Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last evening, I was dealing with a charge against the Minister of Finance that the 1971-’72 Budget had been a fiscal disaster. I said that the Minister had ignored the Opposition warnings that the Budget would result in further inflation and that the cost of living to the ordinary man in the street would rise immeasurably, that the man in the street was being asked to pay too high a price for this Government’s incompetence and that while nothing in the Budget had pointed to Government savings, the man in the street was being asked to bring about harsher and harsher savings in his personal economy. Sir, how right the Opposition was and how wrong the Government, and once again South Africa has had to pay the price and the penalty for the ineptitude of the Minister of Finance and his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was fooling no one, either in this House or in South Africa when yesterday, in the debate which took place here, he tried to hide behind the fact that the devaluation problems which face South Africa were brought about by Pres. Nixon’s dramatic dollar-crisis statement in August and that because of that this country’s foreign exchange reserves had fallen, import permits had risen and that we were faced with severe penalties and that action had to be taken. We know that; that may be so. But the gravamen of the United Party’s charge against this Government in this debate is basically: (1) Its inept handling of this country’s money supplies, foreign reserves and bank rates from as far back as 1966, which is the primary cause of the present excessive inflationary trend up to 1971; (2) its “over-kill” with the sales tax policies adopted by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget, the burden of which has fallen upon the fixed income and lower income groups, the effect of which was classically indicated and illustrated only last year by the hon. member for Durban Point when he said, in the language of the man in the street: “It is no longer a matter of how much money is left at the end of the month; it is how much month is left at the end of the money! ”

Sir, this Government’s excessive interference in private enterprise has drained the creative energies of our industrialists and has threatened their productivity and their export drive. South Africa is still known as a country where we enjoy free enterprise. What commerce and industry fear most, Sir, is that the uncertainty which is engendered is a growing indication that the Government is adopting more and more totalitarian measures in its approaches to commerce and industry. Traditionally and understandably, commerce and industry, almost to a man, abhors the extent of State intervention in the economy. In this field the main nigger in the woodpile is, of course, the I.D.C., yet only recently we had the present head of the I.D.C., Mr. Jan Kitshoff, suggesting that there should be more, and not less, Government direction of industry.

Mr. Kitshoff has actually suggested that it was questionable whether the present system of free enterprise or laissez-faire is still best for South Africa in the world of industrial sophistication. He has cited examples such as motor vehicle manufacture and the chemical industries. These, he has stated, raised the question whether the Government should not take more rather than less of a positive hand in guiding industrial development in South Africa along pre-planned roads. He talks glibly of Government controlled orderly entry into the industries concerned, as well as the supervision and co-ordination of expansion plans. It is just this fact, Sir, i.e. that the Government intends to manage our economic lives more and more and that the profitability of manufacturing and industrial development are less and less to be determined by the industrialists according to their own wisdom, which is so frightening. It is just this fact that deters new enterprise and frightens away overseas investors. Understandably interest and confidence are lagging, because of industry’s mistrust of State intervention, because of its fear of State mismanagement, because of the fear that the Government would put political consideration before economic facts. This is understandable when we realize that only recently the Secretary for Industries, Mr. Steyn, rapped commerce and industry over the knuckles for daring to waste their time in debating or questioning Government ideologies; industry and commerce must be brought to heel. Let the United Party tell the Nationalists and the Government that the electorate and the businessman have inalienable rights and a duty to point out the economic inconsistencies between political ideologies and official policies where the economic welfare of the country is concerned. If we are not to be regarded as a Police state by the outside world, then let us at least retain some vestige of freedom of enterprise and the sovereignty of the consumer. There has been further evidence of the Government’s interference in commerce. Only recently it became clear that the Government has severely restricted the normal activities of the banking and financial sector and has thus encouraged a climate in which the grey market institutions have flourished to the detriment of the authorized banks. Only last week such a prominent Nationalist as Mr. Van Aswegen, the Chairman of Santam, seconded by Mr. Jan Marais, the Chairman of Trust Bank, in his annual report harshly criticized this Government interference in banking systems.

Read the whole story, not only half of it.

I quote. This story is good enough—

Read the next paragraph too.

We will continue to expose and criticize this Nationalist Government for its tendency to move towards a bureaucratic form of state as long as we can and as long as we have the right to do so and we place equal emphasis on the failure of this Government to adhere to the right priorities in the spending of the country’s moneys. Then, too, the Government’s decision to force Phase III on the motor industry and on South Africa, was criticized harshly and categorically in the no-confidence debate last year by my hon. Leader, and I make no apology for raising this matter once again, because having had the experience of hindsight we are now able to point out to the hon. the Minister of Finance the folly of his decisions and the penalties which South Africa is now paying, in the increased car prices, in the popular car range right through, of hundreds of rand. A clear indication was given to the Government only last year by the Franzsen Commission which questioned the wisdom of investing the necessary millions of rands in the further implementation of the local content during Phase III when other interests of greater national importance were crying out for scarce capital and labour. This was pooh-poohed. The story was put across that we would have a reduced number of models; that by reducing the models the volume throughput of the remainder was to become more economical. Let me say that the motor industry is laughing at the Minister and his officials. The Minister is no match whatsoever for the tough infighting in the financial field of the motor industry and if it is said that there should be only one or two or three major manufacturers in this country manufacturing motor vehicles and the others should fall away, then even if you drop the lowest ten sellers in models, you are left with 20 per cent of total production to be divided amongst the rest.

The capital involvement in South Africa in forcing each additional percentage up to the 66 per cent which is required by 1975 is costing the country millions and yet in no major country of the world do you have 41 manufacturers who are all competing in the same market. The effect will be that if you favour the big three and eliminate the smaller manufacturers then the large manufacturers are just waiting for the pressure of competition to be eased and the price of their motor vehicles will rise still further. Again, the investment in this capital is saving the country not one iota, relatively of additional foreign exchange. This fact was recognized by the Franzsen Commission and I challenge the hon. the Minister of Finance to institute an independent commission to investigate the state of the motor industry with regard to the implementation of Phase III between now and 1975 and I appeal to him to halt Phase III at this stage or to tell the country what additional investment will be required and what further rises in the price of vehicles will take place resulting from Phase III because of this fetish the Government has that we must place our motor industry in the position that it will achieve a 66 or 76 per cent local content. The situation which we have with the 52 per cent local content absorbs the readily available supplies of such components as glassware, batteries, tyres, etc. Now we are straining our resources excessively and we will never have a 100 per cent vehicle and we will never export vehicles while this Government is in power because we are blocking our own people, the whole 20 million of them, from acquiring motor vehicles.

I challenge the hon. the Minister to ask the motor manufacturers whether if they want volume production why it is that they are producing some 7 000 assembled vehicles per annum—that is vehicles of low local content. Why do they not discontinue those 7 000 vehicles and then supplement their volume increase through the normal manufacture of fully manufactured models?

The hon. the Minister of Finance only recently took the industry to task and blamed the motor industry for the high cost of vehicles as the result of Phase III. He did not tell the public that his excessive sales tax had created a situation where it pays a man today to involve himself in tax avoidance and buy a fully manufactured overseas assembled light delivery vehicle in which not one iota of South African labour is involved, rather than paying for a South African assembled motor vehicle. In fact today you can have three medium-priced light delivery vans for the price of two cars provided you are not too much of a snob and are prepared to use a motor vehicle of a light commercial delivery type.

I want to tackle the hon. the Minister of Finance in the few moments I have left with the accusation that when he could not raise the funds required to run this country during the full financial year of his Budget, he had to go to the insurance companies and the pension funds and he had to raid their funds in order to enrich his coffers. In fact, he has gone further, and in his debacle with the participation bonds he has actually asked financial institutions to undertake something which his own department could not undertake and which eventually was allowed to fall by the way.

Then I want to give another indication of how the Government is killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. Throughout the world the yachting industry, as a manufacturing industry and an exporting industry, is one of the fastest-growing we know. Millions of rands are involved in turnover. The Minister, through applying excess sales tax, has killed the yacht manufacturing and the boat manufacturing industry in this country stone dead. As a side effect he has killed the interest of our young South Africans from the age of nine up in yachting, in boating and in the sea. What he does not realize, and I pointed this out last year, is that boats and yachts are special cases. For a small boy of 12, the cheapest boat that is safely usable costs R200 to construct, and on this there may well be a sales tax of R100. Therefore, for a boy of 12, his boat costs him from R300 ranging up to many thousands of rands for adults’ yachts. The fact that South Africa has won the last Cape to Rio international race and that South Africa has achieved international acclaim, means nothing to the Minister; this at a time when this Government is endeavouring to save young South Africans from drug addiction and from the permissiveness that is generally found abroad. Yet, with our growing number of lakes and vleis we are handicapping our youth in South Africa, merely because of the failure to recognize that this is an isolated case with regard to which exceptions could very well be made. If this is the Government with which South Africa is confronted, then I am afraid I must ask: Do we deserve this Cabinet? Do we deserve this Government? Surely. I say, no!

Mr. Speaker, I should like to use the time at my disposal to raise certain matters relating to economic affairs. I do not want to argue debating points with the Opposition; I should prefer to deal with the factual position. I shall then explain how I think we should use the opportunities which are being offered to us.

Before I come to that I feel it is my duty to say something in my capacity as the Minister of Police in regard to the question raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. the position in Owambo. I have had a concise statement on that matter drawn up and I should like to submit it to the House. I am doing it in this specific way because my time is very limited and because I will then be able to raise only the important matters.

The labour unrest in South-West Africa, in which workers from Owambo in particular are involved, and the attendant general unrest among the population of Owambo at present, are not phenomena which simply arose spontaneously overnight. The first signs of dissatisfaction with the contract system were first observed in 1971 in Walvis Bay after a former defendant in the Terrorist Trial of 1967-’68 began to hold meetings in Walvis Bay. His regular incitement gave rise to the workers in Walvis Bay beginning to hold their own meetings and establishing committees. In this way they launched their plan for a general strike and for a return to Owambo. Similar meetings were then extended to other centres in South-West Africa.

Another factor which contributed to the strike was the demand by a group of 23 Owambos, among whom were well-known SWAPO agitators, for an interview with the Owambo Executive Council. This group presented a memorandum to the Council in which they promised support to the advisory opinion of the World Court. Apart from the contributions of SWAPO inspired agitators, one should not lose sight of the role played by certain clerics either.

The part played up to now by SWAPO in terrorist activities in South-West Africa and the Caprivi is already known. There has been infiltration by armed SWAPO terrorists, their arrest and subsequent trials; there have been ambushes and landmine explosions in which members of the South African Police were killed and maimed. After every one of these incidents in which police were killed or injured, SWAPO claimed by way of press statements, radio broadcasts from Cairo and news reports in their own publications such as Namibia News and Namibia Today that they, i.e. SWAPO, had been responsible for the attacks. In most cases these announcements by SWAPO were totally exaggerated and were mainly intended to serve as propaganda. By way of illustration I just want to mention a few of these exaggerated claims—

1. (i) 37 officers and men killed and several wounded;

This is on South African soil—

1. (ii) extermination and wounding of a number of South African troops in the Caprivi when approximately 85 men were lured into an ambush by SWAPO;
2. (iii) Six South African Defence Force officers killed in the Caprivi when their armoured vehicle was blown up;
3. (iv) Seven soldiers killed in the Kavango and many more wounded during SWAPO attacks; and
4. (v) Thirty South African soldiers killed and two vehicles blown up by SWAPO land mines.

I should like to give you the assurance that with the exception of the four members of the Police Force who were killed, those who were injured and the incidents about which reports appeared in the newspapers and which you all know about, there were no other incidents worth mentioning.

After the recent settlement of the labour disputes to the satisfaction of the parties concerned, when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development took charge of this, one would have expected things to return to normal. In fact, thousands of Owambos have already reported to recruiting officers at Ondangua for employment elsewhere in South-West Africa. The flow of workers returning to work is continuing rapidly. This turn of events, however, is not acceptable to the agitators and incitement is beginning anew. The international boundary fence between Angola and Owambo has been damaged over long distances; livestock inspection kraals are being destroyed; livestock inspectors are being intimidated and headmen and chiefs are being threatened with violence. This new phenomenon of lawlessness and unrest has resulted in police reinforcements being sent to Owambo to protect the inhabitants of Owambo and their property. The Government has decided to make use of the Defence Force as well to support the police in regard to certain tasks, if that should become necessary. In the process of maintaining law and order, a few members of the South African Police were injured by the rioters.

To restore and to maintain order and to protect their own lives the Police were compelled on a number of occasions to use their firearms and a few of the insurgents were killed in shooting incidents. A number are also being detained in connection with murder and other serious crimes. The Police have also obtained information about the plans of the agitators to murder more chiefs and headmen, to burn kraals, to attack the Whites at Ondangua, to burn police and other administrative offices, to destroy livestock inspection kraals and also to destroy the boundary fence further. School children and teachers were driven from schools with pangas.

And nothing has happened in Owambo!

Since then certain incidents have occurred which have, up to yest2rday morning, been fully reported in the newspapers. I do not want to take up the time of the House by elaborating on those incidents. Since the incident about which reports appeared in the newspapers, the following incidents have also occurred—

It must be clearly understood that action by the Police is intended only to maintain law and order and to protect life and property.

The Police are in sole control of all police activities in the Territory and the Defence Force is only involved in so far as the protection of the international boundaries are concerned and in providing the Police with additional transport, especially air transport, which is necessary in view of the great extent of the Territory and the lack of roads. I heard an interjection referring to what happened there. I do not know what further steps hon. members think should have been taken. I should like to hear. I just want to add that apart from the unrest which exists and the agitators whom we know about, the Police are in control of the situation there. I do not think I have any fear at the moment that the Police are not in full control of the situation. That is all I want to say about the Owambo matter.

I deemed it right and fitting that I should inform the House in so far as I am conversant with matters in regard to what has happened up to now.

If I may return to the debate which has been conducted up to now, I should be glad to do so. All day yesterday our discussion dealt mainly with economic matters. Although I said that it was not my intention to argue debating points, I do want to touch upon a few matters. As the next speaker after the hon. member for Gardens, I just want to say to him that he raised a few interesting points, such as the extent to which the Department of Industries should play a part in industrial development in the country. He also raised the question of Phase III of the motor industry. He also mentioned the fact that Mr. Steyn, the Secretary for Commerce, once told Assocom that their time should rather be spent discussing their own affairs than conducting debates on a change of Government policy in respect of Bantu labour. I think that those are good points to discuss under the Vote, particularly the one concerning the motor industry. Since my time does not really allow me to do so, I shall not elaborate on that.

I should like to refer to the hon. member for Parktown. He disappointed me. We are accustomed to his always making a well-motivated speech here and at least putting forward arguments for the statements he makes. Yesterday, he and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were the opening batsmen. I thought that as opening batsmen the hon. member would bat carefully, but instead of doing so he made a few wild swings like a tenth man and hoped that his statements would be true.

Rubbish! He hit it …

I just want to mention one example. At the very outset of his speech the hon. member said that if we were devaluing in order to obtain a better price for our gold, we might as well continue devaluing so that the price of gold could keep on rising. I sincerely hope the hon. member was not being serious when he said that. If the hon. member was trying to make a joke, it fell flat for no one laughed at it. I just want to make one reference to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Parktown said. The hon. members referred to the various statements we made on import control, and that was quite correct. Last year in June I said here in a statement that the Government had no intention of intensifying import control. Later on in the year, in September, I issued another statement in regard to import control during the ensuing year. As the two hon. members presented it, it may perhaps seem a little odd, but these steps were so obviously self-explanatory that even if hon. members on the opposite side do not understand them, I am certain a Std 6 child outside will. The hon. member for Parktown is smiling because he knows that this is so. That party is, however, a scavenging party following a scavenging policy. They are familiar to us as a scavenging party, scavenging on bad smells and possible bad smells.

Last year in June, when we dealt with this matter during the discussion of my Vote, there was no question of import control restrictions. Nor were such measures necessary at the time. There was nothing further I could say apart from mentioning the facts. In addition it is customary to issue a statement in September of each year in regard to import control for the ensuing year. Can the hon. member imagine what would have happened if I had allowed September to go by, and October and November as well, without saying anything? Can the hon. member imagine the uncertainty and the questions in the commercial world if I had not made such a statement? What is more, however, is that there was absolutely no possibility at that stage of any intensification of import control. Consequently I made a statement as I had also done in previous years. The question of import control was only discussed later on in the year, i.e. in November, and we then realized that our balance of payments position was becoming unfavourable owing to circumstances of which hon. members are aware and about which I do not want to elaborate now. Discussions and meeting after meeting were then held. The hon. member and the general public must not think that we considered only one measure, i.e. import control, as a possible solution. We considered more or less seven means of improving the unfavourable balance of trade position. Eventually we decided on import control. In our opinion such a measure would have been the most effective one under the circumstances and would also have contributed least towards increasing inflation. Despite all this we admit that even these measures may be indirectly inflationary. The hon. member there is laughing now in his ignorance; but I shall elaborate on this in a moment, for surely it is true that import control is indirectly inflationary.

Directly?

No, indirectly. The announcement was made on the same day that decision was taken. Oh well, that is how the circumstances developed. If hon. members are aware of how administration takes place and of how decisions are taken on Governmental level they will realize that what happened simply could not have happened in any other way.

Looking back on the debate which was conducted here, there are a few points on which I think we must agree and which we must accept as the truth. In the first instance it is true and correct to say that there was less economic growth in the country last year than previously. It is equally correct to say that in spite of the growth rate which was so low, inflationary conditions prevailed throughout in the country. It is also equally correct to say that the inflationary pressure caused a deficit on the current account of our balance of trade during the course of the year. It is also equally correct to say that this deficit on the current account in our balance of trade led to a sharp drop in the total gold and foreign reserves. I think we may as well accept those four statements. They are true. Nobody can deny that. There has been a progressive drop in growth during the past few years. In 1969 it was 7 per cent; in 1970, 5,1 per cent and in 1971 approximately 4 per cent. In other words, during this period of three years there was an average growth of 5,4 per cent, which is in any case very close to the target set by our economic development programme. As hon. members themselves know, it is 5½ per cent. In spite of the low growth rate we still had inflation. Throughout the year there was a great demand for goods and services. In fact, the demand exceeded the supply. The consumer index rose—that is true; we cannot dispute it—by no less than 6,7 per cent, according to the calculations I have at my disposal. This is disquieting, Sir. We are concerned about it. The inflationary pressure led to a deficit on our current account. In the first three quarters of 1971 that deficit was R738 million. In the same period the previous year the deficit had only been R527 million. In other words, for this period of nine months I am discussing, the deficit on our current account was more than R2 million greater than it was during the same period the previous year. Our total gold and foreign reserves dropped sharply, i.e. from R807 million at the beginning of 1971 to R601 million. Now one asks oneself, why did this happen? The main reason was that there was such a slow growth in our manufacturing production during last year. There were other factors as well, such as the drop in the price and production of wool and the drop in the price of platinum and copper. But in our development programme we depend heavily on our manufacturing production, because to obtain a 5½ per cent growth we require an increase of approximately 6,4 per cent per year in our manufacturing production, and that we do not have.

Give them the labour.

I shall come to that point at the end of my speech. That is the point at issue; that is what my friends opposite must dispute. They agree in regard to all the other matters.

Last year industry had problems. I think it is correct to say that a degree of uncertainty was also created in industrial development as a result of the negotiations which took place in regard to the drafting of the White Paper which subsequently followed, and in regard to which there is greater certainty. Capital was not readily available. Nevertheless, there were problems.

As far as inflation is concerned, it has been said previously, and it is scarcely necessary to mention—I think hon. members on the opposite side accept it—that this is a world-wide situation. The newspapers also stated beforehand that the Government would allege that inflation is a world problem, and of what avail is it saying that it is a world problem? But it is, after all, a fact; we are not isolated, are we? We are part of the world. If inflation is a world problem, we must share in that world problem, but the question now arises whether we can fare better in respect of inflation than the other countries. That is the question. To the extent to which we can fare better in respect of inflation and other countries, to that extent will we enjoy an advantage and will we be able to improve our economy. Let us see how we compared with other countries during the first nine months of last year. When we in South Africa had a rate of inflation of approximately 7 per cent, it was 9,5 per cent in Britain, 9,5 per cent in Australia, lower in West Germany, viz. 4,9 per cent; it was 10,9 per cent in New Zealand, in Portugal it was 10,9 per cent and in Japan it was 6,7 per cent. I have just mentioned a few of the other countries now.

What about France?

It is not here on the list. No, I am sorry, it is. According to the figures I have here, the figure in respect of France was 5,2 per cent up to the second quarter of 1971. But, Sir, I should like to make another comparison. Frequently it is not a correct reflection to use only one year in a comparison. There are seasonal fluctuations, and from year to year the position in the various countries changes. I should like to make an analysis of the extent to which our rate of inflation increased in the period 1968-’69 up to the second quarter of 1971, in comparison with that in other countries. In other words, we shall cover a period of two and a half years. I shall now set out the position in those two and a half years, and the countries to which I refer, are not the so-called fifth-rate countries to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. I shall mention them to you. They are Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and South Africa. Those are the countries I now want to compare. If hon. members can think of any better countries which they want me to include in this comparison, we can examine them as well. I should like to hear which countries those are. During the period I mentioned, the consumer price increase here was 15,3 per cent. Of this group of countries which I have now mentioned there are only three in respect of which the figure was less than 15 per cent, i.e. Belgium, with 14,8 per cent, Germany with 13,5 per cent and Canada with 14,9 per cent. As far as the other countries are concerned, the increase in Denmark was 25,4 per cent and in France 22,6 per cent. France is the country to which the hon. member referred just now, and its figure of 22,6 per cent must be compared to our figure of 15,3 per cent. The figures in respect of the other countries were as follows: Japan-26,6 per cent; Sweden-18,2 per cent; the U.S.A.-20.8 per cent; New Zealand-27,4 per cent; and the United Kingdom-28,3 per cent.

Sir, there is another aspect which must be taken into account, and that is that these countries I am now discussing, are countries which have traditionally, for many years, had purchase tax. During this period I have now mentioned, purchase tax was introduced for the first time in South Africa, and hon. members all know that purchase tax had a rather heavy impact on our price index in South Africa. In addition there was an adjustment in regard to the calculation of price increases, as far as wages for labour and so on are concerned. In South Africa this caused an artificial increase of 2,6 per cent. If we subtract that 2,6 per cent from our percentage of 15,3 per cent, we get 12,7 per cent, which makes the figure in respect of South Africa the lowest of all these countries. Then there is not one of them which had a lower figure than South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to elaborate on this. I do not have the time to discuss all the facts I should have liked to raise. I should have liked to deal with devaluation. I was a major advocate and am today still a major advocate of devaluation, and I think it was a good thing and the right thing for South Africa that we devalued by 12,28 per cent, in other words by a higher percentage than America. I should like to refer to the gold mining industry in this connection. The hon. member for Von Brandis is concerned about inflation as far as the gold mining industry is concerned. He said the gold mining industry is sensitive to inflation, but, Sir, what does he want? Does he want a higher gold price? He is not echoing the sentiments of the gold mines. Does he want a higher gold price which will apparently result in a small amount of inflation in due course, or does he want devaluation? What I want to ask the Opposition is that they should help us in this struggle. I said a moment ago that they are scavengers. They only come here to scavenge: “Everything will become more expensive”. What does that mean? People must buy now because tomorrow everything will be dearer; that is the effect it will have. They are doing what Rapport did. Consider for a moment what Rapport did. This is the assistance we received in our fight against inflation: “Buy, buy; it does not matter what; buy, buy.” That is the watchword. They state here, inter alia, that experience has taught them that if prices are increased, as is being done here, by 12,28 per cent (the percentage by which we devalued), then prices will actually increase by 20 per cent or more. Sir, the words “if prices are increased, as is being done here” sound to me almost like the language the Opposition speaks. When we devalue by 12.28 per cent, surely it does not necessarily mean that prices will increase by that percentage. Of course not. That is complete nonsense. Sir, in the same edition of this newspaper there is a report that devaluation costs up to R40 and they begin by saying that from the following month and thereafter it will cost the average family R40 per month. That is the language they speak.

Many people are speaking our language these days.

The average family mentioned here, has a monthly income of R815; that is the so-called “average family”; i.e. an annual income of R10 000. Do you know what percentage of our population earn less than R10 000?

What portion of the population?

I am referring to our taxpayers, White and non-White: 97 percent of our taxpayers have an income of less than R10 000. But the opposition is now saying, along with these newspapers, that this is an average family they are talking about here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister referred to the recent occurrences in South-West Africa. This was the third statement in the series, and we want to thank him for it, but I just want to say to him that the situation has not been cleared up at all; it remains as confused as before. I do not want to elaborate on this matter, Sir, but from the statement made by the Minister, it is clear that as long ago as last year, 1971, he knew about all the agitators and all the things that were going on there, and it surprises us that the Government which is so effectual did not act in this regard. Is this the usual sort of slackness which has now become symptomatic? If they had known about these inciters a year ago, why did they neglect the situation like that?

The hon. the Minster referred to his share in the sphere of import control as well. What he did not explain to us, of course, is that a month after he had given the country the assurance that import control would no longer be applied, he reversed his policy just like that. Sir, surely the hon. the Minister cannot expect the people to continue believing him. He has created a credibility gap large enough for an ox-wagon to pass through. Apart from the fact that he has changed his policy so suddenly, he is applying this import control in a way which has caused so much confusion that today no person in industry or trade knows what is going on. The confusion is absolutely astounding. We want to ask him now, in the third place, why he does not tell us what transpired in his negotiations with GATT. Why, only after this import control had been applied, did he suddenly have to send a team of officials oversea to go and inform GATT what he clearly should have told them before the time already?

Subsequently the hon. the Minister made certain extremely contentious statements about economic matters in this country, ones I should like to link to what was said by the hon. the Minister of Finance and also by certain of his other colleagues. It is clear to us that the hon. the Minister of Finance painted a favourable picture as things were allegedly going so well in South Africa, but then this Minister suddenly poured cold water over that and said that we, the Opposition, were perfectly correct; our foreign balance of payments was weak and inflation was higher than ever before. I have never come across anyone who has had to apologize for the Government in this extraordinary manner. But what we find so striking as regards the contributions which have come from the Government side up to this stage, is that when they find themselves in trouble— the first indication of that could already be seen when their newspapers started paying the way for coalition in advance —when they come into the position of starting to defend themselves, as the hon. the Minister of Finance did, they follow this sort of tactics. Because what, in point of fact, was his argument yesterday? He said our financial and economic position was in a bog, but “you must not attack us now because it would be unpatriotic”. Sir, we know the Government always adopts such an attitude when it really has its back to the wall. I want to say that the existing position was created by the Government. The hon. the Minister is wrong. It is not something which just happened to blow across from overseas. Sir, what we have here today is an accumulation; it is a situation for which this Government is responsible. The people out there want to know why we are in this predicament, therefore we shall continue to ask the necessary questions even though we receive no replies to them. We do know that the people will be informed, because the Government has plunged us into the trouble and does not know how to extricate us now.

I should like to continue by reacting to a challenge issued by the hon. the Minister of Planning. He said we should not examine the existing situation only; we should examine the situation in South Africa over the past 25 years and then he spoke disparagingly of the situation which existed in 1948. Sir, he should at least remember that at that time he still was a respected member of the Party on this side; he cannot want to renounce his political past so soon. However, it is fitting today, seeing that this Government has been in power for 25 years, that we should compile a political balance-sheet, a profit and loss account, so that we may see what South Africa has achieved over this period. Sir, it is clear that we have progressed. The hon. the Minister makes great mention of the progress, but surely it was to be expected. Our argument is that no matter which Government were in power, we would have had this progress. In the second second place our argument is that this progress we have had was often possible in spite of the Government’s policy and not as a result of its policy. Thirdly, we argue that the progress which has in fact been made often demanded an outrageously high price. Let us cast our minds back over the period of 25 years, and now we should draw a comparison with regard not only to where we stood at that time but also to where we could have stood. It is not only the actual losses which matter; it is the potential losses we suffered which are important, and if the electorate out there can be informed of this I am convinced the change which is essential for the maintenance of the democratic system in South Africa, will become a reality. What was our position in 1948? At that time we had just participated in a five year war. We were accepted on the international front; we were part of the world. We were definitely accepted by the great Western states. We were under the command of General Smuts, that intellectual colossus, who was sought after as an adviser by the monarchs and Prime Ministers of the outside world. How has that situation not changed? Where are the leaders of the world today who are asking advice from our Prime Minister? On the economic front things also went well. We paid for the war and were solvent. It is true we did not have white bread in those days, but we could lend the English £80 million and if one calculated £80 million in terms of the value of the rand today, one would have to multiply its value by five.

Furthermore, we laid the foundations for the economic development which came in the 1950s and 60s and for which other people take the credit today. Those were golden years of South Africa’s existence. Some of our most important acts were placed in the Statute Book during those years, for example, that of the Industrial Development Corporation, and those in the fields of marketing and industrial conciliation. We were a small nation and a small people but our positive influence stretched far beyond the borders of South Africa. But, as so often happens in history, it was destined that a change should come and that we should take a retrogressive step, because while we were engaged in vital things, there were people who were prepared to feed on the prejudices of our people and come forward with false promises. In this way the concept of apartheid was born, apartheid which is abhorred by all of them today. Today I cannot find anyone on the other side who will admit to being the father of apartheid. They speak of multi-nationalism and one hundred and one other semantic extravagances, but no one will admit to being the father of apartheid. The word “apartheid” has become a swear-word in the outside world; as Die Burger says, it has made us the skunk of the world. Although it has won an election for that side, it has put back the clock in South Africa many years. It is against that background that I want to analyse the present situation.

Let us consider a few of the facets in this trade-balance I want to compile. Who in his right senses would say that in the field of foreign affairs our position today is better than it was 25 years ago? We are the cast-outs. There are boycotts, an arms ban and isolation which stretches from the sphere of sport on the one hand to the church on the other. There are in fact signs of change which we regard as encouraging. But when we said six or seven years ago that South Africa would have to accept Black diplomats here, we were barracked from that side. Then they said they were going to develop a system of telephone diplomacy. Every day they come shuffling along at what we advocated as far back as six to seven years ago. We are so famished in this field that when a small impoverished state from the North comes here in order to virtually ask for alms, it is regarded as a major diplomatic breakthrough.

Disgraceful!

Repeated mention is now being made of the so-called dialogue in the North. What is the substance of this dialogue? It is simply states that are arguing whether or not they are going to talk to us. Even those who are prepared to talk to us, do not support what is happening in this country. They follow President Banda’s approach and say that if they follow a gentle line of action with us, they will be able to break down apartheid sooner and be able to undermine the Government sooner.

As far as the great Western countries are concerned, who supports us? We are estranged from all our countries of origin abroad. By chance I recently attended the United Nations for 14 days. South Africa and apartheid are the binding factors in the United Nations. I am sure that if it were not for us and apartheid, the United Nations would have scattered years ago already. If, therefore, I were to have to compile my profit list on the basis of the question of foreign relations, there would be virtually nothing I could indicate as being profits—only a tremendous loss.

There is the field of racial affairs. This, after all, was the basis on which they came into power. After all, they were going to provide us with the race solution. What have we achieved after 25 years? They say their policy is one of “apartheid with equality”. Where is the apartheid today, the major apartheid? We do not see it. Where is the equality? Two-thirds of the Bantu still live outside the homelands, and more than two-thirds must still find a livelihood in an area outside the homelands. The hon. the Minister of Finance tells us now that the report of the Tomlinson Commission, a Commission which they themselves appointed, is obsolete. Last session I told them by way of an interjection that they appointed a commission in order to inform them how they should implement their own policy. When they have done so, they do nothing about it; they ignore it and 10 years later the report of the Commission is regarded as being obsolete. Not one of the basic criteria laid down by Prof. Tomlinson has been met. Consequently the policy of separate freedoms was still-born.

Then there is the problem of the urban Bantu. For years we have been told that they should not be here; political reputations were put at stake. Hon. members know we were told that the Bantu were merely temporary visitors in white South Africa. We were told that they were merely labour units. Last week, however, an article appeared in Rapport in which it was stated that that was a hallucination and that we would have to make provision for these people because they were a permanent element here. Fagan said this as far back as 25 years ago, but no! There are none so deaf or blind as those who will not hear and see.

We come to the Coloured people now. This chapter is one of the most tragic in our history. When we are in trouble, they talk of “five million hearts which beat as one”. What have the Coloured people received for that? Our Constitution was violated so that they could be deprived of their rights. [Interjections.] While they were making pious promises about the rights of the Coloured people, the same people were planning how the rights of the Coloureds could be broken down.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member says that the Constitution was violated by depriving the Coloured people of their rights, he is, in my opinion, casting a reflection on an existing Act of this Parliament.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

By breaking promises in this way, the white man’s word and promises in this country have been devalued to such an extent that they will never regain their value again.

†These are only some of the aspects which I put on the negative side of my profit and loss account. Think of the loss in goodwill between White and non-White, an intangible factor. But this is something that we shall never be able to recoup as long as we might be here.

There is a third factor with which I want to deal in this profit and loss account. It is the frittering away over the last 25 years of our basic human freedoms in this country. As far as the Africans are concerned, we have the situation that there are over 80 major laws and dozens and dozens of decrees which regulate practically every aspect of their lives. As far as the Whites are concerned and all other South Africans, we at present have for all practical purposes abrogated the rule of law. We have the BOSS organization with its tentacles into practically every aspect of our national endeavour. We have detention without trial, house arrest and all the developments which are associated with a totalitarian state.

You have said the same thing at the time of Rivonia.

The tragedy of the present South African situation is that the Government is fighting communism by incorporating the very evils of that system into our own. On this question of individual freedom I challenge this Government to name me one freedom we enjoy today that we did not have 25 years ago. I certainly could add very many on the negative side; I can name many freedoms that we have lost. Apart from those that I have mentioned we have lost the right to choose our language medium of education and instruction of our children at school. More and more schools are being used for blatant political indoctrination. Today censorship determines what we may read and what we may listen to. The SABC, which is a public utility established by public funds, is being used for blatant party political propaganda, so much so that even Rapport had to take them to task. As far as the industrialist in South Africa is concerned, practically every aspect of his work, such as where he sites his factory and whom he employs is regulated by the State. These are rights which we have lost. [Interjections.] I can see that they are sensitive on this score, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] That is why we can say in South Africa today that we have lost many of the fundamental rights associated with a democratic system. We do not have in this country government of the people by the people and for the people. At best we have government of a section of the people, government by a section of the people and certainly government for a section of the people.

But it is when I come to economic affairs that I think the greatest single negative mark should be made on this balance sheet that I am drawing up. Quite apart from the jumping about that we are seeing from hon. members on the opposite side of the House, what are the fundamental economic indicators at the present time? Mr. Speaker, a nation’s wealth and a nation’s progress is measured in terms of the improvement in its standard of living. All these other statistics that they have quoted are of no consequence. However, as my hon. Leader pointed out, the Reserve Bank tells us that during the decade of the 60s which, after all, was the boom period in South Africa’s history, the average standard of living in South Africa improved by 2,4 per cent. This is less than it was in the United Kingdom; it is half what it was in most of the European Common Market countries; and it is a quarter of what it was in Japan. That is the kind of statistic that they avoid like the plague.

Much has been said here about taxes. The hon. the Minister of Finance was trying to persuade us that our taxes are low by world standards. Why does he not tell us that in South Africa the rate of marginal taxation is 78 per cent? Where are the other countries in the world that exceed this figure? Look at company taxes. The rate of effective company taxation in South Africa at the present time is 43 per cent. This is higher than it is in socialist Britain. What was that figure when they came into power in 1948? It was 20 per cent. Company taxes have gone up by 1 per cent per year since they have come to power. In other words, company taxes have gone up by more than 100 per cent.

That is a great record.

Mr. Speaker, this taxation is gathering momentum. This also they do not tell us. I was interested to find that in 1965 R850 million was paid into the Government coffers by way of direct and indirect taxation. However, by 1969 this figure had shot up to R1 460 million, a massive increase of 64 per cent that we have paid in the form of taxes to the Government. What is more, the contribution by the companies to the State coffers has increased by 62 per cent over the same period. When you talk about taxes there arises also the question of the returns that we, as individuals, get. I was very interested to see that the proportion of G.D.P. devoted to subsidies and transfers to households is as high as 17 per cent in Holland, 15 per cent in Western Germany and 14 per cent in Sweden. However, it is only slightly more than 3 per cent in South Africa. Our taxes are as high as they are anywhere in the world and the returns we get are infinitely lower.

The pattern that is now clearly established is that here we have a country that is completely overtaxed. Every single Budget we have is merely a juggling act of deflecting spending power from the private to the public sector. Inflation is running at a higher rate than ever before. Never before in the history of South Africa has the rate of inflation been so much in excess of the rate of real national growth and the Government been so incapable of handling the situation. This is my theme, my fundamental argument—the Government is incapable of getting out of this economic mess, because they are bound by their own ideology. They have established a vicious economic cycle from which they cannot escape. They cannot make adjustments in the field of labour because they are caught up in the vice-like grip of their own ideological folly. They cannot have an expansionist economic programme, because it would clash with the aims of apartheid. So we have the situation that the one thing which grows is State expenditure, and this is the key to the whole situation. From 1960 to 1968 the increase in Government expenditure in this country was 8 per cent, while the increase in national growth was only 6,4 per cent. In other words, there is an imbalance of at least 20 per cent. The well-known German economist, Wagner, said—as all economists will tell you—that when State expenditure runs ahead of the growth in national income, you perpetuate a situation where taxes become oppressive and become a part and a permanent feature of Government policy. Wagner added very prophetically that this is the sort of situation one usually encounters when the State or Government is in decline.

When one has this sort of situation, there are four inevitable consequences, and I want to prove to this Chamber that every single one of these consequences is taking place already. The first consequence is that it will lead to the total eclipse of the private sector, which is the productive sector. The statistics on this are really most revealing. We find that in 1965 on Capital Account the State’s fixed investment was 124 per cent of that of the private sector. In other words, they were spending 24 per cent more than the private sector. By 1969 this figure had risen to 177 per cent. Right at the present time capital expenditure in the public sector of South Africa is running at about 12 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If members are interested, the figure in the United Kingdom is 9 per cent, in Canada 7 per cent, and in America it is only slightly more than 3 per cent. So, firstly. Government spending is leading to the eclipse of the private sector. Secondly, there is inflation which is becoming endemic. This has happened throughout the period that this Government has been in control. I ask the Government to tell us what the buying value of our rand is in terms of the 1948 figures. I would like to suggest that it is not more than 40 cents in the rand. That is the extent to which the buying power of our money has been eroded.

A third important development following from the situation I have described is that an ever-greater proportion of the population consists of individuals who spend all their time trying to govern one another. In other words, there is a burgeoning bureaucracy. One has more and more people in the Civil Service. The Civil Service is the fastest-growing industry in South Africa at the present time. Since 1948 the Civil Service—those employed by the Central Government—has increased by more than 400 per cent. Admittedly our population has increased. It has probably doubled itself, but the Civil Service has grown by 400 per cent. State expenditure since 1948 has grown by over 1 000 per cent. Those are the sort of figures that should be put before the country to show how more and more money is being channelled into the Government. When one has this sort of situation, it is inevitable that there will be a balance of payments problem and that there might be devaluation. Devaluation is being held out today as an act of great statesmanship! Yet it is a sign of weakness and not of strength. Do we regard Japan or Germany as weak because they did not devalue? Why, even Australia and little Rhodesia just beyond the border have not devalued. When I look at the situation resulting from 25 years of government, I see it as a quarter century of wasted opportunity; I see it as 25 years of lost chances, and the reason why the situation is deteriorating is that the ideological chickens are coming home to roost and because the idea of “I will break the economy in order to conform to the ideology” is beginning to bite. The whole philosophy of the Government of “poor but White” is now beginning to take effect. So I end up with a vast, negative balance and, to put a crown on all this, we find that right at the present time in the history of this Government its leadership is weaker than it has ever been before. There is vacillation, confusion and contradictions. To continue, to persevere with the present Government is to perpetuate political mediocrity. That is why my Leader recently, sensing the mood of the people throughout the country, used the words of Oliver Cromwell: “Depart! Let us have done with you. In the name of the Lord, go!”

Mr. Speaker, I think I shall have a rather stiff task in coming back to reality after the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think the hon. member allowed himself to be so carried away by his own eloquence that to him only one question remains unanswered, i.e. why the public of South Africa is not carried away along with him by his eloquence. He is left with a relative minority, in spite of all the solutions and all the answers he offers. The hon. member intimated that he felt bitterly disappointed about the change which had taken place back in 1948, but he simply did not know why, up to the time when the latest proof was furnished, the vast majority of the voters in South Africa were still very satisfied with that change that had taken place in 1948.

You are quite wrong, you know.

I am referring to the latest proof. Only a small minority of that growing mass of whom we heard yesterday, have ranged themselves on his side. After one has listened to this debate up to this stage, there is one question that readily comes to mind in connection with the economic problems with which South Africa is faced. Are the Opposition in earnest about trying to solve South Africa’s economic problems, which do exist, to the best of their ability, or are they in earnest about deriving from these problems, which we do have, the best political gain they possibly can? If the latter is the case, then the United Party is an Opposition that wants to prey on such adversity as may hit the country. May we always be saved from such an Opposition that wants to prey on adversity. Any country will at some time or other suffer adversity of some kind. I have gained the impression, and I think that other hon. members on this side of the House also feel that way, that there are hon. members opposite who are prepared to throw overboard their knowledge of the economy and of economic trends for the sake of what they may gain for their party by doing so. I merely have to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He said that this state of affairs, with reference to South Africa’s economic problems, had been created solely by this Government. That is what the hon. member suggested. The hon. member, as well as other hon. members who are blowing the same trumpet, knows that it is just as impossible for South Africa to isolate itself from the economic trends of the rest of the world as it is for the Orange Free State, for instance, to isolate itself from the economic trends in the Republic. That is the position today, and hon. members opposite know this. Furthermore, hon. members know that the unfavourable trends we are experiencing here in South Africa, are also world trends. What is more, this fact has been proved over and again in this debate. This knowledge of the fact is simply thrown overboard by hon. members opposite. Then the hon. member for Hillbrow boasted of the low rate of taxation that applied when the United Party was in power about 25 years ago. He ought to know that a low rate of taxation is not proof of good government. The test is this: What is done with those taxes that have been collected? A low rate of taxation can be proof of extremely bad government, of a government that does nothing. It could be very positive proof of that.

The hon. member compared Government expenditure with that of 25 years ago. Is low Government expenditure proof of good government? Do the people of South Africa want to revert to the conditions in which they found themselves in 1948? Do they want to have back all those problems and the lack of facilities they experienced in 1948? And then the hon. member holds this up to us as proof of bad government, i.e. that we are spending today a thousand per cent more than was allegedly spent in 1948.

I want to test the Opposition further against the realities of this struggle which we are waging against economic problems. Are they in earnest about our finding a solution, or is this merely a lever which they —having smelt blood in 1970, so they believe—want to use in an attempt to return themselves to power? Let us test them. What is their solution? The only solution which they have put forward and of which I have heard to date, is that of permitting Bantu labour in White industries in White areas. Sometimes it sounds like unlimited numbers, and sometimes they do speak of control, but they see the solution in more Bantu labour being made available in our industries in the White areas. In previous debates this side of the House put very pointed questions to them, questions to which they should have replied if they had been in earnest. They did not reply to them. I am thinking, for instance, of a very scientific analysis which the hon. the Minister of Planning furnished here last year.

No attempt was made on their side to reply to it.

Let us test them further. In South-West Africa an economic situation arose as a result of the strike staged by approximately 14 000 Owambo workers. The economy in South-West Africa was threatened by that strike. As we see now, this Opposition is today the party in South-West Africa. They are the people who want to solve our whole economic problem by bringing in Bantu labour. Solutions were sought as far as that strike was concerned, and I believe that a solution has been found. The indications are there. That party has a mouthpiece in South-West Africa. Besides, this newspaper, Die Suidwes-Afrikaner, from which I am going to quote in a moment, was the official megaphone of the former U.N.S.W.P. in South-West Africa. Whether it is the official mouthpiece of the United Party at present, I do not know. It purports to be speaking on behalf of the United Party, on behalf of the Opposition as it is sitting over there. It referred to the settlement that was reached there. I do not wish to quote too much; there is a great deal more. I am going to quote from Die Suidwes-Afrikaner dated 21st January of this year (translation)—

According to the information I have at my disposal, it is that party which is speaking here and which has been holding up to us that solemn solution. This newspaper went on to say—

I do not know whether this is their official mouthpiece, although all the evidence points to that. I do not know whether this newspaper is repudiated by that party opposite; they are silent, and consequently I must accept what it has intimated. I must accept that it is speaking on behalf of the United Party. The report in this paper went on to say—

In other words, for practical purposes this is how their own mouthpiece thinks their policy and the solutions they hold up should work out. According to their own official mouthpiece our economy will be strangled. Sir, nobody would be so foolish as to suggest that the Government does not have a role, and a very important one, to play in the economic problems which any country may experience. The Government of that country has a role to play, but what the Opposition is keeping absolutely quiet about, is that the Government of any country is not the only body that has a role to play in respect of unfavourable economic developments, and the hon. members opposite know this. I want to go so far as to say that the Opposition has a very important role to play. The Opposition, too, has followers and hangers-on; otherwise it would not be over there. The population of a country in which problems are being experienced, also has a role to play. What role has the Opposition played so far? What role has the Opposition played in allowing influences to be transmitted to their followers and their supporters for the sake of the general welfare of the country? Has the hon. member for Hillbrow ever become so verbose in his constituency in bringing home to his voters the thought that they too have a function to fulfil, or was he only verbose in order to accuse the Government of making a hash of everything? Those hon. members relate everything to the Government’s ideological policy, its policy of apartheid. By these means they are trying to make the policy of apartheid unpopular with the voters and to disparage it. After all, they know that the Government was elected on the basis of this policy. Let me put a question to the Opposition. I hope I shall receive a reply to it at some stage or other. They too have an ideological approach in respect of our relations among peoples in South Africa. They too have a policy in terms of which they want to differentiate, as far as political representation is concerned, between Whites and non-Whites. If that ideology of theirs were to have an unfavourable effect on South Africa, what would their attitude be then? Sir, the things I am saying here are not unfounded. We know that the way in which they want to differentiate between Whites and non-Whites, as far as political say is concerned, may lead—I am tempted to say that it will lead to it, but for the sake of argument I shall say that it may lead to it—to bitter discontent, which may find an echo in one’s industries and in one’s manpower position—a grave echo. Would they then make their ideology secondary to the economic considerations which may then come to the fore, or would they not do so? Would they adhere to the ideology they have been holding up to the electorate, in spite of unfavourable economic developments that may take place, or would they give preference to the economic developments, as they have been demanding from this side of the House? I should very much like to receive an answer to these questions in due course.

You will never get an answer to them.

Mr. Speaker, I say the Government has a task to perform. Let us take a look at the situations with which we were faced. One of our problems is productivity. They say we should enhance production in the manner I have just indicated. What is the best solution? The most effective solution that can be conceived, is enhanced productivity amongst one’s available manpower in one’s employ. That is the most effective solution that can be conceived. That is not a thing which the Government can enforce, Sir; it is something for which the Government has to ask and it is something for which a responsible Opposition has to ask, or are they too afraid, for the sake of votes, to say to the manpower of South Africa: “Let us make this a national effort; let us help South Africa economically to get out of the situation in which we find ourselves, by enhancing our productivity, even if it is only by 5 or 10 per cent,” which is not impossible or unfair to ask? After all, this is such a realistic solution. Has any hon. member of the Opposition ever risen and made that appeal to the manpower potential of South Africa? To my knowledge this has never happened. I am not aware of one appeal of such an authoritative nature ever having been made on their side. Am I not right, therefore, in asking the question I did initially: Are they in earnest about wanting to solve South Africa’s economic problems, or would they rather see these problems running riot so that, from the resulting discontent, they might try to gain votes to enable them to come into power, so that they might then turn around and say: “The voters of South Africa have accepted our ideological approach to the colour question,” and then keep quiet about the way they came into power?

Another problem with which we were faced and which we still have, has been indicated very clearly and statistics have also proved it very clearly, and that is the tendency on the part of the private consumer sector to over-spend, a tendency which has developed over the past few years. This is a very clear tendency. They want to attribute all of this to inflation. Unfortunately it is not as simple as just that. We know that those tendencies do develop. We know that at times a tendency to over-spend manifests itself in a community, just as at other times one may even find in a community the tendency to over-economize, to over-economize to such an extent that this may become a problem too. Statistics prove that we were dealing with something which probably resulted from this rapidly rising standard of living which we had in South Africa, to keep up with the Joneses next door, and that people started resorting to over-spending. Has the Opposition ever warned against that? Has the Opposition ever joined the Government in appealing to members of the community to restrain themselves in this regard and to economize a little more, since doing so could present us with virtually painless solutions? No, Sir, that they have never done, not to my knowledge. They keep silence on this point. Consequently, the only thing left for the Government to do, since its influence cannot extend any further and in view of the influence of the Opposition, an influence it ought to use in the interests of South Africa, is to take drastic and painful measures, and then those measures are exploited, as we have witnessed in this House in recent years.

These are the real situations that have arisen, and the hon. member for Hillbrow will have to go a very long way if he wants to suggest that the Government should take the blame for them. We had the situation of a rising rate of inflation and at the same time an unfavourable balance of payments, a balance of payments that became more and more unfavourable—two conflicting tendencies, admittedly, but two conflicting tendencies that had to be dealt with simultaneously. And when the Government was forced to implement import control, forced to rectify our balance of payments position, what did we find then? Then we found the kind of criticism we found here today. Let us be frank about this matter. Every businessman, every importer in South Africa, knew that South Africa had problems in curbing its imports and that the Government did not want to take drastic steps, on the one hand because of its commitments under the G.A.T.T. Everybody knew these things, but in spite of the fact that everybody knew these things and that everybody saw how, week after week, South Africa was running up an increasingly unfavourable balance of payments, the importers carried on gaily, because, so I was told, there were greater profits to be made on the imported article, and our public carried on gaily too—they even gave preference to the imported article. From this side attempts were made to bring influence to bear, but unfortunately that influence was not sufficient. It might have been sufficient if the Opposition had not kept quiet when it should have spoken up. But at the time it kept quiet, as it is still doing today, and consequently import control had to be introduced, and that was subsequently followed by devaluation.

I do not know whether it is clear to other hon. members on this side of the House exactly what attitude the other side is adopting in respect of devaluation. Of one thing I am sure, and that is that it is not clear to me what their attitude is in respect of devaluation. They accept devaluation, but it is slightly too high and it should have been slightly lower. Should it have been 12 per cent, or 11 per cent or 10 per cent or 8 per cent? It is not clear to me exactly what they wanted, nor was this, to my knowledge, clearly stated by the hon. members opposite. But what is in fact clear to all of us in this House, something that has already been emphasized here in this House during this debate, is that South Africa is being afforded a golden opportunity, as a result of devaluation, to enter a new golden era. This is a golden opportunity, but to make the best of that opportunity for South Africa is also a task which the Government cannot perform through regulations and laws and measures alone. It cannot No government can do it, Even if there were a government consisting of 18 Cabinet members of the standard and calibre of the hon. member for Hillbrow, they would not have been able to do so. [Interjections.]

What do you want to turn loose in South Africa now?

Whatever the circumstances may be for any country to enter a golden era, more than merely Government action is required. A national effort is required for that purpose, an effort made by the whole nation. To achieve that requires an effort, of which we have seen numerous instances in the world. There are numerous instances where a community decided to rise to its feet and to shake off whatever oppressed and troubled them. It was not merely because of Government action that after the Second World War West Germany progressed to where it is today—it was a national effort on the part of the West German people. It was not merely Government measures which, after the Second World War, brought Japan to where it is today. It was a national effort which brought it where it is today.

This side of the House is also making such an appeal for a national effort, and if the Opposition wants to be loyal to South Africa, they should associate themselves with that appeal. However, what are they doing? They are keeping quiet. [Interjections.] Yes, all we get is the type of advice we have been getting here for the past few days.

It is possible for us to develop this devaluation into one of the finest eras in the history of South Africa, economically speaking, but if we want to do that productivity needs to be enhanced, and that is something one cannot enforce by way of legislation. The productivity of the manpower needs to be enhanced, and nobody will deny that productivity has suffered in these times of manpower shortage in which we are living; that is a logical consequence. Spending must be kept within bounds. Exports must be stimulated and undertaken as far as possible. In respect of exports, too, the Government cannot do everything. Then there is the exporter, who also has a very positive role to play. Similarly, the industrialist has a very positive role to play. He can lay claim the support of the Government and the protection of the Government as far as this is possible, but he himself also has a very positive role to play. Are the Opposition prepared to make that appeal to our industrialists, to promote exports in that manner by doing everything in their power? There are many complaints in this country that our industrialists are not sufficiently export-conscious as yet; this is even being admitted in their own ranks. That consciousness must develop; one cannot create it amongst industrialists by way of regulations.

Finally, we shall have to learn that in respect of imports we must restrain ourselves to a certain extent. There is a complex or a mentality from which many of our people—I accept that this includes N.P. and U.P. supporters—are still suffering, i.e. that the imported article, even if it is more expensive, is the better one. We shall have to rid ourselves of that complex.

Mr. Speaker, apart from what the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted from a newspaper, he devoted about three-quarters of his speech to asking the Opposition to help the Government out of its mess. [Interjections.] It was a matter of: “Why do you not help us here; what is your policy there; what have you done to help us here?” Then he spoke of preying and of vultures; that we are preying on the prosperity of South Africa. I want to put it very clearly now that the greatest set-back South Africa has ever experienced is this Nationalist Party Government. There is little to be gained from preying on that.

Do you support Japie or not?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke of productivity and I shall come back to deal with that specifically. But I first want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he seems to be looking to the United Party Opposition to help him and his Government to solve their problems. There comes a time when your team of horses starts pulling in different directions; the one pulls in one direction and the other in another direction, while another breaks its leg. It is no use trying to tag on a couple of new horses in front. The only thing you can do is to shoot the whole team and to put a decent team in front. That is what we are going to do with this Government. We cannot try to pull in front of them in order to get them out of their mess.

We have now listened to all the economic big guns of the Government, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Planning and the Deputy Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance gave us an elementary economics lecture. I am a simple soul, and I want to get this straight. The hon. the Minister, backed by his colleagues, told us that the standard of living in South Africa was the highest in the world, that the rate of rise in the cost of living in South Africa was one of the lowest in the world. He told us that the absolute cost of living in South Africa was amongst the lowest in the world. He told us that we had the lowest taxation in the world. He told us that we had an economy growing at a rate which was equivalent to that of the best in the world. He told us that wages had grown faster than the cost of living and faster than inflation. These are all the things that the hon. the Minister has told this House and told South Africa. As I have said, I am a simple soul and I want to ask him what I am to tell my housewives, my own wife, my constituents or, let us say, the housewives of Brakpan. When they, having listened to this talk of a higher standard of living and the lowest cost of living, and wages which have increased more than the rate of inflation, take out a R5 note to do their weekly shopping they go to a shop and pay that piece of paper and walk out with a half or a third of what they could buy with the same amount five or ten years ago. I want the hon. the Minister or his economists to explain to me how I am to explain to that housewife why that piece of paper, when put across the counter, gives her half as much as what she used to get although she is living in Utopia, although her cost of living is the lowest in the world and although her standard of living is the highest in the world. Why, must I tell her, is her basket half empty when she gets home? That is the problem. The person who wants to know “wat is dié gogga inflasie?” is faced with that problem. We want to know what to tell these people.

The hon. the Minister has said that wages have kept pace and have kept ahead of inflation. Then you get the case of the breadwinner who has worked hard for the last ten years; he has been ambitious, he has sought and has possibly attained promotion and his salary has gone up from, say, R200 to R250—if he is working for the Railways, of course, he is probably earning about R150 or R160 per month, which is regarded as a civilized wage in so many grades. Let us assume that his wage has gone up from R200 per month to R250 per month. The hon. the Minister will claim that that has now kept him ahead of inflation.

Do not take your own figures when you make a comparison.

Or whatever the figure may be. Let the hon. the Minister give me a better figure.

Take R400.

No, the worker’s salary has not increased from R200 to R400. The hon. the Minister knows that because he himself said that wages had kept ahead of inflation. He did not say that they had doubled, or has the inflation rate been 100 per cent over the last ten years? If the hon. the Minister says that R400 today is the same as R200 ten years ago, then he is saying that the value of money has been halved in ten years. My point is that if wages have kept pace with the cost of living, whatever the figure may be, what about the normal improvement in living standards which that breadwinner is entitled to expect? After ten years that breadwinner may have an income which enables him to pay an increased rental, to pay more for his food, more for his clothes, more for his requirements, so that he can buy the same amount now as he was then able to buy with what he earned ten years ago. But what happens if he has had two or three children in the interim? The increased wage has simply brought his money up to what it was worth before. But what about feeding those extra mouths? What about paying rent for a three-roomed flat instead of a bachelor flat to house those children? Mr. Speaker, you can take figures and prove anything with them. The hon. the Minister knows the old saying that figures do not lie, but that liars sure can figure.

That is what you are doing now.

No, I am not giving figures; I am using the hon. the Minister’s arguments. I want to know how I, as a simple person, must explain this to other simple people. The cold fact is that the housewife who walks into a shop, or the breadwinner who has to find a home for his family, who has to clothe them and who has to find the money for their education and for them to live on, does not find this Utopia that the hon. the Minister is talking about. Let him come to my constituency and I will show him how people are living on the miserable R38 which this hon. Minister and his Government give them and he can say: “There you are; in this Utopia you can live on it.” Let me take the hon. the Minister to the people who day by day appeal to me and ask: “What can we do?” People who lived, say, in an old private hotel paid R35 or R40 or even R50 per month. However, because of the hon. the Minister of Tourism, that hotel has to be classified and those people are now looking for other accommodation.

They do not have to be classified. You do not know what you are talking about.

I can take the hon. the Minister to hotels and even private hotels which used to house persons with moderate or small incomes. Today they are catering for the luxury trade. That hon. Minister brags that standards have gone up, but what of the person who needs a roof over his or her head? The hon. the Minister of Community Development tells me that there is no problem because flats are being converted into holiday flats or bed-and-breakfast establishments at three or four times the previous rental. It is no problem except for the people who lived there.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the person who has to live today in this Utopia where his money is worth so much and his cost of living is so low. That hon. Minister says that they have no problem. However, I will deal, during his vote, with the letter he wrote to me in which he said that he sees no problem. He has told us that there is no housing problem.

There is not.

This is a Utopia. There is no housing problem. I ask the hon. the Minister to go and look for himself.

For what?

To see how people are living. He must then tell me whether there is not a problem, or is that how he wants people to live? Is that how the hon. the Minister expects them to live? Is that what he regards as a fit and proper way for people to live in South Africa, White and non-White?

The Government and the hon. the Ministers talk about the Opposition as though, when we criticize, we are doing something unpatriotic.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Minister says “hear, hear!” I want to say something to that hon. Minister. As all young people do, we in our time used to dream dreams.

You still are.

Some of us saw Africa from the Cape to Cairo, from Pretoria to the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. When we returned and saw our country, the dream we dreamed of our country was of South Africa as the leader, the power-house and workshop of a continent. We saw South Africa as the base from which the Western way of life would spread northwards into Africa, as a result of which Africa would develop from barbarism to higher and higher standards, with this country of ours, South Africa, as the leader, the power-house and workshop from which supplies, machinery and knowledge would move out to help others. We dreamt of South Africa setting the pattern for this continent. That dream fell in ashes when this Government took over. What is there left today for people to dream about? What is there left to dream about for our young people of the next generation who wish to dream dreams? They cannot dream of South Africa leading Africa. Their greatest dream is to dream of talking to a neighbour, let alone selling him anything! It becomes a national triumph if one can get a leader of a neighbouring state to visit South Africa! All we can dream about today is not of leading and being the workshop of Africa, but of seeking any markets—when once the markets of the world were open for us.

The hon. the Deputy Minister talked of vultures. I want to say that, if history is to record a verdict on this Government, it will record the verdict of a parasite Government which fixed its tentacles on the economic strength of South Africa and was carried by the inner strength of our economy all these years. Unseen, it was sapping that strength. Now it is starting to find the host body, the body of South Africa upon which it has fed, weakening. When we criticize them for having sucked the economic strength of South Africa, they turn to us and say: Do not criticize us; that is unpatriotic. Surely it is far more unpatriotic to have been the parasite that has sucked dry the economy of our country, that has sucked, grown and multiplied in that parasitic existence until the host itself could no longer carry it.

When are you getting off your soapbox?

People have seen how the Government has grown and multiplied and they have thought that South Africa was strong. To the casual observer, who sees a Cabinet of 24 Ministers running a country which 12 Cabinet Ministers used to run …

Where do you get 24 Cabinet Ministers from?

Don’t let us argue about the breakdown. There are 18 Ministers and six Deputy Ministers, which is twice as many as when this Government came to power. The casual observer sees longer motor-cars and bigger mansions; he sees the hon. the Minister of Sport building braaivleis places where not to entertain cricketers. When these casual observers see the growth—the multiplying of the Government—they tend to think of South Africa as having grown.

I would ask those who have dreamt of South Africa as leader of this continent, to look at what has happened since this Government took over in a different balance sheet from that which my colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow, dealt with. We in South Africa were, and still are today, a pioneer people. We are a people filled with the pioneering spirit, with the faith and confidence which pioneers have. That was the situation which faced this Government when it came to power. Now, after 23 years, let us look for a moment at what it has done with that pioneering spirit, a spirit in which towns were built in a decade. Let us take an entrepreneur, a man who wants to develop a new project— build a factory in South Africa. He has established that it is economically feasible to do so. He has established that the raw materials are available. He has the capital and the skill, and knows there is labour available. He has, or can get, communications, and he has a market. With that he should be able to establish the factory. But no! He then has to go to the Government. He has to bump into the Industrial Planning Act with its tentacles into all the departments. He has to think of group areas and border areas and he has to find out what labour he may use. He has to negotiate in respect of water and has to deal with local and regional authorities. When this is all done he has to go to the great “makulu-baas”, the virtual dictator of all economic life in South Africa, namely the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Only then can he start to establish his factory. Then he is told that he may not, or that he may establish it if he has 2½ Bantu for every one White employee, or vice versa. He therefore has to employ more Whites to get more Bantu. But let us assume that he has got it all. When he has his factory he finds that he cannot get a telephone and so he cannot communicate. Then he makes his product and finds out that he cannot get railway trucks to bring him raw materials or to ship his finished product. In the meantime the hon. the Minister of Finance has put a sales tax on his product and more taxes have been added. He then finds out that his venture is not an economic proposition any more. He then has to employ an army of clerks to fill in all the forms the Government wants from him. In the end he finds that it is not an economic proposition. That is what this Government does with the pioneer spirit of South Africa. It turns it into the spirit of a puppet, the puppet of a government which exists through red tape and regulations. He will slowly be strangled because this Government has no respect for and does not want the true pioneer spirit here. If it did it would not react as it does to criticism.

*Every time any person criticizes the Government his conduct is labelled unpatriotic and he is being subversive. The Government does not want pioneers. They do not want Voortrekkers or the spirit of the Voortrekkers. They want people who are yes-men.

†They want submissiveness and people whom they can control at their will. I have dealt with the question of the spirit, but let us now look at the other factors of production.

Let us look at capital. We heard excuses and explanations, but the fact is that the man who wants to develop industry today, even if he has the capital, is so taxed and his initiative so suppressed by the policy of the Government that he will think three or four times before making an investment.

Then let us look at the question of skills. When this Government came into power the cream of Europe stood in queues to come out here. Now we hear how the number of immigrants is dropping and that we must plead with them to come and that we have to subsidize them. We must give them free housing until they are established. We must do everything to try to attract them. Despite all this we do not get enough immigrants. When this Government came into power immigrants were queuing to come here at their own cost and risk.

The hon. the Minister talks of productivity and labour, but what incentive is there for productivity when he and all the other Ministers stand up on platforms and say:

*“Do not worry. We will look after you. Do not be afraid, we will look after you. We will see to it that your jobs are not in danger and that you do not have to work too hard. We will see to it that you can safely relax in your little jobs and do as little as you please.” This is what the Government is saying. Now what incentive is that for productivity? The incentive for productivity is of a twofold nature. In the first place more money can be made by producing more. That is the profit motive. In the second place there is the knowledge that if you do not work your job is in danger. But what is the Government doing to encourage either of those two prerequisites for productivity?

†No, Sir, let them not talk of productivity. The whole policy of this Government is designed to prevent one of the two essential incentives for productivity, namely that of competition for jobs. I think the hon. the Minister of Labour likes the situation. I am sure he likes it; he always brags about it, A person knows that he need not work, because if he walks out of his job tomorrow, he can get another five jobs, and possibly even more pay. It is because the Minister of Labour has failed to provide a working force which will ensure that there are enough people to do the jobs which are available to be done. The hon. the Minister has failed to train enough workers. He has failed to train enough apprentices to replace those who fall away. And so, Mr. Speaker, because of the failure of the Government there are too few people to fill too many jobs, and therefore there is no incentive to produce. That is one of the big arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Why do we not help them to create productivity?

Then you need markets. We had the markets. I do not want to repeat what has been said about what has happened to South Africa’s markets in Africa or anywhere else today. They are boycotted, blocked, or, where they are open, we are priced out by the economic policy of the Government.

Mention a few examples.

Examples? Let him talk to the people who cannot export their coal, who cannot export minerals because the cost structure of the Government is such that they cannot compete on world markets.

But they had another asset, more valuable than any of those which I have mentioned. That was an asset unique in Africa. I refer to the interdependence of White and non-White in one economy, and with that interdependence, the goodwill that went with it, the goodwill between White and non-White, based on the knowledge that they were contributing together to one economy, and each needed the other to exist. That is all destroyed by the breaking up process in which this Government has indulged, breaking away into border industries, Bantustan industries, creating a migrant work force, creating an unsettled, unstable work force, and then we talk of productivity! How do you get productivity when there is no security and no stability for your worker, when he knows that today he can work and tomorrow he can be out. When he has worked for a year he has to go back to the bandu. What productivity do you get from that man, whom you have had no opportunity to train and properly settle as a permanent worker? So one can go on. The pioneer spirit is crushed by a government which is fundamentally opposed in its very nature to individualism amongst people or amongst businessmen, a Government which wants everything to be submissive.

All the tools, all the needs of economic growth are controlled by this Government is such a way as to produce the smallest possible scope for the expression of individuality, for the spirit of “dare” which is necessary if we are to fully exploit our natural resources. We have got those natural resources. I said earlier that we in our time dreamed of our country as the leader of Africa. It can still be that. All that stands in the way today, is this Government. We need in power here not a Government which appeals to us to help its lame horses along. We need a Government which will restore the pioneer spirit. We need a Government which will encourage and not strangle progress. We need a Government which will properly exploit our natural resources, human, mineral and otherwise, in South Africa. We need a Government which will strike at the roots of dissatisfaction, of unhappiness, of poverty, and which will at the same time thereby, at the roots of subversion. Because if you eliminate the things which make people unhappy and insecure, then you eliminate the field in which the agitator can work. We need a Government which, by providing security to people, will create stability not only of the State but also security in the home of the individual and with it the building up of a new spirit in South Africa, a spirit which I believe this Government is slowly destroying—the spirit of pride in doing better for yourself. If the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just returned to the House wants to create productivity, then help us to restore the pride of the worker in his work, the pride of the worker in what he produces, and the incentive to know that if he works that little bit harder, if he does that little more, he will receive a reward which will not be gobbled up by the galloping inflation which this Government is allowing today. I say again: Do not talk to us in airy-fairy theory. Talk to the people who have to live in South Africa. Talk to the people who are trying to make ends meet. Talk to the people who do not have these vast incomes the hon. the Minister of Finance talks about. Talk to the people who invested their money and who have to live today on the interest on that investment. Talk to the people who were public servants and who are living today on a pension which, after devaluation and after inflation, is not enough for them to live on. Talk to the people who live on the hand-outs of this Government, on which they are expected to survive, such as R38 a month for a White social pensioner. Talk to these people and explain to them this wonderful economic utopia in which they are living. Talk to the person who is walking up and down the streets of every city in South Africa today, knocking on the door of every estate agent, saying: “Do you not have a cheaper house for me? Do you not have a cheaper flat?” Have any of those members tried going from estate agent to estate agent just looking for a roof to cover someone’s head, particularly when there are children involved? I have made inquiries and I have tried friend after friend in the estate agency business, but they say “We are sorry; we have nothing to offer you”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point a blunder he has made. We do not have galloping inflation in this country. It does not exist here. We are still subject to a degree of creeping inflation, but there is a vast difference between the two. I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point this: He need not be concerned about our role in Africa. This Republic of ours will still become the leader in Africa, but we shall become the leader in Africa on our terms and not on terms dictated to us, terms under which you will give way.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked the hon. the Minister of Finance with tears in his eyes, “What am I to say to my wife about the cost of living?” I want to tell him what he is to tell her. He should tell her, “Be grateful that you are living in South Africa; be grateful that you have a National Party Government in control”. He should tell his wife, “We in the United Party do not know how to improve the cost of living position in South Africa; we in the United Party do not have any economic policy; we are living from day to day; we are living on the crumbs falling from the table; we exist on scavenging; we are negative; we do not have any message, but keep on complaining about the cost of living”. This is what he should tell his wife.

And eat margarine.

You are looking well on margarine.

Sir, we in South Africa, in comparison with the rest of the world, as the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated here, are living in absolutely normal times. In South Africa there is truly nothing abnormal. On the contrary, our circumstances are absolutely normal. In South Africa there is no unemployment but there is unemployment in other comparable countries. Why does the U.P. not mention this? Sir, show me any country which does not have inflation. In any economically developed country inflation is a perfectly normal phenomenon today. Today a rate of inflation of 3 per cent is even regarded as normal. Sir, the United Party can give us no answer to the question of how we can live without inflation. It is not a question of my wanting to condone inflation; we should all like to control it but they cannot tell us how we shall be able to control it. What they are criticizing is virtually normal circumstances. That is why they are bent on following a line of action of deriding and besmirching the hon. the Minister. They do not care what harm they do South Africa in this process; they do not care whether or not they harm South Africa’s image overseas.

Sir, so as to be able to understand the present economic set-up and so as to be able to evaluate the role of the United Party in this regard, we really have to divide events over the past 15 months into three phases. Two of those phases resulted from foreign circumstances over which we had no control. The first phase started in the latter part of 1970 when we experienced an economic upsurge and when inflationary pressure started building up. The Government took all the known and acknowledged measures for cooling down the economy. There were clear signs that inflation would be brought under strong control. The increase in the rate of inflation dropped to 0,3 per cent in November, 1971, after an average of 0,5 per cent and 0,6 per cent per month. There was absolutely no indication that there were any widespread recession trends. On the contrary, our national economy was functioning on a very high level. That was in November, and then the United Party held a congress, then we had the “great brag”.

The circus.

I see that the Leader of the Opposition congratulated himself at that time, according to the Pretoria News, for having been Leader of the Opposition for 15 years and for having put up a record in this connection. Sir, I, too, want to convey to him my sincere congratulations. I hope he will retain the office of Leader of the Opposition for his full term of office in Parliament. I want to associate myself with the hon. the Prime Minister by telling him that he is the best Leader of the Opposition our Government has ever had. But now, as I have said, prior to that time the United Party had criticized us vehemently for not being able to get inflation under control and for not being able to cool down the economy. When we did cool the economy down, what happened then? They no longer spoke about deficits but cried to high heaven about depression. The hon. member for Parktown, according to headlines of the Rand Daily Mail told the Government, “Alter thinking or face recession”. What did he say in that article? He offered the people five points, five “basic essentials”. The following was what he offered the people; this was what occurred at that “great brag”. And the first point he offered was “confidence”. I like the word “confidence”. His first “basic essential” was this: “The basic essentials were the building of a climate of confidence”. Sir, they will go and tell the people to have confidence in South Africa. This is fine, but the only solution they now have is to become comforters of the sick.

But do you agree?

Yes, but why do they not do so now? His second “basic essential” was “full employment for all races and the right of all people to develop at their maximum potential”. A fine sentiment, but merely words. They are offering nothing new. After all, we do have full employment at the moment. Under the National Party there has been full employment for years.

But what about the full potential?

Surely they cannot give the people something it already has. This is what they are offering now. I now come to his third “basic essential”, i.e. “steadily rising standards of living for all”. But this, too, is something which has been happening every day for years.

Where?

Of course. Over the past five years income increased by 8,46 per cent and you know that over the past five years the rise in the cost of living was 3,94 per cent. If this is not an increase in the standard of living it is beyond me what it is. However, this again is something they are offering the people it already has. His fourth “basic essential” was “curbing the continuous rise in the cost of living”. Now this is significant. Now you have to pay careful attention, Sir. He did not say that he would put an end to the rise in the cost of living. He spoke of “curbing it”. He would try to control it, and he did not say to what extent. But surely this is what we, too, are doing. This is what we have been trying to do and what the entire world has been trying to do, but the world cannot succeed in doing so. He is not offering anything new. These are just words. I now come to his fifth “basic essential”, i.e. “a prosperous South Africa developing its full resources, both human and material”. Just imagine, Sir! This is something we are already doing on a scientific basis. [Interjections] This is being done under our economic development programme. What is more, we know exactly at what growth rate we have to develop. He did not even mention this. I say these are hollow words without any new content, without any proposals for the creation of better circumstances.

Now we come to the second phase of the economic events which actually started on 15th August when America decided to impose an import levy and to cease the exchange of gold against the dollar. These events had far-reaching consequences throughout the world and also affected South Africa very intimately. At that stage the Government’s standpoint and policy of not applying import control were bearing fruit. It was an excellent method of combating inflation too. There were indications that imports were declining and there was also a decrease in the deficit on the current balance of payment’s account. Then followed the American announcement and action which struck the world like a thunderbolt and immediately created tremendous uncertainty in the international monetary world. Because South Africa is tied to gold and in that way to the dollar as well, that affected South Africa detrimentally and aggravated the balance of payment problem. The uncertain monetary situation implied the possibility of South Africa devaluing and of other currencies appreciating as against its own. Speculators and dealers knew this, of course, and exploited the situation. The result of this was that the flow of capital and payments to South Africa were delayed. On the other hand, orders and imports as well as payments to countries abroad were expedited. This had the effect of giving rise to a dual outflow of foreign exchange from South Africa which, in its turn, greatly endangered our reserves. All of this happened because of events abroad. The hon. the Minister and the Government took immediate action. There was no hesitation. At that stage it was not at all clear and absolutely uncertain for how long this situation would continue. Import control was then introduced on 24th November. Now, however, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members on that side of this House say jeeringly that the hon. the Minister had said prior to that time that there would be no import control. Of course he was unable to tell. This, however, was forced on him. He had no alternative. It is irresponsible of those hon. members to say this. This once again proves how well this country is governed by this National Party. It proves that this country is governed by a resolute hand and that action is taken when action has to be taken.

As regards import control, this situation continued up to 20th December. That was the beginning of the third phase of the economic process. Once again a brand new set of economic factors entered the picture which took the economy of the country in a completely different direction. At that time the dollar was defeated and gold was restored to its throne as the primary international medium of exchange and payment. The floor price of gold was increased and South Africa devalued by 12½ per cent. In other words, we receive much more for gold in terms of the rand.

At this stage I should like to pay tribute to the Government and to the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular for the statesmanship and vision displayed in this connection. Many times in this House the hon. the Minister had predicted what would happened. And then it did happen. The hon. the Minister never lost his faith and trust in gold. He was so well-informed and his knowledge of the international monetary circumstances was so well-founded, that he was able at all times to defend and promote the role of gold without his ever giving offence anywhere on international level. As a statesman he always kept one thing in mind and that was that monetary stability had to be maintained in the world. I believe that South Africa stepped from this situation with much honour and prestige. I want to thank the Government sincerely for the absolute efficiency and the exceptional way in which it handled this situation of devaluation. When the time arrived for taking a gap in the interests of the economy of South Africa without causing any disruption, that gap was taken and taken very well. I believe that no right-thinking person in the world will have any doubt that these events will be a great blessing and a means of salvation for South Africa and that gold will be the mainspring in South African economic development and expansion.

Now we come to the United Party’s attitude. This is very interesting. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville because in this regard, as I saw in the Press, he took a stand in advance. He accepted the principle of devaluation and said that we should devalue.

Yes, under the circumstances created by the Government.

It does not matter; the hon. member need not explain. He accepted the principle of devaluation. After devaluation, as far as I followed this in the Press, I saw that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Parktown had also accepted devaluation in principle. Unfortunately the hon. member for Hillbrow is not present here at the moment. Wonder of wonders, when he was approached, he was not prepared to issue a statement. I do not know why—the occasion was probably too great for him. He quickly passed the ball to the hon. member for Parktown and said he had to take a decision in that regard. Today it sounds to me as though the hon. member for Hillbrow repudiated this leaders. At that time a strange phenomenon made its appearance in the ranks of the United Party. A new star appeared in the columns of the Sunday Times—I do not know whether this was the seventh or the eighth financial star. In any event, a statement was published by a new financial oracle on the horizon. In broad outline the hon. member copied the Minister, who had given six sound reasons for devaluation. I shall read the headlines “Six practical reasons why devaluation must fail”. He rejected devaluation in principle and repudiated all his leaders, without exception. In the article he said—

Now those hon. members on the opposite side will simply have to decide what they are to do with him. In addition to this there was a further wonderful, thoughtless statement from him which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. I think this may still become a piece of Africana. In the light of all the benefits which the gold mines may derive from it, he stated—

Therefore, devaluation is worthless to the gold mines. Now these are the people who give us a talking to and accuse us of “financial mismanagement and ineptitude”. However, we are at least still managing the country and we at least will have something to manage, but I accuse them of complete financial impotence. They cannot produce anything.

I now come to the labour policy, the policy which was so severely criticized by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. Hon. members know that this is a point of attack which the United Party has been repeating without rhyme or reason year after year. They allege that it is the direct cause of prevailing inflation. We reject this statement, of course, but I should like to know exactly what their own policy is in this regard. I am particularly pleased that the hon. member for Yeoville is present here. They speak of the utilization of the labour potential to its full optimum. This gives them the appearance and the image of respectability and reasonableness among the leftists and the Progressives when they are canvassing votes, because it immediately implies that an attack is being made on influx control and job reservation under the National Party. They are blowing hot and cold, and I am now seeking a clear exposition of that Party’s policy.

You will get it, too.

Yes, we should like to hear it. We want to know where hon. members stand. The Sunday Times of 26th December, 1971, made an attempt to put something in writing. They said, inter alia, that it was unsound that White South Africa should be protected on the labour market from competition from the majority of the South African population. They went on to recommend as follows—

Who said that?

The Sunday Times. Surely it is their paper, at least I hope so. The hon. member should tell us whether or not this is so. I am now asking the United Party whether it subscribes to this standpoint. Mr. Speaker, we all know that this policy mentioned in the Sunday Times is a J-squared policy, it is the policy of Japie and Joel. Now we want to know whether the United Party accepts that policy. In future they may perhaps run into a lot of trouble with J-squared. I want to suggest that that statement really touched the heart of the matter, and this is important. What is implied here in the statement of the Sunday Times is a free labour market in South Africa. In other words, a free labour market either exists in South Africa or it does not. Therefore it is either a free market or a controlled and protected labour market. On many occasions speakers on this side of the House have motivated our policy of a controlled labour market in heterogeneous South Africa from all angles, i.e. in the light of racial peace, housing, etc., and I do not wish to discuss this again. But we want to know from the United Party exactly what its policy is. Hon. members opposite should spell it out for us. When I read what is published in their Press and when I listen to certain of their propagandists and leaders, it seems to me as though their policy is exactly the same as that of the Progressive Party, but when we speak of an absolutely free market, the hon. member for Yeoville always says that the United Party, too, is in favour of influx control. When we speak of this he says that the United Party, too, is not prepared to allow non-Whites into jobs to which the trade unions have not agreed; in other words, this, too, is a controlled market.

You know our policy.

Better than you know it yourself.

If that is your policy, surely the action of the United Party is bordering on political hypocrisy. In that case, surely the United Party has no grounds on which it can attack our policy. In that case, surely the United Party can no longer adopt the attitude that inflation is being caused by our labour policy, because their policy will have the same consequences. If it is their policy to establish a completely open and free market here, as the Progressive Party wants it to be, it will nevertheless, in my opinion, have no important effect or influence on the inflation index or on the structural pattern from which inflation develops. For this there are two reasons. The first reason is that the United Party has always been arguing from a false premise, i.e. that a free labour market will bring increased and cheaper production; that more labour brings more production. That is not so.

It is elementary.

We are dealing with unskilled labour. More labour brings increased unit costs. This is always the case.

You do not want to educate them.

It may bring lower productivity; it may bring labour unrest; it may result in all kinds of things. This statement of theirs has never been proved empirically. It is a kind of magic, instant solution they are holding up to us.

It is nothing more than a political cliché. The Progressive Party wants to establish this free market because they accept it as an ideology and a principle. But with the United Party it is not an ideology. They discuss and advocate it merely from a materialistic point of view. They simply want to catch the votes of the industrialists.

The second reason for my saying that even if such a market were to be established, it would have no effect on inflation, is that under National Party policy, in terms of which labour as a production factor is divided into various segments of markets, there already is, in any event, full utilization of the labour potential. The broad labour market is simply divided into various labour sectional markets on which there …

You are just talking nonsense!

Just listen to that! … on which there is full competition within their own ranks. However, these sectional markets are protected and closed to foreign elements for security purposes. Instead of labour over-running the entire country in a wild, unruly and uncontrolled manner, the labour market, or supply of work, is taken to the labourer by means of canalizing the industries to certain areas through the process of decentralization. Since 1960 an estimated amount of more than R500 million has been invested on an agency basis in the border areas and inside the homelands. Work has been created for approximately—this is not an exact figure, but an estimate—100 000 Bantu. Therefore one can see that this already is a reasonably major factor in our economy. No ceiling has been placed on the jobs or on the earnings of the workers. Therefore the labour potential is being utilized to the optimum. It has already been proved that labour in border areas is more productive than it is in the White areas, where a Bantu people is working away from its national ties. I believe that through decentralization labour is being utilized to the same extent, or possibly to a larger extent, and more fruitfully than it is being utilized within the large, free market spread over the whole of South Africa.

The pattern of inflation will not be influenced because among the various sectional markets or segmented markets themselves there is competition. Industrialists and entrepreneurs will move to those labour sectional markets where the cheapest labour and all production factors are to be obtained. Therefore in the end there will be very little difference between production costs and production volume, apart from the fact whether labour moves to industry on the open market or whether industry moves to labour on the sectional market. In the end the volume of production is still determined by demand. Therefore, there will be as many sectional markets as there are homelands and border areas. The quantity of goods produced will be equal to the demand. Nothing is being restricted. Eventually a pattern of labour utilization will take root which may be more efficient than on one large open market.

I want to tell this House and the people outside that the National Party governs this country just as well as any country is governed, if not better. Judging from our achievements, which may be compared to those of the rest of the world in the economic field, we govern our country better because our achievements are better. In this country our standards of living—the things we enjoy—are in every respect better and more than those of any man with a comparable income in any other country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietersburg. I do not feel there is any need for me to react to what the hon. member said. The hon. member, like all the other hon. members on that side of the House, tried in vain to furnish replies to the accusations levelled and questions asked so specifically by my hon. Leader and other speakers on this side of the House. From what I have heard from that side of the House, it has become quite clear to me that matters have gone altogether wrong for the Nationalist Party on all fronts. I make so bold as to say that the long-delayed moment of truth for this Government has now arrived in earnest. It is tragic to see the pass to which this Government has brought South Africa as a result of its poor administration. Economic prospects deteriorate by the day. The Stock Exchange continues to be weak and uncertain. South Africa is caught in and is being inhibited by never-ending inflation. Any economist in this country will confirm that this state of affairs will continue and get worse unless the Government changes its race and labour policy. Businessmen, and particularly the dynamic group of new Afrikaner businessmen, feel very unhappy and frustrated because of this ideological inhibition the Government places on the economy. The Government has reached a dead end with its policy in respect of the Coloureds and the Asiatics and is forced to leave the implementation thereof to a future generation. But this is not the end of the story. The inner conflict among many prominent Nationalists is a clear indication that they do not find any peace of mind in the half-hearted and negative actions of the Nationalist Party as far as these extremely important matters are concerned. Events during the past six months emphasized the fact that this Government, because of its indecision and inability to handle the major problems of South Africa, has led our country to a political and economic dead end. One can now sense that the Government is beginning to realize that the position in its own ranks and in the country is heading for a dramatic crisis. What we on this side of the House find so disturbing is the fact that as the state of affairs deteriorates, as it must deteriorate under the impractical policy of this Government, the Nationalist Party will act in an even more high-handed manner to try to compensate for its inability to deal with the major problems of South Africa. But to aggravate the problems of the Government even further race relations are deteriorating and frustration and resentment among the non-Whites is growing. As a result of this a climate is being created today in which Black Power movements in South Africa are able to gain momentum. There are also signs that the outspokenness and independent expression of ideas by the homeland leaders are becoming more and more of an embarrassment to the Government. We on this side of the House still remember very well how annoyed the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was because one of the homeland leaders had asked for more land and authority. At that time that hon. Minister described it as untimely overhastiness.

What I have mentioned here, are only a few of the problems which now cause the Government to try to create an artificial atmosphere of crisis in order to divert attention. The Government must be quite naïve if it believes that the electorate and the United Party can be misled as easily as all that. It is true that it has taken a long time, but the voters outside realize today that the policy of separate development of this Government will never be able to solve the race problem in South Africa. Symposiums on the population explosion which were held recently gave a clear indication that, even if the homelands were to be developed to their utmost extent, the ratio of Whites to non-Whites in South Africa would still remain at at least one to four. Of course, this means that, under the policy of this Government, there will always be race domination in South Africa. Every sensible person will realize that a policy such as that is not acceptable in a modern community. It is also obvious that race domination is unacceptable to the Western countries. Without the support of these countries, the White civilization in South Africa, as we know it, cannot continue to exist. Nevertheless, because of its introversion and totally unrealistic race policy, the Government is endangering this important support and is driving South Africa into greater political isolation.

Let us examine for a moment the Government’s approach to the Coloureds and Asiatics. In point of fact, it is quite difficult to believe that the whole basis of a party’s philosophy and policy can be as contradictory as that of the Nationalist Party is. The Nationalist Party has always adopted the standpoint that South Africa can only follow one of two courses; the one is to divide Whites and non-Whites in separate homelands, or, alternatively, to face the consequences of integration. The Nationalist Party has always insisted that there is no middle course and has, in fact, ridiculed the United Party for suggesting such a thing. But what do we find now? The Nationalist Party has now formally and, without so much as a blush, through the hon. the Prime Minister, rejected the whole concept of integration and separate homelands for Coloureds and Asiatics. In its place he now prefers a system of parallel development, the very same thing the Nationalist Party has always been telling the United Party is unrealistic and politically dishonest.

In the short time still at my disposal I should like to come back to what I regard as the major problem of the Government, and, by implication, of South Africa, viz., the problem of the urban Bantu.

†During the last Parliamentary session one could not help but notice that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made use of every possible opportunity during debates to expound and wax lyrical about the Government’s constitutional blueprint for the homelands. But what I find so strange is that the Government, and in particular the hon. the Minister, who after all, is supposed to be an expert in the field, do not seem to grasp the very fundamental fact that there will be, whether we like it or not, millions of detribalized Africans living and working in the industrial areas of South Africa. It is this inescapable fact that makes the Government’s present policy of separate Black states, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, politically naïve and strategically very dangerous for South Africa. By denying a real stake in South Africa to the urban Bantu, the Government is in effect creating what can only be described as a landless, rootless and voiceless proletariat that must hold out immense dangers for South Africa in the future. The policy which this Government is following so stubbornly and so dogmatically in regard to the urban Bantu is a very dangerous one, because for the Africans it means insecurity of the worst possible kind, lack of home ownership, lack of adequate training for their work, inadequate schooling for their children, absolutely no security at the end of their working lives, and the very dismal prospect of being dumped in some under-developed tribal homeland, which they possibly have never seen. If it is thought that I am over stating my case, or if there are doubts in the minds of hon. members on that side of the House about the feeling of bitterness and resentment which is building up within the minds of the urban Bantu, I want to suggest to them that they read a very timely article, an article which was published in their own Sunday newspaper, Rapport, during February of last year. In this report we were warned that the attitudes of Africans towards the Whites gave cause for concern. The survey showed that almost 90 per cent of the Africans who were canvessed felt that there was no general feeling of good will between White and non-White. The report went on to say that the survey revealed a feeling of frustration among a certain group of Africans, a bitterness and an anti-Afrikaans feeling, as well as a total lack of goodwill towards, Whites, surely a disturbing situation. I believe, Sir, that the time has arrived when the Government must face up to the fact that it is the Bantu in the urban area who represents the most urgent aspect of South Africa’s race problem. It is the ever-increasing number of detribalized Africans in the urban areas that aggravates and intensifies this problem, and it is here, in the urban areas, that a contented home life, which is basic to the building up of a responsible, contented, middle-class urban Bantu community, is denied the Africans. Mr. Speaker, it is in the urban areas that an entirely new class of educated African is arising, an African who is painfully aware of the fact that he has no real stake in the country in which he permanently lives and works, that he has absolutely no say in the making of the laws that govern him and that affect his life from the cradle to the grave and that he has absolutely no right of permanent domicile. Sir, when you add to what I have just said the fact that many of these urban Bantu families must be living under conditions of abject poverty, then you realize why the Bantu in the urban areas is the flash point of South Africa’s race problem. You see, Sir, the poverty datum line for a family of five living in a place like Soweto —this is the minimum necessary to provide for the bare essentials of rent, transport, food, clothing, etc.—has been set down at R73 per month. Sir, when you read the figures of the economics department of the University of South Africa, you will find that the average wage paid to Africans in manufacturing and construction is R50 a month. Mr. Speaker, I have only given you the povery datum line at R73, but if one goes fractionally higher to allow for a few extras like children’s school fees, books, reading and writing materials and the replacement of ordinary household utensils, then you get a figure of R98 a month. Sir, I want to say this to the Government: It is this factor of the cost of living and the actual wages earned that is in itself enough to ensure that under a Government with a policy that deliberately holds back the occupational advancement of the urban Bantu, you will never have that stable urban community which you need so much as a bulwark against agitators.

Sir, the trouble with the Government’s policy of separate development is this: Even if this policy is successful to the highest possible degree envisaged for it by the optimists, it will never solve the fundamental race problem in South Africa. You see, Sir, in the event of the homelands being developed to the utmost which the Tomlinson Commission thought them capable of being developed, then by the end of the century they will be able to contain only 10 million Africans, and this, by the Commission’s own reckoning, means that at least a further 10 million Africans will be permanently domiciled in the White areas of South Africa. I want to go further and say that more recent calculations place this figure at 18 million. What, might one ask, is to happen to those 10 to 18 million detribalized Africans? Will it be morally defensible to provide them with separation without adequate development? Are they to be exposed to the sting and the constant irritation of petty apartheid for ever and a day without any compensatory rights? I ask the Government: Should not the dialogue, besides advocating far more rapid development of the homelands, also deal with the very vital problem of creating a just and stable relationship between all the other races living outside the homelands? Sir, we on this side of the House, being realists, certainly believe so. We believe, too, that any dialogue must start by disregarding the erroneous assumption that there is a rural future for any man who desires it. We say that inevitably the future of the majority of South Africans of all races is industrial. This does not mean to say that all industries must be in Johannesburg, Rosslyn, Durban, or any other of the larger centres; they can be anywhere where they are economic but, Sir, let us not bluff ourselves. To be economic they must be multi-racial. Mr. Speaker, it is no good bluffing ourselves. The whole future growth, prosperity and safety of South Africa depends on all the races living and working together in harmony, and surely this means that we must progress faster towards the rate for the job. There is no need for all the races to live in the same residential areas, but there is bound to be friction if separate residential and all other amenities do not move at the same time to some form of equality. Sir, it is no good bluffing ourselves that the millions of detribalized Africans living and working permanently outside the homelands are going to be satisfied with a completely nebulous postal voice in a place like Umtata or Sibasa.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more one could say in regard to the problem—and, believe me, it is a problem—of the urban Bantu. But I want to conclude by saying this: If we delay a solution to the problem of the urban Bantu, we do so at our peril. I think it has also become painfully obvious that under the present policies of this Government a solution is not possible. I want to suggest in all sincerity to the Government that in the interests of South Africa and all its people, and even at the risk of losing face, they should sit down and re-think their policy on the urban Bantu. I want to go further, Sir, and say that they must start off by facing up to the fact once and for all that the millions of urban Bantu working and living outside the homelands are not temporary citizens; they are in fact an integral part of the whole economy of South Africa. And I would go even further and say that they have a vital and decisive role to play in the future of this country. I say that if we accept this, then it becomes apparent that their conditions of living and working must be improved immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some suggestions. I believe the quickest way to achieve this is to follow certain steps which I am going to set out here.

Firstly, the urban Bantu must be provided with better residential, social and educational amenities. Secondly, there must be an immediate acceleration of work-training methods for the urban Bantu. Thirdly, there must be a relaxation of influx control—and I say “relaxation” advisedly—to provide for greater job mobility and, this is very important, an uninterrupted home life for the urban Bantu. Finally it is in our own interests to develop a stable and responsible urban Bantu community to act as a bulwark against the ever-present agitator, and to do this, deserving Africans must be exempted from the pass laws and they must be given the right to gain freehold title to their homes in the African townships. What I have said here I know is basic United Party policy for the urban Bantu. I am not being at all facetious when I say that the Government should use what I have suggested here as guide lines in dealing with this very crucial problem of the urban Bantu in South Africa.

I want to end off on this note. There was a rather disturbing tendency during the last session of Parliament that every time a member on this side of the House decided to speak up for the urban Bantu we were accused of doing so deliberately to foster antagonism between Whites and non-Whites. I want to give a warning to this House. We are all elected here by the people. Our feeling is that the urban Bantu has no representation in this House and as long as that exists we reserve the right at all times to raise matters concerning the urban Bantu and we will not be scared or put off by anything said by the side of the House.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North made an interesting speech this afternoon, but with reference to the note on which he concluded, I should like to know from the hon. member what kind of representation his party wants to give the urban Bantu in this House, because I shall indicate to the House that, over the past few months, the United Party have kept very quiet about the representation of the Bantu in this House. I shall also indicate to the House how the main mouthpiece of the United Party, the Sunday Times, which the United Party slavishly follows— as was proved in their leadership crisis and in the crisis between the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—dictates to the United Party. I foresee now that the United Party will still follow that advice, and say that there will be no representation in this House on the basis on which the United Party advocates it. I shall try to indicate to the House that this standpoint goes so far that the Bantu are to have representation as advocated by the National Party. But it is also interesting to note the standpoint which the hon. member adopted here this afternoon, and I want to ask him whether the urban Bantu are yet another population group, additional to those in the classification made by the hon. member for Turffontein; because the hon. member for Turffontein stated in a report in Die Vaderland that all population groups in South Africa are one nation. The hon. member for Johannesburg North must now tell us whether the urban Bantu are yet another separate population group which has to be incorporated, or are the urban Bantu also part of that one nation which the hon. member for Turffontein spoke about? If this is the case, I ask hon. members: Why do they not grant the full civil rights to all those different communities which should be granted to one nation? Why do they not give all those different communities the vote, as ought to be done in the case of one nation? Why do they not give all those different communities unqualified residential rights, as ought to be done in the case of one nation? In that report I think the hon. member even goes so far as to say that every person ought to be able to choose for himself where he wants to live.

Nonsense!

At any rate it was a member of the United Party who said every person ought to be able to decide for himself where he wants to live. Now I ask the hon. members: If they want to include everyone under one dispensation, as one nation, why are they not honest and give these people residential and political rights? But it will not help the hon. member for Turffontein to sit there muttering now. The hon. member must give us replies to this.

Read the article.

I shall read you the report. The hon. member for Johannesburg North now wants to give the urban Bantu representation in this House itself. Now I just want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North: What kind of representation does he want to give them here? I shall tell you why I am asking this question. I am asking this question because the leading figures on the Urban Bantu Council of Johannesburg say they want direct representation in the white Parliament. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with Mr. Lengele? After all, you are now the important gentlemen acting on behalf of the Urban Bantu Council. Tell us now whether you agree with that. You see, Mr. Speaker, the position is that the urban Bantu, on whose behalf hon. members opposite want to act as champions, do not want to have anything to do with that policy. The urban Bantu do not want to have anything to do with this policy.

Who says so?

I shall indicate to you that the urban Bantu want direct representation. I shall tell you this much, Sir: The United Party cannot quote a single Bantu leader in South Africa who is unconditionally prepared to accept the policy of the United Party as far as their representation in this House is concerned, and I shall tell you why. It is because the Bantu of South Africa know that the United Party is being politically dishonest with them. I challenge them here to quote any responsible Bantu who is prepared to accept the policy of the United Party. But it will not be accepted, for the simple reason that no Bantu is prepared to live under White leadership in South Africa for ever. [Interjections.] What does the National Party say? The National Party says: We are responsible enough to realize this. But what is more, we are honest with the people and we say we are not prepared to let the situation which exists in America develop in South Africa. What is the situation in America? In terms of the American Constitution all people are equal; Black and White are equal and all of them have the same rights, but what happens in practice? Because of dishonesty towards the Black man in practice, one today has those revolts and petitions for civil rights. Now I say there are only two ways open to the Bantu in South Africa, i.e. the way advocated by the National Party and the way advocated by the hon. member for Houghton. There are no other ways open, and you will find no Bantu who will even pay attention to any of these other ways. There is no acceptance whatsoever of the middle course of the United Party.

What course are you taking?

The hon. member for Yeoville knows very well. The hon. member for Yeoville has not yet spoken to any Bantu leader in Johannesburg. I challenge him to mention that man’s name, as a responsible person, if it would not embarrass him. [Interjections.] I challenge you to mention the name of any responsible Bantu person in Johannesburg who told you personally that the United Party policy, as you put it to him, was acceptable to him. There is no such person. I shall tell you this, Sir I think I am quite justified in saying this, because I cannot find it in any publications. It is a fact that after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition paid a visit recently to the Urban Bantu Council in Johannesburg, some Bantu leaders commented on certain points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and on certain assurances he gave them, for example those on influx control and certain other matters to which the United Party will give attention. Then one of those very leaders said that they were very reluctant to accept the representation the United Party offered them. One at least went so far as to say they would rather take what they could get because half a loaf is better than none. That is how far they went. However, the urban Bantu of South Africa know that the National Party treats them honestly and fairly. Now I say if hon. members on the opposite side were, with a show of hands, to indicate which of them have taken the trouble during the past six months to have personal talks with urban Bantu leaders or ordinary inhabitants of urban Bantu Townships, not 5 per cent would be able to raise their hands. [Interjections.] Do you see, Sir? The hon. member for Yeoville wants to raise his hand. [Interjections.]

Order!

The other few hon. members over there at the back are doing so because of disciplinary considerations. Not even 5 per cent are raising their hands, and then the hon. members want to act here as the champions of the urban Bantu! The hon. members do not even speak to these people personally; they do not even enter the Bantu areas, except for a visit when that hon. member was present …

Ridiculous!

Yes, I saw the hon. member paid a visit there. The hon. member was there on a bus trip. But how many of the other hon. members have ever taken the trouble to visit those areas, except on the occasion of that bus trip? How many of the hon. members have taken the trouble to go and speak to those people? [Interjection.] Yes, I know the hon. member for Johannesburg North does so, but not even 5 per cent of hon. members on the opposite side do so. Hon. members of the United Party must therefore not get up in this House as the wonderful champions of the urban Bantu.

You are doing absolutely nothing!

The hon. member for Durban Central is the last person who can talk about this subject.

However, it is interesting that as the English newspapers, the Rand Daily Mail, the Sunday Times and such …

And Rapport.

The “Daily Rapport”. [Laughter.] As the English newspapers started talking about the urban Bantu and began to goad on the United Party, they have become the champions of the urban Bantu. Why are they doing this? They are now engaged in a municipal election against the Progressives in Johannesburg. These urban Bantu cannot vote for them, but they must now act as the great champions of the urban Bantu.

[Inaudible.]

Where has Mr. Carr, the director of non-White Affairs of the City Council of Johannesburg, been all these years?

That is a very good question, which I should like to ask hon. members, especially the hon. member of Yeoville, who is talking so much over there in front. Where was Mr. Carr, who was the director of the non-White Affairs Department of the City Council of Johannesburg all these years—with the United Party or with the Progressive Party? [Interjections.] With the Progressive Party, probably because he, too, realized in time that there were two courses in respect of the non-Whites in South Africa, i.e. the course of the National Party and that of the Progressive Party.

The hon. member is flattering Mr. Carr.

I am only creating an opportunity for the hon. members; I want to see how many of them are here.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned certain matters here to which I should like to refer. To be specific, the hon. member referred to dialogue. I think the hon. member does know better than that. The hon. member probably knows how many talks, how much dialogue —to use that term—does take place with the urban Bantu. The hon. member has been serving on the Johannesburg City Council for many years. He served on the committee which was concerned with that. He has a personal interest in this subject and that is why he was able to speak about it today. I do not think there are two additional hon. members on the opposite side who have enough interest to be able to speak about the urban Bantu, apart from what they read in the newspapers.

The hon. member is talking absolute nonsense. [Interjections.]

The hon. member over there does not know what I am talking about; and the hon. member for Jeppes does not even know what it is about.

Surely the hon. member for Johannesburg North knows how the Johannesburg City Council and the Government, through other bodies, such as the Resettlement Board, and other city councils, consult with the urban Bantu according to the same procedure, how they guide, help and provide for the urban Bantu daily.

High time!

Just read all the reports: talk to the people; just check the procedure which is followed there. What is more, as far as this side of the House is concerned, even the Prime Minister himself was in contact with the Urban Bantu Council for Johannesburg. So was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I now want to tell the hon. member, however, that apparently he did not consult people who know anything about this subject, because then he would certainly have spoken to Mr. Koller. According to a report in the Sunday Times on 26th September last year, Mr. Koller, the person who had then just retired as director of the Department of non-White Affairs of Johannesburg, said—

Hear, hear!

Now those hon. members will say “Hear, hear!” I quote further:

Hear, hear!

Who is this person? This person is, inter alia, the man who co-operates most closely with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his department.

He is licensed by us.

Yes, he is a person who is licensed by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and he is a responsible person. Why do the hon. members not take the trouble to consult these people? If the hon. members did so, they would not come to this House with such nonsense as far as dialogue is concerned. A deputation from the Johannesburg City Council was here a few days ago. According to a newspaper report that I read in Die Burger, they discussed inter alia the question of dialogue with the urban Bantu. Now I should like to know from the hon. members what further form of dialogue there should be with the urban Bantu. Do the hon. members want two kinds of Bantu to be created in the ranks of the Bantu? Must there be a homeland Tswana and an urban Tswana? Is that what the hon. members want? The urban Tswana, the urban Bantu belonging to that people, must have liaison with the Government and with the State authorities in one way and the homeland Bantu in a different way. In other words, the hon. members want to create subdivisions for each of those eight ethnic groups, i.e. an A section and a B section. Is that what the United Party wants? What form of dialogue should there be then? Surely those hon. members know very well. In Johannesburg there is, for example, the Urban Bantu Council. There is direct liaison between the Urban Bantu Council and the chief official of the Johannesburg City Council and also with the department and with the hon. the Minister. Furthermore, the hon. members know what the arrangement with the delegates of the people is. Surely the hon. member knows what the function of the delegates of the people is and what work they have to do. Surely the hon. member knows of the liaison by those delegates with that very population group, with the homeland government and with the homeland state authority which has its seat in Soweto. What additional form of dialogue does the hon. member advocate? The only form of dialogue which the hon. member can advocate is to say that a second kind of Bantu must be created, i.e. the urban Bantu, the so-called detribalized Bantu. This question of the so-called detribalized Bantu is an absolute illusion under which the hon. member is suffering. If the hon. member wants to take the trouble…

What does Rapport say?

The hon. member should not occupy our attention with nonsense appearing in newspapers. Let me now talk to the hon. member about a subject of which we both perhaps know something. In recent months I have on my own had various talks with Bantu leaders in my area. I am now speaking of urban Bantu and of developed and intellectual people. I am speaking of people with an academic background; people who grew up in an urban area and received their training in urban Bantu townships. No single member on that side of the House has done the same, but, I feel myself free to speak about these people. I want to tell the hon. member that he can go to this kind of Bantu—I am now speaking of the intellectual kind of Bantu—and he can talk to them one by one. Such a Bantu would tell him, for example, that he was born in the Bantu township in Bloemfontein, that he had his university training at Fort Hare, that he was a clergymen at Atteridgeville, that he was in Soweto, or that he is a school principal or this or that. They are children of parents who lived in that urban Bantu township. If I now tell him there are people in South African politics who will tell him that he is a detribalized Bantu, and if I ask him to tell me what he is, he will tell me, “Morena, the fact that I was born in a Bantu township in a White area does not mean that I am a detribalized Bantu. The fact that my father and mother were living in that Bantu township the day I was born and that they too were born there, does not mean that they are detribalized nor that I am”. I did not come across a single one; I can show the hon. members my notes in that connection as well as the correspondence I conducted with them. I did not come across a single one who was prepared to say that he was a detribalized Bantu. Every one could tell me immediately from which part or from which homeland his people came. Every one of them could tell me in what part of the homeland they would like to buy themselves land, land which their children could inherit one day and in which they could invest their money. Those people are not following the course you want them to.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? according to his argument, is my home in England?

I do want to tell the hon. member that since 1966 I have got to know him as one who really has more intelligence than to ask me such a question. The hon. member should not expect me to interrupt my speech in order to reply to such nonsense. I now want to tell the United Party and the Progressive Party, and all of us who regard ourselves as responsible, that, as far as the administration of the Bantu in South Africa is concerned, we should rather help these people to develop a pride in themselves, instead of saying that they are detribalized people, that they are nothing. That is what those hon. members tell them. What is more, the United Party—and this one can really take amiss of them—tell the Bantu by means of their speeches and by means of what is published in certain newspapers that the National Party says that the urban Bantu are nothing, that they are people who belong nowhere. Just read the reports in the newspapers of that party. That is the argument put forward by them. Do hon. members on that side of the House not have the necessary pride in themselves to help these people as well? These people do have pride in themselves. But what do hon. members on the opposite side do? They are breaking down that pride. We have to concede that there are, of course, a small number of Bantu who do not adopt the attitude I am adopting. Of course there are a small number of Bantu who support the party of the hon. member for Houghton and who say that they want representation with the Whites in this Parliament, that they want a multi-racial Parliament. Mr. Speaker, let us see how large that number of people is. They are only a minimal number.

Nonsense!

It is a minimal number who say so. The United Party does not want to admit this either. One has to concede that there is a small group of Bantu who accept this story of the so-called detribalized Bantu, but these are the kind of people one finds in any community. One finds them among the Whites as well. One finds them among the Coloureds and the Asiatics as well. There are always people who have no pride in themselves, who have no pride in their own people. I now ask that we, as White South Africa, should not make the mistake of wanting to encourage the small group of weaker ones one finds among any people in the standpoint they adopt, by generalizing it and accepting it as applying to the large majority.

Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect in respect of which I should also like to mention a few points. The hon. member referred to the M.A. thesis of Mr. Edelstein, the head of the welfare department of the Municipality of Johannesburg. This is a particularly interesting document. Hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Turffontein, who have only read about it in the newspapers, should take the trouble of reading this thesis. I shall give it to the hon. member for Turffontein.

I have read it.

Probably only what appeared about it in the newspapers. It is an interesting thesis, but the hon. member for Johannesburg North must not try to make a political matter of that thesis in this House. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member did refer to it. The hon. member must not try to make a political matter of that thesis without also giving a scientific and critical view of it.

Read my Hansard; you are completely wrong.

I made notes of what the hon. member referred to. For example, the hon. member mentioned, inter alia, what percentage are building up racial feeling against the Whites. The hon. member even mentioned the Afrikaners by name. I do not hold it against him. I just want to tell the hon. member that he should analyse the background to that thesis carefully and scientifically. The hon. member should also take a look at the people we have to do with there. The hon. member should also take a look at the way in which that investigation was conducted. I think Mr. Basil D’Oliveira of The Star …

John D’Oliveira.

I beg your pardon! This person went so far as to mention other factors as well. I am not blaming Mr. Edelstein for this. I am only asking that this kind of scientific thesis should not just be dragged across the floor of the House here.

Hon. members should take a look at the factors influencing the young Bantu in Johannesburg, i.e. the Rand Daily Mail and the World of the Argus group—the hon. member for Houghton is enjoying this— and all sorts of other political and English-speaking influences which have an effect on them. I am not blaming the English-speaking people or the United Party as such for this. Let us look at the matter objectively and then try to analyse the results politically. Let us then see how these compare with the cold facts which emerged in a scientific document. Let us look at other works as well. Let us look at the book by Mrs. Mia Brandel-Syrier, Reef-town Elite. I am sure the hon. member for Turffontein has never heard of it. If he will only take the trouble to read that book as well, a book which is also a sociological study …

It deals with a limited group only.

Yes, it deals with a limited group of leaders, but it is very interesting to see where those leaders come from. It is also very interesting to see what the standpoint of these leaders is on a variety of subjects. When hon. members have considered these matters, we can discuss the subject of the urban Bantu. But if hon. members want to discuss matters of that kind, they must not try to make political capital out of them.

He does not get a chance; what about technical schools, etc.?

Oh, that poor hon. member may just as well be written off. There is another aspect which the hon. member mentioned, i.e. that the urban Bantu should have more scope as far as their labour is concerned. As far as this is concerned, there are the good expectations of the establishment of the Bantu Administration Boards. At the moment the hon. the Minister and his department are working very hard at this. Certain announcements will probably be made in this regard within the foreseeable future. Arising from the problem which the hon. member mentioned, there is the question of influx control and the provisions in respect of section 10 of the Act. This is in fact what is giving the hon. members on the opposite side a headache. Hon. members know that section 10 provides that no Bantu may be in a White urban area for longer than 72 hours without a permit, unless he was born there or unless he has been working for the same employer for more than 10 years, or unless he has been working in the area for more than 15 years. If he commits certain offences, he can be evicted from the area.

If the hon. members opposite want to talk about the urban Bantu, I want to ask them to look at section 10 in a responsible way. The National Party will not grant the Bantu political rights in White urban areas in the sense in which the United Party is asking for such rights. They have their political rights. They can exercise them in respect of their governments in the Bantu homeland areas. They have the direct vote which they want there. The Citizenship Act has already been introduced there. The United Party can therefore talk until they are blue in the face, but the Bantu in White urban areas will not get political rights other than those they have today. As far as I am concerned, they have full political rights. We must encourage them to exercise those political rights.

And human rights?

If the hon. member wants to discuss human rights, I am prepared to discuss them with him. As far as human rights are concerned, one may look at section 10 again. The background to section 10 is the economic dependence of the urban Bantu which has increased since about 1915 or 1920. I am not speaking of the period round about or just after the Anglo-Boer War, but about the period from 1915 to 1920. Since the legislation which was passed then in connection with the urban Bantu up to the 1945 Act, all the legislation has dealt with the economic dependence of the Bantu who came to work in the urban areas. With the passage of time and as a result of the large number of Bantu there and the whole economic change that took place, the emphasis began to shift to the political temporariness of these people: Are they temporary in the economic sense or not? Are they temporary in the political sense or not? We say that, from a political point of view, there is no question of temporariness or permanence. We say that they can exercise their political rights in the Bantu homeland areas. If we consider the other matter, at their economic temporariness in the urban areas, one can certainly take another look at section 10. I am sure one would then be able to conduct a profitable discussion in order to retain the essence of section 10, and to make adjustments which could, as the hon. member mentioned, on humanitarian grounds perhaps contain other provisions which would not deviate from the policy of the National Party. But, what does the hon. member do when he gets up to speak in debates? He tries to steal a march on us; he waves his arms about and tries to make popular statements for the newspapers. If he is so concerned about human rights, why does he not tell this House that he is concerned about them, that he feels this or that and suggests one thing or another? But what does he suggest? He makes a few popular statements here which can again be read in The Star or the Rand Daily Mail tomorrow and be used by his fellow members on the Johannesburg City Council. But the urban Bantu may rest assured. The National Party has their interests at heart. What is more, under the leadership of this hon. Minister and his Deputies, as well as his departments and all of us here, we shall ensure that the urban Bantu in South Africa have a just, fair and decent existence. Hon. members opposite need not be concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North made a speech here this afternoon which anyone who has any objectivity would have praised. It was a speech dealing with one of South Africa’s most fundamental problems, that of the millions of black people in our cities. One would now at least have expected, when the opportunity presented itself, to get a constructive contribution from the other side of the House. Then the hon. member for Potchefstroom entered the debate. While I was listening to him, I thought of a cartoon that I recently saw in Rapport. It is necessary for me to give some clarification of the cartoon. It represented an announcer in front of an SABC microphone. He was blindfolded with a black cloth.

A black cloth?

Yes, it was a White announcer, but the cloth was black. Beneath this cartoon there was written: “Therefore, as far as the urban Bantu is concerned, we really see no problem.” That announcer could just as well have taken the hon. member for Potchefstroom’s place this afternoon. As far as the hon. member for Potchefstroom is concerned, the urban Bantu create no problems. According to him this is a matter that can simply be dealt with by scoring a few points, with a few clever questions, the whole matter then having been thrashed out. The hon. member for Potchefstroom asked us if we would give these people full representation in this House. However, he is the same man who states on political platforms that the United Party members are the ones who advocate equality. He now comes along, however, and puts this absurd question to us. The hon. member also says that we never talk to the Bantu.

I said “not even 5 per cent”.

We are now speaking about the important people in politics. The hon. member may perhaps have forgotten, but during the recess new deliberations were conducted by the Urban Bantu Council of Soweto. All the Members of Parliament on the Rand, including the Nationalists, were invited to those deliberations.

The Mayor invited them.

Yes, they were invited by the Mayor of Johannesburg. Where were the Nationalist friends then to continue the dialogue? [Interjections.] I excuse my hon. friend from Potchefstroom —I think he was in New York—but where were his colleagues? And then he waxes verbose here and says that we do not know the Bantu. I want to put a few pointed questions to the hon. member about the Bantu. In the first place I want to know: Does my hon. friend there acknowledge that in the presence of the Bantu in the cities we have one of our most urgent problems?

Yes, it is a big problem.

Good. We are making progress. I just want to tell the hon. member that he will still have to make a lot of progress, because there are other specific bodies also opposed to him. I shall come to that in a moment. I want to quote what Rapport has to say. Let me just explain: Sir, we are not dealing here with an English newspaper. It struck me that if this Afrikaans newspaper, Rapport, politically speaking their own flesh and blood, turns against them, how wide is not the field of persuasion which my friends will still have to cover after so many years? Now they are not only trying to convince South Africa. No, now they are even trying to convince their own newspaper. Let us listen to what the people have to say. I quote—

It states: “pretend any longer”, with the emphasis on the words “any longer”. This means that at one time there were people who thought differently.

They did not know about Le Grange.

They forgot about the hon. member for Potchefstroom, of course. I quote further—

Does my hon. friend agree?

Do go on.

“No one tries to pretend any longer that the urban Bantu will remain here on a temporary basis.” Does the hon. member still want to pretend that the urban Bantu will remain here on a temporary basis?

Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the hon. member?

I shall give the hon. gentleman a much better opportunity. Tell the hon. member who follows me up what the answer is.

Mr. Speaker,…

Order! The hon. member may not make another speech. The hon. member for Maitland must continue.

The hon. member has been in this House longer than I have. He knows that he is acting contrary to the rules. You will not allow him to do so. He is the one who flung the questions across the floor, and now he must be prepared to catch if he can, and I hope he is a good catcher. I am asking that member who is so wise, so clever, a simple question. Does he agree that the urban Bantu are no longer here only on a temporary basis? [Interjections.] He agrees. I shall continue. I am making progress. I wonder what the hon. the Minister says.

We shall reply to that.

It is really difficult to conduct such a debate.

Do you still beat your wife?

No, Sir, this has nothing to do with such a simple question. Here we are dealing with a newspaper which supports that side of the House heart and soul. This same newspaper here makes a cardinal statement, and all we ask the hon. the Minister is: Does he agree, or does he not? He is now going to say again “Yes, but …” I am not interested in his “Yes buts”. The newspaper continues—

Except for Potchefstroom.

Would the hon. member for Potchefstroom and the hon. the Deputy Minister deny this?

I said I would reply to that.

Sir, when members on the other side are asking questions it is terribly easy, but when I ask them a simple question, arising from what is stated in their own press, then my hon. friends sit there in complete silence. Sir, the gist of this article is that the urban Bantu will not only be here on a permanent basis; they will live here in increasing numbers. I wonder what the hon. the Minister of Community Development says.

I do not agree with you.

Sir, there now is a man who has courage. However, I want to remind that hon. gentleman about this: He is the gentleman who spoke of “5 per cent”. At one time there was, I believe, an old merchant in South Africa who was known as “Mr. 5 per cent”. I respectfully want to tell the hon. the Minister that as far as the urban Bantu of South Africa are concerned, he will not be known as “Mr. 5 per cent”, but as “Mr. Minus 5 per cent”, because their numbers are increasing. The gist of the matter is that the urban Bantu came to the cities in growing numbers to live here, and I now want to ask the hon. the Minister another simple question: They are coming to the cities in growing numbers to remain here permanently. Do the hon. gentlemen on the other side truly foresee a situation in which one would virtually be left with millions of urbanized Bantu without any family life in the cities? Do they foresee the time when these people, in their ten millions, fifteen millions, or possibly eighteen millions …

Let us make it 20 million.

I am satisfied with 20 million; you might be nearer the truth. Do hon. members on that side foresee that these people, in their ten millions, fifteen in their millions and without any family life? That is the fundamental question. What does my hon. friend, the member for Potchefstroom, say now?

Do go on.

The hon. member sits there motionless; he says: “Do go on.” He is almost like a traffic policeman.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Yes, certainly.

Would the hon. member be so good and just tell us in detail what representation his party is going to give to those 20 million people in this House and what Bantu leader has ever accepted that standpoint?

And in the local authorities?

Sir, it would be a pleasure to reply to that question. The lesson to be derived from this cartoon is … [Interjection.] That hon. member could take part in the debate rather than make these senseless interjections; he would then be furnishing a more constructive contribution. Sir, the lesson to be derived from the cartoon is this: None is so blind as he who will not see.

Answer the question.

It seems to me as if the hon. member cannot see very well; he cannot hear either, because the United Party’s policy, as far as that is concerned, has been declared a thousand times in South Africa and in this House. I would rather not say that the hon. member cannot read either.

Just answer the question.

I have already replied. I shall not waste my time any longer. Just read Hansard; just read the speeches of my leader; just read the newspapers, and then you will have it. The representation the Bantu will obtain in this House is recorded in black and white, and I shall not allow myself now to be deflected from my point. Sir, as far as this matter is concerned I want to conclude by saying this: It is one of the most tragic phenomena …

You had better conclude.

I am prepared to go on with it, but I want to speak about another matter on which we have not received a reply. Sir, it is one of the most tragic phenomena that arising out of a very good speech here this afternoon, and dealing with one of South Africa’s fundamental matters, we have had this type of shallow, ill-considered speech from a member on the other side in an attempt to reply to that speech. Sir, Rapport is clear on the matter. Rapport states that the Nationalist Party Government will have to think again about that matter. I want to tell the hon. member for Potchefstroom that he must talk to his Ministers because South Africa requests that his party should, to an increasing extent, think about one of South Africa’s fundamental matters. They have no policy; they have no solution; they are gambling with South Africa’s future. The presence of the Bantu in our cities lies at the heart of South Africa’s future task.

I want to come back to the economy, to the bread and butter … [Interjections.] I have made my point, and I have said that it was a poor effort from the other side, and now I want to come back to the economy and say this. Today and yesterday I listened to all the speakers on economy on the other side, at ministerial level and otherwise. There are a few lessons for me to learn. Firstly, if the Nationalist Party has recourse to patriotism, you must know, Sir, that everything is not as it should be on their side. But when the Nationalist Party calls upon the help of the Opposition, then they are really in trouble. I do not think there is any doubt that they are in trouble as far as the South African economy is concerned. We tend to speak in economic terms of inflation, of devaluation and other abstract economic ideas. We are so caught up in this that we forget what is going on with the man in the street. I want to come back to that because we have had no reply whatsoever to it from any of the speakers on the other side, and we do not know what to tell the people. The hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs —what consolation is there, in any of their replies, for those people who are dealing today with the cost of living in South Africa? What consolation is there for the housewife and for the worker who struggles so to make a living? What consolation is there? There is no consolation and no joy. There is only one merry note, and that is when the hon. the Minister of Planning and his colleagues hurry back to 1948. He comes along and tells us about the wonderful days of 1948. The hon. member for Hillbrow has already replied to him about 1948. The hon. the Minister of Finance also tells us about 1948 when we speak of the cost of living.

Recently, for the first time as far as I can remember, a deputation of women went to the Prime Minister to speak about the cost of living, and what did the hon. the Prime Minister do? He told those women: “You must be glad; look at 1948, what things looked like then and what they look like now.” Sir, I tell this House today that we are living in a dream world if we think that we can bluff the people by referring to 1948. A generation has passed, bringing about totally different values and a different standard of living in South Africa. There is no place in present-day South Africa politics for this 1948 mentality. The hon. the Minister of Planning spoke here about immigration. You know, Sir, they speak about perspective. They say that our perspective must be correct. How can you understand a modern Government in a modern State telling us to compare our position with that of 1948? Is that perspective? Those are the words they used; we must get the perspective right. The Minister of Finance says we must get our perspective right. The Minister of Planning speaks about immigration. Do you really think that a Minister of the Republic of South Africa can come and tell us: “I have, as it were, solved the labour shortage; look how immigration is decreasing.” He is, so to speak, glad about that.

Can you believe that that could happen, as has been the case in this debate? Can you believe that a responsible Minister can stand up and say: “Provision has been made for the Bantu labour requirements; there is no unemployment in South Africa.” With a flourish the hon. member for Pietersburg told us this afternoon that there is no unemployment. Is it possible for a realistic Government to say such a thing? What do they mean? Are they speaking only about the Whites in South Africa, or do such people as non-Whites also exist? And have the hon. members perhaps forgotten that only last year Professor Sadie said that there are more than a million non-Whites in South Africa who are either unemployed or underproductive, therefore not working at full productivity? Have they forgotten about that? But those are the type of thoughts with which they are trying to get away with this.

When we speak to them about the perspective that must be corrected, they have another reply for us. Hon. members, like the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs tells us: “The people are trying to compete with the Joneses.” The hon. member for Paarl says that we are living beyond our means. Today I want to ask members opposite: Who are these people who are living beyond their means? Who are they? Is it that 8 per cent who pay income tax? Are those the people living beyond their means? What population group is living beyond its means? Is it the railwaymen who have to work overtime in their thousands in order to make a living? Are they the people living beyond their means? “Are they trying to compete with the Joneses?” Is it the thousands of old-age pensioners who are receiving R38 per month? I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare, with due regard for the present cost of living in South Africa and the sense of responsibility that I hope he has, that if I were to be Minister of Social Welfare I should not sleep well if I were to think of the thousands and tens of thousands of aged in South Africa who, in these times, must make a living with R38 per month.

But I want to go further. Who are these people? Let us take the ordinary family as an example. By the way, I see that the hon. the Minister of the Interior has now entered the House. He is the man who told us that we must tighten our belts. The heading of an article in Die Burger reads: “Belts will have to be tightened, warns Gerdener.” It is surely correct that he said that belts must be drawn tighter. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister who these people are whose belts must be drawn even tighter? Of what must the people of South Africa deprive themselves? What must they get rid of to live in such a way that this Government would be satisfied? Let us take a look at that. The ordinary family has a motor car. Is it so terrible to own a motor car today? May we own one and still comply with the hon. the Minister’s request? I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance: “Am I trying to compete with the Joneses as an ordinary working man when I have a motor car? Am I trying to compete with the Joneses when I send my son to university?” Or must I not do this? What does the hon. the Minister say? When am I, then living above my means? I could continue in a similar vein. May the ordinary worker have a house or may he not?

The hon. the Minister of Community Development is not in the House at the moment. He is the one who told us that the houses we live in are too luxurious. I do not even want to speak about the hon. the Minister’s house. Since hon. members make this general statement by saying that the people have too high a standard of living, I want to tell them that before they point a finger at the people of South Africa, it is time for them to search their own hearts. What example does the Government set the people of South Africa? Is the Government’s standard of living not too high?

I can continue with this family. The hon. the Minister of the Interior says that we must draw our belts tighter. May I then not have a refrigerator in my house? Would that perhaps be a little too luxurious? May the ordinary worker have a motor car and send his son to university?

But not to Oxford where you want to go.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Sport that we are dealing with serious matters. He must not play games but try to be serious now and then. It is now time for the people of South Africa to confront the truth. The truth is that the people’s desire to live better, and to own the better things of life, has come to stay. This is not only an economic question. The desire of the people is also a sociological question, and this applies to both Whites and non-Whites. The hon. members on the other side of the House will not achieve anything by telling us that this may not be so, because the people of South Africa know to an increasing extent that South Africa, if it is properly administered, can afford such a standard of living. For that, however, we need another type of government. We need a government that is not caught up in its own ideologies. We do need a government that is not caught up in the chains it has forged for itself throughout the years. We know surely that the Government can do nothing to extricate itself. If it yield to the influx of the urban Bantu, it jeopardizes the basis of its entire policy. If it does not, it knows that it will jeopardize the country. That is the fundamental question those people are faced with and cannot get away from. They have no option, because if they yield, their ideology comes to grief, and if they do not yield, the country comes to grief.

Most of our economic problems in South Africa today specifically result from the fact that the Nationalist Party has, throughout the years, slowly but surely jeopardized the labour pattern of South Africa. With great pride the hon. the Minister of Finance told us of the decade of the sixties and the wonderful development that took place during that period. I am glad he did so, but the hon. the Minister will also remember that we told him that that development had taken place specifically because the Nationalist Party did not apply its policy. Had it done so, the economic growth would not have been in evidence. In fact, we challenged them time and again to apply their policy of removing the Bantu from the cities. In spite of the challenge they continued to preach one thing and do another. The problem South Africa is saddled with today, is that the people began to believe in the preaching. Uncertainty was inculcated in the manufacturer, and he did not know what to do. To crown it all, the Government then came along and gave us the Physical Planning Act. Then the industrialists thought that the Government was now truly carrying out its dream policy. Had I been an industrialist, I would have looked with the same concern at the future. Any industrialist who would like to see development in South Africa today, must have certainty and must know that he can obtain capital and labour. Unless the Government gives him the certainty that those factors will be present, he does not have the desire to take the risks inherent in industrial development. Rapport states clearly that there are two requirements …

Does the hon. member know the industrialists?

Yes, I know them. Rapport states that there are two requirements. Firstly, the capital must be made available and, secondly, the labour position in South Africa must be corrected. Rapport then mentions a third point. It states that what is most dangerous of all is that the Government can sit still and do nothing, and that is precisely what is going to happen. In one speech after another about the urban Bantu and the economy, this Government has already shown that it is not prepared to take any drastic action, because such action will clash with the ideology which it has paid homage to throughout the years. We now find that the country has reached the position the Nationalist Party wanted when it said “rather poor but White”. That is the basis of the Nationalist Party’s approach. I tell the Nationalist Party today that it has a golden opportunity. There are numerous people who are becoming poorer and there are tens of thousands—they may be non-Whites—who live below the bread line.

The hon. member is talking nonsense.

Listen to what the hon. Whip is saying. Can one conduct a realistic debate if an hon. Whip on the other side makes this type of nonsensical …

Irresponsible.

… and irresponsible remark in South Africa? The opportunity is one the Government’s doorstep … [Interjections.] The Government has an opportunity, such as it has never had before, to see whether its philosophy is acceptable to the people of South Africa. They say the philosophy is “rather poor but White”. I say that there are an increasing number of Whites who are becoming poorer, and that there are tens of thousands of non-Whites who are already very poor. I now want this Government to go onto the platforms in South Africa and say: “This is our policy; this is how we want it, because we keep you White.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member for Maitland would rise and tell us what the policy of the United Party is in respect of the urban Bantu. But what did we get from the hon. member? We got nothing but a lot of clichés from him. He only put forward a lot of slogans and all kinds of statements, but nothing was based on facts.

Why is a no-confidence debate held? A no-confidence debate is held, particularly now that there are important elections ahead, in order to set out clearly to the world what the policy of the United Party is, as spelt out by that party. But what do we get from these people? We get absolutely nothing from them. [Interjections.] Just as the hon. member over here says, we are getting nothing but a lot of wind from them today.

If I get the opportunity to continue this debate tomorrow, I shall deal with the matter of the urban Bantu, but now I want to refer to a few general points mentioned by the hon. member for Maitland. He wants to know what the Government wants the Whites in South Africa to be. He said the policy of the Government is that we should rather be poor but White.

Why not White and well-to-do?

Mr. Speaker, I now challenge the hon. member for Maitland to show this House and the whole world where in South Africa there are non-Whites who want to work and who are poor. He must show us where in South Africa there are poor people who maintain that they cannot get work or that they cannot earn enough to make a proper living in South Africa.

What about Dimbaza?

I am speaking of Whites.

No, the hon. member spoke of non-Whites.

No, I am speaking of Whites. If I said “non-Whites”, it was a slip of the tongue on my part. The hon. member for Maitland spoke of “rather poor, but White”. The hon. member said there are tens of thousands of Whites in South Africa living below the bread line.

There are some of them in your own constituency.

Yes, in Langlaagte.

The hon. member for Yeoville can accompany me to my constituency; I shall make things very pleasant for him there. I challenge him then to show me one singe White person in that constituency who is living below the bread line and who maintains he cannot get work.

Who is poor?

There are poor people in this country, but I want to say that the large majority of them are people who do not want to work. I challenge hon. members opposite to show me one White person in this country who is poor and who is living below the bread line because he cannot get work as a result of the policy of this Government.

There are many poor people in Benoni.

Yes, the poor in spirit, such as those sitting over there.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I should like to move—