Mr. Speaker, I move—

In moving this motion, I think I can say that everyone in this Chamber must be very relieved, very grateful indeed, to Providence, that we can meet here this afternoon and that I can move this motion without it being necessary for us to have to consider the results and the consequences and the difficulties which might have arisen had an adverse judgment been given at the International Court at The Hague. I think all members in this House are very proud indeed of the achievements of our legal team and will want to congratulate them on the dedicated work over the months and years that has made a result of this sort possible.

What about congratulating the Government?

Sir, that interjection is typical of the small-mindedness of Government members. Is this an achievement of a political party or an achievement for South Africa? You see, Sir, I do not believe that they either made the law or changed the law, and I do not believe that they did any more to observe it than previous Governments had done. If they had followed the argument, they would have known how much they did to hinder and how little to make easy the job of the legal team.

Sir, I believe that that judgment has immeasurably enhanced the prestige of the International Court, and I think it has created the impression that the Rule of Law still has a role to play in international affairs. I think we are entitled to express the hope that those the Rule of Law, will now be able to discipline themselves to observe that Rule of Law, now that the decision has not been what they expected. I think the judgment is also a powerful weapon in the hands of those who were so keen to encourage us to observe of our friends in the Western world who want to defend us but I think it would be wrong to interpret it as an approval of the Government’s apartheid policy or of its race policies. It seems to me that it is merely an acknowledgement of the fact that no one has the right to interfere in the manner in which we perform our duties and exercise our rights in respect of that particular territory. I think as such the decision is a very welcome one indeed, but I think we want to be very careful indeed that we do not attach too much importance to certain of the other judgments which went further than was necessary for the decision of the court. It has been most interesting to see that no newspaper, as far as I know, has so far given prominence to the declaration which the President attached to his judgment, in paragraph 23 of which he warned against the dangers of reading too much into those judgments and explained exactly what the force and effect, in law, of those dissenting judgments and even supporting judgments, could be. I do not propose to take the matter any further at this stage, save to say that I do not believe the agitation or the pressures on us are over as the result of this judgment. There are some who believe, in fact, that those pressures will be increased and that the battle will now move from the judicial to the political sphere. That means, Sir, that we have earned a breathing space. I pray that in that breathing space this Government will show the diplomacy and the foresight in handling this matter to bring it to a successful conclusion. I say it, Sir, with particular feeling, because it is just in this attribute of foresight that this Government has been so lacking throughout its term of office and has shown evidence of continuing to be lacking even since the last election. There are many examples one could give. There are many examples of the warnings given by this side of the House which have been disregarded by the Government owing to its lack of foresight, to the detriment of South Africa. And they have shown no evidence since the election that there has been any change in that regard. I say I could give many examples.

I want to take as my first example one which I think goes to the root of certain of the differences between this Government and the Opposition. That is the lack of foresight which this Government has displayed in respect of its whole approach to the philosophy of government in South Africa. You see, Sir, it is so obsessed with party-political ambition and with authoritarian powers that it has adopted an attitude which does violence to the generally accepted respect for the freedom of the dignity of the individual which is generally accepted as one of the hallmarks of the Western states of the world and the countries which are regarded as being representative of Western standards of civilization. This disregard for the freedom and the dignity of the individual usually leads to certain results. Those are the tendencies to glorify the State and to identify a particular political party with the State, and the tendency to take up the attitude that the Government of the country has become something more than a mere political party representative of the views of a section of the population. Because of this obsession we have seen this Government in the past, and we are seeing it now, being prepared to make tremendous inroads into the freedom and the dignity of the individual citizen in South Africa. There have been many examples in the past, and no doubt there will be many more in future if this Government remains in power. It is quite impossible to deal with them all. We find ourselves in the position here to-day that even though the State President speaking, I take it, on behalf of the Cabinet, in his opening speech to Parliament, speaks of the peace and good order required in South Africa and in the Bantu territories, nevertheless the first guinea pig Bantustan can apparently not be administered by this Government without Proclamation 400 remaining in force. I know, of course, that it has been asked for by the Legislative Assembly there. I suppose the pupils have not been slow to follow their masters, but it is significant that they seem to think it necessary that it should still be retained. We find the hon. the Minister of Justice still considering it absolutely necessary to restrict certain people in terms of the powers given him under various Statutes of this Parliament. I believe that there are possibly as many as 500 people so restricted at present. The hon. the Minister can tell me if I am wrong. And we have had recent examples. We have had the very recent example of a young man who was restricted under circumstances which gave extremely poor publicity for South Africa, in circumstances which gave it the maximum publicity in the outside world—a young man who was connected with the organization which invited a certain leading politician from the most powerful country in the Western world to visit South Africa. Well, the Minister thought it right to use his powers to restrict that young man—Ian Robertson. I said at the time that the international repercussions of the action were likely to be such that I felt it would be wise for the Minister to make a fuller statement as to his reasons for doing so, as he did this afternoon in reply to a question in respect of one member of the District Six Committee whom he has restricted. I felt it would be wise for him to make a fuller statement in respect of this young man and to give an undertaking that he would be brought very rapidly to trial. But neither of those things has been done, and we have had the maximum bad publicity overseas. I want to say at once that I do not know whether this young man is guilty of any misdeed, or whether he is innocent, but I do not think that has anything to do with the matter. I think what is important is that the Minister saw fit to use these wide powers in circumstances which he knew would give the maximum publicity and cause the maximum harm to South Africa, and he has not yet felt it possible to take steps to justify that action. My view is that if that young man was guilty of anything, then let him be brought to trial as soon as possible and pay the penalty for his misdeed. But I think for the Minister to leave this matter in the air in those circumstances, as he has had to do in a number of other cases, tends to become a complete negation of the rights of the individual and an invasion of the fundamental rights which you expect any citizen to have in any country in the Western world.

You said exactly the same thing about Patrick Duncan.

The Deputy Minister says I said the same thing about Duncan. He rushes in where others fear to tread. Where is Duncan now? Why have they not tried him and locked him up? If he is guilty, let us have him before the courts. We would be only too happy to support that. But it is not only in this sphere of the rights of the individuals and their own freedom that we have these invasions by the Government because of its approach to the whole philosophy of government; we have it also in their treatment of particular groups of people in the country. We have it in the treatment of the Bantu people. Their representatives were removed from this House before they were given adequate representation of a political nature anywhere else. Now we find ourselves in the position that there are already certain organs of the Government press creating an atmosphere and making propaganda with the obvious view to a further limitation of the political rights of the Cape Coloured people. Sir, I do not know what the plans of the Government are in this regard. The speech by the State President is not clear in that respect. I do not suppose it was meant to be clear. Some of us remember the hon. the Minister of Finance many years ago in this House saying that those members who represented the Coloured people would stay here as long as they behaved themselves. One wonders now, if they are voting for the wrong political parties, they are regarded as behaving themselves or not. You see, Sir, an atmosphere has been created which I feel is causing frustration amongst these people, which cannot be in the best interests of race relations in South Africa. This courageous Minister who always rushes in, said something about Communism. I want to tell him that I accept that Communism is a danger. We on this side of the House have accepted that on many occasions. We stated on many occasions that we were prepared to take extraordinary powers and to take extraordinary steps to deal with Communism, but I think we also emphasized something else in this House. We have emphasized that Communism is an idea, an ideology, and that you will only destroy it by putting in opposition to it some idea or ideology which will destroy it. You cannot destroy it in any other way. And that is the tragedy with the Government. This Minister of Justice and the Cabinet are taking all the powers they can to suppress it. All honour to them for that, but are they getting at the root of the evil? I am afraid that is where the Government has failed, because there are so many people in South Africa deprived of normal means of political expression by South African standards that they are becoming very ready prey for evil agitators of foreign ideologies. That is exactly why it is that this unfortunate Minister has had to build up such a vast security network. That is why he suffers in his sleep at night, according to what he said on certain platforms, about our future.

I worry about your future.

What the Minister says is capable of two readings. I take it he feels that I would be assured of a great future if I joined his party. What he is worried about is my future in opposition, because he knows it will spell the end of his future. That is his difficulty. But I want to say that here are examples of the whole approach to the philosophy of government. To me they are symptomatic of a lack of foresight in dealing with our national problems. I want to pose the question this afternoon: For how long can we go on in this way? Because we have seen with this Government not only assaults upon the freedom and the dignity of individuals, but we have seen them using State institutions in a manner which is not consistent with that freedom and that dignity.

Here I want to take the easiest example, one that is well known to this House, and that is the example of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. We all know the story, Sir. We all know that it is a State-protected monopoly. We all know that we have to pay licences to Radio South Africa, and that it is presenting news and comments and points of view and that it is doing it almost to the exclusion of others. We know that the Prime Minister said that its function is to correct what he regards as misinformation from certain newspapers in South Africa. While he regards it as that, yet Radio South Africa regards itself as being above the Press Code. It can attack individuals or newspapers or institutions or societies or organizations. It is not called upon to give those individuals, societies or organizations the right to reply over the radio to the attacks upon them. Sir, is that democratic? Is that in accordance with the best principles? Would any newspaper be allowed to do that? No, they would immediately be reported to the Press Board of Reference, and they would be reprimanded by that Board, and they might find themselves in trouble. Various individuals and organizations can testify to the manner in which the appeals to be heard in their own defence have been treated by Radio South Africa, the contempt with which they have been treated. There are various dignitaries of the Church and there are various individuals, newspapers and institutions of different kinds. When a State-protected institution virtually enjoying a State monopoly is entitled to act in this way, then it seems to me that it is taking or is being allowed to take totalitarian power. It is being allowed to deny the fundamental tenets of democracy. It is being allowed to make serious inroads into the rights and the freedoms of the individual. Where is it all going to lead to, Sir? To-day one can see with half an eye where things are going. It is going towards more dictatorial powers, more identification of a particular party with the State, more denials and restrictions on the individual. Is that really where we want to go in South Africa? We pride ourselves on being the bastion of Western civilization on the African Continent. Is that really Western civilization? It seems to me that this Government, in its attempts to combat certain foreign ideologies, is adopting so many of the weapons and so many of the worst features of those ideologies that we are in danger of lessening our own identity as a Western state and as a democratic country. What lack of foresight, Mr. Speaker! What a legacy!

There are other examples. I think this lack of foresight of this Government in dealing with the whole question of the philosophy of government is paralleled only by its lack of foresight in dealing with the question of the relationship between the two big groups of Whites in the Republic. Here it threatens to destroy the very core of the nation. I think there has always been a difference of opinion between members on that side of the House and members on this side on the question of national unity. It is an old argument which has gone on for many years. I think that where we have sought to build a new nation based on the best in the culture and tradition and the history of both sections, an attempt by both to accept the language and the background of each as its own, hon. members opposite have sought to put one section, Afrikanerdom, first. In the past, when they spoke of national unity, what they meant was cooperation on terms, and nothing more than that. I think their philosophy is best expressed by an article that appeared in Die Transvaler a long time ago, in 1941, written not by the hon. the Prime Minister but by Professor L. J. du Plessis—

[Interjection.] The hon. the Minister asks what that has to do with the situation. I will tell you what it has to do with the situation, Sir. The leopard has not changed its spots. In contrast, our attitude was always more akin to what General Smuts said some 60 years ago. He said—

When you had Generals Botha and Smuts forming a party to try to bring the two language groups together, when you had Generals Hertzog and Smuts in that great experiment in national unity, they were disliked; they were opposed; they were decried by members on that side of the House, or by the members who preceded them. I think this battle has gone on through the years, South Africanism on one side as opposed to those who stand for Afrikaner sectionalism on the other side, the co-operation on terms being all take and no give and “You must vote Nationalist”. Of course, the hon. the Minister of Transport is correct. I am not surprised that he has been misled. Like me, he was told that everything would be different when the Republic came. Things would change when the Republic came; there would be quite a different approach. Well, we have had the Republic for five years. I must say I have seen no evidence of change. I see a lot of evidence of continued sectionalism by that side of the House. I see evidence of that continued sectional approach even since the election, and I have quite a few witnesses to bear out what I say. My first witness is Sir Keith Hancock. He is a distinguished historian from Australia. Smuts’ biographer, a man who can claim to be an authority on the history of South Africa over the last 50 or 60 years. In a recent lecture he described the effect upon him of the festival broadcasts on the Prime Ministers of South Africa over the radio. He referred specially to the broadcast on General Botha. This is what he said—

Mr. Speaker, is that the way you promote national unity? There are other witnesses. I take some witnesses from amongst the ranks of those who were at the amphitheatre when the Chairman of the Festival—the hon. senator sitting over there—introduced the hon. the Prime Minister. Now, we had had a great day. There had been the march past in the morning. There had been an entirely appropriate speech by the State President. In the evening the hon. the Prime Minister was to address the meeting. He was introduced by that hon. gentleman with the words: “Hier is nou die toppunt van die hoogtepunt van die fees.” In other words, the Prime Minister, the sectional Prime Minister, is placed above the State President, the symbol of his Republic. [Interjections.] Having been so introduced, what did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He proceeded to denigrate former national leaders because they stood for independent self-government in South Africa as part of a greater whole.

He seems to have forgotten the letter he wrote during the referendum, which was sent to every voter in South Africa in a facsimile of his own handwriting. He pleaded for a republic, if possible within the Commonwealth. Was he on a dead-end road then, too, Mr. Speaker? If he was on a dead-end road then, when did he get off? It is a tragedy to me that this hon. gentleman should seek to denigrate the memory of people like Smuts and Botha. Who had the sympathy of the world during the Anglo-Boer War? Wasn’t it the men who chose Smuts and Botha for their leaders? [Interjections.]

Order, order!

I am not surprised at the noise, because some of these gentlemen will never learn to take it. Don’t they realize that although those people lost the battle of the guns they won the battle for the South African spirit long before the 31st May, 1961? We were a nation long before that day. Look at the achievements of that nation long before we became a republic. Look at where we stood in the councils of the world in 1939. Look where we stood after that. Look at the work that was done by people like Botha and Smuts in building up the nationhood of South Africa. Look at the standing we had in the community of nations. But to-day the great architects of the South African nation tend to be forgotten. They tend to be forgotten. Sometimes it seems as though there has been an overt and surreptitious campaign to try and play down what they did in building a nation here in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

The new heroes of the revolution put party before country and party symbolism before national patriotism. Is it fair to our children? Is it foresight to bequeath to our children a history of South Africa that has no part worth honouring before the 31st May, 1961? Who are these gentlemen to speak of national unity? Unless they change their attitude we are not going to get it in South Africa. I think, Sir, they not only sought to separate Afrikaans-speaking from English-speaking, but Afrikaner from Afrikaner. So that shows the real lack of foresight in dealing with the future of this country.

I have given two examples, but there is yet a third example of lack of foresight with which I want to deal. That is in respect of the relationship between White and non-White in South Africa. Now, I have no doubt that after the last election the Government is going to claim a mandate for its Bantustan policy. Now, what we have to deal with, Sir, is the position of the Government which has made promises to the Bantu on which it cannot go back. We are in fact fast reaching the point of no return in respect of this matter of independence. It may well reach it, whether it likes it or not, in the next five years or so. What is its position? Would any government with foresight have made promises of political advancement to place the people politically far in advance of their economic growth, their educational growth and the problems of consolidating the territories in which they are going to live? Would any government with any wisdom have committed themselves irretrievably before they had made provision for the economic advancement of those people? What do we see? We have seen the first five-year plan in the Transkei: certain agricultural results but very little else. What are their plans for the future? How are the inhabitants of the so-called independent Bantustans, promised this tremendous political advancement, going to live up to independence with the task of supporting not a population of 7,000,000 but a population of probably over 10,000,000 within the next 30 years? The population figure of over 10,000,000 will be the result of their own natural increase and in addition there is repatriation from the Republic at the rate of about 140,000 per year—this I understand is going to be the’ special job of the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Those are what the figures amount to, Sir. It is in the White Paper which the Government put out in 1955 or 1956 stating that its aim was equal numbers of Black and White outside the reserves by the year 2000. Is this figure to be accepted, or have they run away from it? What is the meaning of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement nine years later when he said—

Was the hon. the Prime Minister beginning to show a little foresight then, Mr. Speaker? What is the meaning of this statement by Dr. Rhoodie in his book “Apartheid and Partnership” when he quotes the Government’s White Paper, repeating the statement that the number of Africans in the urban areas would not begin to drop until about 1978, and then says—

Mr. Speaker, who is this “highest authortiy”? Is it the hon. the Prime Minister? Is it the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? Look at the picture, Sir. Those areas are not viable economically at the moment. There is considerable doubt whether the climate will ever enable them to be successful small farmers. There is considerable doubt as to their suitability for that sort of work. Apart from round the big cities of Pretoria, Durban and East London, to a limited extent there is hardly any sign of industrial developments in those reserves. Here we have already in the Reserves 63 persons per square mile as against 27 per square mile in the rest of South Africa, and without the increased population. We have figures given by Tomlinson a long time ago to the effect that the income earned in the Reserves per head is approximately £12 9s. per year—or about R25 per year—which is but one-eighth of what it is in the rest of South Africa. That is the pathetic starting point, Mr. Speaker. All this panoply of national anthems, a national flag and a parliament: What are we going to achieve? There are those who say that the income per head in those Reserves has fallen since then. I have said this in the House before and the hon. the Prime Minister contradicted me. If he cannot give me the figures, perhaps we can have them investigated, perhaps by a select committee, so that we know what is going on. Because it is high time we should know what is going on in those areas.

You see, Sir, there is no evidence whatever, either of economic viability or the ability to support a far larger population in any reasonable time. Yet they are being offered political rights. They are talking of independence themselves. I want to quote something which was written by Dr. Bruwer, who was Commissioner-General, I think, for Ovamboland. He wrote an article in Die Beeld—

He shows later on how this gap between theory and practice is leading to more and more integration which is quite impossible to control. Is it foresight to make promises under those circumstances? Is it foresight to promise these people freedom and independence when their real problem is poverty? There are also all the other problems which we have discussed so often and with which I do not propose to hold up the House. There is the question of controlling the timetable to independence. There is the question above all, Sir, of the urban Bantu. What is the position today with the urban Bantu? We have to look into this matter or we run the risk that they may become a threat to South Africa, and especially to the security of White South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister is creating a new problem with his independent Bantustans. It is dramatic. It tends to draw people’s attention. We devote our time to it. But we overlook what is perhaps the more pressing problem, and that is the Bantu outside the Reserves. Can any man who really thinks about this problem think that the Government has got an answer in that respect? He knows the Reserves can never carry all the Bantu. He knows these people are going to be there permanently. He knows he is not allowed home ownership. He knows that family life is being disturbed. He knows they are not having political rights which will satisfy anybody. Politically they are the most dangerous population element in South Africa at the present time. I believe the hon. the Minister of Justice believes that. They may cause us troubles here in comparison with which the troubles caused by the impoverished urbanized negroes in the United States will fade into the background. The Government ignores their permanent existence here. It still tries to regard them as visitors. There must be some cause for the sort of outburst we had in Johannesburg yesterday. The hon. the Minister has reported it this afternoon. Why is the natural reaction to attack the railway officials and burn the railway coaches? We cannot let the Government get away with this pretence any more, Mr. Speaker. They are creating dangers here to the White people owing to their lack of foresight which may undermine the whole of the civilization which has existed here. We as an Opposition cannot stand still and let them get away with this fantasy, this figment of the imagination, which is the manner in which they are dealing with this problem.

Talking about lack of foresight—was there ever greater lack of foresight than in the manner in which this Government tried to manage—or shall I say mismanage—the economic boom we had in South Africa? Already inflation has reached alarming proportions, hitting the ordinary family hard. How many realize that the Government carries a very heavy responsibility for the soaring cost of living in South Africa? It is a long and involved story, and I think it is something for the financiers to go into. But I think there is evidence of unforgivable neglect on the part of this Government and a failure to realize what was happening in South Africa after Sharpeville. They placed restrictions on the repatriation of foreign capital. They embarked on a Government spending spree. They at no time warned the private sector of the dangers of continued excessive spending. We had what seemed to be prosperity, and at that time the Government not only joined in the spending spree but it competed with the private sector for the available manpower resources and the available raw materials in South Africa. It made its own heavy demands. Look at the rise of expenditure in the five-year period from 1960 to 1965, taking the years 1960, 1961, 1965 and 1966. There was an increase of 73 per cent on Revenue Account. It rose from R658,000,000 to R1,139,000,000. On Loan Account the increase was 136 per cent, namely from R194,000,000 to R460,000,000. Surely any Government with foresight would have foreseen the consequences of that action?

And on top of that you still want television?

Does the hon. the Minister not know that television is run at a profit in most countries? Or has the Minister never seen a television programme? Mr. Speaker, I say any government would have foreseen the troubles that were coming. [Interjection.] I did not hear that rather fatuous remark.

And then you still want television!

Does the hon. gentleman not know that television is run at a profit in most countries, or has he never seen a television programme?

Sir, I say that any government would have foreseen the troubles that were coming, but not this Government. It would not listen to our warnings, but suddenly, after the election, after the Festival, its eyes were opened, like small kittens after nine days. Suddenly its eyes opened and it then realized what was happening. It has created the suspicion in the minds of many people that it deliberately held fire and deceived the people during the election and the Festival period as to what was happening in South Africa, by delaying price increases to the householder and the necessary painful measures to combat the inflation which was developing. One would have thought it was time for straight talking now, but what are we getting? Even at the moment we are getting unrealistically optimistic forecasts as to the future. We had the Minister of Economic Affairs saying in Cape Town only a week or so ago that prosperity will prevail and that things will return to normal quite soon; that the honeymoon will be resumed even before the end of this year. Sir, is the Government not creating the wrong psychological outlook? Are we not running the risk of there being another round of spending and the Government perhaps participating in that round of spending and of prices being pushed up even higher? Sir, when you hear these statements you begin to wonder whether the Government really knows what it is doing, and in the meantime many people are suffering. People who are already suffering and cannot afford a decrease in their standard of living—the wage-earners, the salary-earners, people living on the interest on their savings, the pensioners and people of that kind with fixed incomes which they see shrinking because of the rise in prices. I know that inflation does suit some people but it does not suit the ordinary man in the street. He has had very little share in the so-called boom. He was the last to benefit from it and he is the first to suffer now that steps are being taken to put an end to it. He is the first to suffer when bond rates rise, when the price of food goes up, when his rent is increased, when economic factors combine to make what he can buy with his pay-packet smaller and smaller each time. He takes the knock going up and he takes the knock coming down. It is always the worker who is the first to be told that he must not demand wage and salary increases, he must tighten his belt, he must pay more and longer on his bond; it is good for him; he must save, but he is not told what he must save from; he must be more selective in the food that he chooses, but they do not tell him that he is doing all these things because of Government extravagance and Government lack of foresight in managing the economy of the country. He is the first victim on the altar of sacrifice when things go wrong; when he asks for wage increases he is told to be patriotic, to be patient and to wait. Sir, anyone who knows anything of the art of government knows the difficulty of wedding politics and economics. It seems to me that this Government has been in power too long. They have forgotten what it means to try to make a small salary go a long way. Let them have a look at the letters in the Press, even their own Press. What are people saying at the present time? Even their own Press, I am pretty sure, has been flooded with complaints. What is so interesting is how often those people ask from what mystical funds they are to save when they are still struggling to pay off debts, to keep their families going, to pay their house-rent, to pay their bonds and get into good standing once again. If hon. members opposite do not accept what is said in the letters in the Press, what about having a look at the statements of the credit managers of various South African businesses? They are already saying that 1966 is going to be a record year for debt. They are already saying that debt is up 25 per cent in the first three months of this year. We know the reason, Sir. It is the small man who is being forgotten. It is not only the small householder, it is the small businessman as well. Only last month you had a statement by the manager of Volkskas. Mr. Hurter, who pointed out that the owners of small businesses, farmers and others who depend on bank credit, would be hardest hit by the Government’s action, whereas the big, strong financial institutions would hardly be affected at all.

New they are all silent.

Are you the friends of the poor man now? What a joke!

Why did you run away from Vasco?

Sir, this Minister ran away from a poor area; he knows it as well as I do. That is why he got away so smartly; that is why he settled for Caledon in search of English-speaking supporters. Sir, there has never been anything more appropriate than the fact that this Minister was appointed Minister of Sport, but I use “sport” not in the sense of relaxation; I use it in the sense of being funny.

Let us come back to the position of the small man in South Africa. May we remind the House that there are probably 250,000 bondholders in this country and that they owe the building societies approximately R1,500,000,000. Do you realize, Sir, what it means when their rate of interest to the building societies go up by 1 per cent? It means that they are going to pay approximately R15,000,000 a year more in interest alone, and when redemption is added, then their lot is even more difficult. They are going to see their period of indebtedness extended by a number of years. With these increased rates, fewer people are going to be able to build homes in South Africa. It is going to become something of a privilege to have a family and a home to live in. You know. Sir, I have always wondered why the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development when he made that appeal for more babies in Republic Year, did not make some suggestions about homes, because look what has been happening. Here we have a report in the Star of the 2nd June, 1966—

Why?

Did you do your duty?

We see that the value of building plans for homes dropped by more than R38,000,000 in the first four months of this year compared with the same period last year. In Johannesburg alone there are probably 4,000 families looking for homes. Our population is growing; more people marry every month; more immigrants are coming in as a result of the change in the Government’s policy. Here is what the Star had to say on the 19th of last month—

They were, indeed, Sir. The Star goes on to say something of which I heartily approve. The Star deplored the lack of ordinary political foresight and reminded us that foresight was one of the things for which politicians are paid to display.

So that is where you get your ideas from?

No, I think the Star got it from me.

Is that why your party is so small—because you have too much foresight?

Sir, I hear the ministerial humorist on the other side at it again. One day we will have a talk about 1978 and see what happens. I have a feeling that the hon. the Prime Minister has dealt severely with him already, so perhaps we should leave him for to-day. Let us come back rather to the economic position and face the fact that building costs in the past few years have risen by between 30 and 40 per cent. With that tremendous shortage still existing, we see this lack of foresight on the part of the Government.

Let us look at another group of the privates in that vast army who do not share the spoils of prosperity with the generals—the pensioners. We must remember that we have probably 300,000 White people in South Africa who are older than 60, and of them one-half are not catered for by pension funds. What is happening to them in the present circumstances? Many of them have to live on a pension of R30 a month. I wonder what the boom has meant to them? It has meant less milk, less meat, more difficulties with the house rent, more misery. The pension does not stretch. It is not much of a pension when you compare it with the pension which is paid in a country like Canada where the basic pension is no less than R75 per month and where there is no escape but though suffering and says that we cannot afford a national contributory pension scheme. Sir, what a wonderful Festival we could have had if the Government had been prepared to introduce a national pension scheme, free of the means test, on a contributory basis. But they seem to regard old age as some form of original sin from which there is no escape but through suffering and fortitude. That is not the attitude in the modern world, Sir. They do not realize that the workers of to-day, as the pensioners of tomorrow, are prepared to make sacrifices for pensions in the future. Talk to the trade union people to-day. Mr. Speaker, and see what their attitude is. The fear of the trade unions, even those who are well-disposed towards the Government, is that with the steps taken to combat this inflation, this boom, which they helped to create, they are going to be made to carry an unfair section of the burden; that they are going to have to do it owing to the mismanagement of this Government. And when they ask for increases they will be told that they are unpatriotic. Sir, it has always been the attitude of this side of the House that the worker is entitled to share in the prosperity of the country; that the Government must accept a measure of responsibility for seeing that they get that share. It is not easy. In other countries of the world there are income policies and other governments have had the courage to try to see to it not only that the workers share in the prosperity but that they are not unfairly treated when steps are taken against inflation. It is being done in consultation with management and workers’ organizations.

Do you want it here?

Sir, if the hon. the Minister of Finance will tell me a few things …

I am only asking a question.

It is my privilege to ask questions at the moment. I would like to know when this Minister regards the economy as becoming over-heated and when it returns to normal. What percentage of his foreign exchange reserves consists of short-term loans; then one can see what can be done here in South Africa, but those things are kept up the hon. gentleman’s sleeve.

No, not at all.

We will put a question on the Order Paper; the Minister can give us the answer and we will give him the result.

Look at the quarterly bulletin of the Reserve Bank.

No, that does not reveal it; perhaps the hon. the Minister does not read it.

Sir, I have said that we have no such objectives in South Africa and therefore a greater responsibility devolves on this Minister. I think one is entitled to say that the people expect him to make certain provision in his Budget to cope with that situation, because the latest steps which have been taken have hit very hard and have hit some people very unfairly indeed. It is time there was a more even sharing of the benefits of prosperity and a more even sharing of the burden of the steps taken to combat inflation. Sir, there is only one way to get prosperity in South Africa without tears, and that is by creating a greater production capacity, and not only a greater production capacity but by making more efficient use of the labour we have available to us. In this regard particularly the Government’s lack of foresight has reached the proportions of nothing more or less than a national catastrophe. There has been a failure to educate properly not only our youth but to train our older people. There has been a wastefulness in the use of our manpower resources. I think the time has come to specify our charges against the Government.

You made the same speech last year.

Oh no, I have much more evidence now of what has happened, even since the election. Sir, this hon. Minister has been trying for years to get my advice as to what to do on this subject. He has been most embarrassed by the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister admitted to his Congress in Bloemfontein that they had neglected technical education in South Africa because they had been so busy with constitutional issues. The advice I give him is not to go on neglecting it, which is exactly what he is doing. If I may put it in general terms, this Government should have plans for the education of all able White children to the maximum of their ability. It has no such plans. It should spend more to introduce higher educational facilities and particularly to modernize our institutions for learning and to encourage research. Was it not a professor of Potchefstroom University who said, “Navorsing is die stiefkind van hierdie Regering”? It should go further; it should take steps to make up the years of neglect which resulted in a shortage of adequately trained teaching staff at our schools, our technical colleges and our universities. It has failed to co-ordinate the aims and needs of a modern economy with the work of our training institutions. Sir, I have said that the Government is guilty. Even that hon. Minister has never denied that the Government is guilty. It is not only the Opposition that says this; look at the experts. I do not regard the Minister as an expert. Look at what the experts say on this subject. Look at the articles and speeches by men like Dr. Meyer of the National Development Foundation, Dr. Malherbe who was formerly principal of the University of Natal, and Dr. Van Zyl of the Pretoria Technical College. What do you find, Sir? Dr. Meyer shows that where we needed 1,820,000 trained people in 1960, we probably only had 314,000. There are many people who believe that the White people of South Africa are physically unable to perform all the higher-level tasks expected from them. Why are we wasting the ability that we have? We are not only short of university graduates, we are short of technicians, a shortage which is hindering the work of the university graduates, the researchers, the professors and the lecturers. We probably have half as many staff per student in South Africa as they have in Europe. We probably spend half as much per student as they do in Great Britain. And, Sir, what do you find? Dr. Van Zyl of the Pretoria Technical College says that he finds it amazing that so many South Africans enter life without any vocational or technical training whatsoever. He points out the difficulties here in South Africa where they are in competition with non-European labour. Sir, take one example. Take the handling of the Straszacker Commission, concerning the shortage of engineers in South Africa. That commission was appointed in December, 1957. From the summary it appears that the commission found a disturbing shortage of engineers in South Africa. It recommended that the number of graduates in engineering should urgently be increased by 50% to 75% per annum and it made a number of constructive proposals to achieve this end. What happened? According to the summary, the report was submitted to the State President after seven years, in November, 1964. On June, 29, 1966, nearly two years later, the Minister of Education issued a press statement saying that the report had reached the Government in February, 1966. Is that a misprint or did it take nearly two years to get from the State President to the Government? Where was it? In 1966 the hon. the Minister announced that he would ask about 40 bodies to comment on the report, in itself a vote of no-confidence in the commission, and that the report and the comment would be referred to the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council. In June of this year the Scientific Advisory Council appointed a committee to report on the report and to report on the comments and reports of the 40 bodies to which it had been referred, and that in spite of the fact that we have a shortage of engineers in South Africa, a problem which is assuming alarming proportions. How many years is it going to be before anything at all is done? Sir, this lack of training is not only causing a shortage of manpower; it is a wastage of what manpower we have; it is resulting in a large number of South Africans having their earning capacity reduced; it is keeping standards of living down throughout the country, and all because of the lack of foresight of this Government in dealing with the problem.

Sir, I could go on piling example upon example. I think there are only two more that I should mention. The one is the lack of foresight of the Government in dealing with the problems of a drought-embattled agricultural industry; the second is the lack of foresight of this Government in dealing with our water problem. Sir, the story about agriculture is a well-known one; it need not detain us long. For years we warned that agriculture was not getting its share of the prosperity of the country because of the price policy of the Government. We warned that the drought was assuming the proportions of a national catastrophe. We introduced a motion in this House calling for long-term agricultural research, for a long-term agricultural policy. It was turned down. We raised both matters on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. What a reception we got! We were asked to restrict our discussions to matters of fundamental, national importance. Could anything be more fundamental than the food of the nation? Even the Prime Minister’s Congress reacted and he promised the Congress that he would consider the appointment of a commission to go into the question of long-term agricultural policy in South Africa. After 18 years in office, this Government, the friend of the farmer, promises to appoint a commission to go into the question of a long-term agricultural policy in South Africa. Well, that was nearly a year ago. I understand that the commission has now been appointed; I believe it has met once. What is happening to the farmers in the meantime? Certain short-term measures have been introduced to try to alleviate the position of the drought-stricken farmer. Agricultural credit legislation was introduced last session but not proceeded with. It will probably be proceeded with this session. Are we going to get rid of the problem? In the meantime the farming community is declining annually in spite of raised prices for certain essential commodities. Sir, if ever there was an example of lack of foresight in dealing with a section of the community in South Africa this is it. It is not as though alternative plans were not put before the Government. We put many alternative plans before them on many occasions but they were not prepared to listen. Sir, the whole community is being allowed to suffer. Where they have taken our advice they have not realized that it is part of a grand scheme, and all they have done is patch-work, which is not going to solve the problem for the country. Unfortunately we are still in that position; we still do not know what the answer is and the farmers are still suffering.

What is the position in regard to water? Nothing is more glaringly obvious than the Government’s failure to strengthen this weakest link in our national economy. They cannot take refuge behind the fact that the problem has only become obvious as a result of the recent drought. Over ten years ago, a spokesman of the Rand Water Board, the largest consumer of water in South Africa, said—

What is being done, Sir? We hear that a dam is going to be constructed at Opperman’s Drift near Bloemhof. Is that going to solve the problem? A long time ago Mr. Strijdom, as Minister of Agriculture, said—

What was done, Sir? Let me quote what was said by Mr. Sauer who was then Minister of Lands and Irrigation—

He said that in the course of the speech in which he said that water was our Achilles’ heel. Sir, after ten years, what has happened? There is drought in the country and suffering far greater than there need have been just because of the lack of conservation. There is a shortage of water in the Vaal triangle in which probably one-half of our population are either living or have interests. The Prime Minister has appointed a commission to go into water uses in South Africa. He promised to appoint it in January; he appointed the members in June and I believe it is going to meet in August. Sir, other speakers can deal with this subject. I do not intend to take it any further, save to say that if there is an example of lack of foresight, then water and agriculture must rank very high in the long list that I have. Sir, when I warned this Government about lack of foresight I was not doing it only from hind-sight. Throughout the years warnings have been given in this House and ignored by the Government. Ever since the election we have been giving warnings. We are giving them again to-day in the interests of South Africa because we are going to be faced in the years that lie ahead with very great problems indeed, problems that will require foresight of the highest order. Some of them are already beginning to emerge. What we do about South West Africa is going to call for foresight and diplomacy. What we do about our relations with the protectorates is going to call for a lot of foresight and very careful handling. What we do about our relations with sterling may call for a lot of foresight, especially if Britain enters the Common Market. Foresight is going to be necessary in respect of every single one of the matters that I have raised in this debate this afternoon—the question of the approach to the philosophy of government, the question of national unity, the question of allowing political development to outrun economic development in the reserves, the problems of the urban Bantu, the management of our economy, the combating of our manpower shortage, the difficulties in respect of agriculture and water. What indications are there that this Government is showing any foresight in dealing with these matters? That is why I move to-day that timeously this House should censure the Government for its lack of foresight so that we will not be faced in the future with the difficulties, resulting from that lack that we have experienced in the past.

Before I reply to the large variety of questions dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition, I first want to refer to his reference to the South West Africa verdict. I think the South West verdict was joyful news for the entire South Africa. As has been said quite rightly, the hon. the Prime Minister agreed that justice had been done and that the principles of justice had been maintained. Where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the jurists who appeared on South Africa’s behalf in The Hague, I may merely confirm that the manner in which they acted, was not only to the honour of South Africa but also to the honour of the legal profession in South Africa. In addition I want to state that they would have been unable to perform that special task were it not for the efficient manner in which they were assisted by officials here in South Africa, and here I want to refer particularly to the Minister responsible for maintaining our relations with South West Africa. Here I am referring to the special contribution made by none other than the hon. the Prime Minister himself in the course of many years. There are some English newspapers which do not entirely agree with the verdict, and one can only conclude that they would have liked a different verdict. I think that we may all be grateful that as far as this party and the Opposition are concerned, we are all of the same opinion and that the verdict will at least not become a point of controversy between the parties.

However, it is customary for the Leader of the Opposition to introduce a motion of no-confidence at the beginning of a session. He has done so with great confidence in the past; he also did that six months ago, but now he moves a motion of censure because this Government has not taken adequate precautions. However, it is clear to us why he is doing so. He is merely giving it another label, but in essence and in practice it is the same; it differs in no respect from what he has said before; on the contrary, in this motion we once again get the varied assortment of subjects, the potpourri with which he has regaled us in the past.

We cannot allow him, however, to get away with that just like that. He is trying to give this motion a sugar-coating by saying that it is a motion of censure and not a motion of no-confidence, but by doing so he is trying to do one thing only and that is to distract attention from the defeat suffered by him in the past election. That defeat suffered by the United Party was one of the most resounding that party had suffered, and it is probably the most resounding any party had ever suffered in the political history of South Africa. When Parliament was dissolved, there were 106 members on this side of the House. After the election there are 126 members here, an increase of 20. But on the other side they have shrunk; there has been a decrease in their numbers. On dissolution they numbered 49, and now there are only 39, and they are now 39 in number after there has been an addition of ten seats in Parliament. However, they derived nothing from that and decreased even further in number. In that process they received several blows, because they have lost many of their experts. I see that in one of their pamphlets they made an appeal, “Let us vote for the man and the team which supports him”. They were very proud of the team they had. They referred to their experts in numerous fields, but what has happened to the experts in the economic field? They said there were five farmers, two of whom were of the best cattle-breeders in the country. Perhaps some of the cattle-breeders are still there, but what is of more importance is that they said that they had two experts on Bantu affairs, one in the Transkei [laughter] … he is still here, but the other was in Zululand, and where is he now? They said in the military field they had an expert, a brigadier—a diehard. He is still here, but where is the other of whom they spoke? In this way we witness how the heroes on that side fell in that process.

But what is more significant about this victory is the fact that after this party has been in power for 18 years, its popularity the support which it enjoys outside is still increasing. Since 1910 there has never been a government which has been in power for such a long time. We find that the support this party has gained, is stronger than ever before. Since 1933, when that party was at the peak of its power, it has only retrogressed; it has only become weaker all along, but for 33 years, since the regrouping of this party, it has gone from strength to strength all along. Surely there are reasons for that. One of those reasons is certainly the following. The hon. member accused us of abusing our powers, but certain duties rest on the Opposition too; they, too have to use their powers properly, but what do we find? In the process of fighting this Nationalist Government, what have they not done? They have tried their best to undermine our economy. They have tried their best to make the English-speaking section antagonistic towards the National Party. They have had hopes of disturbing the labour peace; they have tried to bedevil good relations wherever they could. They have tried to incite bodies and persons against this party, and when they were through doing that locally, they turned their backs on South Africa to see whether assistance for them was not perhaps forthcoming from abroad.

Shame!

They clutched at every straw in the hope that problems would be created for us, but they did not derive any benefit from that. Apart from that, they have tried to change the policy advocated by them. They could find no answer to our policy of apartheid. For that reason they came forward with their sixpence policy which they could not even sell. They said economic integration had to lead to political integration. They advocated White leadership with justice, and they advocated White leadership over the entire South Africa, and in the implementation of that policy they tried the Graaff senate plan. That had a Black veto and a White veto, but that no longer even exists. They made an attempt with their race federation plan, but also with that they did not make any progress. They fought on a united front together with other parties. They had the trust fund at their disposal, and in the process they also retired their leader and chose another and announced that he was the Moses who was to lead them from Egypt, but at that time they had 63 seats and now they only have 39. All that was of no avail to them. But in spite of those setbacks they could never interpret the signs of the time. When the conservatives, of the people now sitting here, broke away from that party they said it was “good riddance”, they were now rid of the scum. When the progressives broke away they said for every progressive then breaking away 100 conservatives would join the United Party. After the 1958 election they said, “Now we are rock-bottom; now it is impossible for the United Party to lose more.” But look where they find themselves now. The fact is that they have never been able to understand the happenings and the retrogression of their party. There has been a complete swing to the National Party, and the colour policy of our party, namely that of separate development, has been endorsed. In that process they have always battered their heads in vain against that policy. They have tried their best to ridicule the Bantu homelands. They have tried to present the dangers involved in the same way as the hon. the Leader of he Opposition has tried to present them once more to-day. I am referring to their own propaganda document in which they issued “nine solemn pledges” shortly before the election and in which they stated:

That was what they held out. They have tried their best to show that a half moon of hostile states would develop around South Africa, or, as they said, that there would be eight Cuba’s. But also to-day there has been an attempt to arouse fear. They fear communistic infiltration, but to-day the Leader of the Opposition once more went out of his way to ask why people should be restricted. He asked why Proclamation 400 should be in force if there are elections in the Transkei. When it is considered necessary in the interest of peace and security, they want to do away with it; then they want to create strife there for they do not like peace and order to be present. They also said there was obscurity; the electorate of South Africa did not know what the point at issue was as far as the Transkei was concerned, and that we were not divulging our policy.

That is so.

The hon. member for Pinelands says that is so. Let me refer him to what the Prime Minister said here in the House of Assembly on 25th January—

There is no ambiguity; the policy has been stated clearly, and in spite of all the objections raised we find that out of the total of 19 members returned unopposed, 17 were Nationalists, and we find that 58 per cent of the votes cast supported the National Government. For that reason I think we may rightly claim that the policy of separate homelands, and their development, has the full support of the electorate and that we have a mandate for its implementation. We are not the only ones to interpret that in this way. Even some of the English newspapers which are strong supporters of that party had to admit that that was the position. Listen to what was said in one of their newspapers—

After the defeat suffered by the United Party we expected some indication to-day that that instruction by the nation and that that mandate would receive some measure of support, but there was nothing like that. The united Party still adheres to that policy of race federation, a policy about which little is understood, even by their own people, a policy which has been rejected at two elections. They are adhering to that policy rigidly and we also know that the Leader of the Opposition said after the election—

It is clear that even those signs did not cause him to deflect from his course and that the United Party is still standing exactly where it stood before. In moving this motion the Leader of the Opposition has had an opportunity to-day of giving South Africa an indication of what his party stands for. He has even had an opportunity for a new beginning. He could have given an indication of the basis for their claim that they should be the alternative government one day. Nothing of that materialized. They were not able to do so. What they do not realize is that they are following a road which leads to a dead-end and that that dead-end is approaching rapidly. So there has been nothing positive; there have only been attacks and let me deal with a few of the attacks made by that party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition began by saying that there was a lack of national unity and that he blamed the National Party for that. Do you know, Sir, he equates national unity with the existence of the United Party, and now that he thinks that his party is going under he also thinks that national unity has been destroyed. That is his approach. He says that we do not have a new nation here, that there has been a nation here for a long time, but that we are breaking it up. Let us consider the United Party’s contribution to nationhood in South Africa. He said that the history of these events would come to be written one day and that the National Party’s contribution towards nationhood would then be recorded. I can say this, and I shall prove it, that when the history of South African nationhood is described in the future, no mention will be made of any contribution made by the United Party. That party has made no contribution as far as building a nation and a greater South African unity are concerned. In 1910 one state came into being. There were leaders from all sides and all parties, and if one wants to say that it was brought about by one party alone, I deny that and say that the leaders in the Transvaal at that time were not United Party men; they were members of the Opposition, and the same position obtained in the Free State. The political set-up was different then. We did become one state, but we were not one nation. Where was the United Party or their predecessors when the principle was laid down that South Africa’s interests should always come first whenever they conflicted with those of Britain? That was not acceptable to them. To-day it is acceptable. But let us consider the further stages. What was their attitude to independent South African citizenship? They opposed it. They wanted two citizenships, and even after the system of two citizenships had been done away with they still opposed it. They still did not see their way clear to having only one South African citizenship. When our own National Flag was being introduced they opposed it, and in the end we had to compromise and we had two flags, one for this country but also one for another country. They opposed it to the very end. They never wanted to recognize that symbol of independent nationhood. So we can mention our own National Anthem and also our own head of state. It has always been their ideal that the head of state of another country should also be their head of state. We believed that we should have one head of state and that he should be accepted as the only head of state in South Africa. What attitude did they adopt in that struggle? They simply did not accept it. As far as the establishment of the Republic is concerned, they fought it to the bitter end. The hon. member for South Coast even wanted to “march”.

He is still marching, but he is going backwards now.

They made no contribution towards this unity. To-day we find that South Africa’s position as a Republic is accepted by everyone in South Africa, even by the hon. member for South Coast. We find that after we became a Republic, all the things which stood in the way of our nationhood were cleared away for all times, and that is only due to the struggle of the National Party and in spite of the Opposition’s resistance.

Now they do not like what has been said at the First Republic Festival, but I think that I need not make any further reference to that petty reference to the Prime Minister’s speech on the evening when proceedings were concluded. I think it was a speech which befitted the occasion and which was worthy of the occasion. But the fact that the Quinquennial Republic Festival received the wholehearted support of both the English and Afrikaans-speaking sections and of all population groups indicated to us that that struggle of the past had been buried for all times, and was one indication of the really major contribution towards national unity made by this side of the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition brought the further accusation that we did not foresee the future, that we planned badly, especially in the economic sphere, and in particular that we did not summarize South Africa’s position correctly after Sharpeville or subsequent to becoming a Republic. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s memory is very short. He forgets his own summary of South Africa’s position. He forgets that he predicted, just like his predecessor, that there would be a recession and that there was no opportunity for progress in this country. He is now shaking his head. Then I am compelled to remind him of that. In the Star of 29th March, 1959, the following was stated of Sir de V. Graaff—

And in 1962, after Sharpeville, he said in the Sunday Times of 2nd September—

Sharpeville and the establishment of the Republic were pieces of good luck for making this type of prediction, and they did so systematically, not only the Leader of the Opposition but also others on his side. They hoped that there would be a recession here. They looked forward to that in order to make political capital out of any economic set-back. They did not succeed in doing so, but they cannot ignore the effect that had in the course of all those years. Not only did it deter foreign capital, but it also had a dampening effect on the initiative of the inhabitants, on the businessmen who had to display private initiative to build up the country. Consequently that did have its retarding effect but in spite of the fact that the United Party tried to gull the world into believing that South Africa was heading towards a recession and depression, there was one group which did have faith in the future of South Africa, and that group was the National Party. Subsequent to Sharpeville, when the private entrepreneur was sitting back and foreign capital was not coming into the country, the National Party said, “We have no reason for sitting back and having no confidence; we are going to show confidence.” At that time it was decided to increase Iscor’s production, to assist Escom, to increase Sasol’s production and to carry out the Orange River scheme. That was what the Government decided at that time. That constitutes actual planning in advance, and those steps resulted in the creation of initiative which subsequently could not be stopped. But what is the Leader of the Opposition saying to-day? When we refer to those schemes the Government undertook subsequent to Sharpeville, he says that we have used capital and have spent money. Now he brings the charge against us that the State is competing with private initiative on the labour market. If the State did not take that initiative at that time, where would South Africa have found itself? If the State was to do nothing and to believe what the United Party and its leaders believed subsequent to Sharpeville, where would the country have found itself now? But thanks to the action of the National Party, the economic wheel was once more put into motion, and we experienced an unparalled period of economic prosperity and progress. Let us examine the growth rate since those years. In 1961 our rate of growth was 4 per cent of the gross internal product. In 1962 it was 7 per cent, in 1963 7½ per cent, and in 1964 6½ per cent. That is a very high rate of growth. It shows that we do have the capacity, and the Government did not leave it at that but also started laying down an economic development programme, a five-year programme in which it put the rate of growth at 51 per cent, and that rate of growth of 51 per cent was higher than that of practically any country in Western Europe. I am giving the figure for 1965 which will give you an indication that where South Africa planned for a growth of 51 per cent, the figure for the United Kingdom was only 2.8 per cent, for the United States of America 4.5 per cent, for Italy 6 per cent, for Western Germany 5 per cent, and for France 2.5 per cent. Not one of those countries maintained the rate of growth we want to maintain over a period. And South Africa’s rate of growth is even higher than that. But now I notice that although that rate of growth of 51 per cent is higher than our normal rate of growth of 4.9 per cent, the Leader of the Opposition still says that that was nothing; look at Japan whose rate of growth was between 9 per cent and 10 per cent. In this case he is showing a hen an ostrich egg to illustrate what can be done, but that is only one part of the story. During the past five years the rate of inflation was 7 per cent in Japan. Apparently the hon. member did not know that. That changes that picture to a very large extent. Then I prefer a stable rate of growth of 51 per cent to an unstable rate of growth as experienced by Japan. Over the past year its rate of growth was only 3 per cent. We concede that there has been and is a measure of inflation in South Africa, but what they do not realize is that that very measure of inflation is one of the signs of rapid growth; it is one of the results of that. Now the charge is brought against us that no steps were taken at the time of the previous Budget. But at the time of the previous Budget the Minister of Finance did take steps when certain taxes were imposed and certain Government expenditure was curtailed. But apart from that, when there were inflationary signs initially, discussions were held with the banks to convince them to give out less money on loan. Two discussions were held in 1964, but they were not of much use. Subsequent to that there were increases in the bank rate. Prior to the last increase there had been three increases in the bank rate. Something which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to admit, or about which he does not want to say anything, is that he is opposed to that increase in the bank rate. I should like to know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to that increase in the bank rate. Is he opposed to the steps taken in that connection? Perhaps he will give us a reply to that at a later stage. Increasing the bank rate is an acknowledged method, not only here, but also in the rest of the world of counteracting inflation. It is clear that the Government was conscious of the inflationary tendency. It took steps to counteract that inflation on the grounds of moral conviction by means of an increase in the bank rate and subsequently by last year’s increase. Up to the middle of last year those steps have had an effect to a certain extent.

But when the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced those steps last year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, “South Africa’s economy is on a war-time footing”. That was his reply to that. He did not want us to take timely steps for counteracting that inflationary tendency. In the past South Africa has always been very conscious of the detrimental effects of inflation and for that reason it has always taken steps for counteracting it. As regards the position in the past, there has been an increase of only 2.3 per cent since 1958. That is lower than practically any other comparable country we know of. Lately there has been inflation to a larger extent, and for that very reason those steps have been taken. We know that those steps are taken in the best interest of everyone. The continued existence of the pressure caused by inflation is in no one’s interest.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was concerned about the worker. We are all concerned about the detrimental effects of inflation, and inflation is the very factor which drains away the worker’s income. Not only the income of the worker but also the income of the pensioner is affected by that. It also affects the income of the mining industry, of industry in general and of agriculture. In connection with the mining industry, we know that when there is an increase of 25 cents per ton of ground gold-ore, it may entail a loss of R200,000,000 in gold revenue. We know that when there is an inflationary tendency, it becomes more difficult for those involved in agriculture to compete on the foreign market, because exports constitute nearly 48 per cent of our agricultural produce. It is in their interests that they should remain able to compete. The same holds good for our industries. It is in the interest of everyone that costs inflation should be kept in check. It has its detrimental effect, but by acting the Government is showing that as far as it is concerned it is a matter of importance to remedy that inflationary tendency. By doing so it is sacrificing a certain degree of development, but what it contemplates is the continued development of South Africa at a much higher rate.

Allegations are now being made that South Africa at present finds itself in a recession and is no longer experiencing prosperity and progress. That does not agree at all with testimonials we received from those with knowledge in these matters. We also know that those measures have the support of the Economic Advisory Council and the Chamber of Mines and that they have been endorsed by the Trade Unions and the Chamber of Industries. Consequently we have strong support for those measures and justification for that action.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to water affairs. He said that the Government was shortsighted and did not take adequate and timely steps. He said that South Africa was a country with a scarcity of water. He wanted to know what had been done in that connection. He made the accusation that nothing had been done. Mr. Speaker, I want to accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of having made those statements, without having informed himself about what this Government has done in connection with water affairs in recent times. I should like to put him straight. We know that this Government has been aware of the necessity of water conservation in South Africa for many years.

Why did you not do anything? Why did you not proceed with the Orange River scheme?

That hon. member is a Rip van Winkel. Over the past six years no less than R169,000,000 has been appropriated for water conservation in the Revenue and Loan Estimates. The hon. member says that nothing has been done. In 1963 R21,000,000 was spent on water conservation. In 1964 the figure was R26,000,000 in 1965 it was R34,000,000 and in 1966 R50,000,000.

Where is the water?

I am not going to reply to such a foolish question. Over the past six years this Government has spent R169,000,000 on water conservation. In the first 38 years of Union, from 1910 to 1948, only R34,000,000 was spent on that. During the last three years of the Opposition’s rule only R7,124,000 was spent on that. During the past three years of this Government’s rule R98,000,000 was spent on water conservation. And now the charge is brought that this Government is shortsighted and that it has made no provision in connection with water affairs. Reference has been made to the Commission appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister. The fact is that that Commission has been appointed to do certain co-ordinating work, but a great deal of what has been included in the Commission’s terms of reference represents work which has been completed and which they will co-ordinate. A survey has already been made of the water resources of the Vaal River. The Department knows what the potential is and where dams may be constructed. As regards Natal, the hon. member for Natal South Coast is well aware that a very thorough survey has been made by that regional development society. We know that as far as our subterranean water supplies are concerned reports are already in existence. The new industrial committee has already taken South Africa’s water resources into consideration for the settlement of industries. A great deal has been done in respect of town and regional planning. As far as our agricultural consumption is concerned, we know what the present position is. As regards our power consumption, we are aware that a great deal of water is used, and for that very reason Escom is now engaged in designing cooling towers which will no longer require water. They have now constructed three experimental dry-cooling towers and they anticipate a water saving of 40 per cent by 1985. The de-salting of sea water has been investigated. That commission will play a very important role of correlating all the available information and of designing a water plan for South Africa together with the private sector involved in the matter. Certain components of that plan will appear very soon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to other aspects to which I want to reply. In connection with education he brought the accusation that the Government was shortsighted and that it did not make adequate provision for the training of its Whites. He said an insufficient number was attending universities. However, if one compares the present position with that in 1952, one finds that there has been an increase of 110 per cent in the number of students at universities. The number of students at the University of South Africa has increased considerably. Since this Government came into power, quite a number of new universities has been established. A great deal has been done in the field of education. To-day South Africa has a large number of colleges training our skilled workers and technicians. I am now thinking of the contribution by the Department of Education, Arts and Science. At present there are 97 schools and colleges for vocational education, with 31,000 full-time pupils up to the Senior Certificate stage. There are 20,000 apprentices in the Senior Certificate and 3,000 advanced students. In addition there are 61 new institutions as well as extensions to existing institutions undertaken by the Department. Those institutions will accommodate an additional 38,000 students. Apart from those facilities it is anticipated that there will be an additional number of 20,000 students by 1985 who ought to receive vocational education and that will require an additional 30 schools. Consequently we see that a great deal of progress has been made in the field of university, technical and Bantu education. A great deal has been done as regards the coordination of the entire system of education. We now have an advisory council as well as a man-power council which has made a survey of the available man-power—what the demand will be—and which are attempting to utilize educational facilities to meet the position.

The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the Straszacker Report. He made a selection from that report and with that attempted to indicate in what way there had been delay and that the Government was to blame. The Straszacker Commission was appointed in 1958 and functioned until 1965. This Commission discovered certain shortcomings and indicated what could be done. It pointed out, however, that opinions should be obtained from the Scientific Advisory Council. Those opinions have been obtained. The committee to which the Commission referred has met, and completed its report last week. Consequently we know what the recommendations of all those bodies are. That does not mean, however, that the training of engineers had to wait until now. I am referring to what has happened in the departments. In 1958, when that Commission was appointed, the commencing salary of an engineer in the Public Service was R2.040. At present it is R2,760. Consequently, as far as the Public Service is concerned, there has been a considerable improvement in the case of engineers, architects and other associated professions. It was not necessary to wait for the final report and recommendations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the workers were experiencing difficult times as a result of the increases in the rates of interest. During the election he made a promise that salaries and wages would be adjusted regularly in order to keep abreast of the standard of living. If one makes an analysis of what the worker received and the influence on his wage, one finds that the wages of the workers have increased much more than the cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition offers an adjustment. That would mean a decrease in the workers’ wages. He did not realize that. As far as the gold mines are concerned, from 1957 to 1964, there has been an increase of 31 per cent in the wages of workers, whereas the cost of living has increased by only 11 per cent. In the case of the Railways and the Central Government, one finds the same position. If one makes an analysis of the position either from the time when the National Party came into power or from 1958, one will find that the wages of the worker in South Africa have increased more than the cost of living has and also more rapidly. Also as far as pensioners are concerned, the increase in wages has been higher than the increase in the cost of living. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attempted to show that they were fighting for the workers, but those important steps taken by the Government, were taken in the very interest of the worker.

The past election not only brought a motion of no-confidence in the Opposition, but also a motion of confidence in the Government. The past election showed uneqi-vocally that the electorate of South Africa has confidence in the Nationalist Government and that it has confidence in its Prime Minister, and for that reason it returned this Government in a so much stronger position. In this election the people of South Africa showed their approval for the manner in which the Government deals with South Africa’s affairs, whether they be national or international questions. The Government has received approval for its actions to make South Africa a Republic, to leave the Commonwealth, for its agricultural rehabilitation schemes, for its colour policy, for its policy of water conservation and also for its actions in connection with Rhodesia. The past election brought a motion of no-confidence in the Opposition and a motion of confidence in the Government which does not have a parallel in the past. The House is now asked to adopt a motion of censure against the Government. This side of the House will vote against that with all the power at its command and it will reject the motion of the Leader of the Opposition by a larger majority than have ever been the case with such a motion by the Leader of the Opposition. By doing so the House will express confidence in the Nationalist Government and will confirm the mandate of the people that the Nationalist Government must accept the guidance and management of South Africa for a further period of service. One of the decisive reasons for that is that this Government was aware of the challenge put to it and that it has always watched over the interests of South Africa by means of proper foresight and advance planning.

Mr. Speaker, what is most peculiar about the very peculiar speech we have just heard, is that the gentleman who has just sat down is none other than the Minister of Planning. We are dealing with a motion of criticism on the Government, namely that it lacks foresight and that it does not plan ahead. We have just heard the Minister of Planning himself, who got up and spoke for half an hour without mentioning a single thing he as Minister of Planning had planned. I am asking him now what he as Minister of Planning has planned since he became Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a real political speech from the Minister. It seems to me that he got so wound up by his speeches during the election, that he is still “idling”. We heard the last part of those speeches to-day. He spoke about water planning, but we are asking him, “Where is the water?” Neither will it be of any use to point at the Nationalist Party and to say, “Daar’s water.” Where is the water? There is a great shortage. Where is the water planning? We have heard of a plan to spray the Vaal Dam with some or other chemical containing alcohol. That is not what the country wants. It wants water planning. It does not want a “brandy and water” policy.

The hon. the Minister started by saying that we were too afraid to move a customary motion of no confidence in this House. How long has the hon. the Minister been a member of this House, Mr. Speaker? Does he not know that with the first session of a new government it has always been customary to move a motion of censure and not a motion of no-confidence? That has been the practice followed by all Oppositions in the past. We were prepared to give this Government a chance, but I am sure that the distrust we have in it is rapidly increasing and that it can rest assured that a motion of no confidence is not far away.

The hon. the Minister talked quite a lot of politics in the first part of his speech. He explained how small the United Party was and how large, as regards numbers, his party was. But let us never forget that, irrespective of the Government’s numbers, this side of the House still represents at least 40 per cent of the electorate of South Africa. He wanted to know what had happened to certain members. We can inquire after the present whereabouts of the former member for Pietermaritzburg (City), a member of that party of national unity. We can ask him whether he knows the result of the Provincial Council by-election in Jeppes a few weeks ago.

The hon. the Minister said that we are scaring the country with the Bantustans we are holding up to them. Mr. Speaker, we are referring to facts. We are referring to a Minister of Defence who said that these independent Bantu States would be fully entitled to establish their own defence forces one day. That was published in the Transvaler and in the Vaderland. He accused us of scaring the country about the Bantustans. Did he not read the words of the Commissioner-General of the Transkei when he addressed Air Force officers in the Eastern Province? He said, “You must get to know every rock and every patch of the Transkei because it is the ‘soft underbelly’ of South Africa.” Mr. Speaker, the country is not being scared by us, but by their own Commissioner-General.

The hon. the Minister referred to pamphlets published by the United Party. The only criticism he could level was against a pamphlet in which we had presented our nine basic points. Let us have a look at the kind of pamphlets published by that party during the election. I have one example here. The words “The Future—30th March” appear on the cover. It was published by the chief propagandist of the Nationalist Party, someone who holds a position of note. He is a senator in the Other Place. In this pamphlet reference is made to the wretched conditions under the United Party régime. In this pamphlet they ask, “Do you still remember the hovels in those awful slums, racially integrated towns, dirty and filthy?” They also include a photograph of those terrible conditions in the pamphlet. It is stated here that the United Party simply allowed matters to slide. There was no planning and no action. On the photograph White and non-White children are playing together in one of the slums—the terrible conditions under the United Party regime. That is all very well, except for one point: this photograph was taken under a Nationalist Party Government four years ago. [Interjections.] Not 18 years ago, but four years ago. The name of the little shop was erased in the photograph, but what they had forgotten to erase was a car, a 1960 model!

Mr. Speaker, my Leader spoke about plans for the future and the need for a Government to have foresight. In the first place he said that he accused this Government of having no foresight as far as the political philosophy of its party and of its policy are concerned. How true that is, Mr. Speaker. This may rightly be asked of that party, namely what is their basic political philosophy? When one visits other Western countries, one gets answers which are consistent with the modern language of political science. A party leader or a party member in any other overseas country, in the West, is able to tell you that his party is a socialist party, or that his party’s policy is democracy, or free enterprise. As opposed to that, what is the basic political policy of the Government which is in power at present? We hear many things. I have already asked them. Sometimes one hears them saying that it is Nationalism. The Nationalism which made the other countries of the world great, the Nationalism which made it possible for Garibaldi, Mazzini and Cavour to create a united Italy, was a Nationalism based on love for the whole of one’s country and for all its people. Is the Government able to say that of its own policy? They call themselves a national party. They are not a true national party.

One asks them again, “What is your basic political philosophy?” Ten years ago it was only one word, the magic word “apartheid”—incidentally, a word coined by the late Senator De Villiers approximately 20 years ago. I was present when it was coined. The word was coined for the purpose of catching Coloured votes, because the Coloureds were afraid of the word “segregation”. That is the history of the word “apartheid”. It is not a policy. What has become of it to-day? That word is no longer used at present. The Burger said that the word “apartheid” had irretrievably come to grief. The word with which they had won election after election had irretrievably come to grief. We can count on the finger of one hand the number of times they will dare to use the word “apartheid” during this session. What is their basic philosophy? We now hear of separate development, separate freedoms and Bantu homelands. They are still looking for a policy. When they think that no newspaper-men are present, we find that one of their speakers, for example a certain Dr. L. A. P. A. Munnik, tells the people in Umtata that independence in the Transkei can only come about in 200 years’ time. They have no policy in regard to the development of the Bantu homelands. Do they not realize that themselves? Their own intellectual leaders are attacking them at present because they do not want to proceed with their policy of Bantu homeland development. They are getting so desperate that it is already being written and that pleas are already being made that the United Party—the Opposition—should accept the Bantu homeland policy, and then we would become a strong and great Opposition. How can we accept what they themselves do not even accept?

They are talking about their policy for the future. In the history of that party there is one date that will be of great significance in the future. That is the date 1978. That date has had an eventful course in the recent past. That date was determined first by the Tomlinson Commission and subsequently by the Prime Minister, who said that from 1978 onwards we would find the percentage of Natives in urban areas decreasing from year to year. A year or two ago conditions in South Africa were such that their principal newspaper here in Cape Town had to write, “A good old friend has been slain. The year 1978 is dead.” Now we find that this date is suddenly coming to life again. Now we find that the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is actually making bets that 1978 is still the great date which will mark the beginning of the return of the Natives to the reserves. If 1978 is such a significant date to them, I am looking forward to one date—and I hope I am still here then—and that is 1st January, 1979.

By that time the United Party will have ceased to exist.

So I could go on mentioning examples of how they do not even have any consistent and far-sighted plan as regards the colour policy. In fact, their own people, their own intellectualists, are telling them that they are no longer making progress. Yes, indeed, “major apartheid” is dead and its place has been taken by the unfortunate “petty apartheid”, which I regard as nothing but a political miscreation. At present that is all they have to offer—a kind of gremlin which has been created by the wild men of the Transvaal and of which the Western Province, the Cape men in the Nationalist Party, are so often nervous, and to a certain extent justifiably so. Let us look at the application of this “petty apartheid”. There is the case of the visit of the American ship “Independence”; there is the case of Dusty Springfield, of the tanned Cypriot, of the Japanese who are sometimes White and sometimes not, of the Maoris in the All Black team, of the fiasco at the Olympic Games, of the Indian baby, of the special coach that had to be brought to the golf course for the golfer Papwa so that he could play there, etc. These are all examples of inconcistencies, of a lack of logic and of forethought. And I am not the only one to say this. I have here what the Burger said about the Government’s colour policy (translation)—

That is what the Burger has to say about it. They have therefore never been consistent and never will be. How can they speak against the oracle of their own party? Mr. Speaker, they are not a national party, neither do they have a colour policy. Are they really a party which is essentially democratic? As for me, I strongly doubt that. At present the words "democracy” is part of the cant of any demagogue, whether he lives in Russia or in Africa. But that is not the type of democracy I have in mind. I am referring to democracy as it has become accepted and firmly established in Western civilization over the past 2,000 years. However, let us give the Government the benefit of the doubt by saying that no matter how narrow and small their form of democracy may be, they are still a democratic party in that sense, but then they are only what I should like to call a “mini-skirt” democracy. It only covers the essentials.

I feel concerned when I look at what happened at the recent congress of the A.S.B. I feel concerned about things that were said. Take as an example the speech by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, in which he made a ridiculous attack on a certain film company. The reply given to those accusations made by the hon. the Minister showed that he had consistently been wrong as regards each of his accusations, so much so that I am of the opinion that he owes this House an explanation for having made such accusations. At any rate, we are shocked by some of the things that were said at that congress. Is that the result of the indoctrination during 18 years of rule by this Government? Is that an indication of the future of democracy in our country?

I said that the party on the opposite side represented a “mini-skirt” democracy. Take a matter such as the freedom of the Press. At the congress of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal last year a motion was introduced to the effect that the freedom of the Press had to be restricted. Fortunately, that motion was voted down, but did we get a strong motion in defence of the freedom of the Press in its stead? Oh, no! The only motion we got, however, was one asking that the matter be left safely in the hands of the Government. Now I should like to know what plans they have up their sleeves as regards the freedom of the Press in South Africa. The request was made that the matter be left in the hands of the Government, but do we not already have enough laws restricting the freedom of the Press in South Africa? In fact, there are no fewer than 13 laws I can mention at this stage I am, of course, not saying that all of these laws are wrong, but what I should like to ask is whether there is any necessity for further measures and threats against the freedom of the Press of South Africa, and for further threats to be made by people who do not have the courage to take even one newspaper to the Press Board in an attempt to prove that that newspaper has violated the code.

Surely freedom of expression is one of the fundamentals of democracy. Let us consider the role of the S.A.B.C. in this regard, a body financed by the licence fees collected from the people of South Africa, both White and non-White. The S.A.B.C. is conducting a one-sided propaganda campaign, and yet the Prime Minister has granted it the freedom of the ether. And that while the S.A.B..C does not even have the decency to broadcast a reply to the atrocious and false accusations so often made in the programme “Current Affairs”. There we have another example of what I call “mini-skirt” democracy.

Furthermore, there are their attacks on the American Field Service. What a wonderful opportunity it is for our boys and girls who go over to America to act as ambassadors for our country over there. In fact, dozens and even hundreds of them have already done so. We now find that suspicion is being stirred up against this fine effort. Do we no longer have any confidence in the youth of South Africa? There we have the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who studied at the University of Oxford for years. The Minister of Foreign Affairs also studied at Oxford while I was there, and the hon. member for Primrose also studied at Oxford for a number of years. Did that make him a de-nationalized person?

Almost.

It is my opinion that these attacks on the A.F.S. are unfortunate signs of intolerance. Soon we are going to have a congress of the Youth Front of the Nationalist Party. What strikes me as remarkable is the fact that this congress will not deal with the problems of South Africa, but with internationalism. Mr. Speaker, that party is the party of the great bogeys: internationalism is one and humanism and neo-liberalism are others. I do not regard people who think along those lines as being essentially democratic. What is this internationalism? An airline is international; the same applies to a shipping company. The Christian faith is an international one. Is it internationalism when one advocates one of these things? Where, Mr. Speaker, are the people of South Africa, and the youth of South Africa in particular, heading under the leadership of this Government?

My Leader accused the Government of having a short-sighted approach to national unity. What a strong indictment it is. At the moment I am thinking of numerous English-speaking persons, honest English-speaking persons, who joined the Nationalist Party in the hope of finding national unity there. However, one after the other they became disillusioned and disappointedly they left the Nationalist Party once again. We in this House have heard of Messrs. Smuts Dawson, Ivor Benson, the late Ted Stirton and others. Listen to the words written by another young man in this regard, a young man I know because, while he was a Nationalist, he attended my meetings in order to ask questions. I am referring to Mr. Edmund Elias of Johannesburg. This young man was even chairman, an English-speaking chairman therefore, of a branch of the Nationalist Party, but he could not stand it there any more. Consequently he left that party for the following reasons. Here are his words—

Like Frankie Waring!

Continuing, this person said—

That reminds me of a tribute paid to a member of this Cabinet by his son. I am referring to the Minister of Immigration. His son proudly referred to him as “a detribalized Englishman who has escaped from the kraal”. Is that all they can lay claim to, namely these detribalized English-speaking people who have escaped from the kraal? No, Mr. Speaker, to them unity merely means uniformity. I have here a letter written in this connection a number of years ago. Amongst other things the following is stated in this letter (translation)—

The writer of this letter is a well-known personality in Afrikaans circles, in the cultural life of the Afrikaner, and he is present in this House to-day. I am referring to the hon. member for Kempton Park. He stated, therefore, that if they had to give up these sentiments, they would rather do without the support of the English-speaking people.

They are the people who are talking of national unity, Mr. Speaker. They are unable to realize this ideal within their own party and now they want to tell us what unity is. I want to ask them how much unity there is in their own party. What unity did we see in many constituencies during the recent elections? At present there are many wounded veterans of the battle between Nationalists and Nationalists. Think of Uitenhage, Standerton, Wonderboom, Kempton Park and others. Think of the two hon. members for Moorreesburg and Innesdal, incidentally members with the same surname. We find the member for Innesdal accusing the member for Moorreesburg of being a liberalist. He was even compared with Mr. Jonty Driver, one of the “neo-liberalists”. And they are the ones who talk of national unity! But how much unity is there, for instance, between the hon. the Prime Minister’s newspaper Dagbreek and the other newspaper from the South, the Beeld! We know that threats were even made when the plan originated to establish the Beeld. Threats were made to the effect that the Beeld should not be established, but the directors nevertheless proceeded with their plan. Appeals were even made to Nationalists in the Transvaal not to buy the Nationalist Party’s Sunday paper from the South. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, nowadays when we read in one of the Nationalist Party’s newspapers of a liberalist, dissenting Press, we really do not know whether they are talking about the Rand Daily Mail or the Burger.

Mr. Speaker, that narrow-minded section of the Nationalist Party are using those publications in the Transvaal as their mouthpiece. However, they also have another publication as a mouthpiece, namely the South African Observer. And I wish that more people would look at this little publication. They would then see the depths to which irreconcilable intolerance can sink. As an example I shall read to you an attack made on Nationalists by this Nationalist publication—

(Dawie is the columnist of the Burger.)—

… Rupertism, Janmaraisism … are these to pass into the language of South Africa as expressions of condemnation? Only they can decide. And they must decide soon.

Let us see what this publication has to say about that section of the Nationalist Party which is steadily becoming smaller—

Remember that this was written by a Nationalist—

They regard the Cape Nationalists—of whom the hon. member for Moorreesburg is one—as the Trojan horse of the Nationalist Party. That is what is said by this little publication of theirs. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, we have quite a number of new members in this House, and I am sure we all hope that they will spend a long and fruitful time here. They will have to get used to certain things in this House. Amongst other things they will have to get used to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells us the same story every year, a story they will hear year after year. They will also have to get used to the fact that the hon. member who has just sat down is one of those hon. members who simply have to be suffered. That just happens to be his way of speaking—he touches here and there, but never comes to the point. I should like to quote what he said of the United Party, according to the Rand Daily Mail of 24th March, 1966. Amongst other things the following is said in that issue of that newspaper: “I believe that the United Party is almost a miracle. It is the strongest Opposition party in Africa.” Yes, the person who used these words is the hon. member for Orange Grove. So much for the hon. member.

Since it is not clear from their speeches what the hon. members on that side are driving at, one has to refer to what is printed in the Minutes of Proceedings. The motion by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reads as follows—

Now it so happens that when a country’s problems are under discussion, many matters are brought up. One may therefore accept that a variety of matters will probably be discussed in the course of this debate. The hon. member probably thought that “problems of the country” referred to the economic and general political problems of the country. So far the entire field has been scanned. Now, Mr. Speaker, if one lacks foresight, one lacks foresight in respect of the entire country and all its problems. The United Party is the last party to speak of lack of foresight. We are now living in the Republic of South Africa, which has just become five years old. When the Republic was brought into being, that party had an opportunity to play a part in its establishment. But it happens to be the peculiar distinction of hon. members on that side of the House that they are incapable of recognizing a great moment in the history of the country. That is why they also failed to see their great opportunity of sharing in the establishment of the Republic. The hon. member will probably remember to what extent he opposed the coming of the Republic. He will remember how he and his party fought the coming of this Republic. Mr. Speaker, what would Mr. Ian Smith in Rhodesia give to be able to choose whether his country is to become a Republic inside or outside the Commonwealth? That is how hon. members have through the years failed to recognize all the great moments in the history of the nation. And the reason for that was that hon. members on that side have never been South Africans in the true sense of the word, pot even to say Afrikaners. They have never been South Africans to the core. In the economic field, too, the Opposition has through the years had opportunities of sharing in the growth of South Africa. Since it became a Republic, South Africa has become a great country, a strong country, a sought-after country. Not only has our country become a great country in the past number of years, but we have become a great country despite the Opposition’s failure to play their part in the progress of South Africa. It will probably be remembered that in recent years it has been the Government’s policy to make our country economically as strong and independent as possible so that, if hard times arrive, we shall be able to survive them. What has been the Government’s policy and philosophy regarding this aspect? It has been its philosophy to shape and create certain great props within the economy of South Africa—and it has in fact done so. That is why it has been possible to launch an economic development programme on a very large scale. Those props are intended to serve as major points of economic growth within the life of the nation itself, on which the State can base its entire economy and related activities. I shall now refer to a few examples.

During the past number of years an attempt has been made to create such a prop by means of the establishment of Sasol. Sasol was in fact established before the Republic came into being, but during the past number of years in particular, Sasol has been expanded on a large scale. But hon. members on that side of the House adopted a cynical attitude and derided the Government’s activities in this regard. Not only has Sasol become a major prop in our economy, but it has also become such a major point of growth that in this field South Africa is playing a leading part in the world. During the past number of years the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has from time to time made further announcements regarding a second prop he has tried to create, namely the steel prop, around which an entire industry, even a complex of industries, will arise. We have in fact made so much progress that we can not only meet our domestic requirements, but can even export some of those products. In fact, we are on the eve of even becoming a machine-producing country. It has also been announced recently that we are going to manufacture certain machines, to keep pace with the tremendous development we are experiencing in the field of textiles. We are on the eve of establishing an industry which will lead to the manufacturing of 500 weaving machines per annum in South Africa. In that respect, too, we shall probably become an exporting country. A considerable number of those props have been created, to the benefit of South Africa.

As a result of this economic upsurge we have been experiencing great economic prosperity. And this afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged—I trust I am not misinterpreting him—that the prosperity we are enjoying in South Africa is in actual fact an independent prosperity which can be separated from this Government, and that this prosperity, which has, so to speak, fallen into our laps, is being mismanaged. No, Mr. Speaker, the Government cannot be separated from this prosperity. On the contrary, the Government is the creator of this prosperity. The National Party and the National Party Government are indeed the creators of this prosperity. This prosperity has been created despite opposition and unwillingness to co-operate on the part of the Opposition. Over the past number of years this Government has created a boom for which that side can be given no credit.

Did you also put the gold there?

What a stupid question. Surely the gold industry is not a newly established industry. The hon. member and his party have had no share in that great economic and industrial development in South Africa. We had faith, but that side of the House adopted a derisive attitude all along.

This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to cover the entire field. He referred to various aspects of the administration of the country, and he also spoke about the economic development in the country. We shall return to that later. I now want to say something about a certain word which both the hon. the Leader and the hon. member who followed upon him used in this House. This afternoon the hon. gentlemen discussed the word “philosophy” in this House. They used that word, a word which I think we shall hear again. To-day we are suddenly hearing of a philosophy. I want to say at once that there is in fact a deep-rooted difference between the Opposition and this side of the House. There is a profound difference, a difference which does in fact centre on philosophy. Because, Sir, there is indeed a difference in philosophy between the attitude of the National Party and the attitude of that side of the House. Of course we all know that there is a very clever man on that side of the House. He makes all the United Party’s plans for them—and also lands them in all their difficulties! I am referring to the hon. member for Barabbas-Yeoville. From time to time the hon. member writes articles for certain newspapers and also gives guidance to his party. Hon. members who were in this House at the time will probably recall that some years ago an article by that hon. member appeared in the Cape Argus every Friday afternoon; in those articles he discussed political matters and set out the views of the United Party. On 8th March, 1963, for example, he explained the philosophy of his party in respect of the peoples of South Africa. It was an indication of the reasoning which inspires them and which is supposed to serve as a basis for their future role in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that there is a deep-rooted difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. One of the proofs of that deep-rooted difference is this article, this basis, this indication in philosophic terms of the outlook on life adopted by hon. members on that side. This is what the hon. member wrote: “Apartheid is denying our youngsters the challenge they need.” In the article the hon. member deplores the fact that White children and Black children cannot live in mixed fashion and are kept apart at school and in other fields. He states, inter alia—

If we want to prosper and help all our peoples to surmount poverty and ignorance we cannot afford the myth that there is more than one nation in South Africa, more than one system of enterprise, more than one labour force and more than one market. We cannot afford all the ridiculous complexities that separate development will introduce into our already complicated lives.

The article concludes with the following words—

—and that is the spirit of this article—

Against that background it is, therefore, clear that there is a wide difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. There is indeed difference in philosophy between the two sides. Whatever may be said in this and in future debates, the point at issue remains unchanged, namely the philosophic belief of the people of South Africa in respect of its survival in its fatherland. When one reads this article many things become clear, and in the following weeks and months it will become clear to new hon. members what the basic difference between the two sides of the House is. For if one adopts that attitude, Mr. Speaker, then many other things also become clear to one. Surely it must follow that if that is the philosophic basis of a party’s thought, that party must advocate one nation. Then it is clear why that party has a race federation plan. Then it is clear to us why they want to create a state consisting of eight Black provinces and one multi-coloured province, with a super parliament over all of them. Then we understand why they fought and argued in the past—as they will do in future as well—in an attempt to bring the races together and to have racial integration in the sphere of employment. We shall understand why they have tried in the past to keep the various national groups together at universities and schools and why they do not want to grant the separate peoples opportunities for separate development. Then it becomes clear to us why hon. members on the other side argued as they have argued today, and why we can expect their arguments to remain unchanged in future. Ours is a young Republic which is now entering its third Session of Parliament. We have many new members in our Parliament. If we are to enter the future without having clarity on this matter, we shall continue to differ in future, just as in the past. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there is an essential difference as regards our approach to these matters. Therefore the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member who has just sat down will gain nothing by bringing this motion before the House and claiming that the Government does not recognize the great moments and fails to make use of its opportunities, and is guilty of lack of foresight. That side have time and again failed to recognize the opportunities they had to join the march. Because they lacked foresight, they have failed to join the tide of South Africa. Why has this side of the House become so large while that side has shrunk? It is mainly because this Government is a good one which understands its people and has become a symbol of what its people have stood for through all the years of its existence. This Government has faith in the future. But there is also another reason, Mr. Speaker. And that is that South Africa has an Opposition which has not yet become part of the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the general election for the House of Assembly held a few months ago the Government party gained a victory which, on a percentage basis, was only greater by one than that recorded by the United Party in the 1938 election. This, too, was a great victory, as that one was then, and I do not think anyone is trying to conceal the fact that the Government to-day occupies a stronger position than any previous government has. After its resounding defeat in 1938, however, the National Party opposition of that time did not adopt the attitude that they must lie down and submit to the policy of the majority. No, Mr. Speaker, they adopted the attitude that a government’s majority had nothing to do with the question of whether its policy was right or wrong, or whether it was good or bad. History is too rife with examples of major political errors made by large political majorities for that to have happened. Consequently the Opposition does accept the Government’s victory as proof that at this stage the majority of the voters prefer it to other parties, but most certainly not as proof that, solely on the basis of its majority, its policy is the right one and a good one. I therefore hope that we shall in future hear less of this story that the Opposition must accept this Government’s policy because the Government has obtained a large majority. Let the argument in that case be that one must accept a certain point of policy because it has merit, but the argument that because the Government has obtained a majority its policy is consequently the right one and must be submitted to and accepted by the other side, is something which shall not under any circumstances be accepted by the Opposition. So, as previous opposition parties have done in the past, this Opposition will continue to test and to judge the actions of the Government according to our own faith in what is best for South Africa. There is one aspect of the situation as it exists at the present which will in due course have to be investigated more searchingly and that is the numerical ratio between Government and Opposition Members in Parliament. I think everyone would agree that at an election a political party ought to receive the number of seats which its numerical strength merits. I think that every reasonable person should also agree that a democratic parliament should be a true reflection of the existing political divisions and persuasions in the country. None of these requirements are being complied with at the moment. The division of seats in this Parliament is of such a nature that 42 per cent of the active voters of the country are at present left little more than 20 per cent of the seats in this Parliament. Of the 219 White representatives in the House of Assembly and the Senior House together the Opposition has 53; that is to say 42 per cent of the voters have 53 out of 219 White representatives in this Parliament. Now, any reasonable person must admit that this is out of all proportion to the political division in the country, and that it makes of this Parliament something which it ought not to be. That is why we shall have to ascertain, as soon as possible, to what extent the system we have to-day is responsible for this discrepancy. I want to propose that the Government regard this matter as its duty and take the initiative in appointing a committee of constitutional experts to ascertain in the first place where our parliamentary system falls short of democratic standards and in the second what steps ought to be taken to bring the Government and the people and Parliament and the people closer together once more.

In the meantime the disproportionately large majority of the Government might even have one particular advantage, if it is used correctly. If its large majority results in the Government feeling a little more self-assured and, for the next few years, paying less heed to party gain and vote-catching and displaying more tolerance towards the Opposition, if it could help the Government to be a little more protective towards the values and traditions of the democratic idea in the future, then something good might yet come of the existing situation. Because what strikes one is that we have a government which is very fond of talking. Its production of speeches is colossal. They cover almost every subject imaginable, even 20th Century Fox films. But does one ever hear leaders on the Government side speaking protectively of the democratic ideal? Do they ever speak protectively about the principles of Western democracy? No, the Leader of the Opposition hit the nail squarely on the head this afternoon when he said that however many points of agreement there might be between the two sides—and there are points of agreement between all political parties of all kinds—there is a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House which goes much deeper than the policy as it stands on black and white. It is a difference in political outlooks, not only in respect of the relationship between one human being and another, but in the relationship between the State and its people. In recent times it has become fashionable to state political divisions in our country in the simple terms of left-wing or right-wing, liberal or conservative. These labels are being dished out and pasted on today without paying heed to their original meaning. On the opposite side we have for example the Government supporters who pass for conservatives. The rights of the matter is that they are radicals. They are not conservative. Take one of the principal cornerstones of their policy—and I am not indicting them for it—I am merely stating it as a fact: The Government’s Bantustan policy, as it is called, is anything but conservative. Seen from a South African point of view, it is radical, revolutionary and liberal. Here on this side we have the United Party which, in turn, is regarded as being a liberal party. But in terms of modern development its declared policy of “White control over the whole of South Africa for all time” is not only conservative but in fact ultra-conservative. I am not saying this because I want to dish out labels myself. That is a game I do not like. I am only mentioning it to demonstrate that our intrinsical quarrel with the Government does not concern the question whether it is “conservative” or “liberal” or whether we on this side are “left-wing” or “right-wing”. The division in our politics is not that of being either left-wing or right-wing. Our intrinsic difference lies in our different approaches to the question of human relationships and of democratic government. If one looks at the countries of the world the real division between them, too, is not that of being either left-wing or right-wing. In actual fact the division is one of those on the one hand who subscribe to the democratic philosophy and those on the other hand who have a state dogma, a national dogma which determines and dominates all their actions. Those countries having a national dogma all display the same traits, whether they are left-wing or right-wing. That is why one finds that in the period before the Second World War countries pursuing a policy of Nazism or Fascism developed precisely the same traits as those countries favouring Communism or Marxism. They all displayed the same degree of contempt for democracy, they all pursued the same method of government and they all revealed the same degree of intolerance towards opposition. This still applies to-day. All those countries adhering to a national dogma, whether it be Communism or Castroism on the left or Falangism or militarism on the right, they all display the same traits. And that is where our danger lies under the Government which is in power to-day. We are already being classed among those countries having a national dogma, a “-ism”, a national “-ism”: namely the dogma of racialism or enforced racial apartheid. I do not believe its creators visualized or willed it thus. I do not believe they wanted to go much further than what has always been the general custom and convention in South Africa. But this thing has gradually got out of hand, it has gradually become more enveloping, more absolute and more merciless. As time went by reasonableness disappeared to an ever-increasing extent, and we approached ever closer to all that is characteristic of the “-ism” countries of the world. Everywhere the pattern is the same. The first step usually taken by a country moving in that direction is that the government policy is elevated to a “state policy”. The Governing party becomes identified with the state. Gradually those who speak and work against the so-called state policy—even though they do so within the framework of the law—are then classified as being unpatriotic and subversive. They can differ, but they must differ within the framework of the “state policy”. The laws become stricter and more comprehensive. The courts are restricted to an ever-increasing extent. More and more powers pass into the arbitrary hands of ministers. The security police increase and their net is thrown further and further. The public radio is harnessed to the “state policy”. The public Press are threatened and intimidated to an ever-increasing extent. Intolerance towards opposition increases in a hundred and one ways. I do not believe I have to go any further. The pattern has repeated itself so often in so many countries that it is not difficult to recognize the process when you see it. There are many other features which are peculiar to all dogma countries. The arguments used each time the government appropriates for itself newer and greater powers, are everywhere the same whether they originate from left-wing or right-wing states. There are always “enemies of the people” and these enemies of the people are always increasing and becoming more dangerous. Another feature—and we have arrived at that stage here too—is that sooner or later the machine turns on itself and then witch-hunting and ferreting out dissenters from amongst their own ranks begins. The more authoritarian the ruling faction becomes, the more ferreting out is done from amongst their own ranks. The question we should apply ourselves to is how far the present Government has already progressed along this road and where it is leading South Africa. As I have already stated we are already a country with a state dogma. We are already classed amongst the “-ism” countries. And irrespective of whether they tend towards the left or towards the right, they are all birds of a feather. A system becomes your master. It no longer matters then whether a particular step is good or bad. Neither does it matter how many people get hurt in the process. It does not matter whether a local authority wants to do something else. It does not matter whether a specific question is solved or aggravated as a result. It does not matter whether your country is being harmed or not. It is no use arguing. Once the system is “state policy”, then the system itself is your master. The system must be enforced in all things and upon everyone. True to the pattern in all the “-ism” countries we have also arrived at a further stage which is to pronounce the point of view that our system is not only a good one for us and for our country, it is also the solution for the whole world, if only the world would be clever enough to realize it. Do but listen to what is being said by the Ministers of the Government: Apartheid is not only a good thing for South Africa; it is the solution for the whole world; it is the answer the whole world is seeking.

This is a conceit which is symptomatic of every “-ism” state. Even the hon. the Prime Minister has done something like this. According to him the entire world is sick. It is only we who are healthy and have the answer. This corresponds exactly to the attitude in Russia and in every other country which has elevated a national dogma as its master.

True to the pattern of all the “-ism” countries the Government policy here has also been elevated to “state policy”. In democratic countries one does not speak of a “state policy”, but of a government policy. After all, there is more than just a subtle difference between government policy and state policy. More and more ministers however—and the hon. the former Minister of the Interior is one of the greatest culprits in this respect—are now beginning to speak of our “state policy” and of the “undermining” of state policy. The next step taken is that those, even those within the law, who speak against the “state policy” or take action against the “state policy” are regarded as subversives. So this process continues. And once having come this far, then all the other things fall into place as they fall into place in every “-ism” country. More and more powers are concentrated in the hands of the government. The powers of the courts are restricted to an ever-increasing extent. In more and more cases the will of the ministers becomes the law of the land. The powers of local bodies are restricted in favour of the central government to an ever-increasing extent. More and more inroads are made into the freedom of the individual, until people are detained without trial! Where in the Western world have so many restrictions being created as we have had here under this Government of recent years? But, to go further: as in every other “-ism” country where dogma rules, the organs of public opinion are being harnessed to the “state policy”. The radio is the first to be seized. True to this pattern we must now experience the same thing in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, these are strong words which I do not usually use, but I think it is an absolute disgrace the way the radio is being used to-day to attack institutions and individuals whom the Government does not like, berate them and cast them under a cloud of suspicion without their having the right to defend themselves. This includes churches and church leaders, newspapers and newspaper editors, students and student bodies. I am thinking for example of the disgraceful action taken against the Rev. Beyers Naude and the Christian Institute. A man who is a Christian leader of world standing is, for the simple reason that his conscience bade him speak out against the injustices of apartheid, harried by a state institution such as the radio and cast under a cloud of suspicion while everything possible has been done to cast slurs upon his character. Such a situation as this where the public radio is unilaterally harnessed to the yoke of the ruling party would not be tolerated in any democratic state in the Western world. At present there is no difference in the use of the radio here and that in Russia. If there is a difference the hon. the Minister must stand up and tell us what the difference is. The excuse offered is the same as that offered in Russia and the other “-ism” countries, i.e. that there are “enemies of the people” who have to be fought. The problem, however, is that the list of enemies of the people grows longer by the day. If I were to compile a list of individuals and bodies which hon. members on the opposite side have already declared to be “enemies of the people”, I would need an extra half an hour in order to read it out. Initially it took the form of action against Communism, which really is an enemy of the people; but the matter did not end there. It now includes liberalism, equalism, modernism (in a speech recently the hon. member for Randfontein discovered a new enemy of the people, viz. “Modernism”), the Social Gospel, the South Africa Foundation, television, the American Field Service, the younger Afrikaans writers, specifically the “Sestigers” (even older Afrikaans writers such as Van Wyk Louw are implicated), Portuguese immigrants, 20th Century Fox, folk singers, and what have you. There is just no end to the enemies of the people which are being discovered by Government speakers. The net is being cast further and further afield, so that in the end nobody knows whether they are inside the net or outside. As far as action against Communism is concerned, there is more unanimity in the country than there is in any other subject. In the past the Opposition party may have had its quota of mistakes as well, but there is one mistake it has never made. At no stage in its existence did it exchange its democratic principles for new orders and grey shirts and authoritarian states. (Interjections.) The United Party was the one party which never relinquished the democratic idea and toyed with the idea of an authoritarian state. That is why the United Party, precisely by virtue of its firm democratic nature, is pre-eminently that party which has been, and still is, the bulwark against Communism. The United Party is thoroughly aware of the fact that Communism is unorthodox in its methods. This fact has often been emphasized by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and in this regard one readily concurs with him. It is true that Communism acts in such a way that it cannot be fought with democratic means only. But, Mr. Speaker, this Government is going too far. It does not suffice itself with combating Communism. In the former respect the Government has the whole-hearted support of every reasonable person in this country.

Since when does the Government have your support?

I shall state in what respect the Government is going too far. The hon. the Minister of Justice made the assertion that Liberalism was “the forerunner of Communism”.

But of course!

It is not a matter of course. As a matter of fact it is a ridiculous assertion, for if I understand the hon. the Minister of Justice correctly, I must assume that a tyrant such as Batista was a liberal who prepared the way for Castro. I would then have to assume that the Czar of Russia was a liberal who prepared the way for Lenin. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to show me one place in the world where a communistic regime was preceded by a liberalistic régime. That is the greatest nonsense under the sun. Communism is inimical to human nature. Nowhere have people accepted Communism willingly. Nowhere has Communism been preceded by a liberalistic régime. Where Communism succeeded each time was where freedom had collapsed, where democracy had been excluded, and where people were despairingly prepared to call the devil to their aid.

But I shall let that suffice; we can debate the matter further at a later stage. The point is that the hon. the Minister, correctly or incorrectly, has declared Liberalism to be the forerunner of Communism. And what have the consequences been? It is no longer necessary to prove a man a communist in order to take action against him—something which everybody supports—no, it is a much simpler process now. It is merely necessary now to allege that a man has “liberal tendencies” or that he is a “liberal”. Mr. Speaker, to what pass has this situation now brought us in South Africa? I think it is high time the hon. the Prime Minister goes into the extent to which witch-hunting and slander campaigns occur in his own party. It is breaking out all over the country. I said earlier that part of the pattern in every dogma state was that, sooner or later, it reached the stage where the machine turned on itself and began to devour its own children. The hon. member for Innesdal is now a front-bencher on the opposite side. He is a member of a group in Pretoria which, I think, formed itself about the person of Mr. S. E. D. Brown. Brown is one of the backroom boys of the National Party and he was at one stage a member of the Board of Censors. He is an anti-Semite and a friend of Oswald Mosley. He has ties with all the obnoxious organizations in the southern States of America, such as the John Birch Society, and also with the followers of McCarthy. He empties all the garbage-bins of McCarthy here in South Africa. He publishes a newspaper, the South African Observer. There are no advertisements in this newspaper but it nevertheless has a wide circulation. I leave it to the imaginations of hon. members to tell them who supports the newspaper. This newspaper is to-day the instrument of a witch-hunt amongst Afrikaners. One after the other leading Afrikaners are being implicated and denounced as left-wingers and liberals. I have a few of the papers here and I can prove what I say; it is a newspaper which has the support of the Government party. Amongst those who are under heavy fire are Mr. Dirk Hertzog, Professor James Yeats, Mr. Piet Cillie, Mr. Dirk Richard, Mr. Willem van Heerden, Mr. Tom Muller, Mr. W. B. Coetzer (merely because the latter two are in General Mining co-operating with Anglo-American), Professor Nic Olivier, the Rev. W. A. Landman, the leaders of the South African Foundation, and in particular Dr. H. J. van Eck. Dr. van Eck, one of South Africa’s greatest sons, is being singled out and berated as a leftist and a liberalist—something which according to the Minister of Justice is much more damaging than a communist. Mr. Speaker, the list is a long one, and this publication’s malicious gossip is being spread throughout the country. But what is even worse, it is being repeated by leading members in this House. Recently the hon. member for Innesdal, who is now a front-bencher, made a frontal attack on Mr. Dirk Richard, who is the editor of the Prime Minister’s Sunday newspaper Dagbreek. Mr. Richard was quite baldly accused of being a liberal, and the accusation was repeated in letter after letter. The hon. member for Innesdal also made an attack on the American Field Service recently. He is quite entitled to do so if he wants to, but there is no one on that side of the House who has been influenced by American propaganda to such an extent than that very member, but under the wrong influence—the influence of propaganda emanating from the southern States of America. That, however, is not my complaint. In the process of his witch-hunt he has done South Africa much harm and we want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us whether he agrees with that. What he did was to berate Mr. Dean Rusk and Mr. Arthur Goldberg, as well as Judge Jessup, one of the Judges of the International Court, for being communists. As far as Judge Jessup is concerned this is extremely unfortunate, for on the one hand you find the African States carrying out an extremely base attack on the majority Judges of the Court. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has devoted his entire argument to an attempt to prove that we are already, as he puts it, a dogma country, and in doing so he wants to establish an immediate connection between us and the totalitarian states and to dissociate us from the democracies of the world. His entire argument was along those lines, and that was in fact its only object, namely to brand this Government, in the eyes of the democracies of the world, as a government which is developing in the direction of the totalitarian states. I just want to tell the hon. member that in doing so he has certainly not done South Africa a service. I am convinced that the enemies of South Africa will immediately exploit the fact that a frontbencher of the Opposition maintains that the Verwoerd Government is moving in the direction of a one-party state, in the direction of a totalitarian state. I maintain that by that speech of his the hon. member has done South Africa a very great disservice.

Mr. Speaker, the people of South Africa have stated quite clearly and unambiguously at an election that they wholeheartedly support the policies advocated by this Government. As a result of that support we have a tremendous majority in this House to-day. The people have lent their support to this Government and have expressed their confidence in the policy of the Government. The hon. member cannot now abuse this clearly stated attitude of the people, which has in fact been expressed democratically by way of an election, by saying that we are moving in the direction of the totalitarian states because that side is becoming smaller and weaker as a result of their miserable policy.

That is why he was forced upon his constituency in an undemocratic way.

Yes, I am coming to that immediately. The hon. member’s attitude is quite clear to me. The history of South Africa proves that the South African people, the English-speaking as well as the Afrikaans-speaking section, are democrats to the core and have been democrats throughout the years. We may refer back to the old republican era and consider the attitude adopted by President Paul Kruger. Every time he was sworn in as State President he adopted the attitude: “I stand here as one called by the people; in the voice of the people I recognize the voice of God, the voice of the King, and therefore I must answer; I dare not say ‘No’.” That is the principle of democracy that we find rooted in the very bones of the Afrikaner and of our English-speaking ancestors as well. They were in fact the ones who rebelled against the dictatorial powers of the English governors at the Cape. It was a Pringle and a Fairbairn who founded the free Press in South Africa. The entire history of the people of South Africa is indicative of their truly democratic character and they will not tolerate anybody who tries to take that away from them. Mr. Speaker, I shall mention a few examples: The founding of the Republic, for instance. What clearer indication can we get than that the people of South Africa, by means of a referendum in which every man could cast his vote, decided about this important matter? Take the past of the National Party. How are our candidates chosen? By means of a clear nomination in which every member of the party is entitled to vote; and then the hon. member calls us a disunited party because certain people fell by the wayside at the nominations. The hon. member should bear in mind that those people were elected democratically; there can be no question of “victims”. What happened at the nominations is proof of democracy in action in its purest form. I want to go further; I want to measure the hon. member by the yardstick of his own party and his own party’s past. How are their candidates chosen, since they talk about a democratic or undemocratic character? The hon. member for Yeoville is throwing up his hands helplessly; all of a sudden he finds it a poor argument. Where is the previous member for Florida, who was so strongly ensconced in Bezuidenhout, which is now represented by that hon. member? What has become of poor Hymie? How did he get where he is and how did the hon. member arrive at Bezuidenhout? He was promoted from South West Africa and forced upon the electorate of Bezuidenhout by means of a so-called election.

What about the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Let us take this matter away from the party-political level; let us rise to the higher level, according to the hon. member’s point of view. Where were the United Party’s “democratic right” and “no abrogation of the rights of individuals” during the previous world war, when they not only put people in the internment camps without a trial, but also put people in the internment camps after they had been tried and acquitted by an impartial court? That is the record of that party, which is now telling us that we are a dogma country and that we are becoming totalitarian. That is the record and the history of that party. At the moment we have an exceptional situation in South Africa, and every hon. member sitting here knows that attacks are being launched against South Africa in the most subtle way; that our country and our national security are being threatened; that attempts are being made to undermine us and to destroy law and order here, and that the Government, in view of those exceptional circumstances, needs exceptional powers to cope with that exceptional situation. That is the crux of the matter. All the Government’s actions in respect of those so-called dogmatic and dictatorial powers have just been submitted to the tribunal of the people at the past election, and the people decided in a democratic way that under the circumstances it was perfectly in order, and that the Government needs all these powers and, in fact, even stronger powers. Democracy has fully endorsed the Government’s actions. What right has the hon. member to come here and to claim that we are no longer democratic? But let us take the hon. member’s other argument, the argument that we maintain that Liberalism is always the forerunner of Communism, or the other argument that we are moving in the very direction in which the communist states finally move. Mr. Speaker, is it not true, at the same time, that Liberalism in South Africa has in fact been and still is the forerunner of Communism? Has that not been proved? People who made such a fine appearance here under the banner of so-called Liberalism later admitted that they were communists. I am speaking of Sam Kahn, and of Patrick Duncan and others. The United Party openly described them as liberalists, as members of the Liberal Party. Afterwards they admitted openly that they were communists, and hon. members on that side refused to believe that they were. Even after they had admitted it themselves, they still adopted a protective attitude towards them. No, I am afraid the hon. member tried to produce a learned argument here in respect of a matter to which he had not really given full consideration. I repeat that the South African Government and the people of South Africa are democratic to the core, and through that democracy we shall go from strength to strength and they are doomed to suffer a constant reduction in their numbers.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come forward with a motion of censure to-day. We have become used to that kind of motion. I have tried to make a summary of the main points of the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s attack, and as usual he has fired off a shotgun volley instead of a few well-aimed shots, because he brought up about 25 different points. It is the same old motion all over, without the necessary evidence. It was no more than a vague assault on a vague target in the future. I want to add that this time the hon. member merely displayed less enthusiasm and less spirit in the presentation of his case. I can well understand why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved this motion with less spirit today than he moved it at the beginning of the year, for example, because he has just been through an election and in that election the people sat in judgment upon him—and what a judgment they have delivered!

Of course, the United Party entered upon the past election with great expectations. In fact, the hon. member for Durban Point was over-optimistic even some years ago. I read from a statement which appeared in the Natal Mercury of October, 1961; that was after the previous election, and I quote what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said—

That was the hon. member’s beautiful vision; that was not lack of foresight! The hon. member then continued—

In actual fact, the hon. member anticipated that the “decline” would set in as far back as 1961. But he was not the only one who anticipated that defeat; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself was most optimistic and very hopeful at the recent election. I read from the Star of 25th February. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition granted that newspaper an interview immediately after he had arrived at Jan Smuts Airport, and what did he say?

The caption reads as follows: “Graaff—Fit and Full of Confidence.” The hon. member still looks “fit” to me, but I am not so sure about his “confidence” at this stage! In the past election the United Party even made use of modern electro-technical devices. In certain constituencies they consulted a computer to tell them which candidate would win. This computer finally proved that the National Party was going to lose a constituency such as Randburg. There is no need to read the quotation, but what I do want to quote is what was said by the great counsellor of the United Party, the man who is never wrong, the man of whom it is usually said, when the Leader of the Opposition does not know what the position is, “Marais Steyn will tell us”. The hon. member for Yeoville also made a few statements. On a certain occasion he said—

That was after a series of meetings on the platteland—

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a final quotation with reference to the United Party’s hopes in the election—

Sir, the “political change” did come, and to such an extent that we now have a stronger Government than South Africa has ever had in its history. The change did come, and it was 100 per cent in favour of the National Party. The United Party Press had the courage to admit that; they said that openly. I shall not spend too much of the House’s time on quotations, but I do want to read a few. I start with the Rand Daily Mail—

That is quite a swing. Even Stanley Uys, who is certainly not a friend of this Government, said in the Sunday Times of 3rd April—

And then the Opposition received some very sound advice from the Editor of the Sunday Times in that same edition of 3rd April, and if the United Party accepted this advice, even they would carry in them an embryonic possibility of developing into an alternative government. But until they accept this advice, they are doomed to continue in opposition. What is the advice they received? This is the commentary—

I hope the hon. Leader realizes that. They accuse us of saying that the people are less than the party—

And then there is the sound advice—

I think that is the best advice the United Party has ever received, and if it wants to do anything at all with a view to the future, that is surely essential. For that party has not deteriorated only since we came into power in 1948, and we have not grown only since we came into power in 1948. The United Party has deteriorated ever since its establishment and the National Party has made progress ever since its establishment or re-establishment, and that is clearly shown by the numbers in this House. In 1938 the United Party had 111 members here. In 1943 that number decreased to 89, in 1948 to 65, in 1953 to 57, in 1958 to 53; in 1961 it was 50, and now in 1966 they have 39 here. The Nationalist Party, on the other hand, showed the following graph over the same period. In 1938 there were 27 of us, in 1943 43, and 1948 70, in 1953 94, in 1958 103, in 1961 105, and in 1966 126. That record is as clear as daylight. Since the struggle between the two parties began, one has consistently deteriorated and the other has made consistent progress. And then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout maintains that this Government shows lack of foresight; it cannot govern the country; it does not know how to manage economic matters or agriculture, and the Government has made a great failure of things. Then the electorate of South Africa must surely be a bunch of nitwits if they return such a mistaken and foolish Government with larger majorities every time. On the contrary, the United Party has consistently proved one thing only, namely that they are the party which lacks foresight and which has no alternative policy. Take the speech by the Leader of the Opposition to-day. I challenge him to name one single point in his speech, in his entire plan of attack, in which he presented the Government with an alternative possibility: what they would have done if they had been in power. Give us just one bit of positive criticism, which is after all the fundamental duty of the Opposition. But I repeat, as long as they fail in this fundamental duty the people will reject them, so that we may eventually develop into a one-party state, not because we are dictatorial, but because they are so hopeless.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had one sole consolation and that was the provincial by-election in Jeppes. But let me tell the Opposition this: The United Party’s victory in the provincial by-election in Jeppes was the strongest motion of no-confidence the United Party has ever received, because their great economist, their leading speaker on economic affairs, their shadow Minister of Economic Affairs, who advocated the United Party policy in Jeppes, suffered defeat there in March, and an unknown person who dissociates himself as far as possible from United Party policy, who was independent until only recently, who stood on his own merits and on the basis of the social work he had done in Jeppes, and who is popular as a person, took the seat shortly afterwards. If there is any stronger motion of no-confidence in the United Party’s policy than the by-election in Jeppes, I should like to see it.

I should like to make a few observations about the attacks launched on the South African Broadcasting Corporation by the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Orange Grove. The main attack, of course, was directed at the review “Current Affairs”. I want to make it quite clear that every South African who is true and loyal to South Africa—and if the hon. member differs he should apply this yardstick to himself—see in that review the image and the spirit of the Republic of South Africa, and not of this or that party or this or that group. It is the duty of the Corporation to represent in its programme South Africa in all facets of its existence, and I think it is most unfair of the papers which are launching these attacks to take exception to the fact that they cannot defend themselves through the channels of the Corporation. For years and years the newspapers freely attacked the Broadcasting Corporation, and the Corporation never had an opportunity to defend itself. Now this review has been introduced for the first time, a review which I regard as the counterpart of the leading articles in the newspapers, and in it the S.A.B.C. states its own views and presents matters as it sees them, and in that manner it defends itself against the attacks that have been launched against it in the newspapers for years. But now that it has claimed the right to defend itself, they suddenly say that it is not quite the right thing; it is not cricket; you should keep still so that we may hit you all day long. But does not the S.A.B.C. also have the democratic right to state its own views? I take it the Budget debate will present an opportunity for going into these matters more thoroughly and I want to say right now that we are looking forward to that debate so that we may go into these matters much more closely.

I want to conclude with a few observations. The National Party is here to-day as a very strong Government, but the fact remains that this Government and this party have neither in word nor deed acted contemptuously, as though this Opposition with its small numbers did not exist or should not exist or should be held in contempt. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Wynberg should rather listen to her son’s little songs over the radio. The National Party demonstrates that with all its power as a great party it remains a democratic party and grants the Opposition full opportunities. Their freedom has never been interfered with and never will be. We adhere to the democratic principles of our country and our people as firmly as the Opposition think they can adhere to them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said we should not look with contempt upon their small numbers, for in 1938 we were also only 27, a small number. That is true, but of course there is one important difference between the Opposition of that time and that of to-day. That Opposition had a policy and a definite direction; they were pro-South African. This Opposition has no policy, it has no direction and it is not pro-South African. The moment this Opposition gets a policy which is acceptable to the public outside, it will again be able to carry out its duties, but as long as it persists in its folly and time and again adopts an attitude which is rejected by everybody in the country and which everybody knows will lead to the down-fall of White civilization in South Africa, they will be rejected by the electorate and deserve to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, it must be a long time since this House has had the misfortune of listening to two speeches in succession from a Government with so many members in which there has not been one constructive thought so far. The hon. member for Randfontein, who has just sat down, has had the impertinence and the impudence to say that this Opposition is not pro-South African. Now, I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to say that same thing. I hope the Prime Minister will deny what that hon. member has said. Let us see what is a South African. Is it not someone who was either born here or who has come here and loves this country and has made it his home?

What was your attitude in regard to the Republic Festival?

My attitude about the Republican Festival was that I said it left me stone cold, and I will tell you why, Sir. It left me stone cold, as I said at the time, because the view was expressed that we were born a nation five years before and we were celebrating the birth of our nation. Sir, I want to tell you that I was a South African a long time before 1961, and I want to tell you that the members on this side were the best South Africans that this country has seen. I want to tell you, Sir, that from the leader down they did for South Africa what I do not think one hon. member there has done. They were prepared to give their lives for this country. [Interjections.] While all that was going on, the hon. members over there were doing various things, including the hon. the Minister of Justice, who had to be put away.

I do want to say, while I have not yet finished with the hon. member for Randfontein, to the hon. the Minister of Justice who came to Durban (North) a little while before the election to say good-bye to his good friend Mike, that I am very pleased to be here, and I am very pleased to say hullo to my good friend John.

When one hears the hon. member for Randfontein saying that the S.A.B.C. is “die beeld en die gees van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika”, and if one has any appreciation of what the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation is, then it gives some indication as to what the hon. member thinks the “gees” of this country is—that it is Nationalist and sectional, and that it is determined to have one side and one side only. When one hears from this hon. member and from the hon. the Minister of Planning, and one hears them quoting from the Sunday Times, I think it is time to have a look at what they say. They say the Sunday Times says we should accept separate development. Sir, one would have thought that someone from that side would have told us what separate development meant. But no constructive thought has been put forward. Sir, what are the most constructive things this Government has done? Take immigration. Where did they get that from? Where did they get the Orange River scheme from? [Interjection.] They took over the immigration policy from this side of the House, and they even had to get a man from the United Party to run it. The hon. member for Randfontein is distressed because it was suggested by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we should say that we are moving in the direction of a one-party state, of a totalitarian state. But he must look at the facts. He must look at the sort of attitude of leading members of his party, who say: We do not want this sort of Opposition; what v/e want is an Opposition which agrees with the Government in principle, so that we can just have a little fight about the details. The history of this Nationalist Government should cause every South African to listen twice when someone as responsible as the hon. members who have said these things say so. They should look back and consider in the light of the propaganda being put out by these people what happened before. Sir, consider the time when South Africa was in danger. The last time we were at war, where was the hon. the Prime Minister? He was the editor of a newspaper. He was described by someone as being a tool of the Nazis and he sued that person for defamation, and in the judgment of the court his case was dismissed on the basis that he was in fact a tool of the Nazis; he had no cause for complaint. Sir, do not let us talk about patriotism. Do not let us talk here about being South Africans, when the Prime Minister himself has set such an example. And then there is the hon. the Minister of Justice. He had to be locked up as well, for the same reason, when South Africa was at war, and that Minister told this House a little while ago, when we discussed the Official Secrets Bill, that in the same circumstances he would do exactly the same things again. Now tell me, Sir, how does the Minister distinguish himself from someone like Mandela, or from Sobukwe? [Interjections.] No, I am not ashamed of myself.

Order! I think the hon. member is going very far now in his personal attacks.

I will desist, Sir. Hon. members opposite must remember that they have here in South Africa even greater responsibilities than they have ever had before to maintain the South African standards of government, to maintain a philosophy of government which is South African. [Interjection.] Someone mentioned the courts. That is what the Minister of Justice said. The Minister of Justice said at a Bar meeting at Grahamstown that as long as one had free elections and an independent court, one was a democracy. That is probably a good description of it. It is the Minister himself who is responsible for that democracy, because by his own definition it is the courts which determine whether we are a democracy, because we have free elections. As long as individuals’ rights are determined by the courts, we are still a democracy, and as long as we march towards a state where the courts are excluded by the Minister, who has a complete discretion in this matter in relation to the rights of a number of individuals in South Africa, then so long is the question in doubt. As this hon. Minister in his own hands holds the determination of the question as to whether and to what extent we are the democracy which he himself described … [Interjection.]

My hon. Leader has already dealt with the question of the philosophy of the Government in this regard. In this connection he dealt with one case. I am not going to deal with that again because there are many others I can mention. Surely the hon. the Minister must have some evidence on which he acts. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us on what basis he does act because the only reply we have had from the Minister to the question raised by my hon. Leader was that he, i.e. the Minister, was responsible to Parliament. If that is so, Sir, I can only say that if the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Question No. 1 on the Order Paper to-day can be taken as the measure of his responsibility to Parliament, then I do not know why he bothers to say anything at all. He asked a number of questions on the exercise of his powers. Let us note that such questions he will not reply to outside this House because he says he is responsible to this House. But when we come to this House and a member puts these questions to him all the Minister has to say is that it is not in the public interests to disclose the information asked for.

That is a very easy way out.

The hon. the Minister must appreciate, and it has become evident that he does appreciate, that as far as the safety of the State in South Africa is concerned, the United Party, by virtue of its history, its actions and its attitude, has given its full support to this Government.

Since when?

That has always been our attitude, and the hon. the Minister knows that. He knows that very well. As a matter of fact, he himself has exploited that attitude. He exploited it in the days when one member could still call for a division. It was then that the Minister exploited the differences which existed between the hon. member for Houghton and ourselves. That the hon. the Minister knows very well. I say that we have always given our support to the Government in this regard despite the fact that we had to suffer for that. Nevertheless we have always given our support where the safety of our State was involved. Moreover, every South African will give his fullest support to the maintenance of the safety of the State. But that is not enough. What are we trying to maintain? What are the foundations of our society, our democracy? What is the state we wish to maintain? Here I want to say that I think that the time has come when every South African must look at that State and at its foundations and ask themselves how far we can go along the road chosen by the hon. the Minister of Justice and this Government. We must ask ourselves how far we can go along that road without damaging the foundations themselves. This is a foundation: The individual is the kernel of Western Christian democracy and if we call ourselves a Western Democracy and Christians then that is what distinguishes us from other countries. That is the thing that distinguishes us from the Godless Communist states and it is that which distinguishes us to-day in South Africa from every totalitarian Black State to the north of us.

The responsibilities on us are very heavy. These responsibilities rest on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister and on ours as well. It rests on our shoulders because it has become evident that there is not an hon. member anywhere on that side of the House who is going to be prepared to question the exercise of those powers. So those powers have to be questioned by us. The hon. the Minister has to consider whether or not he is going to change his attitude to this House in this regard in so far as the exercise of his powers are concerned.

The courts are the instruments of our democracy in this country. But the Minister treats these courts with contempt. He is not prepared to allow them to have the final decision on the question whether or not a man shall or shall not have his liberty or on the question of whether or not a man shall be restricted or be subjected to what my hon. Leader called “civil death”. There is no trial and the person involved has no apparent knowledge of what he has done. So anybody may at any time be taken into custody and locked up. The hon. the Minister has at his disposal the 180-day clause. I wish the Minister would be frank with this House and with the country because he has never yet indicated whether this clause was going to be used for the same objects as the 90-day clause. He refused to answer this question when this matter was debated in this House. However, it seems very obvious that it is being used for the same purpose. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying that he is satisfied. He is not a judge and furthermore does not call for evidence from the other side. All that happens is that he gets a file and feels that he has to act upon it. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister that if he has evidence justifying him to act as drastically as he is doing, then surely he must be prepared to test that evidence in the courts. That is what our courts are there for. That is our South African tradition.

But here let me point out that the whole philosophy, the whole appreciation of government of this side of the House differs from that of the other side of the House. What is the attitude of the average hon. member on that side? What is the attitude of the average Nationalist? It is that he has to trust the Minister. But the Minister’s philosophy in administering his Acts is in itself something which is the subject of doubt in the public mind. He does not seem to know the difference between a communist and a liberalist. He thinks that these two are one and the same thing. The Minister has also said that one does not necessarily have to be a communist before one can be served with orders in terms of the various Acts applicable to this case.

One wonders, Sir, how far one has to go before we stop and think. I hope sincerely that the hon. the Minister will get up here and tell us what his attitude is, that is, whether he is prepared to allow the court to determine in terms of our Constitution what the rights of the individual are, e.g. whether he shall have liberty or whether he shall not have it. The hon. the Minister has a magnificent security force at his disposal and he also has a magnificent Police Force at his disposal. Surely, if the Minister has evidence on which he acts, then he must also have evidence to get these people nailed in the courts. If he can do that, he will get the support of every single person in South Africa against any unlawful act that has been perpetrated. But as I said, I think the time has arrived in South Africa where each one must ask himself the question how far the present position is going. Do we have to proceed to a stage where our people in looking back would have to say what they said in Germany in the time of Hitler? There they explained their attitude by saying that at one time it were only the Jews that were being taken and because they themselves were not Jews they did not worry; then, however, they took the Catholics and because they were not Catholics either they did not worry. But then all of a sudden it was their own turn. Well, Mr. Speaker, we hope we in South Africa will not get to that stage. But the way the hon. the Minister is thinking and the way in which the Government is moving, the way in which they equate Communism with Liberalism and of closing any recourse to the courts—all these things do seem to have a similarity with things that happened in a country like Germany. The philosophy of this Government, Sir, where does it end? Probably the hon. the Minister will say as hon. members opposite so often say: “Oh, you do not care about Communism.” But the fact is, Sir, that no one cares more than we do. No one has demonstrated it as much as we have done. The only difference is that we should like to see that being done through the medium of our courts.

Since when?

From the time before the Suppression of Communism Act was passed. We demonstrated it during the Select Committee Stage of the Bill. There we stated that if we could prove that a man was a communist then a judge would be entitled to sentence that man to death. Can one go further than that, Mr. Speaker? Can one really go further than that? But, first of all, it is important that it must be proved that a person is a communist, and that should be done through the courts of our land, through the ordinary and normal processes of the law.

My time is up, Mr. Speaker. Before I sit down I should like to call upon the Minister again to give us some indication of some form of change of heart in the attitude of this Government in this matter. Because that is what it is in the end, i.e. an attitude of mind which distinguishes us in our approach to government in South Africa. We still have faith in our courts. We still believe that the courts are the foundations on which individual liberty rests. At the same time we appreciate that at times it is necessary to have special powers to deal with special circumstances. We have never opposed the Government when it asked for such powers. So I say, either this Government and the Minister must have evidence or they have none, and these people must either have done something or they must have done nothing. And if they have done something it is a fundamental tradition of our country that they should be brought before the courts so that the courts can determine what exactly their offence was and in what way they should be deprived either of their liberty, or of their rights to earn their living or of movement.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken has now, after two years, regained his breath. You will recall, Sir, that in 1965 I sat waiting in my bench in vain for the hon. member or any other hon. member to discuss these matters they are discussing now. But I waited in vain, because in 1965 there was a provincial election at hand. Then hon. members on the opposite side found it convenient to remain silent about these matters. As a matter of fact, they went even further and by the mouth of the hon. member for Yeoville—who, incidentally, listened so attentively to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had to say here this afternoon—hotly denied that they had ever in the past levelled the accusation against this side of the House that it was converting South Africa into a police state. That, of course, has always been their accusation. The whole tenor of the debate as it is now beginning to develop is again aimed at that. It is being done not for domestic consumption, but to spread it abroad in the outside world that this Government is not to be trusted and cannot be supported, because it is converting South Africa into a totalitarian state. What other object could hon. members have in coming forward with the debate to which we have listened so far this afternoon? Surely it is not their intention to convince anybody in South Africa that human rights are being suppressed in South Africa, because people in South Africa, whether they vote for my party or whether they vote for hon. members on the opposite side, know that South Africa is not a police state. They know that South Africa is not on the way to becoming a totalitarian state. They do know, however, that South Africa is a state in which all decent people can live together in peace and amity.

Who are the decent people?

It is not necessary for me at this stage to say who are the decent people and who are not. But I do want to go so far as to say that I cannot regard any person as being decent if he does not hesitate to befoul his own nest as certain persons do sometimes do in South Africa. If there are any hon. members who want to wear this cap if it fits them, then I do not mind if they wear it.

Before moving the adjournment of this debate—as has been agreed by the Whips—I want to refer in passing, because it is relevant, to a matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). I can understand very well why he is stepping into the breach for the hon. member for Houghton from the very outset, because he wore out his knees by crawling before the Progressives in Durban (North) to re-elect him to Parliament. And if he had not done that, I would have had just cause in taking leave of him in Durban (North). The hon. member asked me why I had not furnished the names asked for by the hon. member for Houghton. Any hon. member has the right to ask for the names. But in passing I want to ask this: What does the hon. member for Houghton want to do with the names? The hon. member for Durban (North) knows very well, as does the hon. member for Houghton, that we are dealing with witnesses here, and witnesses have been murdered in the past; they have been put out of the way in the past. A few days ago a publication by the Communist Party of Britain arrived in South Africa, and this publication contains the photographs of certain witnesses, along with the words, “All traitors will be punished—each will pay with his life for what he has done”.

And what about the rest of my question?

The hon. member will get her turn. I should very much like to have a talk with the hon. member in the course of this Session, because I think she has a great deal to answer for.

I can hardly wait for it.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, then this is the one occasion on which the hon. member and I are in complete agreement. I now move—

Agreed to.