Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a matter yesterday which I said would have to stand over until to-day. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition agreed with me. This matter is concerned with national unity, and it is my intention to deal with it in detail this afternoon. I want to ask the pardon of hon. members in advance if I spend a long time on this, but the matter is so important that I may take up the time of the House with it. In addition, for the sake of the record, it has to be dealt with as fully as possible. It is obvious why it has to be dealt with fully; it is because there are many fundamental differences between the National Party on the one hand and the United Party on the other. This has become clear to us again during this Session, just as it was clear to us during the previous session. Those differences have not decreased with the passage of time but have increased, and in respect of certain fundamental matters the gulf between the National Party and the United Party has widened. We must have no illusions about that. I can point out many differences and mention many matters on which this side of the House and that side of the House differ, but for the purposes of my argument this afternoon I want to confine myself to three matters.

The first difference between the two sides is that we on this side believe in Nationalism; the United Party rejects it. The second difference I want to point out is that we believe in separate development in all its consequences; the United Party rejects separate development. In particular the chasm between us and them has widened in respect of this matter since the United Party brought forward its new policy of introducing Coloured representation in this Parliament and in this way creating an additional sphere of friction, and not only creating an additional sphere of friction but irrevocably jeopardizing the future of the white man in that way. That, Mr. Chairman, is the second major difference between the National Party and the United Party. In the third instance the difference between the National Party and the United Party lies in their approach to the question of national unity, and it is this subject I now want to discuss.

I am aware that we have in the past fought elections on this matter already. The result was quite plain. I am also aware that we shall fight elections on these three matters in the future. We shall not only fight those elections against the United Party on the one hand. I forecast it at Malmesbury the other night: the way I see the political development is that we will have to fight the elections on two fronts. On the one hand we will have to fight against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people, and on the other hand against the C. F. van der Merwes, the Cor du Preez, the Browns and the Barry Bothas.

Since I have mentioned this person’s name now, I must point out in passing for the purposes of the record that he, like Brown, was not a member of the National Party. We could not even suspend Botha, because he was not a member of the Party. It is interesting to note these days how many people who are not members of the National Party reserve to themselves the right to discuss the National Party and its affairs. It is amazing how many people who have no contact with the National Party want to say in what direction it should go or should be steered. Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerns himself about my leadership of the National Party.

Is Dr. Hertzog a member of the Nationalist Party?

I shall come to that, and I would be glad if the hon. member would listen when I come to it. I say that it is clear to me that this will be the case because the writing was on the wall as far back as 1961, and in 1966 we were fighting on two fronts in various constituencies. Sometimes it was on one front only against the United Party and sometimes it was against that kind of candidate I have mentioned, supported by the United Party, as was the case in Randfontein and other constituencies. We shall therefore have a repetition of this and in places, as they see their way clear to doing so, they will put up two candidates, i.e. one from the United Party and in addition a dissenting candidate. Where they do not see their way clear to doing so, they will reach an election agreement in secret to lend each other support against the National Party.

What possible right do you have to say that?

The hon. member asks me what right I have to say that. I have the right to say that, because I know what happened in Randfontein. The people who financed the candidate who opposed the Minister of Information were the leaders of the United Party in Randfontein.

That is not true.

I do not want to start a quarrel about it with the hon. member for Yeoville now. I just want to make my prediction on the political future as I see it. You will find, Sir, that these people will not attack one another; in fact, all their attacks will, as is already happening, be concentrated on the National Party. That is the course events will take in future.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and especially the hon. member for South Coast can quite rightly ask me what the National Party’s standpoint and what my standpoint is in respect of national unity? It is obvious that when we come to the question of national unity the relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking persons are involved, and language rights as well. I therefore want to deal with it from the beginning. In the first instance I want to refer to a speech made by Dr. Malan in this connection. You must bear in mind against what background this was made. You must bear in mind what hate and bitterness there were in South Africa in 1942. He made this speech in Pretoria on 16th September, 1942. In spite of what formed the background to this speech, Dr. Malan expressed himself as follows (translation)

In the first place I am addressing myself to English-speaking South Africa. To them I want to say: I know that among you there is a large and growing section that honestly desires a united nation and a united South Africa. To achieve that you want the cooperation of the two white races. I find no fault with those aspirations.

Then he continued by pointing out that there were different points of departure, and that it was the British connection in particular which stood in the way of that unity between the two. After dealing with that, he said (translation)—

I say that hon. members must view this against the background prevailing in 1942. But then Dr. Malan went on to say (translation)—

Then he goes on to reject that attitude. On 19th September, 1950, Dr. Malan made a speech in Durban on the occasion of the National Party congress. It is necessary for the background that I read out a few extracts from that speech to hon. members. He stated—

Referring to the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections, Dr. Malan went on to say the following—

He then went on to say—

I want to make one last quotation from this speech where he deals with what racism is and what it is not. I am mentioning this specifically because I want to return to it subsequently and relate it to my own credo in this regard. He said—

That was the standpoint Dr. Malan adopted. Now I want to come to the standpoint of the late Advocate Strydom. I am aware that it is sometimes used by hon. members opposite as an argument and that the National Party has been accused by others from the other groups I mentioned of having deviated in respect of this matter from the path of Mr. Strydom. I am also aware that when it suits them some of them raise the cry that we must return to Strydom. However, it was those same people who undermined Mr. Strydom and Dr. Verwoerd when they held the office of Prime Minister of South Africa. I shall deal with that again later.

I now want to quote from Hansard, column 4082, 18th April, 1955. We who were in the House at the time heard Mr. Strydom say this:

*I deliberately read out the full quotation because hon. members are aware that Mr. Strydom stated repeatedly in this House that the two groups would merge in such a way that in the far distant future there would be only one language. He often adopted this standpoint, his own personal standpoint. I want to refer hon. members to the personal declaration of faith which he, as Prime Minister, made in this House in this regard. He made this statement on 22nd January, 1957, and it stands recorded in the English edition of Hansard in column 42. I quote—

I want hon. members to pay special attention to the following sentence—

That is my belief as well and that is the only point of view which one can adopt in the politics of South Africa. Mr. Strydom continued—

I want to endorse every word Mr. Strydom said in this connection, and in particular I want to endorse the passage which I have just read out to hon. members.

After the late Dr. Verwoerd had assumed leadership of the National Party, he had the following to say in his message to the nation on 3rd September, 1958 (translation)—

On 18th September, 1958, as recorded in the English version of Hansard, column 4152, he had the following to say in this House—

I shall refer to that presently—

Lastly, I am just referring you to what was probably the last speech made by Dr. Verwoerd. He made this on 31st May, 1966, at the time of the Republic Festival. On that occasion he said (translation)—

It is and remains true that there are still people who have not reconciled themselves to it, and you and I will continue to come across them. At the same time, however, it is also true what Dr. Verwoerd said, i.e. that our people are increasingly reconciling themselves to it.

But I want to refer not only to standpoints adopted by leaders of the party, but also to congressional resolutions of the National Party in this connection. I want to refer in particular to the congressional resolutions adopted by the Union Congress at Bloemfontein on 29/30.8.1960. This was a major congress, the congress preceding the referendum, one which was convened to determine the future of the National Party. The motions passed there were drawn up by the Federal Council of the National Party. I was not a member of that body at the time. I was directed to put forward, inter alia, one motion, the one which I am now going to read out to you—

I also want to refer to the following motion which was passed there—

I noticed that hon. members opposite said something inaudible when I referred to this previous motion that it would be within the Commonwealth, but on this point too a motion was adopted, which read as follows—

You see, there you have the standpoint of the National Congress of the National Party. It was held on 29th and 30th August, 1960, before the referendum took place in October of that year. Sir, I have now indicated to you what my predecessor’s standpoint in this connection was. I have repeatedly stated my own standpoint, namely that national unity can only develop on one basis, and that is on the basis of retention of identity. I want to go so far as to say that I have felt more strongly about the retention of identity—and I am saying this in all piety—than any of my predecessors felt about it. I have let no opportunity pass of making my standpoint in that connection very clear, and I want to repeat it in this House to-day.

I, as an Afrikaner, can only co-operate with English-speaking South Africa if I can do so as an Afrikaner with full retention of my identity, my language, my religion, my morals, my traditions and everything connected with these. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this matter. That is why I said the following at the Union Congress of the National Party which was held last year to celebrate our twentieth anniversary. You will allow me to quote what I said in regard to this matter on that occasion, which was a jubilee congress occasion (translation)—

You will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if lastly I quote from a speech I made on an occasion which was not a party-political one; it was on the occasion of the laying of the cornerstone of the 1820 Settlers Monument at Grahamstown. It was pre-eminently an English occasion.

†Many hon. gentlemen sitting on that side of the House and many hon. gentlemen on my side of the House were present that day and they heard me say this, but for the purposes of the record I must repeat it in this House this afternoon. I spoke about the 1820 Settlers, of how they had come here, of their trials and tribulations and then I went on to say this—

and I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for South Coast especially to this passage in my speech—

*That was the standpoint I adopted on that occasion. I have adopted it at almost every meeting I addressed in this connection.

I come now to the question the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to me. I refer in the first instance to the constitution of the National Party. In its programme of principles, article 2 (1), the following is stated (translation)—

This is stated in the programme of principles of the National Party. It will remain the programme of principles of the National Party. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding in respect of that matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put the question to me with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Ermelo in this connection. The hon. member for Ermelo began by referring to certain basic principles of Calvinism. I have no fault whatsoever to find with them. I agree with them, because my own upbringing was Calvinistic. While I was at university I was, in spite of the fact that I was a law student, a member of the Calvinistic Bond at that university during my entire period of study there. In later years I retained my ties with the Calvinistic Bond. I am a Calvinist by conviction, because I believe in the sovereignty of God, in His dispensation, His dominion and His sway. I believe that the church to which I belong and of which I am a professing member, propagates and pays homage to those principles. It is a fact that Calvinism has given the Afrikaner a philosophy of life. I have read a great deal about it. But one of the finest things I have ever read in this regard is something I read many years ago. I still remember it to-day. Hon. members will find it in Langenhoven’s “Republicans and Sinners”, in which he wrote the following words—

This is a standpoint which Langenhoven adopted in this connection. It is also my declaration of faith. But I want to make it very clear, just as Mr. Strydom did, and I also did, that this party has never laid it down as a requirement for membership or co-operation. We must understand one another very clearly on this point.

The hon. member for Ermelo mentioned the four matters which are peculiar to Calvinism, namely uprightness and righteousness in the first instance. These are of course not peculiar to Calvinism only. They are peculiar to all the Christian religions I am acquainted with. The second principle is “recognition of the diversity of the Creation”. That is so. It is one of the doctrines of Calvinism. But not all Calvinists still believe in this to-day. Hon. members will recall that at this reformed Calvinistic congress which was held in Lunteren, it was above all the reformed Calvinists who rejected this standpoint, and on that basis rejected separate development in South Africa, and condemned it as being evil. But for the sake of the record I just want to make it clear that it is not only Afrikaners who are Calvinists; there are also Scottish Calvinists, there are English Calvinists and American, Dutch, New Zealand and Australian Calvinists. On that congress even Japanese and Korean Calvinists, as well as Nigerian Calvinists, i.e. black people, were represented. It is a religious faith. I also want to make it very clear that if anybody read in the speech made by the hon. member for Ermelo that it is an impediment to co-operation or a condition of the party for membership, it is not correct, and if it can in fact be read in that speech, it is not correct.

The third characteristic of the Calvinist which the hon. member mentioned, is subordination to authority. This is a fundamental doctrine of Calvinism. But in the same way it is also a fundamental doctrine of other religions. Another characteristic of Calvinists which the hon. member mentioned is attachment to the freedom of the individual and the nation.

I listened, as you did, to the speech made by the hon. member for Ermelo. I want to say that I think this was an unfortunate speech, a speech which was susceptible to an interpretation which does not reflect the standpoint of the National Party. We must have no doubt about that. I just want to mention in passing that it was my task and responsibility to introduce the 90-day legislation here, in spite of the opposition from hon. members opposite, and in spite of all the hatred and bitterness which were unleashed on that occasion. But I saw how the public of South Africa reacted to that legislation. Let me say this: In those days I received the best possible support from literally thousands of English-speaking persons. I am very grateful for that. I have said that the speech made by the hon. member for Ermelo was an unfortunate speech. I think it was unfortunate in the sense that generalizations were made which cannot be justified and which were unmotivated. In fact, I think the hon. member realized this himself, judging from the corrections he made and the additional explanations he furnished in regard to his speech. I think it is dangerous to generalize when one is dealing with such a delicate situation. Let me make this very clear. Hon. members know in what a dangerous world we are living. In fact, one need only have listened to the one o’clock news this afternoon to realize how explosive the world situation is. But I believe that if South Africa should ever find herself threatened, Afrikaans- and English-speaking people will stand shoulder to shoulder. If such a time should ever arise, not only the Minister of Police will be able to rely on Afrikaans- and English-speaking policemen, but the Minister of Defence will also be able to rely completely on Afrikaans- and English-speaking officers and men in our Defence Force. This is what I believe will happen and this is how I believe we have developed, and this is the standpoint of the National Party. The speech made by the hon. member for Ermelo is open to misunderstanding. He quoted Calpin as the leader of the English-speaking people. I do not view Calpin in that light. It is open to misunderstanding in that it implies that only English-speaking South Africans stand for the rule of law and all the other matters mentioned in connection with that—personal freedom and so forth. Hon. members have often heard me adopt the attitude that as far as matters such as personal freedom are concerned, our Roman-Dutch law presents two principles to us. On the one hand there is the freedom of the individual, of which you and I are all jealous, the one as much as the other. You have already heard me declare in this House that the freedom of the individual must not be too much restricted. But it is also a principle of Roman-Dutch law that, if endangered, the security of the State is of paramount importance. Depending upon circumstances one will allow the emphasis to fall either on this aspect or on the other, but one must continually be reconciling these two principles: the freedom of the individual on the one hand and the security of the State on the other.

In the space of one hour I have tried to put to you what the standpoint of the National Party is, and not only what it is to-day, but what it has been over the years and what it will continue to be in the future. If any individual, it makes no difference what individual—whether it is a colleague in the Cabinet or a newspaper editor or a Member of Parliament or a party member—adopts any standpoint other than the standpoint, as I stated it here, of Dr. Malan, of Advocate Strydom, of Dr. Verwoerd and of the present National Party, then it is not the standpoint of the National Party but his own, individual standpoint. I have therefore furnished you here with the standpoints of the Leaders of the National Party; I have also given you a consensus of the National Party’s standpoint as laid down at its Union and other congresses. That is the standpoint which will prevail. In fact, it is the standpoint which has already prevailed. Witness to that is the fact that there are so many of us sitting on this side of the House, and so few on the side of the Opposition over there. That is the reason why a person like the hon. member for Umlazi felt that he could be welcome and is welcome within the National Party. The day he came to see me I asked him only two questions, and one subsequently. I did not ask him to what church he belonged. In fact, even now I do not know to what church he belongs. That is no concern of mine. All I asked him was: “Do you subscribe to the principles of the National Party in all its consequences?” His reply to that was: “Yes.” The other question was, “Do you lay down any conditions?” His reply was “No”. Thereupon I told him that I was satisfied with him and that there was only one point remaining, i.e. that he could become a member of my party provided my caucus gave their consent to his having a seat in that caucus, for the hon. member had not been elected as a member of the National Party. He crossed over here in this House. In my view, therefore, he did not automatically have the right to sit in the caucus, at any rate not before the caucus had consented to that. I put his case to the caucus in the presence of the hon. member for Ermelo as well, and there was not one single objection to the admission of the hon. member for Umlazi to the caucus of the National Party. I informed him accordingly, and accordingly he then became a member. I smiled when I read that the hon. member for Umlazi is regarded as being a liberalist, because surely one cannot be a liberalist if one subscribes to separate development. I have never yet heard of a liberalist who subscribes to separate development.

Neither have I.

I want to tell my friend the hon. member for Yeoville that this is the most sensible remark he has made in this House in all these years. As I have said, this is how we set about things in the National Party, and we shall continue to do so in the same way. We accept one another’s good faith. We accept one another’s bona fides. We simply ask ourselves: “Do you believe in Nationalism? Do you believe in separate development? Do you believe in unity on the basis which has been laid down by the National party over the years, and which has brought the National Party victory?” In spite of what is happening now and meetings which are being held by people who are not even members of my party, nor ever were, who now want to determine the policy of the National Party, in spite of those stirrings, in spite of agreements which may be concluded at future political elections, this National Party will win again. It will win because it is a party which has a policy, and because it is not afraid to adopt a standpoint and to state that standpoint as it has been stated to-day by me as the principal leader of that party. I believe that what I have said will eliminate any misunderstanding and any possible misgivings there may be. The standpoint of the National Party has been put very clearly to the House.

We listened with great interest to this declaration of faith by the hon. the Prime Minister. It, of course, corresponds very closely to the declaration of faith he made not so long ago in the Other Place, which some of us have had an opportunity of studying. It is interesting that we have had these delightful declarations of faith from the Nationalist Party, but what are they doing about implementing them? Through the years they have talked about national unity. National unity to them has meant co-operation on terms. I want to recall for the information of the hon. the Prime Minister what he said at Heilbron on the 17th August last year. This is what he said—

Very fine indeed.

Very fine indeed. The report on this speech goes on to say—

Where is your national unity now? [Interjections.]

It is co-operation on terms and the terms are that you must accept the policy of the Nationalist Party. We have had so many examples in the past. I am going to refer only to a few examples in Natal. What happened to Mr. Sturton who joined the Nationalist Party and served on their head committee, and what was his disillusionment when he finally left them? What about Mr. Jones, who was a member of the Nationalist Party, and what about Mr. Ivor Benson, who said there was no warm place in the ranks of the Nationalist Party for an English-speaking man? I can go on. It is very nice indeed to hear these statements of idealism from the hon. the Prime Minister, but what happens when it comes to carrying them out? I will tell you what happens, Sir.

We win the election on it.

The hon. member for Ermelo is allowed to stand up and cast reflections on the English-speaking section of the South African community in this House, and the Prime Minister has not the guts to put him out of his party. [Interjections.] What did the hon. gentleman say? The Prime Minister says he made a speech capable of different interpretations. What different interpretations? I think the Prime Minister looked at this speech through rose-coloured glasses. So anxious is he to get the support of some English-speaking people to help him against the Right Wing which is causing him all that trouble that he is prepared to overlook almost anything. But let me tell the Prime Minister what that hon. member said—

Then he goes on to talk of the visit of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, to South Africa “met sy boodskap van liberalisme. He said:

And here is the interesting passage—

Sir, I have given you previously in this House a paraphrase of the effect of the speech of the hon. member on the editor of Die Burger, who said that such categorization of groups of our population and labelling was not only unfortunate but it was pernicious. The hon. member for Ermelo gave an explanation, and after that explanation this is what another Nationalist newspaper said on Sunday about his explanation—

Sir, he is allowed to say these things.

We shall control our own party.

Sir, I delightedly hear that remark by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. They will control their own party. I agree entirely. The hon. member for Ermelo is a thorn in the flesh of the Prime Minister; he is not a thorn in my flesh. If the Prime Minister wants to keep that thorn in his flesh, perhaps feeling that he is doing penance day by day because of the past behaviour of his party, he is welcome. But what I am so interested to know is whether the hon. member for Ermelo accepts the declaration of faith and the philosophy of the hon. the Prime Minister. Because he cannot accept it without repudiating this speech. I am prepared to sit down now and challenge the hon. member for Ermelo to stand up and tell us that he accepts without reservation the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister; and if he does, let him tell me how he and the Prime Minister can remain in one party.

The Prime Minister gave such a clear exposition of the standpoint in regard to the relationship between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people in our party that I do not think a single one of us, nor anybody outside, could ever differ with him on that. And this makes the entire course of action of the United Party seem even stranger to me. Hon. members will recall that when I had spoken here and the first newspapers appeared, this comment was made in those first papers: Alas, Hertzog had nothing important to say; we are disappointed in him; there is nothing new in it. But since that time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other papers have been acting as though there really was something in it. They have tried to see, in the meantime, whether it was not possible to distort or interpret something in such a way that it could be thrown in amongst us as a bone of contention. I am not surprised that we have the United Party acting in this way, because we know that in their drought-stricken condition, in which they cannot find anything substantial to feed on, they are trying to dig out a root somewhere which they can try to get their teeth into.

Now, there are a few points on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked me. Let me return to the question of the English-speaking people. The English-speaking people are now alleged to be unwelcome in our party. But is this not the very opposite of what I said myself? Did I not point out, in particular, that we, who are perhaps mostly Calvinists, since it is part of our point of view, that we must allow others to be themselves, as was again emphasized by the Prime Minister to-day, would also be ourselves? Is that not the principle of refined conduct? Is that not the principle according to which persons and nations can live together in a country, that they should tolerate one another and allow one another to be themselves, and that in the political instrument by means of which we are furthering the interests of the country, the National Party, one will allow everyone to be part of that political instrument? Is that not part of our point of view? Surely it cannot be otherwise. No sensible person could interpret it in any other way. I say that this just goes to show once again how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite have once again tried to find something which they can raise in this House.

What about Die Burger, Die Be eld, and Dagbreekl

Mr. Chairman, let me say clearly that we Calvinistic Afrikaners are not ashamed of being Calvinists; we are proud of being Calvinists, but at the same time we allow our fellow countrymen to be themselves. We do not regard it as an insult if we are called Calvinists. I do not think they regard it as an insult if we call them liberals. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that I had cast a reflection on the English-speaking section of our population. Where was the reflection? Was it because I had said they were liberal? Liberalism is the view of life of a large section of the Western world; it is the view of life of the British world; it is the view of life of the American world, and it is even the view of life to-day of a large section of the Continental world. If he does not want to take my word for it, he will perhaps take the word of one of the leaders on the other side. May I remind you how he described “liberal” in this House. I am quoting from Hansard—

Mr. Chairman, if you may want to question my authority, then surely you will not question the authority of the hon. member for Kensington.

But you had a liberal education.

It was no use! Mr. Chairman, has the hon. member not confirmed now exactly what I was saying? The hon. member does not regard it as an insult to be called liberal; he considers it an honour. If the hon. member for Kensington says that it is an honour and that one pays tribute to a man by calling him a liberal, how then can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say that I insulted the English-speaking section of our population?

Are you susceptible to communism?

The other day, shortly after I had spoken here and after the search for venom had begun, the Transvaler went to the head of the Witwatersrand University, Professor Bozzoli, and according to the report Professor Bozzoli agreed that the English-speaking population group was basically liberal. He went on to say (translation)—

That then brings one back to the very point which I tried to make quite clear and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make out as being an insult, and that is: In any struggle certain measures must of necessity be taken; in any fight there are certain weapons one has to use if one wants to win. It is no use attacking one’s enemy with bare fists if he comes along with guns, sabres and knives.

Who is your enemy?

The moment one refuses to use those weapons which one must use against one’s enemy, one puts oneself in a bad position and one puts oneself in a position of eventually having to lose against him. Is that not what Professor Bozzoli himself says here? He is confirming what I have said. It is because the English-speaking section of our community hesitate to make use of these weapons, which we do not hesitate to use, that it is more difficult for them to win than it is for us, who do not hesitate to make use of those means. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Ermelo has taken exception to the interpretation which I put on the speech which he made in Parliament last week. Sir, I warned when I dealt with that speech, that I was not going to give my judgment of his speech, but that I was going to give the judgment of newspapers normally friendly towards the Nationalist Party. I gave the judgment of the editor of Die Burger after he had had time to consider it. But then, Sir, came the explanation from the hon. gentleman. Here is what an Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, Die Beeld, had to say about the hon. gentleman on Sunday.

Order! In terms of standing Order No. 120 I cannot allow the hon. member to quote from a newspaper report dealing with this debate.

There is no need for me to do so; I will paraphrase the report, as I am entitled to do. They made it perfectly clear that what he had said was a reflection upon the English-speaking people of South Africa. They made it perfectly clear that the hon. gentleman had undone the work of years in the battle for national unity for which the Nationalist Party, according to them, had striven. Sir, they made other things perfectly clear. They made it perfectly clear that it seemed to them that even in his explanations he was still casting a reflection upon the English-speaking people of South Africa. The hon. gentleman has tried, in his explanation here, to say that it is not defamatory to call people liberal. No, Sir, it is not, but the word “liberal” has very nearly become a defamatory word when used by members on that side of the House, and they know it. What is more, it certainly is defamatory to say that they could not maintain their position in South Africa, and it certainly is defamatory to say that they are susceptible to Communism. Then, Sir, what did the hon. gentleman say in his speech about the leaders of the Government in South Africa? He said that there was a condition attached and he went on to say—

Sir, this does not apply to me. I happen, I believe, to belong to the same church as the hon. gentleman. There are many people in South Africa who do not belong to that church and who do not accept those principles. Must we understand from this hon. gentleman now that those people, particularly the English-speaking people who do not belong to those churches, can never be leaders in South Africa? That is what the hon. gentleman has said, and the Prime Minister is defending him.

He is defending him all the way.

He is white-washing him.

The Prime Minister is not only defending him, he is trying to put another interpretation on the words used by the hon. gentleman. But I want to go further.

Nonsense.

I shall have pleasure in reading from every platform the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo and saying that that is a speech defended by the hon. the Prime Minister, who stands for national unity. [Interjections.] Sir, he said it was an unfortunate speech; that it was capable of different interpretations.

But of course.

But he has not repudiated one single portion of that speech.

I repudiated each and every one of those.

Sir, the hon. member for Ermelo is a front-bencher and he stands by that speech.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

He has explained it to the best of his ability. The Prime Minister has accepted his explanations, but those explanations were not acceptable to some of the newspapers supporting the Prime Minister’s own Party.

It is not acceptable to me either, and I told the hon. member for Ermelo just that.

Sir, where are we going now; now the Prime Minister is climbing down; where do we stand now? Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us exactly what portions are not acceptable to him. We will then know where we are. But until he does that, I am entitled to go from this Chamber and tell the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people of South Africa who do not happen to be Calvinists that this is a speech defended by the hon. the Prime Minister and one which he did not regard as serious enough for him to fake action against the hon. member.

Order! I should like to point out to hon. members that order must be maintained in this House and that the member making a speech should not be interrupted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he would go from platform to platform telling English-speaking people in South Africa that the hon. the Prime Minister had refused to repudiate the hon. member for Ermelo and that he had defended him.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Did I not say English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking people?

Yes, I accept the correction. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should go from platform to platform and say this, he would be guilty of spreading a public lie. The hon. the Prime Minister gave a very clear statement of the policy of the National Party. It is no new policy and as he rightly quoted here, it is the policy which has been adhered to by the National Party and every one of its leaders over the years. The National Party has always stood for cooperation, for national unity, as well as welcoming English-speaking South Africans supporting its principles to the party. The hon. the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that he by no means agreed with the assertions made by the hon. member for Ermelo in regard to English-speaking South Africans. I want to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that not a single member of the National Party subscribes to the reflections and the insults, as we consider them to be, which the hon. member for Ermelo directed against English-speaking people in South Africa. I hope this is perfectly clear and that there is no misunderstanding. The hon. the Prime Minister also made this perfectly clear and gave his interpretation in regard to the assertions that it was the Afrikaans-speaking people that had the Calvinistic convictions. This is so. But I want to make it perfectly clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding, that the Prime Minister and I, as the Leader of the National Party in Transvaal, of which the hon. member for Ermelo is a member, unconditionally reject the allegations he made against English-speaking South Africans.

I hope there is no misunderstanding now. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition persists in making these assertions and goes from platform to platform to do what he said he would do and to make political capital out of what was said by the hon. member for Ermelo, he will be guilty of spreading a deliberate lie. I will say this both inside and outside Parliament if the hon. the Leader does that. The hon. member for Pinelands said on occasion that our only reason for not liking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that he is so much a gentleman. I hope he will act like one and accept what has been said here now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted by the speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport. He has done what the hon. the Prime Minister should have done. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman. did you not give a ruling as regards interjections?

I did call the hon. the Minister to order.

I take it that interjections are now allowed?

I am not allowing any interjections and I will protect the hon. the Leader against any.

I am not worried about protection. It spoils my speech when there are no interjections.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

The hon. the Minister of Transport has done what the hon. the Prime Minister should have done. He has categorically dissociated himself from the reflections and criticisms on the English-speaking section of the people of South Africa by the hon. member for Ermelo. There is no doubt about that. He said that anybody who says that that speech represents the policy of the Nationalist Party is guilty of a lie. The hon. the Prime Minister did not say that either.

I made that same interjection when you spoke previously.

I am sorry, there was so much noise that I could not hear you. But no matter. We are agreed then. The hon. member for Ermelo has made a speech which does not reflect the policy of the Nationalist Party. If anybody says that it is the policy of the Nationalist Party, it is a lie. Despite this the hon. member for Ermelo is still a member of the Nationalist Party. Now where are we going to? He is a front bencher in the Nationalist Party. He is standing for policies which the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport is not prepared to defend, but he sits here as a front bencher in the Nationalist Party. Is this the sort of party they have? Is this the sort of leadership to have in the Nationalist Party in South Africa at the present time? No wonder we are suffering from the difficulties we are. I say that while that hon. gentleman sits there as a spokesman of the Nationalist Party I am entitled to make mention of what he has said. Of course I will say that he was repudiated by the hon. the Minister of Transport and that he was repudiated not nearly so enthusiastically by the hon. the Prime Minister, but that he still remains a member of the Nationalist Party I will also say that there is room for people with those views in the Nationalist Party. Where is the Nationalist Party’s policy of national unity when this sort of thing is allowed in the party? It is nothing but an absolute joke and the people of South Africa are going to see through it. They will judge this Nationalist Party because of their lack of consistency and lack of maintenance of principle in the face of adversity.

Mr. Chairman, here to-day the hon. the Prime Minister unequivocally stated the standpoint of the National Party in respect of relations between different sectors of the population in a clear, distinct and forthright manner. No one can have any doubt whatsoever about what the standpoint of the National Party is in respect of the relations between the two language groups, in respect of the Party’s policy and in respect of mutual co-operation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to gain a little political advantage from the difference of interpretation placed on the hon. member for Ermelo’s speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants to try to go to the people with the story that the Prime Minister is retaining a man in his Party who has insulted the English-speaking people. This will really not impress anyone, because the words which the hon. the Prime Minister used here and which the leaders of the National Party have used over the years are clearly and unequivocally true. One would like to ask what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did when the hon. member for Karoo acknowledged a standpoint which differed from his. What did he do at that time? Why did he not call the hon. member for Karoo to order then? And what did he do with the hon. members for Simonstown and Bezuidenhout when they acknowledged dissenting standpoints? No, Mr. Chairman, this kind of story impresses no one. As far back as the inaugural congress of the National Party on the 7th January, 1914, the following may be read in its first programme of principles under point 9 (translation)—

This must be seen against the background of the bitterness which was prevalent at that time under General Hertzog, the founder of the National Party. It is significant that in spite of the bitterness on the English-speaking side he could still have this principle written into the programme of principles of the National Party. “South Africa first” and the co-operation of Afrikaans- and English-speaking people was the political creed of General Hertzog, founder of the National Party, from the beginning. This remained his creed throughout his political career. As far baok as the 20th May, 1910, even before there was any talk of the establishment of a National Party, he said that if we wanted to become a great nation we had to remain true to ourselves and preserve our language and traditions. The same applies to the English-speaking citizens, he said, and continued (translation)—

That is what General Hertzog said as far back as 1910. This concept of unity, of co-operation of General Hertzog was obviously based on his credo of “South Africa first”. For him no true co-operation could come about between the two language groups as long as there was a double-barrelled loyalty in one group. His concept of unity was refreshingly new in our political thought. There was also another concept of unity, the concept of cooperation on which the Party opposite built its principles—the conciliation concept of General Smuts and General Botha, a concept which was based on no fundamental principles. On occasion General Botha said that the principles of the Party which he and General Smuts were leading must be “like little round stones which cannot easily be grasped”. That is how General Botha saw it. That is the concept on which the Party opposite elaborated its concept of co-operation between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, a cooperation which existed, not on an equal basis, a fundamental basis, but on the fact that the Afrikaans-speaking person gradually had to adapt himself to the principles, traditions and language rights of the English-speaking people. About this Dr. Malan said, “The conciliation was one-sided and to the wrong side, i.e. not to the side of the aggrieved and vanquished, but to the side of the victor in the bitter and devastating freedom struggle”.

With the National Party co-operation was built on the concept of equal partnership. The hon. the Prime Minister again repeated here to-day that it was built on dedicated and unquestionable love for that which is individual and true to the common mother country. That is the basis for our co-operation. If English-speaking people co-operate with us on that basis they are welcome in the highest Government benches. United Party concepts are not based on these principles, but on the vague supposition that the Afrikaans-speaking person must gradually adapt himself to the English-speaking person. Dr. Malan extended the foundations for co-operation laid by General Hertzog. There are innumerable examples which can be quoted to prove our honest and sincere intentions towards the English-speaking people. For example, on the 27.1.1950 Dr. Malan stated here—

Dr. Malan believed relentlessly in South African nationalism, and however much it was denounced as being race hatred and extremism, he believed that South African nationalism would, in point of fact, be the force to unite the two language groups. He believed that this would occur to an ever-greater extent. History has proved Dr. Malan altogether right in this respect. Adv. Strydom continued to build on the same basis. Shortly after becoming Prime Minister he said in the House of Assembly what the hon. the Prime Minister has already quoted here to-day. He said—

The formation of the Republic under Dr. Verwoerd bridged even further the gap which still existed, a gap with its origins in history, a gap which no one could obviate and which no one would have wanted to deny. He could then also state on a certain occasion that not only had a bridge been built across the gap between the two language groups, but the gap had also been filled in. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in two short minutes the hon. the Minister of Transport gave, on the part of the Nationalist Party, a measure of realism to this debate which the hon. the Prime Minister could not do in the space of one whole hour. The impression which the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech made on me was that it was not aimed at this side of the House, but rather at critics in his own ranks, at those critics who claim that he is not a good Calvinist, that he is leaving the Afrikaans language in the lurch and that his outward-moving policy is a libéralisme one. His answer was directed at such people. However, our attack was directed against the statement of the hon. member for Ermelo and other people like him, and for that reason I thank the hon. the Minister of Transport for giving, in two short minutes, that measure of realism to the debate on behalf of that side of the House.

Let us understand clearly what happened here this afternoon. The hon. the Minister of Transport is the leader of the National Party in the Transvaal and he is also the Leader of this House. He told the hon. member for Ermelo directly: “Your remarks to the English-speaking people were a reflection on and an insult to them.” Those were hardhitting words; that was said in plain terms such as we have seldom heard here from one Nationalist to another.

If we cast a look at the front row benches opposite, from the hon. member for Ermelo to where the hon. the Minister of Transport is sitting, we are entitled to ask this question: If one front-bencher can say the things the hon. member for Ermelo said, if he can talk out of turn like that, if he can speak in such an irresponsible manner, if he can say things which are so much in conflict with the policy of the National Party, what confidence can we have in the other front-benchers of this party? The very least that can be done after what the hon. the Minister of Transport said here this afternoon, is for the hon. member for Ermelo to get up here and to apologize to English-speaking South Africans for the insult, for the reflection—to use the words of the hon. the Minister of Transport—of which he was guilty.

There is something else which strikes one in connection with this singular occurrence. I do not even want to speak about the signs of tremendous dissension, of disunity, in that party which have now come to the fore. There is something else which excites my interest. What do the English-speaking hon. members opposite say to the fact that one of their frontbenchers can insult them to such an extent and still be retained as a front-bencher of that Party? What does the hon. member for Maitland say to that? How happy does the hon. member for Umlazi feel now that the insulter of the English-speaking people in that party is occupying a front-bench position? What is the standpoint going to be of the so-called “speechless” hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation? We want to hear this from that side of the House.

I was not at all impressed by the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. He did in fact say that he repudiated the hon. member for Ermelo. I was reminded of a fable which I read in my childhood, i.e. “Sinbad the Sailor and the Old Man of the Sea”. The old man got a stranglehold on Sinbad by wrapping his legs tightly around Sinbad’s neck, and while sitting on Sinbad’s back he held him in that grip for days on end. He nearly killed poor old Sinbad. The hon. the Prime Minister also has his “Old Man of the Sea” who is sitting on his back. We asked him, “What is going on, what are you going to do with that man?”, and he replied, “It is unfortunate that he is there; I repudiate him,” and then the hon. the Prime Minister walks away a little further and the “Old Man of the Sea” is still sitting on his back. Let me use another image. There is a long frock-coat which is called the “Prince Albert coat”, and the hon. the Prime Minister is being accused here this afternoon of wearing such a threadbare and tattered old coat. But all he does is to say, “Yes, I do not like it, but I am wearing it; good bye!” and he walks off.

I regard this speech by the hon. member for Ermelo not merely as an unfortunate speech, but indeed as a disgraceful speech.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “disgraceful”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. However, there is something else I asked myself. There has in fact been a repudiation of the hon. member for Ermelo here, but that was in connection with one incident; it concerned only one speech and one person. Are we not aware that there are also other members in that Party, people who are sitting over there, who hold the same views as does the hon. member for Ermelo, people who have also made similar statements? Does that repudiation by the hon. the Prime Minister also apply to those people? Will he mention them by name so that we may know who the insulters of the English-speaking people in that Party are? We can call some of them to mind. I do not want to mention their names. Let us hear who they are. How far does that repudiation extend? It concerns one particular speech. Does it also concern the other important speeches which were made and which caused embarrassment to that Party, in which a section of the English-speaking people and their institutions were insulted by the hon. member for Ermelo and other hon. members on that side? Does that repudiation also extend as far as that? We ought to know that as well. We are reminded of the attacks on English-speaking universities, when the non. member for Ermelo said, “We must not send our children to English-speaking universities because there they are imbued with liberalism.” We are reminded of the attacks on the general Press service in South Africa, SAPA, which is used by English and Afrikaans newspapers. We are reminded of attacks made on English banks, also by members on the other side of the House who are followers of the hon. member for Ermelo.

This repudiation this afternoon was a limited one. It was aimed at one person; it was concerned with one specific speech. It still does not mean much to me, however much I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport on what he has said. But this is the opportunity for the Prime Minister to show that it does not merely concern one matter, in regard to which my hon. Leader virtually forced him into taking a stand, but that it concerns matters affecting not only that hon. member, but also numerous other members on that side, and, let me also say, tens of thousands of members of the Nationalist Party who voted for that Party in the recent election.

The hon. the Prime Minister has one major dilemma. As a person who has been in the Nationalist Party for many years he ought to know it. The speech which the hon. member for Ermelo made, irrespective of how strongly it may be rejected by the majority on that side, is not necessarily being rejected by the majority of his followers. However much they may reject the hon. member for Ermelo as an individual and prefer the Prime Minister as an individual, the words of the hon. member for Ermelo have possibly found some echo in the hearts of, if not the majority, then a very large percentage of the people who voted for the hon. the Prime Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after having listened here this afternoon to the hon. member for Orange Grove, it is very clear to us that the United Party is politically as bankrupt as it has never been before. They came to this House this afternoon in order to see whether they could not do some scavenging and to see whether they could not drive in a wedge between the two language groups in this country in order to gain a few cheap votes. But I think that over the years it has been proved that the English-speaking voters in this country are no longer allowing themselves to be misled by the United Party. The hon. member who spoke here reminds one of a sand-shark that has been in a political desert all these years. He no longer knows whether he is coming or going. He does not know what he wants. It is very clear to me that the United Party intimated here this afternoon that it is no more than a sectional party, because it cannot absorb the Afrikaans-speaking people into its ranks at all. That is why we still find people among them to-day who have no knowledge of the Afrikaans language at all. The English-speaking people are coming over to the National Party in increasing numbers. I think that if we look at the election results in such seats as Umhlatuzana, even Pietermaritzburg (City), Port Elizabeth (Central), Turffontein and Jeppes, it is very clear that the English-speaking people are coming over to the National Party in ever increasing numbers. In the future they will also do so to a much greater extent.

The hon. member spoke here of our people who are being scared away from the English universities. Why did their Leader send his child to school at Bishops and not to a parallel-medium or an Afrikaans-medium school if they are so interested in representing the two sections of the population? The hypocrisy of that side of the House then surely becomes very evident.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members tried to suggest that the hon. member for Ermelo had insulted the English-speaking people. I readily agree with that. I do not agree with the hon. member. But now they want to suggest that, because the hon. member has stated his standpoint here, he should be put out of the National Party. What does that Party think of itself, a Party that has three leaders and three standpoints? Why do they not deal with their own people? Why do they not deal with the hon. member for Karoo, who holds a completely different view? Then they speak of the National Party! But they are only trying to find something to scavenge upon. They do not put forward a policy to the people of South Africa.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville. It is a pity that he is not present. He nearly fell over backwards when the Prime Minister referred to the fact that during the last election they were allies of the Van der Merwe group. I shall prove that they were allies during the last election. This once more shows how bankrupt their Party is, because they jump at any ally as long as there is something in it for them. I say that it is very clear that they co-operated with the Van der Merwe group during the last election. We can see this from the following figures I want to furnish. Let us take the five contituendes in which the Van der Merwe group put up their own candidates, i.e. the constituencies of Randfontein, Wonderboom, Pretoria West, Koedoespoort and Vanderbijlpark. What happened in those constituencies? The Van der Merwe group put candidates against the National Party only. The United Party was too spineless to put up their candidates in these constituencies. They then supported the Van der Merwe group. This is so. I shall furnish the figures to you, Mr. Chairman. In those five constituencies the National Party received 36,687 votes. How many votes did the Van der Merwe group receive in those constituencies? 4,219 votes. This is 11.4 per cent of the votes cast for the National Party. But let us take the following 12 constituencies, i.e. Klerksdorp, Wakkerstroom, Witbank, Newcastle, Hercules, Gezina, Kempton Park, Marico, Potgietersrus, Primrose, Stilfontein and Soutpansberg. National Party candidates and United Party candidates stood for election in these 12 constituencies. The candidates of the Van der Merwe group also stood for election in these constituencies. What happened? The largest number of votes a Van der Merwe group candidate was able to attract was 360 votes in the constituency of Gezina. That was the largest number. There the National Party scored a total of almost 77,000 votes, the United Party 24,000 and the Van der Merwe group 2,398. The latter received 3.1 per cent of the votes. Now I ask you, how do they want to get away from the statement that they had the Van der Merwe group as an ally? It is quite clear surely that together with the Van der Merwe group the United Party voted against the National Party candidates. As far as my own constituency is concerned, we canvassed votes prior to nomination day: the National Party, the United Party and the Van der Merwe group. There was no United Party candidate. What happened? 680 United Party supporters, canvassed prior to nomination day, cast their votes for the Van der Merwe group candidate. Therefore it is very clear that they jump at any ally. Their greatest hope is the BB Party, the Barry Brown group on which they hang their hopes. Their hopes will be disappointed to a greater extent as far as those people are concerned than was the case with the Van der Merwe group. As the Prime Minister stated very clearly here, the majority of those people have never had a political home. But if they think that Nationalists will run after them they are making a very big mistake.

The BB stands for “bitterbek”.

Yes, I think the right name for the BB Party is the “bitterbekke”. There they hang their hopes for the future. It is very clear that they are trying to frighten the English-speaking people. What did they do in 1953? From one platform to another they advocated it. Against every tree —the dogs could hardly use the trees—they had posters with the words “Vote for the right to vote again”. Why? To frighten the English-speaking people of South Africa, because they suggested that if the Coloureds were placed on a separate voters’ roll the English-speaking people would also possibly be deprived of their right to vote. That is what they tried to use in order to frighten the English-speaking people. With the powerful guidance and the clear policy of the National Party, as it was again stated here in this House this afternoon by the hon. the Prime Minister, it is very clear that the United Party is going to have another and even greater set-back in the future and that more members, like the hon. member for Umlazi, will leave the United Party in the future. One cannot carry on with a hypocritical political party.

Mr. Chairman, this is an example of the way the Government members are trying to run away from this issue that has been raised by the hon. Leader of the United Party in bringing to light the differences in the Nationalist Party on the attitude towards the hon. member for Ermelo. The hon. member who has just sat down, has spent his time attacking the United Party, because some of its voters, he said, voted for the Van der Merwe group. I know of Progressives who voted for the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] Yes, I know about them. That probably accounts for the big majority of votes which the Nationalist Party received against the Van der Merwe group in those areas, because all the Progs were voting for them too. It is quite clear to me what the hon. member was trying to do. It was not so much an attack on us in the United Party. By giving the figures of the voting results in those constituencies against the Van der Merwe group, he was giving a warning to those verkramptes who may be thinking of breaking away from the Nationalist Party as to what will happen to them if they stand against the Nationalist Party.

The hon. member was convincing himself too.

The hon. the Minister for Transport very loyally suggested just now that he had not taken a stronger line than the hon. the Prime Minister had taken in repudiating the hon. member for Ermelo. That, of course, is nonsense. Everybody who sat here, was aware of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister fried to avoid the issue. All he did was to say that it was an unfortunate speech and that it could be misunderstood.

That is not a fact.

But it is a fact.

I said that it is not in accordance with the Nationalist Party’s policy.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that it is not in accordance with the Nationalist Party’s policy and that it was an unfortunate speech. However, he did not in any way rebuke the hon. member for Ermelo for having made that speech. He rather excused him.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. The hon. the Prime Minister did not rebuke him. Why was it necessary for the hon. the Minister of Transport to get up and do it the way he did it? Why did the hon. the Prime Minister not rebuke the hon. member for Ermelo?

For the simple reason that the hon. the Minister of Transport reacted to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

It would not have been necessary for the hon. the Minister of Transport to have taken that line had the hon. the Prime Minister himself taken the same attitude towards the hon. member for Ermelo. It is because of the wishy-washy way in which the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the hon. member for Ermelo, that it became necessary for the hon. the Minister of Transport to admonish the hon. member for Ermelo as he did. Let us look at the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister throughout this debate. When he was asked yesterday whether he approved of the statement made by the hon. member for Innesdal he gave a long discussion of what the policy of the Nationalist Party was. However, when we asked him to deny that the hon. member for Innesdal had made a statement which is attributed to him, did he do it? No!

It is a statement in a journal, and not a statement by the hon. member for Innesdal.

I am sorry, it is no excuse for the hon. the Prime Minister to try to say that he does not answer to articles in smear pamphlets. That is no defence. If the hon. the Prime Minister did not say it to the hon. member for Innesdal, he could easily have said to us that he did not say it to the hon. member for Innesdal and that the smear pamphlet is a liar. It would have been quite easy for him to do. But he did not do it. He avoided it. My hon. Leader got up time after time and challenged the hon. member for Innesdal to stand up and deny it, but neither he nor the Prime Minister did so. It is typical of the Prime Minister’s handling of the hon. member for Ermelo and it is typical of his attitude yesterday towards the hon. member for Innesdal. The hon. the Prime Minister must remember that when the hon. member for Ermelo made his speech, it was received in silence by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport as well as the hon. members behind them on that side of the House, but when he sat down heaps of “Hoor, hoors” was heard from that corner of the House. Something which we all remarked on was the support which he apparently received from members of the Nationalist Party. Therefore, it is not only the hon. member for Ermelo’s way of thinking, because members of the Nationalist Party also gave their approval. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to get up and read statements which were made by his predecessors and statements made by himself. I was at Grahamstown when he made the speech about the co-operation of the English-speaking people and the part which the English-speaking community has played in the development of the country. These sentiments are all very well, they read very nicely. I do not say the Prime Minister thinks the same way as the hon. member for Ermelo and others do. The impression we are given is that all the Nationalist Party does is to pay lip service to this policy of co-operation between the two race groups in forming a nation. We cannot forget the history of the Nationalist Party in this respect. When the hon. member for Ermelo spoke about the English-speaking people on Monday last, I was reminded of what happened at Bloemfontein when the Nationalist Party met during the war. The Prime Minister will remember this very well.

At that time, he was not even a member of the Nationalist Party.

He was not a member of the Nationalist Party, but he would have read the papers. The father of the hon. member for Ermelo was the man who at that conference stood up in defence of the rights of the English-speaking people. What happened? He was turned down, with the result that he and Mr. Havenga walked out of the Nationalist Party. The Nationalist Party refused to guarantee the political rights of the English-speaking people.

Nonsense!

The hon. members cannot deny it. It is true. The hon. member for Ermelo will admit at once that his father walked out; how can the hon. members on that side deny it? As proof of the intolerance of the Nationalist Party in the past, I suppose they will deny that the Transvaal Nationalist Party has ever had a clause which forbade Jews to become members of the Nationalist Party. The hon. members on that side cannot deny it. It is the proof of the intolerance of the Nationalist Party towards other groups. What did the hon. member for Ermelo say to defend himself? He gave us a lecture on Calvinism and how he was not ashamed of being a Calvinist. Who said that there was anything wrong with Calvinism? We never said that there was any reason for being ashamed of being a Calvinist. Nobody has attacked the Calvinists in any way. We have the greatest respect for the Calvinists. My hon. leader is a Calvinist and there is no necessity for him to avoid the issue by trying to defend the right of being a Calvinist. The hon. the Prime Minister in talking of this new idea of nationhood and the building of one nation and the co-operation of the two groups, turned to the Minister of Police and the Minister of Defence and said that, if there was trouble in this country, they need not worry; they would have English-speaking police standing firmly with Afrikaans-speaking policemen and the Defence Force would have English-speaking soldiers standing firmly with the Afrikaans-speaking soldiers. It is quite unnecessary for the Prime Minister to make a statement like that. The English-speaking section have never stood back in their loyalty to the country; they have never failed to do their duty. We have always responded whenever it was necessary for us to defend the country. We have been prepared to do it.

I said that, because, as I said, I do not agree with the hon. member for Ermelo.

The Prime Minister says that he does not agree with the hon. member for Ermelo. Why did he not admonish the hon. member for Ermelo straightaway? Why didn’t he get up on Monday to say that he does not agree with what the hon. member for Ermelo said? Why did the hon. the Prime Minister wait until the Leader of the Opposition brought this matter to the House in order to find out his point of view? Other Nationalist organs have criticized the hon. member for Ermelo; why did the Prime Minister not make a statement before? Why did he not do something about it? Why did he do nothing at all? I again want to say that the Prime Minister, when he talks of people who are building a new nationhood, when he talks of people who know their duty, need not worry, because, as I have said, we will know where our duty is as we have known before. [Time expired.]

While the hon. member for Transkei was speaking I was reminded of the first meeting addressed by the hon. member for Transkei which I ever attended. It was early in the fifties at Kokstad. The hon. members for Transkei and Constantia held a report-back meeting there, and do you know what their theme was? Their theme was to create in the minds of the predominantly English-speaking audience the impression that the National Party was going to-deprive them of their language rights. I remember asking questions at that meeting. That was the whole theme of the meeting. They tried to create the impression among the English-speaking people that the National Party was going to deprive them of their language rights.

What did I say?

I put questions to them. I said to the two hon. members: Give me one example where the National Party has deprived the English-speaking people of their language rights or where the/ said that they would do so? But neither of the two gentlemen could reply to that.

I find the debate in progress here to-day characteristic of the entire United Party. Do you know. Sir. that while those hon. members opposite were in power this country was becoming as divided as it has never ever been, and if those hon. members had remained in power this country would have been in shreds by this time, and I shall prove it. To-day I hon. members opposite can accept everything, but they have great difficulty in accepting the fact that the English-speaking people of South Africa are to an ever-increasing extent joining the ranks of the National Party. This is the gist of what has been reflected in this debate to-day. There are important questions which the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite could have raised here, and I myself am waiting to raise one of the most important questions, that of terrorism, but I am not afforded that opportunity because in this debate they are revelling in discussions about national unity, which does in fact not belong here. I think that if, in 1969, we are still arguing about whether or not we want national unity in this country, we are very far behind the times.

I am grateful for the speech the Prime Minister made here to-day. I think that we are all glad that he has settled that matter once and for all. I definitely think that it was one of the most brilliant speeches ever made in this House. [Interjections.] I definitely think that the Prime Minister’s speech to-day can be framed as the National Party creed for the future.

Just to think of the methods already employed by hon. members opposite to try to upset national unity in South Africa, would astonish one. But I want to quote a few examples. I am thinking, for example, of a speech made by a previous Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, which was reported in Die Burger of 18th June, 1952. The report read as follows. The Prime Minister was speaking about the two political parties and he said (translation)—

Do you know what the official mouthpiece of the United Part/, Ons Blad, made out of that? This is how it was put, and, mark you, Sir, it was placed between brackets, as a verbatim quotation from Die Burger. It read as follows (translation)—

Not the two sides, but the “two sections”—… is radical and in the course of time … Another falsehood—

This report is now bruited abroad.

I think that in referring to national unity, we should not refer to words and to what people said; we should test each party against its actions, and now I want to do this in respect of hon. members opposite.

If. for example, one takes the question of United Party and National Party representation in this House, one would know that there are more English-speaking people in the National Party in this House than we have ever had here before. I et us take the National Party in South-West Africa as an example. Do you know, Sir, that in the National Party we have three German-speaking people in the Legislative Assembly and one in the Executive Committee, people who could never have been there on the vote of the German-speaking people in South-West Africa; but because we believe in national unity among the various language groups and because we still have to do with German-speaking people in South-West Africa, we are prepared to grant them representation as Dr. Verwoerd also granted representation to the English-speaking people in the Cabinet.

But what is the present situation in respect of the United Party? In 1910 there were 50 Afrikaans-speaking people and 16 English-speaking people in the United Party. That is where they began. In 1921 there were only 30 Afrikaans-speaking people and 48 English-speaking people. In 1929 there were only 11 Afrikaans-speaking people in the United Party and 50 English-speaking people. Then the coalition took place in 1933 and everything began from scratch again. In 1938 there were 69 Afrikaans-speaking and 42 English-speaking people, but in 1943 the Afrikaans-speaking people decreased in number again. At that stage there were 40 Afrikaans-speaking people and 49 English-speaking people. And in 1948, the year in which they took a beating, there were only 16 Afrikaans-speaking people in the United Party in this Parliament and 49 English-speaking people. And do you know that in that Party to-day, as it is at the moment, there are only 8 Afrikaans-speaking people, out of roughly 38? That is the position.

And how many English-speaking people do you have?

But let us take a look at the actions of those hon. members opposite over long decades. When this Party came along with measures seeking to bring about national unity by means of South African citizenship, they opposed it. Hon. members opposite did not want to relinquish their British citizenship. When we introduced measures relating to a flag and a national anthem of our own, who applied the brakes? When we wanted to establish the Republic, who was it who voted “No”? It was the United Party, the Party opposite, because they hoped they could capitalize on dissension in South Africa, and to-day they are still aware of the fact that disunity is their only hope of ever being returned to power. That is why, in the midst of the major problems with which South Africa is faced, the tremendous problems we must solve, they come along with these attacks in an attempt to incite Afrikaans- and English-speaking people against one another. While Rome is burning there are hon. members who are playing the fiddle, and who is more conversant with the position in respect of national unity inside the United Party itself than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is? He was a member of that Party for a long time, and what did he say? He said—

That is how the hon. members opposite wanted to bring about national unity. That is why I say that they are the last people who can point a finger at this Government. In fact, they can learn a lesson from this Party. They can take the achievements of this Government as a perpetual criterion. I want to admit that that Party opposite has pulled itself together to some extent. Do you know that only a few years ago there were still 15 unilingual English-speaking people in the United Party in this House? To-day I must admit that the English-speaking people sitting over there are quite bilingual, and I want to congratulate the United Party on that. But I want to say this. Let us now place this debate on a higher level than was done by the hon. member for Orange Grove and others. [Time expired.]

I do not want to pursue the matter which has been the subject of debate for so long. I must say in all fairness to the hon. the Prime Minister that if that was an eloquent plea he made for unity this afternoon, then some of the seed seems to have fallen on particularly infertile ground on his side of the political fence, judging from the speech of the hon. member for Middelland who has just sat down. No doubt these matters will still bedevil us for a long time to come, but I want to move on to another matter.

I want to deal with the question of the salaries paid to doctors in the provincial hospitals, not only in Natal but also in the Cape and the Transvaal. Why I have raised this matter under the Vote of the Prime Minister is because there is a grievous position arising in regard to the position of people who are ill or injured and who are in great need of medical services. They are in danger of losing the opportunity of obtaining those services because of recent developments. The point I want to make under this Vote is because the situation has come about as the result of the various Ministers in the Government, in the words of the Army, “passing the buck”. This has been one of the worst buck-passing episodes I have ever come across in my public experience, which goes back a long way. It was necessary in the initial stages for whoever was responsible for the situation that was created, to have taken the responsibility and to have said at once, clearly and openly: This is the responsibility of my department or of an organization which I control, and it is Government policy. Just let us look at what has happened.

Over the years, in regard to non-white doctors, there has been a formula as regards the payment which those medical men receive, a formula going right back to the time of Union. That formula was originally called the five-three-two formula, or the ten-six-four. It was subsequently changed, and it was changed again for the third time, and it now stands at ten-nine-eight. This was not altogether a question of disparity in salaries for these medical men. What in fact happened, and has happened all along, was that through the Hospitals Co-ordinating Council recommendations were made to the appropriate State Department for the reconsideration of the salaries of doctors, and from time to time the salaries have been increased as well as the formula itself being changed. The formula does not itself determine the salary; it determines the relation of the one group of people to another group of people. Their salaries are fixed under different circumstances. On the last occasion, some time early last year, after representations were made through the appropriate channels, the Government decided to raise the salaries of white doctors employed in those institutions where there are non-Whites. Instead of the rise taking place for the non-European doctors concurrently with the rise in the salary of the white doctors, the salaries of the white doctors were raised and those of the non-white doctors were not touched. The result was that whereas all along there has been a gap between Whites and non-Whites, on the formula, when once the white doctors had their salaries raised, without any change in the formula, the gap between Whites and non-Whites was immediately widened. That, Sir, led to an immediate reaction from the non-white doctors who felt that far from adhering to the formula they were now being discriminated against. No straightforward explanation was forthcoming as to how it had come about that this rise had been given to the Whites and not to the non-Whites, but blame was allotted by all sorts of people. I do not want to start saying who was to blame but blame was allocated. In the first place, because the provinces were running the provincial hospitals, the blame was attached to the Executive Committees of the provinces concerned. Sir, the blame did not apply there. There w?s nothing whatever that the provinces could do, having made the recommendations which they had made, through the appropriate channels, for an increase in the salary scales of all doctors. I repeat that had the salaries been raised concurrently throughout, these difficulties would never have arisen. The non-white doctors had perhaps not liked the fact that there was not equality but they had never made a particularly great issue of it. This is where the trouble started and, Sir, it was not rectified. I have here the weekly issue No. 9 of Hansard of this year, and I refer hon. members to col. 3641. The hon. member for Green Point, who was speaking on the 9th of this month, in connection with the fixing of salaries, said—

The Minister of the Interior then interjected: “I said so yesterday.” The hon. member for Green Point then went on. Sir, this is the basic cause of nine-tenths of the trouble, that neither the Minister of the Interior nor his Department, nor anybody associated with the fixing of salaries in the civil service, on the Government side, has come forward and said: “We are responsible; we are attending to the matter; we will issue a statement and tell the doctors and the public precisely what we are doing and we will tell the Provincial Administrations what we are doing.” Sir. the matter went to the hon. the Minister of Health who, quite rightly, I think, said, “This is not my problem; this is a problem for the Public Service Commission or somebody else.” I agree, Sir; I do not think it belongs to the hon. the Minister of Health at all. But when blame was being thrown about, the people who were being hurt attached blame, in my opinion, to everybody except those who were really responsible. Sir, my purpose in raising this matter is to get this matter clear and to make it abundantly clear beyond any dispute. I want it on record that the Government is responsible for what is happening with regard to the resignation of these doctors, and the Government must take the consequences when the doctors resign. I entirely reject the idea that the Executive Committee, the Administrator, has to find other doctors to replace those doctors who resigned. Those doctors are resigning because of Government policy. Sir, I want to be quite clear so far as I personally am concerned and so far as this Party is concerned: We stand for a narrowing of the gap. We recognize that historically there is a gap, but the consequences which flow from the resignation of those doctors are fairly on the shoulders of the Government. They must find doctors to replace those who resigned; they must take the necessary steps to see that doctors are available.

You do not think that it must rest on the shoulders of the agitators?

Sir, I am concerned for the moment with the sick and the wounded and the dying.

I am talking about the doctors.

Sir, if there are agitators, the hon. the Prime Minister has the machinery to deal with the matter. I do not want to refer to what has gone on in private offices over in Marks Buildings, but I have spoken about this to Ministers. If the hon. the Prime Minister does nothing about it, then it is not my fault but the fault of the Government and the fault of the Prime Minister, if he knows that there are agitators and does nothing about it.

You know what the Government is doing about it and you know about the negotiations that are going on at the moment.

I suggest that the Prime Minister should issue a public statement informing the people of South Africa what the Government’s policy is and what is being done to rectify the position and to provide once again the healing services which are necessary in our hospitals. Do not let this thing continue to fester. [Time expired.]

Why do you not appeal to the doctors? Do you think it is professional for them to strike?

Mr. Chairman, I do not get up because the salaries of doctors in the service of the Provincial Administrations are my responsibility. The hon. member for South Coast is right in saying that this is not my responsibility, but the actions and conduct of doctors in South Africa is my responsibility indeed, and it is for that reason that I am on my feet. The hon. member outlined the history of the salaries of doctors here and said that the formula used to be 10-6-4, and that at present it was officially 10-9-8. I just want to tell the hon. member that that is not so officially. There is no fixed formula that is recognized by the Government. But what is in fact recognized is that there is a difference between the salaries of white doctors on the one hand and the salaries of Coloured and Indian doctors on the other hand and, thirdly, the salaries of Bantu doctors. Let me say at once to the agitators and to every doctor in South Africa, that that difference will remain, no matter who agitates for equal treatment. This is inherent in South Africa. The whole economy of South Africa, the future development of the Bantu homelands, and everything we are enjoying together with the non-Whites in South Africa rests on the fact that there is a certain differentiation between the earnings of the various colour groups.

I want to say this to my non-white colleagues and to my white colleagues who are now taking up the cudgels for the non white doctors, that the Government will not be prepared at any time to give up the policy of differentiation in the salaries of doctors, no matter who might be agitating for this to be done. If doctors want hospitals to be drained of doctors for this reason, then the full responsibility will rest on their shoulders and they will consciously be doing ever patient in South Africa a disservice. I have felt, Sir, that I had this obligation towards the doctors of South Africa as Minister of Health. But may I now ask the hon. member for South Coast whether I have his assistance in connection with this matter? What is his standpoint? Should differentiation in the remuneration of Whites on the one hand, Coloureds and Indians on the other hand, and, thirdly Bantu, remain? May I have his answer? The hon. member for Durban (Central) said in a statement that he was in favour of “equal pay for equal work”. Sir, since we are dealing with the sick, since we are dealing with the lives of thousands and hundreds of thousands, and since the National Party Government, through me, is stating its standpoint very clearly this afternoon in regard to the differentiation in the salaries of doctors, we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without learning whether we have the support of the United Party in this connection.

The hon. member for South Coast said what his standpoint was.

I did not hear him say that. In that case I should like him to repeat his standpoint. Does the hon. member support me or not?

I explained my position a moment ago, but I will repeat it when I speak again.

Very well, I leave it at that. The hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday what we were doing. The Government decided to grant an increase of 6 per cent in the salaries of public servants as from 1st April and another increase of 4 per cent next year, if I understand this correctly. These are matters which fall under the Minister of the Interior. But in the case of certain non-Whites, including non-white doctors, because of certain considerations I do not want to go into now. the Administrators were told very clearly, and this I conveyed to the meeting of the Central Health Services and Hospitals Coordinating Council that in their case there would be a 15 per cent increase. Furthermore, as the hon. the Prime Minister also said yesterday, the Monnig Report is being considered by the Government at the moment. This report deals with the salaries of professional people, including doctors and non-white doctors. in the Public Service and semi-Public Service organizations. This Report is not only under consideration, but has been considered to such an extent that the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that an amount of R15 million had been set aside with a view to the implementation of any recommendations of the Commission that may be accepted by the Government. But now I want to go further. Since the non-white doctors of South Africa know now that the differentiation in remuneration—and this also holds true for nurses and all other professions—will remain in future and that it will not be abandoned by the Government under any circumstances as that is not in the interests of the economy of South Africa. I want to address an appeal to them. Doctors, members of a noble profession, do not act as they are doing. Because what are they doing? They are creating a pseudo crisis. They gave notice that on a certain day they would resign. Sir, the good name and the prestige of the medical profession have suffered enough harm over the past few years, and a serious obligation rests on each and every doctor to act in such a way in public or in private that the prestige of the doctor will rise in the eyes of the man who needs him so badly when he is ill.

On what level is your prestige?

Don’t pay any attention to him.

Sir, I want to address this appeal very clearly to each and every doctor, particularly to our non-white doctors, and at the same time give them the absolute assurance that not only am I, as Minister of Health, most certainly looking into the position of the professional man, including the doctor, at this moment, but the Government is also doing so, and we shall continue doing so in the days to come. But then I want to say something else. I want to express my abhorrence to those doctors, some of them in training positions in Durban, who allow themselves to be used by agitators as instruments to incite these people. I feel myself completely at liberty to say—because I know our profession—that the vast majority of doctors are people who do not act in such a way that crises are created; the/ are not people who want to place patients in the position that they cannot receive the treatment they ought to receive. But I also want to ask them to bear it in mind that no profession in the world can force something from a Government by creating a so-called crisis, far from it. All things considered, this is the last thing a doctor, who belongs to the noblest profession in the world, should do. Now I shall be glad to have a very clear statement from the hon. member for South Coast as to what the standpoint of his party is, and whether I have his support as regards maintaining the differentiation in the remuneration of Whites and non-Whites, as we know it in South Africa.

Sir, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister of Health. I said that so far as I could see he was right when he said that the main issue was not his pigeon. As I understand, he actually told the Press on one occasion that it was the concern of the Public Service Commission which came under the Minister of the Interior. But, Sir, I believe that a great deal of trouble would have been saved, a great deal of heartburning, if the hon. the Minister had publicly stated what he has now stated here in Parliament. This is surely the very thing that the people have been wanting to hear.

But they know it.

No, that is not the point. We wanted somebody with authority to make a statement. Sir, what is happening to-day is this. I have here the latest statement in the Argus of the 16th of this month by the head of the department of Pathology and Forensic Medicine at the University of Natal, who makes two strong points in his statement.

What is his name?

Never mind what his name is; the Minister will be able to find out who he is. He is the head of the Medical School, as it is usually called. In this statement he makes two points. He went baldheaded for the Administrator because the Administrator had issued a public statement saying “We will try and reserve the essential services in the hospitals as far as we possibly can. We hope it will be possible to do that”. This person was attacked in the most violent manner by the medical gentleman concerned. Secondly, he now comes with the story that the province is going to call doctors from the Army to staff the hospitals. This will give rise to international repercussions. When he was challenged about the source of his information, he said that the rumours he has heard provided the evidence on which he made that statement. Naturally this is a very interesting development and the Press gave it extensive coverage. I can let the hon. the Minister of Health see the copy of this newspaper clipping.

That is the reason why I asked you about agitators.

If that is so, why are the Government spokesmen sitting dumb and quiet and why are they allowing this type of thing to be said? Why should it be said that the Administrator can call doctors from the Army? Surely everybody who knows something about public life in this country, knows that the Administrator has got no control over the Army, nor its doctors, nor over its personnel. This was published, however, and it gains credence. The hon. the Minister of Health smiles at this, but then he is not one of the sick, wounded or dying, who may be losing his bed in hospital. That is where the difference comes in.

Let us now deal once and for all with the question I dealt with when I spoke earlier on, namely the policy of this side of the House as regards the formula. We have been a party to the formula all through the years. When I was a member of the Executive Committee in Natal, I was in charge of hospitals. It was one of my portfolios. I used to sit in at meetings when the formula was discussed. We could not fix salaries and I want to emphasize again that salaries have nothing to do with the formula. The formula has been changed from time to time through that channel. Our policy is to narrow the gap which has gradually been narrowed through the years in terms of the formula. Whatever the negotiation is and whatever the form of consultation—and it is pretty adequate in my opinion—we say: There is the formula; it has come to us historically down the years and we want to see the gap narrowed. That is the policy of this side of the House.

So you repudiate what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said?

No, I do not repudiate the hon. member for Durban (Central).

He will go from platform to platform …

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Health that that does not come well from another doctor, referring to the hon. member for Durban (Central) in that way.

He said it.

I had a talk with the hon. member and I quite understand the position. I am throwing no blame at my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central). Let the hon. the Minister of Health sweep his doorstep clean. When he talks about repudiating other people, I want to say that I have not heard him repudiating other speeches that have been made here. Let the Minister sweep his own doorstep clean, before he starts telling us anything about sweeping ours. I want to repeat that this trouble is running on because no authoritative statement was issued by the appropriate Government authorities.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior tells me that a statement has been issued.

When?

Through the Administrator of Natal on his behalf.

When?

About ten days ago.

There was a reference to the fact that investigations are taking place, but no clear statement was issued to say that this matter, as far as salaries are concerned, is one concerning only the Government, the appropriate authority being the hon. the Minister of the Interior, that the matter is going to be cleared up and that there is going to be a return either to the formula or whatever the solution is going to be. I am sorry but I must completely elbow out of the way any reference to agitators. We knew they were there for months and months past and the Government cannot hide behind the fact …

Did you know about it?

Yes, and I spoke to a member of your Cabinet about it. This is no reason why the hospitals and their essential services should be hamstrung and perhaps brought to a standstill because blame is being placed at the door of the Administrator and his Executive Committee when it does not belong there. I ask the Government to ensure that a public statement is issued at the earliest possible opportunity clarifying the position and stating what the Government’s policy is in regard to the restaffing of the hospitals there if the doctors proceed with their threat to resign.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast has now made an appeal to me. He received a reply from the hon. the Minister of Health, and by way of interjection I told him I had been informed that such a statement had in fact been issued. The facts at my disposal—and I want to repeat them now—are that, whilst others received an increase of 10 per cent in salaries, these doctors received an increase of 15 per cent. It was made clear to them—and I think the hon. member for South Coast knows it—that when the recommendations of the Münnig Report were being implemented, they would be considered again. An amount of R15 million has been set aside for that purpose. They know that. The hon. member for South Coast did not like it when I asked him, while he was speaking, about agitators. I want to come back to this now. My difficulty with hon. members opposite is that they do not carry out their responsibilities. What did the hon. member for South Coast tell us here? He said that he had for months been aware of the fact that agitators were active amongst these doctors. I want to go so far as to say that the hon. member knows who the doctor or professor is who is the agitator.

Yes.

This question has to deal with Natal. After all, it is not only the Government that has a responsibility towards sick people. Surely the hon. member also has such a responsibility. Surely the hon. member cannot shirk his responsibility and say that this is exclusively the responsibility of the Government. He is an ex-Administrator of Natal. He is one of the most esteemed inhabitants of Natal and a person who commands respect everywhere. I myself have a great deal of respect for the hon. member. However, although he has for months known about the agitation and who the agitator is, did he say one word in public so as to come out against the agitators?

I went to your Cabinet Minister. What else could I do?

This is not merely a question of going to the Cabinet. This is the hon. member’s province, of which he is the Leader. This is the province where his party is still in power at the moment, the only one in the whole Republic of South Africa. It is his Executive Committee which is in power and he is the Leader of the United Party there.

Thank heaven for that.

The hon. member says “thank heaven”. Why did he not rather issue a statement and tell the doctors that he was the Leader of the United Party and that his party was in power in Natal? He could have told them about the agitators and said that he knew who they were and that eventually the sick and the infirm would be the people to suffer if they were to go on strike. He could have told them to take no notice of the agitators. Why did the hon. member not do so? Surely he has a positive responsibility towards his province and towards his own people. He knew all about this, but he did nothing about it. The hon. member said that he had gone to the Government. The Government, on its part, did what was necessary, but I want to repeat that it is not only the Government which has a duty in this regard. Surely the hon. member has a duty too, and he will not deny that he has a duty in this regard. He has a positive duty. It is all very well for him to lay the blame on the Government, but before he beholds the mote in our eye, he should remove the beam out of his own. When did the hon. member tell any Government agency that there were problems?

You are putting up a pose.

No, I am asking the hon. member this in all courtesy. When did he make a statement in regard to this matter to a member of the Government?

I made it to the hon. the Minister of the Interior.

When did you do that?

Six weeks ago. I also gave the hon. the Minister the name of the person. He is also the Minister of Police and it is in that regard that I spoke to him. I told him so. I told him I was speaking to him as Minister of Police.

Very well then. Now the hon. member tells me that he said this a month or six weeks ago, but he has known this for months. This is the charge I want to level at the hon. member: If there had been any negligence on this side, then we can discuss it, but my charge against the hon. member is that he had a positive duty which he did not fulfil. While I am on my feet, I want to go further. The hon. member could have gone even further, and I hope he wants to go as far as I am going at this stage. I want to make it very clear to these non-white doctors that they have a positive duty towards their own people. I think the hon. member and I ought to put it to them that everything cannot simply be done for them by the Whites, that they cannot simply shirk their responsibility, but that they have a positive duty towards their own people. Apart from the oath they took and apart from their rules of medical etiquette, I think that hon. members opposite in particular should more pointedly draw the attention of those people to the fact that they have a duty towards their people which they must perform. If we were to do this, we would obtain much better results than we would by reproaching each other in this regard, since the hon. the Minister of the Interior has told me that all the facts, as they were discussed in the Cabinet, have been made public through the Administrator himself.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to a lot of sick-making debates in this House in my time, but I must say the discussions I have listened to over the last ten minutes are probably the most sick-making of them all, and I put it on three bases: The speech of the hon. the Minister of Health, who is himself a doctor, the speech of the hon. member for South Coast, who is the leader of the United Party in Natal, and the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. I have never heard anything like it in this House. Here we are discussing not dock-workers, mark you, not lowly, unskilled workers, but we are discussing doctors, professional people.

I did not discuss dock-workers, I am sorry.

I will come back to the dock-workers in a minute: I have something to say about them as well. I say we are discussing professional people, members of the same profession to which the Minister of Health belongs, and he has got the impertinence to suggest that those people are breaking the Hippocratic oath, number one, that they are undermining all the policies of South Africa, number two. when they have got the temerity to suggest that they be paid the same salary that their white colleagues are paid for doing exactly the same work with exactly the same basic training, the same training which that hon. the Minister went through at the Witwatersrand University medical school, probably together with many of the same doctors that, he is talking about here to-day.

Suggesting?

Suggesting? They are demanding more pay.

They are entitled to demand. [Interjections.] What is the difference? I do not care what word you use. They are entitled to demand it. They are members of the profession, they are doing the same work, they have had the same training, and yet let me tell the hon. member for Cradock, who is also a medical doctor, that this is not a new thing, this does not emanate from Durban or from the doctor whom the hon. member for South Coast reported to the hon. the Minister of Police. Have you ever heard of such a thing? This has been going on for years. For years there has been dissatisfaction among non-white doctors. I remember years ago at Baragwanath Hospital the doctors there were furious, because they were paid a fraction of what the white doctors were paid. I raised this matter in the House in 1964; I raised it previously; I cannot remember the date, but it was several years before that, and again in 1964, five years ago, I raised it. I then asked the then Minister of Health what he intended doing about doctors in the State service only because I was not too sure about the position vis-à-vis the doctors employed by the provinces. I asked him about paying the non-white doctors better salaries. He came up with one of his fine high-falutin’ speeches, much like the one we listened to earlier this afternoon, when he said it would be “ethically incorrect” to pay them the same as the white doctors. He had some extraordinary argument because he said it would be “unfair to tell the doctor treating the Bantu that they must pay him as much as he gets from his white patients, and one finds that the white doctors who treat Bantu patients do not charge them the same fee as they charge the Whites, but much less.” But white doctors working in hospitals for Africans get exactly the same pay as the white doctors working in the white hospitals. The white doctor working at Baragwanath Hospital treating black patients and the white doctor working in the King Edward VII non-white hospital in Durban get paid exactly the same as white doctors treating white patients in the white hospitals. So this nonsensical argument holds no water at all.

Before my ten minutes are up I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast, what about this fine principle of the rate for the job that we hear the United Party stands by? “The rate for the job” they say.

I will give you my reply in writing.

Only in this morning’s paper there was an article by Colonel Bowring, a provincial councillor, announcing once again the United Party’s utter adherence to the “rate for the job”. Why does this not apply to the medical profession? Will the hon. member tell me that?

I will send it to you in writing.

I will accept his word across the floor of this House. He said it is their policy to narrow the gap. I want to know about the principle, what he believes about the “rate for the job” as far as the medical profession is concerned, one of the so-called high professions of the land. That is the point.

As I said, this has been a sick-making debate. On the one hand everything is put down to agitators, and that is where I come to the Prime Minister. As soon as something does not suit him, it is “agitators!”; it is never a case of people having a just cause; it is always agitators that have been at work, just as agitators were at work among the dockworkers in Durban, people who were earning a basic wage of R6 a week for doing one of the toughest jobs known to man. I ask you, Sir, is that a living wage for a human being? We are told that if they work hard enough they can earn as much as R65 a month. But what do they have to do for that? Work 90 hours a week.

Now I ask hon. members who may have a grain of compassion and a measure of fair judgment in their veins whether this is a living wage for a human being? Does it need an agitator to tell a man who gets a basic wage of R6 a week that he is being badly done by, and does it need agitators to tell doctors that they are being badly done by when they do not earn the same salary as their white colleagues?

The rest of the world raises its hands in horror at this expression from this so-called “verligte” Government that at this day and age professional men can be expected to accept, without any argument or without quibble, a salary considerably lower than that earned by their fellow professional colleagues.

Do you pay your white and non-white servants the same wage?

I pay exactly the same wage for the job that is done.

Is that why your backyard is loaded up with non-whites?

Never mind about my backyard; you worry about how you run this country. As I say, this is one of the most disgraceful discussions I have ever listened to in this House, and that applies to both sides of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the incident which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to create here to-day. He tried to do so in three ways. First of all he tried to attack me by making the statement that I had allegedly said that there was no room in the National Party for our English-speaking countrymen. That statement fell flat.

Then he had a second and a third charge. The second charge was that, by using the words “British liberalism”, I had suggested that they were communists. He referred to something I had said in my speech, but for reasons of expediency he omitted to read the last part. That is why I just want to remind him of it once again. I said: “That is the reason why our English-speaking people fall victims to the onslaughts of communists and of the new leftist movements which always use their freedom to destroy freedom.” After all, it is quite clear that a communist will not attack a fellow-communist; he would attack a person who is against Communism. It is very clear, surely, that there cannot be any question of regarding the English-speaking people as communistic or communistically inclined. Just before I resumed my seat, I also pointed out to hon. members that the meaning of the word “liberal” had absolutely nothing to do with “communist” as such. The meaning of the word “liberal” is being used in the sense in which Calpin used it in the expression British liberalism”. There cannot be any doubt about that. I used the quotation from Calpin. In our language one would perhaps have said “broad-minded”. Our English-speaking friends are much more “broadminded” than we are. As a result of that, they regard it as interference with the freedom of the individual to make use of those means which are essential for safeguarding the freedom of the individual.

I was also reminding hon. members of the words of Prof. James Burden, where he said that “liberal” was the word that applied to the entire Western world at present. The views held in America, England and on the Continent of Europe are liberal. That is what he says. They are not communistic; they are liberal views. Those views, if we have to express it in our language as “broadmindedness”, constitute the standpoint that one does not want to restrict another person’s freedom, but its ultimate effect is to destroy freedom in that country. We who have taken part in the discussions in this House for the past 10 or 12 years, have also seen quite clearly what the standpoint of the other side of the House is. This is typical of that standpoint. Call it “liberal” in the British sense of the word, or “broad-minded”. To-day we have peace in our country. Why do we have peace? Because this National Party has had the courage to do things which are essential. It was essential to restrict the liberty of enemies. It was essential to restrict certain persons. All those measures were essential. In respect of each of those measures we met with the resistance of the United Party. Let me just remind hon. members of a few of them. Here in South Africa we have also felt the onslaught of Communism. As a matter of fact it was announced in Russia that the next onslaught would be on Africa and Southern Africa. Consequently it was essential for us to pass legislation to curb Communism. Did we obtain the support of that side of the House? No, not in the least! We only met with opposition to the steps we took in regard to those measures, which were essential. We met with opposition to the instruments we created for putting an end to Communism here in South Africa. When we had a communist in this House and another communist in the Provincial Council—who used that Council for propaganda purposes, to reach the other sections of the population—and considered it essential to remove that propaganda platform from them, it was that side of the House that did not want to approve of that measure either. Nor did they want to approve of these instruments, which were essential. When the Sabotage Act was before this House, the Act which made it possible for us to take steps against those leftist communist agitators who were sabotaging our country, people on whom one could not always get a hold, a measure which was absolutely essential, it was that side of the House that fought it. When the 90 days measure, which we considered essential, was introduced, it was that side of the House that fought this instrument. If we had not introduced it, it would not have been possible for us to surprise the ringleaders of the communists. When we subsequently found that 90 days were not enough and that this provision had to be extended to 180 days as an essential instrument, it was they who fought this measure. When we had in South Africa the leader amongst the Blacks—a man by the name of Sobukwe, who as leader of the P.A.C. set out with the aim, as he himself said, to chase the Whites into the sea or to murder them—and wanted to restrict that man, which was essential, it was that side that opposed it When we wanted to introduce house arrest to ensure that, after their working hours and in their spare time, it would not be possible for those people to undermine the civilization in South Africa, once again an essential instrument, it was the Opposition that fought it When it happened that we had to curb the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., those leftist, communist organizations which plotted against civilization in South Africa, it was the United Party that opposed that measure. Now, I do not wish to say that this was because the United Party is leftist-orientated, but because they are liberal, to use the British terminology because they do not believe in restricting freedom even if that freedom is abused to destroy freedom in South Africa. How can hon. members say that these facts which I stated in my speech constitute an insult to the English-speaking people? This is not an insult to the English-speaking people; it is a factual state of the philosophy of life of the one section and that of the other section. That is why I made it very clear. I said that Calvinism was the soldier protecting the white civilization. The National Afrikaner who is Calvinistic is by far and away a better fighter, the person who is better able to protect our white civilization than those people who believe that one may not restrict the enemy because one would be curbing his freedom by doing so. Surely this is not an insult, Sir! I repudiate that charge entirely.

But you have just said it again.

No, I have never said so. I said that it was an approach. The approach is simply that that side of the House does not want to take such strong action as is taken by this side of the House and such action is essential.

A nation or a party does not consist of people all of whom are the same. Every person in our country has a function. The function of the National Afrikaner is the function of a soldier of the white man. That was my premise. But it is not an insult to an English-speaking person if I say that the function of the National Afrikaner is that of a soldier. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was anxious to go on to another topic which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister, but I do not feel that I can let the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo go uncommented upon. The hon. gentleman is complaining that what he had said was not a reflection or an insult upon the English-speaking section of the public of South Africa. Well, Sir, as I indicated from the beginning of my remarks on this issue, I have not been relying on my judgment. I have not been relying on my judgment. I have repeated for him what was said by Die Burger, I have paraphrased for him what Die Beeld said. I listened to the hon. the Minister of Transport. He said that no one accepts the reflections, the criticisms and the insults of the English people by the hon. member for Ermelo. The hon. the Prime Minister, in so many words, associated himself with the statement by the hon. the Minister of Transport. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. gentleman’s remarks were directed to this side of the House. It seems to me that they were a defence by the hon. gentleman against the accusation against him by the hon. the Minister of Transport, his leader in the Transvaal, and in effect, supported by the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to raise another issue which I think is worthy of the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. That has to do with the policy of the National Transport Commission under the control of the Minister of Transport towards the financing of the construction of urbar freeway networks. Here, I appreciate very full that in its policy statement of July, 1968, the National Transport Commission distinguished between bypasses of urban areas which it still continues to subsidize and freeway networks to serve the centres of our big urban areas themselves, which it will not continue to subsidize once its present commitments have been met. I appreciate that distinction. I do not want to have any confusion on that issue. I need not emphasize the magnitude of the problem that has existed and that is growing up in South Africa. Our great cities are becoming so congested with traffic that they are literally choking. The effects on the economy of the urban areas and the effects on the health of their inhabitants, in my opinion, deserve our attention of the highest level. All over the world government agencies in modern industrial states have combined to attack this problem. It seems to me wrong that here in South Africa the Central Government should withdraw from its responsibilities in this regard. That is why I am drawing this matter to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. Parliament, I know, appropriates 6 cents of the tax on every gallon of motor fuel to help establish our road system. Most of this money is spent on national roads. I know that it was always felt that even that is not enough. National roads carry our traffic over thousands of miles. Therefore, the ratio of costs to benefit is very high indeed. In our cities even if a greater use can be made of public transport which is desirable, money spent on adequate road systems will be well spent because the cost-benefit ratio will be low. The Commission is at present committed to assist the big municipalities with about R182 million to be spent over ten years. The income from the tax on motor fuels is now about R50 million per annum. It is expected to rise steadily, I think, to about R100 million per annum in ten years time. I think that this shows that the money made available for the urban freeways and bypasses was not excessive. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government must take into consideration the economic benefit of urban freeways and also the just claims of the vast majority of motor vehicle owners who live in our cities. I do not believe that the Government can afford to ignore the great benefits that have accrued to a city like Cape Town as a result of its freeway network. It was fortunately constructed when the Commission still had a different point of view and has received very large assistance from the Government. That freeway network is estimated to already be saving the average commuter between 15 and 30 minutes behind the wheel of his motor car each day. If it is estimated to be 15 to 30 minutes per commuter, I wonder what it means in manhours in a city this size per week, per month and per year. In addition, it is estimated that there is a reduction of three to five times in the accident rate per vehicle mile on these freeways. The traffic flows more freely, there are greater amenities and there is a reduced congestion. I raise this matter particularly, because it seems to me that it has become obvious that a new principle should be established whereby the needs of large local authorities are to be considered as part of regional and national needs in this respect. I know that such a principle will have to cover the matter of financial assistance to large local authorities. I believe that this assistance will have to be on a realistic scale in terms of the country’s total financial resources and its overall needs and priorities. In view of all this, I wonder if a proposal of the kind suggested by the Institute of Municipal Engineers, should not be considered. They suggested that a technical committee should be appointed to examine this matter both in South Africa and overseas and that it should report as a matter of urgency to the interested parties so that the minimum time in respect of future planning will be lost. Every year that passes, the problem becomes greater. Every year the cost of freeways rises. I know that there are differences of opinion. I know that there are advisers in the Department of Transport who believe that freeways do not lead to less congestion, but to more congestion. However, I believe that is not the view of the Institute of Municipal Engineers. I believe that there is a delegation from the six biggest municipalities at present to the Minister or to the Transport Commission pending on this particular matter. It seems to me that this is a matter of such vital importance to the country, to its development and to its planning in the future, that I think it is worthy of the attention of the Prime Minister himself, and I should very much like to hear his views in this regard.

I am at a complete loss to know why the hon. Leader of the Opposition raised a matter such as this, under the Prime Minister’s Vote. If this is to continue, the discussion of this vote will become a farce. We might as well allocate the 95 hours merely to the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. It will become a farce if the hon. gentleman wants to complain about every Minister’s Vote under the Prime Ministers Vote.

Not every Minister’s Vote, only three.

Even if it is three, it makes it a farce. It makes it a farce especially because my Vote comes under discussion immediately after the Prime Minister’s Vote, within a day or two. There the hon. Leader of the Opposition and all the hon. members of his party will have ample opportunity to discuss these matters. This matter is too insignificant to raise under the Prime Minister’s Vote.

This is not an insignificant matter.

Of course, it is an insignificant matter. The question is whether certain cities only will be assisted by the National Road Fund. Cities such as Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg have been assisted in regard to the building of freeways. I think it is ridiculous that such a matter should be raised under the Prime Minister’s Vote. Apparently, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has nothing else to talk about. As far as I can see that is the only explanation for his raising this matter. He has no important matters to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister, if he raised such a matter as this. What is the position? Certain amounts of money have been allocated for the building of freeways to certain cities, out the National Transport Commission decided that freeways are not the solution to the traffic problems in the cities. It is not necessary to appoint a technical committee to investigate that. Engineers of my department have investigated the matter overseas and they know what they are talking about. It has been proved over and over again that except for Cape Town where there is no freeway through the city, freeways are not the solution to the traffic problems of the cities. And that is why the cities want the freeways. They are under the impression that it will be a solution to their traffic problems. It simply means that interchanges are built every two miles or so. It means that all the traffic coming into those cities is concentrated on the freeways and that they have to leave the freeway by way of the interchange, with the result that you have worse congestion in the cities. Apart from that, the freeway occupies valuable ground. The most valuable ground in that city has to be utilized for the building of a freeway. The solution to a traffic problem in a city is not by way of building freeways, but by ring roads and bypass roads. That is entirely the responsibility of the National Transport Commission. They finance it all. The hon. member apparently does not know what the position really is. By building a ring road and a by-pass it means that all the through traffic is diverted from the city and goes via the ring road and the bypass. This is the position in Johannesburg and in Pretoria. That will reduce the traffic problem in the cities, because fewer vehicles will go through those cities. Let us take the position in Pretoria. Once the by-pass has been built from the new national road right to the east of Pretoria, it means that all the traffic going to the north, instead of passing through the centre of Pretoria will be diverted on the bypass. That is the solution to the traffic problem. These expensive freeways which cost millions of rand are no solution to the traffic problem at all. That is why the National Transport Commission has decided not to finance these freeways any longer. But apart from that, the purpose of the National Road Fund is for the building of national roads. That was its original purpose. That is why that Act was introduced into this House by the United Party government. It was for the purpose of building national roads. That is the primary function of the National Transport Commission and not to assist freeways. I say categorically that that was not a solution to the traffic problem. If I thought it was a solution I would be in favour of financing the cities. It is however not a solution to the traffic problem in the cities and that is why we are not financing it any longer.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary for me to correct the story in connection with the handling of the salary scales of the non-white medical practitioners. This matter has a fairly long history. I should like to give the Committee a brief outline of the steps that have been taken. The first meeting I attended in connection with this matter was held in Pretoria in November, 1968. All four Administrators were present on this occasion, as well as the Minister of Health and the Public Service Commission. The whole question of the remuneration of non-white medical practitioners was discussed at that meeting in a long interview and it was subsequently decided to refer the proposed salary scales to the Administrators. The Administrations obviously have an interest in this matter, because these medical practitioners fall under the Provincial Administrations. Therefore it is necessary for the proposed salary scales to be referred to the Administrators for their comment, particularly in view of the fact that there are different opinions in regard to these salary scales. This was done and the proposed salary scales, as drawn up by the Public Service Commission, were forwarded to the various Administrators before the end of last year. I have here a full exposition of what took place in connection with this matter on different days. I do not want to tire the Committee with that. But furthermore I want to inform you, Mr. Chairman, that I had a telephone call from Professor Oosthuizen in February this year requesting me kindly to grant an interview to Professor Gordon. This seems to be the mistake I made. As is my custom I grant interviews whenever I am in a position to do so. As Professor Oosthuizen is president of the Medical Council, I agreed to an interview with Professor Gordon in Cape Town. The discussion took place in my office. I cannot remember the exact date. I think, however, it was during February this year On that occasion I called in the Chairman of the Public Service Commission to participate in our discussions. To me Professor Gordon seemed to create the impression on that occasion that he was interested in finding a real solution to this problem. He created the impression that he saw this problem from a national point of view, that he was eager to do something and that he was willing to cooperate in every way as a good South African—in fact, the tenor of what he said, made me think that he was a Nationalist—and that he would co-operate, as a good Afrikaner, in solving the problem, if possible. I was impressed by Professor Gordon and I thanked him very sincerely for the discussion we had. Immediately afterwards—I think it was a day or two later—salary scales were once again forwarded to the Administrators for their comment. Their comments were received and we took the matter to the Cabinet. The Cabinet then appointed a Cabinet committee to decide on the matter, for you will realize, Sir, that this is a difficult matter for the Cabinet as a whole to discuss. The Cabinet committee met, and in view of the Münnig Report which had just become available at the time—at least, we knew it was available and would be presented to the Cabinet within a day or two—the Cabinet committee decided to grant these non-White medical practitioners a 15 per cent increase as an interim measure—and this is how it was phrased explicitly—as from 1st April. I immediately informed the Administrators by letter that these new scales, providing for this increase of 15 per cent, were to come into operation from 1st April. I received a telegram from the Administrator of Natal a few days later, and this is important. I think the hon. member for South Coast in particular should give his attention to this, because this is the matter on which he does not agree with us. On 28th March, in reply to a telegram from the Administrator of Natal, I sent a telegram which read as follows (translation)

The assurance is given that when the salary improvements for public servants envisaged in the Budget Speech come under consideration, the salaries of non-White medical practitioners will receive attention at the same time. You may make this public.

That same night I listened to a full and lengthy statement broadcast on the 7 o’clock news, a statement by the Administrator of Natal, in which he gave the assurance—a lengthy statement in consequence of my first letter and my intimation to him that he may make a statement on my authority. This was announced on the 7 o’clock news and I heard it myself. I do not know whether it appeared in the Cape newspapers, but I heard it myself on the 7 o’clock news. Now the hon. member for South Coast says that nothing happened; the people do not know anything about this matter. The hon. member for Houghton will be able to testify to the lengthy reply I gave her to a question. Was that not a full reply on the entire situation?

Yes. I did not agree with the principle, but you gave the reply.

Yes, a full reply was given by me here in this House quite some time ago. Shortly after that a 15 per cent increase had been granted. But now the hon. member for South Coast makes out that nothing has been said and the people have not been informed in connection with this matter. Indeed, he had a conversation with me in the Lobby, and he referred to Professor Gordon. I am mentioning his name, as I have no option. I am mentioning his name, because, after he had had this meeting with me on which occasion we both showed fine co-operation with each other, he went away and telephoned me a few days afterwards to inform me that he had made a statement in Natal. And you should see that statement to believe it. He telephoned me and I said I had seen the statement in the newspaper and I was extremely shocked by it, as in that statement Professor Gordon had done nothing else but incite these medical practitioners to make trouble in the hospitals in which they worked. I think the hon. member for South Coast and I probably agree on this matter. He told me in the Lobby outside that Professor Gordon was the one who was responsible for the trouble and I told him I was aware of that. This was hardly necessary, since I have had personal experience of Professor Gordon. Now I ask the hon. member whether he expected me to lay a criminal charge against Professor Gordon? Why did he give me that information? Personally I thought he was merely giving me information. This happened by way of a conversation in the Lobby. This is the course events took. I only want to add this, and I want to confirm what the Minister of Health said. This is that the Government takes the view that the non-Whites are not an appendage of the Whites. They are not an appendage of the Whites and there is no question on my part of 80 per cent or 90 per cent or 70 per cent. My point of view is, and I think I may speak on behalf of the Cabinet, that the various non-White groups, the Coloureds and the Indians, as far as medical practitioners are concerned, and the Bantu on the other hand, should each have their own salary scales. What percentage these are going to be of the salary scales of the Whites, is incidental; it is another matter. Whether it comes closer or moves further away, I do not know. But the hon. member may rest assured that they have been informed properly. The country and the people, particularly of Natal, have been properly informed by Government sources and the necessary attention will be given to the matter, as I stated explicitly to the Administrator and as he explicitly announced by means of a statement.

The explanation which the hon. the Minister of the Interior has given us about recent action, limited to the period from November, 1968, is interesting, but why is it that this action has become necessary? That I think is where the complaint is laid at the door of this Government. It is because of the fact that the relationship of scales of salaries between White and non-White doctors was a burning and vital question already in 1963 and 1964. The Minister’s department and the Department of Health know about it, and every province knew about it, because it was a matter that came up over and over again at the co-ordinating health and hospitals services committee. In 1964 a salary scale was fixed for the Coloured and the Bantu and the Indian doctors, and I agree with the Minister that it was not fixed on a firm basis of working out each post and saying it will be ten-nine-eight, or whatever it is In 1963 already there was a complaint by the non-White doctors that they were not getting a fair deal, and it was as a result of that that in 1964 an adjustment was made of their salary, approved by the Public Service Commission. What has happened is that in the intervening period, between 1964 and 1968, there has been a complete neglect to review the salaries of the non-White doctors, and one has had a position which was roughly in the ratio of the non-Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, receiving 90 per cent approximately of what White doctors were getting, but we arrive at the position to-day, in spite of the 15 per cent increases—and I know the Minister is trying to patch it up as quickly as he can —that the percentage which the Coloured doctor’s salary bears in relation to that of the Whites is now 59 per cent, and that of the Bantu is 54 per cent of the salary paid to a White interne. As far as senior house-doctors are concerned, the ratio is 55 per cent for a Coloured doctor in relation to a White doctor, and 49 per cent for a Bantu doctor in relation to a White doctor. If there had been a simultaneous readjustment as the time went on during these years 1964 to 1968, the Minister and the country and the provinces would not be facing the problem they are facing to-day. That is why I blame this Government. What has happened? Let us take another aspect of medicine. I want to warn the Minister that in the hospital service there is another aspect where this Government has been delaying and delaying, and that is in relation to the non-White nursing staff in the hospitals, who hold very high posts. What happened? At the same time that this was discussed in 1964 a commission was appointed to go into the salaries of the non-White nurses, nurses who are vital to the continued hospital services in almost every province of the country. They are, certainly, very vital in the Cape if we are to provide adequate medical services. I want to come back to the matter which I raised in the Budget debate. These are not matters that can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, waiting until there is a complaint and then giving them a bit of an increase. But that is what is happening at present and that is the reason why we have deteriorated into this position. I say that the Coloured doctors were justified in being dissatisfied, and they were certainly justified in complaining at the way in which they were treated. That is our complaint, and not what the Minister has been doing since November. 1968, to try to clear this up, but that this Government allowed such a situation to arise when it was aware of these conditions from 1963 onwards. That is the complaint we lay at the door of the Government.

This is just the same old story which the Opposition always has—“the rate for the job”; pay the man the same salary, no matter what he does. This is a way of life in South Africa, and let me tell hon. members opposite that it is not only non-White doctors who are now supposedly being discriminated against. If I, as a White doctor, treat a non-White patient, then I also receive less payment for him. If I treat a non-White patient who has been injured and I treat him in terms of the Workman’s Compensation Act, I receive half of what I would have received for treating a White patient. I served in the non-White sections of hospitals in the Free State for years and if I administered an anaesthetic then I, as a White doctor, received only half of what I would have got for a White patient. [Interjection.] This entire plea is aimed at nothing but creating discord in a profession which always adopts a united front. This is nothing but an attempt to create discussion among colleagues who have always been at one as far as treating the sick is concerned. These people have given a proper undertaking to attend to the sick. Strikes have never and will never in future be worthy of any doctor, no matter for what reasons. Whether the Opposition wants to incite these people to continue or not I do not know, but we do know that it is right up the alley of the hon. member for Houghton. The other day she talked to the longhaired lot who stood in the street outside, and she gave them tea in Parliament. This is her usual mode of action. It makes no difference to us. They want to make politics out of the resignation and strike of doctors who refuse to treat the sick. They want to make political capital out of it. We know it. It is nothing new to us, and so it continually goes on. But what one earns is also dependent on whom you earn it from, and that is the principle involved here. The point of view of the National Party, as stated by the Minister of the Interior, is perfectly clear. We do not regard these people as appendices of the Whites. We regard them as a nation on their own and we are not interested in what percentage of the salary of Whites they receive or not. The whole position is that we regard these people as a race on their own, as a different race which has to develop on its own. We try to influence these people to go and practise where it is most important for their own people. We are not trying to do anything more than that. We do not intend oppressing these people or doing them an injustice. They have been treated in exactly the same way as any other professional officer in the Public Service; the same assurance has been given to them, i.e. that they will get what is due to them as soon as the Münnig report is released. Why then all this song and dance about what has taken place, if it does not come from people who are trying to stir up agitation?

Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up much time. I just want to say how sorry I am that the hon. the Prime Minister apparently is not prepared to discuss the question of freeways in our urban areas under his Vote. It is quite true that we shall have a further opportunity of discussing this matter when the Vote of the Minister of Transport will come up for discussion this week still. But the trouble is that we did discuss the matter with the Minister on a previous occasion and got no satisfaction, because of the fact that the Minister on the advice of certain people in his Department, who undoubtedly are experts, had taken a final decision in complete disregard of the powerful and in my opinion overwhelming evidence from other experts with possibly more experience than the particular officers of his own Department. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to suggest, neither does any one of us on this side, that freeways are the complete solution to the congestion in our large cities. We know that there are many other aspects of the problems which have to be taken into account. The use of mass means of transportation, such as trains, overhead railways, etc., is a very important aspect as regards this matter. We know that the use of public transport and the re-education of people to be less dependent on private transport, are very essential factors as regards this matter. We also know that the by-passing of cities by traffic, the final destination of which is not the cities, is a very important matter, and we know that the Department of Transport is still giving assistance in this regard. But as far as the freeways are concerned, there is a blindness on the part of the Department which one cannot overcome, and we as Opposition had no other alternative open to us in a case like this but to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to take an interest in the matter and to raise the matter with the Cabinet again, if he deemed that desirable. You must remember, Mr. Chairman, that here we are dealing with a matter which we cannot push aside lightly. It is very easy for the Minister of Transport to say that three cities, i.e. Durban, Pretoria and Johannesburg, are concerned in this matter. Incidentally, as far as I can remember, Port Elizabeth has also been concerned in this, but I shall not hold that against the hon. the Minister. The point I want to make is that practically half of the White population of South Africa, and probably more than half of the taxpayers of South Africa, is concerned in this. The Witwatersrand community, for example, is the community that provides the Minister, by means of the tax which the Railways levy on the transport of petrol by pipeline, with his surplusses and his prosperity on the Railways. One of the major issues is whether the taxes levied on and recovered from road-users are being utilized equitably to solve the problems of the road-users in South Africa. This is one of the matters which is very important. Here it is not merely a question of particular roads in a few cities; it is a question of national policy; it is a question of the attitude adopted by the Government towards the road-users of South Africa. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to discuss the matter, there is nothing we can do about that; then we have to accept that this is another case like the one we had earlier on to-day when the Minister of Transport virtually had to take over from the Prime Minister. But we shall raise this matter again when the Vote of the Minister of Transport comes up for discussion this week, and I am sure the Minister of Transport will be prepared to put this side of the matter in detail. I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister, if at all possible, should please attend that discussion. Sir, we must remember that the streets in the cities, on close inspection, are also roads; they are also means which people use for their conveyance from one place to another. It we do not get satisfaction in respect of the representations we are making on behalf of the majority of the road-users in South Africa, we are going to raise the matter again next year or perhaps later in the session when the Prime Minister’s responsibility is clearly involved, because we cannot resign ourselves to a final decision having been taken on the advice ot the Minister’s experts in disregard of the advice of experts more intimately concerned in the matter than those of the Minister When we advance a case based on equivalent expert advice, we are treated virtually with contempt.

What expert advice have you quoted here?

No, I have said that in view of the Prime Minister’s attitude we shall discuss the matter on a later occasion.

Up to now you have only been speaking of expert advice.

I have mentioned facts here which are based on expert advice.

Of what experts?

I have mentioned facts here which are based on the advice of international experts, on the attitude of the United Municipal Executive and on the attitude of municipal engineers of South Africa. Are they not experts? It surprises me that an interjection like this comes from the Deputy Minister who is directly responsible for this, because he knows he has received representations from experts who adopt a different attitude. I hope that the hon the Prime Minister will aquaint himself with this matter, It is a much more important matter than ne apparently realizes. I hope that he will Ester to the discussions to come and that he will give his attention to the interests of the urban inhabitants of this country, who cannot be ignored when we really take the interests oi the nation as a whole into account.

After having listened to the hon. member, one would think that here we were dealing with a very serious matter of national interest affecting the population as a whole and calling for the intervention of the Prime Minister. In other words, if we were to accept that view it would mean that if the Opposition did not succeed in getting their way with a Minister they could make representations to the Prime Minister under his Vote. I have never come across such a ridiculous line of action in my life. It is absolutely ridiculous.

But does the Prime Minister not have any function in governing the country?

He is not Minister of Transport.

The hon. member does not know what the function of the Prime Minister is. He has never served in a Cabinet. What does he know about this? He does not have the faintest notion. The hon. member says that the tax on petrol should be utilized to the benefit of the road-users; he says the South African nation should get the benefit of the tax. Sir, Johannesburg has already received financial assistance from the National Road Transport Commission for the construction ot its freeways. Johannesburg was then told that we could not give it any further assistance. The original agreement entered into with the Johannesburg municipality was that it would receive a certain amount from the National Road Fund for the construction of freeways. Subsequently when they wanted more I told them that I was not going to give them more. Durban has received a certain amount for the construction of its freeways. If they want more, they cannot get it. Pretoria has asked for assistance and I am not prepared to give them that assistance. Does the hon. member realize that the municipality of Pretoria wants to build a freeway which will cost R115 million? They will not be able to afford it. They cannot afford the interest on that amount. It is a freeway which does not offer a solution at all to the traffic problems within their municipal area. The hon. member for Yeoville says the South African nation will suffer as a result of this attitude and that is why he has raised the matter with the Prime Minister in an attempt to get assistance. Sir, it is a ridiculous, insignificant matter which is now being raised under the Vote of the Prime Minister. Because a municipality wants a little more money the matter has to be raised here. But, as I have said, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not have anything else to discuss. Let us look at what was discussed the past few days in this debate. We started with the case of D’Oliveira and that occupied virtually a full day. Then the matter of the hon. member for Ermelo was raised, and that occupied a full day. These were the two matters they raised and now, upon my word, they raise the question of freeways in a debate under the Prime Minister’s Vote. I have never heard of anything so ridiculous. Instead of taking three days for the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote, I think in future they should take only half an hour, and say in that time what they have to say. In this debate they have not said one single word about Foreign Affairs. If they want to lay charges against every Minister, they should utilize the full 95 hours for the Vote of the Prime Minister only, and then all the Ministers can speak under the Prime Minister’s Vote. Sir, the hon. member has raised this matter here. I know that he wants to help his Leader, although he has not helped him much. In any case, he has at least done his best to help the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, the municipal engineers who have a personal interest in the financing of freeways in the large cities can say what they like. I tell the hon. member that the construction of freeways through our large cities does not offer a solution to the traffic problem. On the contrary, it is not only no solution but it is going to aggravate the traffic problem. What does the hon. member know about this? He has never touched on this matter. Is he the expert who now wants to tell me that this will be a solution to the traffic problems. Has he investigated freeways overseas?

Yes.

Not even in New York do they have freeways through the city. They do have freeways outside the city. I paid a visit to Philadelphia and went to see the position in Washington. Are there freeways through the city? The hon. member is speaking simply for the sake of speaking. I say the construction of freeways does not offer a solution to the traffic problems within a city; it does not even alleviate the traffic problems within a city, because all the urban traffic still remains in the central part of the city. It is much better to alleviate the problem by means of a ring road skirting the city, as we are going to do in Johannesburg, where the through traffic can then go in four directions—north, south, east and west—by means of ring roads. All such traffic will make use of the ring road and will not pass through the city. The major part of the traffic will be distributed in this way. This is not a solution, but it will alleviate the problem more than the freeway they are now constructing at a cost of millions of rand. Just consider what Johannesburg’s freeway is costing. The only assistance they can still expect from the National Transport Commission is a very small percentage of those costs. It has never happened that the National Transport Commission has borne the full costs of a freeway; it has never done so. Here in Cape Town we do in fact have freeways, but Cape Town is in a completely different position as there are no roads passing through Cape Town. Cape Town is the terminal. Even these freeways are so congested already that one can hardly reach the city in the morning.

What would the position have been without the freeways?

Much worse, but here it is not a case of freeways passing through the city. Show me one freeway which passes through Cape Town. Not one does. These are all freeways leading from Cape Town, freeways such as Settlers Way and Rhodes Drive. The hon. member may raise this matter again when my Vote is under discussion, but this is the position.

The hon. member complained that road-users were not getting the benefit of the levy on petrol. Is the hon. member of the opinion that the city-dweller who is a car-owner, only uses his car inside the city and never travels outside the city? Does he not get the benefit of all the national roads which have been constructed in South Africa? Every car-owner who drives outside his municipal area gets the benefit of the national roads built and financed by the National Road Fund. That is the primary object of the National Road Fund, i.e. the financing of the construction of national roads, and a tremendous programme is lying ahead. The money I am obtaining by means of taxation is completely inadequate for the programme of national roads still to be constructed, and it would be completely nonsensical to give a further portion of that money to the cities.

Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Transport as to what he thinks should be raised under the Prime Minister’s Vote and what should not. Judging by his remarks. Sir, we should not have raised the matter of the hon. member for Ermelo and we should not have raised the matter of D Oliveira. In fact, it does not seem to me, according to the Minister of Transport, that there is anything that we dare discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister.

He did not say that.

That was all you discussed in two days and now you come along with an insignificant matter like this.

Sir, this shows how well the hon. gentleman has listened to the debate. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say that I did not raise the question of the Security Police and the Prime Minister’s use of the Security Police?

That was the only other matter you raised.

Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say that I did not raise the question of the new position of Gen. Van den Bergh and the new arrangement as regards the Bureau?

That is in connection with the Security Police.

No, it is not the Security Police.

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to say that I did not raise the question of Civil Service salaries?

Yes, but that should not be raised under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote.

I think I have a better judgment of what should be raised under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote than the hon. the Minister of Transport. I remember him getting up and attacking me when I raised agriculture under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote one year. The hon. the Prime Minister also attacked me too. Then they found out that Dr. Malan had done just that a few years before. Then they all said that I was right.

Let us get on to the third leg of the three headings of the subjects I want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister. This concerns portfolios where matters are so bad that I believe they need the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. One of them has to do with freeways, because of the attitude of this very hon. the Minister of Transport. He is the source of all wisdom. He is so self-opinionated on this issue that it is quite clear that he does not want to listen to any other point of view. This is just the trouble. These are the complaints which I receive. That is why it is being brought to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to raise one other portfolio with the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to raise with him the very urgent position arising in South Africa with regard to our water resources and the manner in which they are being exploited.

Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to raise the matter of telephones too

It is quite possible that with this new. hon. Minister, matters may deteriorate to that extent.

I want to say that for more than twenty years we have had a difficult position with regard to water in South Africa. That problem has been due to inaction, to lack of planning and to ill-advised schemes. Eventually we had the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, himself, warning only last year that “die watertoestand in Suid-Afrika skokkend is en baie ernstiger is as wat mense dink. Die land kan in die volgende tien jaar sonder water wees”. Then the hon. the Minister went on to admit that he did not have the technicians and engineers available to do the necessary work. However, he hoped that the position would improve by 1970. I raised this matter in the debate on the Budget. There was no satisfactory reply. I bring it now to the hon. the Prime Minister, because I think it calls for his attention in respect of two matters: Firstly, the internal steps necessary to relieve this position and, secondly, the external steps necessary in relation to other countries to relieve the position. By way of introduction, I want to draw the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to the annual meeting of the Vaal River Catchment Association in Johannesburg a few days ago. There the chairman emphasized that the demand for water was overhaulling the supply. He told us there were 72 dams in the Vaal River Basin. He said that the storage capacity exceeded the total catchment potential by some 8 per cent. He pointed out that there were continual shortages in the area and that it could lead to additional restrictions in future. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that in the two biggest cities of South Africa, Cape Town and Johannesburg, we are reaching a position where water shortages and restrictions have become chronic. He knows that even the present steps being taken in Cape Town will not safeguard the position for any long period. What do we hear now? We hear that the new Minister of Water Affairs has been giving this matter a lot of attention. We hear that there is the chairman of the Government Water Affairs Commission who has been studying the position very carefully. What do we hear from him? He stressed that the planning on a national scale be started as soon as possible so that the maximum use can be made of our limited resources. This Government has been in power for 20 years. What have they been doing? He talks of the using of atomic power in the future for desalination of sea water. He outlined the possibility of creating a national inter-river basin grid system to allow for a more even distribution of water resources. For how long have we not been pleading in this House for just that? What has happened? These are all very fine plans. They have been talked about for a number of years, but what has been done? Very little has been done. A lot of what has been done, is too late. Every time there is trouble in Johannesburg we are reminded of the statements by Prof. Midgeley, the Hydrology Professor of the University of the Witwatersrand, by the statements of the engineers of the Rand Water Board of how they have been warning for nearly ten years; how the Government has refused to take their advice and how the present water shortages are due to the refusal to take that advice. Now comes the 64,000-dollar question, that most of the experts are agreed that South Africa’s water problems will never be adequately surmounted until our water network can be extended into Northern Botswana and into Rhodesia. It is pointed out that there is more water being uselessly lost by evaporation in those areas than in all our urban areas and our irrigation schemes in South Africa at the present time. Such an extension of our water network would hold enormous advantages for those territories. It is only by becoming portion of such water grids and by extensive electricity schemes tackled in co-operation with the Republic, that they have any hope of getting off the ground economically and developing adequately. This is a question that is obviously worthy of the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention. This is a matter which must be approached at an international level. The sooner we can get our plans right, the more chance we have of getting these schemes afoot economically. What is more, the sooner we can deal with these territories, so that they too can plan, the more likely we are to get these schemes working economically. It is obviously a matter for the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to know whether there has been thinking in that direction; whether there has been research in that direction; whether the ground has been prepared for negotiation in those directions and what is being done in that respect at the present time?

Mr. Chairman, certain points mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are in fact relevant to this Vote. Other parts of his speech are definitely irrelevant. However, I shall leave it at that. It is very clear to me that, in respect of the major matters of principle which can be discussed under this Vote, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not see his way clear to doing so. That is why he now confines himself to these departments. If he does not see his way clear to doing that, then there is nothing to be done about it. As far as I am concerned, I am leaving the matter at that. As far as this water matter is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows just as well as I do that what he read out here, is something which all of us have read and which every hon. member in this House knows.

What is being done about it?

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had only read on, he would have known what we were doing about it. For instance, he will know that the Water Commission was appointed in 1966 and given extensive terms of reference; he will know that there has been an interim report. I take it he knows that. I also take it he knows that the full report is expected at the end of the year. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will also know that steps have in fact been taken in the meantime. He heard in this House that negotiations had taken place and that an agreement relating to the principles involved had been reached between Lesotho and South Africa in regard to the Oxbow scheme. He will know that the necessary is being done in that regard. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows all these things, why does he ask these questions under this Vote?

That was not what I asked. I asked about Botswana and Rhodesia.

I am coming to that. The hon. the Leader is asking me about the neighbouring states. After all, he knows that everything I have mentioned now, has been done. He knows about the Spioenkop Dam which was built in the Tugela River. He knows about the Oppermansdrift Dam which was built in the lower reaches of the Vaal River. He knows all of this. In spite of that he says here that the Government is doing nothing.

Yes, it will take five years to bring water from the Tugela River instead of one year, which they mention here.

No, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member had listened, he would have known that this scheme will be completed in 1972. According to him it will now take five years.

When did they start?

I shall do my best with the hon. member, but I shall not be able to make him understand if he has no knowledge of these matters. The hon. member knows that talks with Botswana have been envisaged, but that the level has not yet been reached where something of a practical nature can be done. The hon. member knows that the talks on the common water resources will in fact take place; he knows that the first step was the determination of the common border; he knows that both sides had border commissions and that that task has been completed. The interim report of the commission has been carried into effect, and I now want to give the hon. member the assurance that, once the main report of that commission has been received, the Government will, having studied that report, carry into effect those recommendations which are in the interests of South Africa. More than that I cannot tell the hon. member. If the hon. member maintains that the Government is not aware of the existing problems, that the Government is not aware of its responsibilities and that it adopts an indifferent attitude to water provision, it is absolute nonsense. The hon. member is aware that a young and energetic Minister of Water Affairs has been appointed. The hon. member is aware that this Minister has made a special study of this subject and that he has become better acquainted with his Department than one can expect from any Minister. The hon. member alone will know with what aim in view he advanced this argument; but I do not know. As far as I am concerned, I have every confidence in the hon. the Minister’s ability to administer his Department, just as I have every confidence in the ability of the hon. the Minister of Transport to administer his Department. The hon. member says that we have done nothing in regard to the water supply problem in Cape Town. He mentions Cape Town as an example, but if he had known anything in this regard, he would have known about the negotiations with the Cape Town City Council in regard to the quantity of water they will obtain from the Vogelvlei scheme. If he had known anything about the water supply of Cape Town, he would have known about the Theewaterskloof Dam which is to be constructed for the purpose of solving the water problem of the city.

Of course I know about it.

Well, why then did the hon. member mention that as an example of the non-activity of the Government? If the hon. member wants to deny that, with what aim in view did he mention Cape Town as an example?

The pipeline which will be constructed between the Vogelvlei Dam and Cape Town, will run across my farm. I probably know more about it than the hon. the Prime Minister does.

Why did you raise it then?

I raised it because I want to draw your attention to the fact that such solutions to this problem as have been found up to now, will not be adequate in the long run.

If I tell the hon. member now that the long-term solution is the Theewaterskloof Dam, which is under construction, as well as the additional water supplies which will be obtained from the Vogelvlei Dam, what are we arguing about then?

We have been arguing about this Theewaterskloof Dam since the time when I was still the member for Hottentots Holland—i.e., for the past 12 to 15 years—but nothing has been done so far. I should like to know where construction on the Theewaterskloof Dam is under way, as the hon. the Prime Minister said.

The hon. member knows, surely, that a conference was held in Paarl in this regard; surely he knows that this scheme is being approved in the Estimates!

The Government has been working at this for the past 15 to 20 years!

Oh no! This is too absurd for words.

Mr. Chairman. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will not get impatient over this matter. A good many of the matters in connection with Water Affairs will be held back until we discuss the Vote of the hon. Minister of Water Affairs. However, there are certain matters which can only be dealt with by the Prime Minister under his Vote. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has tacitly admitted that my hon. Leader could raise this matter under his Vote. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister for a moment to a debate which took place in this House in 1966. I want to refer to column 116 of Hansard, volume 16, of 1966. The then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, dealt with the questions which I have directed at him. If the hon. Prime Minister reads Hansard, he will see that the Minister of Water Affairs did not come into the picture at all. The first matter which I raised in this regard, as the hon. the Prime Minister will see in Hansard, dealt with the taking of water from the Tugela to be sent across to the Vaal. Subsequently money was provided on the Estimates for the Spioenkop Dam. It is very interesting that having reached that position, the Prime Minister came in. I dealt with Dr. Bruwer, who made the suggestion that the water should go from the Tugela to the Vaal in order to provide the Rand with water. The Prime Minister then said (col. 116)—

Now, I am not criticizing that statement of the late Dr. Verwoerd. In 1966 it was not Government policy but now, in 1969, a dam has been built to do just that. This is the changing situation in which we find ourselves in South Africa. It is the reason why, with matters of this kind, we have to come to the Prime Minister. We are dealing here with international relations. I want to refer to that same speech again. Heaven forbid that I should ask the hon. the Prime Minister to read Hansard! The late Colonel Deneys Reitz once told me that a person who reads Hansard and enjoys it, suffers from a depraved mentality.

It is a most interesting book.

The question of the sources arose and, as taken up in column 117 of the 1966 Hansard, I said—

With the announcement of the Oxbow scheme in Lesotho, this became true. The Prime Minister then replied, “We will have to do it with Basutoland and Swaziland”. I then asked, “And in Zululand?”. The Prime Minister replied, “Not as long as Zululand is in its present position.” I asked, “And Pondoland?” The Prime Minister replied, “If it has a different government it will certainly have to be done. What are you suggesting?” I then went further and said—

The Prime Minister replied, “If those matters have not been settled before, certainly, if they are already independent by that time.”

Now, Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that those states which were mentioned in 1966 are still with us. They are still with us with their international relationships. We have not enough water in South Africa so that we can manage without entering into international agreement. I am not for one moment throwing stones at any diplomatic relations which the Government has entered into with other states. I say we cannot have sufficient water supplies in South Africa to carry on without international agreements with the states the hon. the late Prime Minister mentioned as well as those which are coming into being. The Oxbow scheme, the Raucana Falls scheme and the Cabora Bassa schemes are depending entirely upon the goodwill of other countries. I know that we are already in difficulty with the Cabora Bassa scheme, because of the contract for the construction. I do not know what the outcome is going to be, because I am not in it. If I understand the Press correctly the consortium in which South Africa was involved is not being asked now to continue with the Cabora Bassa scheme.

Nobody in this country knows anything about it and no official notification has been received from anybody.

I am not the only one who is very grateful for that authoritative statement of the Prime Minister, but, I am sure, many people in South Africa will also give a sigh of relief if …

This falls under the Minister of Economic Affairs and he has already made a statement to that effect.

Well, I have seen the report twice in the paper.

The Minister of Economic Affairs has already made a statement about it.

I have not seen his statement. But it does not alter the fact that international agreements are necessary if we are going to have the water that we require here in South Africa. We cannot get it from our own sources. As far as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is concerned, it has different areas to deal with, areas such as Zululand, the Transkei, and these homelands, and the question arises much more pertinently to-day than it did in 1966 when I was able to debate this matter with the then Prime Minister. How are we going to get the water we require? What is the position regarding the rivers in the Transkei? What is their destiny? How does the hon. the Prime Minister see us acquiring that water, or does he see us not acquiring it? What does the future hold? There is probably more water there than in any of the other uncommitted rivers in South Africa.

As far as South-West Africa is concerned, I was told the other day by an authoritative source that the four rivers from the north are vital to any further economic development of South-West Africa. That is the position in which those people find themselves to-day.

These are international agreements that have to be entered into. We cannot question the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs now, and I hope we will have more time for his Vote this year because we will deal with these matters in his Vote, too. These are international affairs and only the Prime Minister can give us the facts of the matter, as he did just now in regard to Cabora Bassa, and I hope he is right. These are matters that require explanation because without our water we perish. Many of these other things can still exist and go on, but White civilization in South Africa cannot continue without adequate water supplies.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the Spioenkop Dam is concerned, it will be oossible to supply 150 million gallons to the Transvaal to flow into the Vaal Dam via the Wilge River once it has been pumped across the mountain. In addition to that, 97 million gallons will be available to Natal. Apart from that the planning is such—and the hon. member could have obtained all this from the Minister of Water Adairs—that another six dams can be built in the Tugela River. The 150 million gallons which can be pumped across the mountain into the Vaal Dam, will only constitute three per cent of the Tugela’s water. In that respect the hon. member probably now has the information he wants.

Are the six dams to be built in the Tugela, to be built in a White area or in part of the Zulu homelands?

I cannot tell you; I do not know where they are to be situated; I presume that they will be in the White area. I do not have the information in that regard, nor can the hon. member expect me to know where these dams are to be built. He cannot possibly expect that of me.

As regards our other neighbouring states: the information which I have and which the Government has at its disposal, is that it will not be necessary in this century to receive water from those rivers.

Our information is it will not be necessary to get that water during this century. That is as far as Botswana is concerned on this side. It will not be necessary to have that water during this century. The hon. member knows what the policy is. I have told him that negotiations will be conducted if and when it is necessary to do so. They are aware of it and we are aware of it. Preliminary discussions have taken place and it is not necessary to take the matter any further at this stage.

And the Transkei water?

The Transkei water will in the first place belong to the people of the Transkei, and if it should be necessary to obtain water from the Transkei for the East London complex, this will be done. In view of the Kubusi Dam which is being planned, it is doubtful whether this will be necessary, but if it should be necessary, what is required in this regard will be done, apart from the recommendations which may be made by the Viljoen Commission.

Mr. Chairman, the point which the hon. member for South Coast made seems to have been missed. The hon. member dealing with the question of the Tugela River and the Spioenkop Dam made the point that during the 1966 debate Dr. Verwoerd expressly said the pumping of water over the Berg was not part of Government policy at all; it was merely the opinion of a private person expressed at a meeting. The chairman of the Rand Water Board expressed that opinion at a meeting when he stressed the necessity for water to be provided from the Tugela to fulfil the needs of the Vaal Basin. The Prime Minister in those days specifically stated it was not part of Government policy; it was just an individual opinion. Yet within two years of that being said, we have R15 million being spent to create a dam which is going to be used to provide 150 million gallons of water per day for the use of the Vaal Basin. It is about a third of the total capacity of the Spioenkop Dam that is going to be pumped over the Berg. The point I wish to make is this. What was the opinion of a private person two years later becomes the official policy of the Government of South Africa. One hears from SABRA and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and other people about an Indostan being created, and the Government pooh-poohs it and says it is merely the private opinion of certain people, and one wonders whether exactly the same thing cannot happen in that case too. One day the Prime Minister can say something, and within a year the whole picture is changed and Government policy is switched about to accept something which was formerly just summarily dismissed.

Do you take exception to the fact that the water will be pumped over the Berg?

No, the policy of this party was enunciated very clearly by the hon. member for South Coast last year during a debate when he said we are in favour of a grid. I think this was the first suggestion of this kind that was made of South Africa. He said there should be a grid set up in order to supply the needs of all local communities. We went further than merely the Tugela Basin and the Vaal River; we went to the point where we believed a grid should be set up which was going to serve and safeguard all local communities in South Africa. The then Minister of Water Affairs was good enough to say that this sounded to him like a very sound suggestion. I believe this is something we will discuss further with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs when we come to his Vote.

That is when you should discuss it.

The hon. member says that is when we should discuss it. No, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter beyond the scope of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. It came from the previous Prime Minister who denied that this was the policy of the Government, but now it is accepted as the policy of the Government we have to-day.

I also wish to raise the question of the Indostan. I wonder whether what is to-day just the private opinion of a private member opposite could not be accepted overnight by the Government as part of its policy.

I want to go further and ask whether it is not a function of the Prime Minister to act in regard to engineers. The Department of Water Affairs is to-day in an almost crippled position as far as engineers and technical staff are concerned. The Prime Minister should take the most urgent steps. If necessary he should engage overseas consultants to help the Minister and the Department of Water Affairs solve the problems we are facing. Again this is something which is beyond the scope of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs because it involves expenditure which has to be approved of by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Have you not seen what the hon. the Minister has just done?

The expenditure which we ask to be approved is not expenditure which will be inflationary or which will bring the country into difficulties. It will be expenditure on expert consultative services which I think we are going to need if we are going to break out of this grip caused by the shortage of engineers in the department. We could safely incur this expenditure because it would not cause inflationary tendencies in the country.

The hon. member for South Coast raised further the point of the Bantu territories and this is something which hon. members have to take cognizance of. It is not enough just simply to sit there and dismiss it. Some of the biggest water resources of South Africa which are going to have to be harnessed to meet our future needs flow through Bantu territory. It is not something we can simply ignore or leave to the future or simply say we will allow time to take its course. We had a statement from the previous Prime Minister that this would be covered by treaty. I want to know whether we are still going to have these treaties. What form are they going to take? Are we not going to utilize that water now before those countries get their independence? It would appear that independence for these various Bantustans is something which is now being put off by this Government. It does not have the same urgency it appeared to have a few years ago. I want to give the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs credit for the fact that he is clearly intent on planning our water; he intends utilizing it and seeing we have enough water. But it has to be done now, taking into consideration the political policy of the Government, as opposed to their policy in regard to water affairs. We cannot afford to disregard or neglect this aspect of our water. As I say, it is something which is beyond the scope of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs; it rests upon the Cabinet as such, and upon the hon. the Prime Minister specifically.

The previous Prime Minister had in his mind the idea of a commonwealth of all the various Bantu states around us which would meet together and discuss problems of this kind, but this appears to have evaporated. We do not know where it has gone to. It is not mentioned any more, and none of the spokesmen on the other side seems to remember that there was once upon a time an idea of a commonwealth of all the various nations in South Africa. This is something upon which the Prime Minister might quite well comment when he deals with the question of our water resources in South Africa and the problems caused by the political policy of the Nationalist Party as far as our water problems are concerned, problems which are common to the whole of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify two points. The hon. member said the plan to bring water in from the Tugela was the plan of a private individual. That is not so. The hon. member will remember that Dr. Verwoerd at that stage envisaged, as far as the whole future development was concerned, that there would be a commission to investigate the entire situation. In fact, he appointed such a commission. The idea to bring in water from the Tugela forms part of the plan of the commission. It is not something that has simply been pulled out of a hat; it is part of the plans of the commission. When my Vote comes up for discussion, I shall be prepared to discuss all the details of this matter.

The hon. member also said that it was not within my power or the power of my Department to meet the staff shortages. I just want to tell the hon. member that there are no fewer than 105 students studying on bursaries at our universities this year to be trained in engineering. Special efforts are being made to prepare ourselves for a greater task which has emerged and which will be emerging to an ever increasing extent as South Africa heads for this tremendous economic development. I also want to tell the hon. member that very great interest has been shown in engineering posts in my Department recently. In the past fortnight I was so fortunate as to appoint eleven engineers from outside to the Department. We are not afraid any more that we shall not be able to do the work. We believe we shall be able to deal with the work which we have to do. There are of course general bottlenecks, not only in South Africa, but also in the rest of the world, but I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Department is doing everything in its power to advance the technical efficiency of the Department to such a high standard that we shall in fact be able to do what has to be done for South Africa in connection with its water shortages.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.