Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you would wish us to bring up further notices of motion to be handed in now?

Hon. members may hand in further notices of motion at the Table.

I just want to inform hon. members that next week the House will deal with the legislation appearing on the Order Paper, with perhaps an adjustment here and there. In addition, I just want to give hon. members a few important dates. The Part Appropriation will be introduced on 14th February and the debate will commence on 16th February. The Railway Appropriation will be introduced on 8th March and the debate will commence on 13th March. The Post Office Appropriation will be dealt with on 22nd and 23rd March. The Main Appropriation will be introduced on 29th March and the debate will commence on 10th April. The parliamentary recess will be from 30th March to 10th April.

This motion of no-confidence debate has almost run its course, and if one takes stock of it one can hardly think that it was actually to be, according to Opposition commentators and their Press, the debate of the year. It was to have been the debate that would totally unnerve and unmask the Government. This debate has now reached the final day, and it is not necessary for me to comment on precisely what the Opposition has achieved in this debate. You, Sir, have sat here for five days, and I think that is all one could have done—to sit. But what was said in this debate is not of as much interest to me as, again, what the Opposition did not speak about. Sir, five days is a long period of time. There are a great many speakers that can take part in that debate, and a tremendous range of subjects can be broached. Particularly if one takes into account the fact that here one has an Opposition that is trying to lead the country to believe that it is not only ready to take over, but as it were on the point of taking over, it is interesting that no single word has come from the Opposition about the all-important subject of foreign affairs in which South Africa is very intimately involved. I find it even more interesting that not a single speaker from amongst hon. members opposite stood up in this debate to say something about the farmers and their affairs.

There is still time.

And yet the usual inane laughter rose from the Opposition side when the hon. member for Swellendam brought up his motion here, and now I hear the hon. member for Walmer saying there is still time. What time? How much time?

The entire afternoon.

Sir, the debate is in its last throes. Must I now take it from hon. members opposite that they had time to speak about all sorts of trifling matters and that they took up hours and days of the House’s time, but that now the hon. member is saying there is still a bit of time left this afternoon; the farmers must therefore now be satisfied with the crumbs that have fallen from the table.

What also interests me, if one calls to mind their utterances of last year, if one looks at the statements made by them during the recess, is that in this debate not a single word has been said about sport.

Etienne Malan spoke about it.

I do not think even my hon. friend the member for Yeoville can describe what Mr. Etienne Malan said as a speech.

But, of course, the position is obvious. I remember very well how, when the sports policy was announced, a chorus of voices rose from hon. members opposite and how they wrote that this policy would not even get off the ground, that it was doomed to failure. It now stands as a fact before the hon. members of the Opposition and before the country, not only that this sports policy has been applied with very great success in practice, but also that at present South Africa is receiving more visits from international sportsmen and sporting teams of all kinds and is making more visits abroad than ever before in its history—this is apparently the reason why the Opposition did not mention the subject. That is what has become of the isolation which they told us South Africa found itself in.

What about our soccer, our cricket and many other sporting activities?

I also find it interesting that, apart from referring to the urban Bantu, hon. members—where was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout?—did not say a single word about race relations, the all-important subject in South African politics. There are, of course, reasons for this. I say that about these four important subjects there was nothing forthcoming from the Opposition, and for a very obvious reason.

Since I have now mentioned foreign affairs, you will permit me, Sir, just to refer in passing, because I know there is great interest in this matter, to the reports we have read in the Press and heard on the radio about a possible visit to South Africa by the Secretary-General of the U.N. In this connection I want to say that, as hon. members will understand, the Government has not yet heard anything official in this respect. On the contrary. Such discussions as are being held are only tentative as yet and so far nothing has been brought to finality. I want to say, however, that if the Secretary-General of the U.N. should decide to come to South Africa, he would be received by us here with the utmost courtesy and hospitality, just as we received Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld here in his day and as we invited U Thant to come to South Africa, although he declined our invitation. It will be appreciated that I therefore do not want to anticipate this matter, apart from saying that if the Secretary-General of the U.N. wants to come to South Africa to discuss, inter alia, the self-determination of non-White peoples with the Government, he will find, as far as the Government is concerned, that we are willing to discuss it with him, because it is our policy to lead our peoples to self-determination. However, if he wants to come to South Africa to act as the mouthpiece of the extremists of the O.A.U. and others and to put across resolutions taken in that connection, he will still be welcome and be very courteously received by us, but I can tell him in advance that he will be wasting his time.

The Leader of the Opposition introduced this debate by saying that he had the easiest task any Leader of the Opposition had ever had. [Interjections.] I wish to agree with my hon. friend the member for Witbank: He made the biggest failure of it that any Leader of the Opposition could! But, Sir, the hon. Leader still has a great deal of time in which to learn. He is fit; he is looking surprisingly well; he is the indisputable leader of that side. [Interjections.] I want to make the hon. members a present of that—he is by far the best of those sitting opposite. There is no doubt about that. I say—and I want to express my pleasure at the fact—my hon. friend is fit. He will still learn a great deal in the next 15 to 20 years that he will be sitting there. The hon. Leader said he had an easy task. Sir, if he makes so great a failure of the easy task, what would he make of a difficult one? Because both of us are leaders of a party, and because both of us are politicians, I now want to address a word of warning to my friend, just as he addressed words of warning to me. He must not allow the English Press to play trampoline with him to such an extent. At the beginning of the session they toss him up so high that I can hardly see him up in the air above me. When the discussions in Parliament are over, they pull away the trampoline from under him when he descends and he falls to the ground with a crash. I do not think it fair of the newspapers supporting his party to do this to my hon. friend. Take, for example, the merciless criticism that rained down on my friend’s head after the discussion on my Vote last year. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition deserved that. He was not as bad as his newspapers made out; he was just normal.

What a lofty, statesmanlike expression!

I shall be coming to you.

At the very beginning of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to me in the following terms—

Let me say at once that if this had been the first time the Leader of the Opposition had said this I would have taken it to heart. If the Leader of the Opposition had referred only to me in so many words, I would have taken it to heart even more. Sir, I am not doing my friend an injustice when I say this; his strong point is not originality. Just in passing I looked up what he had said about my predecessors. He had hardly become Leader of the Opposition, when on 2nd May, 1957, he referred to the late Mr. Strydom in these words (Hansard, col. 5205)—

Therefore I am not the only one to lose control; as far back as 1957 Mr. Strydom had lost control. And if this is not serious enough, one may also read the following (Hansard, Vol. 6, col. 4441), dated 22nd April, 1963, i.e. during Dr. Verwoerd’s time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then said the following—

Hear, hear!

I quote further—

Hear, hear!

Then he stated—

[Interjections.] This story is really wearing thin now. When one consults the Hansard volumes, one sees that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been repeating the words “losing control” every year. It is like a gramophone record with the needle stuck in the groove. However, for the moment I shall leave the matter at that.

The second reproach that came from hon. members opposite, and one that we have also been hearing for many years now, is that the Government’s policy has failed; the policy is dead.

That is a fact.

If it is a fact, as the hon. member for Yeoville in his wisdom states, I am amazed that the United Party almost split because they wanted to take over a small, fractional part of our policy.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now come along with his motion of no confidence. However, it is going to be held against him. He is the man who pretends that he can form an alternative government and that he can become an alternative Prime Minister. It is going to be held against him by the one newspaper that has stood by him through thick and thin, i.e. the Sunday Express, for he did not carry out their instructions. I want to quote from a report that appeared in that newspaper on 26th September, 1971. This is now a party that wants to lead us to believe that they want to take over either because this side of the House has no policy or because the policy of this side of the House has failed. I quote the following—

They refer here to a commission which they say was appointed. I quote further—

He was to have announced a “new policy” to us here. I would not know what the number of new policy announcements would then have been, because I have lost count. But I like the next part of the report; it reads as follows—

That is to say, if he put forward this “policy” when Parliament opened—

He had to creep up on us with the new policy. He had to steal into Parliament and creep up on us with the new policy. The report reads—

But he and I know each other, and in all amity I now want to tell him here across the floor of the House …

You know that I would never treat you like that.

No, but what is more, I do not need an hour to deal with your policy.

You need 12 months.

You can just give me five minutes’ notice. That is quite enough.

But my hon. friend put certain questions to me in the course of this debate. I first want to deal with those questions before I conduct a general discussion in reply to certain questions put by hon. members opposite. In the first place the hon. member put a question to me about Agliotti. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that this matter has not yet been concluded—for very good reasons, which I shall mention to hon. members opposite. Hon. members will recall that there was a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Chief Magistrate Lindeque and that it concluded its work in December, 1970. Immediately on receipt of its report, that report was made available and handed over to the police and the Attorney-General for such action to be taken as appeared necessary from that report. The police gave attention to this matter on the highest level. One of the best investigators in the detective force, i.e. General Bester himself, took charge of this matter. Now hon. members must remember in the first place that there is a very long record of evidence—it runs to no fewer than 2 726 pages; that there are quite a number of references to other documents in it and that there are quite a number of technical aspects to be cleared up. Studying this record and the related circumstances alone took up a great deal of time. In the course of time it has, as I have said, received the greatest attention and 86 affidavits have already been taken from people. These affidavits have from time to time been discussed with the Attorney-General himself. The Attorney-General has specially assigned two State advocates to give their personal attention to this matter and the investigation connected with it. In other words, both the police and the Attorney-General have been giving very thorough attention to this matter on the highest level. But it goes without saying that when one is dealing with a matter such as this, it must, in the first place, be investigated thoroughly. You cannot prematurely charge people before you have your evidence ready, because if, merely to satisfy the public, you charge people and they are found not guilty because of lack of evidence at that stage, you can never charge them again. Let us now admit to each other here that there is a great deal of suspicion in this connection, but suspicion is no proof at all in any court. There are many deductions which one could readily make, but a person cannot be charged on deductions which are made. Consequently this is unfortunately one of those cases where justice must take its course and the investigation, which has to be a thorough one, has to be completed. Our detective and police forces have an excellent record in regard to these matters. If there is anything in this regard which is not what it should be, and if there is evidence which has to be located, I think they will find it in due course. By way of summary I can inform hon. members that this matter has from the outset received the best attention, but that no charge has yet been laid against any person in that connection. However, the investigation is continuing on the highest level.

In the second place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked me in regard to the statement I had made about the Caprivi incident. As I have said before, I gave that statement very thorough consideration. Every word stated therein, as well as every word not stated therein, I either included or omitted deliberately. I made my statement, which I made after very careful deliberation, available to the Press. My complaint was—and this will always be my complaint if it should happen again—that words were put into my mouth and written into my statement which I had not used.

You took a chance and you lost.

If the hon. member would glance at my statement which he has before him, he would see that in the first place I did not say a single word about “border”; in fact, I did not even mention the word “Zambia”. I made that statement, in the form in which I made it, after very careful deliberation, and I am of the opinion that I cannot take the hon. member into my confidence in regard to the reasons for my making it, not even across the floor of the House. Hon. members will just have to accept this from me now. My standpoint is—and this is also what I told the newspapers—that newspapers may speculate, for they have the right to do so; newspapers may make deductions, for they have every right to do so; they may ask questions, but no one— not the hon. member for Yeoville either— has the right to put into a person’s mouth words he did not use.

But one should make a clear statement.

No one has the right to quote a person and use words which are not contained in the quotation, as the hon. member for Yeoville did to me the other day.

I did not do that.

I say that no one has the right to write words into a statement, least of all when a ministerial statement is made on such a delicate subject. That was my complaint and it will always be my complaint. Then the hon. member came up with the ridiculous sequel which, strangely enough, neither he nor even one of his newspapers mentioned at the time, that I had supposedly endangered the lives of men with the statement I had made.

Certainly.

If they made such a statement, it is as ridiculous as the deduction the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made. I want to repeat very clearly that what I said and did in that connection, I did deliberately and to the benefit of South Africa and, inter alia—let me say this now to hon. members on the opposite side—to confirm in principle that South Africa will not simply allow itself to be attacked, just like that, and do nothing about it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me for a statement in regard to the speech made by my colleague Minister Gerdener. In this connection I must say that not only do I want to discuss it, but I also want to make it very clear what the policy of the Government is in respect of this matter. Particularly in view of the fact that we have to a large extent been conducting an economic debate here, I want to say a few words, with reference to speeches made on the opposite side and dealing with the subject of the economy, about the allegations made by the opposite side of the House that we have allegedly allowed the economy to go to rack and ruin, whereas this was a country flowing with milk and honey while the United Party was governing it, i.e. up to 1948. With reference to those in receipt of old-age pensions we heard the ridiculous statement that the rand today is worth only 40 cents in comparison with what it was worth in 1948 and, they wanted to know, what about the old-age pensioners? Look how badly off they are compared with their situation in 1948! In the first place, if the value of the rand is compared with its equivalent in 1948 it is not worth 40 cents, but 50 cents. That is the factual position. For argument’s sake let me concede to the clever hon. member that its value is 40 cents. In the days when the land was flowing with milk and honey, that side of the House had only a maximum of R10 per month for an aged person who had nothing, who had no other means of subsistence. In those days there was a means test which made it impossible for most elderly people to receive even that amount. Money was supposed to be in abundant supply then, but in truth there were more poor people at that time than there are today. They are now posing as the people who are the friends of the poor man; not only are they posing as the friends of the poor man, but they also say that in their time they had more money than they knew what to do with. All they had to spare for the poor man in that time of plenty, was R10 per month. That is what they had to spare for him. But let us now assume that the rand today is worth 40 cents as compared with 1948. If we wanted to treat the poor elderly people on the same basis as they treated them, we would today be giving them only R25 per month. Instead of that, we are giving them R38 per month.

Living standards have risen.

Now the hon. member says that their living standards have risen. Of course living standards have risen, for it is this Government which has caused them to rise. [Interjections.] That being so, we are giving the elderly people not merely the R25 according to the standards of the United Party, but we are giving them R38 per month.

Is that sufficient?

I will never say that what you are doing for an elderly person or a sick person is sufficient, for you can never do enough for them. However, you do what you can, taking into consideration the funds at your disposal. This Government has done what it could considering the funds at its disposal, and every reasonable person has to admit this. If the hon. member now asks me whether it is sufficient, let me say this to him: The hon. members say that in their time there was no lack of funds; they had money in abundance, but they gave him a miserable R10 per month. These are the people who are posing as the friends of the poor man. The hon. members speak of a time when the land was flowing with milk and honey, but ask the bricklayer of that time what he was earning; ask the constable, the clerk, the professional man or the teacher of that time what he was earning then. He will tell them. I want to make it clear that it is the declared policy of the Government to raise the salaries and wages and the standards of living of all workers. White and non-White, in so far as it has control over these matters, and to encourage this being done. Not only is this the policy of the Government; the Government has in fact done so. Sir, I want to say that the Government will do this whenever it is justified, and provided the Government and the country can afford it. When I say that the Government will do everything in its power to raise the standard of living, I would be neglecting my duty, considering the position in which I find myself, if I did not once again make an urgent appeal to our people and say: You are entitled to every possible comfort and convenience; it is the right of the man who has worked for it to have this, but in heaven’s name, let us in future live within our means in South Africa.

Hon. members opposite also voiced the complaint that South Africa had allegedly deteriorated to such an extent under the regime of this Government. Let us examine that complaint, taking into account the fact that, according to their own calculation, the rand is today worth 40 cents as against the value of the rand in 1948. What do we find? I find, according to the statistics, that the average wage of all factory workers, Whites and non-Whites, increased threefold over the period from 1948 to 1970. Whereas the average wage was R453 in 1948, the average for all workers today is R1 376. If one takes only the White workers’ wage into account, then it has increased fourfold, as an inevitable result of the scarcity of his labour and his greater proficiency and productivity. Whereas the average White worker only earned R864 in 1948, the average worker earned R3 577 in 1970. Let us now consider the non-Whites. The non-Whites’ wages have increased almost threefold over the period from 1948 to 1970. In 1948 the average income of the non-White factory worker was R254. Today his average income is R689.

Sir, let us consider the cost of living. The cost of living today is twice what it was in 1948. That is what every person who has knowledge of this matter says. But let us consider only 1970 and 1971. In 1970 average wages increased by 10 per cent, and in 1971 by 11 per cent; in other words, over a period of two years they increased by 21 per cent. The consumers’ index indicates an increase in the cost of living in 1970 of 4,1 and in 1971 of 6,9—a general increase of 11 percent; in other words, the worker is, as far as that period is concerned, still 10 per cent to the good.

Let us now consider the non-Whites. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled a reproach at me in passing in regard to this matter, but he did not quote what I had said at my Press conference. I made it very clear there, and this is also the policy of the Government, that there is no law which lays down a minimum wage for Whites and a maximum wage for non-Whites. There are, in fact, the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act which control these aspects, and they specifically provide that there may be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour against a person when wages are determined. In addition, there is the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act. As a result of the intervention in terms of that Act, it is calculated that non-Whites have profited to the amount of R5 million per annum as far as their wages are concerned.

As far as the gap is concerned, it is the declared policy of the Government to narrow that gap, which is an historical one. We have stated this on various occasions. We are dealing here with an historical gap, in the same way as there is an historical gap in respect of equal wages for men and women. All that any government can set itself to do in that regard is to narrow the gap, and this Government is committed.

Why are you then increasing the gap in the case of doctors and teachers?

Sir, I shall come to that. First I shall reply to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition; then I shall furnish the hon. member for Durban Point with a reply to that. I am now stating the policy of the National Party. It is not the policy of the National Party—as United Party gossipmongers like to make out and as they are doing at the moment in Brakpan—to peg White wages or to freeze or hold their wages back until such time as non-White wages catch up with White wages. That is the deduction they made from Minister Gerdener’s …

Is he wrong?

Sir, Mr. Gerdener never said that. He did not even advocate equality. Hon. members are simply making deductions from his speech now which he in fact never implied.

It appeared in the newspaper.

It is not necessary for the hon. member to speculate on what appeared in the newspapers; his Leader had the speech made by the hon. the Minister in front of him when he spoke, and nothing whatsoever about that is stated therein. He did not even ask for equality. I made this absolutely clear at my Press conference, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had that in front of him as well, but when he attacked me on this, he did not deem it advisable in all fairness, to read it out. I said on that occasion that, as far as the subject discussed by Minister Gerdener was concerned, his general statements were correct and that nobody could dispute them, but that there could be no danger of bloodshed in South Africa because those circumstances did not exist in South Africa. [Interjection.] I say this for the simple reason that there are no minimum wages for Whites and no maximum wages for non-Whites. I say this for the simple reason that there are many thousands of non-Whites earning better salaries than Whites, and that there are non-Whites whose living standards are higher than those of certain Whites; in other words Sir, we are not dealing with a privileged group of Whites here in South Africa who have entrenched their position at the top so that the non-Whites can never catch up with them; we do not have a position in South Africa where a ceiling has been established for the non-Whites, and where they have been told: “Beyond that ceiling you may not go”. That is the situation in South Africa, and it can be done in terms of the policy of the National Party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked me in regard to my standpoint on Owambo.

You misunderstood the whole thing.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked me on that, and what is the background to the situation, Sir? We are aware that there was a strike in Owambo. We are aware that that strike was settled as a result of an inter-governmental agreement negotiated by Minister M. C. Botha. Subsequently incidents occurred, and Minister M. C. Botha referred to those incidents in his statement. Immediately after that statement was made, there was in the first place the headline in the Argus, the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, and there was, as always, the presumptuous action of the member for Pietermaritzburg District, who immediately wanted to go on a “factfinding mission”, instead of trying to find himself. If one consults the newspapers published at the time, one will see that they wanted to blow up the situation into a major issue, and not only a major issue which would dominate South African politics, but a major issue which was to dominate international politics. That is perhaps what some hon. members on the opposite side wanted—I do not know. But immediately it was then put forward that there was a news black-out, and, as always, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he always sees something sinister behind everything—has now said that I should take the country into my confidence, for everything is not as it should be in Owambo. There is nothing sinister about it, Sir. After all, we have said now that the labour question was solved; it was solved, but the agitators began to scavenge, as they are want to do, not only here in South Africa, but also in Rhodesia and other parts of the world where there are always agitators who come to scavenge. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now refers me to my statement. What did I say in my statement? In the first place I said that there was no crisis in South-West Africa, in Owambo, and there is no crisis in Owambo. Are hon. members now annoyed at me because of that?

They are disappointed.

M.C. said there was.

Surely it is not true to say that; surely the hon. member knows that it is not true. Sir, they levelled the accusation at me that there had been a news black-out, while there had never been any news black-out whatsoever, and I said that in the statement.

Disgraceful!

I said in the statement that agitators were exploiting the situation and I said that the Government would not tolerate that exploitation of the situation, and I want to repeat this to hon. members now: The Government will not tolerate it. Sir, we took the necessary steps. I do not want to tell hon. members that there will be no further incidents, because I have had enough experience of agitators to know that it is possible that further incidents will occur. But I want to give the country and South-West Africa the assurance that we will deal with those incidents as quickly as possible.

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition then, in my humble opinion, did a very ugly thing, and I now want to take it amiss of him across the floor of the House that he used these particular words. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the following words; he said, referring to that situation—

Disgraceful!

Sir, I do not mind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referring derogatorily to this Government; it is part of his task, but, Sir, he has been in Owambo himself; several of his members have been to Owambo and surely they know, and surely my hon. friend knows, who the people are who are opposed to the Government of Owambo. The Government which has been established there—whether my hon. friend agrees with them or not—is the authority in Owambo. Surely he knows that the people who are opposed to them are SWAPO. Surely he knows that it is the communists and the Anti-Apartheid Movement that want to eliminate that Government. Surely he knows that it is the extremists of the Organisation for African Unity who want to destroy this Government. Surely he knows that the agitators active in Owambo at the present time are in fact the agents of SWAPO and their people. Sir, you can do anything, but you must not jeopardize the authority of that Government in the eyes of those people by referring in your Parliament—and this was done through the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition—to them as a puppet government. Those agitators can turn around tomorrow and say: “Why should we take any notice of the Government of Owambo? It has come from the highest authority, it has been said in Parliament, that they are a puppet government; we need not take any notice of them.” Sir, differ with them if you wish, but do not call them by that ugly name, for by doing so you are undermining the authority in Owambo.

I now want to say to my hon. friend, as well as to other hon. members on that side of the House: This Government of Owambo has shown itself to be a responsible Government; this Government has shown itself to be a realistic government and one which is mindful of the welfare of its people. This Government has shown itself to be a government to which resposibility may be entrusted. Sir, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation towards the Government of Owambo for the exceptional sense of responsibility it has displayed. But I want to cross swords with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on another issue in this regard. I was surprised to hear these words uttered by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and that is why I immediately asked him: “Why call them a puppet government?”, to which he replied, “Because they do not have enough powers … and the hon. the Minister knows it.”

But that is quite right. What is a puppet government then?

There is also another meaning attached to the words “puppet government”, and my hon. friend knows it as well as I do.

You asked him what he meant by it, and he told you.

He then told us: “Because its powers are so limited, and the hon. the Minister knows it.”

That is right.

Very well then. He calls them a “puppet government” because they do not have enough powers. But when we want to give them more powers, my hon. friends on the opposite side go through the roof. I therefore hope that when my hon. friend, the Minster of Bantu Administration and Development comes forward here and wants to grant the Bantu authorities more powers, the Opposition will support him instead of obstructing him, for after all they are puppets if they do not have enough powers. Sir, that is typical of hon. members on the opposite side. I really want to make a very serious appeal to them. I have done this on a previous occasion and I want to do so again now. Why must we always speak disparagingly when referring to other states? Why must we always speak disparagingly when referring to other race groups? Take for example the comparison my hon. friend made between South Africa and certain European countries.

“Fifth-rate nations.”

Like my hon. friend. I could not believe my ears when he referred to those highly civilized European countries as “fifth-rate nations”.

He did not. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to this hon. Minister: “Do not give me comparisons with fifth-rate nations”, and the comparisons made here were in fact with those countries. But I leave it at that. I want to refer to a similar statement made in this connection in this debate by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I do not think one should take too much notice of the hon. member for Hillbrow, but I must express my very great displeasure at the fact that the hon. member for Hillbrow used the following words with reference to the visit of President Banda; “We are so famished in this respect that when a small, impoverished state from the north comes here in order to ask for alms as it were, it is regarded as a major diplomatic breakthrough.” Sir, what hope do we have of establishing good relations in Africa if leading members on the opposite side use language such as this? But what is more, Dr. Banda came here as President of Malawi and as the guest of the South African Government, as the guest of South Africa. Sir, he did not come to beg. What right does the hon. member for Hillbrow have to accuse him of coming to South Africa on a begging mission? On what grounds did he make that assertion? One can understand now why even the Sunday Times takes no notice of him. Sir, because his snide and uncalled for remarks have been placed on record, I want to place it on record here that Dr. Banda did not come to South Africa to beg. As for his reference to Malawi as a “small, impoverished state”, I want to point out that it is a state of Africa in its own right, a responsible state with a responsible president as its leader. Sir, it is true that Malawi is a poor country, but I want to say this to the hon. member for Hillbrow, and he can put it in his pipe and smoke it: Malawi is poor, but Malawi is decent. Malawi is not only decent, Malawi is also responsible. I want to express my appreciation. Here we have a country which is poor; they know that they are poor, but they are doing their best, through hard work, to escape from their poverty. We achieve nothing by addressing other states in this disparaging manner, whether they be big or small, rich or poor. But why is Malawi addressed in this fashion; why is the Government of Owambo referred to in such derogatory terms? Sir, it is because they are favourably disposed to South Africa. Those who are favourably disposed to South Africa must be discredited; they must be made to look ridiculous. The heroes of the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party in this House and her kindred spirits—and the hon. member for Hillbrow is one of them—are Zambia, where Kapwepwe is at present being held in prison just because he is in the Opposition, and Tanzania—and when the hon. member was there on this circus tour which she and Colin Eglin made, she bubbled over about what exemplary states these were. This will be my only reference to the Progressive Party. If I, as another leader, may tell the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party in Parliament something, it is that it is time the Progressive Party grew up. The other day I heard someone say— and I have never yet heard a better description of the Progressive Party: “It is all gas but no paraffin.” It is high time they grew up. They can make appointments and issue statements about all sorts of things, but when an election has to be fought one sees nothing of them. I want to say that they are no factor in South African politics and never will be.

Wait and see.

They are your allies.

They are most certainly no allies of mine, because I do not speak to them in the friendly fashion in which hon. members speak to Albert Hertzog and Jaap Marais. What is more, the Progressive Party and I do not use the same propaganda as is used by the United Party and the Hertzogites. But while I am speaking about Malawi, I want to tell my hon. friend this, and I find it reprehensible, that in the Brakpan by-election the agents of the United Party are walking round with that photograph of myself and the two Malawi women. They are walking from one house to the next in order to make propaganda.

It is a fake photograph!

Does that meet with the approval of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? I do not think it does, but then it is time for him to apply discipline in his party. After all, he now has control. I have lost control; so forget about me.

One of your members referred to it as a “fake” photograph.

I know nothing of any reference to it as a “fake” photograph. I want to tell you, I sat there and that photograph was taken at a certain occasion, and in addition I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: he and his people may abuse that as much as they like; they may abuse it to their hearts’ content; it will not yield any returns in Brakpan. But I want to tell him that if he is concerned about the level of our public life, he would instruct that candidate of his in Brakpan not to allow this kind of thing.

But let us continue. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproached me with not spending enough on education, both White education and non-White education. On a previous occasion I pointed out to the hon the Leader of the Opposition that proportionately, pro rata, we have more students at university than any other country in the world. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted figures here that are not correct. [Interjections.] I shall furnish all the replies. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us—I am looking for it here in his Hansard—how the amount spent by us on education has decreased under this Government.

As a percentage of the national income, from 3 per cent to 2½ per cent.

That is exactly what I wanted to look for in order to tell you that you are wrong. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

There are many ways in which one can calculate this. Various calculations have been made in this connection by various people. I have had an authoritative calculation made, and it shows that we spent 3,5 per cent on education in 1950 and that it increased to 4,56 per cent in 1970. I shall now quote this sentence to the hon. member—

So much for the figures which the Leader of the Opposition himself mentioned. This share has been included in the figures for the other countries of the world, but in our case it is just the State’s contribution, while the contributions made by private students and the private sector have not been included. If the contributions made by the students and the private sector are included, it will be considerably higher. For example, if regard is had to the fact that we have about 61 000 full-time students, and the amount is calculated at R700 per student per year, it comes to R42 million, and this should already change the picture; and if schoolchildren are added, the percentage expenditure will be even higher. I say that this is in fact the figure we are spending, but now the hon. the Leader has said we are not doing enough. Sir, as in the case of the pensions I referred to, one can never do enough in this connection. One can always do more, but if the money one has available is taken into account, I want to tell you that pro rata South Africa is doing more than any other country to have proportionately more students at university. Just take engineers, for example, of whom we have an acute shortage in this country. In 1959 the registered number of engineering students at all our engineering faculties was 2 495. In 1970 the figure increased to 4 861, in other words, it has exactly doubled from 1959 to the present time.

But now I want to come to another matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the reproach at me that we were not spending enough money on non-White education. I now want to know from him … I shall wait until he has finished with Achitofel. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the reproach at me across the floor of the House mat we were not spending enough on non-White students. I now want to know this from him: What has he done with his leader in South-West Africa, because he is no longer merely an occasional United Party man; he is now a full-blooded United Party man, because he has been incorporated. With reference to this matter and to Owambo, the Leader of the United Party in South-West Africa, Senator Percy Niehaus, said the following—

He went further and said—

Across the floor of this House he has the temerity to tell me we are spending too little on non-White education.

Give the source from which you are quoting, please.

I am quoting from the Sunday Times of 19th December, 1971. What is more, they placed this in quotation marks as being verbatim, as coming from the Leader of the United Party in South-West Africa. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why he reproaches us across the floor of the House with not spending enough on non-White education, while his Leader in South-West Africa is making political propaganda about the schools and hospitals which we are erecting for the Owambo. What honesty is there in our politics? What political morality is there in this, and what has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition done about the matter? What is he going to do about it?

You must look at the merits of the case.

The merits of the case are that what he said is something unworthy and immoral. I want to know from the vociferous member for Pinelands whether he agrees with that.

Is enough being spent on education, as the hon. the Leader said, or not?

It depends on whether you are speaking with Niehaus’s mouth or with Graaff’s. It depends exclusively on what your view in that connection is.

But, Sir, I must hurry. The urban Bantu have been discussed in the past few days. I also want to say a few words in this regard. During the recess urgent discussions were held with urban Bantu. I personally devoted three days to those discussions. I want to say that these discussions were of a high order and penetrating. The one impression I carried away with me is that, although the urban Bantu, precisely as my colleague, one, two or more Minister M. C. Botha said, may have been urbanized for generations, they all still have their national affiliations. I put the question to them on every occasion, and they replied that all of them still had their national affiliations, and that they knew of no one who did not. Here I want to emphasize the National Party’s view in this connection very clearly, a view which is correct, i.e. that one cannot see the urban Bantu as divorced from his homeland and the people to which he belongs, that one must see the two in the same framework and that all one’s actions must be based on the fact that he is and wants to remain a member of his people. I want to congratulate my colleague’s department on the machinery they have created in this connection. I want to say that there will be development as far as the urban Bantu are concerned, and that development will be within the framework of the National Party’s policy.

But I now want to ask the hon. the Leader a question, a question to which he has not yet replied and which was put to him on 3rd October, 1971, by Hogarth de Hoogh. For all I know, this may be the member for Kensington. I do not know. He begins the article by stating—

Then they say that it strikes them as strange, that they are surprised about it. I quote further—

Let the hon. the Leader now be “on the ball” and tell us who the persons are with whom he held discussions.

But let me go further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made use of this opportunity to move a motion of no confidence in the Government, that is his right; in fact, it is the opportunity an Opposition must make use of to criticize the Government, but not only to criticize the Government, but also to state a general policy. What is more important than this, is that they must prove to the country that they are indeed an alternative government. Let us now take a look at this Opposition which is making these claims. We need not say what my friend here says and what my friend there says. Let us look at what they themselves are saying. Let us also look at their friends’ comments on who and what they actually are. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says I have lost control. He also says that our policy has failed and that we do not know where we are going. However, the Sunday Times has never referred to us as a “party which has lost its way”. What is more, even their enthusiastic supporter, the Cape Times, has had to realize there is no clarity in their ranks. On 17th September the Cape Times spoke of “Graaff to clear up confusion tonight”. Let us now see how he cleared up the confusion. We see that part of the confusion was due to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. “Sensation at party congress”, stated the Cape Times of 18th September, and “Japie Basson’s attack on U.P, policy”.

What does Die Vaderland say?

It does not matter to me now what Die Vaderland says. What matters to me is what the Cape Times says and, what is even more important, what Japie says and what Graaff says. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not get a turn to speak and has not taken part in this debate. We are all interested in whether hon. members opposite should sit here and whether I should sit over there. Let us now try to analyse the matter calmly. In The Star of 31st August the following was stated in an article entitled “Background to the News”—

Mr friend is losing his strength. I read on—

That is what an observer such as The Star has to say about the United Party which, in the words of the hon. member for Pinelands, is asking, “Please make way for us”. We must now make way for a party about which The Star says: “You never know where the emphasis lies and what the party advocates”. Does the hon. member for Pinelands see how ridiculous he was?

Let us go further and in passing look at the Sunday Times of 29th August. There they charge the hon. member for Yeoville with certain things, and quite rightly so in my opinion. This is now the party that tells us they are the alternative government that must take over. Then the confusion was virtually over according to some people and according to hon. members opposite. On 4th October the following leader appeared in The Star—

Mr. Speaker, I can already see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout standing in a patch of flowers, picking the petals and saying: “We have, we have not, we have, we have not …” But this is the party that wants to take over; that is the party that says we must please make way for them right away. But the report continues—

This is the party that must take over from us, but let us continue.

This might sound funny from a backbencher. [Interjections.]

Order!

But, after all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to take over from me. If I am now to hand over, surely I must first make sure to whom I will be handing over; I must first know.

You govern by press cuttings.

No, surely I must now make an evaluation of the hon. the Leader, and I must tell him that my evaluation is very slight. But when this so-called confusion had already been cleared up, another report appeared in this connection in the Rand Daily Mail on 2nd November. The House must know about these things. The report reads as follows—

But let us continue and come to the hon. member for Green Point, who interrupted me earlier on. Just take something like the gap between the salaries and wages of Whites and those of non-Whites. When my hon. colleague Minister Schoeman asked him a question, he blandly pulled out the little booklet and said: “This is our policy”. But how is the matter unfolding itself in practice?

But what has been done during the past seven years to put it right?

No, I am speaking about the United Party now; I am speaking about you. In The Star of Monday, 23rd August, I read the following about this subject—not even to mention other subjects—

We know what they said about him—

But then The Star asks this question, and so do I—

In conclusion: The cornerstone of any party’s policy for the future is Bantu representation in this House of Assembly, for the way in which and the extent to which they are allowed into this House of Assembly will, more than anything else, determine the future of South Africa. Our standpoint is very clear; I need therefore say nothing about it. The standpoint of my friend over there is also clear; I need say nothing about that. His standpoint is that there will be eight White representatives and that they will remain at eight unless the electorate directs, by way of a referendum or a special election, that this should be changed. We know—it is stated in their sixpence policy—that if a person does not subscribe to that policy it is “tickets” for him; then he must go.

I now come to a statement made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am referring to his full speech as he delivered it to the Transvaal congress. In that speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout used these words—

The word “they” refers to certain leaders of the United Party, this is very clear from the context, for earlier in his speech he said that he had become a member of a certain study group, as many other members had done. He said—

This is taken from a verbatim report of his speech.

I just want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in passing why he did not also inform his Congress that the kingpins of this discussion group were Colin Eglin, the leader of the Progressive Party, and himself?

Absolute nonsense! May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? Why do you not mention that it was started by a Nationalist, and that there are prominent Nationalists on it?

I am not mentioning it because it is not correct. I am aware that the hon. member is on that discussion group with a certain person who pretends to be a Nationalist, but who plays no role in the National Party and is not a recognized leader of the National Party.

May I ask you a question? Is Professor Nic Rhoodie not a member of the National Party?

I do not know whether he is a member of the National Party. But I want to ask why the hon. member omitted to mention it to his Congress.

I did not omit to mention it. All the names were published in the Sunday Times; in the Argus and the Times as well.

Here we have the hon. member addressing his Congress, but he did not mention the name of Colin Eglin.

I mentioned only the Black leaders, the non-White leaders. That was the point. It was relevant.

I can understand very well his not mentioning Colin Eglin’s name on that occasion. The hon. member went on to say—

Then he continued—

Who are they? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville does not seem to me to be so old. I quote further—

Then he went on to say what I should like to refer to—

Here we have a rejection of United Party policy by one of its prominent members. This is a categorical and positive rejection of the policy of the United Party, that policy which lays down that the Blacks are to be represented by eight Whites in this House. [Interjections.] It is of fundamental importance that Blacks …

Hit him, Marais!

Order!

I can wait until the hon. member for Yeoville has told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what to say. It is of fundamental importance to know whether the Blacks will be represented here by their own people or whether they will be represented by Whites. My friend the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it will be Whites, and a frontbencher of his, a leading member, says that is nonsense. The frontbencher says that it is a fool’s paradise to say that Blacks must be represented by Whites in this House.

In any place.

The hon. member says “in any place”. In other words, he is now repeating here that it is a foolish man who wants Blacks to be represented by a White man in any place. I now ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether there is not such a thing as self-respect in politics? If you reject the cornerstone of your party’s policy …

It is no cornerstone.

The hon. member says that it is not a cornerstone of their policy. Now I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this hon. member rejects that item of policy of his party. What is he going to do about it?

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

Let me just finish what I have to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and then I shall discuss the matter further with the hon. member. Here we have a frontbencher of the United Party who says that he rejects the basic policy of the United Party, the policy for all councils—including the House of Assembly and all the others. What are you as Leader going to do about this? After all, you have control over your party. After all, the hon. the Leader controls his party, and what is he going to do about this? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not even talking behind your back, as Leader, any more, but he is treating you with contempt in this House. He is treating you with contempt in this House by rejecting your policy in this way and you are smiling about it. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout may put his question to me.

Is the hon. the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition stated clearly that the eight Whites which are being proposed are an interim measure? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if the rules of the House allowed it, I should like to have moved that we adjourn now so that the United Party may hold a caucus meeting on the new policy … [Interjections.] This is becoming more and more interesting. Here the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along and not only states that he rejects with scorn that policy of the United Party, but refers himself to something which has never been said to us—not in this House nor outside!

Your ignorance is astonishing. [Interjections.]

Very well, let us see now …

In other words, the hon. member for Yeoville agrees.

Of course.

You are doing a terrible thing.

We did tell you this. [Interjections.]

Let us now proceed … [Interjections.]

Order!

In other words, we must now, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, have an interim period …

That is not according to me; it is the official policy.

The policy with which you do not agree? [Interjections.] The official policy of the United party is—and we take cognizance of this —that we must live in a fool’s paradise for an interim period. [Interjections.] We must now for a period be suspended in limbo. May I now ask the hon. the Leader; If it is his policy that we should for an interim period be in limbo, in this fool’s paradise, for how long will we have to stay there? Sir, here we now have the cornerstone of the policy, i.e. that they will be represented by Whites, and the hon. the Leader has said that he stands and falls by that, and that he will only change it if directed to do so by way of a referendum or a general election.

Hear, hear!

Now they are saying that this is only for an interim period. Sir, I leave it at that; it will provide fruitful grounds for discussion as we proceed.

I make haste, Sir, to come to the final aspect of my speech. I have listened to the discussions which have been held here; I have given thought to the discussions which have not been held here; and I am convinced, like every colleague on the opposite side of the House, that the years ahead are not merely going to be of very great importance, for if we consider what is happening in various parts of the world, if we consider the progress the communists have made, if we consider the chaos, the struggles and the bloodshed occurring in various parts of the world at the present time, then it arouses concern for the period ahead; it causes concern to everyone who has the welfare of the world at heart. The time has come for one to ask oneself again: What lies behind it all? Against what must we entrench ourselves and against what must we be on our guard? Sir, I have read a great deal on this matter, but I want to tell you frankly—and therefore I do not apologize for taking up the time of the House on this matter —that the best comment I have found on it is a short passage written more than 40 years ago in this regard by Sir Winston Churchill.

A pity you did not always agree with Churchill.

It makes no difference now whether or not I agreed with him previously. It is not relevant now. What is relevant is that the words he wrote at the time, are true. This is what he wrote—

We too, Sir, must take this to heart in these times. It will be of decisive importance to every one of us, when we consider these matters, to manage our race relations in such a way that there is an assured place for everybody in South Africa. We should always be asking ourselves how we are going to get along with one another, for that is the question which is going to determine the future. This will require great patience, it will require regular consultations, and it will require that we lend an ear to problems and bottlenecks. It also means that inciters and agitators must be kept in check. Race relations can easily become strained and can sometimes be very delicate under the circumstances. The world is full of this, if we think of Nigeria, if we think of Cyprus, if we think of the present relations between Jew and Arab, between Moslem and Hindu, between the British and the Irish. We have examples of this through-out the world.

I think that our Parliament should keep an eye on all organizations and should keep an eye on all trends which may possibly in this connection be giving rise to subversion. I emphasize the word “possibly”, for in this connection we cannot afford to make a mistake. If we should make a mistake, with the potentially explosive situation we have in South Africa, we would have to pay dearly for it. I have mentioned Parliament deliberately, because in my humble opinion Parliament can rightly play a role in regard to this matter, and I do not for one moment doubt that Parliament will play its role in this regard. I believe that Parliament should take cognizance of four organizations which exist in South Africa; four organizations with widespread subsidiaries and ramifications. I believe that Parliament should take cognizance of these bodies. I believe that Parliament, as the chief guardian of our liberties, should acquaint itself with the objectives and activities of these organizations and their subsidiaries, their contacts and their financing.

For that reason I intend proposing as soon as possible that a Select Committee of this Parliament be appointed to investigate the objectives, activities, etc., which I have mentioned here, of the following four organizations: the University Christian Movement, Nusas, the Christian Institute and the Institute of Race Relations. Sir, I do not want to pronounce any judgment on these people at the present moment; I do not want to place them in the dock in anticipation, but in view of the information at my disposal, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not tell Parliament that the information indicates that there is a prima facie case here which needs to be investigated. I believe that Parliament, as the guardian of liberty, should undertake that investigation by means of a Select Committee, consisting of members of both parties, and once Parliament has done that, Parliament will have acted in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister, in a lengthy reply, has given us the full gamut of his platform tricks and of the manner in which, I have no doubt, he performs at “stryddae” of his party in various parts of South Africa. But I am glad, Sir, that he finished on a more serious note and warned of the dangers of international Communism and its possible effects on our lives in South Africa. I want to say to him that I believe—I believe this side of the House has always believed—that one of the ways to fight Communism is to remove those fields of dispute, those fertile fields, to be exploited by the agitator in the field of race relations. One of the ways to combat Communism is to ensure that the methods you use in fighting even your opponents are not the same sort of methods that communists themselves use, because you run a real danger very often, in fighting Communism, that you will introduce the very methods that you dislike most about that system.

Sir, the hon. gentleman quoted Churchill’s well-known statement on Communism. He might as well have quoted the address of the late Field-Marshal Smuts on that subject when he was installed as Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. He was, I think, perhaps one of the first world statesmen to warn against the insidious methods being used by communist powers to infiltrate those whom they felt they could not overthrow in other ways. It is noticeable, Sir, that within four years of this Government’s taking over, the Prime Minister of the day, Dr. Malan, made a statement in which he referred to a Police report that had been compiled during the years when the United Party was in power. He pointed out how serious the situation had been and said: “Of course, the situation is much worse now,” after four years of a Nationalist Government in power. Sir, at various times during the currency of this Government we have heard from various Ministers on that side that Communism and communist activities in South Africa have been limited (aan bande gelê) and that they had, so to speak, been destroyed.

That is so.

The hon. gentleman claims that that is so. Well, Sir, they go on destroying them …

Because they always come back.

… but it seems that they always come back, and they always come back because there are conditions here which they can exploit. That, I think, is the cardinal point; there are conditions here that they can exploit. The hon. the Prime Minister says that there have been occasions when they have been destroyed, but they always come back. I think we have to ask ourselves the question: Why do they always come back?

Because they want to.

One cannot help feeling that one of the fields in which they are most interested in South Africa is the field of race relations. We had a statement from the Prime Minister in a Press interview that if one of these newly created Bantu states were to seek to ally itself with countries of the Far Left —and Moscow and Peking were mentioned—he would not interfere; he respected their independence. The interesting thing, Sir, is that the hon. the Minister of Defence, who is responsible for the security of the country in that regard, told an audience, as reported in the Cape Times, that the United Party was making propaganda with the story that independent Bantustans could form alliances with communist countries. That, the hon. gentleman said, would not be allowed.

What are you quoting from?

Did you say it?

Why did you not raise this in your main speech?

Do you deny it?

Sir, the hon. gentleman seems a little surprised at the statement. I have the cutting somewhere—

Why not read the reply I gave to that report?

I have never seen a reply to it.

It suits you to quote the wrong one.

Do you deny having said it?

Does the hon. the Minister stand by that or does he not?

In my reply to the hon. member for Durban Point I gave the correct words that I used, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know it. The Minister has no right to say that I know it.

You should know it.

You should accept his word.

But I go further. Sir, I say quite clearly this Minister of Defence is prepared to take the same risks as the Prime Minister to the everlasting regret of South Africa. I say that if there was anything responsible for the fact that Communism is the danger that it is in South Africa, it is the non-European policy of this Government. Sir, let us look at what is happening. A lot has been said in this debate about the urban Bantu. A lot has been said about the Government’s non-European policies and the creation of independent Bantustans. I reiterate the danger that could arise if one of those independent states entered into negotiations with communist countries. We know, Sir, what has been happening already; we know that there are communist embassies in certain of the independent states on our borders. We know that Botswana and Soviet Russia are seeking to enter into diplomatic relations. We know of the influence that was exercised by those communist countries in the recent elections in Lesotho, yet the Government goes on with a policy of this kind, destined to divide South Africa up and to create that danger to an ever-greater degree.

But, Sir, I believe that that danger exists as well in the attitude of the Government to the urban Bantu in South Africa. I think that is one of the main reasons why this issue was raised in the course of this debate. You see, Sir, when you look at the sort of situation that is developing in these areas, you find that many millions of people living in the urban townships, around our big industrial complexes, with no security of tenure, no home ownership, no right of family life, are getting a very indifferent opportunity for education for themselves and for their children; they are getting very little secondary education in those areas and they are becoming some of the big danger spots in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, look at what has been happening: You have a statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister in this House that he intends relaxing the provisions in respect of certain Bantu who are more or less permanently in those areas, to allow them to bring in brides from areas which are not prescribed, i.e. from the homelands or the rural areas, if they marry them. When that statement is greeted with acclamation by most people who have the interests of the country at heart, you find the hon. gentleman outside this House running away from that statement to a large extent and qualifying it as best he can. When one reads that statement, one finds first of all the declaration by him that teachers will be allowed to move with their families and will be given housing. Sir, why are teachers favoured above other professional classes which are almost as necessary? Then the hon. gentleman says they will be allowed to bring their wives, if housing is available. What are they doing about housing for families in those Bantu townships? How great have the cuts not been in respect of the Johannesburg and Durban municipalities in the housing for families in those Bantu townships?

I think the paths of the two sides of the House diverged a long time ago when it came to the question of the urban Bantu. We accepted that they would be a permanent part of the industrial structure of South Africa, that they would be permanently in the White areas. We accepted that some 20 years ago. The other side of the House has regarded them as impermanent. They have not been prepared to give them any vested rights at all and their whole idea was to reduce their numbers as far as possible and to cut them down to well below what they are at the moment. In fact, we had hon. members and hon. Ministers on the other side of the House telling us how easy it was to get on without servants and how we would have to do without servants in future, as the urban Bantu were sent back to the Bantu homelands and the Bantu areas.

Blaar washed his own dishes!

Yes, The party sought to settle the Bantu problem by ridding South Africa for ever of the black man. When that is their philosophy, we now suddenly hear from this Deputy Minister that the plans for the urban Bantu are unfolding and these include additional opportunities for wives to be housed with their husbands under certain circumstances. He says also that there may be other things coming about which he is not prepared to speak at present. But if you look at the history of this Government you find that virtually every single one of its enactments concerning the urban Bantu, have been enactments of negative effect, to make them less secure, to give them the feeling that they do not belong in these urban areas and to give them the feeling that they are there as a privilege, only while they can work for the White people of South Africa. What has happened? Whereas in the old days of the United Party home ownership for those people was allowed in those urban Bantu townships, now you have step after step being taken by this Government to put an end to the system of home ownership for the urban Bantu.

Let us look a little more closely at what that means. I have a report here which was the result of a conference of various municipalities on the question of Bantu housing not so long ago. The report states that until a few years ago Bantu in the urban areas were allowed to acquire their own homes or build them themselves. That approach was discontinued in 1968 and the municipalities were instructed to buy back those houses as and when they became vacant. They had to buy them back, but the Government supplied no funds for the buying back. Oh no, they left that to the municipalities, knowing that that would leave less money for additional housing for the urban Bantu in their areas. What is more, they undermined that pride which the individual Bantu had in his home. They deprived him of a source of saving, something which he could pass on to his wife and children and which he could sell at the end of his time in the White area, when he returned to a Bantu area. They placed these people in the position that where in the past they had made efforts to convert their modest homes into something more elaborate and more attractive, regarding them as a good investment in which they could take pride, and now we find the situation arising where they are tending more and more to neglect them because they belong to somebody else. Hon. members opposite had a lot to say about the fact that I visited Soweto, as I have done before on a number of occasions. I also visited Kwa Mashu and other townships in the country. On every occasion the best houses in those areas were where home ownership was allowed to the Bantu.

I go further. Not only have they restricted ownership of their own homes, but they have purposely restricted facilities for higher and vocational training of the urban Bantu in their own areas. They are told that they can only get that training in the Bantu homeland. Now we find the position that there is no State programme for training people to make them skilled in those areas. Training goes on clandestinely. They do skilled work, not as of right but by virtue of exemptions. Where one would have thought that this would be the source of skilled labour to go back to the Bantustans, this is being neglected and there is virtually nothing flowing from it.

What happens as well is that there is pressure from the Government to force traders and professional men to go back to the reserves. The decree has gone out that in the urban townships your Bantu doctors and professional men are not to practise. That work is to be done by the Whites in those areas. Surely this should have been one of the facilities which should have been available to these people; it would have had a tremendous psychological effect on them.

The Government boasts of the way in which it reduces the number of Bantu in the White areas, but it does not think of the consequences as far as the employer is concerned, having to replace people at short intervals and to get others in their places who are not trained for the work. You find the emphasis not on homes and home ownership; under this Government the emphasis is on the hostel system, which is being enforced more and more, and on the pass laws, which are being more and more strictly enforced in those areas. Then you have this hon. Minister coming along and saying that he is not making concessions, although be used the word “vergunning”. He says “Dit is geen vergunning nie”, but a logical unfolding of Government policy. Sir, this is not a logical unfolding of Government policy. It is a complete negation of Government policy and the hon. gentleman knows it. I welcome it, but I fear that as applied by this Government and this Minister it will be a stop-go affair, because he is going to find that he will encounter resistance from his own people who have been told that these Bantu in the urban areas are here merely temporarily and that they should seek their future in the Bantu homelands.

The whole basis of his philosophy and that of his party is that these urban Bantu retain their tribal affiliations. I accept at once that they know which Bantu nation they belong to. They know which tribe they came from, or, in some cases, their parents came from. But to suggest that they have the same aspirations and desires and that they are the same sort of people any more as those who are living in the Bantu homelands is to stretch one’s imagination to the absolute extreme. We have the evidence here of the hon. member for Potchefstroom and I have very seldom heard such biased evidence in my life. You see, I went to Soweto. This is what the Chairman of the Soweto Urban Council said: He abhorred tribalism because it could not benefit residents who were all faced with the same hardships and disabilities, regardless of their tribal background.

And now?

What is so interesting is that not so long ago there was a lecture by Dr. Leistner, Director of the Africa Institute, in which he dealt with this very issue. That gentleman is an authority on these matters. I want to read only a few excerpts from what he said—

What I consider one of the most important books published in this country in recent years, is a book by Dr. Durandt, a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church of Africa, and he writes as follows—

That is common sense.

I read further—

[Interjections.] That is the basis of the policy on which this Government has founded its provisions in respect of the urban Bantu. [Interjections.] Do you realize, Sir, that the urban Bantu population is growing at the rate of 4 per cent or 5 per cent per annum? It is growing at a rate of over 150 000 per year at the present time. Do you realize that one of the experts of the Department of Planning believes that by the year 2000 there will be over 20 million urban Bantu in South Africa, and that they will account for over two-thirds of all urban inhabitants?

I come back to the dangers of Communism. I come back to the effect of Communism and its doctrines upon people placed in that position. I want to ask hon. members of this House to look at it through their eyes. What do you find if you look at the situation as far as they are concerned and what do you see? You see poverty induced by discriminatory restraints on what a man may do, which make orderly living and his privacy and the inculcation of civilized habits very difficult indeed. You see, Sir, the insecurity of tenure which makes all efforts for the future worthless. It makes him cautious and he does not adopt the provident habits of a civilized person. You see something which means a lot to the Bantu is the humiliation of the elders, whom he has been taught to look up to, as a result, very often, of contraventions of the pass laws. You see lack of proper educational training as of right in so far as these people are concerned.

I wonder what the consequence of that insecurity is going to be? It is an insecurity, unfortunately, which is not declining; it is increasing. The tragedy is that a lot of real good is being done by this Government, as has been done by previous governments. I would be the first to recognize the quality of the health services which are provided, the work which is being done in slum clearance, the provision of primary education on a tremendous scale and improvements in job opportunities—I think it is too slow, but it is happening. However, I am afraid all this weighs too lightly in the scale against the loss of the ordinary rights which every family man wants to enjoy, when the one is weighed up against the other.

Hear, hear!

Well said!

I impute no ill motives to this Government—far be that for me—but I believe it has too long been blindly wrapped up in policies on paper, in blueprints which cannot work and in solutions for the Bantu problem which are being forced on to the Bantu without proper consultation or regard to their own wishes, and which is placing us in a position that Blacks in their millions are always going to be in and around our urban areas. I am afraid they are not going to be that settled population which we would so like to see in a troublesome world at the present time. You see, Sir, the policies of that side of the House are wrong. I think every South African knows they are wrong. Tragically, we all have to suffer for them. I think as far as we are concerned, we on this side of the House are very sick of the sense of guilt that one gets when one sees what is happening to the family life of the Bantu people under this Government, when one sees the conditions under which they live in these Bantu townships, when one looks at the unutterable waste of human material which could be put to good purpose, all because of the policies of this Government, and when one sees the short-sightedness of the arrogant attitude that is being employed by them. That is why we on this side of the House have been unable to accept those policies. That is why we have envisaged a different sort of policy for South Africa.

We have sought to see that the urban Bantu will get home ownership, that he will enjoy undisturbed family life where-ever possible, that there will be exemptions from the pass laws for the responsible Bantu, that there will be proper educational facilities, and that there will be active steps to try and promote the emergence of a responsible Bantu middle class that will be the greatest bastion against Communism you could build up in South Africa.

We realize also that economic prosperity is not all that is asked for by human beings at the present time. They want some say in how their lives are conducted and how their affairs are managed. While this Government has gone along the route of dividing South Africa up into separate states, we have gone along the route of trying to keep South Africa as one whole under a federal arrangement. This policy was enunciated a long time ago. It was first set out, I think, in booklet form in 1963, a booklet that went into eight editions. In it I set out very clearly that that policy would be put into operation by the United Party on coming into power in three stages which would necessarily overlap. I said that in the first stage we would see to it that certain of the senseless discriminatory laws that existed would be repealed and reviewed. I said that steps would be taken to see whether there were unnecessary invasions of the dignity and the freedom of individuals. I said steps would be taken to try and strengthen the economic position, so that there would be higher standards of living for all sections of the community.

Then came the second stage where I said we would create the machinery for consultation in South Africa. Part of that machinery would be the creation for each race group of what we call “Communal Councils”, which would manage their own affairs for them, those affairs of a most intimate nature. I indicated that we believe in consultation at all levels and that therefore there should be liaison between those Communal Councils and Parliament, and that that liaison should be by way of standing statutory committees in which White man and non-White man would meet around the table as representing each his own Parliament or Communal Council, discussing matters of concern to them. I believe that at that stage, while the machinery for consultation is being brought into operation, there should be representation for each non-white group here in Parliament. On the issue of the Bantu I said I believed their representation here should be by eight people, who should be White, and six in the Senate. I undertook that there would be no change otherwise than as the result of a referendum or an election in which that was the issue, and there was a substantial majority of the White voters in favour thereof. I indicated that I believed that, with the passage of time and the growth of consultation, we would reach a stage where we would be able to introduce a federal constitution in South Africa with the approval of the White electorate by a substantial majority by means of a referendum. In such a constitution White leadership will not only be accepted, but will also be entrenched. The rights of minorities will be protected and it will also allow for defined representation for each separate group. The hon. the Prime Minister is upset, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout feels that it is wrong for Whites to represent non-Whites.

I am not upset; I am amused.

He is amused, because he thinks that what the hon. gentleman wants is that they should be represented by non-Whites. I believe that what he wants is something quite different. He would like not to see them represented in this Parliament, but in some other body. The hon. the Prime Minister sits with a smile, but I want to tell him that our policy is perfectly plain and simple and that it has been in existence for years. It was once again unanimously approved of at the national congress of this party in Bloemfontein. Let me say something else to the hon. the Prime Minister. We know quite a bit about his political past. He was not always a democrat. He had very different ideas about the Central Government of South Africa …

I said so in Parliament.

Exactly, that is one of the reasons why we know about it. The hon. gentleman has changed. He tells us he is a democrat today and that democratic institutions are safe in his hands. We do not question that statement. I want to say to him that whatever difficulties the Press thought existed and whatever difficulties some organs of the Press sought to create in the ranks of the United Party, these issues were finally decided at the Central Congress of the United Party in Bloemfontein and unanimously accepted. I will tell him something else. They were not only unanimously accepted, but the delegates were so satisfied that by means of a unanimous resolution they gave me the power to change that policy at any time because they knew that I would never take any step that would not get the virtually unanimous support of the United Party.

*I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he thinks he can sow dissension in the ranks of the United Party with the sort of speech he delivered today, I simply want to say to him now that he is fishing on dry land. In addition, I should like to inform him that no secret sessions were held at that congress. Everything was discussed in public, and the policy of the United Party was approved.

*As far as the statements of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are concerned, about “paternalistic political crumbs”, I want to say that our policy makes provision for the discussions the hon. member wants. He has his own ideas about representation or non-representation, but what he is saying does not conflict with what may be the ultimate result of that consultation between White and non-White in South Africa.

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

No. The difference between our party and the Nationalist Party is that we proceed by way of consultation at all levels to try and carry these people with us. The policy of that party on the other hand is to say to the people: “This is the policy. You like it or you lump it. We will give you self-determination as to whether you have independence or nothing at all”. That is their attitude. If there ever was a policy that endangered the whole future of South Africa, then it is the policy of this Government in respect, not only of the rural Bantu, but in effect, in respect also of the urban Bantu. If there is any one matter which makes me feel that this Government is unfit to govern South Africa and unworthy of the confidence of the people, then it is the attitude it has taken up in respect of non-White policy and its record in that regard.

I was challenged by the hon. member for Langlaagte—I see he is not here—that the demands we were making in respect of the urban Bantu were all new; he says that he has never seen them before. Those were enshrined in the 1954 policy statement of the United Party, what the hon. the Prime Minister called the “sikspensbeleid”. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will lend him a copy so that he does not make foolish statements of that kind again.

I will surely do that because then you will have a sixpence. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister has sought to reply to certain queries I put to him in respect of certain other matters. The first of those has to do with a statement by the hon. gentleman in respect of the Caprivi Strip and the activities which had taken place there. I asked the hon. the Prime Minister several questions in that regard. I asked him how it could have come about that a newspaper, the Transvaler, which interviewed him personally on the day he made that statement through its senior reporter, Mr. Van der Merwe, could have made such an entirely erroneous report the following day.

I said at the congress that there was no excuse for it whatsoever.

The hon. the Prime Minister says there was no excuse for it whatsoever. But here is the statement from the Rhodesia Herald:

Mr. Vorster says he did not say this was happening …

That is, crossing the border—

I never saw them at all.

Here is the report of the Rhodesia Herald. The hon. the Prime Minister says he never saw them. I accept it, but why should they make a statement of this kind? Then we had a leading article in Die Volksblad dealing with this matter. Dealing with the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement, the article says:

The article reads further:

I said there was newspaper reference to what I had said in that regard. The other thing the hon. the Prime Minister has not answered is why there was no reaction to the report in Hoofstad the afternoon he made that statement. There was a most sensational report in the chief city of the Republic, where the hon. the Prime Minister was holding his congress, and I cannot believe that there were no “kongresgangers”, no member of the Police or members of the Security Forces who drew his attention to it.

It was in a special edition published late that day.

Did nobody read it?

I did not see it. In the ordinary editions there was nothing about it.

I accept that it was in a special edition. I accept, in all good faith, that the hon. the Prime Minister never saw it. However, what seems extraordinary to me, is that nobody of authority in the Government or in the Civil Service under this Government, or in the Police Force—and the senior officers must have known what was going on—neither drew the Prime Minister’s attention to it nor took any action in respect of that matter at the time. If they had taken action that night, nine-tenths of the wrong publicity given that statement would never have occurred. I say without hesitation that I accept the Prime Minister’s statement unequivocally, but that statement was so drafted that it was painfully capable of an ambiguous interpretation.

The statement speaks for itself.

The hon. the Prime Minister says this statement speaks for itself. That is right!—It has spoken for itself. It created confusion throughout the Press of South Africa and throughout the Press of the civilized world. I know that, if the hon. gentleman, for whatever reason he drafted that statement, is unable to draft a statement with more clarity than that, then it is high time somebody else was doing the job. [Interjections.]

He has colleagues in several voices.

That is a fair joke.

The hon. gentleman dealt with the queries I raised in respect of the Agliotti matter. This is a really extraordinary affair. The hon. the Prime Minister expresses his regret at the delay. He reiterates the regret on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that, as a result of questions in this House, we elicited that inquiry must have started in September, 1970? That means that that inquiry has been going on now for 17 or 18 months. Is it possible that, with our top investigators and the assistance of advocates in the employ of the State, we have not yet reached a stage where a charge can be laid or where it can be said that no charge can be laid? Mr. Speaker, I reiterate: This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and I want to tell the hon. gentleman that he will get no rest from us until this matter is brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Then we have the question of the statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior and repudiated by the hon. the Minister of Information. It would seem that the hon. the Prime Minister does not agree with the hon. the Minister of the Interior either because he disagrees that there is a danger of violence or he does not believe that these conditions obtain in South Africa. Well, what is he doing about that Minister? Is he making sure he will not issue statements of that kind again? Is he keeping him in his Cabinet if that sort of thing is allowed to go on?

The hon. gentleman tells us what the policy of his Government is, namely to narrow the historical gap between White and non-White wages which exists in South Africa. Here he must help me: In the course of his speech he said that the salaries of White workers had quadrupled since 1948.

I was talking about factory workers. That is the example I quoted.

Yes, he said that the salaries of factory workers had quadrupled since 1948. He also said that the salaries of non-White factory workers had trebled since 1948. In other words, out of his own mouth he stands condemned because the gap has been widened under this Government. The gap has been widened when the salaries of the White factory workers have quadrupled, that is they have been multiplied four times, while the non-White salaries have multiplied only three times. That means that the gap must be bigger now than it was at that stage. In fact, it must be very much bigger. Unfortunately that is a state of affairs that has been happening …

What about private enterprise?

Why did the hon. the Prime Minister mention that as an example?

Why has he got a Wage Board?

Why did the hon. gentleman mention it as an example? He has a Wage Board …

The salaries and the standard wages of the people of South Africa.

Fixed by the Wage Board?

Yes, and the gap has increased.

They fix the minimum salaries and you know it.

And the gap has increased. The hon. the Prime Minister …

What is the minimum which has been fixed by the Wage Board?

I am not arguing about the minimum which has been fixed by the Wage Board. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the salaries of White workers have quadrupled and that the salaries of non-White workers have trebled. That means that the gap is wider than it was before. You are faced with something else. The ratio paid to White and non-White professional men in the provincial services was 10:9:8 at one stage in 1964 and it was accepted that it would be so. Today in some cases it is as low as 10 to 5 under this Government, whose policy is to narrow …

The ratio has been restored.

The hon. gentleman says that the ratio has been restored. Maybe the ratio has been restored, but they are not enjoying the salaries yet. I can tell the hon. the Prime Minister that this hon. gentleman was in fact an Administrator and was, one can say, a co-conspirator in seeing that the wage and salary gap widened during the time he was Administrator of the province of Natal. I do not want to make anything serious of the conference the Prime Minister held and the interview he gave on this issue. He spoke of the Industrial Conciliation Act because he knows it does not apply to the Bantu or to the Civil Service. He spoke of the Wage Act and the fact that it prohibits discrimination. Furthermore, he spoke of the Labour Disputes Act. I accept all that, but he knows very well that even the minimum wages laid down by this Wage Board provide for vast differences in the type of job that is normally done by non-Whites and the type of job that is normally done by Whites. So, the whole impression created is a false one as far as the picture of South Africa is concerned. Here we are: a Cabinet with a policy to narrow the gap, but it is enlarging the gap; a Minister stating his own views, but he is contradicted by another Minister and largely contradicted by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Indeed, very little progress has been made in that regard.

We dealt with the situation in Owambo and the hon. the Prime Minister took exception to my reference to the Owambo Government as a “puppet government” When he queried it across the floor of the House I said it was because of the limited powers they had. Hon. members know very well that there is a government which virtually have only advisory powers at present. It is a government with very limited powers indeed. I go so far as to say the following. The hon. the Minister has told us with pride that agreement has been reached between Government and Government on this issue of wage agreement. Where has that Owambo Government the power to enforce that agreement?

They have already passed one enactment.

The hon. the Minister says that they have already passed an enactment…

With regard to labour.

… With regard to labour. They get their power from the Republican Government.

From their Constitution.

Which comes from the Republican Government. In other words, you are in the position that the Owambo Government is entirely subservient to the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

So what?

The hon. the Prime Minister says that I complain when it is proposed to give them more power. Let me tell that hon. Minister that it is the policy of this side of the House to have a communal council for that area and to give them far more powers than these hon. gentlemen have sought to give them. We are once more in the position that we are told that there has been a settlement. However, there is still unrest and there are still disturbances in the territory. I am a long way from being satisfied that the situation is now satisfactory.

Then we raised one other matter with the hon. the Prime Minister which concerned the unanswered questions arising from the Government’s use of the vast powers it has to invade personal freedom in South Africa. We had difficulty with the hon. the Prime Minister who could not understand why we were not satisfied with findings of an inquest as to cause of death and the circumstances surrounding it and why we called for a judicial commission. I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister does not feel that his failure to have these matters cleared up expeditiously and to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the public of South Africa, is something which is doing the image of South Africa harm, not only in the outside world but in the field where he is seeking dialogue at the present time. I wonder if that accusation which he makes against us, viz. that we are allowing ourselves to be used as tools by communists, cannot be thrown back at the hon. gentleman because of the unfavourable publicity he is getting for South Africa because of his attitude in this matter. Few things can react more unfavourably than the hon. gentleman’s remark in this House namely: why do you tell them there were only nine? Only nine have committed suicide or are alleged to have committed suicide while in detention. Nine seems to me nine too many.

Why did you say “a number”? [Interjections.]

When I asked for a judicial commission I mentioned the number, but I thought it was eight and not nine. I mentioned the lesser number. I asked for a judicial commission because I said this was happening far too frequently. What we want to know is what are the methods of interrogation. Have they anything to do with the resultant suicide of no less than nine people while in detention? That is the important question. No inquest can satisfy you on that. Here is a pattern which needs investigation by a judicial commission to set the minds of everybody in South Africa at rest.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not answering questions. I am replying and you have had five days in which to put your questions. I put this very seriously because I feel that it is most important that the concern which is felt by the public of South Africa be cleared up on these issues. Do not let the hon. the Prime Minister come along with the smear that we are playing the game of the communists or that we are friendly disposed towards the communists or anything of that kind. Concern exists among vast numbers of men who were not afraid to place their lives in jeopardy for South Africa and are prepared to defend it at all costs, even at the risk of their own lives. They say that they have every sympathy with those Police who have lost their lives on the border. They look upon them as comradesin-arms. We want the name of our country to stand high and clean amongst the nations of the world and we believe that that could have been achieved by a satisfactory judicial commission enquiring into these matters at that time.

I may say in passing that no good can come to South Africa or its good name by the fatuous denial by the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police that we have any such thing as detention without trial in South Africa. What is the use of trying to play with words and to conceal the fact that people can be arrested by the Police and can be held indefinitely without trial for purposes of interrogation. That is detention without trial. They are detained and they cannot go away. It is without trial and indefinite. What does the hon. gentleman think he is achieving except making himself ridiculous by saying that there is no such thing as detentions without trial in South Africa? They are creating an appalling image for the country when statements of that kind are made by Ministers who should be responsible persons.

The main gravamen of the attack in this debate has been on the Government’s handling of the economic situation in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with that issue for only a few minutes in his reply. Certain of his Ministers have sought to meet the accusations made. Therefore I must deal with them. The hon. gentleman made reference to the satisfactory state of insolvencies from the official figures he had of insolvencies of individuals and firms. Is that correct? They were individuals and firms and not companies.

Partnerships and individuals.

Partnerships and individuals.

Not companies.

That excludes companies. The figures which I have are very different. These figures also concern companies in South Africa which have been the victims of hard trading conditions, possibly far more than individuals and partnerships. The figure I have for the Transvaal alone is 771 insolvencies in 1970 and 954 in 1971. There is another indicator which is even more …

Those figures are definitely wrong.

These are insolvencies and liquidations of individuals, partnerships and companies for the Transvaal alone.

The figures are very definitely wrong.

The hon. the Prime Minister challenges the figure. It comes from Informer published in the Transvaal.

What did you say the figure was?

771 for 1970 and 954 for 1971. That is for the Transvaal alone. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another indicator.

For the Transvaal alone?

For the Transvaal alone.

The figures are totally wrong.

The hon. gentleman does not know what is going on. But there is another indicator which shows what has been going on. Let us take judgments for debt in the magistrates’ courts and the supreme courts. In the Transvaal alone there were 11 304 for 1970 and 16 502 for 1971. What is interesting is the figure involved. The figure was R8,2 million in 1970 and R16,4 million in 1971. I hope my figures are wrong. These are figures that have been given me reliably as indicators of the situation at the present time.

The hon. the Prime Minister has also queried my figures on education expressed as a percentage of the national income. Those figures were taken from Focus, a Merca bank publication which I believe to be correct on the basis as they worked it out.

I hope you give correct figures this time.

The hon. gentleman is entitled to make his own conclusions.

Mr. Speaker, what has been interesting about this debate has not been the attempts of hon. Ministers on the other side to answer the arguments or the criticisms advanced from this side of the House, but the consistent attempts to draw red herrings across the trail and to try and suggest that to be critical of South Africa in the commercial or the economic fields and to criticize any action taken by the Government, is to be disloyal to South Africa. It seems to me as if we have a new dictionary, a new use of words in respect of debates on economic issues at the present time. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believe that if I and my colleagues had spent the major time of the House this week defending the cost of living when we knew what was going on or had put our case in such a way that the effects of a rising cost of living in South Africa were not brought out, or if we had spent our time castigating South Africans for living beyond their means instead of examining the basic reasons for people having to spend more, we would have been disloyal and unpatriotic, because I believe that being unpatriotic is not having the interests of your country and the welfare of the majority of the population at heart. I believe what is unpatriotic is this attempt to smear honest critics of the Government as persons who are disloyal to South Africa and unpatriotic. Sir, it is not done because they have answers to the arguments. No, Sir, it is done because they do not know what to reply at the present time.

It is about two months since we had devaluation. As I said in my opening address, devaluation has only bought time to set our house in order, and not much time at that. On the economic front, I believe this is the most important issue facing South Africa. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we have never criticized the Government for devaluing.

What about the hon. member for Constantia?

We have been unhappy that the Government landed in a position where we know that it had to devalue. We believe that if the Government had done its job properly, it might have been in a very different position. No Government wants to devalue. They always deny it till the last moment, and the hon. the Minister of Finance knows that; they always deny it to the last moment. It is not a course upon which a Government lightly embarks. We accept that the situation under this Government was so bad that there was no question but that they had to do it. But, Sir, devaluation is not an end in itself. Unless it is accompanied by certain other measures, in isolation it is a meaningless thing, and I believe that unless the other measures are taken, devaluation can have a very bad effect upon South Africa. That has been the burden of my argument. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister took exception last night to the statements made by the hon. member for Constantia in which he seemed to indicate that there was a crisis situation in South Africa. Sir, it was rather interesting to read Rapport over the week-end, this Nationalist newspaper with a Nationalist Minister as Chairman of its board.

That is not true.

I am sorry; he is on the Board; he is not Chairman. Rapport states—

Is Rapport disloyal, Mr. Speaker?

[Inaudible.]

He says “yes”.

Did the Minister say it is disloyal? I would like it on record, Sir, that the Minister of Finance says that Rapport is disloyal for having said that. [Interjections.] Sir, here is a report of a statement by somebody else, somebody who went to Geneva to justify South Africa’s imposition of greater import control in South Africa—

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Finance can give his judgment again. You see, Sir, this is the sort of nonsense that we end up with when we have these ridiculous attitudes taken up by Ministers on the other side. What would be unpatriotic, Sir, would be to try to camouflage the reasons for the difficulties in which we find ourselves. I believe that one of the things that is unpatriotic is for a Government to remain in power when its policies are damaging the welfare of the people.

Hear, hear!

Throughout this debate the accusation has come from the other side of the House that we have made no positive proposals in respect of the economic situation. You will recall, Sir, that I outlined what I believed to be the short-term measures to get the best benefits from devaluation. I said the aim of these measures should be simple and direct, i.e. to increase productivity, to get more goods and services off the production line as fast and as sufficiently as possible. Sir, who produces the goods and services? The people who produce them are the businessmen of South Africa. Therefore I dealt with the various changes I believe should take place. Not one of those changes has been criticized by a member on the opposite side of the House; not one Minister has said whether they are accepting those recommendations or not. Not one Minister has told us whether they will take those steps or steps of that kind. I said that credit ceilings must be lifted even if not removed entirely. Are they going to do that? I said the companies tax must be reduced so that business can once again be able to finance expansion from its own savings. Are they going to do that? I said the tax on the rewards of risk-taking and the use of initiative and hard work at managerial level must be reduced. Will they do that? The hon. the Minister of Finance did say that one of the advantages of devaluation was that he may be able to reduce taxation and loans. We have noted that, Sir. We shall watch this hon. gentleman. I went further and said exports must be encouraged on a realistic basis, and this must take into account the most important issue on the export front, i.e. to produce here in South Africa goods at a cost and price sufficiently low to attract buyers on the international market. You know, Sir, there is an organization called SAFTO which deals with exports, and it has made a statement on this issue. It said recently that unless South Africa can increase exports by R900 million a year by 1980, we will be R2 000 million in the red on our trade balance. That is a drastic prospect. Do you realize, Sir, that our exports have only increased by about R500 million in the last nine years while they have shown a decline in recent years? What is the Government doing about it? I asked whether workers were going to be helped by intelligent measures to achieve greater productivity and not dragooned or lectured? What is the Government doing? I asked for reduced Government expenditure, particularly wasteful expenditure, in direct competition with the resources of the private sector. We have been told in the State President’s speech that there is going to be a curtailment of Government spending. What is the extent of that curtailment? Are they going to take active steps on that subject? I said they must set the minds of businessmen at rest and see to it that they would get the necessary labour to expand their businesses and expand their export. What is the Government going to do about it? You see the sort of situation we are in, Mr. Speaker. Here is a serious situation which has led to devaluation. You cannot benefit by devaluation to the full unless you take certain measures. The Opposition comes to this House and proposes certain measures to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to the Government and we are prepared to debate them across the floor of the House, but there is no reaction from a single Minister or member on that side of the House. Are they really fit to govern South Africa, if that is their attitude? I gave them recommendations for the short-term health of the economy and I give them recommendations for the long-term health of the economy. Not on one single item have we had a clear-cut answer from anybody on that side of the House, except that the hon. the Prime Minister said that we were spending as much as we could on education. I want to tell him that that is not enough and if he continues at that rate, we are not going to expand our exports or our economy to the extent that we should. It is not surprising that there has been no criticism from that side. I see that in a recent speech, Mr. Burger of Trust Bank supported very much the measures I have outlined. We find that Union Acceptances in its last quarterly bulletin, the publication which this hon. Minister preferred to his own Reserve Bank statement in respect of the standards of living in South Africa, makes the same recommendations we have made from this side of the House. What reply have we got? The only thing we got was a tirade on labour from the hon. the Minister of Labour who said that unless we accepted the report of the Riekert Commission or accepted that everything possible was being done by the Geyer Commission, we wanted influx control done away with in South Africa which he knows is not the case … [Interjections] … and all jobs turned over to non-Whites without consultation with the White trade unions. Why does the hon. gentleman talk such nonsense in this House? He knows that that is not the policy of the United Party; he knows that it has never been the policy of the United Party. Why must he make statements like these; is he hoping to mislead the voters of Brakpan, or is there somebody else whom he is hoping to mislead?

You would never do a thing like that, would you? [Interjections.]

This Government has been on charge. The cost of living has risen. Our trade balance shows a record deficit of R1 349 million. The standard of living per head of the population of South Africa is not growing as fast as that of other countries and we have a big leeway to make up. The serious situation is that the growth rate at present is going to lead to vast unemployment among non-Whites in South Africa, the very thing that gives the hon. the Prime Minister …

Sleepness nights.

… sleepness nights.

Change the Government!

What message of hope are the people of South Africa going to get from this debate; What message are we going to get? The hon. the Minister of Finance does not accept the figures given out by the Reserve Bank itself in respect of standards of living and their growth in South Africa. We have had cost of living figures in which, I believe wrongly, the figure of 4 per cent is used. The public have been misled by the suggestion that it is 4 per cent, because certain aspects of increased living costs are not added in. The Minister knows very well that the cost of living has risen by at least 7 per cent in South Africa. Figures are compared, but the loan levy is neglected. Whom does the hon. the Minister think he is bluffing at the present time?

The Nats!

The whole trouble with hon. members on that side of the House is that in their hearts they support the hon. member for Paarl, who said—

That is what we heard from the hon. member for Paarl, but yet you have the hon. the Minister of the Interior talking about our unnecessary high standard of living in South Africa. Do you know what the per capita income in South Africa is? —R553 per year. That is the average per capita income—unnecessarily high amongst the Whites, the hon. gentleman said …

But that is the income for Whites and non-Whites.

But the hon. member for Paarl says we are living beyond our means. However, the standard of living in Germany is R2 003 as against our R553. In Canada it is R2 493 and in the United States R3 258, and so I can go on quoting many other countries. That is why it is so important that our standard of living must grow faster than theirs so that we can catch up with those standards of living and not fall further behind.

Hear, hear!

But what are we getting from this hon. Minister? We are living beyond our means, he says; we have too high a standard of living in South Africa!

Sir, I shall tell you what the trouble with this Government is. The trouble with this Government is that they are caught in a cycle which they are powerless to break. They cannot bring down the cost of living, because they cannot take the necessary steps in respect of labour, and because they cannot take the necessary steps in respect of labour, inflation goes up in South Africa. Because inflation goes up, we are in difficulty with our imports and exports. They go round and round in a circle chasing their own tail. They cannot and will not; they are unable to take the necessary steps which are vital for South Africa’s well-being.

Then we have the hon. the Prime Minister suggesting that when we criticize, we are disloyal, we are unpatriotic as far as South Africa is concerned. I want to tell him, and hon. members on that side of the House, that I do not judge my patriotism by the example set by them.

Hear, hear!

My patriotism and the patriotism of members on this side of the House has been tested and not found wanting on every occasion which was serious for the future of South Africa. I believe once more that I would be doing South Africa an injustice and disservice and that I would be unpatriotic to South Africa if I let this Government get away with its present policies, without criticizing them to the full, without pointing out the implications to the people of South Africa, and without trying to impress upon the people of South Africa that they are unfit to govern this country.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Motion accordingly negatived.