to do something, but nobody knows what their plans are. During the past drought they had such wonderful plans for drought assistance. I have two plans in front of me, the plan announced by them last year in connection with drought assistance, and the one which appeared during the past 14 days. What basic difference is there between that drought relief plan and the one the hon. the Minister announced last year? Basically they are exactly the same. Instead of R12,000 for the central fodder bank, the figure has been increased to R20,000, and then the hon. the Minister boasts about the wonderful new drought relief plan announced in 1966! Mr. Speaker, I can give you another example of this Government’s inability to take action. In 1961 the then member for Kimberley (North) moved a motion here that the Government should investigate ways and means of combating droughts, more particularly as regards the feeding of stock in times of drought. I do not know whether the Government then appointed the Verbeek Commission to investigate the matter, but that report has now been published, four to five years afterwards, and how has the Government reacted upon it? There they have a plan they can use to keep animals alive in times of drought. But what is the Minister’s attitude? His attitude is that that report should now first be sent back to the South African Agricultural Union and other interested concerns so that they may study it and give their opinions on it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, is it going to take another four years before we receive his final plans? Should not the Minister’s attitude have been, after be had received that report, to study it and then tell the interested concerns immediately: “Look, this is what the Government is prepared to do in connection with the report”? No, it is first referred back to the South African Agricultural Union and other interested concerns, because the Government itself does not know what to do with that report. And then they tell us that they are a vigorous Government and that they are prepared to plan for the future. Even when they are given a plan for the future ffiey are not prepared to do anything about it. No, they wait for the opinion of the South African Agricultural Union and other interested concerns. There is no ministerial guidance. Our Departments of Agriculture are still amongst the best equipped and the largest Government Departments we have, but these Ministers cannot even govern South Africa in times of emergency, and surely that is the test. The test is not what they do in a time of prosperity, in a time when everything goes smoothly. Here we now have an opportunity to put the Government to a proper test, but what happens? We now have to hear that there are no plans. If a government cannot govern a country in times of emergency, one cannot depend upon it in times of prosperity either.

I have said that this Government was being criticized for their inaction, not only by the South African Agricultural Union, not only by us, but also by their own supporters. In this regard I want to refer to the congress held by the Nationalist Party in Pretoria.

Your time has expired.

I know the hon. member would like my time to be expired. What happened there, Mr. Speaker? According to the Burger of 18 August last year, several delegates to that congress, where they had the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing under fire, said the following in the course of the debate—

That comes from a Nationalist delegate. What was the hon. the Minister’s reply? He said this—

I wonder what kind of a meal the hon. the Minister enjoyed that evening. According to him the farmers should not make political threats, because they do not form a majority in any Transvaal or other constituency in the country. Is that the attitude to adopt when people come to plead for their interests with the Minister as these people did? They were not United Party supporters, but Nationalists. The hon. the Minister had the effrontery to tell the congress that those were political threats. Why are the difficulties that farmers have to contend with brought to the Minister’s notice by these people? They do so because they know what the position outside is. They know that there is a sense of despair in the rural areas of South Africa at the moment. and that is also why I am not surprised to see that even people who are members of the various control boards are prepared to criticize the Government to-day. Here I want to refer to Mr. Hudson Klerck of Rustenburg, who, for example, said the following at the congress of the Transvaal Agricultural Union—

And what follows now is important—

Why do you not read the resolutions of the Congress?

He also put the following question—

He knows that the farmers are leaving the land. Then Mr. Attie Bothma said the following to the Minister—

But that is true.

The Government says that the farmers are satisfied and that they are sharing in the wonderful prosperity of South Africa. To summarize, there are certain charges that may be laid at the door of this Government. Firstly, that they refuse to believe that there is something radically wrong with the agricultural industry. All the warnings given to them have gone unheeded. They ignore all warnings regarding the fanner’s financial position. They are not prepared to believe them. The second charge to be laid at the door of the Government is that they are only looking for excuses, just as they are at present using the drought as an excuse for the difficulties being experienced by the farmer in South Africa, and then there is still no proper solution to this emergency. The third charge one can level against this Government is that they have failed to devise a sound agricultural policy. They have a reply to other sectors, as the hon. the Prime Minister did in the case of the salaried workers, but that reply cannot be given in respect of agriculture. The fourth charge is that they have shaken the confidence of the rural areas in them as a Government, and that there is at present a spirit of despair in agriculture as a result of the Government’s inaction. Another charge which can be levelled against them is that there is no long-term planning to restore confidence in our agricultural industry. For example, where is the planning council the South African Agricultural Union has asked for so often? It has taken the hon. the Minister eight years to establish an agricultural credit and agricultural financing department. An agricultural planning council was asked for three or four years ago already. How much longer will the farmers have to wait for it? The Government seeks solutions in other fields, but they refuse to search their own hearts. They say the farmers are living beyond their means; that they should try to reduce their production costs; that they should try to improve their farm management; but they refuse to search their own hearts. They say that it is necessary to place restrictions upon the freedom of the farmer, although they do not like to do so. If there is anything to be done, it is to place restrictions upon the freedom of the Ministers. Restriction to their Departments and to their desks for a while, and see to it that they do their work. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said that his Party did not regard agriculture as merely being a way of life. It is very clear that they do not regard it as being a way of life. They pre-eminently regard agriculture as something for political exploitation. This drought which has gradually become more severe in recent years, really came as a “Godsend” to them, so that they are now able to say something about agriculture. I recall very clearly that two or three years ago, the attack made by the entire Opposition was that the Government, together with the control boards, had undertaken no planning in connection with the surpluses of maize and other products existing at that time. They expected at that time that one had to develop markets for a product which was not there to be sold. The accusation made at that time was that farmers had to pay high storage prices for produce which had to be exported and which the Railways could not convey, and that there had been no planning. Those facilities have been created in the meantime, but to-day we do not have the produce. We do not have the produce, not because the farmers could not produce, but because of climatic conditions. Now they say that the Government should have foreseen the coming of a drought. I say that agriculture is no longer regarded by the hon. member and by the United Party as being a way of life, but as being a handy political tool to be employed as and when it suits them. The hon. member quoted what I said at a congress in response to speeches made on agriculture where it was said that people would no longer vote for the Government or would abstain from voting. I want to tell the hon. member what I said— because I do not regard agriculture as being a political tool—and then I want to ask him whether he wishes to differ. I said the agricultural industry in South Africa with its problems, with its periodic droughts, with the possibility of declining markets over which there was no control because they were dependent upon the demand from abroad, could make sufficient demands on the Government to look after the interests of farmers and to see that they were in a position to produce food. Therefore, farmers could make out a sufficiently good case on the basis of the industry as such, without involving political power; I then added that if they wanted to make out a case on the basis of the political power they were going to exercise, they were fighting a losing battle, because their political power was not such that they could act threateningly towards the rest of the population. I want to repeat, if the United Party should come into power again—something which will never happen of course—it would come into power on account of those regions where it would receive very few of the rural votes. If the United Party should come into power again, the agriculturalists will receive no mercy from them. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said there was no planning. He read from speeches made at congresses. However, congresses are held to bring current problems to the attention of the Government. For what other reason does one hold a congress? Last year we were accused by the Opposition that no notice was taken of the agricultural unions; the Government had to accede to every request by the agricultural unions. Now the hon. member brings the opposite accusation. He said that we should not have referred the emergency measures to the agricultural unions; we should not have asked their opinion; the Minister should have acted on his own immediately. What do hon. members on the opposite side want? They are only seeking to derive political benefit from the situation which has developed.

Whenever hon. members on the opposite side have the opportunity—and the hon. member who has just sat down is especially inclined to do so—they quote what has happened at agricultural congresses when points for discussion criticizing the Government or making specific requests were raised. He wants to create the impression that he is well informed about the happenings at those congresses, but I want to give the hon. member some advice. If he was really as interested in agriculture as he pretends to be to-day, he should attend a few of those agricultural congresses. Not only should he attend them; he should obtain information from the agricultural unions about what has been done. He would then be better informed than he is to-day. He said the agricultural unions had been asking for an advisory board for a long time and that nothing had been done in that connection. The hon. member does not even know that that advisory board has been in existence for a very long time.

I was speaking about a planning board.

What is the difference? The hon. member does not know what is happening but still says that nothing has been done in that direction. The hon. member then referred to the problems created by drought and in doing so associated himself with the Leader of the Opposition. He said the problems which had arisen were not the result of the drought only, but had arisen because of desease in the agricultural industry. He mentioned the fact that farmers were leaving the rural areas and spoke about the decreased number of farmers. He said it was especially the producers of produce in respect of which the Government had fixed prices under the Marketing Act, who found themselves in difficulties. In other words, where the Government has any say in the determination of prices, it keeps prices so low that farmers land in difficulties and are leaving the rural areas. But have members of the opposite side ever made an analysis of which rural areas farmers are leaving in large numbers? I want to suggest—I cannot furnish the figures at the moment but am convinced that I am correct— that maize and wheat, products cultivated on a large scale, are the basic products in respect of which prices have been fixed, and that the smallest number of farmers, in relation to farmers from other regions, is leaving the regions where these products are cultivated. Therefore that is no argument. In addition 1 want to suggest that the depopulation of the rural areas was more marked in regions where prices of agricultural produce were relatively high, where these prices subsequently decreased and where the Government had no control over that decrease. The Leader of the Opposition said if one had realistic prices, especially for produce with a price, these problems would not have arisen. A large part of the country in which this problem did arise and in which it was found to be at its worst, was the wool/sheep farming regions. Ten or twelve years ago wool prices were the highest we have ever known them to be in South Africa, and over the past number of years wool prices have been on a reasonable basis. If the Leader of the Opposition was correct in his argument that the basic prices fixed for produce were too low, why does one find the identical problem as regards produce having no fixed price here but for which prices are fixed overseas? Yes, it is easy for members of the United Party to get up and make this type of criticism because they know people are concerned about the drought and various other things, inter alia,about the increase of the Black population in rural areas. That is why the United Party makes the statement at every meeting that the Government is to blame for the increase in the Black population in the rural areas. The Leader of the Opposition made the insinuation the other day. He said there were many more Bantu in the rural areas than before, and accused the Government of not having implemented its policy. He did so because he knew people were concerned about that. I now want to ask him the following question. If he blames the Government for the larger number of Bantu in these areas, what is their policy? Are you going to make a deliberate attempt to decrease the number of Blacks in the rural areas if you should come into power? Well? It is a very simple question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), or any other member, If the United Party does reply to that question I want to ask them not to pretend, for reasons of political exploitation because they know certain Nationalists are concerned about the depopulation of rural areas, that the number of Bantu will be decreased if the United Party should come into power. Be honest, as we are honest, and say: We shall make deliberate attempts by means of the development of the reserves and other methods to combat the increase in the number of Blacks in the rural areas. But I want-to make the statement that the United Party will make a deliberate attempt to increase the number of Blacks in the rural areas.

The hon. member told the Prime Minister that seeing that he had increased the salaries of Public Servants, he should have increased the price of maize as well and the Prime Minister replied that one could not simply in* crease a price out of proportion to the price of other products. I want to put this question to the hon. member. The impression which has been created is that if the United Party should come into power, they would increase the price of any product when pressure for an increase in price is experienced. The second impression which has been created is that if they should come into power they would announce the prices for certain products on a long term policy. Now my question is this. Does that mean that the basic principles of the Marketing Act are going to be discarded, that the Board will not meet to fix prices, and that the Government will fix the prices of products arbitrarily? I also want to put the following question to the hon. member. The guarantee for the long term fixing of prices is precisely the fixing of prices and the Marketing Act and I want to put this pertinent question. It does not help to speak at random and to make loose allegations. We should keep to the facts. Are you going to discard those principles in the Marketing Act according to which members who are producers meet consumers once a year to fix prices for products according to circumstances, or is the Government going to fix prices arbitrarily? It is easy to reply. The hon. members can merely say yes or no.

But I want to come to another point. The depopulation of the rural areas has been discussed, because those hon. members realize that there is concern about the smaller number of farmers in rural areas. Now I want to put this question very pertinently to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to put this question to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) because I do not think he is able to reply. If they should come into power will they attempt to keep every farmer who is in the rural areas to-day in the rural areas. irrespective of his capabilities as a farmer, and irrespective of whether he has sufficient capital to farm, or whether his unit is economic? If he should come into power would he give the undertaking that he would attempt to keep every farmer on his land? This is a reasonable question and an easy one to reply to, because the accusation coming from the opposite side is that the Government is to blame for the decrease in the number of farmers. I have listened to the entire speech by the Leader of the Opposition and I have been listening to him for years. After the Leader of the Opposition had brought certain charges against the Government, he offered solutions and said, and other members have also said so, that a credit study group had been appointed years ago and that legislation for granting credit to farmers according to the findings of that study group was only introduced at this stage. But this is totally wrong and the hon. member knows it. The fact is that that commission recommended that a department should be established and that certain credit facilities should be created for farmers. However, we had machinery at our disposal for granting credit. Under State Advances we continuously made production loans which embodied the same principle as the granting of credit. We made other arrangements for the purchasing and financing of livestock, which included the same principle. In other words, the report containing the commission’s recommendations had been implemented by the Department to a very large extent, and if the hon. member went to the Transvaal Agricultural Union, or the Cape Agricultural Union, they would have told him so. It is a pity that he did not go to that trouble. I understand that one of his big wigs from the Transvaal Agricultural Union is now sitting in the Other Plase. Perhaps he could give the hon. member a little advice and put matters straight.

But after the Leader of the Opposition had levelled all those charges, he gave his solutions and the methods for rehabilitating farmers after the drought, when things were back to normal. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is not quite as irresponsible as many of his members behind him. He made two recommendations. His first recommendation was that the farmers in drought-stricken areas should be enabled to remove their livestock so that their land could rest. New steps are constantly taken as the drought worsens in intensity. In the first place one tries to save the remaining livestock and to let them stay where they are, but if the drought becomes prolonged, it is obvious that one has to feed the livestock or take other steps, and one of the steps we have already announced is precisely that which the Leader of the Opposition now recommends, somewhat belatedly, as one of the steps he would take. I do not know whether he did not see our announcement, but the fact remains that that scheme is already in operation. In announcing these steps before the Leader of the Opposition made his speech last Friday, I said that after the scheme for the removal of livestock from drought-stricken areas had been completed by the end of April, new steps would be announced to allow for the recovery of the veld and pasturage and that these steps would assist farmers to let their veld rest for some time. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I do not know who his adviser on that side is. I know that he does not have the time to see to everything himself as he is a busy man. However, the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) was his first adviser, then it was the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). who came to light with such fantastic schemes at the caucus meetings of the United Party that the Leader of the Opposition realized that he was dealing with a dangerous man, and he then appointed the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) to act as speaker on agricultural matters. He wrote off the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Connan) a long time ago. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that he may just as well write off the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) too, because he does not know what is happening in the country. He is ignorant, he is uninformed, and he now advises the Leader of the Opposition to ask for something which has already been done.

The second suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition was that a body operating through local committees should be established. as was done for the settlement of ex-soldiers at the time, and that the position of each individual farmer should be investigated and treated individually by that body. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) immediately disagreed with his Leader. The hon. member said that if the Prime Minister said that farmers should be treated individually, it would be impossible, because where would the Prime Minister find all the people to do so, but his Leader pleaded for the individual treatment of all farmers. I agree with him that the farmers should be treated individually, because one cannot institute a general scheme, either for relief in respect of interest charges or anything else, under these circumstances because conditions vary in each region. In this respect I agree with him, or rather, he agrees with me. because the idea of establishing such a body has been introduced by way of legislation now upon the Table. For that reason we are going to establish a board for replacing all the land boards and the Farmers’ Assistance Board and which will take over all these particular functions from them. This board will operate in every district through its local committees, which will enable us to do exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has asked. I take it that the Leader of the Opposition will be satisfied if I tell him that this idea of his— which merely shows that the United Party is always lagging somewhat behind in their ideas … [Interjections.] One does find the odd member of the United Party in the agricultural unions and possibly one of them conveyed that information to him whereupon he might have thought they would now ask for that to be done because legislation might not have been prepared yet and then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) would have been able to say in his constituency that it was his Leader’s plan which the Government announced.

I do not have the time to go into all the assistance schemes and measures introduced in the various districts during the past number of years as the drought worsened. These schemes have cost a great deal of money. I want to ask the Opposition not to say that we are imposing more taxation on the taxpayer when we ask for money to be made available for the rehabilitation of the people in the drought-stricken areas. But that is what they are going to do, in the same way as the hon. member for Drakensberg said here yesterday that the larders of the consumers were empty and that the Government was responsible. I ask you, where are the empty larders in the country?

Everywhere.

Is there no bread or butter or eggs? The hon. member wants to frighten the consumer with the idea that there will be a food shortage, and she wants more money for the farmer. She wants to make propaganda on all sides. If farmers’ prices are increased they will say that the Government is to blame for the increase in food prices to the consumer. And if the produce prices were not increased the hon. member would also say that the Government was to blame. If food prices were subsidized and taxes were increased, she would also say that the Government was to blame. [Interjections.] I do not blame any farmer for criticizing conditions when he is experiencing hard times, even though he may be unreasonable in his criticism at times, but I want to tell the Opposition that they will have to think some more if they imagine that they can make political capital out of that while this Government has achieved so much as regards its aid to farmers and its long-term policy for the development of agriculture. If they think that they are going to incite farmers to vote against the Government because they are experiencing hard times, they are making a serious mistake, because the farmers of South Africa know who their friends are in times of difficulty. The Opposition may quote from what has been said at congresses and they may raise problems, but by doing so they will gain no political advantage because the farmers know we shall deal with the problems. The farmers know that the United Party is not concerned about the farmers’ position as they are trying to make out. They are concerned about the position of the United Party and want to exploit the farmers’ position for political gain. They say that agriculture does not constitute a way of life. No, to them it is a way of deriving political benefit for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech of the hon. the Minister one starts to understand why agriculture is in such a mess and why the farmers throughout the country talk of this Minister in hushed tones as the greatest cross they have to bear. What has the Minister of Agriculture told the House this afternoon? He has repeated all our attacks and he has said: Yes, I accept that is so. He agrees that the fanners are discontented and that they are leaving the land and he agrees that the platteland is becoming Black, but he shrugs his shoulders and asks what on earth we expect him to do about it. That is the gravamen of his speech, that he is not responsible. It is not that he is not responsible, but that he is not capable. The Minister does not realize that the larders of South Africa are becoming empty. This very afternoon that same Minister answered questions on the volume of butter and cheese we are importing. When we as an agricultural country have to seek our food through imports there is something wrong with the agriculture of the country. And the other two-fifths of the two Ministers and the one Deputy Minister of Agriculture, what did he talk about? He spoke about national unity. He did later touch on agriculture, but I believe the attack of the United Party on the failure of the Government’s agricultural policy will speak for itself.

I want to deal for a moment, Sir, with the statements made by the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services regarding national unity in South Africa. Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, he has been reading the Prime Minister’s private dictionary of daft definitions, because when the Prime Minister dealt with national unity in his opening speech, he took the same sort of line. He said that national unity was being achieved under the Nationalist Party because English-speaking people were voting for that party. I ask you to note the test that the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party apply to national unity. To them national unity exists when a person supports the political philosophy of the Nationalist Party. My Leader spoke in terms of bilingualism and in terms of mutual respect of one language group for the other. In our minds that is national unity. It is not tested by where you put your cross. It is tested by where your heart is in relation to your fellow-South Africans. And when we talk of unity we talk not of blind adherance to, and of absorption into a political group. We talk of love for our country and for our fellow-man as a South African. That party has in this debate in this House talked of national unity being achieved. But the Prime Minister is the chairman of a newspaper—and I am not going back into history when, as editor of a newspaper, he expressed amazement that Dr. Hertzog had left the Nationalist Party merely because of the rights of the English. I am talking now of a few months ago, in 1965, when one of the Prime Minister’s own newspapers carried a campaign in its letter columns of vitriolic bitterness and racial incitement which is a disgrace to South Africa in the 1960s. I want to give some examples of the sort of muck, the sort of racial bitterness that the Prime Minister permits his newspapers, of which he is chairman, to publish to divide our people. I quote from the Dagbreek en Sondagnuus of 26 September 1965:

Is that a letter or an article?

I said it was a letter. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had been awake he would have heard me say clearly, “a letter campaign”. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that this sort of letter is welcomed and published in a newspaper which is the official organ of the Nationalist Party. This letter-writer to whom I am referring gives his name. He is Mr. R. Nel of Van der Walt Street, Pretoria. He says, inter alia—

The heading of this letter is “Net een taal vir Afrikanernasie”. In the same paper on the same day there is a demand that those who are English speaking and want to support the Nationalist Party should not use Dagbreek en Sondagnuus, but should have their own English newspaper. They should not use an Afrikaans-language newspaper, even though they support the Nationalist Party. Mr. Speaker, that was the start. There were other letters. I am not going to quote them all, but week after week this campaign continued. The next letter I shall quote appeared on 10 October last year. The heading reads as follows: “Tweeling-gedrog kan die Afrikanerdom nie vervang.” This is to me the saddest part of this whole campaign of letters, because this reflects the unrepudiated view of raw nationalism as it has brought this party into power. This letter from Mr. T. B. Floyd, of Nylstroom, says inter alia.

That was on 10 October. The following week I issued a challenge to any Nationalist, to the Prime Minister as the chairman of the paper, and to the editor of the paper to repudiate this campaign which was clearly building up. There was not a single repudiation. The next week, on 17 October there was another letter which was given prominence in this newspaper. The heading reads as follows: “Engelstaliges wil nie Afrikaans leer.” A part of this letter reads as follows—

I challenged them again. I challenged any Nationalist in Natal, where the English-speaking people are being wooed—that leaderless party in Natal must have some leaders somewhere—to repudiate this campaign in the Dagbreek en Sondagnuus. They were pleading for unity in Natal. There sits the Minister, the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal. In the Natal newspapers I challenged them to repudiate this letter campaign. The next week, on 31 October another letter appeared, the heading of which reads as follows: “Sien oplossing vir Suid-Afrika in Eentaligheid.” It reads, inter alia, as follows:

And so, Mr. Speaker, week after week this campaign goes on in an official organ of the Prime Minister’s newspaper group, instituted to try to sow bitterness amongst the people of South Africa. Yet the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services talks to us here of unity to-day. Where is the repudiation by the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal? Where is the editor’s footnote or the editor’s rejection of this sort of letter? They do not have to publish poison.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, this is not printed in Natal. It is printed in Dagbreek and is not translated and printed in English in the Nationalist Party’s paper in Natal.

When we talk of unity in the United Party, we talk of unity of the heart, of South African towards South African and we do not place upon that unity the test of whether it is accompanied by political loyalty to a political party.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal very briefly with one of the aspects of an issue which the Nationalist Party has so carefully avoided since the Prime Minister spoke on Tuesday— that is the question of Rhodesia. I have noticed that there has been very little, if anything, said on this question from the Nationalist Party benches. It is understandable. It is understandable that they should be ashamed that their leader and their party should place them in the position of silence into which they are forced. I want to draw attention to one aspect of the Nationalist Party’s attitude, namely this attitude of neutrality, which should not have surprised us, Mr. Speaker. It is an attitude typical of the Nationalist Party. It started in 1939 with the Limpopo complex, the Limpopo mentality, when South Africa ended at the Limpopo. But that is not the only instance. In every major danger that has faced South Africa, the Nationalist Party has taken refuge in running away. When faced by attacks from African Nationalism and the demands of its extremist leaders, what does this Government do? It surrenders and says: “You can have bits of our country. You can take over parts of South Africa. I am not going to argue with you. I cannot control you. I cannot keep political control over you, so I surrender and you can have bits of the country for yourselves.” When world pressures are put on us, South Africa must withdraw into the lager. When there are threats to us, we must threaten that we will resign from the United Nations—resign from the world and go into a little lager, with the ever-shrinking borders of South Africa getting smaller and smaller. What we must remember, Mr. Speaker, is that this attitude towards Rhodesia is not something new. It is typical of the thinking and philosophy of the Nationalist Party, in contrast to the United Party’s vision of a greater South Africa, and in contrast to the recognition of the United Party that our welfare ends where the welfare of the White people of Southern Africa ends. Our leader has made that point clear. I am not going to go into it, other than to say that there is another reason why one can understand the attitude of the Nationalist Party.

If Rhodesia had been part of South Africa, where would it have been to-day? It would have been a Bantustan. Therefore, under this Government’s policy the White man in Rhodesia would have been abandoned anyway because of the Prime Minister’s own policy. And so we cannot be surprised if he has no feeling other than sideline sympathy in the form of words.

You are talking political tripe.

My friend talks of political tripe. I am talking of the pride of my nation, the pride of my people in seeing themselves as part of the White complex of Southern Africa, and not as a little island—a little lager—with shrinking boundaries.

You are a “boere-hater”.

That member will eventually disappear into his own kraal and then at last he will be happy; happy because he has reached the last small walls into which he can retreat and go no further. The Nationalist Party policy is leading to the day when, back to back, there is nowhere else for the White man of South Africa to retreat to. We in the United Party look beyond that. We do not wait for the day when we are back to back and we can run away no further. We see our interests where they really lie. My leader has pleaded that South Africa should take her place as leader of Southern Africa to ensure that the future of the White man is not destroyed in Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke of the danger of chaos under Black Government in Rhodesia. But he sang a different tune altogether when he spoke, with stars in his eyes, of the peace of Black Government in the Transkei, and in the other Bantustans.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development took something which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories had said and tried to draw a picture of that member talking about chaos for the Whites. He was talking, Mr. Speaker, of chaos under Black Government, just as the Prime Minister spoke of chaos under a Black Government. Not only now, immediately, he continued to say, but even in the foreseeable future. The Prime Minister himself made that point, but he was not talking of chaos if there were Black Government to-day. He said that this would happen even if it were to come later. If that is so in Rhodesia, why is it different in the Transkei or in any of our other Bantustans?

Mr. Speaker, the real issue is that the Government faces its own dilemma—its own dilemma which it is finding increasingly difficult to avoid. That dilemma is that it is essential that the Government make and create and maintain as much confusion as possible so as to delay the moment of truth when it must finally take the ultimate decision and the ultimate step in resolving its own dilemma. This is because the Government to-day is enjoying support from two groups. The overwhelming majority of Government supporters …

And the Progs.

And the Progs of course, trailing along on some issues. The overwhelming majority of Government supporters, support the Government because they do not believe that the Prime Minister intends to carry out his policy. You talk to the ordinary Nationalist and he says: “Ag ja, ’n Bantoeustan sal nie in my leeftyd kom nie”—they are the “never-never” group who support Bantustans because they do not believe that it is really going to happen—the group who see it as a never-never policy designed to keep the outside world quiet. But there is another group which has been growing fast lately, the group who says to the Prime Minister: “You are not moving fast enough”—the theorists, the intellectuals of his own party who are putting pressure on him to speed up the pace of the development of the Bantustans. Slowly but inexorably the Government is facing the moment where it can no longer have baasskap and Bantustan but it must choose and have baasskap or Bantustan. The moment that it has to make that choice, the choice which is going to make its supporters realize the true implications of Bantustan, this Government will be in trouble. Therefore it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, that it should continue to spread smokescreens. It has created this image of being the protector of the White man, an image which has been created by the reckless exploitation of racial sentiment in South Africa, an image created by the exploitation of emotionalism and by the application of negative apartheid. The Government believes that with this image which it has created at the cost of the true security of the White man, it can continue to postpone the moment of truth. But, Mr. Speaker, that decision is being pressed by Government spokesmen themselves. I have here an article from the Burger of 15 December 1965—only two months ago. In this article a spokesman of the Government, not just anybody but an official spokesman of the Government, a man appointed to speak in the name of the Nationalist Party Government, the Commissioner-General of the North Sotho, Dr. Eiselen, has this to say. I repeat, he speaks not in his own capacity, he is an official representative of South Africa to a foreign state. He said this:

He then goes on to point out that to-morrow is not another day and that this implementation of Bantustans to its conclusion must be expedited. I am sorry that the Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs and for Information are not here, these two Ministers who have denied that they are used for Nationalist Party propaganda because here a spokesman for the Government gives the answer to this system of propaganda. Listen to this. This is an impartial information service.

Here is a spokesman of the Government who admits that the dilemma of the Information Department is that what they say to the White man they cannot say to the Black man, and vice versa. If ever there was proof, unqualified and unequivocal proof, that this Government is following a double-barreled policy, here is the admission that its own information service is humstrung by its double demands. He goes on:

So radio and information services must be used. Whilst this is going on, whilst this dilemma is being resolved, we find that the Prime Minister’s columnist in his own newspaper on 9 January, speaks of “’n stukkie Afrika wat anders swart word”. Let us see what he says. He says what a tragedy that there is so much said about Rhodesia, about 220,000 Whites. Why doesn’t the world take notice of how we are handing over in this country.

How right he is, Mr. Speaker. Now it is the Whites who are being sacrificed, the expendable Whites. The hon. member for Transkei dealt with the promises which had been made to the Whites. I want to ask the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration—in fact I want to state this as a fact, he can interject if it is incorrect—whether a written pledge was given to the farmers of Umzimkulu that they would not become part of the Transkei, that theirs would remain a White area. The Minister is silent. He knows it is true and I have details of the correspondence here. A pledge was given to the White farmers of Umzimkulu. A meeting was held in December at which these farmers asked the Secretary of the Minister’s Department why it was that despite that pledge their farms were being bought up and taken up into the Transkei. The answer was: “I can only conclude that the assurances are different but in what respect they differ I cannot say”. But I can tell the hon. the Minister why that assurance differs. It is because the Transkeian Parliament had a by-election and a candidate promised that they would take over that area for the Transkei. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is a much better authority on the ailments of the United Party than on anything else. I want to compliment him on the fact that he is one of the United Party members who apparently has the most discerning and realistic attitude towards the weaknesses of his party. With his gestures here today he demonstrated what the weaknesses of the United Party are. The fact that he is now so afraid of what the National Party is allegedly doing in regard to the English-speaking sector, is merely proof of the fear that has gripped the heart of the hon. member for Durban (Point) in regard to what English-speaking people are going to do in this coming election. It is the fear of what the English-speaking people in Natal are going to do in the coming election which is stampeding him so precipitately in that direction. In March last year they had a foretaste of what the feelings of the English-speaking people in Natal are. The English-speaking people in Natal are becoming totally estranged from the United Party. To-day more than ever they are seeking their faith in continued existence in the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister and in the policy of the National Party. That is why that hon. member is so concerned about what a correspondent is supposed to have said about the relations between Afrikaans-and English-speaking people in some newspaper or other. I just want to tell him this: 1 would be glad if I could have the attention of the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to letters which appeared in the newspaper Dagbreek, written by people who are perhaps not even members of the National Party. But did the hon. member not himself write articles in Dagbreek? Mr. Speaker, that hon. member who complains about people expressing a point of view in Dagbreek, he himself expressed his own point of view in Dagbreek on the Press in South Africa. I did not read that article very attentively and I cannot remember it any more, but I would not be in the least surprised if he went so far as to defend the Rand Daily Mail in that article.

I did not.

If that is the case and if the broad fact of the matter is that he was making his usual United Party propaganda there, I can also take offence at what is being published in this newspaper. I think I have much more right to take offence than he has to come here and pretend to take offence at that letter. If Dagbreek wants to publish that kind of letter then they can also publish the article by the hon. member for Durban (Point), or vice versa. But the hon. member’s argument is not worth that much. I just want to demonstrate that the reason why he is emphasizing the relations between Afrikaans-and English-speaking people to such an extent is not really in order to obtain unity in South Africa, but to continue trying, by means of their intimidating stories, to keep English-speaking people away from the National Party. That is the heart of the matter, for the English-speaking people of South Africa no longer trust the United Party. I have it in the words of the hon. member for Durban (Point) himself.

I have here a report from the Cape Timesof 2 June 1962 on an occasion when he addressed the women of the United Party here in the Peninsula. This is what the Cape Timesreported the hon. member to have said—

That is what the United Party is in the eys of the English-speaking people—“un-South African” because it is continually taking a delight in South Africa’s setbacks, because it is continually siding with the critics and the enemies of South Africa. They cannot trust the United Party with the safety of the White man in South Africa because its whole policy, its entire history and everything it has said argues otherwise. That is why the hon. member is going to such lengths to-day to pretend that the United Party still has the confidence of the English-speaking people.

The hon. member also said that the National Party’s policy is a policy which corresponds to the British policy in Africa. I would be glad if I could have the attention of the hon. member for Durban (Point), for I do not want to quote him incorrectly. I take it he said that the policy of the National Party, as in the case of British policy in Africa, was to confer territories upon the Blacks.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side—this is an awkward place for me to speak about “this side”—see South African society in a totally different light from that in which the United Party and the British authorities see it. We see South African society as being made up of different communities each having a right to their own identity and continued existence, each having, too, a right and claim, in terms of Government policy, to their identity and their continued existence. This is in contrast with the view which is fundamental to the entire British colonial attitude in Africa and which is fundamental to the entire view of the United Party in terms of which South African society is seen as a single nation consisting of White, Black, Brown and Yellow people who, in terms of Government policy, should be compelled to form a single community. This is the fundamental difference between us and the United Party, and between us and the British view which corresponds with the United Party’s policy. In actual fact, the actions of the National Party from 1948 up to the present moment, have always been to undo the legacy of the British Colonial system in South Africa. What other meaning could be attached to the removal of the Coloureds from the Common Voters’ Roll in the fifties? It was a legacy inherited from the 1853 Cape Constitution which the British authorities forced upon us. So, too, was the removal of the Bantu representatives in 1959 and the developments in the Transkei; it was all done in order to undo the British Colonial legacy which we were left with here. All along, while we were trying to undo this British Colonial legacy, the United Party consistently fought to the death to preserve that system. It was the same system which was forced upon the Cape Colony in 1853 and which the British authorities forced upon Rhodesia in 1961. Surely this is the true situation in Southern Africa? While we were trying to free ourselves from that British system, the United Party were trying with might and main to retain that system in South Africa, and the essence of the United Party policy to-day, if it comes into office, is to revive the British system in South Africa. They want to bring back the old system, in terms of the 1853 Constitution of the Cape Colony; they want to bring the Coloureds back on to the Common Voters’ Roll. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), the hon. Leader of the Opposition and numerous members on that side have stated this emphatically and repeatedly as they regard the Coloured as part of the White community.

I have stated previously that they do this on the grounds of one consideration only; they maintain that the Coloured is a so-called Westerner.

Is he, or is he not?

I am dealing with the United Party’s argument. Moreover, they say the urban Bantu has become detribalized; that they have had the longest contact with Western civilization and for that reason their treatment should differ from that of the Bantu in the homelands. They make this degree of Westernization their criterion of community between Whites and Coloureds, and they apply that same standard of Westernization as a discriminating factor between the urban Bantu and the Bantu in the homelands. My argument, therefore, is that if they make the degree of Westernization their point of departure, they must, in all justice and logic, arrive at the point where they cannot say that the Bantu in the urban areas have not been Westernized to such an extent (as they regard the Coloureds to have been) that they, too, can form part of the White community. Surely this is the essence of the matter: they want to bind together the body politic in South Africa, comprising Blacks and Whites and Coloureds, into a single nation —the multi-racial concept which has been hawked about to such an extent in Africa and which has led to so much disgrace and so much suffering.

A hotch-potch.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. H. Miller) does not have much time left to listen to what is being said in this House; his time for listening is becoming very short and he may as well do so while he can.

Let us take a closer look at the policy of the United Party. I want to put this matter to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) as his Leader is not present at the moment. Last year in the no confidence debate the hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that their policy was White leadership “over the whole of South Africa”.

The hon. Prime Minister then asked him what “leadership” meant, and he replied, “control”. The hon. Prime Minister then asked him, “How does one obtain that?”; whereupon he replied, “We have it at present”.

Political control.

That is to say, the present position is the equivalent of “White leadership”. But what is the present position? The present position is that the Coloureds are on separate voters’ lists, with only four representatives here.

That is integration.

The Bantu have no representation in this Parliament and the Indians have no representation here either. That is the present position, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition places on a par with White leadership.

But what would the position be if the United Party came into power? You would immediately have eight representatives of the Bantu in this Parliament; the Coloureds would immediately be placed back on the Common Voters’ Roll; you would immediately have representatives of the Indians in this Parliament, and that is a situation totally different from the one we are dealing with at the moment. If the present position is one of White leadership, he must not try and make us believe that we will have White leadership when the United Party comes into office and grants representation in this Parliament to the Indians and the Bantu. If that which exists to-day is White leadership, then that which the United Party envisages is not a strengthening thereof. As a matter of fact it is the opposite; it is a weakening of White leadership. Now my question to the hon. member for Durban (Point) is this: If one takes as your point of departure the fact that White leadership is the essence of your policy, then surely, in all justice, all your actions are going to be aimed at strengthening that policy in order to strengthen White leadership. Now I want to ask him this: In terms of their policy, tested against the present situation, is their policy calculated to strengthen White leadership if they, where the Bantu have no representation in Parliament at the moment, are immediately going to give them eight representatives and if they, where the Coloureds are not at present on the Common Voters’ Roll along with the White man, are immediately going to place them on the Voters’ Roll again and if they are going to give the Indians, who have no representation here at the moment, representation in this Parliament? Is that a strengthening of White leadership?

Yes, it is a safeguarding of the White man and a strengthening of White leadership.

No, we can see the United Party coming. It says its policy is one of White leadership and then adds, as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) did yesterday, “for the foreseeable future”. The reason why he said “for the foreseeable future”, was because he knew that at heart his policy is aimed at a weakening of White leadership, not a strengthening of White leadership. If that is not the case, why do they not accept the present tenor of “White leadership”, why do they adopt the attitude that if it is the correct thing it should be strengthened? If they did that we could believe them, but when they come along with all this double talk we cannot believe them.

You reject White leadership in the Bantu areas.

The United Party wants to set in motion a process which will have exactly the opposite effect from that of White leadership; its policy is: “White leadership in reverse”. They want to set in motion a process which will inevitably lead to the consequences Britain experienced with its colonial policy in Africa, and that is the destruction of the stability, the confidence in the future and the continued existence of the White community here, as Britain did in the rest of Africa.

In order to consider South African society as a single community, as the United Party does, and then to be able to give the Whites leadership or “control,” as they say, there must be discrimination. Would the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) agree with me?

Would you give me the opportunity of replying?

If you regard this South African society as one community and wish to give the Whites leadership or “control”, then, owing to the numbers of the Whites, you must discriminate and you will have to keep on discriminating if you want to retain White leadership. If the United Party are in earnest with their policy of White leadership, then they will have to keep on discriminating. I am now asking the hon. member for Hospital: Do they want to do that? Do they want to retain White leadership with discrimination? The United Party must reply. These are simple question which are of concern in this debate. Does it want to retain White leadership with discrimination or does it gradually want to do away with discrimination in order to consolidate its conception inherited from the British colonial authorities of a single community in South Africa? Is that the case? And remember, it is the same which was forced upon Rhodesia.

I would now like to have the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), for he is not one of those people of whom one would like to say “Oh! that my advisory would write a book.” He has already stated, in various articles in the Cape Arguswhat the United Party’s policy is. Now I want to link up the question of discrimination with that. If the United Party wants to retain White leadership in a single community, then it is obliged, on account of the numbers factor, to discriminate, as I said earlier. I just want to read a number of passages from an article written by the hon. member for Yeoville in the Cape Argus in February 1962 where he spoke about discrimination and said that we could not retain the goodwill of the world as long as we built up discrimination. Proceeding, he said—

And this is the essence of this policy of theirs of “White leadership”! No discrimination must be retained and ultimately everything must be broken down. The hon. member for Yeoville went on to say—

“Which serve no purpose.”

[Interjections.] Very well, I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville who is now becoming so bold, the following: Is the representation of Coloureds by Whites in this Parliament one of the measures “which serve no purpose in maintaining Western civilization“? Let him reply to that, or let the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) reply. The hon. member for Yeoville stated emphatically that all discrimination should be done away with.

But you accuse us of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I think I shall probably be able to obtain a more intelligent reply from the hon. member for Yeoville, if he will be so bold as to venture to do so. Is the representation of Bantu by Whites in this Parliament one of those measures which, as he says, “serve no purpose in maintaining Western civilization or our Western institutions”?

He is now being discourteous to you.

One can expect that from the hon. member for Yeoville. If he is not being inane, he is being discourteous. I want to ask him this: Is the prohibition upon Coloured and Bantu membership of the United Party a measure “which serves no purpose in maintaining Western civilization”? I want to ask him this: Is school attendance by Coloureds and Bantu and Whites one of those measures which, according to him, have to be done away with “because it serves no purpose in maintaining Western civilization”? And what about mixed residential areas and mixed trade unions? Let the hon. member for Yeoville for once have the courage to give us definition of those measures which, according to him serve no purpose in maintaining Western standards and institutions.

I am quite certain that I am correct, Mr. Speaker, when I tell you that the United Party’s policy is the dismantling of White leadership in order to accomplish the old British Colonial concept of a single community in South Africa in which White leadership cannot be maintained at all. That is the purpose and the policy of the United Party. It is in their blood; it is part of the inheritage to force that British Colonial concept upon South Africa. That is why the United Party were without criticism of Mr. MacMillan when he stated very clearly that, as far as Britain was concerned, it would take the part of the so-called African Nationalists if it came to a clash between the interests of Whites and Blacks. That is why the United Party had no word of criticism on that occasion.

That is untrue.

It is probably the greatest incongruity of our time that the United Party which in South Africa is striving to achieve essentially the same object which Wilson is striving to achieve, should suddenly be hostile towards Wilson here. This is the most foolish thing one could ever imagine happening, but apparently it is the sort of thing of which a party is capable if it has reached the low-water mark reached by the United Party, if it has reached the desperate state which the United Party has reached. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) should have listened to what the hon. member for Yeoville has written. He stated—

Not only must what the National Party Government has done, be undone; no, it must be reversed. The trend of apartheid, of separation, of the acknowledgment of the identity of people, this must all be thrown into reverse gear; it must go in the opposite direction. I want to ask hon. members to take note of the date of this article. It was 1 February 1962. The article was written two to three months prior to the time the hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke at De Aar. I want to demonstrate to you that this kind of thing is not really an isolated statement; it was not merely the kind of slip the hon. member for Yeoville so often makes. It was a calculated statement of policy.

Two months prior to that the hon. member for Yeoville had written an article in the Sunday Times on the race federation policy of the United Party, and on 5 December 1961 the Star published a leading article dealing with that article. This is what the Star had to say—

Not a “multi-racial” Parliament but a “multiracial” Government; and “each race”; i.e. Whites, Bantu, Indians and Coloureds. That was what he said before he wrote this article in the Cape Argus.

He replied to that last year; where were you then?

Wait, I shall let the hon. member himself reply. Does the hon. member for Durban (Point) still recognize this front page of the Sunday Times of 10 December 1961 which I am holding up here?—

Here it stands in black print—

What do you say to that, Vause?

I now want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) this: Did he or the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. Leader of the Opposition ever utter a single word of denial of this report? [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member for Durban (Point) to bring it to me, and if he can bring it to me I am prepared to address a meeting for him in his constituency! No, just the opposite happened. Instead of this report being repudiated, it was confirmed by no less a person than the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his De Aar speech in May, 1962. Referring to the race federation plan, he said—

What else does this mean but that the United Party is now saying openly to South Africa that when it comes into office and brings its race federation plan into operation, it is going to assimilate Blacks into the civil service and the Cabinet of a United Party régime. Here it stands in the words of the Leader of the Opposition himself.

That is absolutely untrue.

I do not want to do the hon. Leader of the Opposition an injustice. When I referred to this on a previous occasion he said that that “representation” referred to representation in the local councils in the Transkei and in the other Bantu areas. But I have his entire speech as it was typed and read out at that meeting, and I can point out to him at least ten places in that speech where he used the term “representation” and used if in one connection only; i.e. “representation” in this central Parliament.

It is very clear that the United Party cannot free itself from its history; it cannot freet itself from its British Colonial heritage. That is why these things are always coming to the fore here. When the United Party is at its highest pitch—I am not talking about the “pitch” of their distress—when they are at their highest pitch trying to evoke a response from the South African voters, then these things come to the fore, arising from its fear that it will once again be threatened from the Left, arising from its fear that it will be forsaken by the English-speaking people. [Time limit.]

I think both sides of the House will agree that we have had an interesting four days and something of a preliminary canter in respect of the sort of propaganda that is going to be used by the Government side in the coming election, the sort of propaganda which was used particularly by the gentleman who has just sat down, who made use of certain, shall I say propaganda statements which, when last published, led to my having to challenge the newspaper concerned to prove its case or have itself reported to the Press Commission. Because, Sir, they are total misrepresentations—“skewe voorstellin"s”—of the policy of this party. But I shall deal with the individual statements in passing in due course and I trust the hon. member will forgive me for not following him in detail at this stage. I want to say that what has been most encouraging to me and to members on this side of the House is to find how inadequate, how unsatisfactory, the answers of the Government have been to legitimate criticism advanced by this side of the House. I think that if this is any measure of the sort of performance they are going to put up in the coming election then this side of the House can approach the election with great confidence and great faith. When one considers the extremely poor contributions we had when it came to criticizing positive United Party policy, then I think it reveals once again how bankrupt that side of the House is.

In my opening address I said that I had no confidence in this Government for three main groups of reasons. Firstly, it had been so wrong so often; secondly, it had neglected the interests of large sections of the population to whose interests it would have had regard had it had the future of South Africa at heart. And, thirdly, because some of its policies were dangerous.

One of the matters dealt with was the Rhodesian issue. Since I am not anxious that that should be dealt with when temperatures are high, it is perhaps just as well that I should start with it at this stage. It seems common cause between the Government and ourselves that this is a matter of the most vital importance to South Africa as well as to the future of Western civilization in Southern Africa. It was extremely significant that in the course of the discussion both the Prime Minister and I avoided any criticism of either party. It was left in this House to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to condemn one of the parties hook, bell and candle and to do so, clearly, without a full knowledge of many of the facts of which perhaps others are aware and despite the fact that the party follows a policy very similar indeed to that followed by the Progressive Party. In doing so the hon. member revealed once again the weaknesses of constitutional entrenchments on which the policy of her whole party is based. It seems to me that any suggestion that this matter is a domestic dispute can no longer be maintained when regard is had to the fact that Great Britain has called in the assistance of the nations of the world. That being so one feels that this matter has assumed even greater proportions. There are one or two things which I think should be made clear. The first is that de facto recognition of Rhodesia or of any other country does not mean a condonation of the illegalities or irregularities by which the de facto government came into power. The second is that the Prime Minister has got very close to what I wanted, but had he taken that step it might have had a most important effect in the course that this dispute has run. It might perhaps have resulted in a more careful approach by certain of the parties in regard to the actions they have taken in this matter. I think the real difference between us is that we on this side of the House believe that the situation is so serious that we are justified in taking risks to prevent chaos across our northern border. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister made two statements. The one is that you have no right to demand non-intervention in your own affairs if you, even when your interests are at stake, are prepared to interfere with those of others. Sir, our interests are at stake. They are very much at stake in this dispute. I noticed that the Prime Minister said further on that he did not want to be dragged in as long as it was avoidable. It seems to me that his mind is moving along the channels which I had in view. I did not ask him to interfere; let us get clarity on this. I asked him to use his influence to try to see that the dialogue be tween the countries was re-opened. That is not interference; that is not negotiating either.

You can talk to your friends.

In a sense that is not mediating either. I asked him to use his influence to try to get the dialogue reopened and it does seem to me that this is a happy moment for him to use his influence. I see Mr. Wilson is very pleased with him. Even Kaunda is pleased with him.

And Helen loves him.

Are you not glad?

But there is another point, Sir. Rhodesia cannot negotiate from her knees. We on this side of the House do not want business as usual to mean that there is an exclusion of new business necessary to keep civilized government going across the Limpopo. I think my view is borne out very much by what was written this morning by Sir Edgar Whitehead in an article published in the Cape Times. He is an opponent of Mr. Smith; he stands for other things. He made it quite clear that the Smith Government would not fall until there has been total economic collapse. I think that is vital and it is important for hon. members opposite to remember that. There is something else he said about the Afro-Asian group. They will expect similar help against South West Africa and Angola before long. The final campaign against South Africa will be open as soon as the others have fallen. [Hear, hear!) The public can do a lot, and I hope they will. In the last resort what can be done is going to depend on the attitude of the Government, and to an extent on the attitude of the Opposition. [Interjection.] Sir, I suppose I should have expected the Minister of Transport to put his foot into it and to rush in where angels fear to tread. If he does not know, I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister and I both know what steps could be taken to bring influence to bear on both the parties concerned. I think in a matter as delicate as this it would be extremely unwise to blurt them out to be misunderstood by a gentleman of that kind. I want to say very clearly that we shall be watching carefully and anxiously in the interests of South Africa what the course of events is going to be in the ensuing week and the activities of the Government in this regard.

Now, I said that I leveled certain charges against this Government. The first was that they had been so wrong so often. There was no comeback in that regard. There was no attempt even at defence, except the few weak-kneed efforts by the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and I think one other, who suggested that the Nationalist Party really did stand for national unity amongst the Whites in South Africa to-day.

Natal will show you.

The hon. member says Natal will show us. Yes, I remember the letters written by Mr. Stirton and others when they resigned from the Head Committee of the Nationalist Party in Natal, saying that there was no place for English-speaking people amongst the ranks of the Nationalist Party. We remember the history of this matter. It goes back a long time. They know in their hearts that when they speak of national unity and we speak of national unity, we mean two different things. The case is proven as far as that is concerned. They have been wrong so often that I cannot have any confidence in them, and I believe that when it is drawn to the attention of the public they, too, will cease to have what confidence they had in them in the past.

The second accusation I made against them was that there was a gross neglect of certain groups of the population and I dealt particularly with the neglect of our young people. I was treated to plans by the hon. the Minister of Education and the Deputy Minister of Labour, indicating the steps they were taking in trying to rectify the position. Sir, they are a long, long way from our ideas of assisted opportunity for every young White South African to get education to the maximum to which he is able to benefit through the abilities he has, and that goes for the universities and technical education as well. From all the statements they made we find ourselves still in the position that they have completely failed to restore the teacher to his rightful place in the community, to the importance of the position he should occupy. We find young teachers starting in many cases on lower salaries than shorthand-typists employed in business firms for the first time. What encouragement is there? I was looking at some figures only the other day in regard to the very serious decline in qualifications. In 1962 27.9 per cent of White teachers had degrees. By 1964 only 18 per cent of those training had degrees. If you look through the figures you will see how the standards of qualification have fallen throughout the country, and that is upsetting educationists all over South Africa.

Is that the Government’s fault?

Of course it is. If they pay them a decent salary they will get the men. And I go further. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) made it quite clear that the education system of this Government has failed to meet the challenge of the scientific revolution with which this country is faced at present. We are placed in the position to-day that where they are opening vocational schools and technical schools for technical training, the children have not had the basic education to benefit from that training. There is a long article by Professor Malherbe quoting Dr. Meyer and giving some small idea of the backlog. The estimate was that if we required the same percentages as would apply to the population of America, we would find that we had not one-sixth of the technically trained people for the economic growth we would like to see in South Africa, nor the business executives to meet the development we hope to see. There is a tremendous backlog and there is a tremendous wastage despite anything these Ministers say. Why is it that 70 per cent of the students who take B.Sc. in science or in engineering fail in their first year? Why does nearly 50 per cent fail the first year of the B.A. degree at the universities, and why in the B.Com. degree is it only a slightly smaller percentage than in the B.Sc. degree? Does that look like proper attention to education? When you look at what is happening, and the replies to the criticisms by the Ministers opposite, you realize that what there is in South Africa is not so much a shortage of man-power but a criminal wastage of man-power at our disposal.

In the field of research, what answer have we had? There was no reply from this Government. Two professors of Potchefstroom were writing in Dagbreek not so long ago, saying—

Sir, what answers have we had from the Government? When you deal with the situation of the ordinary citizen, John Citizen, under this Government, of the employees of the Government particularly, what do you find? You find that the increases in the past have been for the most part due to pressures from their organized representative labour bodies and not as the result of the initiative taken by the Government itself. Look what the position has been in this House. In 1964 we had a substantive motion moved by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) for a review of the salaries of Government servants. It was turned down by the Minister, saying the discussion was a waste of time. In 1965 the matter was raised again in a discussion on the Public Service Vote and it was turned down again by the Minister. These matters were raised because of the dissatisfaction in the Public Service which had been making representations to the Government over the years. When we raised this matter last year with the Prime Minister, we had that famous phrase of his that it was not that they were worse off; it was only that they desired more. And later we heard from the Prime Minister about its being unpatriotic in certain circumstances to ask for higher salaries. Now we hear from the hon. gentleman that there was at that time a long-standing investigation taking place as to the salaries of public servants, a reconstruction of the salary scales. Who was he trying to frighten when he made these statements? Was he trying to frighten the Commission, the investigators? Why did he say those things if he knew that the investigation was taking place? He says the people understand the economy and they know what is going on in South Africa. They do, Sir. They know that of our White mothers in the urban areas, 60 per cent are working to try to contribute to the common income of the family. Look at the sort of situation that has been allowed to develop under this Government in various areas. There was reference at question time to-day to the situation in Pretoria (North), where the hon. the Minister said that he had investigated the matter himself. Here is the first report I have about it, in January of this year—

It goes on. One of the teachers at the school says—

The hon. the Prime Minister says the average income of John Citizen is satisfactory in South Africa. But that is not the only situation. Here is another report of 12 September last year—

Those are the areas being described—

These are Whites, Sir. A senior Welfare Department official summed up the Government’s view—

Sir, it is the Government’s responsibility. How have they discharged that responsibility? Since this debate started I have been phoned at various times by people claiming to be in Government employ, telling me of their hardships and difficulties and not wanting to give their names because they say they dare not approach their Member of Parliament because it will lead to difficulties for them. [Interjections.] Sir, they can laugh. It shows what they think about it, but I want to tell them something. The people in Government employment know what is going on, and I hope that the papers will report to-morrow morning that these gentlemen laughed when this matter was raised, so that they can realize once and for all just what they think about the distress in which many people are living under this Government which claims to be responsible for the greatest prosperity we have ever had. Sir, you can go on giving many examples of this kind because under this Government there are no family allowances. There has been no attempt from that side of the House to explain why there are no family allowances. There is no contributory pension scheme as we have asked for, and there has been no explanation from a single member on that side as to why there is no such scheme. There is no medical aid scheme; there is no free medical aid scheme. We have asked these people in the course of the debate what has happened, but there has been no reply. There is no proper income’s policy on that side of the House. There has been no explanation as to why the economy has been managed so ineffectually. There has been no indication of the steps taken to ensure that higher taxation will not be necessary or that there will be proper steps to keep the cost of living under control. What is the biggest contribution we have had so far? From the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs we had the cancellation of the rebates on the wireless licences of pensioners which was granted in the past. Here you have the headlines in the Cape Times this morning showing that the cost of living in the nine major urban centres in South Africa has gone up 6.9 per cent since November 1963, and so I can go on. We have made positive suggestions and we have made requests, but what have we found? The Government is callously indifferent to the situation of the ordinary man in the street.

But we also made representations in respect of agriculture and the drought. What did we have? First of all, we had a reply from the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. He started off by dealing with soil conservation and he was telling us how satisfactory the position was. Does he realize that more than a year ago it was revealed that the guidance and aid were not forthcoming fast enough to save the soil, and that this was ascribed to a shortage of trained staff in the Department? That is borne out if one looks at the Estimates of Expenditure. So we can go on. Here is the Director of Soil Conservation in South Africa, Mr. van der Merwe, saying—

Then there is Organized Agriculture of last year. There was a survey made by the Division of Soil Conservation and it gives irrefutable evidence of the serious extent to which our soil has deteriorated. It reveals the fact that the progress being made in our soil conservation programmes is being outpaced by the rate at which our soil is being lost physically. Then there are statements by other leading authorities, all to the same effect. What have we had from the hon. the Minister? An indication that he is satisfied; he is happy. When you talk about agriculture being a sick industry, he tells you how flourishing it is. He shows how the production of the farmers has risen in the last 20 odd years. Why is it that it is contributing progressively a smaller percentage of the national income? That is the test. It has nothing to do with the drought. It means something very simple. It means that agriculture is not sharing in the prosperity of the country, as we have told this Minister over the years. And not only have we told him, but the President of the S.A. Agricultural Union has told him. Hon. Ministers opposite were told these very things by stout supporters of the Nationalist Party at their own congress in the Transvaal. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and what did he want to know? All he wanted to know was whether we would promise to reduce the number of Bantu in the rural areas. The Minister knows very well that because of the movement of Bantu out of certain areas and the lack of accommodation in the reserves, many farms are carrying more labourers than they have work for, and he knows of the tragic position in the Eastern Cape. I believe. Sir, that we would see to it that more Bantu were settled in the reserves than settled in the urban locations, and I think we would certainly see to it that the depopulation of the rural areas by Whites did not go on at the rate it is proceeding at now.

Then he asked another stupid question. Would I give him a guarantee that if the United Party gets into power we would keep every farmer on his farm—every one who is on his farm to-day. Sir, they know how they have been depopulating the rural areas because of their policy. They know that I have been the one who has been pleading all the time for assistance to help the farmer to readapt himself. They know that I have been the person pleading for short-term and long-term steps by this Government to get the agricultural industry onto a sound and healthy footing. Sir, I will tell you something. There will be far more farmers under the United Party than there ever will be under this Government. Then the hon. the Minister seeks to say that because I have given some admirable ideas on how the drought should be combated, they were really all in his Bill before I started speaking. Sir, the Bill was tabled yesterday and I spoke on Tuesday. I think you will remember, Sir, that what I outlined were things that I did not get from his Department or his officials. But I do not believe that he will fulfil the requirements I have laid down. I want to say now to that hon. gentleman that I challenge him to meet the requirements that I laid down when I opened my discussion on this matter. I indicated that there were both longterm and short-term measures to be taken, and that I wanted to see this matter dealt with like the resettlement of the ex-servicemen was dealt with after the war. I realize that it will cost money. I challenge that Minister, when he produces his legislation, to show that it meets the requirements that I laid down in this House, but I have considerable doubt as to whether that will happen. What reply have we had from these people? With the greatest respect, there has been no adequate answer which will satisfy the voting public of South Africa, let alone the farmers.

But I went further. I dealt with the question of policies which were dangerous. Amongst those, I dealt with the Bantustan policy of this Government. That was a most interesting discussion, because it seems that there is an entirely new vocabulary about non-White affairs being used in this House. In fact, old words are being given new meaning. I think if I were to use this new vocabulary I would describe the Government’s policy as being a policy of integration, because they have Coloureds’ Representatives sitting in this House and the Prime Minister said that is integration. And it entails partnership, because they said that if you share a power that is partnership. They are sharing power so it is partnership. They have a policy of integration entailing partnership, and they will have to concede more members in this House to the Coloureds, because their argument is that if we give the Bantu a limited number of members the pressure will be such that we will have to concede more. Therefore it applies to the Coloureds as well. They will have to concede more Coloureds’ Representatives in this House, and they will have to be Coloured people under that Government because they say that if we give the Bantu limited representation they will become Bantu members in due course. These are the ridiculous arguments being used, and the Government’s over-all policy is for a mixed fatherland for the Whites in which the Whites and the Coloureds and the Indians will be settled and also the urban Bantu who will never find a home in the reserves—a mixed fatherland for the Whites where there will always be more non-Whites than Whites and where a representative of the Coloureds can be Prime Minister. That is their policy as described in the new terms they are attempting to use. But the fatherland for the Bantu is going to be pure Black. They will have that advantage, and in the White mixed fatherland the labour force will be four-fifths foreigners who will get the support of foreign Black states if they are in trouble with the White states like the mixed state in South Africa, and they will be supported by virtually the whole world. The Prime Minister says that if we have a dispute as to the representation of Bantu or Coloureds in this House, then they will be supported in a head-on collision by all the nations of the world at UN and by all those who are critical of South Africa. Of course, if he has a dispute with a Black state, between his mixed state and a Black state, they will get exactly the same sort of support. The Governments in the Black areas will probably be chaotic, because the Prime Minister says that if there is a Black Government there will be chaos, and that does not only apply to the immediate future but to the distant future as well. The hon. gentleman said so about Rhodesia. Therefore the same applies to the Bantustans. The Governments in those Black states will be chaotic.

Some of the hon. members opposite are trying to sell the story that the percentage of non-Whites in industry is falling. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said so. It is rather amazing to get that sort of statement because the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration said it was an alarming fact that the ratio between Black and White workers in the construction industry was moving progressively in favour of the Bantu.

Somebody was talking nonsense.

That was in October last year. In January of this year he said 67 of every 100 workers in the construction industry were Bantu. But in the Post Office 15 years ago there were four Whites to every non-White. To-day there are only three Whites to every non-White. In the mining industry there used to be seven Blacks to one White. To-day the figure is over eight, and the figure nine is coming up. The Minister of Mines knows that. In the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal from 1960 8,000 Whites haye been appointed but 18,000 non-Whites. And the ratio of non-White to White in industries throughout South Africa, in the factories in the White areas, is probably five non-Whites to one White. Then they turn round and say that the figures are probably falling. It is against this sort of background that we are supposed to discuss serious matters concerning the future of South Africa, when people are trying to put across propaganda by using words out of their context. The tables will be turned, if that is the way they want to fight this election.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister said he hoped it will be a clean election. He asks me to call to order the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) because of an article he wrote in a paper called Ons Landlast year. Well, I have discussed the matter with the hon. member for Orange Grove and I am satisfied that the first time he knew that that letter was forgery was when the Prime Minister told him so in this House. He immediately accepted that. The interesting thing is that that letter was found in the car of a man Khakeketla who it appears is a member of the Basutoland Privy Council of three. He is not just an ordinary individual. He is the nominee of Chief Moshesh II to the Privy Council of three. The hon. the Prime Minister asked us to believe that this man is a communist. I cannot imagine Moshesh appointing a communist to his Privy Council of three.

Both the Basutoland Congress Party and the Maramathlo Freedom Party are financed by the Chinese and Russian Communists.

As far as I know this gentleman was a member of the Maramathlo Freedom Party. That does not make him less important. It was that party which split because a portion of it wished to co-operate with Chief Jonathan. I am not sure where this gentleman ended up but he is still a member of that Privy Council. You cannot ignore what is found in the possession of a man of that kind. The Prime Minister says this letter was denied both by Jonathan and Mr. Papenfus. But I have not found those denials. The hon. member certainly has not seen them. However, if the Prime Minister says they have been denied I certainly accept it.

And yet he continues his propaganda after I have denied them.

He did not continue with the propaganda after he knew they were denied …

He continued with exactly the same propaganda as to what I was allegedly intending to do with that portion of the Free State.

But the hon. the Prime Minister was not in the House when the hon. member spoke.

Yes, the hon. the Prime Minister was not in the House when the hon. member spoke. The crux of the complaint of the Prime Minister is not that the hon. member said that that was his policy. The crux of his complaint was that he, i.e. the Prime Minister, could not understand why the the hon. gentleman the moment he saw it, did not suspect it was false.

No, it wat that he dared to suggest that I would stand for giving away a part of the Free State whilst he should have known that no person in South Africa would do such a thing … [Interjections] …

But you gave away the Transkei. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Prime Minister seems hurt about it, but one of his Deputy Ministers, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said yesterday that two areas ethnically similar to Basutoland were Herschel and Witsieshoek. I have here a statement by the hon. the Prime Minister in which he makes an appeal to the Protectorates, including Swaziland and Basutoland, to be led to freedom by the Republic. He gave his reasons for that appeal, the second of which was—

I will leave out the first one.

Was it conquered territory? That is the point …

… —The second one was—

[Interjections.] The Prime Minister went on—

And now?

It is not conquered territory.

But it is South African territory.

… Falling under the 1936 Act. [Interjections.]

It is important because if you look at this article under the headline “As hierdie brief eg is …

And how does it continue later on?

In the third column it says—

And here I mentioned Witsieshoek and Herschel.

Are you trying to get past such a dirty insinuation that I would be agreeable to giving away a part of the Free State. What a disgrace …

I find it tragic that the hon. the Prime Minister should take up this attitude.

I would be ashamed to be such a leader.

He has himself to think for what has happened. He has been talking about giving away parts of South Africa: He has been talking about consolidating areas ethnically similar to the reserves and the protectorates; and he talked about the purchase by them of other lands still occupied by Whites. He may be bitterly disappointed to find that there are people who could believe that that means areas other than Native reserve areas …

Now I know what to think of you. [Interjections.] I have always regarded you as being a gentleman, but I do not do so any longer.

It comes ill from that gentleman. It will be remembered that a newspaper under his editorship published a story during the war years of the bloodbe-spattered uniforms coming back from Abyssinia. When he was challenged as to the authenticity of the story …

You fought with the Communists at the time.

… he told the court that he had published the story to give the Government an opportunity of repudiating it. That is exactly what the honourable member for Orange Grove intended with this article. As a matter of fact, he said—

That is how the article ends. In other words, he asks the hon. the Prime Minister to tell the country what the story is. So this is exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister said at the time when he published that story about blood-bespattered uniforms. [Interjections.] If the Prime Minister wants to talk about making propaganda, let us start off with a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development in the House the other day, based on an interview given to a paper called “Beacon” which seems to have some strange things in it … but no matter, I am not going to question its accuracy. Now what is the hon. the Minister’s argument? His argument is that because the United Party says Coloureds will have the right to sit in this House if elected on a mixed roll, then a Coloured man can be Prime Minister.

Oh. no, you said it.

The hon. the Minister then went on to say that because he knew the United Party wanted to do away with the population register and because I said two columns earlier that under the United Party, although there would always be agitators and extremist trouble-makers wishing to over-throw the existing order, the non-Whites particularly the Coloureds and the urban Bantu, would not experience the same feelings of frustration and hopelessness as they have at present, and that there would therefore not be the same fertile ground for subversion. From that the hon. the Minister deduced that I believe that a Black man can become Prime Minister under a United Party government.

Read what you said about a Black man becoming a Prime Minister of South Africa. Read what you said and do not run away now. [Interjections.]

Look at the propaganda, Mr. Speaker. Because a Coloured man may become Prime Minister, and the Population Registration Act is going to be repealed, the hon. the Minister says that we will no longer be able to differentiate between Bantu and Coloured. But what happened before there was a population Registration Act? We had had Coloureds on the Common Roll for nearly 100 years before the Population Registration Act was adopted. But how many Bantu were on the Common Roll?

Read out what you said.

Can you imagine it, Mr. Speaker. Now he is asking the people to believe that that means that a Bantu can become Prime Minister. But he went further and also abused a statement I made that the Coloureds and Bantu would not have the same feeling of frustration and hopelessness. Well, he knows perfectly well what our policy is in respect of the urban Bantu and he knows very well that it will mean that they will not have the same feelings of frustration and hopelessness because he knows that they will be allowed to have controlled free-hold ownership of their homes in the urban Bantu townships. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister knows very well that we intend administering the pass laws in a different way and that we will consider exempting the responsible class of Bantu.

Are you going to give them representation in this House?

He knows, Sir. that it will mean that they will have a measure of responsibility for their own local self-government and he knows that we would like to see a responsible class of Bantu being developed. He also knows that we would like to go back to the system of representation of Bantu by Whites in this House as in the past. [Interjections.] But the Minister deduces from that that a Black man can become Prime Minister under a United Party government. Now I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if that is the sort of propaganda he is going to allow his Ministers to make then he must take what is coming to him and to his side of the House. 1 want to tell him that two can play at this game, but I also want to tell him that that would not be to the advantage of South Africa if an election is to be fought in that spirit.

I want to know whether you are going to defend the article I quoted from your official paper and which I referred to in my speech.

My old friend, the hon. the Minister of Transport, is again interfering as he always does when there is trouble. 1 am sorry I do not know what article he quoted from, but I should like to know whether he is going to defend the article that I am now going to mention.

I quoted the relevant article in the course of my speech.

I am very sorry but I do not have it. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister, the late Mr. Strydom once voted in a Select Committee for Bantu to be represented by Bantu in the Senate.

Quite right.

And did I then go all over the country and say Mr. Strydom was prepared to have a Bantu for Prime Minister of South Africa? We know that the late Dr. Malan once said we must take from other countries what is good in their systems, and he quoted Kenya, a country where Bantu represented Bantu, Coloured represented Coloured and Indians represented Indians. Did I go around saying Dr. Malan was prepared to have a Bantu or a Coloured or an Indian as Prime Minister of South Africa?

He also said Coloured women should have the vote.

Who will sit in your federal Parliament?

Here is another story being circulated. Because we have said that in our view non-Whites should feel they have a say in the running of the country’s affairs, that they should be represented in the administrative and legislative bodies at various levels, and because the word “regering” was interpreted as meaning “government”, therefore this word was interpreted to have the restrictive meaning of “executive”. But members know very well that when the Volksblad wrote that, I wrote to that paper and challenged it and said that in my view it was a matter that should be reported to the Press Commission. Because it is quite clear from the context that that is not what was or is meant by the policy of this party. We have said time and time again that they will have representation in their own bodies. We have said what the representation here will be, how it will be limited and who the representatives will be. We have said that as far as administrative work was concerned, they will have responsibility, especially the Bantu, in their own areas, in their own municipal councils, and in other bodies. An attempt has been made to suggest that that means necessarily representation in the Cabinet by non-Europeans. They know it is not true. Nevertheless, that story is still being circulated.

I will go further. I think it is necessary that we get clarity on this matter, and therefore I think we should ask ourselves the very important question: Which policy, the policy of that side of the House, or the policy of this side of the House, is the safest for the future of Western civilization here in South Africa and for the White races—the bearers of that Western civilization—here in South Africa?

Is that within or outside the Commonwealth?

Well, the commonwealth the hon. the Prime Minister was going to create has vanished recently. He has called it a consultative body, because the Prime Minister realizes that they are very likely to be chucked out of that commonwealth. So now they are running away from that story. They know very well that the policy of this side of the House is White leadership, White leadership for the foreseeable future. And immediately that is interpreted by the smart Alecs amongst the propagandists as being White leadership for a generation only. Well, let me tell those hon. gentlemen that I can foresee no time in the history of South Africa where White leadership will not be essential. Let me tell them as long as there is a United Party there will be White leadership in this country. [Interjections]. Anybody who says that that White leadership is limited in point of time is telling a deliberate lie. If we are to examine what policy is the safest as regards the maintenance of Western standards and the future of the White race in South Africa, let us look first at the policy concerning the Cape Coloured people. What do you find?

May I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a question?

I am sorry but I have too little time left. I am pleasantly surprised at the number of Ministers who have participated in this debate. So I think they have had their turn. Now, as regards the Cape Coloured people, what is the situation? I pointed out in my opening address that the Government are alienating these people, that they are drifting away from us. The gulf between us is getting bigger and bigger as a result of the policies of that party. They have missed the one golden thread, namely the vital importance of keeping the Cape Coloured people as an ally of Western civilization here in South Africa. Can anyone deny that that civilization will be safer under United Party policy for the Coloureds than it will be under the policy of that side?

Then there are the Indian people. They have no plans for them. They have no policy for them. All we hear from the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is that they are going to have an advisory council, a council which is going to be largely nominated. They are going to have an advisory council which is going to work under this hon. Minister. They are going to continue to apply the Group Areas Act to them and they are going to continue to be in danger of losing their traditional means of livelihood because of the manner in which that Act is applied to them. Now, Mr. Speaker, what hope have they of retaining the friendship of the Indian people in South Africa?

Either you do not know what is going on, or else you are telling a deliberate lie. [Interjections.]

Order! Order! I think the hon. the Minister has gone too far. He must withdraw the words “a deliberate lie.”

I withdraw.

Then we come to the Bantu in South Africa. Here you have the main contrast between the policies of the two parties. On the one side you have the United Party who wants to retain South Africa as one integral whole. On the other side you have the hon. gentlemen on that side who want to devide South Africa up into eight sovereign independent states. On the one side you have the United Party which wants to have amongst all our people of all races one loyalty to one central government, one Republic of South Africa. On the other side you have this Government that wants to establish eight separate loyalties among different groups of Bantu in eight separate states. On the one hand you have the United Party who wants to keep its labour force as citizens owing allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. On the other side you have hon. gentlemen opposite who want to have four-fifths of their labour force consisting of foreigners. On the one side you have the United Party who wants all races under the control of one central parliament. On the other side you have the hon. the Prime Minister who wants to create independent states that can make treaties with foreign countries all over the world. On the one side you have the United Party which want to control the strategic boundaries of the Republic as they exist at the present time. On the other side you have the hon. the Prime Minister who wants to breach those strategic boundaries and create areas which can be used as jumping-off places for the enemies of South Africa. Then he turns round and tell us “hy sal veg teen mense aan ons grense.” Well, already there is quarrelling as to where those boundaries are going to be. But who are going to look after our industries whilst we are fighting “teen die mense aan ons grense”?

You prefer to hold them in your arms.

I prefer to keep them under control. I prefer to keep them under control, just as we kept the Prime Minister and a number of his supporters under control during the war years. And with very little trouble, too.

You press them to your bosom.

In the United Party you have people who wish to have the economic welfare of all cared for. What do you have on the other side? You have the establishment of states consisting of have-nots on the borders of a “have state,” and the members of those have-not states using their political power to bring pressure to bear upon the Republic of South Africa to give them advantages which they cannot get by exerting pressure from inside.

You have under the United Party eight White representatives in Parliament representing the Bantu.

For how long?

Under the policy of the hon. members opposite you will have eight black hostile states, helped by UNO, as are the majority of the poor states of the world. Under the United Party you have one Parliament. Under the Government we were going to have a commonwealth. But all that we are going to have now is a consultative body.

Do you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen if the hon. the Prime Minister succeeds? We are going to have a commonwealth. I doubt if we will have a consultative body. We are going to have something like a mad-house, Sir, if you ask me! In this mad-house all the standards for which we have stood in South Africa over the years are going to be destroyed and Western civilization is going to go under.

These gentlemen sit here and say they are going to defend it on their frontiers, whilst they are being out-manoeuvred from behind because their whole industrial production is dependent upon a labour force consisting of foreigners!

The hon. the Prime Minister said I put up puppets to knock down. Well, Sir, they seem to have been some puppets.

You are one of them and you knocked yourself down.

Sir, the hon. gentleman seems to have been shaken from his accustomed calm. He is really not behaving very calmly.

He cannot keep up the pretence.

He has referred to puppets put up by me. I know very well the criticisms I have lodged have not been met. If they were puppets, then they have become fixtures. And he has certainly not succeeded in knocking them down. Because he realized that, the hon. the Prime Minister came out with a series of long-term plans for the election. We hear of a series of plans to deal with water. Well, I was reading what Professor D. C. Midgeley, Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand, said to-day. He said this—

The Government have failed miserably again in this regard. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke on his vision of new telephone links with countries overseas. I wonder if he could get the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraph to pay a little more attention to telephone links between different towns in South Africa. Let him try to put through trunk calls at any time of the day or night.

Just let him try to raise the exchange.

The Prime Minister has outlined some most interesting plans. I want to say this to him: Either those plans of his are part of the economic development programme presented by his economic advisory council, or they are not.

If they are part of that economic development programme, then they envisage a growth of approximately 5.4 per cent per annum over the next five years. That is provided they succeed in achieving the aims laid down by the E.A.C. There are indications, however, that those objectives will not be reached. Therefore they mean no more prosperity and no greater increase in prosperity for the country. They are merely eye-wash, Mr. Speaker. They mean nothing to the ordinary people of South Africa over and above what they have been enjoying and led to expect to enjoy. But if they are over and above the plans laid down in the economic development programme, then I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister now that he has not got the manpower to carry them out. Therefore I say these plans are just castles in the air with which he is trying to get votes.

As I have said, on this side of the House we have plans as well. I said we have plans for better living standards, and I indicated to him what they were.

The only drawback is that your plans will never be carried out because you will never have the opportunity.

You have the opportunity and yet you do not carry out your plans.

The hon. the Minister of Transport has had 18 years of opportunity. And what plans have been carried out? He has not even carried out his promises to the workers of South Africa contained in the famous Schoeman plan for the workers of South Africa. I am not quite sure but I think he was one of those who were going to nationalize the gold mines at one time.

That is right.

We have gone further. We have pointed out that we have plans for freedom from distress in old age and sickness by a free medical aid scheme, a national contributory pension scheme, by family allowances, by proper attention and assistance to education throughout South Africa. We have told them that we should like to see a position where no child was denied the education which it was capable of absorbing because of his family’s economic position. We told the hon. the Prime Minister we want to see a South Africa in which there was a common loyalty amongst all its peoples to one central government and one Republic of South Africa. We told him it is our policy to keep White political control over the whole of South Africa.

They said the same thing in Kenya.

The hon. the Minister of Information is already running off to Caledon. He is in full flight already. But we are not worried about him. We are going to keep White political control over the whole of South Africa, unless this Government throws it away and squanders it. We are the one party with a positive policy for the urban Bantu. We are the one party with positive plans for consultation with the non-White people of South Africa. And when it comes to the welfare of the ordinary man in the street, this is the party with the plans, that is the party with the promises, and that is the party with the failures in the past.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that when it comes to the internal and external security of South Africa then I believe that we on this side of the House could do a better job about maintaining that security than anybody on that side of the House. We have been tested in the past. We have been tried. And we were not found wanting.

It is for that reason that I move with such confidence the motion I moved on Tuesday, and I believe the people of South Africa will reflect on that in the weeks that lie ahead.