Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, in the course of the discussion of the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill at the Second Reading and at the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister answered a large number of questions, and it became very apparent that the administration of the Railways and Harbours was in a difficult and precarious state. The reasons for that are quite clear, and we have accepted that under the existing economic conditions such problems, such increased expenses, must be accepted. Sir, I shall be very brief. I wish to put a simple question. In quite a number of answers the hon. the Minister explained that the increased costs were attributable to devaluation, to the increased prices that had to be paid for the importation of goods from overseas. In the discussion of this Bill at the Committee Stage, it was not possible to infer from the specific items to what extent the increased request for R142 million could be ascribed to devaluation as such. I would appreciate it very much if the Minister would indicate to us, by way of percentage or amount, how much of that amount of R142 million is attributable to devaluation; in other words, how much is attributable to the effects of devaluation on the prices paid by the Railways and Harbours Administration for imported goods.

I regret that it is impossible to make that analysis, because much of the stock, rolling stock and other requirements which are bought, are manufactured in South Africa. Apart from devaluation there was a tremendou rise in prices. It is impossible to calculate what part of the additional costs is attributable to devaluation and what part is attributable to increased prices.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make my position clear at the outset. I intend to object to every clause at the Committee Stage of this Bill. I do not intend arguing them, Sir; I just intend to vote against every clause, because in principle I am against the introduction of this Bill into the House, more particularly at this time but for other reasons as well. I therefore wish to record my objection to this clause and all others.

Clause agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The amendment means in effect that we on this side of the House shall vote against the subsection, and if we cannot select a portion like that, we shall vote against the whole clause. The position here is that in defining the boundaries of the so-called homelands in South-West Africa, the State President in this clause is being authorized to do so by proclamation. He can amend those definitions. The lands referred to are set out in the preceding subsection, in paragraphs (a) to (f), which I do not want to read out. From this side of the House we believe that this question of the defining of the boundaries of the homelands is a matter which should come before Parliament. We do not believe that it should be a matter for proclamation by the State President, which means either the Minister or the Cabinet taking a decision. The disposal of land and the definition of the boundaries—I prefer the word “defining” to “definition”—is, in our opinion, a matter for Parliament and we object to Parliament being shouldered out of the picture completely. The passing of a clause like this gives the powers to the State President by proclamation to deprive Parliament of any opportunity to discuss the merits and the conditions under which the boundaries of a Bantustan are defined. The defining is something in which we have no part and we believe that that is quite wrong. I may say in passing that in so far as subsection (3) is concerned, which deals with a certain piece of land in South-West Africa, where there is a small narrow strip which was inadvertently omitted from the previous legislation, the procedure here being followed of bringing it before Parliament, means that if this clause is passed Parliament has approved of that piece of land being deleted from the area concerned. That is the way it should be done. But we object to the giving of powers to the State President and we shall vote against this clause.

As so often happens in legislature of this nature, this hon. Minister is once again asking Parliament to renounce its rights and duties and to evade its responsibilities when it comes to matters of consolidation. As has been said in another context, Parliament would, if this sort of legislation were to go through, be washing its hands of the consequences of this Government’s policy. Now, Sir, there is, as we all know, a history behind the consolidation in South-West Africa. Many years ago the Odendaal Commission made a thorough study of the situation in the entire Territory and reached definite conclusions, which were published. The Government, in turn, bought up large tracts of land for the consolidation of the Native homelands, and a good deal more than R25 million was spent in buying up White farmlands to create the new Native homelands. Now this hon. Minister in this clause is proposing to take away from Parliament all further say in what might be done to enlarge these homelands or to alter their boundaries. Surely this is precisely what Parliament is for. This is not a trivial matter. It places immense power in the hands of this hon. Minister because, after all, he is the person who is going to make recommendations to the State President, and his recommendations presumably will be followed. We believe this is yet another move on the part of this hon. Minister to circumvent the authority of this Parliament and to persuade it to abdicate its responsibilities. Surely, at this late stage the boundaries of these Native homelands in South-West Africa should be known and, if they are not known, Parliament should know why. If there is any good reason to change these boundaries, we should be the first to know about it. One might ask whether this provision means that South-West Africa is due for another period of uncertainty, the sort of uncertainty that it knew at the time of the Odendaal Commission? In the cases of Damaraland, Hereroland, Kaokoland, Okavango, the Eastern Caprivi and Owambo we think we know—we should know by now—precisely what the boundaries are, for these boundaries have already been defined. If there is any good reason to change them, we should know. Here, of course, we have another element that has come into the picture. I refer to the provision which is being sought for the State President to define “such other land or area as may after the commencement of this Act be reserved and set apart for the exclusive use of and occupation by natives and recognized by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette as an area for members of any native nation”. The use of the word “native” in the peculiar nature of this amendment seems to imply that this hon. Minister wants to create some sort of mixed ethnic area, perhaps of the sort that we have already seen develop in the so-called “gemeente” in Katutura township in Windhoek. If it is the intention of this hon. Minister to make provision for a heterogeneous Native population in any one group, as this seems to suggest, it will introduce an entirely new principle into the Government’s plans. It would be an entirely new element for South-West Africa as indeed it would be a new element for the Republic itself.

The hon. the Minister owes us two explanations. The first one is why he feels it necessary at this late stage to arm himself with powers to by-pass Parliament and acquire land by proclamation; the second one is why provision is now being made for a mixed area, or for what seems to be a mixed area, in South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Kensington I should like to give the same assurance which I have so often given before in respect of similar legislation that there is no intention of circumventing Parliament as was alleged by the hon. member. It is a question of expedient administration. That is what it is. I think the hon. member must realize and remember that all these proclamations must come back to Parliament later. In other words, Parliament will be in a position to know what the Minister has done, or what the State President has done on the advice of the Minister. We always have the sword of Damocles over us because we know that if we act irresponsibly, Parliament can later undo what we have done.

How do you undo boundaries?

That is so. It comes back to Parliament and Parliament can undo the proclamation of the State President. It can do it. That is being dealt with in another provision of the law. Now, in regard to the hon. member for South Coast who moved this amendment, I must point out that subsection (2) of clause 2 must be read in conjunction and together with subsection (1). Subsection (1) gives a description of the areas which form the various regions, the various areas of these governments, and subsection (2) only lays down that if there comes in the course of time an amendment which will have to be done in terms of the proclamation of districts, that is subsection (1), some adaptation may be necessary with regard to the laws applicable to the area which will then be included or excluded from the new district as defined in subsection (1). Therefore in subsection (2) it is necessary to make provision for any adaptation which may be necessary from time to time. Therefore, if subsection (2) is to be deleted, as is proposed by the hon. member, there will be a sort of vacuum which may cause that there may be conditions which we cannot handle. I am sorry that we cannot delete subsection (2), because in specific cases, which we cannot foresee today, it may cause problems, and without subsection (2) we will not be able to solve those problems. It is necessary to make adaptations which may be caused by changes which are to be brought about by the shifting of districts, and the districts again form various regions.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that a fourth provision has been made to provide for any alterations hereafter. The hon. the Minister also overlooks paragraph (g).

Which one?

Section 2(l)(g) as amended by clause 2. The hon. the Minister referred me to the new section 2(1). In section 2 (1) as inserted by clause 2, reference is made to the various homelands in paragraphs (a) to (f), but (g) is omitted because it already provides for the State President to issue a proclamation for any odd bits of land which may be here, there or anywhere from time to time. That is why it is permitted. So the position is that under paragraph (g) you still have a free hand, because the Minister still has a free hand since he is advising the State President. Of course, the hon. the Minister’s difficulty is one of his own making, if I may say so. It is easy for him if he finds himself in difficulties to give us an assurance that in the Other Place he will move an amendment to allow Parliament to define the boundaries. Then the issue will be settled, and we will have no more trouble after that. That is all that we are asking. We are asking that Parliament shall define the boundaries and then he can keep his powers under paragraph (g) for variation, because that is the power he has under (g), powers to vary and powers to add at random odd portions of land. If the hon. the Minister will just give us the assurance that in the Other Place he will make provision for Parliament to define the boundaries, the issue is settled. Then we can pass my resolution, or I can withdraw it and he can go ahead to the Other Place where he can get them to accept the necessary amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast presents this matter in a rather queer way. I must say to him …

I want to help you out of a difficulty.

There is no difficulty; the hon. member is in a difficulty owing to a misunderstanding on his side. May I put it clearly again for the hon. member that subsection (1) up to and including paragraph (f), all those paragraphs, describes the various areas. Paragraph (g) makes provision for the addition of new tracts of land to the areas.

Random areas?

Yes. In other words, up to the proposed new paragraph 2(l)(g) we have paragraphs which deal with the defining of areas and their boundaries. However, in the proposed new section 2(2) it is not a matter of the boundaries being defined; in the proposed new subsection (2), which is now moved to be deleted, we are dealing with adaptations of legislation which may be necessary as a result of changes brought about by the new paragraphs (a) to (f) and also with regard to a possible application of paragraph (g). Therefore the proposed new subsection (2) is not directly concerned with the definition of the boundaries of areas; it is concerned with legislation, proclamations, ordinances, etc., which may apply to certain areas which will now be affected by the change in the boundaries. So, two different matters are being confused here.

It deals with boundaries.

Unfortunately we cannot accept the amendment because it creates a vacuum in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but the hon. the Minister has not explained the position clearly at all. The proposed new subsection (2) says—

The hon. the Minister says that this has nothing to do with boundaries. Well, if he can alter the definition of an area, what on earth does that mean? It seems to me to be perfectly plain English.

As far as talking about having to operate in a vacuum is concerned, I suggest that he will not have to operate in a vacuum. After all, if he wants to alter the definition of any area, why cannot he come to Parliament? That is what we are asking him in the first place. Could I just have the hon. the Minister’s attention for a moment? He seems to be too busy talking to someone else. I suggest that this is the place to come to if he wants to define any areas or re-define any areas. What does he mean when he says that amending the definition of an area has nothing to do with the area’s boundaries? There seems to be a contradiction here.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not state it clearly to everyone on the opposite side. The proposed new subsection (2) is expressly intended for adaptions concerning boundaries. Naturally something concerning boundaries can also be read into subsection (2), but not independently of what has already been done in terms of subsection (1). It should be confirmed to amendments in respect of subsection (1). Subsection (2) should confirm those amendments and should adapt then to consequential adaptions in legislation. Therefore, subsection (2) cannot be deleted if subsection (1) is retained; that is the point I wish to make.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Minister now concedes that it does have to do with boundaries; he now says it has partly to do with boundaries. If he wants to alter boundaries, let us look at this in its context. We are not dealing with a new situation. South-West Africa has been in the melting pot since before the time of the Odendaal Commission. Surely, at this late stage if the hon. the Minister wants to alter any boundaries, Parliament is the place to come to. It is simple enough.

Question put: That subsection (2) of the proposed section 2 stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. L; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J. Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, L. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebush, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.;

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—43: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.;

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clauses Three and Four agreed to (Mrs.

H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

Here once again we have an example of this hon. Minister taking powers which rightly belong in this Parliament. He wants to by-pass Parliament in what to us, and I am sure also to hon. members on that side of the House, is a most important issue, namely the language question. Language issues in this country have always been touchy ones and I suggest that in South-West Africa, too, they are capable of being quite explosive issues. You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister is asking for powers to proclaim, through the State President, one official Native language in addition to English and Afrikaans for any of the Native homelands. It is quite conceivable that such a proclamation would not command the support of very many people in some of the homelands. One has only to look at the case of Owambo, for instance, where there are two fairly well developed languages, both having reached the stage of being written languages. In Kavango there are two languages, one used by your tribes of the territory while one tribe uses a language all of its own. I need only remind the hon. the Minister that when the Kavango legislative council was opened last year, we had the opening speech in Afrikaans translated by four translators into four other languages, three of them admittedly dialectical variations. If we are going to have official languages, let us debate them here. We are asking something else. We are asking that the legislative council of each homeland should debate this and formulate a resolution. In other words, before the issue comes to Parliament we should know exactly what has been said for or against the use of one or more official languages. I think this is a very important principle, and it is the same sort of principle that we see this Minister throwing overboard every time. We are opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. This amendment will give greater flexibility in the matter of language. It would make it possible for more than one of the Native languages to become an official language, and this I think could be valuable. Secondly, it states specifically that the request should come also from the legislative councils so that their views may be crisply known in the matter. Lastly, the portion of the amendment which seeks to bring the matter before Parliament is important. As the hon. member for Kensington has said, this question of language is an important one; it is not one which should be decided by the Minister without reference to Parliament. As the clause stands the Minister will, in a virtually single-handed fashion and certainly without reference to Parliament, be enabled to decide the whole question of an official Native language there. This we feel gives him undue power, and is not appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, in support of this amendment I should like to bring the following matter pointedly to the Minister’s notice. This is that he should consider this in the light of the proviso included in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. The proviso provides that such a request should first be made by the legislative councils themselves. In other words, regarding language and the use of language the initiative should in the first place come from the people in that territory. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that we are here dealing with heterogeneous communities. In fact, this is also reflected in the legislation, and that is exactly why provision is made for additional languages in this territory. When one is dealing with heterogeneous communities it always means that one has minority groups within that community. It is especially in this regard that I believe that it will be much better if the initiative comes from the people themselves instead of this simply coming about by proclamation. I therefore support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, without being aware of it, the last speaker actually confirmed my standpoint, and just by not continuing for one further sentence. He said that in such heterogeneous communities as those there were several languages, and then he said that the initiative should not rest with them, but that the Minister should, by way of Parliament, have the power to determine …

No, it is the other way round.

Sir, the point is that it does not only concern initiative. The whole basis of the legislation, the whole basis of the administration in South-West, is that the people there must be able to exercise their right to self-determination. Should we in this Parliament now decide which languages they should speak there, or should they rather decide it for themselves? After all, it is their language. I think that in this Parliament there is perhaps no one who knows as much about those languages as they know about them. I do not know whether there is anybody here who understands a single one of those languages. Mr. Chairman, what is the position? The position here is quite clear; the two official languages are official languages plus one other language as stipulated in this clause of the Bill, which will then be confirmed by proclamation. The hon. member will understand why the languages could not be mentioned here; we would then have had to write in all the different languages here and that, after all, we could not do. That is why it is laid down in this permissive provision that the populations in the various regions will decide that, in addition to Afrikaans and English, they will have one language in this region and another language in another region. That is what they must decide. After all, we cannot tell them: “No, you have decided on the wrong language.” What do we know about it here in Parliament in Cape Town? It is they who know best, and it is they who must satisfy their own wishes. They must therefore choose an indigenous language which is to serve as an official language next to the languages of the two White groups, and that language will then be confirmed by proclamation by the State President. Here it once again boils down to the argument which was advanced by the hon. member for Kensington and which was also advanced in the discussion on the earlier clause that this allegedly is another attempt to by-pass Parliament. It is not at all the intention to by-pass Parliament. It is simply a question of effective administration. These people there may decide on their official language in June, and now they cannot use that language until June the next year when the matter has first been through this Parliament and has been embodied in legislation in the usual manner, while ultimately it has nothing to do with us whether they want to use their language A or their language B as the official language. Therefore I say that we should let them choose the third official language that they want and that the State President should then confirm it by proclamation. After all, as I said just now, that proclamation does come back to this Parliament afterwards and can still be undone.

Sir, the hon. member for Kensington also referred to the various languages there and that this Parliament should know what those people have to say about the matter. If this is all that this Parliament of ours has to know, it is quite sufficient for Parliament to know it by being notified of the proclamation, as hon. members will be in due course. The hon. member for Durban Central said a little more about it. He wants this Parliament to decide about it.

No.

I say: No, it is a matter which should be decided by those people, because it is their own language that they must choose. The hon. member for Kensington also mentioned the fact that on various occasions there were translations into various languages. That is correct; that was so, but this Bill is not being presented here in vacuo. These particular matters have been discussed with the various populations in the various regions there, and they realize that the way we have phrased it here is best, i.e. that one of their languages be raised to a third official language if there is more than one language in one area. They realize that only one of those languages must be used as a third official language; they seemed to realize very well that one cannot make a number of these languages third, fourth and fifth official languages, because there would then be a wide variety of languages and because it would be impractical and might also entail additional expense. But provision is in fact made for those members of those populations who cannot, in the daily administration, use Afrikaans or English or the indigenous language declared on official language, to be administratively served in another language as the executive council may determine. Therefore I think adequate provision is being made, and made to the satisfaction of these people themselves, who had this legislation before them and I do not think that we should deprive them of the choice that they have to settle their own affairs and to exercise self-determination by vetoing it here in advance—not in respect of a matter such as their use of language within their own territory.

Mr. Chairman the hon. the Minister poses the question whether we must decide finally in this Parliament what the third official language should be. What he means is whether he must come to this Parliament with a proposal. Well, I suggest to him that I much prefer the thought of him coming to this Parliament for a decision to him making a decision in his office in Pretoria.

Hear, hear!

He seems to miss the whole point. He seems to think Parliament is not important in these matters. He would like to make his decisions in some back-room. He has also missed the point of the amendment, a point which I think is far enough to the people of these Native homelands. The point is that if they want one of their Native languages, their indigenous languages, to be made an official language, or perhaps they want two, which is conceivable in the case of some of these territories, they debate it in their respective legislative councils and whatever decisions are arrived at come to this Parliament. Now, how can he conceivably suggest to us that we at this stage have lost control of the situation and that we must just allow him to make the decision, because, after all, he is the man who will be making the decision? The State President issues the proclamation but he does it on the advice of that hon. Minister, does he not?

But it must start with the territory concerned.

Why do we not do it the other way? Why do we not start with the territory and then come to this Parliament? You can give us all the reasons that you would put to yourself in your office. Why cannot we hear it in public?

I have in advance replied to the argument of the hon. member for Kensington. I did reply to it just now and I will repeat it now, but I do not think it necessary to repeat it more than twice. Sir, the position as I stated it is simply this. After the consultation we had with those various groups in the various regions, we decided on this pattern as it is laid down in the Bill whereby the Afrikaans language and the English language will be two of the official languages, plus a third language which they will decide themselves in the various regions, and that third language will be proclaimed by means of a proclamation to be an additional language; and, fourthly, the executive council—not the legislative but the executive, or their Cabinet—may decide which other language will for administrative purposes also be allowed there in the different regions. Now the position is that I am not going to dictate in connection with this because I cannot put this matter up to the State President if they do not approach me and ask me to put to the State President a request that a certain language be proclaimed as a third language. The executive council and the bodies concerned there will come together and they will decide which indigenous language of theirs they would like to have as the third official language. Then, if they put that matter up to me, it will go through the normal channels to the State President for proclamation. But I cannot start the matter without them asking me to do so. So the hon. member is not correct in suggesting, when he spoke previously—no it was the hon. member for Pinelands who said that the hon. Minister will single-handedly handle this matter and decide thereon. That is not the question. It will, not be so. I will only ask the State President to do what the people there have asked should be done.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is being obtuse, either deliberately or he just does not understand the position. He now tells us that he will have a recommendation made to him by the executive council as far as the official language is concerned. That is not provided for in the Bill. The Bill simply says—

Anyway, what he tells us … Mr. Chairman, it would be nice if I could have the ear of the hon. the Minister.

I do listen.

What he tells us is that he will consult the executive council, the Cabinet. Well, that might well be so. However, what we are asking is that a resolution should come from the parliament, the legislative council of the area, to start with. In other words, we want it debated as a language issue would be debated in this House, supposing such a language issue were to apply to the Republic. I certainly should never agree to the Cabinet taking a decision. How can that hon. Minister expect us to agree to something like that in the case of these Native homelands? I think this is nonsensical.

Can he not understand that what we want is that a request must come from the local Native parliament, from the legislative council? That is simple enough. It must not come from the Cabinet, the executive council, but from the legislative council. The hon. the Minister can bring that request to this Parliament. After all, we are supposed to govern the country; we are supposed to govern South-West Africa, not that hon. Minister. Why can it not be done this way? There is no earthly reason why it should not be.

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to that question. I shall repeat it because apparently it did not register with the hon. member. I shall repeat it for his convenience. We must understand fully that there is a possibility of the use of two indigenous languages. The first can be the third official language. The Bill does not say that the executive council must take the decision on that matter. The Bill merely lays down that the State President has to issue a proclamation. Of course those people will have to ask me first. I do not, as I have explained, simply go to the State President of my own accord and say that this, that or the other language has to be proclaimed the official language. We shall ask those people which language they want to be the official language and then it is up to them whether only their Cabinet makes the decision or whether their legislative assembly makes the decision.

The Bill does not lay down who has to make the first recommendation or request for a particular region. They can therefore decide that their legislative assembly, the full parliament, should make a decision. That decision will then be submitted to me through the proper channels; it will be submitted to the State President and the necessary proclamation will then be issued. I have already said a moment ago that the advantage of this is that, through this, we can gain a whole year in order to serve these people in the language of their choice, because say for example their legislative assembly decides they want language X as the third official language. Say for example they take that decision in July or August of a particular year. We will then have to wait until this Parliament assembles again in Cape Town in February the following year. It may be that we do not succeed in piloting this decision through Parliament quickly; it could then mean that they would have to wait for almost a year before this Parliament has ratified the request made by their parliament. The position is now that their parliament or their executive council decides which language shall be the third official language. That decision is submitted to me and then to the State President. It is ratified, and they will be able to use that language as an official language months before it would otherwise have been the case. With regard to the fourth language which could possibly be used for administrative purposes and not as an official language, the Bill lays down that it is their executive council which has come to a decision on the matter, but there is no such provision as far as the third official language is concerned. It seems to me as if the hon. member did not relate those two points to each other.

Question put: That all the words proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—93: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Once again we have the position that a very important, major constitutional step is being taken and once again we have the hon. the Minister wanting power to be able to do it by proclamation. Indeed I am surprised to see members on the other side of the House being so sanguine about their being stripped of responsibilities and powers which rightly belong to them as members of Parliament; I find it very strange indeed that they should support the hon. the Minister in something which once again amounts to a most important by-passing of this Parliament, most important in the sense that here we have provision being made for constitutional moves to be made by the hon. the Minister naturally by getting the State President to issue a proclamation. We have had this sort of legislation before. On many occasions in the past we have raised our objections to this type of thing for very cogent reasons. In the first place I think that the hon. the Minister and the Government owe it to Parliament to come to us beforehand with any proposed constitutional changes. He should motivate them and we should have fair warning. We should be allowed to debate them. It is no use his saying that we shall be able to review proclamations in retrospect; then it is too late. We believe that the only proper course for the hon. the Minister in matters of this nature is to do what we suggest: In the first place, he should consult with the legislative council concerned and after that consultation he should come to us in Parliament with his reasoning tell us exactly why he wants to grant self-government. And, of course, there is another important element to all this, namely the question of the timetable, something which once again has been debated a number of times in this House. I cannot see how this Parliament can gladly shed itself of all responsibility in so far as timetables are concerned in constitutional matters. I think this is of vital importance that we should know, not only what is being done but also when it is being done. For that reason I have moved my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also wish to move an amendment in this regard. In the new section 17C(1) I want to ask the Minister if he would not consider changing the word “shall” to “may”. The said subsection will then read “as soon as it is expedient, the legislative council of a self-governing area may submit a recommendation to the State President for a national anthem for that area”. Subsection (2) states that the State President “may” by proclamation in the Gazette … As the wording is now, the legislative council of a self-governing area shall submit, and then the State President may declare a national anthem. Accordingly, I move this as an amendment. Will the Minister accept that?

Mr. Chairman, as regards the last suggestion by the hon. member for South Coast, I am quite prepared to substitute the word “may” for “shall”, but I still expect another amendment to this section and I think the matter must stand over till then.

In regard to the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. I can only say that here I think is a very fundamental difference between the Opposition and our side in this House. We know that from experience, as the hon. member mentioned in other cases we had some sometime ago. What is the position here? The position here involves firstly and above all the principle that this Parliament is satisfied that those regions in South-West Africa may in their constitutional status rise to the level of self-governing areas. That is the principle in this Bill, and I think we all agree on that. They may have that constitutional status of self-governing areas as is stated here. If we settle that matter, if Parliament agrees to that what then follows are not matters of principle, but only certain general things, certain specific matters, and a timing. That is all. With regard to general matters, this Bill lays down what the position will be which will apply to all those areas if they become self-governing areas. But then there are the specific matters where they differ from one to the other. That will have to be determined in the proclamation which will then follow. Those specific matters, again, are for them in consultation with us, to decide what their nature should be matters that apply only to one specific area and not to others. That will be dealt with in the proclamation.

Now, finally, there is the matter of the timing, of when they should become self-governing. I think if this Parliament accepts this Bill here before us, then, as far as we are concerned, at any time anyone of those areas may become a self-governing area within the Republic. Sir, if they may become so at any time, why then must the question come back to this Parliament again to decide on the timing? It is then only one of the specific matters to which I have referred just now, and that must be dealt with in collaboration with those people concerned. We have the negotiations; they decide on the specific matters and on how they would like to have it worded in the proclamation; it goes to the State President; the State President approves, and they can then become self-governing areas. Why the question must come back to this Parliament to decide on everyone of them, one after the other, I cannot see. If in principle Parliament allows them all to become self-governing areas, I cannot see why everyone specifically must be singled out to bring their case before Parliament. Or may I put it otherwise: Can any one of the other members on the other side name one of those areas which they think should never become a self-governing area? We on this side say they may all become self-governing areas as defined in this Bill. It is just a question of when and how the specific matters must be dealt with. Sir, if we are wrong, if they may not all become self-governing areas, then I would like to hear from members on the other side which one or how many of those areas in South-West Africa may never become self-governing areas.

What are you going to do with the Bushmen in the Namib?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should really know that the Bushment do not fall under this Bill. If he does not know that, I think he has just forgotten it. But I really think that he does know it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is speaking rather like a frustrated imperialist looking at his colonies in South-West Africa; but let me remind him that when imperial powers in the past decided on constitutional changes to their colonies, they always passed separate legislation through their Parliaments.

This hon. Minister, if I may suggest, Sir, is talking nonsense when he says the only principle here is whether any of these areas may rise to the level of self-governing states, or I suppose you could call them “ministates”. That is not the point. It is quite conceivable that at some time or other, perhaps some sooner than others, they can rise to this level of self-government. We have no issue with him on that question. But what we want to know is why he should have the power to decide how this self-government is going to be granted and when. These are matters that belong with Parliament here. I do not see how he can arrogate this to himself. He is trying to talk past the issue when he says the only question is whether they possibly can at some stage become self-governing. To me, Sir, the issue is simple. But he has not explained to us why Parliament should not be asked each time about the manner in which self-government is to be granted and when it is to be granted.

I am.

You are not asking Parliament—you are asking for a blank cheque.

Oh, please, you just weren’t listening.

Of course you are. What does this legislation say? It simply provides for these things to be done by proclamation. I cannot believe that this hon. Minister now thinks that he has to come to Parliament every time. It is no use him telling us that he is going to come, after it has been done with details of the proclamation which we can debate in retrospect. That is no good. No, Sir, I think we still must hear why this Parliament should not keep control over the manner and the timetable relating to these constitutional changes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Kensington. I have the feeling here that it is a case of “cheaper by the dozen”. I have the feeling that if there were only one little area in South-West Africa, or perhaps two, that were going to follow this particular course, there would be much greater concern to handle their forward development personally through this House. One has the feeling that, since there are, perhaps not a dozen, but a very large number of these areas and peoples, the Minister is in a sense handling them on the basis of “cheaper by the dozen”.

We are not dealing with children here.

Right. He is dealing with them in the same way as he would with a large number of children. He is not giving them the personal attention they would have enjoyed had there been merely one or two of them. If there had been only one or two of them, or had they been an only child, as the hon. member for South Coast pointed out, we would surely watch with even greater care their forward steps and we would deliberate in this House upon the future steps. But because there are so many children it seems that the mother and the father are a bit too busy with other activities to give them this care. We on this side of the House like all our children, and we like them so much that we want to give them that personal care and attention.

Some children do not like their parents.

While I am on my feet, I should like to refer to the other amendment to this clause, to which the hon. the Minister has referred in an earlier speech. That is the amendment of which I have given notice, namely to delete certain words in lines 10 and 11 on page 18, and to substitute certain other words. The hon. member for South Coast has already moved a simple and effective amendment on that point, and if it is just as convenient to the hon. the Minister to stand on that amendment of the hon. member for South Coast, he can do so. Would he prefer to accept that, or would he prefer to accept mine?

I shall accept yours and incorporate his amendment in yours.

That is most helpful of the hon. the Minister. I say no more, except to move my amendment, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that I can accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pinelands, as I also told him by way of an inadmissible interjection. This also goes for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Coast. I think the provision is improved by that wording and the corresponding alteration in the Afrikaans text. The intention has never been anything but that a legislative assembly of a nation must, by way of their body, give the decision that they want this or that literary work as a national anthem. That was the intention, and I think it is stated more clearly now. I thank hon. members for their assistance. In regard to the rest of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands in support of the weak case put forward by his colleague the hon. member for Kensington …

It was not a weak one.

… I just want to draw your attention, Sir, to the metaphor used by the hon. member for Pinelands when he spoke about “cheaper by the dozen”. We know where this expression, “cheaper by the dozen”, comes from; it is a reference to people with very large families. I have not come anywhere near the “dozen”, and I know that although the hon. member is trying hard, he has not done so either. But this is why he stood here talking in such a cheerful and friendly manner all afternoon when he used the expression “cheaper by the dozen”. But this is not a question of cheaper by the dozen. I do not begrudge the hon. member his cheerfulness when thinking of “cheaper by the dozen”, and I hope he will reach a dozen as far as children are concerned, but here it is not a case of cheaper by the dozen. And this brings me specifically to the other arguments used once again by the hon. member for Pine-lands to say that not enough personal attention is being given to the affairs of the various areas.

I was speaking in the sense of this House.

Yes. Sir, just the previous time I spoke I pointed out that as far as general aspects were concerned, such as financial administration and all sorts of other things, the Act specifically laid down the procedure which all of them ought to follow because these are standard matters, if I may put it that way; but it is precisely where the very individual and specific aspects of a particular nation are concerned, which in the case of nation B will be different from the way it is in the case of nation A, that these things come to the notice of us all on a more personal basis in the dialogue which we conduct with them and when we prepare and work out the wording for the specific proclamations, which are then approved by the State President. But where their very personal and specific affairs are concerned, they are after all much more involved in the matter than this Parliament is, and therefore it is sufficient if the matter is finalized by proclamation after the general aspects have in any case been approved by this House.

As far as the hon. member for Kensington is concerned, I have now by way of these words replied again to his second argument, namely that this Parliament will have to approve each and every thing of each and every area, which I think is definitely unnecessary and which may result not only in unnecessary repetition and use of the time of this Parliament, but also in delay in those particular areas and regions which need these constitutions in order to operate on a higher level. To me it is inconceivable why we should have this long delay. Suppose this Parliament sat all year round, as the British Parliament does, then half of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Kensington would have had some substance, for then this Parliament could be reached much sooner, without loss of time, but we would still have had another problem, which he mentioned, namely the unnecessary loss of time, the delay, the waste of both their and our time in regard to matters specifically concerned with them. Sir, we differ very fundamentally on this amendment of the hon. member for Kensington and cannot accept it, but the other two amendments I gladly accept.

Amendment proposed by Mr. G. D. G. Oliver put and the Committee divided:

AYES—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

NOES—95: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon. J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P, J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den berg.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. O. N. Thompson agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with the Bill at its Third Reading on the grounds that we on this side believe that this Bill detracts from the sanctity of citizenship. I wish to take the House back to the very foundations of South African citizenship—to 1949. I want to read to the House what a very eminent South African then said. He was none other than Dr. Dӧnges and I want to read what he said in introducing the Citizenship Bill. You will recall that there was some concern in the country at that time about the terms and conditions of that legislation. Dr. Dӧnges dealt with the Bill and its various aspects. I quote from col. 7582 of Vol. 69 of 1949. I think it is well that I should read in detail what the hon. the then Minister said in regard to citizens. He said—

Then he came to deal with clauses 19 and 20 of the then Bill. This is what he said—

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite how they can now ask this House to adopt this legislation which is before us. The hon. the Minister at that time—he rose to an elevated position in this country—who had a judicial background and a judicial standing in South Africa, could say that that was the very foundation of citizenship. You can be admitted by an executive act, but you can only be deprived of your citizenship by a judicial act was what he said. It was that sentiment expressed by Dr. Dӧnges that prompted me in the Second Reading of this Bill to ask the hon. the Minister, and I did it in all sincerity, to take this Bill back and to think about it again. He himself had indicated that he wanted these powers in limited and circumscribed circumstances, in fact very limited and circumscribed circumstances. What have we had now? We have had the hon. the Minister, who had the opportunity in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage to show that he could approach citizenship and give it the sanctity which was given to it, which was promised and which was enshrined in 1949 by the late Dr. Dӧnges. But that is not the thinking of this Minister of the Interior, quite obviously. It is not the thinking of this Minister, because this Bill as it now stands before us and which we are asked to adopt at the Third Reading, introduces a penalty, a criminal sanction upon persons who have not been convicted in a court of law but convicted solely in the opinion of this hon. Minister of having acted contrary to the interests of South Africa. This Bill further legislates for a group of persons which have not yet been identified by this hon. Minister. There is a nice-sounding phrase to be used on political platforms, namely that this is only for people who have dual nationality, but there is no safeguard for the man who cannot deny or cannot relieve himself of or relinquish his second nationality. There are those cases, and the hon. the Minister should know it, in a country where a man cannot relinquish his second nationality. The hon. the Minister shakes his head, but I would suggest that he studies for instance the laws of Israel as he was asked to do.

You prove a case for me.

The Minister should know that he has come to us to legislate. Is he legislating for one person, 50 people, 5 000 people or for 500 000 people? How far does the net spread with this legislation he is asking us to adopt? If one can go back to the ancestry of this country, if one goes back and looks at the position in the Netherlands, for instance, from where a lot of the stock of South Africa has come, what do we find is the attitude? In the Netherlands the attitude is that, when once a man gets his Dutch citizenship or Dutch nationality, he can never under any circumstances be deprived of that nationality by the State, by the Netherlands. There is a penalty which they impose in the Netherland, and that is that he can be deprived of certain civic rights. However, they never take away from him the right to claim the Netherlands as his fatherland and homeland at all times. It is never taken away from him, even if he assumes a new citizenship in another country. We have put these points to the hon. the Minister. I want to say quite emphatically that, as we see it, he is degrading citizenship of the Republic of South Africa to a grace and favour status in his hands, the hands of the Minister of the Interior. He is degrading the citizenship of South Africa in the light of the words of his predecessor, Dr. Dӧnges, but he persists in this legislation. He wants it to be in his hands to decide whether a person or certain of our citizens—those who have dual citizenship—may retain South African citizenship. It is his prerogative. These are autocratic powers. They are dictatorial powers. They offend against the basic principles which are applied in every democracy in the Western world as far as citizenship is concerned.

I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister was invited, requested and urged, to reassess the position in regard to this legislation. He was asked to look at it again, but he has failed to respond and I want to say to him quite sincerely across this floor that in failing to respond to the request to amend this law to deal with the evils which he wishes to deal with, he has failed every South African citizen.

And himself!

In this the Third Reading of this Bill I want to emphasize that the official Opposition in this House has never been found wanting in supporting the Government in measures that are necessary to maintain law and order in this country. We will never be found wanting in that. We will never be found wanting in measures which are necessary to stamp out subversive activities or in combating the drug menace to which the hon. the Minister has referred, and particularly in combating the menace of the drug pedlar. This Bill has none of those objectives. This is something that is in the air; it is in the hands of the hon. the Minister as to what he regards as sufficient to deprive a South African citizen of his citizenship. This Bill does not have the safeguards to which Dr. Dӧnges referred in the original legislation and which were honoured by Dr. Donges in the House although we differed from him in other aspects of the Bill. One thing he did honour was the sanctity of citizenship. The hon. the Minister can give us all the assurances he wishes; it has been said and I want to repeat it that the law we are being asked to pass this afternoon is the law as printed in this Bill. In the printing, in the words of this Bill, there is no security other than the opinion of the hon. the Minister. We cannot, therefore, support this Third Reading and we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the hon. member for Green Point would have been very effective and very good if it had in any way outlined to this House a complete picture of the attitude of the United Party. But the hon. member must forgive me, because I wish to say to him, with respect, that his speech this afternoon was a hypocritical one. I shall tell him why.

Order!

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I shall define it in different way. The hon. member’s speech seeks to outline a picture of the attitude of the Minister of the Interior of that time and of the attitude of the United Party which in respect of the standpoint of the United Party is an incomplete one. In 1961 certain legislation was piloted through this Parliament in terms of which certain discretions were granted to the Minister of the Interior. Section 19(2) deals with deprivation of citizenship and reads as follows—

I want to ask the hon. member in what respect this act on the part of the Minister, this power of the Minister, is a judicial act? It is an executive act. The Minister decides and it is an executive act. But what is more section 19(3) provides the following—

and I refer to paragraph (a)—

or, and now I read paragraph (c)—

These are specific frameworks within which the Minister has the authority to deprive the persons concerned of their citizenship by way of an executive act. What was the attitude of the United Party in connection with this legislation when these changes came before Parliament in 1961? That is why I blame the United Party and the hon. member for Green Point for the speech he made here this afternoon. On that occasion the United Party did not say what the hon. member has said now. On that occasion the United Party did not take the view that it is never deprived by way of an executive act. Let me read to the House from Hansard. I shall read from the Hansard—Vol. 1, col. 7840—of 12th June, 1961, from a speech by Mr. Tucker, who spoke on behalf of the United Party—

In other words, when this section came before the House in 1961 the United Party said that they supported the Minister but that they just wished to make a request to him: Do not delegate these powers of deprivation to an official; all that we ask you is to exercise those powers personally. In other words, the United Party has completely changed its standpoint of 1961. I want to challenge the hon. member and any hon. member across the floor of this House to tell this House why the United Party has now changed its standpoint. It is very important to note the following: From 1961 until today the Minister has exercised his powers in terms of this Act, and the Minister’s decision has never been attacked and no criticism of the Minister has been expressed in regard to the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. There has never been any question of his not acting in a proper manner. In this regard the Minister has always acted in a proper manner and exercised his discretion and his powers properly. But now I want to ask the United Party why they have changed direction now. If the United Party is really so pious about this matter and refers to a speech by Dr. Dӧnges, Minister of the Interior as he was then in this House in 1949, why did it not do so in 1961 as well? Sir, let the United Party tell us that. No, Sir, the reason is very clear, namely that the United Party has never yet, to this day, had a constant principle which it applies at all times.

I now wish to come to another aspect of this Bill, namely the question of public interest. In 1961 the hon. Opposition supported the legislation in which the Minister set out a specific framework of cases within in which he could exercise his discretion. Hon. members have now said that “public interest” should be defined. I want to ask the hon. members of the Opposition this question across the floor of this House: Why did they not at the Committee Stage of this Bill propose an amendment to define “public interest” in order to limit the Minister’s power in that way? If they are in earnest about it, why did they not come forward with a definition of “public interest”? They say it is a wide concept and there is no framework within which the Minister acts. They say that the Minister can do just as he likes and can act as he thinks fit. But I shall tell hon. members why they cannot define “public interest”: Because it is impossible for that side of the House or for this side of the House or for any lawyer or Minister to define every possible case which could be included in that concept. I want to mention to hon. members opposite a particular instance as an example. I think that I may also have mentioned it in passing yesterday. Can hon, members tell us what steps should be taken in respect of an international gangster against whom criminal verdicts have been recorded in various countries, a person who, say, is in charge of a large international gang of drug pedlars? That person did not commit his crimes in South Africa and cannot be indicted here for what he committed in any other country. How can we in South Africa take steps against a person who has South African citizenship, together with the citizenship of another country, and who has committed a crime not in South Africa, but in another country? We do not want that person in South Africa. That person may be a South African citizen by descent or birth. How then can this hon. Minister take steps against such a person except if he has the necessary wide powers to decide what is in the public interest of South Africa? I would like to extend the invitation to hon. members on that side of the House to state here what action should be taken in that case. Sir, it is very clear that in the case of “public interest” we are dealing with a concept that cannot be defined. Even in court cases the courts have decided before that there were certain specific cases where something was contrary to the public interest. But one can never give a definition of what is contrary to the “public interest”. The only alternative is that someone has to decide whether it is in the public interest or not. Now I wish to ask hon. members on that side of the House: In a case—and we can think of many such cases—where we cannot bring a person before a South African court, how can a South African court decide that this or that set of circumstances determines whether something is in the public interest or not? Surely, the court can only give a decision against a person—that is the rule of the South African courts—if that person has received notice that an action is being instituted against him.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30(2).

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name, as follows—

I want to say at once that in moving this motion I do not do so with any marked hope of persuading the Government to adopt it. I think that would be unrealistic in view of the fact that only a short while ago, while the Natal strikers were under discussion, the hon. the Minister of Labour made it quite clear that it was not his intention to allow Black workers to join registered trade unions. I must emphasize the word “registered” because obviously Africans, as we all know, can form trade unions, but they may not join registered trade unions. He told us that it was not his intention to allow, in other words, the right of collective bargaining, of negotiating wage agreements with employers, which are rights, I must point out, that are enjoyed by White, Coloured and Indian employees in the Republic. Of course, that is what this motion is all about. I wish full trade union rights to be extended to African workers including, I may say, the right to strike after all other avenues of conciliation have been explored, with the exception of workers in those occupations where compulsory arbitration is laid down and strikes are forbidden. In other words, I want to make it quite clear that what I want are exactly the same rights, neither more nor less, for Black workers in South Africa that other workers enjoy in South Africa.

As I have said, I doubt whether I shall succeed in this effort, but I think it will be of great benefit to this House to have a full and frank discussion on this subject so that we may learn from the Minister his reasons for not wanting these rights to be extended to Africans. Other than saying that he does not believe in trade union rights, that trade union rights are dangerous and so on, let us have a clear expression of opinion from the hon. the Minister as to why he is not prepared to allow these rights to be extended to Africans. Also, I think it would be very beneficial to the country as a whole if we got a clear and unequivocal statement from the official Opposition as well on this very important subject, because their views so far differ from spokesman to spokesman. There is, for instance, the view which was expressed last year by the shadow Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Yeoville, when he said in this House—

He did not, of course, tell us at that stage whether the United Party therefore meant to amend the definition in the Industrial Conciliation Act of “employee”, and he was also silent on the very important issue of whether Black workers would be allowed to strike in the event of negotiations failing.

The Leader of the Opposition, however, has said something quite different from this. In an interview last week he called for an extension of the works committee system, allowing for affiliation with responsible existing trade unions. But he said nothing about allowing Africans to form their own unions and become affiliated to registered unions. Then, in a private member’s motion last week, the hon. member for Maitland expressed much the same view. He pinned his faith also on works committees on an extended basis.

Are you for Black trade unions …

I shall tell you in a minute if you would listen. I shall cover it in detail; everything will be covered, I promise you. On the 10th February, addressing the United Party Platteland General Council in Pretoria, however, Mr. Harry Schwarz, the new leader of the U.P. in the Transvaal, said—

Now, Sir, there are considerable differences of opinion, therefore, within the United Party. As far as I can gather, the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Hillbrow support the view put forward by Mr. Harry Schwarz. I think it would be very valuable to know what U.P. policy is, because it seems to be somewhat chameleon-like in character, rather like the race federation policy of the United Party.

Legislative changes would, in fact, simply involve amending the definition section of the Industrial Conciliation Act so as to delete, in the definition of “employee”, the words “other than a Bantu”, which appear in parenthesis. There would have to be some consequential amendments to the Industrial Conciliation Act as well to allow mixed unions, and the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act of 1953 would also need certain amendments before the people in parenthesis in the Industrial Conciliation Act definition who happen to constitute about 80% of the industrial labour force of South Africa, are allowed to be included in the benefits of collective bargaining, which I believe to be an elementary right in all modern Western industrial countries and one which, as I have said, we indeed granted legislatively to all other workers in South Africa just about 50 years ago. It was just about 50 years ago when our Industrial Conciliation Act was passed. Since then, in those ensuing 50 years, we have had nothing short of an industrial revolution in South Africa. World War II has come and gone and it has left in its aftermath enormous industrial expansion. New goldfields have been opened, bringing secondary industries in their wake. A vast process of urbanization has taken place. With it there has been building and construction. Our great public utilities have expanded enormously. Railways and communications have expanded. I could go on and on, detailing all our vast industrial and commercial growth, all of it engendering huge demands for industrial labour in secondary, tertiary and the service sectors of our economy. And who has filled the gap? It is African workers that largely have filled the gap, that have come in to satisfy these huge demands for labour, and not only in the unskilled occupations, but to an ever-increasing extent in skilled and semi-skilled occupations, performing intricate tasks, minding complicated and delicate machines, but, mark you, not allowed to handle the machinery of collective bargaining, the modern machinery of collective bargaining, in order to negotiate on their own behalf for better wages and better conditions of work. They have had to rely on the good offices of White trade unions which, while bargaining on their own behalf, using our excellent conciliation machinery, have on the side, so to speak, done a bit of bargaining for Black workers as well, in some cases. For the rest, Black workers have had to rely on representations made by the labour officers of the central Bantu labour board which was set up by the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act in 1953. And, of course, they can use the works committees also set up under this Act, to settle or prevent any dispute, if and where these works committees exist. Now, as we all know, despite the fact that there are, I believe, an estimated 30 000 industrial establishments in this country, if not more, employing more than the 20 African workers required to establish works committees consisting of three to five Black workers, I believe that in fact there are, according to the last count, only about 18 functioning statutory works committees in the whole country, and about 118 non-statutory committees. It is on the broadening of the functioning of these works committees that the hon. the Minister says he intends to concentrate in order to avoid strikes such as those which recently took place in Durban.

Now I want to say at once that more could and should have been done by employers to set up and to use those works committees in order to establish proper human relations with their Black workers, and to sound out and redress legitimate grievances. This I think is readily conceded by employers’ associations, by officials and by the White trade unions themselves. I would say, too, that some works committees, some of the statutory and non-statutory works committees, few and far between, have functioned fairly well. But I do say also that to believe that works committees, even when operating in top gear, could ever substitute for legally recognized, properly organized trade unions, is nonsense. In saying that I am sure that most trade unionists—I am talking about White trade unionists—and certainly all Black trade unionists and many employers would agree with me, because there are built-in deficiencies in the works committee system, Firstly, they have no real, legal and enforceable negotiating or bargaining powers. That is the most important built-in deficiency. Secondly—and this is another very important deficiency-—employers do not like acting unilaterally in a competitive world. They hesitate to use a system which is not recognized in law as a wage-fixing mechanism—that is, the works committee. They fight shy of granting workers wage increases unless their competitors are made to do so, too. This is obvious in a competitive society. Thirdly, Sir, workers are inclined to regard works committees with suspicion. They think they are creatures of the management, and the fact that strikers in Durban did not use the one or two works committees that were in existence is surely, I think, proof of this. It shows a lack of confidence in the works committees and I believe that the Minister was palpably wrong when he maintained last year that there is abundant proof of the confidence which Bantu workers have in the existing machinery. I would like him to produce some of this abundant proof. Sir, the fact is that the Bantu (Settlement of Disputes) Act has failed dismally, and the irrefutable proof of its failure is to be found, I believe, in the wage rates which its agents, the labour officers, with the best will in the world, have managed to get out of Wage Board and Industrial Conciliation agreements. Sir, White trade unionists say that these unfortunate labour officers are not only unable to cope with the tremendous volume of work, but they are absolutely at sea when they appear before the councils and wage boards because they really do not know what is being discussed most of the time; they do not know the technicalities and they do not understand the job descriptions that are being discussed. They are simply unable to cope. They are not experts; they do not know what is really going on. What is the position when one looks at the wages which have been obtained? The hon. the Minister told us proudly the other day that something like 800 000 workers—I presume he meant Black workers—are covered by industrial conciliation agreements and wage determinations. But he omitted to tell us what those wage determinations were. He did not tell us, as the Productivity and Wage Association survey showed last year, that something like 80% of the Black industrial workers in this country—and statistically it was a very significant survey—earn wages well below the poverty datum line, let alone the minimum effective level, which is all that we really ought to be talking about. Sir, he also forgot to tell us that the latest wage determination for the unskilled workers in the cement industry, obtained by these various officials on whom the Africans have to rely—resulted in an increase—the first obtained in 5½ years—of 3 cents an hour, bringing the wage up to a princely R9-66 per week for an adult male.

How much do you pay your people?

Sir these wages cannot be reconciled with section 5(b) of the Wage Act which lays down, inter alia, that remuneration should be paid at such rates as will enable employees to support themselves in accordance with civilized standards of life. I believe that the failure of the Bantu (Settlement of Disputes) Act is further exemplified by the ever-widening gap, about which so much has been said over the past year, between White (skilled) wages and Black (unskilled) wages. This is an ever-widening gap and nothing that the officials have been able to do has been able to narrow the gap so far. Sir, it is interesting to know that 25 years ago the earnings of Blacks in manufacturing and construction were 25% of those of White workers; last year they were only 17%, so the gap in fact has been widening all the time, and this is for one reason and one reason only. White workers have the advantage of collective bargaining machinery; they have registered trade unions at their disposal; they are able to use this in order to obtain higher wages for themselves. Black workers do not have this advantage and therefore their wages are kept pinned down at low levels and they are unable to do anything about it. Sir, not only do the vast majority of Black workers get wages which are very low, but they are excluded from unemployment insurance—in fact, because of the low wages—since R10-50 per week is the starting point for unemployment insurance—and many of them are excluded from the fringe benefits which other workers enjoy, all of which I believe proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Minister was perhaps wrongest of all when last year he stated in this House that Bantu workers are adequately protected by existing legislation. They are in fact hopelessly inadequately protected. They are not in fact protected at all. Ten years ago I moved a private member’s motion asking for a national minimum wage, with adjustments, of course, for regional differences in cost of living, and making allowance for wages in kind—one obviously has to do that—to ensure that all workers are paid a living wage. I still believe, Sir, that this is a necessary protective device to obtain the desirable civilized standard for all workers to which the Wage Act refers. I think it is also necessary in order to prevent exploitation and stop uneconomic enterprises from being subsidized, as they are, by Black workers who because they are in excess supply—unskilled workers particularly—are prepared to accept very low wages. In particular I think of the situation of Black workers in the homelands who do not even have industrial conciliation agreements or wage determinations to protect them and the same applies to many of the workers in border industries and to migrant workers on the mines and to workers on the White farms. All these workers are crying out for this kind of protection and it is precisely these workers who are denied any form of minimum wage protection.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has an objection to minimum wages. I do not believe they are a substitute for trade unions; I believe they are complementary, and certainly where no trade unions exist, you have to have them. I have here the minimum wages paid in America. America has a standard national minimum wage and there are also minimum wages laid down for the different states. Where the state wage is lower than the federal wage, (hen the federal wage applies. The minimum federal wage in commerce or in industry is $1-60 an hour. There are regional differences due to the cost of living, etc., not in the national wage but in the state one. Even agricultural workers are included, and the minimum wage for agricultural workers is not less than $1-30. I should think it would make most of the farmers in this House faint dead away at the thought of having to pay a minimum wage of anything like that [Interjections.] You can cost the mealie-meal and you can cost the water and you can cost the hut and you can cost the firewood, and if you add all of that, I wonder what the wage is, including the cash wages they get. [Interjections.]

Order!

I give notice right now that I shall move a private member’s motion next year on the wages paid by farmers and asking for a full-scale survey of the wages paid by the farmers in this country. I think hon. members will be very shocked to hear what those wages are.

You will be surprised.

Now, to come back to the motion, workers who can be organized, and in particular urbanized workers of all kinds, can obviously achieve far more for themselves by proper collective bargaining machinery than by allowing the State to take over this function for them. As I say, that should only be done under special circumstances. Now, interestingly enough, there is remarkable unanimity among workers, White workers—I am leaving out Black workers at the moment—about the need for collective bargaining machinery for African workers, be they the “linksgesindes” as the hon. the Minister rather foolishly the other day described Tucsa, or be they the more conservative unions like the Confederation of Labour. And there is, also unanimity interestingly enough amongst the White employers of Black labour. Last year Tucsa carried out a survey of its members and the result was an overwhelming vote in favour of trade unions for Blacks.

Why did the AEU resign?

At its 18th annual conference in August, last year, similar strong views were expressed also in favour of trade unions for Blacks, separate or integrated, depending on the workers themselves. That is my point of view in answer to the interjection of the hon. member. I do not lay down any hard and fast rule. This must obviously be done by negotiation and discussion. If they want the Black workers to join their registered unions as individuals, fine. If they want them to have separate but affiliated unions, that is also fine. My own point of view of course is that they get far better protection for themselves—and I will enlarge on this a little later—if they allow Black workers to join registered White trade unions. I want to say that discussion at top level is going on about this question in practically every White trade union in the country with the exception perhaps of that way-out union, Mr. Paulus’s mineworkers’ union. But at every other White trade union, practically, top-level discussion is going on about this, and as recently as March, last year, the Confederation of Metal and Building Workers’ Unions which is a predominantly non-Tucsa association of unions, passed a resolution recommending that Blacks become members of registered trade unions. I am very glad to say that the White trade unions, many of whom were dead against it, are more and more coming around to the point of view that it is in their own enlightened self-interest that Black workers be given the right of joining or forming registered trade unions. I might say that it was to the Tucsa conference that a very interesting proposition was put forward by Prof. P. J. van der Merwe, who is the professor of Economics at the University of Pretoria. He put forward the fascinating idea of homeland-based trade unions with labour diplomats to negotiate in the industrial White areas on an ethnic basis. I must say that when one considers Soweto and one considers the teeming people of all the ethnic groups there, when one considers that in one factory alone you can have Vendas, Xhosas, Zulus, and Machangana all in the same factory and you think of labour diplomats on an ethnic basis negotiating wages for little ethnic groups inside the factories …

Is there anything wrong with the principle?

I shall tell you what I think it is. I think it is the best Van der Merwe joke of all. That is what I think it is if you really want to know. It is obviously impossible.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

No, I am sorry; I have limited time. At a highly successful and widely representative conference held in Durban in November last year on “Industrial Representation of the Bantu by the Natal Employers’ Association, at which many trade union leaders were present, a substantial majority of those present voted in favour of some form of closer association of Africans in existing trade unions, either in the form of separate African trade unions affiliated to the existing trade unions …

Was that Tucsa?

No, it was not. It was the Association of Natal Employers. And a substantial majority voted also for direct African membership of existing trade unions. In the face of all this swelling demand—that is the only way I can describe it—for proper channels of communication between Black workers and employers, for proper negotiating machinery on wage demands, in the teeth of the Natal strikes, we surely have a right to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a better response than just the parrot cry that he will not allow Blacks to join registered trade unions because trade unionism is dangerous for Blacks and is foreign to Blacks since Black workers are inexperienced and unready for trade unionism. I have said before and I want to repeat here that I think it is impertinent for a member of the Government that deliberately killed off the existing Black trade unions 20 years ago to say now that Blacks are inexperienced in trade unionism. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: How do you start getting experience of trade unionism if in fact you are not given the right to join registered trade unions? I should also like him to tell me something about Mrs. Lucy Mbuvela’s very successful non-registered Black trade union which, however, gets a lot of assistance from the White Garment Workers’ Union and which has 17 000 paid up members and is functioning very well indeed, except, of course, that although she is a very able trade unionist, she is not able to negotiate on her own behalf for her members at any of these Industrial Council discussions.

What is the hon. the Minister against? Let us try to analyse it. Is he frightened that White workers are going to be swamped if Black workers join their trade unions? I want to tell the hon. the Minister that already by sheer weight of numbers they are swamped. It is absurd. They are swamped. More and more Blacks are coming into the jobs which formerly were done by Whites and less and less representative are the White unions in fact becoming. Surely, the very best protection that the White workers can have is to take the Black workers into their unions and then when jobs are fragmented, which is happening all the time, they will be able to see that there is not severe undercutting in respect of those jobs, because there is always a period when both Black and White workers are in fact doing the same jobs, and gradually then some of the jobs slide down the scale to the Black workers exclusively. I must say at once that I think that the rate for the job is the great protection for the White worker, but I also say that I think that we need proper scientific job evaluation in South Africa so that the actual value of the job shall be the work entailed; it should not in fact be valued because of the colour of the skin of the worker who is doing that job. I think the fact that we fail to do this has contributed to a large extent to the spiralling inflation we have had in this country. Although, no doubt many jobs are properly evaluated, I would like to make this point too. Some leading trade unionist, and not just these “linksgesindes”, as the hon. the Minister calls them, have already come to the conclusion that self-interest requires that they take Black workers into the unions. Men who not very long ago were talking quite differently are now coming round to this point of view, and are expressing their views very frankly. Mr. Liebenberg and Mr. Crompton have been saying it and Mr. Grobbelaar, of course, has always said it.

What are the hon. the Minister’s other fears? Is he frightened that Black unions will be for ever striking? Is this what worries him? Do I need to point out again, as I pointed out last year when 13 000 Ovambos went off on their illegal strike, and as I pointed out two weeks ago when at least 30 000 to 40 000 Black workers in Natal went off on their illegal strikes, that one does not need to have trade unions in order to have strikes? One has strikes when there are in fact no trade unions and I would say that it is far more dangerous to have these wild-cat strikes than to have trade unions where there are people with whom to negotiate. This is one of the great dangers of this form of strike. It was one of the great problems, as the hon. the Minister and his department must know, about handling the Natal strike, that there was nobody with whom to negotiate. The strikers did not put forth leaders because they were frightened that they would be arrested and there were no proper trade union leaders, or works committees with whom the hon. the Minister and his officials could negotiate properly. I want to point out that trade unionism in fact—and this has been pointed out by economists throughout the world—is the best insurance against economic disorder. In this perhaps lies its greatest significance, and our White workers have found …

Like in Britain.

There would have been far more strikes in Britain if there had not been trade unionism in Great Britain, you silly man. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

If the hon. the Minister is worried about Africans using trade unions for political purposes, I want to point out that trade unions also prevent political disorder because the history of the world has surely shown over the years that political disorder largely follows economic grievances. If those can be prevented via orderly trade unionism and via orderly negotiations for wage rates and for conditions of work, the changes of political disorder are less. They are not greater as a result of trade unionism.

Finally, I want to say that I do not share the hon. the Minister’s fears about trade unions for Blacks and by trade unions I mean properly registered and lawfully recognized trade unions. I believe the time is long overdue for us to have these trade unions and to help organize these trade unions. I have other fears, and my fears are that by continuing to rely on the existing inadequate wage regulating machinery for Black workers, we will perpetuate the dangerous wage gap between skilled and unskilled wages. I fear that Africans will continue to receive wages that keep them in poverty and I fear all the dangers inherent therein. I fear that, lacking trade unions and lacking any effective say in the laws that regulate their lives, in other words, lacking also political rights, Black workers will turn industry into a battlefield in South Africa. I believe that unless we act swiftly, the Natal strikes will prove to be a mere curtain-raiser to very much more dramatic episodes. I believe that there are emergency measures that have to be taken. Of course there are, in view of what has happened recently. Immediate rises in unskilled wage rates and cost-of-living allowances to cope with spiralling inflation are obviously essential.

What we have to realize is that we must face the long-term situation, and the long-term situation is that economic growth, without which we will all go down in this country, Whites, Blacks and Coloureds alike, is ironically enough the Black man’s real and best weapon against apartheid, because the more that he is drawn into our industrial structure as a semi-skilled and as a skilled worker, the more irreplaceable he is and the greater power he will get to demand more rights. It is easy enough when you are dealing with unskilled workers and they go on strike or are difficult; you dismiss them and you draw thousands more from the bottomless reservoir of the homelands and the adjacent territories. But that reservoir is empty when it comes to semi-skilled and skilled, trained workers. This is the field in which the Black workers are to be found to an ever-greater extent. I believe that intelligent anticipation is the answer. I believe we must help the Black workers to take their place in an orderly manner in our industrial democracy and I believe that to continue to deny trade union rights to Blacks can lead only to alienation and to a sense of exploitation, to a dangerous polarization of the interests of Black workers on the one hand and the interests of White workers on the other hand. One has only to read what Mr. Drake Koka, who is a Black trade unionist, has to say to see that this …

The Black Power movement.

Who is building up the Black Power movement but this hon. member’s Government? They are building up the Black Power movement and are leading to the dangerous polarization of interests. If we do not act soon, there will be a rejection by Black workers of the White trade unions that are offering to help them. I am not suggesting that the recognition of trade unions for Blacks is going to be a complete panacea for all our strained labour relations …

Do speak up a bit; you are turned away from us.

You cannot hear me? I am sorry. If only the people behind me would be quiet. I say, I am not suggesting that the recognition of registered trade unions for Blacks is going to be the complete panacea—obviously not. A great deal remains to be done in other directions. There are also long-term factors. We must have the provision of basic education and vocational training for Blacks in order to improve their productivity, which is clearly an essential thing. We must have the re-education of White workers in order that they will realize, as more and more of them are doing fortunately, that the Black man is complementary to them and is not in competition with them. I believe we have lost 25 valuable years of training Black trade unionists and of training of White trade unionists in this regard.

I believe it is desperately necessary for us to have the removal of all the barriers that inhibit productivity; that is not only job reservation, but also a phasing out of things like the migratory labour system as fast as possible, for that inhibits productivity and training. I believe that the conventional and customary colour bars must go and I believe, too, that one has to do a fair amount of re-education at management level as well in how to handle their Black workers and how to use them to the very best advantage. All these things are vitally necessary. I do not believe that economic trends are going to change. I believe that economic development is going to go on drawing more and more Black workers into our industrial set-up and into the skilled and semi-skilled industrial occupations. More and more Blacks are going to be drawn, in short, into our industrial stream, and I think it would be to the benefit of all to guide and direct that stream and to assist in the recognition of African trade unions with all the implications that that brings in its trail.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall come back to a few allegations the hon. member for Houghton made here, but I first want to ask her a very simple question: Nowhere in our wage legislation, in our industrial conciliation legislation or our Bantu labour legislation, in respect of the settlement of Bantu disputes, is a maximum wage laid down, only a minimum wage. Why does the hon. member then pay her workers in the Union Hotel a minimum wage? The hon. member must tell us that. We are tired of the piousness we hear from day to day in this House. Today we have a very important motion before this House. It is a motion embodying important implications for the economy, the prosperity and the future labour peace and quiet in this country. The motion incorporates all these things. It is a motion that can have the deepest effect on and cause the deepest changes in our traditional life and labour patterns in the country. This motion affects the soul and the substance of every worker in this country.

I want to give the House the assurance that every worker today is waiting in suspense, and with great interest, to hear what is going to result from this motion. Everyone will also want to know what the trends of thought of the various political parties in this country are in connection with this motion. I must say that the motion emanating from the hon. member for Houghton is not a strange one. We have already grown used to this type of motion; she placed a similar motion before this House a few years ago. The wording was slightly different, but the content was exactly the same. It concerned joint bargaining and labour equalization. We know that she could not gain a supporter at the time either. I think the only supporter was the late Mr. Tossie Barnett, The Coloured representative. Since it is now my task, and since I am now sitting next to this hon. member, I must say that although one has an appreciation of the fair sex, I cannot allow myself to be misled by that, and I must reject in toto the evil motion which the hon. member tabled here.

I say that I am very grateful for this little difference, that she is sitting on the other side of the pathway and that I am sitting on this side of it, because the gulf that exists between her policy and the policy of the National Party separates diametrically opposed views. I am grateful to be sitting in the ranks of the National Party, whose principles are based on separate development and which stands for the maintenance of the colour bar in our industry. I also want to add, however, that the hon. member for Houghton and her party are at least honest. They are not ashamed of saying what their policy is, and at least they are honest in proclaiming it. Their policy is diametrically opposed to that of the National Party, and therefore it is not possible for us on this side of the House to support her motion. I therefore move—

1. (a) expresses its appreciation for the measures applied by the Government to safeguard and promote the interests of the workers of South Africa; and
2. (b) declares its conviction that the steps being taken by the Government in terms of its policy will benefit the workers as a whole”.

During the past recess there were six by-elections. There the respective parties had the opportunity to state their party policy and also their labour policy. In Johannesburg West we had an election where Ray Barrel stood, and in Vereeniging a Mr. Strydom was the Prog, candidate. Vereeniging is through and through a workers’ constituency. There the Progressive Party propagated Bantu trade unions from morning to night. With a few gift votes the Progressive candidate obtained 200 votes in the workers’ constituency of Vereeniging. In all reasonableness I do not know why this hon. member again comes before the House with this motion, because they obtained an unambiguous reply from the workers and the voters of South Africa about the question of Bantu trade unions in the White area. She comes along again with this motion about Bantu trade unions in the White area. Sir, since she has advocated this, I want to say: I do not know of any Bantu or Bantu movement that has ever advocated Bantu trade unions. There may be some individuals who have advocated those rights. The only body that has ever advocated it is that leftist Tucsa, which we heard so much about, last year, under the Labour Vote, this hon. member accused the United Party of not having supported her in the past when it came to joint bargaining rights.

But, Sir, this hon. member is not as gormless as we think either. There are two very important reasons why the hon. member is coming to light with this motion. The first reason is that this hon. member is aware of the division in that party. She is aware that there are some of her spiritual allies within the United Party who support Bantu trade unions. The hon. member for Wynberg is not here. She had to be silenced last year by her own party members, she embarrassed them. She knows where she stands with Mr. Harry Schwarz, the new Transvaal leader. She knows where she stands with Horace van Rensburg, the Dallings, the Eindhovens and the Winchesters. She knows the one cannot drive a knife blade between that group and the hon. member. But there is a second very important reason why this hon. member is coming before the House with the proposal. She wants to feel how the conservative United Party men on that side regard the matter, how the Marais Steyns feel about these matters. This hon. member has the fullest right to come forward with such a motion, because the hon. member for Yeoville, who has always in the past denied that they are in favour of Bantu trade unions, last year put into the hon. member’s mouth the words that they are now also in favour of it. That is the second reason why this hon. member came along with the motion. I want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said about this matter last year. I quote from Hansard (Vol. 39, col. 6609):

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said. I referred to the hon. member for Wynberg. The question now arises: Why did the hon. member for Yeoville so suddenly become a champion of Bantu trade unions? I shall tell you why he became a champion of Bantu trade unions: He is under the misapprehension that the Industrial Conciliation Act is not applicable to the border industries. Last year he built his whole argument up around that misapprehension, but that is not so, Sir. The Industrial Conciliation Act, the Wage Determination Act, are also applicable to the border area industries, because those industries are within the White areas. I can just tell the hon. member that there are more than 49 industrial council agreements and 31 wage determinations applicable to the wages and the conditions of service of people in the border industries. Therefore that argument of the hon. member for Yeoville falls flat.

It is very important that we know where we stand with the United Party, the so-called Opposition Party in this country. We want to know where they stand as far as their new labour policy is concerned; we want to know where they stand in respect of their affiliated trade unions, which the hon. member announced so openly here last year. Sir, every worker wants to know this; the electorate wants to know it and even the hon. member for Houghton wants to know it. In the course of this debate the hon. member must tell us what affiliation holds in store; or have the details not been worked out yet? After all, Sir, they always come to light with a plan devoid of detail. We want to know whether those details of that new labour pattern of theirs have not been worked out yet; or does it also entail the White workers eventually being phased out of the trade union? After all, in time the United Party phases everything out. The hon. member for Yeoville has now had nine months since announcing here, on 5th May, his plan of affiliated trade unions; or did Harry Schwarz keep him too busy so that he cannot give us the details yet; or must we go to Harry Schwarz and ask him what the details are? Or, Sir, are the details of their labour policy as mysterious as their federation plan? Or is it just that incomprehensible? As The Cape Times has stated: “Whether you put it upside down or downside up, it does not make sense”. It seems to me the same also applies to their labour policy. Sir, if the Bantu workers are affiliated, we should like to know whether those affiliated Bantu members will be able to serve on trade union executives. I put the question to the hon. member for Turffontein and to the hon. member for Salt River. No, they are as silent as the grave. Sir, I say that the workers of Sasol, the workers of Vanderbijl Park and the workers of South Africa want to know whether those people will be able to serve on trade union executives. Will such a Bantu member be able to become a workshop representative, will he be able to serve the interests of the workers in that industry? Will such a Bantu member be able to serve on an industrial council? We want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether such a Bantu member will be able to serve on the industrial council as an affiliated member? Will he be able to bargain? The workers want to know this. The hon. member must tell us whether such a person would be able to bargain, whether he will decide about the question of conditions of service and wages, and if this were to be the case, how would this affect the wages of the Whites in future. Sir, these are very important questions. The hon. member must tell us what effect this would have on the Whites’ wages. We want to know whether these affiliated members will be full-fledged members in all respects, or will they be only second class members of that trade union? The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow are continually emphasizing that 70-80% of our labourers in industry are Bantu. Sir, we accept the figure of 70%. If there is a majority of Bantu in a specific industry, they are surely entitled to form the majority on the executive body. Is that the attitude of hon. members on that side? They must tell us. It is no use just shaking their heads. I can hear how they are shaking their heads, but I get no reply from them.

You are talking nonsense.

No, it is not nonsense. Since the Bantu are now being affiliated, since they are not “partners” or “unior partners”, since they are now sleeping in the same beds, the father of the plan, the hon. member for Yeoville, must tell us whether those affiliated members will have the franchise. These are very important questions. If they can bargain, why would they not be able to have the franchise? Will the Bantu member pay the same membership fee as the White union member? Sir, when years ago we introduced here a Bill which made it compulsory, if a man belonged to a trade union, for the employer to deduct his membership fees from his wage, hon. members of the Opposition opposed it. What are they going to do with the Bantu’s trade union fees? Must the employer deduct them? Sir, hon. members of the Opposition do not reply to those questions. I then want to know whether these members will hold meetings with the Whites? Will they join in the discussions of domestic affairs? The White worker wants to know whether the funds in the trade union will be jointly divided? Will they be jointly administered?

What is your policy?

Our policy is very clear. We have separate trade unions with separate branches. There is no ambiguity and there is no equivocality. We give no recognition to a Bantu trade union. Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask this very important question, one of the most important. If rights are granted to the Bantu trade unions, would they have the right, by constitutional means, to establish a strike fund? The hon. members must tell us whether they could establish a strike fund. Are you prepared to allow that? [Interjections.] No, that is an unlawful strike. Sir, they do not even know the difference between a lawful and an unlawful strike. They want to give the people legal strike rights. Are they prepared to amend this Act to give those people those powers? I want to tell you this, Sir, those people are not prepared to say today whether the above-mentioned rights should be given to the Bantu, but they cannot go on running away. They will have to give us answer to these questions. If this were allowed, it would lead to total integration, which would result in the ousting of the White workers. It would mean the end of the traditional national policy in recognition of racial differences. I say it will eventually lead to “one man, one vote”.

That is what they want.

I say the United Party is responsible, and I hope the speakers on that side of the House will give us a very clear reply. Apart from the Progressive Party, we know that the leftist Tucsa is still the only body that has made propaganda for Bantu trade unions. They are the only people who have ever done this.

Untrue.

We know that they said: “All Africans will be in trade unions and the State must recognize them.” After all, we know this story. There were also other propagandists for non-White trade unions, and I am referring to Mr. Collins, who was here in days gone by. “Collins asks trade unions to organize South African non-Bantu”—that was said in London, and do you know, Sir, Solly Sachs, the ex-trade union leader, linked up with him and said that is the way to achieve rebellion and get the National Party out of the country. I quote from Die Burger of 11th June, 1956. [Interjections.] The hon. member said Tucsa is unanimous, but you know, Sir, there are three of their trade unions, the A.E.U., the Electrical Workers and the Motor Industry Employers that broke away from them about the question of Black trade unions. Their enthusiasm flagged and they left it temporarily until 24th August of last year. But now they come along again with such ideas. I say the South African Confederation of Labour has never propagated this; and that is one of the reasons why they broke away from the Trade Union Council. [Interjections.] I say that under existing labour legislation there is sufficient machinery in terms of which the Bantu also has just and reasonable rights. In fact, the peace and quiet in our industries proves that our Bantu have those rights. Under the Wage Act, under the Industrial Conciliation Act, under all those and other Acts, they can have the necessary protection. Other members of our Party will deal in greater detail with the works committees, the Bantu Central Council and the Bantu Labour Act. I say again that it is very clear that our Bantu workers have the necessary protection in terms of existing legislation. As far as the National Party’s policy in connection with Bantu workers is concerned, we are convinced that the organization of Bantu workers in the Bantu trade unions in the White area is not in the interests of South Africa. It is not in the interests of their own wage position. Neither is it in the interests of the promotion of race relations. If we were to listen to the Progressive Party and the United Party, we would throw the channels open and create routes for underminers, yes, we would be creating routes for agitators. But I want to give every White worker in this country the assurance that they should take note that as long as the National Party is in this House, their interests will always be protected in the future, as in the past, as is the case with any other national sector of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Houghton that she moved the motion that is before the House today. I do not think she is a party to the campaign that we have seen in the Press, especially in the Rand Daily Mail over the past few days, which seemed to indicate that this motion by the hon. member for Houghton was not an attempt to develop a healthy dialogue on a very difficult problem, but an attempt to embarrass her political opponents. I do not think she was a party to that. I think it is a pity that newspapers such as the Rand Daily Mail who are loyal supporters of the hon. member should so misrepresent her motives. I am quite sure that it will embarrass her as an hon. member of this House. I believe this is a genuine attempt on the part of the hon. member to educate public opinion to her point of view on a very important issue. I am willing to respect her contribution to this debate in that spirit.

I must say that at this moment this debate to me has an air of unrealistic removal from the facts of life in South Africa. To me and to all of us, I think on all sides of the House, the great and immediate urgent problem that we have to deal with today is the poverty of millions of people in our midst. It is not the poverty of tomorrow or that of next year or that of last year or a century ago, but the poverty of today and tonight. It is the problem of paying the rent at the end of the week, the problem of buying food for your children and the problem of covering them so that they can sleep warm at night. That is the problem. Now I want to put a question to hon. members on both sides of the House: How will the establishment of trade unions tomorrow solve that problem the day after tomorrow?

[Inaudible.]

Oh yes, I will come to that part of your speech. The hon. member spoke for 35 minutes and she devoted 32 minutes to trade unionism and half a minute to the immediate problem. I say that is unrealistic because if we were to establish trade unions everywhere tomorrow, it will take a year to three years before the new machinery can become effective and play any real role in the conditions of employment of our people in this country.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must give the hon. member for Yeoville an opportunity to deliver his speech.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

I want to be fair. Towards the end of her speech she cursorily remarked about the need for immediate action. She mentioned two things that should be done. If I remember correctly, she thought that there should be a minimum wage and an immediate revision of wages which is excellent. She also felt that there should be a regular adjustment of wages as the cost of living varies. These are two points that were taken directly from the very fine list of suggestions made for immediate action by my Leader a week ago during the no-confidence debate. He made those two suggestions but added so much more. He spoke about encouraging the Government and management to increase productivity. He spoke about narrowing the wage gap on a permanent planned basis between skilled labour and unskilled labour and he spoke about removing the ceilings, the artificial legislative and administrative ceilings, which are imposed upon Black workers in South Africa preventing them from making their full contribution according to their potential to the welfare of South Africa and receiving rewards accordingly. She did not refer to that. She really only spoke about the sixth suggestion by my hon. Leader which was that there should be effective permanent channels of communication between the Black workers and their employers. So I say that regrettably there is an air of unrealism about this. Judging by the advance publicity in the newspapers, especially in the Rand Daily Mail, I looked forward to a debate dealing with the problem of poverty, the immediate urgent problem of what we were going to do to see that economic justice was done to the majority of the people of South Africa, but she failed us. She left us with an academic dissertation about possible trade union organizations that would take a year and longer before they could become effective.

I find the same lack of realism in a very interesting and a very stimulating contribution to this debate by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. His contribution was a cross-examination of the United Party. He fired a series of questions—there must have been 50 of them.

You are running away.

Even if I tried I could not write them all down; even if I wanted to, I would not remember them all. Even if I tried to answer them, it would take me days instead of half an hour. But I want to draw hon. members’ attention to something. Everyone of the questions put to the United Party by the labour spokesmen of the Government party was based on the assumption that the Black workers were an essential, permanent, indispensable part of the economic enterprise of White South Africa. If the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark believes in separate development, believes that it will be effective and that it will come about one day, not one of those questions would have been put to us. It was through him that we had a denial of the success and practicability of the policy of separate development. With that I leave him. The questions he put to me will be answered by what I have to say as I go on.

Unrealism, lack of relation to the truth, to the actualities of life, mark the two speeches we have had so far. I want to warn against two other misconceptions, two other misunderstandings of the truth that came from those two hon. members. The one is the assumption by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that trade unions or trade unionism—which I prefer and which are the words the hon. member for Houghton used in her motion—for the Black workers should never be allowed. According to him this is in itself dangerous and not permissible in the interest of the White people of South Africa. I say that is completely unreal thinking, because whether we like it or not, let us face this: If we want to have peace in South Africa, if we want to survive as White entrepreneurs and privileged White workers in South Africa, we cannot hope permanently to deny the Black workers of South Africa the right of collective bargaining on an organized basis. He will have to admit that even according to Die Burger it must come. I believe it will come, and I believe that a wise Government will take steps, continuous steps, to see that this machinery is created in an orderly, peaceful way in accordance with the practical considerations of South Africa’s industrial life. I believe that, and the United Party believes that. My hon. friend from Vanderbijlpark made a point of the fact that if we did this, there would be strikes and complete disorder in South Africa. Are there not strikes now? Were there not strikes in Durban? Were those strikes in Durban not a contravention of the law, or has it become legal for Black workers in South Africa to strike? There were considerable strikes in Durban, in Hammarsdale and in the Eastern Cape and they were against the law, but they were allowed. By administrative action, or lack of action, the Government made them lawful. That is what it amounts to. We have had a series of questions put to us about strikes while strikes were occurring. Unless there is more realism on the part of the Government, unless more is done to combat poverty, there will be more strikes. They will be more extensive strikes; they will be illegal on paper, but lawful in practice because the Government will be powerless to act. Surely it is wiser to see that the demands of our workers, irrespective of colour, can be put in an orderly fashion and can be made subject to proper, collective bargaining, so that peaceful solutions can be found so that all peoples of this country can progress towards a happier life.

The other unreality is the suggestion which comes from the hon. member for Houghton, with all the sincerity which is hers, that we should now give full trade union rights—“full trade unionism” was the term—immediately. That is what she wants.

Oh yes.

Can you imagine something more unrealistic than that—to give full trade union rights to all our Black workers? You can only make a suggestion like that if your thinking is superficial, if you have a simplistic approach to the problems of life and if you do not look at the society in which you live. The fact which we have to face in South Africa is an unfortunate fact, an unhappy and miserable fact, namely that the Nats, the hon. members opposite, have been in power for 25 years. Certain social consequences have flowed from that. The one is that we have two types of workers in our urban areas. The Government’s policy encourages one type of worker and discourages the presence of the other type of worker. The two types of workers we have are what I may call—because we all understand what is meant by it—the tribal African and the urbanized, sophisticated African. Anybody who tells me, while the existence of these two types of communities, with shades merging in between, is a fact, that one can have the simplistic approach of creating trade union organizations for both these types of communities, is simply unrealistic; because it will not work. I shall give you one reason why it is not practical. One of the reasons why the system of collective bargaining works is that in normal countries—in this one respect South Africa is abnormal—both employer and management on the one side and the workers on the other side are dependent on their livelihood, their security in life, on the industries in which they are employed. When you have migrant workers, which is the policy of the Government, those workers who are migrants are not completely dependent upon the industries. They can, and not only temporarily but for a very long time, take refuge in the tribal organization that exists and makes it possible for its members to live. It is true that they have a very low standard of living, but they can exist. They are not completely dependent upon their industrial work. I think that if you give the same rights, the right to organize themselves into trade unions and to strike, to those people as to the sophisticated permanent workers, whether Black, White, Coloured or Indian, who have no other support but the livelihood they derive from industry, you will be totally unrealistic. It cannot be done. I dread the day when agitators get hold of the workers in the Government’s border industries and start organizing strikes there, because those workers will return to the reserves and will be cared for by their tribal organization. In that way they will find it possible to strike much longer and cause much more disruption than the sophisticated worker could do, because the sophisticated worker is completely dependent on his work for his livelihood and his daily existence.

The homelands are poverty stricken.

I want to make a general statement now: I think that we South Africans have one weakness in our thinking about our labour problems. We attach too much importance to colour. This is true for all of us, but particularly for the hon. member for Houghton. Our whole thinking is coloured by the concept of colour. Because a man is Black or because a man is White, we believe he has certain problems and certain difficulties which other people do not have. I think we will find it a much healthier and a much more productive approach if in the case of our labour and industrial relations we think of workers, the needs of workers, the wants of workers, the problems of workers and what would be justice to workers. Ultimately—and I am not a liberalist, you know; I am a verkrampte—the needs of all workers are the same: the need to live, the need to be clothed, the need to eat, the need to have shelter, the need to have their health protected. We should think more in those terms irrespective of our outlook in life. That is why we of the United Party would oppose, and do oppose and have always opposed, a policy which denies this. The hon. member for Houghton helped us wonderfully in 1956 when we were discussing the Industrial Conciliation Bill, clauses 4 and 6 and 77. She was on our side, and I think she still is. [Interjections.] I really say this from my heart. In all the things that are practical, the hon. member is on our side, but in all the things that are airy-fairy theory, heaven knows on whose side she is! That is why the United Party would in principle be opposed to a policy which was in favour and which furthered the establishment of Black trade unions for Blacks, only because they are Black. We think that will be unhealthy; we have discussed it often. We discussed it in 1953, in 1960 and again last year under the Part Appropriation Bill. Our attitude should be clear. Once we start organizing the workers of South Africa on a race basis when we only have one economy—remember we may have separate states, we may have separate nationhoods, as the Government would like us to believe but we have one economy—once we start organizing them not as workers but as Blacks, as Coloureds, as Indians and as Whites separately, we are heading for disaster and we are asking for racial competition, for racial considerations to weigh at industrial council discussions and negotiations. I believe that would be fatal. That does not however mean that because of the practical facts of life in South Africa we will not have Black trade unions. As a matter of fact, and that is my further answer to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark…

Where is he?

He is just sheltering. I want to answer the hon. member’s question about Blacks taking over everything from the Whites. Again it is a superficial approach. As a result of the facts of life in South Africa, in 90% of the cases one has to deal with in industries, because of the nature of employment in South Africa, the Blacks do different jobs from the White people. You can take any example, the Railways or the Public Service. But take the steel industry, which just recently negotiated a new agreement. They have categories of work and by agreement they fix wages for the different categories of work. At a certain level between the skilled and the unskilled, usually there is a tremendous gap—there is a wage gap, too—and the difference is such that no White man and very, very few, if any, Coloured and Indian men can work at that wage and still live a decent life. Because of the facts of the situation in South Africa, the majority of the people who do that sort of work, who are the vast majority of workers in South Africa, are Blacks. If they were to be organized in whatever form, they would, by the nature of their occupations and interests find themselves in separate unions. That is a fact and my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, need not spend so many sleepless nights worrying about the problem, as he sees it. It is not part of the realities in South Africa.

We were asked a great many questions about the United Party and its policy. Let us look at it taking the facts into consideration. You will then find that there are three levels upon which you have to think. The one is at the level of a union or an association of which all the members are developed people by the nature of their work. It is not easy for me to say this (I was a journalist), but a typical example is the South African Society of Journalists. Any person who practices the profession of journalism is an educated man.

Quiet!

He is a civilized man. Whether he is Black, White or of whatever colour, he cannot practice journalism, write for a newspaper, do sub-editorial work, scout for news or interpret news, even if he does it wrongly, unless he is an educated, civilized man. There I would say that it would be stupid not to allow membership, affiliated or whatever you wish, of individuals to a trade union like the South African Society of Journalists. We are merely facing the facts.

The other one is where you have a number of groups of people doing the same work in an established industry, where the rate for the job would apply to protect the White worker. That is one of the few spheres where the rate for the job becomes necessary and effective, where Black people work in occupations done by Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the same industries and circumstances and in competition against one another. Then they should be paid the rate for the job. There we believe they should as groups, perhaps as separate branches if you wish, be affiliated to the existing unions for that industry.

But, Sir, when you come to the majority of the Black workers of South Africa, who are the unskilled workers, the people with the immediate problems, where one finds this difficult mixture of urban and tribal workers, we believe we should give, as my Leader has said again and again, e.g. in the Vote of No-confidence debate, the works committees a further chance to develop. But there are certain problems about the works committees. We have mentioned them before. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned some of them today. First of all, too many individual works committees may make the law very difficult to administer. If you have 12 000 or 13 000 works committees—which may happen if it is completely applied to every undertaking—it becomes almost impossible for the Department of Labour to administer the law. That is why the Act has been amended, if I remember well, to make regional organizations possible as well. When the Minister comes with amending Bills, we think that there is one thing which he should consider, and that is to encourage larger associations of the works committees based on industries or geographic areas where that is necessary.

The hon. member for Houghton made one or two suggestions which I want to repeat, emphasize and add to. The first one is that there must be very strong protection against victimization; because any Black worker who does not fall under the protection of a large trade union in a particular industry and who is assertive in pushing the demands of his fellow-workers, can very easily be dismissed, and victimization may be very difficult to prove. It would also be much better, as in the case of recognized unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act, if works committees could also be part of a larger organization, which will give members protection and a sense of security against unilateral and unfair action by an unreasonable employer. Then these works committees should get more recognition under the labour laws of South Africa. Agreements entered into, especially with these larger organizations on a regional or industry-wide basis, should also have the force of law. The Minister should be able to proclaim them in the same way as he is able to proclaim other agreements under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Because we believe that all the workers’ interests are the same, these works committees should, through their larger organizations which I have referred to, be affiliated to the existing unions. The trade unions are very jealous of their rights and you cannot compel them to be affiliated, but that should be the policy which one should make possible by amending the Industrial Conciliation Act; that should be the policy which one should encourage with all the administrative means at the disposal of the Government to bring about a form of affiliation, which will be determined in consultation with the union and which will be administered by the Registrar of Trade Unions so that the workers of South Africa will be seen as a unit and not as people who are determined to undermine one another and weaken one another’s position in collective bargaining. Because, Sir, once you have trade unions hostile to one another, doing collective bargaining in the same industry, you can get a situation that will be disastrous not only to industrial peace in South Africa, but to the ultimate well-being of the workers of South Africa. We have been challenged, Sir, to put our attitude and our policy, and I have tried to do so. I want to end off as I ended off last year when I spoke in the Part Appropriation debate: To think that there is a solution to this highly complicated problem of human and industrial relations in South Africa, a solution that you can bring about with a stroke of the pen by indulging in slogans like separate development, or a slogan like “trade unionism for all”, is to forget that you must live with your feet on the ground in South Africa. Ultimately, Sir, we must be pragmatic; we must be willing to experiment; we must be willing, if we make a mistake, to admit it and to change our attitude, as I think the Government is going to change its attitude to the Native (Settlement of Disputes) Act this session. You must be willing to do that; you must have an open mind, but, above all, you must relate your thinking and your planning to the facts of the situation, and my criticism of the two speeches that we have had so far is that the one speaker has his head in the ground and the other one her feet in the clouds; neither of them is realistic, and it is a topsy-turvy world that they have presented here.

Mr. Speaker, when we are speaking about matters relating to a person’s daily bread, particularly in this multi-national country, we must be particularly careful, because it is specifically at the labour level that we make the most contact with other people, and one is most sensitive about things affecting one’s daily bread. That is why we must be very careful not to put something to the worker which he does not believe in, and not to make him a promise that we cannot carry out. Therefore we accept, in this multi-national country, that this motion brings us into closer touch at ground level, where one earns one’s daily bread. Just as we, as South Africans, as Whites, earn our daily bread on many levels, this also applies to the eight existing Bantu peoples in this country and to thousands of foreign Bantu, as I shall indicate at a later stage. We must be very careful when talking about these matters. Yet it is nevertheless a good thing that we discuss this motion today, because it gives us the opportunity to define this sensitive way of life clearly, and for that reason we may not be ambiguous; for that reason we may not be inconsistent. We shall therefore only be doing good if we keep this debate on a high plane. Since the motion states that Bantu trade unions should obtain full recognition, we should go back a little in the history of Bantu trade unions. The history of Bantu trade unions is very well known. As far back as 1918 Clements Kadali established the Industrial Commercial Workers Union, and until 1927 it grew strongly, but as a result of internal corruption, as a result of cheating amongst themselves, and exploitation by the officials of that organization, it came to nothing. The next to come was the then Communist party, which began under the Garment Workers and Baking industries. They began establishing Bantu Trade Unions. They went the same way, and as a result of ideological differences that Bantu Trade Union also came to nothing. Then came a man by the name of Max Gordon, who was a Trotsky Communist, and in 1930 he formed 20 Bantu Trade Unions. So that history continues. In 1947 a certain Joe Marks—and he died recently as an exile in Moscow—established the Mineworkers’ Bantu Trade Union, and that also gave rise to a strike in 1946. In 1944 the Council of non-European Trade Unions, with 119 affiliated unions, again broke up because their members had not paid their subscriptions. These things followed on, until in 1955 the South African Congress of Trade Unions was established, and it is illuminating that this organization was very active, in 1961, in the functions and the activities of the African National Congress, and that Bantu Trade Union’s activities gave rise to the African National Congress being declared void in 1960. Then, in 1959, Fatso was formed, and their president, Jakob Nuoza, again found a direct link with the Pan-African Congress, and that was also banned, as we know, in 1960. Therefore we must not be blamed if we, on the National side, say firstly that Bantu Trade Unions will not be acknowledged by us. We know the history throughout the years and we have that fear, which will continually exist, because they have proved themselves in the past. But we do not only have Bantu here in our country who belong to our own eight population groups, and if we allow a Bantu trade union for our Bantu in their sphere of work, they also have thousands and thousands of other Bantu from other countries with them. How can we only give a Bantu trade union to a certain group and a certain section, and not allow into it others who also work here? The hon. members did not speak of the thousands of Bantu who work in the mining industry. If we want to give the Bantu in industry a trade union, we must also give it to the Bantu in the mining industry, and there are 362 000 foreign Bantu working in South Africa at present, Bantu from Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Rhodesia, Malawi, Mosambique, Angola, Zambia and other places. How can one give a trade union to one group when one does not give it to the other group at the same level?

The hon. member for Yeoville only devoted five minutes to their policy.

That is five minutes too long.

At the beginning of his speech he said something about poverty, with which we all agree, but there are also other factors. It is our function to elicit United Party policy here today, and to obtain answers to questions about what they feel and what their official policy is in respect of this matter. The last acknowledged United Party policy was that old piece of Africana that we still have. I just want to read one sentence from it. Neither the hon. member for Houghton nor the hon. member for Yeoville has repeated the fear, which the party stated in their booklet:

But what did we get from the hon. member for Yeoville as an example of how they view the development of trade unions? He spoke of three categories of labourers. The hon. member gave one example, i.e. the Association of Journalists. I believe he intended this to make a good impression with the Sunday Times so that they would not discredit him further as Leader.

I want to repeat what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said, i.e. that we should come to light with realities. Where do we stand as far as the United Party is concerned? I want to quote a few passages which will serve us as clear guides in that connection. The hon. Senator Eaton, for example, said the following about the policy of the United Party [translation]—

Now, Mr. Speaker, on what grounds can we now still have a possible experiment after all these years? The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark asked: What do you mean by affiliated members? We simply do not get that answer. What is an affiliated member? Does he have any right or any say? We must remember that we must not think only of ourselves; we must also think of what the Bantu thinks; we must also be able to give him a recipe. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition explained the policy to us clearly with his clarion call as it appeared in The Cape Times of 12th February under the heading “Black Work Committees Plea by Graaff”. In quotation marks the following is reported—

That is the question.

… would accept the machinery of works committees as a starting point.

Legislation concerning the works committees was passed in 1953. Now, after exactly 20 years, the hon. the Leader of the United Party comes along and wants to take the works committee as a “starting point”. Whereto is it a “starting point”? The hon. Leader, we believe, gained his inspiration from the organization of the International Metal Workers Association, which came to carry out investigation on behalf of Tucsa and the International Labour Organization. This organization made certain recommendations to Tucsa which they should follow. I quote here from a relevant report—

Why was the United Party talking only last year of a separate affiliated workers’ organization? Now they use the machine which, according to this report, is the lawful one. They ask further—

Those are the answers we still want to know. What do they mean by a “starting point”? How do they think we should go further? Where do the Whites stand, because we Whites are the people who are going to be affected? Their future is determined by what attitude we adopt here. I want to go further. There are a few other brief quotations which will indicate to hon. members what the United Party’s reactions are in respect of labour. Last year the hon. Senator Crook used the following words in the Other Place, and I quote from the Senate Hansard, col. 3956—

I must now accept, when hearing the concepts “phasing in” and “phasing out”, that the United Party is also incorporating these labour matters in their federal policy. Where does this labour policy fit in? Do these works committees fit in with this “phasing in” of the Bantu in the economic set-up of our country? Does it fit in with the federal parliament, which we know so little and have heard so much about? Do we also have the same problem here? Since we have not obtained any answers to the questions we put to the hon. Opposition, with a view to understanding their policy clearly, we must accept that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was victorious in the caucus, because according to The Cape Times of the 12th of this month he said the following—

Labour cannot be divorced from the federal concept. So far only tourism has been transferred, but the most necessary and essential aspect of the federal concept of the United Party must be the labour matters, and we have received no answer in this connection. I accept that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout won his fight in the caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the hon. member for Brentwood and I have of course kept the speech and the motion of the hon. member for Houghton at the back of my mind. I think that the speech by the hon. member for Brentwood and the motion introduced by the hon. member for Houghton, have brought to the fore two very clear viewpoints regarding trade unions and trade-unionism as such. Standing on the one side …

Yours is floating.

I shall come to mine shortly. Standing on the one side is the hon. member for Houghton, and she says that trade-unionism should be introduced into South Africa tomorrow. Just by saying “tomorrow”, that in itself already proves to me that the matter is unrealistic. I just feel it. Trade-unionism not only is an instrument which brings with it specific rights—and it is a fact that it brings with it a wide range of rights to those workers who are organized into trade unions—but also brings with it specific and very heavy obligations to those who have joined the trade unions. To make the statement in South Africa today, if regard is had here to all the people who are concerned with trade-unionism as such, that as from tomorrow we should have in South Africa Black trade unions with all the rights which that involves, proves that it is totally unrealistic when it comes to South Africa. That mere statement proves it. The hon. member for Houghton says “tomorrow”.

I did not say “more”; I said “today”.

The hon. member for Brentwood and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark say “never”. From the one side we hear “immediately” and from the other side “never”.

The hon. members have asked us many questions and they are perfectly entitled to put those questions, but now there are also a few matters concerning the trade unionism to which the Government must reply. They cannot run away so easily and just say “never”, because by saying “never”, they are escaping every possible problem which the acceptance of trade-unionism in South Africa may bring about. They simply forget about it because they say that it will never come. That is just as unrealistic. Let me just read to you what even a newspaper such as Die Burger says about this particular principle:

Trade-unionism or no trade-unionism! They say …

Order! From which edition of Die Burger is the hon. member reading?

It is a fairly ancient Burger, Mr. Speaker.

How many years?

It is about a week old.

Does the hon. member regard Die Burger of a week ago as ancient?

It is ancient in the light of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

No, the hon. member may not quote from it.

Let me then put it another way. This is of course a newspaper which one reads with pleasure, particularly if one keeps in mind that it is the one slightly enlightened element in the Nationalist Press. They put it clearly: We are not going to condemn trade-unionism as such; nor shall we say that it will never come, because that would be unrealistic. What does the hon. member for Brentwood say about this? Does he accept this bald statement by Die Burger or does he say that these people are just talking nonsense? And more, what does the hon. the Minister say to this statement by Die Burger: is Die Burger talking nonsense or is the Nationalist Party very close to it after all? The fact of the matter is that they say there will never be trade unions, because they know that if they say that, they are rid of all the difficulties and problems. It is not as easy as that.

There is another question. Either the hon. the Minister or his predecessor announced last year that the spade-work was now being done in the Transkei regarding labour legislation for the Transkei. That will mean that the Transkei Government will shortly be in a position—we hope—to take care of its own labour affairs. The simple question which arises from that is: If the Government is so dead set against trade-unionism as such, what will their attitude be regarding the self-governing Bantu states? Will they or will they not be allowed to practice trade-unionism? My viewpoint is that they will have to allow it, and the moment they have to allow it, we must remember that as a result of the labour involved locally, trade-unionism will immediately come to the fore as regards the South African economic terrain. This they cannot escape. Whatever they may do, sooner or later they will be saddled with the problem. I think that it is a tragedy that the governing party, the people of action, the people who can do things, can really come to this House and say: We do not want to think about trade-unionism; as far as the Black man is concerned, never! Really, no government can be as unrealistic as that. Having regard to the facts, I wish to say that a government which reacts in this way, must expect to run into problems in regard to the labour front in South Africa.

On the other side the United Party is completely practical. Our viewpoint is that any government which knows the practical side of South Africa, which knows the problems of South Africa and which keeps an eye on the economic progress of the country, knows that the time will come when it will have to organize the total labour force in South Africa properly or else it will undoubtedly run into difficulties. Therefore we say that it is fitting for any sound government, and this is also the view of the United Party, to have the ideal that trade-unionism will in course of time be applicable to the labour force in South Africa as well. But to say now that it must come tomorrow is totally unrealistic, and our viewpoint is as simple as that.

Before people can take part in the labour machinery and in the industrial democracy there are specific prerequisites. The first is certainly, and I think it is the main requirement, that before one can talk about Black trade unions in South Africa, which is a matter which can be discussed academically, one will have to be sure that one can to a large extent take the existing White trade unions along with one. If one does not succeed in that, one will definitely run into difficulties. There is no doubt about that. One will have to have their goodwill before one can organize trade-unionism as a national matter. What is more, and this is where the Government comes into the picture, one must also make the Bantu realize that trade-unionism does not only imply rights, but also definite and very important responsibilities. The lesson to be learnt from that is that one must use and train the Bantu in such a way that he may realize what rights he will acquire, but especially, too, what responsibilities he will bear in practising trade-unionism in South Africa.

Now the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark comes along and moves as an amendment that we should thank the Government and express appreciation for what has already been done as regards the labour front. If there is one government which for 25 years has been dealing organized labour in South Africa a dirty hammer-blow, then it is this very Government. Why? I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it for that reason that you have 47 seats?

The hon. member knows that as long as he succeeds in consolidating the Nationalist Afrikaner, no other factor will play a role in South Africa.

Are you underestimating the intelligence of the Nationalist Afrikaner?

In reply to that hon. member I can only say that only a few months ago Schalk Pienaar wrote that the Anglo-Boer War was still being fought at every election. We know it.

I now come to my point. The Nationalist Party Government has over the past 25 years, on the basis of the Bantustan philosophy, either broken down or totally emasculated every facet of our labour machinery. The philosophy is this … [Interjections.] Just give me a chance. The philosophy of the Nationalist Party is that the Bantu is a temporary worker, and because he will remain so for ever the labour legislation, particularly the conciliation legislation, is not made applicable to these people. Because he is supposedly a temporary worker, they have gone further and said: It is also not really necessary for us to worry about Bantu trade-unionism in South Africa. In fact, the Government has placed itself between the employer on the one hand and the worker on the other. Everything has been broken down so that we are saddled today with people who, as far as trade-unionism is concerned, are back in a stage actually prior to 1948. Any person who talks about trade-unionism in South Africa now, will have to start at the beginning and build it up piece by piece. I am referring to the rights he will have to acquire and, in particular, to the responsibilities the trade-unionist in South Africa has to bear. A tremendous task lies ahead, and because we realize that it will take a long time to execute this task, the United Party has come forward with these immediate steps which must be taken to cope with the matter. If ten strikes were to occur again tomorrow, the day after tomorrow of next year, what would the hon. the Minister do? What machinery would he seize upon then?

Then we would solve the ten.

Yes, we solve them until they explode. Let us make no mistake. What these hon. members must choose between, is either a strike which takes place in terms of the Act under the umbrella of the Conciliation Act, or a strike which takes place illegally. That is the choice hon. members have, and the time will come when the Bantu too, as I said the other day, will have learnt something and when we shall have to try to teach him not to strike outside the Act. It is for that reason that we say to the Government, introduce the Act, and start teaching the Bantu that he has to use the laws of South Africa, that he has to use the labour laws, not to annihilate the Whites, but in fact for the preservation of the total population of South Africa, including the Whites. If we do not succeed in that, I foresee a very gloomy time ahead for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, what we have now heard from the two United Party speakers probably did not surprise any of us. As my hon. friend said, it was the usual business of casting about, shilly-shallying, and going around in circles. On the one hand they really would not like to be associated with the hon.member for Houghton’s outspoken standpoint on the recognition of Bantu trade unions. No, they are opposed to that; but immediately the standpoint has to be changed, too. It will eventually be possible—only not soon. These are the senseless impracticability which are being dished up for us here. The next moment it is being said that they may not strike. Imagine, the most fundamental right of a trade union is to strike. If it may not strike, of what significance is it?

They may not strike at the moment.

Yes, it is our policy that they may not strike; but we are now discussing the hon. members’ policy. After all, it is their policy which is to bring us a Utopia, and it is that policy which does not give them the right to strike. What irony! Surely this is absolute hoodwinking of the people—it is the old United Party tactic—to try to satisfy everyone. Whether the issue is the federal policy or this one, this is the same pattern we find in all matters of fundamental concern. I shall return in a moment to the United Party.

But before doing so I first want to say something with reference to the motion introduced by the hon. member. I think this motion which the hon. member for Houghton introduced was concerned for the most part with the Bantu worker and his position in the economic life. Because of this I am compelled at the outset to say what the Government believes ought to be done for the Bantu worker in our country. At the same time I want to tell you what suggestions the Government does not deem to be in the interest of South Africa. What the Government’s attitude in this regard amounts to in short is that the Bantu worker in our country ought to receive a fair wage. That is the first point on which our policy is based. Secondly, he should be afforded the regular opportunity of discussing his conditions of service with his employer. The Government believes that on these two pillars we can continue to maintain a satisfied and happy Bantu labour force in South Africa. But now the Opposition parties have in fact elevated this matter of the economic position of the Bantu to a political issue and have included it in their respective programmes of action. It is for that reason that I now want to discuss this political aspect first, before I come to the really important part, namely the working conditions of the Bantu.

The hon. member for Houghton has suggested to us here that Bantu trade unions should be recognized. She did so by means of arguments and according to a pattern which did not surprise us; this is how we have come to know the hon. member; we know her views in this regard, views which, in parentheses, have been rejected at one election after another. The fact of the matter is that after a quarter century the hon. member is sitting in this House as the only representative of her party, which should surely be an indication, even to her, of how the White electorate in the country think and feel in regard to her views on such matters as these. But I shall leave it at that. I want to refer to an argument which she presented. This hon. member referred, inter alia, to the support which trade unions supposedly gave to this motion of hers. Obviously she was referring to Tucsa, which is known to us all as the leading advocate of Bantu trade unions. But I do not think it was fair of the hon. member to drag in another highly respected trade union federation, the Confederation of Labour in that context, as if they were in agreement with Tucsa in this regard. Sir, concerning the purely representation aspect, it is well to note that Tucsa of course has a great many Coloured and Indian members. It will interest hon. members to hear the following figures in regard to Tucsa, which has now held this referendum—how they held it I do not know, nor do I care: They have 119 000 Coloured persons as members, and only 72 000 White members.

That is quite a lot. *

Yes, it is quite a lot. The Confederation of Labour has 186 000 White members. I think that from the point of view of the White worker, therefore, the vote of the Federation for a Council such as this is of very great importance. To say that the Confederation agrees with Tucsa, is not correct. I do not think it is fair to the Confederation. Last week I held talks with these people; they will themselves, in due course, issue their own statement, but I can at least on the authority of my talks with them, say that this is not correct. The people from the Confederation of Labour are responsible people and I attach very great value to what they say, and if they should perhaps adopt standpoints which do not correspond to the hon. member’s view, then I do not think it is quite fair to say that they have changed their minds.

They are changing their mind.

They have not issued any statement on this matter that I am aware of, and I think the hon. member should take up this matter with the Confederation. They will probably issue a statement on this matter shortly.

I leave the hon. member at that for the moment, and now I want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. I can quite understand why the hon. member for Houghton came here with this motion this year. The previous motion which she introduced in 1965 was of course not nearly as outspoken as this one. In that motion she asked for collective bargaining, and she referred to a whole series of other aspects. On this occasion she presented her request that Bantu trade unions should be recognized far more blatantly. It is rather interesting to know why this is so, one cannot get away from the fact that she must have been influenced by none other than the hon. member for Yeoville and the United Party, who pleaded in this House last year for affiliated membership. The hon. member for Houghton will still recall how she congratulated the hon. member for Yeoville on that occasion on the progress he had made along that road, on the fact that he, too, was beginning to see the light. After having received this encouragement from the hon. member for Yeoville, I can understand why the hon. member came to this House so courageously today—far more courageously than in 1965. Sir, it is important to be clear on what the effect is going to be of the motion which the hon. member for Houghton introduced here, or of this sugar-coated one which the hon. member for Yeoville moved here. What is the real effect going to be on South Africa, on our industrial peace and on employer-employee relations? Previous speakers on this side, the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and Brentwood, put very pertinent questions to the hon. member for Yeoville on this matter, and in reply we had the usual egg-dance. We received no satisfactory reply to such a pertinent question as how the White trade unions are going to be affected and how they are to maintain their position if they are going to have their ranks swelled with this multitude of affiliated members, members who are not going to sit there with their mouths closed, but who will also want to say their piece. Previous speakers on this side put questions to the United Party on the other very important matter, namely what the bargaining rights of these affiliated Bantu members, who are now going to be affiliated to the White trade unions, are going to be, but the United Party speakers were not prepared to give this House any information in that regard either. [Interjection.] The hon. member is going to hear considerably more about this. He must not be so sensitive of his own policy. It is really too obvious that the hon. member does not want the spotlight trained on his own policy. What is the United Party’s reply to this crucial question of whether the affiliated Bantu workers may also have a say in the bargaining process?

Surely the trade union bargains on behalf of all its members.

Yes, but surely they have been affiliated; are they going to have an equal say in the bargaining process?

Surely the trade unions are on their own.

Yes, but surely they have been affiliated. Are they now going to have an equal say in the bargaining process? Why are they affiliated members then? As affiliated members they will therefore have equal bargaining rights. Why do you not admit it? Why are you evading this now? [Interjections.] In other words, they will have equal bargaining rights. What does it mean now if this multitude of Bantu workers are going to be given equal bargaining rights together with the numerically inferior White workers? Surely that can mean only one thing.

There is also a multitude of Whites.

But surely there are hundreds and thousands more Black workers than there are White. Take your operating work. Eighty-five per cent of operating work in factories today is not skilled work; it is semi-skilled and unskilled work. It is that 85% where the multitude of Black workers and the multitude of White worker have to bargain collectively for the same kinds of work. For that reason it is an evasion, to evade this crucial question. The hon. member beat his chest here and said he was a verkrampte. No, I think he should rather regard himself as being an evader. People who hide away from such crucial questions as these are evaders. One cannot evade these things. These are basic questions which one should look squarely in the face. I fear, Sir, that if the United Party is ever in the position of governing this country and they implement this policy, this policy that the Bantu workers will be affiliated, whether it is in works committees, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said only last weekend, and which was of course an ill-considered idea, will have to be affiliated with existing trade unions …

Why do you not tell us something about your policy? [Interjections.]

Order!

You are so terribly sensitive about your own policy. It is very obvious. After all, the people must realize that if this policy of the United Party is going to be applied in South Africa—look, you are the alternative government. Do you not intend coming into power, not even in 1980? If you come into power in 1980, surely you will have to implement this policy, and if you come into power in 1980 and your policy is implemented, surely it is going to mean that that smaller number of Whites in the trade unions is going to be in the minority and that the trade unions are going to be inundated with Bantu.

Tell us what your policy is.

The second thing which must inevitably result from the United Party’s policy is this, these Black workers will now have to negotiate, who now have to be given an equal say, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, will surely, with their lower standard of living force down the wage of the White worker. That is surely the other effect this will have, that White worker’s wage level will be forced down by the low standard of the competing Black workers. Why do you now want to explain away these inevitable consequences of your policy?

You are not telling us how you will negotiate. You have no policy at all.

After all, one must take the people into one’s confidence. That is surely the logical effect of that labour policy. But the Government is not only opposed to the recognition of Bantu trade unions on the grounds of these economically inbuilt characteristics of this policy of the hon. member for Houghton, as amended by the hon. member for Yeoville. We are also opposed to it because it so easily assumes a political character. This is the experience we have gained in this country. The hon. member for Brentwood was quite right in referring to Clemens Kadale. From that time to the present one still finds the same pattern in regard to Bantu trade unions, which is that there are always organizers who prefer to use those Bantu trade unions as a political instrument for their particular political aims rather than as an economic negotiating instrument. We have had this throughout history. In parentheses we also had it in the past in that Sactu organization to which the hon. member referred. That Sactu is the organization whose members were proscribed and banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act and the Riotous Assemblies Act. These are people who belonged to the banned organizations. Eventually Sactu disappeared. For that reason it is important that we keep on saying that the Government believes that on the basis of experience gained in this country with Bantu trade unions in the past, and the way in which these were also applied as political instruments, it is not in the interest of South Africa that Bantu trade unions should be recognized.

In view of this danger which Bantu trade unions constitute, will the Government also prohibit the Bantu homelands, when responsibility for labour is transferred to them, from establishing trade unions with regard to the workers in the border industries?

What the homelands will do when they obtain their independence is, as has been said over and again in this House, their own affair. The border areas, on the other hand, are situated in White South Africa and they fall under the laws of this Parliament, and so it shall remain. In addition to this standpoint in regard to the political character of these trade unions, there is still the fact that most of the Bantu workers in this country are not asking for trade unions. The majority of Bantu workers in this country are not asking for trade unions, as is also apparent from the struggle the trade unions are having to survive. I have with me here a great pile of particulars, but time does not allow me to furnish them to the House. It gives an indication of the struggle to survive of the Bantu trade unions which come and go.

Are they entitled to have their subscriptions collected by the employer?

If they are registered trade unions in terms of the law of the country they can make application for that, but then you and your party will first have to get into power in order to achieve that.

This brings me now to the following question: What does the Bantu worker in fact want? Now I am adopting the standpoint, on behalf of the Government, that they are not asking for Bantu trade unions. This practice degenerated in the past into a political instrument. For that reason I ask this question: What does the Bantu worker really want? He wants a fair wage. That is what the Bantu worker wants. To be able to know at all times what a fair wage is and how the Bantu worker is faring in his working conditions, regular talks between the Bantu workers and their employers in the works committees will be a very valuable instrument. But as far as the payment of a fair wage is concerned, the Government has certainly set an example to others in its latest salary adjustments on the Railways, in the Public Service and the Post Office. At the same time I want to say that the Government does not expect employers to pay their workers more than they are worth. I want to repeat this. Despite the example which was set, the Government does not expect employers to pay their workers more than they are worth. All the Government wants is that employers should pay their workers, whether White or non-White, a fair wage in relation to the work which is being done. If it should happen that employers pay their workers more than they are worth, employers will either cease to employ them or they will change over to automation. And then what is the effect going to be on Black employment in this country?

But your policy has always been one of automation.

But what is in fact appreciated is that a great number of Bantu workers fall into the low-paid group, and therefore fall for the most part under wage determinations. It was in view of this that I said last week in another debate of this nature that I would investigate the possibility, particularly in the case of unskilled workers, of causing a rapid revision of the wage determinations to be effected.

Now, it is my pleasure to be able to announce that I have decided to issue an instruction to the Wage Board to revise five existing wage determinations relating to unskilled labour in a series of industries in the principal areas. The existing determinations are not yet two years old but because only unskilled labour is affected by this a revision of these determinations will be to the benefit of a considerable number of low-paid persons, and the prescribed new wages may also serve as a criterion to other industries. The Wage Board will be requested to revise only the prescribed wages. Such an investigation will take up less time than a general investigation, which also concerns other conditions of service. I therefore hope that the Wage Board will be able to submit the necessary recommendations in this regard at a relatively early juncture. In this …

How long will it take? *

I hope they will be able to do this within two months. In this way, and with the expansion and the increased utilization of the works committee system I believe, in all sincerity, that we will be able to preserve our labour peace in this country. Experience up to now has shown that those firms that are making use of the 118 non-statutory works committees I mentioned last week, have had very good results. I hope that this system will continue to be expanded. I listened today to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Yeoville. As I said previously, I am asking for suggestions from the employers’ organizations and we will certainly put all these suggestions together when we eventually come to this House with a Bill. To think that we would be able to maintain South Africa’s industrial peace and progress if we were to do so in the way advocated by the Progressive Party and the United Party, really is an illusion. The experience of our country in the past in the field of labour speaks loudly against this standpoint adopted here today by the hon. members. For that reason it is necessary for this House today to reject this motion of the hon. member for Houghton firmly.

Mr. Speaker, in the few years that I have sat in this House I must say that I have never been quite so disappointed in a Minister as I have been in the present Minister. Just recently in Durban we had incidents which have probably changed the face of South Africa for all times. A door has been closed on South Africa as a result of the incidents at Durban and the hon. the Minister can get up in this House and talk and make the same sort of speech that he has made almost every year since I have been in the House. It shows that he has in fact not learnt the lessons which the hon. the Prime Minister said we should learn from the strikes in Durban. The Prime Minister himself could probably do South Africa no greater service than to look for a new Minister of Labour because this hon. Minister of Labour obviously was not listening to the Prime Minister at all. He has used the same trite phrases.

One for instance was that the Bantu should be given fair wages, but he has not told us how the Bantu should get those fair wages. This surely is what the whole strike and all the incidents in Durban were about. He said that the Bantu were a happy and contented labour force. Also in 1968 he said that the Bantu were a happy and contented labour force. We have just had strikes in Durban where thousands of Bantu came out on strike and yet he has the audacity to get up in this House and make the same claim that the Bantu are a contented and happy labour force. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what then was the strike in Durban all about. If they were so happy and contented, what were they striking for in Durban? It must be remembered that when Bantu strike, unlike members of an official trade union, they in fact lose money. They are not supported. When they go on strike, it is a severe loss to them. So, I must say that I am shocked and deeply worried for the future of South Africa while the hon. the Minister continues to adopt the attitude he does.

What is the point you are trying to make?

My point is that if the hon. Minister cannot face the facts of South Africa, he should stand down and let somebody else do the job. He has not learned a single lesson from the strikes in Durban because he said the same things here that he has been saying year after year …

What is your solution?

… namely that the present labour laws in this country are sufficient to look after the requirements of the Bantu labour force. If they were, we would not have had trouble in Durban in the first place.

They side-stepped the law.

The hon. member here says they side-stepped the law. May I be permitted to say that if I were starving, I might also side-step the law.

I am talking about the employers.

I wish the hon. members would apply their minds to what is happening in Durban. They themselves may feel quite secure. In fact, they probably do feel quite secure in their ivory towers, but if they were to go out and speak to these people and see how they are living and then discuss with them how they can adjust their conditions, they would be worried as well.

Do you do that?

I do that continually.

The hon. the Minister also had the audacity to say that the mass of the Bantu workers do not want to belong to trade unions. If I understood him correctly, that is what he said. I want to challenge the hon. the Minister to make that offer to the Bantu that they can belong to registered trade unions. He has said that they do not want to belong to them; I challenge him to make them that offer. If my memory serves me right, he in fact threatened to withdraw the registration of Tucsa a few years when they said they wanted to have affiliated Black trade unions in Tucsa. Now he gets up here and says that the Bantu do not want trade unions. He will not dare make them that offer and I challenge him to make that offer to them.

The hon. the Minister said they need fair wages. He then went on to say that he has instructed wage boards to review the position of minimum wages. This is perhaps one of the minor lessons he may have learned from the hon. the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him how long it will take. One of the things that came to light in the Durban strikes was that there was an investigation by the Wage Board early in 1972. By January, 1973, they had not yet filed their recommendation. In other words, the Wage Board sat on this particular matter for a full twelve months and when an official of the hon. the Minister’s department was asked why, he said: “Well, we have a lot of other work to do as well and the investigation is a big one.” The previous determination by the Wage Board in this particular respect was in 1967. If, even when you have an investigation, these particular workers have to wait for a year for the result of that investigation, while the cost of living is rising at the rate that it does, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that his machinery for investigations of this sort and for handling Bantu labour is archaic and outdated, it does not work and the result is extremely dangerous.

Come to the point now.

If I have to illustrate my point, I can do no better than tell the hon. member just to look at the strikes in Durban and to learn some of the lessons that his own leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, was talking about. It is perfectly true that the Government was not entirely to blame for what happened in Durban. The Government set the example and therefore the majority of the blame is theirs. But I do not excuse any industrialist or large undertaking who can make the confession after the strikes that “it is about time we appointed some arrangement between management and labour”. If they do not have that contact between management and labour in the year 1973, then they are certainly not blameless for what happened in Durban and they also deserve a rap over their knuckles for their actions. I do not excuse them. I am of the opinion that the only people who emerged with any credit from the strikes in Durban were the South African Police and the strikers themselves. As I said just now, South Africa will never be the same as a result of those strikes in Durban. As far as I am concerned, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, I believe that the hon. member for Houghton did this House a good turn by raising this issue, because we have got to consider the labour position in South Africa. We have to forget what laws and regulations satisfied our workers ten or twenty years ago. We can no longer afford our Victorian attitude and our Victorian approach to this matter. Too often in this country one hears from the hon. the Minister archaic suggestions which, quite frankly, to my mind are frightening. All he gives us year after year are political slogans which in the long run mean absolutely nothing. I would say to the hon. the Minister that if we are going to learn the lessons of the strikes in Durban, one of the first things he should have done as Minister of Labour was to have left this House and gone to Durban to see what was going on. This was a serious matter; in Durban it could probably have been more serious than in other towns. But the hon. the Minister of Labour sat in this House ignoring what was going on in Durban … [Interjections.] My hon. friend on my left says that things worked out all right. Probably it is just as well then that he did not go. The hon. the Minister last year, if I remember correctly, in a major debate in this House spoke for half an hour and in that half an hour he never mentioned the word “labour” once. This was when we were having an unsavory debate of another type. But the hon. the Minister never mentioned the word “labour” once, and yet the signs were already there.

The Minister talks about the works committees, but has he ever tried to protect the members of these works committees from victimization as a result of their pleas? According to a report in a Johannesburg newspaper today, I think nine African women asked for an increase in wages. They then took their complaint to the Department of Labour. When they returned to their jobs they found that they had already been replaced. What is the Minister doing about this? This is the sort of thing that happens to the works committees. If the hon. the Minister hopes that we can go on in the way that we have and that he can continue with the remarks that he passes here and that all will be forgotten, then I believe that all of us, all the White people in South Africa, are going to pay very dearly. The Minister said—and it has been said by hon. members on the other side of the House on different occasions—that the wage gap between the various groups is narrowing. This is obviously not so as anybody can prove and as letters in the newspapers during the last few days have shown. But it is more than that. The department of the hon. the Minister of Transport is partly responsible for what happened in Durban, because of the increase in transport fares; the Minister of Economic Affairs is responsible, and there is probably not a Minister on that side of the House who is not responsible for what happened in Durban. What is going to happen on future occasions?

I want to conclude by saying the following: The Government has got to face the realities of the situation. It has to face the fact that its present legislation and its works committees are no working; it has not given them teeth; they cannot work, and if the hon. the Minister is going to be prepared and content to come to this House and make the sort of speech which he made in this debate, I believe we will have further trouble and labour unrest in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the speech to which we have just had to listen was, of course, a tremendous anti-climax to the very brilliant speech made by the hon. the Minister of Labour. [Laughter.] The noises coming from the opposite side are the best proof that I am correct. What we have now had from this hon. member, is the very clear direction in which he is moving; for what he actually did here, was to support the hon. member for Houghton. He explicitly said here that the hon. the Minister had said the Bantu did not want trade unions, but he, the great authority from Port Natal, says the Bantu want trade unions. He disputed the statement made by the hon. the Minister. Surely, this is the best proof that what he said is in line with what the hon. member for Houghton had said here. But this does not astonish me at all, for their leader, who is not here, Harry Schwarz, also stated that he was in favour of Bantu trade unions. This cannot be disputed, nor has it been disputed here this afternoon.

In other words, what we have had here again this afternoon is the kind of discussion which is neither here nor there. The one says, “No, we are not in favour of Bantu trade unions”; the other says, “No, but we are at least not rejecting it out of hand.” Harry Schwarz, who is not a member here, says they are in favour of it. Sir, how far can the United Party go with this kind of egg dance? How long can they try the patience of the White voters outside? How long do you think the White voters outside are still going to stand for the United Party saying, “You must trust us. Now, we are now going to tell you today about everything we are going to do when we come into power; we shall only do so the day we are in power.” That is what happened again here today. The hon. member for Yeoville takes up one standpoint; then the hon. member for Maitland butters him up a little; and then the hon. member for Port Natal comes along and takes up quite a different standpoint, so that they may satisfy everybody without getting to the crux of the matter, namely to define very clearly the standpoint and policy of the United Party on this very important matter.

The hon. member repeatedly referred to the strikes in Durban. That matter was settled a long time ago. But the fact of the matter is that this hon. member is trying to accuse the Minister of being responsible for the strikes, instead of his rising here and thanking the hon. the Minister for the action taken by the Government to settle those strikes in time. This did not only happen in Durban; in Johannesburg the same attempt was made. But what the hon. member omitted to say is that his people and those echoing his views are the people who stirred up that strife in Durban in order to cause these strikes, and this was done for one reason: to embarrass the National Party Government to such an extent that it could possibly be kicked out.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32, and motion and amendment lapsed.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 23, the House adjourned at 7 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal in the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance on Monday with which we can agree. There is undoubtedly an urgent need for the major countries of the world to once and for all reach some monetary settlement that will give some stability to world currencies. We hope that we shall see some progress in this regard in 1973. I have been appalled for many years now to see the governments of the world sit back and allow the speculators of the world to make millions and millions of dollars or pounds, or whatever the case may be, in profit each year. I think we all hope that this situation will be remedied in the very near future.

We are as pleased as the hon. the Minister at the dramatic improvement that has taken place in our balance of payments and on current account. But let us not be misled into believing that this improvement is the solution to all our problems—far from it. There are many pressing problems that still require to be resolved.

The hon. the Minister also mentioned that at the moment we have to deal with cost inflation instead of demand inflation. What concerns us is that we may soon have to deal with both cost inflation and demand inflation. The hon. the Minister has announced increases in public service salaries. We agree with this step but it is inflationary, and I think the hon. the Minister would be the first to admit it. The hon. the Minister has also found it necessary to give some stimulus to the economy by paying back the 1967 loan levy of R66 million on the 1st March, this year. Again I believe the hon. the Minister is wise in so doing, but again, this is clearly an inflationary step and we may very soon find that we are going to have cost inflation plus demand inflation.

What we were most pleased to hear from the Minister was the following statement: “Bo en behalwe dié verbeterings, word die gaping tussen die lone van Blanke-en Nie-blanke-personeel terselfdertyd vernou.” To what extent, of course, we do not know yet, but the establishment of the principle is very important. It seems from the speech of the hon. the Minister of Labour in this House yesterday that he too at long last is beginning to see the light. It is, however, a pity that we did not have this kind of thinking from the three hon. Ministers and the Deputy Minister who took part in the economic phase of the No-confidence debate. I am sorry that two of those gentlemen are not in the House. What concerned us was the sameness of approach by these hon. gentlemen. They showed no understanding whatsoever of the real issues we have to face, and the issues we have to meet. Like four parrots out of the same cage, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Planning, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism and the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, all sang the same chorus: wages and salaries have risen faster than the cost of living. This is a song that my hon. friends opposite have been singing for years, but it was out of tune when they sang it originally, and it is still off-key. I do not believe that you can merely, as did the hon. the Minister of Planning, say that White wages in 1963 were R1949, while in 1971 they were R3 612 and that therefore, over that period of eight years, there had been an increase of 85,3%, and that after allowing for a 33% inflation rate over the same period, the real increase in wages was 39,3%, or 4,9% per annum. I believe that there are other factors to be taken into account. Firstly, as wages rise, so do taxes. Sometimes this is forgotten. If we take for instance the figures of the hon. the Minister for Planning, we find that a man who earned R2 532 in 1963 paid R40-83 in tax. On his increased earnings in 1971 of R4 528 he paid R222-53 in taxes and levies, which is quite a difference. The average White earnings for 1963 were R1 949 and the only tax payable was a personal tax of R18. In 1971, when the earnings had risen to R3 612, the tax payable had risen to R98-83. This reduces the real increases to perhaps some 4,4% per annum over these eight years.

The second factor is that no man will work for the same salary year after year. This is something hon. members opposite find it very convenient to forget. Every man who works in any job expects an annual increment so that his salary is going to improve each year. I would say—and I think it is easily provable—that he expects a minimum increment of 5% per annum, and he expects it on the basis that there is no increase in the cost of living.

Also, we are working with average figures which can be vastly misleading. You know, Sir, at the end of the last war the American Government did a survey as to what houses would be required by G.I.s coming out of the army. The result of the survey showed that the average house that would be required for returning soldiers would have to be a house to accommodate a man and his wife and two children. So they proceeded to build tens of thousands of houses to accommodate four people. What happened, of course, when the G.I.s started coming back to the United States, was that they found that it was true that there were many families of four—father and mother and two children—but that there were also many families of five and of six and of seven and of eight, and yet you had all these average houses built to take care of families of four. Sir, it is the same kind of reasoning that you get in averaging salaries and the figures given to us by the hon. the Minister. You see, Sir, when you start averaging the increases of people whose incomes have jumped from R4 000 to, say, R10 000 and you try to equate that and put them all together with people who earned, say, R2 000 and whose salaries were increased to R4 000, you get an enormous amount of distortion. In the same way, Sir, you get distortions if you use percentages. 39,3%, which is the figure the hon. the Minister used as the real increase in salaries over eight years, on R10 000 means R3 930; the same increase on R4 000 is only R1 572. There is a very big difference indeed. If we take the figures given by the hon. the Minister of Planning, the real increase in wages from 1963 to 1971, after adjusting them for increased taxes, was some 4,4% per annum, so the effect of inflation was that, far from a man being better off in 1971, he had not even averaged what he expected as a normal increment—not a betterment of his own position but just the normal increase in salary which he expected each year. Sir, if you add to this the fact that the real increases in the cost of living are not always reflected in the cost-of-living index, then it becomes even more interesting. I have some statistics here which I find very interesting indeed. These are cost-of-living indices. On sugar and applied products, for example, in 1970 the figure was 102; it is now claimed, nearly three years later, that the figure is 100,7, so in these three years we have had a decrease of less than 1%. I do not know, Sir; I used to be an avid chocolate-eater, and I have found that the price has increased terribly. Then we come to rent and home owners’ costs. This was 110,3 at the end of 1971 and 117,6 at the end of 1972; that is an increase of some 6%. But I know, Sir, that my rates and taxes alone have doubled, and as to the cost of maintenance, if you get a plumber or an electrician or anybody to do a job of work, when you are as useless with your hands as I am, then you find that the increase appears to be an awful lot more than these statistics show. Then we come to electrical equipment. That has jumped from 104,6 to 107,6; that is under 3%. Sir, if I go into a cut-price store and want to buy a plug or a piece of flex, I find that prices have gone up by 20% or 30%. I do not know on what these figures are based, but this is certainly not what the man in the street is finding. Then we come to one or two others: Laundry and dry-cleaning services. These are the official figures of the Department of Statistics. Laundry and dry-cleaning has gone up from 110,5 to 114,4. I would like to know, Sir, where these shops are; I cannot find them. I know that whereas I used to pay 60 cents to have a suit cleaned. I now pay 95 cents, 100 cents or 110 cents.

The cheapest place charges 110 cents.

Sir, this is very interesting. Let us go a little further. We now come to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville. According to this schedule medical services and requirements have gone up from the end of last year from 102,8 to 107,6, which is under 5%. Mr. Speaker, I hope you have not had any medical bills or chemists’ bills lately, but I would be very happy to pay mine on the basis of an increase of 5% since last year, because the one big complaint of everybody you meet is the excessive cost of medicine …

The Government has even appointed a commission of inquiry into this.

Sir, I do not doubt that these figures are correct; I do not doubt that they are based on a formula which is being used to establish the cost-of-living index, but—and it is a very big but—what I do say is that these are not the figures that the man in the street finds when he has to buy something.

There is another factor. The figures given to us by the hon. the Minister of Planning dealt with eight years, from 1963 to 1971, when the cost-of-living index rose by an average of 4%; but what has happened in the last two years? The cost-of-living index over the past two years has risen at the rate of at least 7% a year. This is a very big difference. I do not know by what percentage salaries have been increased; I have not got those figures, but these are the things that are chafing and they are things that are well known to the man in the street. You see, Sir, the working man like all of us, does not merely want to maintain his standard of living; he looks to continuously bettering his standard of living. I think it is the wish of every member of the House that that should be the case but, Sir, ask any wage-earner or salary-earner and he will tell you that as his family grows up he finds it more and more difficult to make ends meet, and that despite any increases in his salary he is having a very hard time. I think this is borne out by the figures I have quoted.

But, Sir, what was really disturbing about the speeches of the hon. Ministers who dealt with economic affairs in the no-confidence debate is that we did not get one single constructive contribution towards a solution of the problem of Black wages. These hon. gentlemen treated this problem as though it did not exist at all, yet it is a problem that is affecting the entire economic life of South Africa, because when we deal with Black wages, we cannot only deal with the question of increasing Black wages, as most people appear to be doing. It might be relatively simple if we could. What we have to deal with is the whole question of the Black worker in our economy; this is our problem. What we have to deal with is the broad question of the economy itself. The fact that far too much of our Black labour earns too little cannot be dealt with in isolation. What we can and, indeed, what we must pay Black workers is indivisibly bound up with the expansion of our economy, with the emphasis on quantity of production and export, with the creation of more job opportunities, with the improvement of productivity, with the curbing of inflation, with the increased population and with the number of Black workers, men and women who will be looking for employment for the first time each year. These are the problems that arise out of what happened in Durban. One would have expected, Sir, that the hon. Ministers who took part in the debate over the past two weeks would have dealt with these matters in some detail. After all, they are directly concerned.

The hon. the Minister of Labour, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Deputy Minister are very involved in these matters. But what did we have? The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs did deal with inflation, I must admit that. The total sum of his contribution was to say that inflation was imported, and what more, he said, could this Government or any other government do to prevent those factors that were causing inflation. I say that the hon. the Minister squarely ran away from the issue. The hon. the Deputy Minister said very little of any consequence. He did say that he questioned my statement that the Government had had no success in curbing inflation, but he did not go on to prove this; he just left it in the air. But it was the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and Tourism who really excelled himself, and I am sorry he is not here. He saw no unemployment in this country worth talking about. The 250 000 unemployed Blacks apparently did not concern the hon. the Minister. I do not know, Sir, whether that is the correct figure, because I cannot get the correct figure. I hear figures ranging from 100 000 to two million. Perhaps some hon. Minister will put me right and give me a figure in respect of the number of Blacks unemployed.

Then, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs turned to the wage gap and made some quite remarkable statements. He said that in determining wages you have to take supply and demand into account, even, of course, where you have supply controlled. But I believe that the hon. the Minister should have added that this used to be a general economic principle, but that today it no longer has any application except where the workers, as is the case in South Africa, are not organized. The hon. the Minister will know that in the United States about two years ago the workers of General Motors got a bigger salary increase than ever before, while unemployment in the United States was nearly 6%, one of the highest figures ever reached in the United States. I think the hon. the Minister, if he were here, would agree that the power of the trade unions has to a large degree taken over from the principle of supply and demand. Then the hon. the Minister said that in considering wages you had not only to look at a man’s skills; you also had to look at his will to work; that you could have two medical doctors, identical in age, qualifications, etc., with the one earning five or ten times as much as the other. This is true; nobody denies it. It is factual, but it is what conclusions you draw from these facts that is important. It would seem that the purpose of these statements by the hon. the Minister was to establish the principle that in a competitive society wages are determined by market conditions, otherwise you are a nationalized society.

That is what the hon. the Minister said. Have you ever heard such utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker? It is the biggest lot of nonsense I have ever heard. Does the hon. the Minister seriously suggest that, because we have industrial agreements, because we have wage awards and because we have collective bargaining for White workers, we are a nationalized country? I wonder what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, would say to a statement like that, that we are a nationalized country. Is the hon. the Minister seriously suggesting that it is not possible to pay the same wages for the same job, as the laws of our land provide? Is he suggesting that the more skilled and harder working workers cannot, in the context of the same wages for the same job, progress and better their own position?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will read it in Hansard. When the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs talks in this House about the implications of our plea for closing the wage gap as being a communist concept to enforce equality irrespective of merit, then he must not expect us to give any credence to anything he says. I hope the hon. the Minister will learn from the hon. the Prime Minister and what he said in the no-confidence debate, that in the recent strikes in Durban there was a lesson for all of us to learn: for the Government, for the Opposition, for commerce and industry and in fact for the whole of South Africa. We agree entirely with this. That is quite right, and I hope the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs will learn this lesson in due course. You see, Sir, what concerns us is whether the real lessons of the strikes have been learnt by the Government. The statement by the hon. the Minister of Finance on Monday, that the wage gap would be narrowed, was very encouraging, as was the statement made yesterday in the House by the hon. the Minister of Labour. But what we still want to know is what steps the Government are going to take to remedy those defects in basic structures that were underlined by the events in Durban. That is the question.

You see, what we had in Durban, on the surface, was the situation where a large number of Black workers earning wages far below the poverty datum line, and being crushed under the impact of soaring inflation, struck for better working conditions and for higher wages. That was what appeared on the surface, but this was only the tip of the iceberg. What we saw were only the symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself, and yet the disease is so easily diagnosed. It is a chronic ailment resulting from years of ill-advised Government policies that hindered at every turn the essential and vital economic contribution of the Black people to the economy of South Africa. This is the ailment we are dealing with and this is the real lesson to be learnt from the Durban strikes. The question is whether that lesson has been learnt. When I listen to some of the hon. Ministers, I doubt it, and therefore I want to move the following amendment—

Now, if the lesson has indeed been learnt, what of necessity must flow therefrom is very easily seen. It is those factors I now want to deal with.

I think it is common cause that South Africa cannot continue to accept as adequate growth, the rates of growth we have had since 1969. We had 6,8% in 1969; it dropped to 4,8% in 1970 and to 3,6% in 1971 and then we had a very slight upturn to some 4% in 1972. That the Government was of the opinion that this was too low was clearly evidenced in the last Budget, because the last Budget was an expansionary Budget; it followed the devaluation of December, 1971. After the Budget of last year, there was some measure of optimism among the business community. There was the expectation in many quarters that the end of the third quarter of 1972 was going to show an upturn in the economy. It seems somewhat ironical now that at the same time the fear was expressed that any sharp upturn at the end of 1972 could lead to serious imbalances in the economy towards the end of 1973, because the fact of the matter is that there was no significant upturn in the economy in 1972. This was confirmed by the hon. the Minister of Transport in his statement issued on the 1st December, 1971, in connection with the increase of salaries to railway workers, when the hon. the Minister said—

So, this was the position. We have further evidence of the position by the expansionary measures introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. We have had an easier money situation, a relaxation of hire-purchase restrictions, the early repayment of the 1966 loan levy, some reduction in the sales duty of a few items and we now have the early repayment of the 1967 loan levy.

It is of importance to examine whether these expansionary measures have had and are having the desired effect, and more specifically what the desired effect should be. The last official pronouncement we have had was from the Reserve Bank in its quarterly bulletin of December, 1972. They said that the real output of the non-agricultural sectors of the economy did not show any further acceleration during the third quarter of 1972. In the statement issued by the hon. the Prime Minister following the meeting of his Economic Advisory Council on the 20th and 21st November this was said, and it is very interesting what was said—

This refers to the first part of the statement—

If we paraphrase that, we can say that we do not have economic prosperity now but let us hope that we are going to get it sometime in the future. B.E.R., on the other hand, in their prospects for 1973 which they published on the 10th November said—

In their building survey of 11th January—not very long ago—the view was expressed that in the commercial and industrial sectors there are as yet few signs of economic revival. Other economic surveys which were published up to the end of last month and early this month are of the opinion that from the statistics available up to the end of January, there was no evidence of an upturn in the economy towards the end of last year. This was confirmed by what the hon. the Minister said last Monday. But there are some plus factors—we must be fair. Our foreign reserves are strong. Despite the unhappy drought, it would seem that our export potential for 1973 if not disturbed by any overseas events is going to remain high. The personal disposable income has increased as the result of wage increases already given and those still to come. Agricultural and mineral prices are likely to rise fairly considerably in 1973. Overall, I think one can say that at this point of time, despite the fact that there is no hard evidence of an overall real upturn in the economy, there is a fairly strong possibility that the economic growth in 1973 will be better than the 4% of 1972, provided that there is further stimulus of the economy by the Government. In the no-confidence debate I said that there was a general anticipation that the Government was going to act to provide the stimulus, despite the opinion of the Economic Advisory Council which said in November that no further measures should be taken now with a view to directly encouraging private consumption spending, that is, increasing consumer demand. In addition to the early repayment of the 1967 loan levy, tax reductions are generally expected—I think one should tell the hon. the Minister this—and an increase in Government spending is anticipated. I think it is true to say that it is this assessment of future policy, far more than any economic fact, that is the reason for any present optimism. It is in the minds of the people and it has to be translated now into hard facts. The views of the hon. the Minister of Finance are known to us. He stated them at the opening of the Financial Mail symposium in Johannesburg, when he said:

The hon. the Minister completed these sentiments on Monday, but added:

I do not know why the hon. the Minister used that word—mighty—a powerful, or a major …

“Matige”.

I have great sympathy with the views of the hon. the Minister, because with the real possibility of inflation for 1973 being something of the order of 7% -8%, he would be acting irresponsibly if he spoke otherwise. The hon. the Minister is on the horns of a dilemma. This is his problem: On the one hand he has to stimulate the economy, because if he does not he is not going to get sufficient growth in 1973; but on the other hand, if he does stimulate the economy his inflationary problem can become very acute indeed. There is one way, of course, in which he can to some extent have his cake and eat it, and that is by reducing sales tax substantially. If the hon. the Minister will reduce sales tax substantially, he is going to reduce prices which is anti-inflationary and at the same time he is going to leave money in the hands of the public, which is increasing demand. Therefore he can achieve two things, but I doubt whether this is going to be sufficient for what South Africa needs at this moment, because as I have said earlier—and I want to come back to those remarks—the lesson of the Durban strikes is that we can no longer continue with our policies of the past years that have led to stagflation. We cannot have low expansion and high inflation; we have to have greater growth if we are going to be able to employ—again I do not know the figure—let us say, 50 000 to 100 000 Black workers who come on to the market every year. We have to be able to …

When you make a statement, can you not substantiate it by quoting figures?

Not necessarily. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister give us the correct figures regarding the number of Black people. If he can he will be a genius, but I do not think he is. We have to employ these people at living wages. The E.D.P. for 1972-’77 acknowledges this, but only in part. It has projected an average growth rate of 5¾%. This has been recommended by the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council and has been accepted by the Government. As I have said, this indicates an acceptance of the facts in part, because a growth rate of 5¾% will not provide for all the Bantu who will acquire jobs over the programming period. That is in the programme; so you do not have to take my word for it. Nor do I believe that the E.D.P. has taken into account that higher wages are going to have to be paid to the Bantu in future. Conversely, I do not believe they have taken into account the increased productivity that we are going to get from the Bantu through having to allow them to earn more and use greater skills, because this is something we are going to have to do. It is the only answer to the lesson of Durban. This is despite the statement of the hon. the Minister of Planning who said that—

I do not believe that this is going to happen. The Government must stop equivocating and temporizing. Like justice that is not only to be done, but must be seen to be done, the Government must leave the yellow light of hesitancy and move forward to the green light of positive action. This is what we require; the Government cannot hide behind the employers or the trade unions, although these must certainly play their part. We all acknowledge that. But it is the Government that must actively propagate the most effective use of our Black labour. That is its job and its responsibility. It must do so in the homelands, in the border areas and in the urban areas, and particularly in the metropolitan areas.

Where do you differ?

If we want to expand our economy, if we want greater productivity, if we want more job opportunities, if we want to curb inflation and if we want to have stable labour conditions, let us stop talking in whispers and say loud and clear that all available labour will be properly trained, re-trained and utilized, that it will be entitled to develop its maximum skills and that it will be adequately paid. Let the Government say this loud and clear and the whole economic position of South Africa will change overnight.

The hon. the Minister of Planning said in the no-confidence debate that the only solution we ever offered to the problems of inflation was more use of Black labour. Hon. members on the other side have constantly accused us of wanting to open what they call the flood gates of Black labour.

That is so.

We do not want that and you know it! I shall tell you what we do want: We want a settled labour force and not a migratory one; we want a trained labour force; we want an adequate labour force; we want a reasonably paid labour force; and we want a labour force that can ensure the growth that we need to provide stability in South Africa. That is what we want and not “the opening of the flood gates”. You are not going to achieve this by simply raising salaries. Indeed, you may well find that increasing salaries in isolation may well have the horrifying effect of increasing Black unemployment, for employers of Black labour may well pay more, but also they may well pay fewer workers. This is very often the result of increasing wages. We stand four-square behind the hon. the Prime Minister that this situation, unemployment among the Black population group, is one the result of which we cannot even envisage in this country. We go along 100% with him. Hon. members tell us that all we can suggest as a solution to deal with the economic problem is labour. It is not true, of course, but let us accept that for the moment because we are in very good company: 90% of all financial surveys which have been published in the last three months end up with an appeal for the essential changes that have to be made in our long-term labour structure. If the hon. the Minister or the Deputy Minister has not read them, I will be pleased to hand them to him. We can no longer accept a wage gap resulting from a huge mass of unskilled Black labour and a small élite of skilled White labour—those days are gone. We can no longer pursue, and this is the only country in the world that does so, a deliberate policy of not fully employing the labour resources we have at our disposal. We can no longer afford a high rate of inflation, which is aggravated by a labour force whose productivity is diminished by rule and regulation. We have to learn to regard our vast reservoirs of labour as the basic component of rapid and sustained economic growth. It may be said that any attempt to extend or to expand the economy to achieve a greater growth rate than 5¾%, will bring acute problems in its wake. I accept that this may be so, but we believe we have no choice in the matter, there is no other choice. The alternatives have been tried and they have failed. Our options are now closed. I believe that we have got to be prepared to accept a possible shortage of capital formation, a possible shortage of skilled labour although I am not quite sure that this would happen, a possible high rate of inflation, which we have anyway and for which we might as well get something. We have to accept this as a temporary phase for a year or two while we put our house in order. That is what we require, while we create the essential base from which to launch a programme to ensure higher wages coupled with the opportunity to acquire further skills, the essential growth in output, the expansion of the local market, and the reduction of inflation to acceptable rates. What South Africa needs to break the log-jam that haunts us, is an act of faith, as act of faith that will sweep away all these outmoded concepts with which we have been living and which have no place in the 1970s. We need an act of faith which will rally all South Africa to the task of building a great South Africa for the benefit of all its various peoples. The lesson of Durban is quite clear. It is a very simple lesson: The increase of Black wages is an immediate necessity, but in isolation it has few long-term benefits. To be able to economically continue to raise wages, you have to increase the productivity of the worker. If you don’t, you may well increase his wages, but you may lessen Black employment. To increase productivity, you must provide adequate educational facilities and training and create the job opportunities not at present available to the Black worker. To create job opportunities you must have expansion of the economy. If you have expansion of the economy, you must have a climate of confidence and certainty of objectives. This is what we have been lacking over the years. This is the task for the Government to correct, to show by its actions that the future is safe and that the future is certain, that it is dedicated to following a road that will lead to a vital and virile economy, commensurate with the abilities and the potentials of a country of 22 million people.

Mr. Speaker, what pure delight it is to reply to a speech by my hon. friend, the member for Parktown! I wish I had his power of diction and his control of the English language. It is sheer delight to listen to his English. If, however, it comes to the subject matter of his speech, I can only pity him. In the state in which his party is at present, it must be very, very hard to deliver a positive speech. He ended his speech by making an appeal to the Government to create job opportunities for Black workers. I immediately thought of his colleague next to him who called hell and high water on this Government because they used Black labour on the Natal railways. Evidently, Sir, his whole speech this afternoon was an essay to draw the attention of the Government and the public from the state of discord in his party. Evidently, he has lost all touch with the mythical “man in the street”, which he is so fond of quoting. Only last year he accused the Government that it had completely lost touch with the electorate. I refer to Hansard of last year (Vol. 37, col. 1142), where the hon. member said:

That was said on February 16th. My hon. friend seemed to sense coming victory. Then came Brakpan the first, with a fair degree of success for his party. Expectations ran sky-high. He visualized himself as the country’s next Minister of Finance, taking office in 1975. Alas! On April 19th came Oudtshoorn. Enough said; expectations were dashed and dreams were shattered. O, cruel Oudtshoorn, how could you do such a a thing to the United Party! Brakpan the second came along. Malmesbury, Caledon, Johannesburg West, Vereeniging and Wakkerstroom—all these shattered that ideal. After these shattering blows I had reason to expect that the hon. member would tone down his accusations of our losing touch with the people. Yet this year, on February 6th, he told this House in the No-confidence debate (Hansard, col. 104)—

And how!

I will tell the hon. member how. The first objective of the Government was to bring about a more favourable balance of payments, and how was it done? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition last year spoke of an unfavourable balance of payments of R1 350 million. It was brought down at the end of 1972 to a mere R100 million. Is that not the attainment of the objective? When the Reserve Bank’s gold and foreign exchange reserves stood at R400 million at the beginning of 1972, the Minister predicted that they would reach R1 000 million by the end of the year. Do hon. members recall with what cynical laughter that forecast was met by members opposite? But how perfectly correct the hon. the Minister’s forecast proved to be because we have attained that figure of R1 000 million. No, Sir, far from losing confidence in the ability of the Government, the results of the recent by-elections show a growing confidence in this Government after 25 years of wise and benevolent government. It is indeed in the Opposition that the public is fast losing confidence. I quote from an English language newspaper—

Another paragraph reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Government that has lost touch with the people; it is the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I cannot refrain from using this perfect jewel by John Scott of The Cape Times which appeared on 1st December, 1972. He pictures the position which might exist in the year 2010 and writes as follows—

Remember, Sir, this is in the year 2010—

Hear, hear!

We have heard this so many times, Sir—

How familiar this sounds—

And now, coming to the Progressive Party—

This, of course, reminds one of Prof. Kleynhans—

That is original thinking!

Sir, this is clear evidence that the public’s loss of confidence is indeed in the United Party and most definitely not in this Government.

*Sir, we are fast approaching the point where the Opposition, as it is conducting itself at present, is regarded by the public as being of little importance. It is openly ridiculed. As a meaningful contributor to the working of our parliamentary government, it has apparently lost all value. It has lost all contact with positive thinking outside. It has lost all insight into the realities of an uncertain world financial situation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the world financial situation. That the Western world is in fact facing very serious problems is beyond doubt and self-evident, for at no stage since Bretton Woods has there been as much uncertainty in the monetary field as there is today. Has there ever been a period of 14 months in which there have been as many currency adjustments as in the 14 months since December, 1971? And the harder the United States and other nations of the West try to diminish the role of gold in the world monetary system, the deeper they sink into the bog of monetary uncertainty and instability, with all the adverse effects that has on orderly world trade and price stability. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to elaborate any further on the role of gold in our international monetary system. A very brilliant young colleague of mine will shortly have a great deal to say about it, and therefore I shall let what I have said, suffice. All that I want to do here, is to praise the hon. the Minister of Finance once more for the praiseworthy role he is playing to ensure the future of gold, on the one hand because I believe that to be in the best interests of world trade and monetary stability and on the other hand because gold production forms such a large part of our total national product.

Sir, besides monetary instability, the biggest problem we have to deal with is, of course, inflation. But here I have problems with my hon. friend, the member for Park-town, who just cannot decide on which stool he wants to sit and who continually blows hot and cold. At the beginning of his speech he waxed lyrical and said that the wage and salary increases which have just been announced and the earlier refund of the loan levy were all very well, but would unfortunately be inflationary. May I put this question to him? If he were in the position to manage the finances of the country, what would he have done; would he have granted these wage and salary increases, or not?

I said so.

That is our problem with the Opposition, they cannot decide on which stool they wish to sit. If the West does not want to reinstate gold in its stabilizing role, its economists and statesmen will have to rack their brains about ways and means to curb inflation. Someone recently made the remark that the British pound would be worth one penny only before the end of this century, and that is by no means so far-fetched, Sir. This may well happen if this inflation, which is afflicting not only South Africa, but the whole of the Western world, is not curbed.

Mr. Speaker, there is definitely no point in simply levelling accusations and reproaches at this Government with regard to inflation, as the hon. member for Park-town and hon. members opposite are so fond of doing. As I have said, this is definitely a problem of the whole Western world and not of South Africa only. It is not only useless to come along with arguments such as these that the Government is responsible for inflation; it is also positively dangerous. That is our very problem with this Opposition, Sir, and I shall tell you why I maintain that the conduct of the Opposition is positively dangerous. One of the major elements in fanning the flames of inflation is irresponsible wage demands and every person whose salary rises faster than his productivity is part of the cause of inflation. I repeat that every person whose salary rises faster than his productivity is part of the cause of inflation.

Now what do we get from the Opposition? The hon. member for Parktown, just like his Leader, is very fond of continually stressing how very adversely rising prices are affecting the housewife, the worker, the farmer and others, how hard they are hit by them, and how they must insist on higher wages and higher salaries and higher prices for agricultural products, no matter how convincingly we on this side of the House prove that wages and salaries are rising at a faster rate than inflation. Only this afternoon the hon. member for Parktown tried once again to make out that that was not true. Sir, time unfortunately does not allow me to deal with that argument in full. The conduct of the Opposition is like fuel on the flames of inflation. Now I have heard of people who have thrown fuel on the fire and have burnt themselves, and if the Opposition burnt only itself, no-one in the country would shed a tear. But the tragedy is that in the process not only the Opposition, but also the people as a whole are burnt and that is why I say that their conduct is positively dangerous to this country.

Who is governing the country?

Of course it is the National Party Government that has been governing the country for 25 years, but an irresponsible Opposition can do an endless amount towards nullifying good government through its irresponsible conduct.

In the short time that remains at my disposal, I should like to use my time to express a few thoughts on the effects of inflation on a people’s inclination to save. No people can have economic growth without capital. Therefore it must save, but continuous inflation must necessarily discourage saving. What incentive is there for a person to save if his savings lose 18% of their value within three years? That is precisely what has happened over the past three years. We shall all have to give this matter our very earnest attention, otherwise our inclination to save will receive a knock-out blow. We are doing a great deal to alleviate the effects of inflation on the old-age pensioner and on the civil pensioner and others. Over the past three years this Government has raised old-age pensions by 24% from R33 per month to R41 per month. The same has occurred as regards civil pensioners. The State already subsidizes civil pension funds by nearly 85% in order to prevent those funds from going bankrupt and to enable them to make pension payments to civil pensioners which will keep abreast of the rising cost of living. Only the poor retired person who has to live off his own savings has to bear the burden of inflation on his own. This matter is extremely serious. Our people’s sense of self-reliance, its will to save, is at stake. If you ask me how we are to remedy the situation, I say that the State does in fact make a small fiscal concession, because pensioners over the age of 60 years with an income of less than R1 600 per year do not pay income tax. Above R1 600 the concession decreases by R1 per R10 up to R5 000 where the concession falls away altogether. This is a help and an attempt to compensate the retired person for the loss in the buying power of his savings which he set aside with great sacrifice while he was working. However, I advocate a more direct form of assistance. I have certain very definite ideas as to this form of assistance to retired people, who have to contend with a rapid decline in the buying power of savings today. I do have ideas as to how we may accommodate them by means of fiscal concessions, but I submit that is not enough by a long shot and that we shall have to rack our brains in developing another system in which the State acknowledges not only that inflation necessitates our subsidizing old age and civil pension funds, but also that we shall have to make a considerable concession to the man who has to live off his own savings after his retirement. After all, it is not the fault of the saver that inflation is a world-wide problem in the Western world today. That is why we must accommodate him. What I am advocating is for a commission to conduct drastic and thorough investigations into this matter. The permanent tax committee is not the body to solve this problem, because, as I have already indicated, it cannot be solved by means of tax concessions only. On this commission of investigation which I am advocating should serve at least a few sociologists, because they are to expose the effect of inflation on the way of life of the elderly.

Naturally it is not an easy or a popular task for a member of the Government to advocate tax concessions or improved benefits, but to me the overriding consideration is that the person who has saved for his retirement himself should not be treated more poorly by us than the person who has not saved, because then we shall be dealing thrift too heavy a blow, with disastrous results to our capital formation. Which people can grow and flourish economically if it does not have capital?

The problems of the self-supporting retired person have become so urgent now that I fear they cannot even await the outcome of this investigation I am advocating. The situation has deteriorated particularly because, on the one hand, the buying power of the money of the self-supporting retired person is declining as a result of inflation and, on the other hand, interest rates, the source of his income, are falling. He is being squeezed from two sides. On the one hand his income is declining because interest rates are falling and on the other hand inflation is eroding the buying power of his savings and he is having a harder and harder time of it. Therefore I advocate that interim action be taken, interim action which this section of our population, who has worked hard and sacrificed in order to save, needs badly. It appears to me that the revenue of the State is showing a good increase as a result of factors which I cannot go into in detail here and now, but just want to mention a few in passing. In the past year we had a good agricultural crop, the gold price rose and the prices of other metals and minerals rose well. The price of wool also rose fantastically. As a result of all these favourable factors the country’s revenue is showing a good increase. I would be the last person who would want to start handing out indiscriminately, because last year I advocated that when we saw better days once again the State should give careful consideration to setting aside a larger part of each year’s surplus so as to provide for the leaner years which would follow. Just as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so surely do periods of prosperity and periods of recession follow each other in the economy of any Western country. That is why the State will most definitely have to make provision, if it has a surplus this year, for leaner years which lie ahead. But I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance to consider, when he discusses the question of concessions to the public with his colleagues, these members of the public, i.e. the pensioners who live off their own savings. And I am not saying this because I am going grey myself; it is a problem which affects many of our people and this problem is growing as medical science has succeeded in lengthening the life span of our people more and more. Today it is no longer unusual for a person to go on living for 30 years or more after he has retired. Now hon. members may work out for themselves to what extent the value of the savings of such a person will decline over a period of 30 years.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members may work out for themselves how much worse off that man is today than 30 or 20 years ago when he retired. The problem has become very, very urgent and we shall have to give it very series attention. In saying this, I have every confidence in this Government that it will in fact do its best in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, two of the main speakers on economic affairs and financial affairs on the other side of this House, namely the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. member for Paarl, have something in common. When they are making full half-an-hour speeches they both seem to like to use the first half of the half hour for buffooning. During the No-confidence Debate we had the spectacle of the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs buffooning while Rome was burning in Durban. Today we have had the spectacle of the hon. member for Paarl buffooning for a good quarter of an hour while serious matters in regard to the economy of the country awaited discussion. When he did get down to discussing those matters, I can hardly say that anything particularly erudite came out of it.

Well, now let us hear you story.

You will hear my speech now.

I would first like to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that we on this side of the House welcome the decision of the Government taken a few days ago to maintain the parity of the rand in terms of gold. This, in our view, was the correct decision. It was correct not to further devalue the rand and it was also correct to retain the link between the rand and a currency that is not floating because that does, at least, give the rand a fixed parity in respect of those currencies in the world that are not floating.

There, I am afraid, my approbation of actions by the Government must stop.

We expect no more from you.

This decision in regard to the rand was, in my view, the first completely correct decision which has been taken in regard to the parity of the rand since the currency disturbances started in August, 1971, when America suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold. However, this was not a particularly difficult decision to take. I believe that any other decision, and particularly a decision to further devalue the rand, would have been disastrous because it would only have added fuel to the fire of inflation, a fire that is already being fanned by a stiff wind. Retaining the parity of the rand has introduced into our economic situation an element that will help to a certain extent to fight inflation in that it will result in imports from those countries which have devalued becoming cheaper to us in South Africa. But let us not get the impression that, because this Government has done one thing right, everything in the garden is lovely. One swallow does not make a summer. We are still faced with some very serious unsolved economic problems.

One Nat makes a winter.

The hon. the Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech last year, identified the three main problems that are facing our economy. He identified them as a balance of payments problem, as a lack of sufficiently fast real growth and as a serious inflation problem. I am very glad that the first problem, the balance of payments problem, appears, certainly for the time being, to have been solved. That means that we now have money in the bank and that we are living reasonably within our means. Those are conditions which, for a country as well as for an individual, are necessary for an orderly economic existence. However, let us not be hoodwinked into thinking that the improvement in the balance of payments position has been the result of what the hon. the Minister of Tourism called “the most successful devaluation in modern times”.

Far from it!

Devaluation has, of course, played some part in the improvement of our foreign exchange reserves and in our balance of payments position. It had to do so. It is the mechanical act of making imports more expensive and our exports cheaper that must have some favourable effect on the balance of payments position, but I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance, with his economic background, will admit that that has not been the decisive factor in the improvement in our balance of payments position. The decisive factors in the improvement have been, first of all, that since devaluation there has been a dramatic increase in the price of gold on the free market; secondly, that there has been a very considerable improvement in world demand for some of our main exports, particularly diamonds, wool, sugar, base minerals and precious metals such as platinum. We enjoyed exceptionally good agricultural crops last year which left us with surpluses which could be and were exported, in most cases at very good prices. The leads and lags position was reversed not because of devaluation, but because of the removal of uncertainty about exchange rates. Finally, imports were lower to some extent as a result of devaluation, but more so, I think, as a result of a lower demand for imports as a result of the stagnant state of our economy. I believe that these five factors would have led to the necessary improvement in our balance of payments position even if we had not devalued. The improvement of this position is therefore more the result of good fortune than it is the result of good management.

Now we come to the second objective of the hon. the Minister, namely the stimulation of real growth in the economy, not, I might say, growth at current prices, or at rand prices to which the hon. the Minister of Tourism attaches so much importance. We can easily increase the rate of growth at rand prices if we just put prices up. [Interjections.] Coming from an ex-professor of economics, that to me was a very stupid statement. It is real growth that we need. Real growth is probably the most important factor in our economy, because it is the margin by which real growth exceeds the increase in our population, it is that margin by which we get an improved standard of living. Let me say that 11 months after the target of increased economic growth was set by the hon. the Minister, we still have not got to the position where we have a satisfactory rate of growth; we still have a stagnant economy. The Minister said so in his Second Reading speech. Certainly I do not think he would have dished out the bonsella of R66 million by way of a repayment of the loan levy had he not thought that the economy needed an additional stimulant. Certainly the Reserve Bank in its latest bulletin confirms that view when it states that the rate of increase in real economic activity has not yet gained much momentum. What momentum there has been, has been in the agricultural sector where last year there were exceptionally good crops, but where this year the position unfortunately, owing to climatic conditions, will probably not be maintained and may possibly even be reversed. Therefore the need for stimulating real growth in the non-agricultural sectors becomes all that more vital. I agree with the hon. the Minister that there is a fair degree of expectation in business circles that better times are round the corner. This appears to be reflected in improved prices for industrial shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. I agree that the steps which the Government have taken should lead to an improved position as far as economic activity is concerned. I agree that some of the conditions which are necessary for growth in the short term are present in the economy. There is a plentiful supply of credit, which is somewhat cheaper than it was a few months ago, but is still very expensive in terms of historical standards in South Africa. There is a surplus of industrial capacity. In some industries I believe it is estimated as high as 20%. Personal incomes have increased; they are increasing, and they are likely to continue to increase, certainly as a result of the increases given to civil servants and other persons in Government employ. Despite inflation and the increase in costs which local industries are having to bear, local factories on the whole do still enjoy some advantage as a result of devaluation over their foreign competitors.

Yet, despite all these advantages, despite all these favourable conditions, we still have a state of stagnation in the country, a position about which we on this side of the House have been warning for at least the last two years. Stagflation is a most dangerous social and economic condition. It means that rising prices are depressing living standards and making it more difficult for the people in lower income groups to reach a subsistence level. They are raising the poverty datum line without there being any compensating factor by way of an increase in real growth.

Why then, Mr. Speaker, is there this reluctance on the part of the private sector to really get moving? The hon. the Minister of Finance, with his economic back ground, knows as well as I do that cyclical upturns in the economy are usually triggered off by an increase in investment expenditure and not by an increase in consumption expenditure. But this is not happening in the private sector. It may be happening in the public sector where the railways and public corporations are increasing their investment expenditure, but it is not happening in the private sector. Why not? I can give four important reasons why it is not happening.

The first is that some important industries, such as the motor industry, the furniture industry, the electrical appliance industry and others manufacturing semi-durable and durable goods, are still licking the wounds which they have suffered as a result of the hamhanded measures by way of hire-purchase regulations and sales taxes which have been applied during the past two years to reduce the demand for their products. Many firms in these industries have suffered losses. Most firms in turn have suffered a reduction in profits. Is it not to be expected that these industries are going to be wary of further expansion when they fear that when the next boom arrives, the same restrictions will be applied to them with the same results?

The second reason why industry is not investing, is that the confidence in the private sector has been badly shaken by stop-go policies applied by this Government. Take the example of a firm in the import and export business, which is affected by import control and which is affected by the exchange rate of the rand. This is what such a firm has had to suffer in the last year and a half: In October, 1971, we had a statement from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that import control for 1972 would be on the same basis as for 1971. The very next month, in November, 1971, we had a complete reversal of that policy and the application of most harsh and retrospective import control measures, which caused importers considerable confusion, and certainly caused a loss of confidence amongst them. The following month, in December, 1971, we had a devaluation of 12,28%, more than most other countries in the world, which could only be interpreted as a weakness in the rand and a weakness in the South African economy. In June, 1972, we had a further de facto devaluation, when the rand was allowed to float downwards with the pound. In October, 1972, we had a de facto revaluation when the rand was unpegged from the pound and pegged to the dollar. And now, at last, in February, 1973, we have some stability and the value of the rand has been maintained. Mr. Speaker, this is no diet for confidence. We are a trading nation. A very big portion of our national income comes from trade. If we are to expand, we must know where we stand, and if we have stop-go policies of this nature, we do not.

The third reason why there is no confidence in investment is that businessmen are afraid that when growth in the economy gets under way, the economy will very soon be bumping its head up against the same bottlenecks as it experienced during the last boom, for the reason that long-term steps have not been taken to remove those bottlenecks. That this is so, is abundantly clear from the latest report of the E.D.P. just to take a projected growth rate of 5,75%, which is the rate the Government has decided to adopt, the position will be that if that growth rate is achieved, there will be a shortage of labour under present conditions reaching 22 000 in 1977. If you have a higher rate of growth, for instance 6%, which we on this side of the House do not regard as an excessive rate—we would like to see a higher rate of growth than that—the total demand for labour will increase considerably faster than the supply and the shortage of White workers will reach 45 000 in 1977.

Finally, the fourth reason why businessmen are not increasing their rate of investment is that they fear that inflation is out of control. They fear that rising prices are leaving no residual spending power in the hands of the public after they have spent what they have to spend on essential goods. Businessmen also fear that inflation is going to affect their costs and that that in turn is going to affect their profits. These, Sir, are the main reasons why the economy remains stagflated. The last two, namely that the necessary steps have not been taken to remove bottlenecks in the economy and that we still have rampant inflation with us, seem to me to be the fundamental and most serious of these factors. These two reasons are, of course, as the hon. the Minister knows, interwoven and inter-dependent. Unless you solve one you do not solve the other.

Sir, in the time left to me I want to say a few words on the subject of inflation. In the past two years we have had very serious inflation. In 1971 we had inflation at the rate of between 5% and 6% and in 1972 at the rate of between 7% and 8%. In the last 14 months inflation has been fanned by two devaluations, and I believe, as I have already indicated, that the success of the December, 1971, devaluation and, more so, the success of the de facto devaluation in the second half of 1972, is open to serious question. I believe that this success is in fact a myth that should be exploded. The major factor in the improvement in the balance of payments, as I have already said, was not devaluation. Devaluation has not had the desired effect of stimulating the economy; it has not had the desired effect of increasing the rate of real growth, but it has had the effect of a very serious impact on price levels. This impact has not only been a direct impact through increasing the prices and costs of imports; it has also been an indirect impact, because imports and trade play such a big part in our economy, by pushing up the whole cost structure and giving that extra sharp twist to the already fairly fast-moving vicious circle of inflation. I consider, too, Sir, that at the time of devaluation the Government was not frank with the country in regard to the effect on prices that devaluation would have. It certainly did not indicate to the country that the effect would be anything like what has actually happened in practice.

I believe that the Government was not frank in warning the country that unless devaluation was compensated for by growth and by an increase in productivity, it would lead to a reduction in living standards. That is exactly what devaluation means; that is exactly what a cheapening of one’s currency means. It means that we have to export more to import less, and if that does not mean a depressing of living standards, then I do not know what it does mean. We now have a position where last year, from December, 1971, to December, 1972, we had an inflation rate according to the consumer price index of 7,4%, but as far as the wholesale price index is concerned that increase was not 7,4% but 10,7%, and the wholesale index represents the prices of goods that still have to come through to the final level of consumption, and so we can only expect a higher rate of inflation in the near future and not a lower one. We are now in the vice-like grip of a vicious circle of inflation where higher prices are leading to claims for higher wages, which in the very nature of the present position have to be granted, where higher wages are leading to higher costs and higher costs are leading to higher prices which again are going to lead to demands for higher wages. This is a terribly serious position and a position from which the Government cannot escape the blame. You, Sir, will no doubt ask what should be done about it. It is no use saying to us that this position prevails in other countries of the world. That does not help the position in South Africa. It is what can be done in South Africa which is pertinent. I believe there are two things which must be done in future in regard to inflation.

The first thing we have to do is that we must avoid short cuts to prosperity by currency manoeuvring. Currency manoeuvring seldom succeeds. You cannot avoid the discipline of tackling the fundamentals that need to be tackled. We need in South Africa exchange stability if we are going to have confidence and if we are going to create a climate which is conducive to investment. That is the first thing we need. We need exchange stability, not exchange manoeuvring. The second thing we need is that we must get down to the fundamentals of combating inflation by the creation of real wealth.

What are these fundamentals?

If you would only listen to me, I have just said that the fundamentals of combating inflation are the creation of real wealth and an acceleration in the rate of real growth. It is only by expansion that we can do that.

That is too general.

Order!

To do that requires a sound and a strong economy, an economy in which proper use is made of our resources. I therefore welcome the appointment of the committee of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council which is going into the question of inflation. I hope that they will—and I expect they will—go into the fundamentals of the situation and that they will examine the factors which are restricting the proper use of our resources, and that they will examine the inadequacies that exist in our infrastructure as far as transport and communication and housing are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, my predecessor rendered outstanding service to the nation of which he was a true son. He represented the voters of the Wakkerstroom constituency with great distinction in this House. Since I am still a young man and, in addition, make my appearance in this House in an unmarried state, it will indeed be no light task for me to continue the good work of my predecessor. I understand that there is great concern over my unmarried state and I therefore want to give this House the unequivocal assurance that in this connection at any rate I have no lack of inspiration—the struggle continues unabated. As I promised my voters I now give this House a formal, unambiguous and unconditional promise to marry during April. I also promise that it will be during the first half of April. But, Mr. Speaker, let us be reasonable with one another. You really cannot expect it of me to commit myself to any specific year.

Since we are commemorating our Green Heritage this year, we want to take into consideration that we will best be able to do this if we can do it within a framework of world-wide economic prosperity and monetary stability. Our national economy can function meaningfully and a vital agricultural sector can be accommodated within such a framework. If, in addition to all these things, we are dedicated and conservative patriots, we will not only be able to conserve our physical heritage, but will also be able to conserve our soil. We will then be able to conserve what has sprung from our soil, we will then be able to conserve our Green Heritage for our children.

Since I want to deliver a plea today for the conservation of our Green Heritage, I want to devote particular attention to economic conditions on the international level, and I want to devote attention to the condition of the economy in South Africa and more specifically of the agricultural sector in South Africa. If we want to maintain monetary stability, there will have to be a world-wide return to fixed rates of exchange. In terms of gold this implies that we will have to return to one fixed gold price, which ought to be fixed at a reasonable and realistic level. However, if we content ourselves with the two-tier gold price system, international exchange speculation and monetary disequilibrium and uncertainty will be the order of the day. The gap between the official gold price and that on the free market is in any case such that only the gold price on the free market applies. If the official gold price could be fixed at a high level, perhaps even at a level between 120 to 150 dollars per fine ounce—I am mentioning these figures not because I worked them out, but because, on the face of it, they appear to me to be realistic—and if we can abandon the two-tier gold price system, we would be ensuring that every monetary unit in the world will be convertible to gold, and the monetary units of the world would once again serve as generally acceptable mediums of exchange, standards of value and units of account. It would imply further that we would be establishing discipline in the monetary system of the world which would have a salutary effect on the inflation problem. On the other hand it would prolong the life of gold mines throughout the world and would make possible the exploitation of lowgrade ore. In this way we would ensure that the expansion of the world money supply as a result of a rapid supplementation of newly produced gold would keep pace with expansion in world trade. However, owing to the fact that we would be establishing discipline in the monetary system, we would be ensuring that this expansion of the world money supply would take place in a non-inflationary way, and supplementation of the world money supply by means of special drawing rights would be unnecessary.

In these times when the traditional monetary and fiscal measures against inflation which were effectively utilized in the past are no longer serving their purpose today, such a supplementary measure against inflation must after all meet with general approval, the more so because labour organizations and the world trade union movement can play the same disruptive role as when monopolies undermine the capitalistic system and when our struggle against inflation has become an impossible one. The capitalistic system which functions on an entrepreneurial basis and which in fact derives its vitality from competition, loses some of its vitality as a result of a lack of competition in the labour force when there is full employment. In addition the irresponsible actions of some trade unions throughout the world contribute to this. A world-wide review of the place which labour organizations and trade unionism ought to occupy in the economic systems of the world, has perhaps become necessary in our struggle against inflation. When I say this there will be some people who will want to deduce that I am opposed to trade unionism in principle. Nothing is further from the truth. Far be it from me to wish to assert that trade unionism can serve no useful purpose if the actions of such trade unions take place in a responsible way, but then the actions of the trade unions must be responsible, taking into careful consideration the national interest. If constant wage increases do not result in a corresponding increase in production, it cannot after all be in anyone’s long-term interest. It must be borne in mind that it is the goods and services which are in circulation in a country which determine the standard of living of a population. Money merely serves as a means of exchange to cause the produced goods and services in circulation in a country to move from one person to another. Money only serves as a means of exchange to distribute those goods and services among the members of the population, according to the needs and according to the ability of each individual. In this process of exchange there must inevitably be a quid pro quo before any meaningful exchanges can be possible. To illustrate this and to provide additional background material, I should like to mention an example. If the remuneration of every person in a specific country were to be doubled without a corresponding increase in the stream of goods and services it would still not be possible to buy more goods and services with that doubled salary than are being produced in that country. What we then bring about is disequilibrium between money and goods, which can only prejudice the bargaining power in international trade. If we consider conditions in South Africa we find that the greatest single problem in the national economy of South Africa is low productivity as a result of an inadequate zest for work and a lack of meaningful method. I therefore suggest that we should all work a little harder and more competently, and that the State should create a favourable climate for increased productivity. If we are able to establish a vital economy we can also within this framework establish a stable agricultural sector. However, it would be possible to produce far better results in agriculture if we were to train our farmers specifically for the task they are going to fulfil in their farming practice. The farmer, in his farming enterprise on his farm, is after all not a technical specialist; he is in the first place an entrepreneur and the manager of his farm. When we train that farmer we should not train him as a technical specialist, but specifically as manager of and entrepreneur on his farm. The technical specialist is too inclined to strive for maximum physical production without giving adequate consideration to the related cost structure. What should be striven for in each and every case is the economic optimum; stated differently, it ought to have the desirable ratio between input and output. If we have stabilized a sound and prosperous farming community in a flourishing economy we will not only be able to conserve our physical heritage, we will also be able to conserve our Green Heritage. Then we will be able to ensure that that lush green profusion which is an adornment on our lands is conserved for posterity. To conserve that Green Heritage is in fact not the task of the farmer only but the task of every man and woman in South Africa. Let us, who are all conservative patriots, set hand to the plough in order to conserve that heritage for posterity. Let us be completely honest with one another: No nation has ever amounted to anything without hard work and self-sacrificing patriotism. As dedicated patriots we will want to conserve for our children what has sprung from our soil, whether it is a heritage of lush green profusion, whether it is a heritage of rich and wonderful cultural wealth. After all, we are all proud of what has sprung from our soil, and no one has the moral right to refuse to accept a corresponding duty in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the new hon. member for Wakkerstroom on a well prepared and absorbing speech. I also wish to congratulate him even at this early stage on the contributions he will, no doubt, make to this House in the future. I also wish to offer him my congratulations on the wedding he promised us, irrespective of when it may take place. In conclusion, I express the hope that, where he succeeds his predecessor, he will not follow him to such an extent that he will one day find himself where his predecessor is at present and where his predecessor, should he proceed another mile, would be on his way home. We took the greatest pleasure in listening to the hon. member; we welcome him to this House and we thank him for the contribution he made.

†Mr. Speaker, it is always amusing and instructive to read the speeches of the hon. the Minister in retrospect. I am one of the Minister’s admirers because I see in him a statesman and a politician of great experience, and I think there is much to be learnt from him, but I must confess that the thing which I admire most in his repertoire of skills, is his ability to choose his facts to suit his case. We have seen in recent years a variety of policies, each one fully justified by the hon. the Minister by the careful selection of a series of facts which seem to fit perfectly the case which he seeks to make. We remember the time, not very distant, when the hon. the Minister rejected growth with vehemence because of its inflationary effects. He chose instead to apply monetary controls to check inflation. There came a time when inflation was raging hotter than ever before, when growth was not being achieved. Now we see the hon. the Minister spreading money around in an effort to check inflation by stimulating growth. No doubt there will be a further switch of policy in a very short time and this again will be justified by a careful selection of facts. We have relaxed monetary controls, money has been spread around, inflation rages like a fever through the land. We wait with bated breath for the further predictions which will follow. Francis Bacon once said that “dreams and predictions ought to serve but for winter talk by the fireside”. We have had dreams and predictions in this House, very few of which have been realized. We have heard from the hon. the Minister financial policies and financial philosophies. We have expressed contrary views and this afternoon I want to examine a few of these arguments in the light of the facts as we see them today.

Let us take, first of all, this question of devaluation. When the Minister introduced devaluation he justified it on six main grounds. He said that it would improve our balance of payments. He said it would stimulate growth. He said it would benefit our gold industry. He said it would stimulate export prices in the case of those commodities which are paid for in foreign currencies. He said that industry would be able compete more effectively locally and to export more goods. He also said that industrial investment would be encouraged. I would not be going back on this past history had it not been for a remarkable intervention not very long ago by the hon. the Minister of Tourism. The hon. the Minister of Tourism was making his maiden speech in this House. We thought that we might hear something of his views on tourism or even, since there was a strike on in Durban at that time, something of his views on Indian affairs. But no, Sir, he deliberately chose finance at his topic. This House was very surprised and none more so than the Deputy Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance has, I hope, many years to go in this House. We wish him well, we think that he will endure for a long time. For those who are impatient to follow him, I think they must be patient. They must content themselves with the fact that the Prime Minister has recently learned a very sharp lesson: It is most important not to allow your Cabinet Ministers to retire, because when they do they say the most surprising things. When you let your Cabinet Ministers off the leash, when you allow them to retire, they suddenly reveal that they have not believed in the policies of that Government at all. I fear the worst for the hon. the Minister of Finance because he has been around a long time. He has seen many things and has held the purse strings. I think if he were to let himself go on retirement he would have the country by the ears. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, or shall I call him the deputy Deputy Minister of Finance, made a particular point of criticizing us on this side of the House for certain remarks we had made about the effects of devaluation. It is worth going back on these things because they are very relevant today. He referred specifically to what I said at the time. I said—and I hope those who did not agree with me then will listen carefully now—that devaluation was a dangerous measure, firstly because inflation would increase rapidly. Was that right or was it wrong? The second reason I gave was that imports would cost more money. I pointed out that imports are in large measure essential, that many of our imports consist of capital equipment which we cannot lightly reduce, that some of them are essential commodities we must have and that these will cost a great deal more and add to our cost of living. Was I right or wrong? I said that production costs would rise. Look around you and tell me if that is right or wrong. I said that our infrastructure is not geared to the rapid expansion which is needed to take quick advantage of devaluation. It is tragic but it is true that we have not been able to take full advantage of the short-term effects of devaluation. I said that the gold benefit which the hon. the Minister claimed, was a doubtful one. I pointed out that the profits being gained on the free market were considerably in excess of the small advantage gained in respect of the official price of gold by virtue of devaluation. I also referred to the cost of repaying and servicing foreign loans. In fact I then made an estimate of R100 million. It proved to be very low indeed because in certain questions and answers across the floor of the House later the hon. the Minister stated in fact that these costs had been of a far higher order, almost twice as much as I had estimated. Now, Sir, these six things have all come to pass and nobody will deny it. The fact is that devaluation in the modern age, at the present time, in this part of the 20th century, is no longer the effective instrument it used to be. In the old mercantile days it used to have a fairly automatic effect. Simply by changing the value of your currency in relation to other currencies, you made your goods cheaper for export and you made imported goods more expensive to buy. This made it easy for you to sell more goods abroad and to import less from abroad. This simple and automatic effect no longer works. There are many reasons for it, but one reason, for example, is that economies have become much more sophisticated. Through the nature of our development and our industrialization we have become tied to and dependent on certain commodities.

Let us assume, for example, that a state decides to develop its electrical generation by means of oil and that it builds power stations in large numbers to provide the electricity needed by this expanding, industrial country of which we are thinking. Now there comes a change in the currency patterns of the world and it would obviously suit that country very much better to use coal or nuclear energy for the generation of electricity, but has it in fact got any freedom to do so? Of course not! It is tied to oil and it will go on buying and consuming oil, irrespective of the price. Sir, this is merely one example of the inelasticity of a great many commodities which are the subject of world trade. One can expand the list indefinitely, but it goes to show that the simple reactions which could be expected from devaluation of currency no longer operate the way they used to do. In fact, if one devalues now, it is questionable whether the real effects which you hope for can still be obtained, even under the best of conditions.

The most obvious benefit one would expect from devaluation is an improvement in the balance of payments position. Let us concede right away that our balance of payments at the time when we devalued was in a very difficult and alarming condition. In fact, our balance of payments has improved not so much by virtue of devaluation, but really by virtue of the inherent soundness of our economy. When I say “the soundness of our economy”, I do not mean the soundness of our public management of the economy—I mean the resources and the skills of our people. We have an inherent resourcefulness in the economy, both in materials and in people. Certain things have happened to redress the balance. We also have a great deal of good luck in South Africa for which we must be truly thankful. I will show exactly what has happened to our balance of payments.

Sir, a balance of payments consists really of just a few essential items. There are the exports, the imports, the gold transfers and the services. These are the four major items one takes into account. As regards our exports, there has been a substantial increase. What does the increase consist of? The increase consists very largely of additional sales of commodities which are impervious to price change. We have sold increased tonnages of base minerals. Their prices have increased because of changes in international markets. We ourselves have been able to produce more because of the rapid investment in and development of the base metals industry. We have been trying to improve our infrastructure in order to carry more of these goods abroad. They will continue to make a very substantial contribution with or without devaluation. We can look at other things; my colleague has mentioned them. There are items like diamonds, which have gone up. There are various other commodities which have gone up, for example wool, in the case of which the increase occurred because of a change in the international wool market and not because of South Africa’s devaluation. Then there is agriculture. We have sold increased agricultural commodities very largely because we had surpluses. If we had not had the surpluses, devaluation could not have assisted us to sell more agricultural commodities. These are facts of nature; these things do happen. There are undoubtedly certain benefits which flowed from devaluation. I believe, for example, that the increased sales of textiles may well be due to the change of price effected by devaluation. By and large, if one examines these figures, one finds, that our exports have improved considerably but mainly for reasons other then devaluation.

As regards our imports, we have imported less. This certainly has assisted our balance of payments. We have imported less of certain things which we need very badly. We have imported less, for example, in capital equipment. Now, capital equipment is a kind of investment for the future. Where we do without capital equipment now, we will be paying for that in the long term. It is merely a deferment of the date.

I have already referred to the question of gold. Most of the advantages which accrued to us in respect of gold have come from the remarkable and very welcome rise in the price of gold on the free market. This is something for which we should be grateful, but it is not something which we should ascribe to devaluation. If we did so, I think we would be misleading ourselves. I do not mind at all that the hon. the Minister should get what kudos are due to him for what he has gained through devaluation. It would, however, be very wrong for this House, or for anyone else, to assume that the effects which we have enjoyed and from which we have benefited have flowed from causes other than the real ones. If so, we should be learning a very incorrect lesson from the past and we should have a very insecure guide to the future.

The last element I mention is services. If we look at these over the past year—I have no information on the plus and minus of services this year; these statistics are not yet available to me—it seems that there is no really significant change over the past year.

All in all, one is bound to ask the question: Was devaluation really necessary? It was certainly necessary to redress our balance of payments situation. I for one do not want to be too harsh about the decision taken by the hon. the Minister at the time when he thought urgent action to be necessary. It is always easy to judge in retrospect and in retrospect, clearly, devaluation would not have been necessary. However, I believe still that the long delayed action to redress the strength of our currency and the uncertainties which followed the initial devaluation, were totally unjustified. Once the trend started running strongly in our favour, I think we would have been entirely right to strengthen the rand without more ado, and certainly to avoid the period of what I call financial colonialism when we were tied to sterling which was floating. Decisions in regard to sterling were in fact being taken in terms of criteria which were entirely irrelevant to South Africa. These decisions were taken in terms of criteria affecting the British economy and we were following blindly and colonially in their wake. This happened at a time when our balance of payments was already being redressed. I think this was a cardinal error. If I am not harsh about the first decision to devalue, it is hard not to be harsh about the second period of indecision which followed the first.

Now, Sir, I want to come to inflation. One of the problems about inflation, besides the many obvious ones, is that inflation at the moment is running at such a high rate that people are beginning to lose their faith in thrift; they are beginning to lose their faith in savings. When inflation runs so high that people cannot see any advantage in saving, where in fact the inflationary rate may even be higher, as it threatens to be, higher than the interest rate which you can gain from investment, people begin to feel that there is really no point in thrift at all. Thrift is said to be a virtue in itself. From the point of view of the Minister of Finance it is certainly a very high virtue. It is so because it stores up that capital, those resources, which are needed for investment in the development of this country. If thrift cannot produce capital internally, domestically, it has to be borrowed from abroad, which is also a long-term commitment. We welcome investments from abroad, but within reason. We cannot put the whole of our economy, the whole of our future, in pawn to foreign investment. We must generate and we must produce capital resources of our own and do our own investment as well. This is threatened by inflation in the sense in which I have just mentioned. It puts thrift at a discount in the public mind, which is a most dangerous thing. When inflation cancels interest on savings then it is time to worry as seriously and with as much concern as the hon. the Minister had cause to worry about our precarious balance of payments situation about a year and a half ago.

I now come briefly to growth. There is no question that our growth rate is too low for the progress that this country demands. I can do no better than to refer to a report of the Economic Advisory Council. Its EDP shows very clearly that South Africa needs a much higher growth rate than we are attaining at this time. We all know that the population growth in this country is a high one. All groups considered, we have a very high population growth. It is predicted by the Department of Statistics that our population may reach 50 million by the end of the century, i.e. in little more than a quarter of a century. These people have to be fed and clothed, but how? Unless we grow at a rate sufficient to provide for their needs in the future; to house, feed and clothe them and to meet their rising expectations, we will sink, as I said the other day, into the grey ranks of a third world. Growth is essential, and the EDP said last year and the year before that we needed a growth rate of 5½% per annum. We have not achieved it. We have over the last two years been growing at 4,2% per annum, which is a long way short in terms of our growth target. The EAC have had another look at this, and because of deficiencies they have had to push up the growth rate. According to their earlier arguments, which were fully motivated, 5½% was the absolute maximum South Africa could afford. We have heard this repeated over and over in this House. Not having achieved that percentage and having done 4,2% instead, there is a shortfall. What does the EDP say? It says 5,75%. Now, I want to make a prediction. Though I have warned against predictions during my speech, this is more than a prediction; it is a certainty. I predict now that we will not achieve 5,75%. Clearly we will not. Therefore there is going to be another shortfall. And what is the EDP going to do? It is going to say 6%. And if we do not achieve 6%, they will have to put it up to 7%, and the nearer we get to the end of the century where we have to meet this urgent and essential target, the bigger the shortfall and the faster we will have to grow. Now, it will soon reach the point where we and that side of the House will agree that we have reached the maximum possible growth rate. When the EDP recommends 7½%, we might have to agree with them that it is in fact the maximum.

This is a cause for very grave concern. In 1969 the manufacturing growth rate was 10,3%. I am speaking of manufacturing as part of the overall growth rate. Manufacturing has higher demands imposed upon it because of the expectation that the value of gold exports will decrease. Manufacturing therefore has demands placed upon it which are higher than the average GDP rate. Manufacturing has demanded of it 6,4 at the moment; it produced in 1969, 10,3; in 1970, 5,9; in 1971, 2,8; in 1972, 2,5. This, Sir, is a most alarming drop. It is due to causes which flow directly from the policies of the Government. There can be no question about it.

Then I come to the question of productivity. Sir, we are very concerned about labour in this country and the wages which should be paid to labour. The point has rightly been made on both sides of this House that labour cannot be considered in isolation, nor wages in isolation. The question of productivity has to be taken into account; labour has to be productive. Sir, because of the essential need to employ greater quantities of labour and because of our inability of our reluctance to allow that labour to achieve conditions of stability and security and housing and permanence and training, which it needs, the productivity of our labour is not rising; it is falling. Sir, I have taken out some figures which show that, if the cost of labour per unit of output in 1966, was 100, then in the year 1971, only five years later, the cost of labour per unit of output was in fact 126. The cost went up by 26%, which means that our efficiency as producers, our competitive ability as producers against the outside world, our ability to combat inflation in this country—all these things in terms of labour—increased by a quarter. Sir, this is again a matter of very grave concern. The remedy, I believe, lies with the Government, because the Government’s labour policies are really at the root of this difficulty. Sir, let us sum up all these things. We have not achieved the productivity and the growth that we should have achieved. We have had inflation at a far higher rate than we should have had; our balance of payments has been adjusted by fortuitous or external circumstances more than by devaluation. Then what was devaluation all about?

Sir, in the closing minute, I want to look at one more phenomenon. I am very concerned about what I see as creeping socialism in this country. Creeping socialism may sound like anathema to members on that side of the House, but if we look at the figures, we see, according to a report of the Reserve Bank, that the Government’s share of total annual investment in this country in plant and equipment grew from 42,6% in 1963 to 53,8% in 1970. We see all around us the growth of State corporations; we see them expanding; we see the Industrial Development Corporation, for example, expanding into fields undreamed of at the time of its creation. It is expanding into fields previously occupied by private enterprise. We have seen recently—and I will speak about this more fully on another occasion—a takeover of our iron-ore export prospects by Iscor at the expense of private enterprise. Sir, I am most surprised at the hon. the Minister of Finance. I can understand the interest of some other Ministers in this matter. They might see other reasons why Saldanha should be given preference, but I cannot understand how the hon. the Minister of Finance, knowing what our problems are and what our balance of payments problems have been and what the difficulties are which are still inherent in our economy, could agree to let something happen which is going to create losses in exports, losses in interest, losses in the very service charges that we were talking about, at least until 1980. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Von Brandis have mentioned a few things here that I should like to come back to. One of the points, about which they had quite a bit to say, concerned devaluation. Now the hon. member for Von Brandis comes along here this afternoon, after the Government had decided to devalue at the time, and asks whether it was actually necessary. But in the same breath the hon. member says it was a good thing. How am I to take this? He says devaluation is no longer as effective as it was in earlier years. It is the instrument used to correct one’s balance of payments. He acknowledges that the balance of payments was corrected. The hon. the Minister of Finance told us in the Part Appropriation that in December, 1971, the balance of payments was as low as R375 million, and it rose, to the 9th of this month, to nearly R1 000 million. Then devaluation was surely the right medicine and a good thing. How can the hon. member now want to make such allegations this afternoon?

I just want to refer, too, to the point he and the hon. member for Constantia made about growth. This is a point which this Government and this hon. Minister of Finance have emphasized throughout, i.e. that South Africa should have good growth rate. We have an economic growth programme. The committee that worked it out, drew it up scientifically and determined—and this was no guess—that it should be 5¾% per year. Now hon. members say this is too low; it must by 6%. But on what scientific grounds do these two hon. members now base their statements? And then the people are afraid of inflation. I want to say that if this growth rate were to be forced above the 5¾% mark—and that the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council also investigated and established very clearly—this country’s resources, i.e. our raw materials, our capital investments and the wages, are going to be exhausted, and then one is going to get wage inflation and demand inflation in this country. If hon. members are now wanting to force up the growth rate to a level higher than that determined by the technical knowledge one has at one’s disposal, how are they going to fight wage inflation? One is immediately going to get wage inflation.

But one has it now too.

Yes, we have it now, but then it would be ten times worse. No, Sir, I am afraid the Government is doing whatever can be done to establish growth. It is true what the hon. member for Constantia said, i.e. that there is a certain percentage of growth in the population, and that the percentage that is greater than that growth rate is specifically what we want. This Government has already achieved this, and were it not for the good and sound policy of this Government, we would never have had so good a growth rate in this country.

Just before I cross to the hon. member for Parktown, I should just like to correct something in this House. It came to my notice today that there was a whole article on the front page of the morning newspaper that stated: “More money: What about us, M.P.s ask.” My name is mentioned there as though I asked and was agitating for more money. I just want to say that this is devoid of all truth. I did not ask for more money, neither did I agitate for it. They also state that the latest salary increases of public servants have upset a lot of Pretoria members of the House of Assembly. On the contrary, we are not upset; we are very grateful. It is said they want more than the basic R6 500 per year they are now getting. We did not ask for that. [Interjections.] I just want to correct this. I just want to say thank you to the Government, on behalf of my voters, for this fine increase. It is a splendid gesture, and I hope our officials will appreciate it and also plough back something in turn to justify it.

It is the Nationalists who want more money.

On 16th February of last year the hon. member for Park-town concluded his speech in the Part Appropriation debate by saying: “The electorate are going to wallop this Government; they are going to wallop them good and solid.” That was said during the Part Appropriation debate last year. Now I want to ask the hon. member, with a view to all these by-elections, to what extent the Government has really been walloped? And while we have come today with a Part Appropriation, these hon. members have failed completely to tell us a little more of their policy and their finances. We discussed finance in the No-Confidence Debate. We shall do so again in the Budget debate. As far as inflation, devaluation and so on are concerned, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the hon. the Minister of Tourism quoted brilliant figures during the No-Confidence Debate to show how productive the Government is and how well things are going as far as we are concerned. I expected hon. members to tell us this afternoon how we should budget in order to steer South Africa forward productively within their federation plan, how we could make a greater profit, how we could achieve greater economic growth and how we could decrease taxes. In the light of a few facts I want to show this afternoon how impossible it would be for South Africa if the United Party’s federation policy were ever to be made applicable in South Africa. We would not be able to survive.

With quite considerable difficulty I have tried to get their federation policy in writing. I eventually succeeded in obtaining this document, which I have in my hand, i.e. “The United Party’s Federation of South African Communities”. It comes from the Information and Research Division, P.O. Box 3835, Johannesburg, and it is dated 5th September, 1972. Here they give us a brief introduction, the appointment of the constitutional committee, interim reports and so on. In addition they give us briefly what the policy is. On reading through this, I thought a Std. 6 child had written it. If they had just appointed a bookkeeper, it would have been much better. In the light of a few extracts, which I want to quote this afternoon, and a few other facts, I shall ask hon. members opposite to what extent we would be able to go on with a budget under the United Party’s policy.

According to the document before me, they have an explanation of how the thing will be composed, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also put it the other day when he was trying to make us believe it. However, there is not a single word about finance and about how this policy of theirs can and should be financed. There is no word about its effect on our economy, finances and taxes. Even this document, which they issue for their people’s information, is incomplete. There is nothing about finance in it. The newspapers, the Sunday Times and The Sunday Tribune, which are also in front of me, gave much more information to the people, at the time than this Opposition with their official documents which we must now supposedly study in order to know what is good and fine for South Africa.

They say there will be four White legislative assemblies which will actually replace the four provincial councils. We should now like to know from them: What of South-West Africa? If the White Parliament will continue to exist, what about South-West Africa? Does it also have one? Then they come along with two legislative assemblies for the Coloureds, one for the Indians and eight for the Bantu. As we also heard in the debate, there will be 120 additional elected members, who will be elected on the basis of the contribution to the gross domestic product. If these hon. members want to give the franchise in South Africa …

Read it from that document.

I am coming to that.

No, read it.

The hon. member has a chance to speak. He must then tell me where I am wrong.

But it is wrong.

These people say that these 120 members will be elected in accordance with their contributions, and they take the gross domestic products as their basis. In the first place the gross domestic product is not established by the individual alone. He is not the only contributor. A contribution is also made by companies and by bodies in respect of which one cannot determine what percentage this or that race group contributes. These hon. members surely know this, and they cannot go into those details. They are bluffing South Africa and the electorate, and they are trying to get away with something.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is short. At a later stage, during the Budget Debate, I shall reply to one of the hon. member’s speeches. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point, who was one of the members of that Committee, to tell us this afternoon what year or what period they are going to use as a basis for determining this gross domestic product. How will each person’s contribution be evaluated? We know that under United Party rule—and they have told us this—there will immediately be an increase in wages. After all, they will have “rate for the job” payments when they come into power. Job reservation is going to be lifted and non-White wages will soar sky-high. When are they going to determine that a certain race group contributed so much to the gross domestic product so that they may obtain their votes on the strength of that? I should also very much like to know further from the hon. member how they are going to determine the wage of, for example, an unskilled labourer in the agricultural industry, according to the evaluation of a person’s services and his work. Would his wage be the same as that of an unskilled labourer in the factories and elsewhere, for example? How are they going to do this?

But then they speak of a “minimum wage”.

This hon. Opposition comes along here every year and speaks of a “minimum wage”, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says. They always want to try and do this; they want to bring about growth with higher Bantu wages and with more Bantu whom they want to employ.

Let us take a further look at those people’s legislative assemblies. They can be constituted according to individual choice. There is no provision in this constitution of theirs, this document I have before me, as to how they are going to constitute the legislative assemblies and what their membership is going to be. It is said that those legislative assemblies, four for Whites, two for Coloureds, one for Indians and eight for Bantu, may do so as they choose. Supposing one of those assemblies suggests that there should be 600 members. Who is going to pay for that? There is also another point. They speak of the joint standing committees. These standing committees will consist of members of Parliament as well as members of these legislative assemblies. The standing committees must then sit throughout the year, and those people will have to be compensated for that. What is the compensation the people must get, and what will the membership of those standing committees be? Will the committees sit throughout the year? Why is it not stated how those joint committees will be budgeted for What body—the federal assembly, the White Parliament or these legislative assemblies—will be responsible for the pay of those standing committees? In addition, they have not said either what the powers of each will be. We should like to know a little more about that.

In point No. 3 on page 4 of this official document, which I have before me, an example is merely given in respect of what powers the legislative assemblies will have. Further than that, they will not say a word about what the powers are. Here I have it before me (translation): “All the powers of the present provincial administrations will transfer to these assemblies, and matters such as social welfare and pensions, housing, etc.” will be transferred to that. Nothing more is said about what will be transferred. We see on page 19 of The Sunday Tribune of 27th August, 1972, that Mr. Martin Schneider states that the legislative assemblies will have powers with respect to the following subjects. The subjects he mentions are those he sucked out of the Opposition. I just want to come back to the financing of these aspects. I mention them as he did: Education, social welfare and pensions, prisons, liquor legislation, law courts of common jurisdiction and administration boards, housing, road transport, hospitals, library services, markets, the performing arts, shopping hours, local authorities, traffic and roads, building services, parks, horse races and wagers.

All the powers that Bantustans have today.

These are all the things that have to be done by these legislative assemblies. I now ask the hon. members the question: Who is going to finance them and where must the money come from?

Where does it come from today?

Once the White Parliament has delegated its powers to these legislative assemblies, it is irrevocable, as the hon. the Prime Minister drew it out of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—who is going to finance all these projects? What about social welfare and pensions? If each legislative assembly is to handle its own national group’s social welfare and pensions—we must remember that there are four White provinces, and what it amounts to is that each province can distribute its own social welfare and pension contributions—are the Bantu going to distribute it as they want to when they get the money? There is no co-ordination, there is no agreement and there is no way at all in which such a system can be regulated and controlled from above, except by this standing committee that will only be able to consult. That is what the hon. members want. Mr. Speaker, we want to know much more about that, because this Parliament must appropriate money; it must know what for and where to. But it also wants the power to be able to control these things. Now we come to the federal assembly and the powers that will be allocated to it. In this official document the Opposition tells us nothing of what powers it will have. Recently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did mention a few of the powers, such as tourism, inter alia, but the federal assembly, which will virtually be divorced from Parliament, is going to obtain the following: Tourism, health, mines, co-ordination of education, manpower, planning, water sources, national roads, pollution, economic affairs—please note; I am going to come back to that—and forestry. Those are all the departments and powers that will be transferred to the federal assembly. That is the mixed assembly where both Blacks and Whites will sit to make contact and be able to hold consultations. As far as I am concerned, the most important is economic affairs. No country in the world can progress, no country can flourish, if its economy is not sound. Today there were three speakers on that side of the House who spoke exclusively about the economy. Their greatest concern lay there. I now want to ask them: Why do they not concern themselves a little about this federal policy of theirs as far as economic affairs are concerned? If the White Parliament has to relinquish it, if it no longer has any control over it, what is the United Party going to do to straighten out the country’s economy?

The Sunday Tribune mentions, however, that the legislative assembly will obtain the maximum possible taxation powers. What is now the maximum, and to what extent are these bodies going to overlap? There are the powers the legislative assembly is going to have in respect of taxes, and those which the White Parliament is going to have, etc. Then they state further that the federal assembly will allocate subsidies to the legislative assemblies from the moneys voted by the White Parliament. They must, therefore, still get money from the White Parliament. How are our people now to understand this, and how is everyone going to be taxed?

A while ago the hon. Opposition advocated that we should consolidate the income tax legislation in South Africa. The provinces are exempt from the powers to levy certain taxes. It now all rests with the Central Government, because the provinces are subsidized by the Central Government. Now the Opposition wants to give the maximum taxation powers to that legislative assembly. How are we to understand these people now? Now they are opposed to what they previously advocated, and which they said they were father to. Now they again want something else there. If this federal assembly is established, where will it sit? How will the costs, incurred by the assembly, be covered? No, Mr. Speaker, I think we have reached the point where the hon. Opposition must tell us what they want, where they are going and what they want to do.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has given us only one good point in this whole document. I should like to quote it. After speaking about the federal assembly, he said (translation)—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says. I want to state very clearly that I agree with him, because his plan will never be able to achieve security. Only the National Party’s policy, and our appropriations, like this one, can obtain it.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly adjourned last year on 13th June and met again this year on 2nd February. This means that a period of almost eight months went by during which Parliament did not sit. I know of no other country of our kind where for almost two-thirds of the year a government is detached from all control and supervision of parliament. I do not wish to make this debate an opportunity for discussing this state of affairs. We shall seek another opportunity for that. I just want to say here that whatever the case may have been in the past, no matter under what Government, we are living in times today in which such a system may not be allowed to continue. I want to go further and say this, namely that if the obstacle in the way is the fact that we have two capital cities, I believe it is time we got away from 1910 and asked the people for a decision to establish one capital city in South Africa.

In the course of the more than months during which Parliament was not in session, things happened which further emphasized our rejection in the world. I do not have the time to mention everything and shall therefore mention a few only. In the course of this session we shall have the opportunity to deal with all these points in greater detail. There is the breach which occurred in our relations with Madagascar, which occupies a key position, virtually as a neighbouring state of South Africa. There is the growing estrangement that has arisen between us and Botswana. There is a widening gulf between us and Lesotho. There has been a dramatic somersault in the attitude of some of our oldest allies, such as Australia and now, to a certain extent, New Zealand as well. In terms of the expectations we had two years ago the dialogue movement in Africa has come to absolutely nothing so far; and we shall get nowhere with dialogue in Africa or anywhere else until the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs rises in this House, takes the Government by its shoulders and forces it to abolish petty apartheid.

I want to admit that progress has been made in regard to the South-West question, but we shall have to realize that the Security Council is laying down the timetable. As far as the U.N. as a body is concerned, the attitude they are adopting in regard to the South-West question nowadays is much more reasonable and balanced than it was in the past. Let us realize that a reasonable U.N. is much more dangerous than an unreasonable U.N. There is the growing onslaught on our borders. Inside our borders we have the emergence of a strong, purposeful group of Black leaders, which has added a totally new dimension to our politics. I shall come back to this point later on. I want to say, in the first place, that our rejection, the attitude of disapproval displayed towards us, has nothing to do with our multi-national situation in the country. It has nothing to do with the fact that we are trying to make political arrangements to prevent one national group in our country dominating the other national groups. The world is familiar with multi-nationalism. It is familiar with what is called in Europe problems of nationality within one and the same set of national boundaries. They understand them. If this is presented to them correctly, they will also understand our problems of nationality in South Africa.

† In 1965 the United Nations organized a seminar in Yugoslavia, on, “The Multinational Society and its Problems.” At this seminar the president of the executive council of Yugoslavia described his country as a multi-national, multi-ethnic community. The whole constitutional system of Yugoslavia—and there are many examples like this in the world—is based on a division of political power between different ethnic groups, a division which ensures the cultural identity and security of its different nationalities. Similar arrangements exist in Czechoslovakia, between the Czechs and the Slovaks. You also find it in Switzerland, and in Belgium linguistic differences form the basis of political division. Even the Soviet Union has an elaborate patchwork of autonomous republics and districts based on its ethno-cultural diversity and its wide variety of nations and peoples. Demographically and constitutionally, the Soviet Union is the most multi-national country of all in the world and the last that could criticize South Africa on this particular score. I have not the time to quote at length, but I have an interesting book here dealing with Russia. This is what it says:

The point is simply that the world at large, and certainly Europe—the further you go east, the better it is understood—understands, and sympathizes in fact, with the political problems of plural, diverse and multi-ethnic societies, and the struggle which such societies have to ensure that one nationality does not dominate other nationalities in the same country. They understand genuine policies of multinationalism or “separate freedoms”, especially if it has a federal umbrella. You will find that in most pluralist countries in the world, multi-nationalism and federalism go together. There would not have been the one if the other had not been there. The policy of multi-nationalism is the easiest policy to sell in the world: in Europe, in Asia and even at the United Nations, provided it is fairly and sincerely carried out. That is all the more reason why we here should ask ourselves the question why it is that in the light of these facts, we are the only country that is in the soup and has the world unanimously and bitterly turned against us. Why is it that we alone find ourselves in the position that the millions we spend abroad on Government propaganda simply go down the drain and have no worth-while effect? Why is it that we here, a relatively small country, with no territorial ambitions, with no hostile intent against any other country or people, could not, of all the people in the world, have been the country at peace with the world and the world with us? Everybody’s hand is turned against us. We are the only country termed “the very strange society”, “the guilty land”, or “the land of afternoon”.

I have no doubt about what the answer is. The answer, if we are prepared to look facts in the face, is that our trouble is not our multi-nationalism, not that policy. Our problem is that we are the only country in the world where a man is officially humiliated and degraded because of the colour of his skin; where a man is officially denied contact with others to improve the quality of his life.

What about the Portuguese territories?

This is the only country in the world where a man is prohibited from fulfilling his life’s ambition merely because he is Coloured, and where a stamp of inferiority is officially placed on a man because he is Black or off-White. The Prime Minister pretends that he knows nothing about this. He can see no evil. Sir, the Government prescribes different uniforms wherever uniforms apply. In law, even in a hospital, a Coloured nurse has to wear a different uniform to a White nurse. Why?

But that is not true.

Sir, we all know what the real reason is. The reason is that they must not only be seen to be separate, they must be seen to be inferior. That is the truth behind it. I have a daughter who wants to go back to university, and while she is waiting for classes to start she took up a temporary position as teacher at a Coloured school on the Cape Flats because she was interested. She is paid R105 per month more than a Coloured teacher on the same staff with the same qualifications, doing the same job in the same school—R105 more! On the whole, Coloured teachers have to work much harder than White teachers. Their classes are generally much bigger and they are shockingly overcrowded, and in most schools you will find an appalling lack of the kind of facilities which would be regarded as absolutely essential in every White school. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister is aware of the intense hatred which is developing amongst the Coloured professional classes over such unfair and unequal treatment. This feeling, especially amongst the teachers, must of necessity flow over upon the thousands of children who form the new generation, and a whole new generation is growing up with hatred against the White man. The Prime Minister tells us that he cannot understand why anybody should feel hurt over apartheid. At this very moment while we are sitting here in safety in one of the most beautiful cities of South Africa, a body of policemen—White policemen, Black policemen, Brown policemen and Indian policemen—are in mortal peril on our behalf, fighting terrorists across the border of our country. I take my hat off to all of them and I honour them. But I ask the Government: Are these people who risk their lives for our safety paid the same salary?

Shocking, to use such a comparison.

Or is it a case of unequal pay for equal danger? The Prime Minister says he is not aware of any injustice.

*Sir, two sessions ago the hon. the Prime Minster and I were at loggerheads here about the question of petty apartheid. The Prime Minister did not want to know what petty apartheid was. I want to say here at once that I am not going to argue any further with the hon. the Prime Minister about the question of petty and major apartheid. Nor am I going to argue about definitions, and the reason for that is a very simple one. It is no longer relevant what we as Whites think and how we define petty or major apartheid, for what is relevant now is the way the recognized leaders of the non-White peoples are thinking about this matter. That is relevant. The hon. the Prime Minister has been making it his job of late to make regular contact with the leaders of the various non-White peoples, and even if this contact is as yet mainly on a formal office basis only, I would readily concede that in this respect he has gone further than has any Prime Minister before him. I am pleased that I can give him that deserved credit. But then I want to add this: He should therefore know what these people are thinking of apartheid. By this time he ought to know that the non-White leaders themselves are drawing a distinction between what they call parallel development and coercive apartheid on the basis of colour. Mr. Tom Swartz stated in public that he was bitterly opposed to apartheid, but supported the whole concept of coexistence as peoples, and Mr. Lucas Mangope says the same. They draw a distinction between what we call petty apartheid and major apartheid. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that this is the case, and the time is therefore past that we as Whites need argue here about petty or major apartheid. The hon. the Prime Minister and other Ministers on that side are themselves in a position by this time, and have been in a position in recent months, to hear from the leaders of the non-White peoples themselves where they draw the line and what they consider to be apartheid practices degrading to the human being, practices which they want the Government to get rid of. Now I repeat, the hon. the Prime Minister need not ask this of us. The debate on petty apartheid between us is past. He must debate this matter with the leaders of the non-Whites themselves, and I think he has already done so. He will to an increasing extent hear from the non-White leaders of South Africa themselves what they consider to be humiliating and offensive in the Government’s policy. All that is left to us, is to ask the hon. the Prime Minister when he is going to act and when he is going to do something about it. He has the power. No one else has the power in this country. I have told the hon. the Prime Minister before that there may be situations in which we—and I am referring to all of us—will perhaps not have all the right answers at once and in regard to which further deliberations may take place. But we shall never find the right answers until we deliberately and openly adopt a course leading away from colour as the norm for all arrangements in our country. [Interjections.] Apartheid with colour, the colour of a person’s skin, as the norm cannot continue to exist side by side with the multi-national concept with peoples as the norm. And the Prime Minister can start immediately with the obvious things. He can start at once by putting a stop to separate lifts, separate entrances, separate counters, separate seats—obvious insults which ought to be removed; the notice boards which humiliate non-Whites at every turn and announce to them officially that they are not good enough to enter by the same door, to sit on the same seats, to ride in the same lift, or to be served at the same counter as are the Whites. [Interjections.] And then I hope hon. members opposite will not again come forward with the old hackneyed story that these forms of apartheid are there to eliminate “friction”. Sir, that is not true. Apartheid breeds much more friction than it eliminates. For every post office in any city there are 5 000 shops, if not more. Why is there no friction in shops? Go to any shop on a Saturday when the people are crammed in like sardines, people of all races and colours. Is there any friction? Why, then, would there only be “friction” in one post office as against 5 000 shops in every city? That argument we reject, that story of “friction which has to be prevented”.

In any case, if there is still a section of White jingos in the country who are so backward that they still take offence at riding in the same lift or standing in the same queue with non-Whites, I think it is time we simply forced them through action to change their views for the better. Sir, in our country we cannot allow a minority of White jingos to jeopardize the whole future of good human relationships in the country. Last week the hon. the Prime Minister made an appeal in this House, an appeal to the country, that people should be courteous to one another. It is a fine thing that the hon. the Prime Minister made that appeal, but that is not good enough, for a government must set an example. It must set an official example, but the fact of the matter is that each of the petty apartheid measures I mentioned, if one analyses them correctly, is nothing but official White rudeness. That is what petty apartheid is—official White rudeness. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they have ever given any thought to what is going on in the mind of a young White child who cannot think for himself yet, when he sees petty apartheid practices and notice-boards saying that Whites should enter this side and non-Whites the other side. [Interjections.] I shall tell you: What he sees is that the Coloureds are always set apart; they must always go round the back. They sit behind a rope in the city hall. They are always partitioned off or excluded. Just take a look at the galleries of this House of Assembly. Mr. Tom Swartz, the leader of two million Coloureds in this country, sits partitioned off in a corner. He cannot come to this Parliament like an ordinary South African and sit where he pleases. I may not even take the leader of the Coloureds for a cup of tea in the parliamentary lounge. I, who am a member of this Parliament, elected by the people, cannot take the leader of two million Coloureds to the refreshment room of this House for a cup of coffee. [Interjections.] Every White child who sees this situation must simply, from an early age, arrive at one conclusion, namely that in our eyes the non-White person is considered to be inferior, that there is something the matter with that person and that it is unseemly to be seen in the company of that person.[Interjections.]

Order!

In this manner the Government’s apartheid policy is, from an early age, fostering in every adolescent White child a spirit of looking down on the non-Whites; and together with that it is fostering a spirit of discourtesy, which often takes the grossest form of rudeness. This is so. Go to some of the official offices where there are Whites serving non-Whites. [Interjections.]

Order!

They are not all like that, but I have very often seen that the moment a non-White person is served, the person behind the counter immediately becomes stiff and blunt, and on numerous occasions I have seen how change or whatever they buy is, instead of being handed over to him, simply thrown at the man if he is a person of another colour. [Interjections.] No, we must face these things and we shall have to get rid of them. It is inherent in the policy of the Government that it fosters in the White child, from an early age, a spirit of rudeness towards the non-Whites. For that reason it is right for the Prime Minister to make an appeal to people to be courteous, but his Government must set the example and must eradicate those things which foster rudeness in the Whites.

We want to make friends with Black states. We take pains to make friends with Black states. What use is this to a Kaiser Matanzima, who is the leader of the Xhosa people, a Buthelezi, who is the leader of the Zulu people, and who can travel to any part of the world; they can go to every capital city in the world and have a cup of tea there in the central part of the city.

They can even meet Mr. Nixon.

Yes, they can go to Washington and have a meal with the president. They can go to an opera house in any capital city of the world. In so-called White South Africa, which is the one country which needs them as allies, these people, the Buthelezis, the Mantanzimas and the others we South Africa need desperately as friends, cannot have a cup of tea in the central part of Cape Town or set foot in the opera house. The Prime Minister maintains that he does not understand these things. How long are we as Whites going to persist in these absurdities which create hostility? If we should be in danger one day, and if it should really happen that we have an enemy on South African soil, would we have the right to appeal to the friendship of these people if this is the treatment they receive?

The Prime Minister is in a very strong position. He is in a position where he has a majority of 70 in this House. That is a very strong position. That old story which we hear every now and then, namely that a government cannot move faster than its voters allow it to move, is at the very least a half-truth. I do not believe it anyway, for the simple reason that most people are prepared to be guided if they are properly informed. The Prime Minister has strong means of communication. Let me say this to him: In every step which his Government takes in the right direction, he is getting the support not only of the entire Afrikaans Press, but also of the entire English-language Press. That is why we are making here an appeal to him to put an end, in the interests of the security of the White man, to practices which are humiliating and doing an injustice to the non-White populations of our country and which are making them enemies of the White South African. I say this to him: He is my opponent and I am his, but I should very much like to see an Afrikaner do this. If one surveys the South African scene, it must be very clear to every person that there were many matters in the political fights we had here previously which are played out and which are past now, because a totally new dimension has been added in our politics. Today we have Black leaders, Brown leaders, Indian leaders, whose names we know, who are at present occupying a strong position in South Africa. The simple fact of the matter is that, no matter how we may view our fights about policy here, the Black people do not see this Parliament as primarily a Nat/U.P. affair—where all those on the one side are white angels and those on the other side are white devils—but they see this Parliament as the centre of authority of the White man as a whole, and any hostility that develops does so against all of us, no matter on which side of the political line we may be. That is why a sphere of White responsibility ought to develop on a level higher than that of party divisions. We say clearly that the White mean has every right to say that he does not want to be dominated by a Black man, but then we should hurry up to prove that we do not want to dominate the Black man either. A division of authority and decentralization of powers must take place in the political sphere as rapidly as possible and as far as possible. For years we have been saying to this Government: Carry on with what is positive in what you are doing in the direction of dividing authority; carry on with that, but do it better and do it faster. To that the Opposition has no objection. What we shall do is to bring the ends together in a federal context, in such a manner that the co-operation which is essential in the interests of the whole, will come into being along with the fullest measure of political security for every population group. What we are waiting for is that, in view of the fact that we as the Opposition are doing our share in respect of the joint White responsibility which is needed above the existing party-political divisions, the duty should now rest on the Government to do its share and to remove as soon as possible in South Africa the remnants of White superiority, of supremacy and of imperialism.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin at once by asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with this speech which has now been made. I am asking this question in all due respect. It is a fair question, a simple question.

He says “no”.

It is a simple and a fair question, and I want to repeat it. The question whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with everything that has just been said in this House by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.]

Yes, of course.

He says “yes”.

Then it is likely that this House has never in its history witnessed such a dereliction of duty on the part of an Opposition as we are witnessing today. At elections the people of this country have the opportunity of ousting this side of the House if they wish, if they think that we are not doing our duty. What choice do the people have with them? if there is only one Opposition like this one, how does one get rid of such an Opposition? They are committing the worst dereliction of duty I have ever heard of. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who was boosted by certain newspapers in the country as the new Leader, had the opportunity here this afternoon of presenting a statesman’s image of South Africa and his future. He had a golden opportunity here this afternoon to make a statesman-like speech and show that he is conversant with the circumstances which are oppressing to South Africa abroad. Instead of doing that he displayed the greatest possible ignorance and talked the greatest rubbish ever heard in this House. He came here and referred to all kinds of idyllic federations which exist elsewhere. Let him mention to me one federation in the world which was established under their circumstances and was maintained and remained intact. Let him mention a similar one to me which did not give rise to inexpressible distress, misery and blood-baths. I can point out to him from contemporary history that nowhere on this earth has anything like that succeeded. How do they think they can bring the people together other than by force? What non-White people in South Africa will accept their federation plan? What non-White leader, if he wants to be honest with his people, what Bantu leader in Africa where Nationalism is the order of the day, can support that policy? Then he stands here and advocates it as if it is generally acceptable in the world! No, Mr. Speaker, what was very significant this afternoon, was the emphasis suddenly fell on the word “multi-nationalism”. Incessantly they have been telling us: “There is not such a thing multi-nationalism; only multi-racialism”. That is why our hon. Prime Minister said that they have stolen half of our policy. As far the other half is concerned, they are so furious because we have driven them into a corner that we are now getting statements such as those the hon. member made here this afternoon. To think that he is so bankrupt that he had to cite Russia as an example! Does he not know that the 15 republics in Russia are being held together by force, coercion and violence? What does he think would happen with those republics if the Russians were able to vote freely? But the hon. member comes here and on the strength of great learned books wants to make us believe that that is a federation which works! How does one reply to such ignorance, such ridiculous statements? These he now wants to present to the peoples of South Africa as a system which works. Has he no knowledge of what is happening in the world today?

Oh! [Interjections.]

Very well then, let me ask the hon. members opposite who are making such derogatory remarks, this question? What is the friction in Northern Ireland about? What are they fighting about there, why are they killing one another in the streets of Belfast? Why did the West-African Federation between Black and Black not last? Why did the federation of Syria and Egypt not last? Why did the federation immediately to the north of us disappear? What happened even in Cyprus where precisely constitutional powers were allocated precisely according to the numerical ratios? Nowhere in contemporary history do the hon. members receive any support, but they persist in this in an obstinate and dogmatic way. One thing is certain however: The hon. member carefully evaded discussing the merits of their policy. Instead of that he came forward with an unsavoury tirade on petty apartheid.

What does The Sunday Tribune have to say about the actions of the hon. member for Durban Central in the Klip River by-election?

Order! The hon. member must be careful from which newspaper he quotes. The hon. member may proceed. Let me hear.

Mr. Speaker, at the recent Klip River by-election the hon. member for Durban Central objected vehemently to the ablution buildings for Whites and Bantu being too close together. He kicked up a tremendous row about that. The essence of his objection was that it would cause friction. When it suits them and they are fighting in certain by-elections, they use the danger of friction as a prop. Today the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes here and he knows nothing about this. He does not know that in the ranks of his own party some of the most unsavoury treatment of non-Whites imaginable in South Africa frequently occurs. When did our hon. the Prime Minister ever tell the public of South Africa to be rude to a non-White? Since when has that been our policy? Repeatedly the hon. the Prime Minister has in a dignified manner called on the public of this country and asked for better relations. Repeatedly he has stated that rudeness is not part of our policy of separate development. Repeatedly this example has been set by hon. Ministers on this side in this sphere. What leader of the Bantu peoples in this country has specifically complained about the treatment he received on the part of our hon. the Prime Minister when talks were held with them? Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes here, in these important times, and makes a speech at which one can only be deeply disappointed. He comes here to this House today and wants to represent the White man as being a churlish, uncivilized person who does not know how to behave himself! Constantly we on this side of the House set an example, and wherein does the test of that example ultimately lie? Wherein does the actual test of how one feels about another person lie? It lies ultimately in the political rights you want to give him. That is wherein it lies. The hon. member must not tell me that he is prepared to drink cups of tea with three or four neatly clad Bantu wherever he chooses, while he is not prepared to recognize the human dignity of those people by saying to them that they can have full freedom to the highest level, that they can exercise their freedom in an independent state, and that they can even become prime ministers of their own people. Why are they not prepared to say that? Why are they not able to cut that Gordian knot? Why are they in this House today creating this image of South Africa being inhabited by a group of Whites who do nothing but detest non-Whites and treat them in an unmannerly and repulsive way? Why does he not join us in making an appeal to our public, as our hon. Prime Minister has done, if such rudeness does exist, and say: “Let us improve these relations,” as is repeatedly being done by this side of the House? I want to ask him whom he had in mind today when he made this speech. I think we have a right to know whom he had in mind. He complained of deteriorating relations and mentioned Madagascar, Botswana, Lesotho, Australia and New Zealand. He went so far as to say that the dialogue which we are conducting with Africa has come to nothing. He said that we would get nowhere before the Minister of the Exterior rose to his feet and compelled the Government to abolish petty apartheid. This is the statesmanship on that side.

What are the reasons for a certain measure of estrangement, and only a limited measure at that, having developed? When changes occur in African governments, it is not only South Africa who suffers setbacks in the sphere of relations. I can mention to him dozen of cases where the Russians and the Americans have also had to back away. What does he say about that? Was that because of petty apartheid? Was petty apartheid the reason in those cases? So one can continue. He knows as well as I do that the new governments in Australia and New Zealand will detest their policy even more than ours. However, he actually dragged that argument into this debate. After his return from America the hon. member for Yeoville stated categorically in a serious speech in this House and on that score I agree with him and one can respect him for this—that we should not deceive ourselves by thinking that either the National Party policy or the United Party policy or the Progressive Party policy would satisfy any hostile elements in the outside world. He stated categorically in this House in 1969 that what the United Nations and the wild elements in Africa wanted was one thing, and one thing only, namely one man, one vote and away with the Whites; to the devil with the rest. Those were his words. This is knowledge which he acquired on an overseas trip, and now a colleague of his comes here and tells us today that the actual reason is petty apartheid. How ridiculous can one be? How can hon. members on the opposite side contradict one another and think they can go on like this? Are they not ashamed of themselves? Do they really think they can in any way continue as an Opposition? I think the absolute low-water mark was reached in the Opposition ranks today. A historical low-water mark was reached here for which they will still pay the price. I do not want to be arrogant, but they are going to pay a very heavy price for this low-water mark which was reached here today.

The hon. member said here that when the United Nations is at its most reasonable, it is at its most dangerous. Oh, these superficial witticisms! What is true, and this is all that is true, is that our hon. Prime Minister, under very delicate and difficult circumstances, displayed great statesmanship, for which he is respected in other Western countries, in these negotiations which he held. Now they are jealous. They are not warming themselves at that fire; they will have nothing to do with it, and now they are half jealous and sorry that it went off so relatively well. They are extremely sorry about that. As far as they are concerned, there should by now have been a conflagration. As far as they are concerned, we should by now have failed and the dogs baying on our borders should have been attacking us; then that side of the House is at its happiest.

The hon. member quoted here from a 1965 seminar of the United Nations held in Yugoslavia. Why did he not quote long extracts from it? Why did he not quote long extracts from it where that seminar reached conclusions which, when regarded objectively, are in complete agreement with this Government’s policy? Why did he not quote from it where it states that people with separate cultures and languages can develop separately, and that even peoples living in non-contiguous and fragmented geographic units, also have a right to develop as separate peoples and states? That was the central point of that seminar’s conclusions. That supports 100% what this Government is doing in and for South Africa.

I did not hear him say very much about their federal policy. I want to repeat: Let them give us the replies to the questions which have been asked. I do not think there has yet been a reply to the hon. the Prime Minister’s question of why they changed policies. There has not been any reply to our question of how those legislative councils are going to be constituted and elected. There has been no reply in regard to what they are going to do if the Bantu peoples do not agree. There has been no reply to the question of what norms are going to be used to determine when a man is making a contribution in general to the State and its welfare. None of those replies have been furnished. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to be serious, let him tell us about those things. Let him give us the replies to these questions; then the voters of South Africa can see what we are heading for.

But he must not come and tell us about drinking cups of tea, of rude people, and then pretend that this is to be our policy. It has nothing to do with National Party policy that certain Whites behave badly towards non-Whites. That is not part of our policy. The National Party states with pride, out loud, and repeatedly that it stands for the rights of peoples. It stands for the individual in his group context being able to develop to the highest level. It stands for preferably reducing the size of its White fatherland slightly and continuing to exist there preserving what is its own, which it does not begrudge to those who are different. It insists that a nation must be able to realize to the full its desire for freedom, as well as its language rights and religious and cultural values. This is a fundamental principle. Why do they not bring their foolish federal plan and contrast it to these fundamental principles?

Why does the hon. member, like a lightening conductor, want to drag all kinds of petty apartheid matters into this debate, matters for which this Government is not responsible, matters which this Government has repudiated as rudeness? After all, they are aware of this. Why are they doing this, in the eyes of the world and the world Press which is going to disseminate this stuff abroad merely to insult and vilify South Africa further? Sir, I repeat: It is a low-water mark. To come here this afternoon and talk about colour as our norm!

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, can you imagine anything more disgraceful than an hon. member on the opposite side officially wanting to sell a policy to the people of South Africa which is based on wealth and poverty, on how much a man earns or contributes to a state? Can you imagine a more medieval and primitive kind of policy? Then they have the temerity to say that we base our policy on colour! Can you imagine anything more shocking? Why do they not give us a reply to the question of what the basis of their policy is? Throughout their federal plan, and throughout the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the words “racialist”, “race groups” and “racialism” were used. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout were conversant with modern terminology he would have known that these things are mentioned more in a good sense. We speak of peoples and ethnic relations; they come in 1973 with “federal assemblies based on race groups” and “the intimate affairs of the race groups”. But they tell us there is no such thing as a race. They tell us that the ethnic ties of the Bantu in the cities may as well be watered down and become blurred. It is finished. There are no “identifiable groups”, but their federal plan is based on “identifiable groups”! And now the hon. member comes here this afternoon and has the temerity to say that our policy is based on “racism”, on colour.

Sir, how far can one go with this swindle without being finally rejected by the public of South Africa? How low can they go on with these things? The hon. member made an appeal; I can also make one, and I am doing this in all earnest. Sir, we are in the year 1973. To the north of us are 350 million people of Africa, divided into 42 states. Whether the Opposition likes it or not, I repeat: This will feed the Nationalism of our Bantu people. If we cannot in Southern Africa achieve a pattern of ethnic relations which takes the continental stream into account as well and can accommodate it, we are doomed. Then the hon. member opposite will not even drink tea; he will drink nothing; he will die. It will be the end of him.

Mr. Speaker, we are sitting here with a small population in a world of 3,7 billion people; we are sitting here with two vast oceans on either side of us in which the number of Russian submarines is increasing all the time. We are sitting with terrorist pressure in the north; we are sitting with onslaughts on our fatherland, not only on the Whites, but also on the non-Whites, on the Bantu as well, for the ultimate goal of these onslaughts is to bring anarchism among all. We are sitting with a railway line which is being built by the Red Chinese and which thrusts like a spear into the side of Africa, with its point directed southwards. We are sitting with real economic problems such as the British entry to the European Common Market, which causes complicated problems. We are sitting in a phase where the clock of separate development can no longer be turned back, not by the Opposition, not by anybody. This policy will be carried out.

For 25 years we have been returned to this Parliament by the voters to govern. We are sitting with world problems, as I have said; we are sitting with a United Nations Organization which comprises the head of an octopus and which is reaching out its tentacles in all directions, which is reaching out to strangle us as well. This country has grave problems, Mr. Speaker. They have nothing to do with the matters which the hon. member discussed. But for the solution of this country’s problems one now needs, more than anything, unanimity on matters of great importance. In order to make progress one must refer with a little more respect to the leaders and Prime Minister of this country. In order to make progress one must not try to sow unrest among our Bantu peoples, but one must try to tell them that it is also in their interest to grasp the hand of friendship which the National Party Government is holding out to them, and that they, on their part, also have obligations of decency and reciprocal friendship. This is the kind language which should be spoken in debates of this nature, and not the language which was spoken here this afternoon.

Sir, I would now like, in all earnest, to make an appeal here. For 25 years we have been returned to this Parliament by the people of South Africa. Sir, we are sitting with extensive coastlines which will have to be defended in times of emergency and crisis. We are sitting with internal problems which we do not underestimate. For that reason we are in all honesty and sincerity seeking a fair solution. I know it is difficult. I know it is difficult in our situation to be fair at all times and in all respects, but who can deny that this is our national ideal? Who can deny that a people who were trodden underfoot so harshly in their history, can have anything but this wonderful ideal of freedom for others? We want to give to them, even if it is difficult. Even if the principle is difficult to implement, that does not make it less sound. These are the stars we should like to follow. But what of the history of the party on that side? The establishment of industries was opposed by them. No, all we could do was import from overseas.

Every time, when their love for the fatherland of South Africa was put to the test, whether the national anthem, or the Republic, or any other aspect of our national life was at issue, where did they stand? How can they with their policy expect any friendship or respect from the Black man while they want to keep him, for all time, in a subservient, dominated position? These are the questions they must answer. Sir, after 25 years the Opposition cannot reverse the course of events; nothing can turn back the clock, and for that reason we say to them: “Accept the

National Party’s policy completely; accept the basis of what we are doing now, once and for all, for the sake of all peoples of Southern Africa. Time is running out for you. Time has already run out for you as far as the important milestones in the history of South Africa are concerned. You only have a short while left to indicate that you are not merely going to be obstacles in the future history of its country, not merely milestones around the neck who want to impede all progress.” Sir, they still have a little time left to come and say, in the difficult times which lie ahead for us, that they will accept our policy for the sake of South Africa and will co-operate and ensure that a satisfactory solution is found to the entire ethnic relations problem, so that the Whites may fulfil their calling in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Wonderboom has said and when I listened to his tirade in the first half of his speech, I found it necessary to consult Hansard to refresh my memory as to what the hon. member had said before in this House. On 20th August, 1970, he warned us in this House that the point of attack in the United Nations was on the very subjects which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said should be put right. The hon. member for Wonderboom said this, and I quote from Hansard (Vol. 29, col. 2166)—

That was the problem. That is what he gave us in his maiden speech, and then in that same speech he went further and said this in regard to the objectives of the U.N. (Col. 2165)—

That is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—

He went on to read those out and I shall read just some of them—

And then it goes on—

Sir, how can a man change his views to the extent that that hon. member has done this afternoon? He repudiated himself. If the hon. member for Wonderboom would do me the courtesy of listening for one moment, I want to ask him how he can this afternoon stand up and repudiate the very sentiments that he expressed in this House in 1970. I want to say that in my view one understands the hesitancy of the hon. the Prime Minister to take the steps necessary to create in South Africa a situation of race relations which can lead to a harmonious future. One can understand his hesitancy when he has members such as the hon. member for Wonderboom breathing down his neck. Sir, one only has to look at the papers of the Nationalist Party itself and the way in which they criticize the Nationalist Party on these petty acts of theirs which have, to the extent that they have, affected the good name of South Africa in the world. What have the papers said about this nonsense of the refusal of a visa and then the granting of it? South Africa did not explode. A visa to Breyten Breytenbach was refused and then it was granted. South Africa did not break into turmoil. The trouble is that this Government is out of touch with the thinking of the man in the street in regard to human relations in South Africa. I believe that they are out of touch and that there is a lack of facilities where there can be human contact between persons of different races, social contact. Those things are lacking in this country. I want to say to the hon. members opposite that I believe strongly that more and more of those people who at this moment are supporting that party are now reaching a state of exhaustion, waiting for action to be taken by the Government to relieve these tensions in the country. [Interjections.] I believe South Africa is ready to accept a new approach in internal race relations. The time has come when we must see an end to the pettiness which has been happening in regard to the access of one race group to another, or of mixed race groups to various functions. May I just mention one in passing. The Cape Chamber of Commerce organized an exhibition in the Drill Hall here, of modern office equipment, for people to come and see what modern equipment is being used throughout the world. Sir, there are certain Coloured businessmen who, according to this Government, are being encouraged to establish themselves and to build up their own businesses and their own economic status. But what happens? A permit is refused. Coloured businessmen cannot go to this exhibition organized for the members of the Chamber of Commerce. Sir, that is the nonsense which is going on and which we cannot and should not allow to continue in this country of ours.

Give us clarity about your policy. Come to fundamentals.

I will come to fundamentals. Just keep quiet a little. What is the position we have at the moment in this country? [Interjections.] We are in the position where we must get our directions for race relations settled and settled quickly. I say this because after 25 years of Nationalist Government not one of the objectives of race development has been achieved by the Nationalist Party, not one. They have not achieved apartheid. They have not achieved self-sufficiency in any homeland. They have not achieved a policy for a future for the Coloured person in South Africa. They have not found a place for the Indians in South Africa. Following on the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Durban Central, we have the position that even the Bantu nations, as they are called by this Government, will float and not have a set place in the life of the Republic of South Africa if they do not take independence. If they do not take independence, they will be floating in this body politic of the Republic of South Africa as much as the Indians and the Coloureds are at the present moment.

Ultimately they will take independence. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House believe that a modus of living together, of co-operation and of allowing the non-White races to participate in the government must be found. They should be able to participate in government. I do not think there is one hon. member on that side of the House who believes that the Coloureds and the Indians can for all times be denied the right to participate in the government of this country.

Isn’t that your policy too?

It is no good us sitting here today and asking how we would vote for the members of the legislative assembly for the Xhosa people. The point is whether we are setting out to work to a stage of a complete separation of these Bantu states, which will mean compulsory independence being thrown upon them. Or we must work towards a form of federation of the Bantu homelands and of the other persons in South Africa.

And the Indians?

Yes, and the Indians.

And the Coloureds?

Yes.

Why is the hon. member so surprised?

[Inaudible.]

I am not trying some wise Alec stunt of catching out. I am saying what I believe and what we on this side of the House believe, and that is that the move is towards a federation, a federal form of government in South Africa. My hon. friends might argue and ask whether I mean a federation or a confederation of independent states, but I say that our policy is one towards federation which basically is a means of co-operation between the different peoples of South Africa or the nations, or communities, in such a way that they can share in the government of this country.

But with a supreme White Parliament to decide?

The hon. the Minister of Transport and I will not be here the day when that supreme White Parliament decides what it is going to do in some time during the future. However, as far as the federation is concerned and the function of that federation, it is based on a supreme White Parliament to decide on such matters as defence and other similar matters. I do not think the hon. the Minister of Transport should try to get us down to the isolated small details.

But it seems such a contradiction to have a sharing of power under a supreme White Parliament.

I think the hon. the Minister of Transport shares the power of running the Railways. He shares the power of running the Railways, he does not do everything himself. Has he never heard of shared authority in a country or in an undertaking?

But they remain subservient.

Has he not heard of partners in a business, of senior and junior partners in a business; has he never heard of the sharing of authority in the running of a business?

That argument does not hold water.

You can share in government if not fully and completely in every aspect of government. There can be a sharing of authority in the sharing of government.

My point is that it is such a contradiction. You have a supreme White Parliament that has all the powers but …

Make your own speech.

Ben, get up and talk; we are dying to hear you!

You see, the problem is that I cannot get clarity from you people.

When I talked about the sharing of authority, I did not say that it was the sharing of authority in every sphere of government, in every aspect of government. I said it was a sharing of authority in government, and the hon. the Minister with his long experience, about which I read such a charming article during the week-end, should know …

In what paper did it appear? Was it in Rapport?

It was not Rapport, but the Sunday Times. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is indulging …

Now he understands the Sunday Times.

… in a little flippancy. I think he is quite well aware of the facts; I think he understands what I mean when I say “sharing of government” and the “participation in government” between the various race groups.

But there are other aspects in regard to population which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Finance for a few minutes. One of them is the welcome announcement of his, namely the increase in salaries for civil servants. I wonder how long that joy in the hearts of the civil servants is going to last, because not only will there be the claims from the household manager, the wife, for further allowances, but in a very short time the salaries are going to fall behind as against the increased cost of living. We on this side of the House have appealed before and I want to appeal again to the hon. the Minister of Finance to consider the introduction for the public servants of an automatic cost-of-living allowance which can be attached to the index figure which is available to the State. I do not mean that it must be an allowance for pensionable purposes; that can be consolidated periodically, but we are going to have the same position—I believe it has happened over and over in the public service—that by the time they receive an increase and by the time it has been negotiated, they have fallen behind in regard to the cost of living index. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to see whether that cannot be done; it has been done before.

The other aspect I want to comment on and which I think contains a shocking indictment as far as the Government is concerned, is the announcement which has been made with such gratification by the Government, namely that the salaries of non-White nurses and non-White paramedical staff will be increased in order to close the wage gap as a result of a report of a commission. I happened to be at a meeting ten years ago when that committee, the co-ordinated health service committee, was appointed. It was appointed ten years ago, and it has taken this Government ten years to take some steps to close the gap between the salaries of non-White nurses and the para-medical staff and the salaries of their counterparts.

They acted with alacrity!

I think it is a most shocking indictment of that side of the House because at the same time, in 1963, there were agreed ratios in regard to the salaries of non-Whites in the medical services. For the doctors the ratio was 10:9:8 and the 10:9 ratio was applied in the Cape. Under this Government it has broken down and it went down as low as a 10:6 ratio in the last ten years. No wonder there is discontent and no wonder that people feel they are unjustly treated. I believe that these are matters which need the constant attention of the Government.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance. The housing position in South Africa, despite all the flowery reports we have had, is still a serious problem, a problem which, I am afraid, is going to be with us for years to come. It is a problem which is ever-existent in either a more serious or less serious state. According to the figures given to us last year, there was a shortage of 78 830 dwellings in South Africa. In this period from February last year to February of this year there has not been any inducement whatsoever for private enterprise to build flats and accommodation for the middle and lower income groups, i.e. a person who can pay between R80 and R125 per month in rent, which requires a salary of between R350 and R500 per month. There are various suggestions which have been made. I want to suggest—and I believe that the hon. the Minister has had this representation made to him before—that he consider the granting of a depreciation allowance in respect of blocks of flats. The hon. the Minister will be aware that hotels are allowed a depreciation allowance. They do not escape taxes, but merely defer them. The taxes are eventually collected. As a result of the depreciation allowance, there is a cash flow into the hotel whilst it gets going and after it has had its initial capital expenditure. I believe that this depreciation allowance is applied, too, in border industries and that it is also applied in respect of the promotion of certain exports. Therefore I see no reason why it should not be applied to the construction of dwellings. The hon. the Minister might ask: How do we control the funds and what happens to them? That will be a simple issue. If there is to be a depreciation allowance, the cash flow can be used to meet the financing of buildings. The condition could be imposed that the amount of the allowance must either be utilized to pay off the bond on the block of flats or that, for instance, it must be invested in building society shares or even in the hon. the Minister’s own premium bonds, but in any case that it should be invested in some form. Then you will not only be giving an inducement to a man to invest, but you will be making certain that when the time for reconstruction of that block of flats arrives, the owner will have the capital available to undertake that reconstruction. I believe that this is a matter which, if the hon. the Minister were to consider, would lead to a stimulation of the provision of housing for the middle and lower income groups. There are other aspects to this which do not concern the hon. the Minister of Finance, which we will raise with the hon. the Minister of Community Development at a later stage. I raise these points because I think they are important.

I want to say a word in connection with transfer duty and stamp duties. It would be irresponsible of me to tell the hon. the Minister that he must abolish transfer duty. I believe that the revenue figure is approximately R42 500 000 which is collected per year from transfer duties. Last year it was R42½ million, the year before it was R47 million. The stamp duties on transfers amount to approximately R10 million per year. It would be irresponsible to suggest to the hon. the Minister that that should be written off immediately, but I do believe that the scale is based on out-of-date figures. In other words, the sliding scale, as the hon. the Minister is aware, works from a R7 000 to a R15 000 purchase. I believe it would bring considerable relief if the hon. the Minister were to put those figures into more reasonable perspective. I would suggest that the figures such as the R7 000 should be raised by at least 50%. This would then give some relief in respect of the incidence of this duty. After all, the scale was fixed in 1964, years ago. There has been a terrific appreciation in the value of property since then and thus in the Tax.

I want to mention one other aspect, as a result of a recent judgment in the Supreme Court. The procedure adopted by many housing companies to enable young people to get houses with the minimum of deposits, has been for them to buy the ground and the house was built afterwards so that the transfer costs, etc. were on the ground only. What is the result of imposing the transfer duty on the cost of the house? Certainly, the builder does not pay. The property developer does not pay. The only party who suffers is the young man who bought the house and wanted to move into it. Although for a long time this has not been the practice, that is the way in which the law has now been interpreted. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister first of all to give the assurance that past cases are not to be reopened and transfer duties claimed in the hundreds or thousands of cases where those duties have been under-paid and, secondly, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to exempting the new houses built on this basis from transfer duty and applying the transfer duty to the initial cost of the ground only. The number of dwelling units available is of course being increased by the construction of these houses. I ask for this because one finds the difficulty and the problem of young people in acquiring their homes continuing unabated. This will assist considerably in the finding of homes, as will the other aspect of capital depreciation help in stimulating investment in the private sector, in the building of dwellings. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that if this had applied we would not have the eyesore of District Six staying as it is now, nine years after it was first proclaimed. If there had been a stimulus of this sort I am sure that private enterprise would have tackled the urban renewal schemes in District Six as they no doubt will do in other cities where urban renewal schemes are necessary. But there is no incentive for them to do it. In the meantime we are sitting with the shocking position we have here and also in other parts of the country where the Department of Community Development has property which they do not seem able to utilize quickly and develop with any reasonable speed.

Finally, the hon. the Minister of Community Development made a brave statement last year, and we are looking for some action in this regard. There was the question about tenants who are being hounded out of buildings because of the uncertainties in the Rents Act. They are threatened with various actions. They are told that their flats have been sold over their heads and that they have to move, and a lot of them do not know their legal rights. There are other landlords, particularly in the Johannesburg area—and a number of cases have been brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister—where landlords cease to provide the services, the clearing of the rubbish, the lamps in the passage-ways, etc., to make the life of tenants unbearable so that they move out. The owner then gets occupation of an empty block of flats for reconstruction or whatever he wants to do with it, without the obligation of finding alternative accommodation for the existing tenants. The hon. the Minister of Community Development made a statement which was a great relief to many hundreds of people in this category when he said strong action is going to be taken by the Government. Nothing has happened. It is still going on and the confusion is increased by the extraordinary situation which has arisen as a result of the Minister of Justice having announced that the Sectional Titles Act will be effective on the 30th March. But no regulations have been published.

That is right, that is the point.

No regulations have been published. I raise these matters because I think they are indicative of what the hon. member for Parktown has included in his motion. These omissions have gone on year after year. These problems have existed year after year. We have prodded and pleaded with this Government to come to terms with a lot of these problems, but they seem to be quite incapable of doing so. The hon. the Minister of Finance over the years has been asked to make adjustments. Does he not realize what he is doing to these people who are affected by these matters? It is not going to break the exchequer if these steps are taken to assist the young people in the middle and lower income groups to acquire homes. It is going to lead to stability and to a contended population. It would lead, I should imagine also, to higher productivity by a settled man in the business wherever he may be employed. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance in replying to this debate will deal with these points.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Transport is here. I asked the hon. the Minister of Transport a question the other day and it appears from his reply that communications have broken down between the Department of Community Development and the Department of Transport in regard to Mitchell’s Plain. I cannot impress sufficiently upon this Minister the urgency that that railway line should be available when the residents start moving in at Mitchell’s Plain on the Cape Flats. The hon. the Minister knows that this scheme will provide accommodation for some 250 000 Coloured people. According to the information I have from the Department of Community Development, building should start towards the end of this year or early next year. Those people will be put out on to the Cape Flats. It is a good site and I think it can eventually develop into a self-sustaining town on its own. At first those people must be transported, as they will always be. I urge the hon. the Minister of Transport to look into this matter. I was rather distressed to hear the reply which he gave. There seems to me a lack of communication, and the urgency of providing that railway line is perhaps not appreciated by the Railways Administration. It is urgently needed, and I hope it will have some priority. The Minister may possibly make an announcement at some time during the session—I hope soon—as to whether that line will be available when development takes place.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be a good thing to approach the adjournment of the debate with the calm, restfulness and peace of a maiden speech, after the sudden events of the afternoon. I want to say at once that it is a great moment for any new member to rise to his feet in this House, in this highest legislative body and debating chamber of the Republic. To enter into the distinctive tradition and the atmosphere of this House, where so many representatives have made their speeches and put their cases, and where, too, great speeches have been made by leaders of the people, where the political policy and course of South Africa have been indicated, and that, in the total silence which is customary for a maiden speech, is more than enough to give one a hollow feeling in one’s stomach.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my honoured predecessor, the hon. ex-Minister Frank Waring. In the same breath I would like to mention Mrs. Waring. In spite of their numerous duties as Minister and Minister’s wife, they nevertheless found the time to meet their voters in order to listen to their problems, and then to solve them from time to time. Both were colourful personalities on the sports fields and in the social sphere, but particularly in their service to South Africa. They were people with firm principles, for they did not always follow the popular path and they sometimes made enemies, but, in the words of ex-Minister Waring himself, he made many thousands of other friends as well. Sir, the constituency of Caledon thanks them heartily for the service which they rendered in the time they served as representatives and wishes them everything that is good and prosperous for the future.

The good medical services throughout the world at present, and in particular in South Africa as well, the fact that the combating of plague and pestilence has been so successful, has resulted in a very high birthrate in the world; but it has also brought about a declining death-rate in the world. At the time of the original settlement here, in 1650, the world population was 500 million. In 1970 the figure was 3 700 million. There are no more places to establish colonies. Those days are gone. We even see that some of the major countries in the world are looking at the moon with an eye to future living space. Then I would like to sound a note of warning by mentioning one more statistic. At this moment the population of Red China is between 700 million and 800 million, and with a population increase of about 1,7% this means that the annual population increase is equal to the present population of South Africa. The figures for South Africa are supplied in the demographic year book of the United Nations. In 1960 we had a population of 16 million, in 1963, 17 million, and in 1970 approximately 20 million. Our rate of increase was 2,4% and that of the world came to an overall 2%. The rate of increase in such countries as China and Russia was well below 2% during these years. Sir, the growth in the world population is indicative of the so-called population explosion. I said a moment ago that better medical services and the combating of pestilences has caused the population to increase. In addition there are no longer wars in the physical sense of the word; famine, too, has ceased to exist. Man cannot now simply accept his self-reliance, but must devise means of planning it properly. Mr. Speaker, it is also important that it should be realized that any citizen can expect certain things from his Government. He can expect physical protection for himself and his family. He can expect work opportunities which will bring him money and allow him to maintain a reasonable standard of living. He can also expect a government to make food available to him which he can afford to buy with the money he earns. In short, therefore, he can expect security and a reasonable standard of living. The state, on the other hand, must supply the needs of its citizens. It must see to the security of the country and work opportunities, but the state must also ensure, by developing the economy, that education facilities, health services, housing, irrigation and food are available to all its citizens. It is therefore quite clear that the state and the citizens have certain very heavy responsibilities towards one another. The citizens of a state, again, in their way are united into families, and the families have a task, a responsibility, towards the national community. If there are families which fail in the fulfilment of these responsibilities, then the community is harmed, and then our own father-land, South Africa, is also harmed. I must say at once that there are many factors which singly and collectively exercise an influence on the size of families in particular and the population increase of a country in general. There is therefore no instant theory based on one single facet, which I can offer the House as a solution for this population increase. In Sweden, as far back as 1935, a commission on population growth was appointed with the object of establishing a policy in regard to this matter. The point of departure was a healthy, family-oriented population policy. The reason given for doing this, was that the economic and educational demands associated with the bringing up of children weighed heavily on a government and that there should be proper planning. In America in 1969 President Nixon appointed a commission, the “Commission on Population Growth and the American Future”, and in his announcement of the appointment of the commission President Nixon said that by the year 2000 there would be 300 million Americans. What that means in fact is that there will be 100 million more than there are at present. If I were to interpret that for the House in practical terms, Sir, it would mean that from now until the year 2000 the Americans will have to build a city every month for 250 000 inhabitants if they wish to succeed in housing their increased population. On the occasion of the establishment of this commission, President Nixon said—

Sir, if we take all this into account, if we let our thoughts pass quickly over the wide terrain of our various peoples in South Africa, over our agricultural sector, our industrial growth, the population shift from the country to the cities and the development of our natural resources. I wish to request the Government today to consider appointing a similar commission or advisory council which the object of compiling a population planning programme. Mr. Speaker, all I ask in this debate is that the hon. the Minister of Finance should make provision in the Main Budget for the expenditure which would be involved. As a result of the diversity of South Africa’s population, there should be subcommittees which would include members of the specific ethnic groups. Universities could be requested to investigate social and economic aspects. In this way very rapid progress could be made with this survey. The development of our industries and the stimulus which this Part Appropriation provides through the repayment of the loan levies, particularly to companies, will make increased industrial production possible. If we consider the expansion of industry, industrial development and production, it is important that all available labour be analysed and planned to keep pace with the population increase. Sound planning of population will indicate at an early stage how many workers one has, where one has them and when one has them and whether one can have them at one’s disposal or depend on them at any specific time. In America this commission sat for two years. It is important that we should make a start as soon as possible with an advisory council or commission for population planning, of the kind which America has established. Each South African Department of State with relevant information will have to participate. They will have to be co-ordinated by means of this commission. Parts of the report which would then be compiled and which were regarded and accepted by the Government as important, could then be adapted by the Department of Information with a view to family planning and subsequently, proper family control. I make this point in particular because there is at present much random discussion in the Press and among people who have knowledge of these matters, of family planning, family control and family control boards. I want to say that there is no necessity for family control boards. The Department of Health is handling this matter very well, and it is necessary that we have population planning, and then family planning and family control will be a natural result. The Department of Information can make use of newspapers and films and closed-circuit television, and later on television as well, to relay to the worker in South Africa what he can buy with the money he earns. Then it is important, and I want to stress this, that if the worker earns a certain amount and it is put to him clearly that with that amount he can buy enough to keep two children going and feed them adequately, then it is, in the first place, irresponsible of the worker to have more children, or secondly, after he has had three or four, to insist that he be paid higher wages. I want to say that a dynamic policy of this nature must be followed. It is no use our chasing after a steadily increasing growth rate. If you accept that the growth rate stands at a certain percentage and you deduct from that the percentage of the population increase, then you get the actual standard of living of the individuals in the State. If one then injudiciously allows the population to increase and one must continually force up the growth rate, that is neither sound planning nor sound economy. If one ensures, in the interest of one’s citizens, that the growth rate attains a certain level and the rate of increase another level, then I would say that one has really reached a stage where the workers will also act in a responsible way and will not force themselves and their families below the so-called and much-discussed poverty datum line.

I should just like to mention that over the years the matter has not been advanced enough to be discussed, possibly even in this House. In a country with a multi-national make-up there has been a feeling that in the discussion of this matter one should be very careful, and this is still the case. But if we take another look at what is happening in the world, I can tell you that even the United Nations has made great progress in this field over the past few years. The United Nations has even declared 1974 a “world population year”. The United Nations has a budget of 50 million dollars which it now allocates to underdeveloped countries to help them with a population policy. Then I must mention that in Africa there are at present 35 developed countries which have already initiated and are proceeding with family planning programmes. Some already have a firm population policy. A few years ago we all mentioned this subject only in a whisper, but it is important that this information should be compiled and co-ordinated by the Government so as to be available to the general public of all our peoples. It will then be the task of responsible individuals to choose whether they wish to ensure that they are able to feed and clothe their family adequately and provide them with all the necessary facilities. It is also important for a government to know in good time how many people it must provide for in respect of education and other facilities which must be established. In order to stress that the whole world is thinking about this matter, I refer to the fact that in International Planned Parenthood News, which covers a large number of countries, one sees such captions as “Nepal’s leaders pledge community action for family planning”, “Mass media persuasive in Korea and Iran”, “Joint congress in Ecuador”, “Government Minister heads African associations: The Tanzanian Minister for Labour and Social Welfare, Mr. Alfred Tano, has been elected as chairman of the National Family Planning Association of Tanzania”.

Sir, in countries all around us the citizens of those countries are engaged in family planning, but we must still take the first and more direct step of tackling population planning before rushing headlong into family planning. With South Africa’s limited water resources, our periodic droughts, our rapid industrial development and our developing ethnic units it is important for us to appoint this commission or advisory council in good time in order to co-ordinate the necessary information. Thereafter it must be made available by the Government. I want to say at once that I am not advocating any obligations on the citizen. It must be a democratic programme. The information must be available so that the citizen can use it. It would be a very stupid citizen of South Africa, whatever ethnic unit he might belong to, who would not wish to make use of the information and the means which will lead to family planning and control. It must necessarily lead to a higher standard of living for all people in our ethnic groups. It must result in happy, well-cared-for families. The number of workers required for certain tasks would be determined in advance by means of data projection, and this will result in development keeping pace with the population increase.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Caledon on the fine speech he made here today. It is really of historic interest that I should be the next speaker after the hon. member for Caledon in this debate, because he will recall, Sir, that his father represented Brakpan in Parliament in a most illustrious manner in earlier years. We have listened with great interest to the very well-reasoned speech of the hon. member, and we want to congratulate him on his speech. We are aware of the fact that he has had a very successful career up to now and that he made a name for himself in the Provincial Council of the Cape. We wish him a very successful career in this House.

I want to come back to the irresponsible speech made here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon. My hon. friend, the member for Wonderboom, asked the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he agreed with the contents of that speech.

He said “No” at first. [Interjections.]

I am not sure what his answer was, but I should like to ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he agrees with the contents of the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Now, the position is such that when I came to this Parliament last year, I listened with particular attention to an explanation of the policy of the Opposition as against the policy of the National Party and more particular during the discussion of the hon. Prime Minister’s Vote. We heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition stating this policy with great eloquence and conviction.

Was that the old policy?

Yes, that was the old policy. Sweet was the music of this policy in the ears of his followers behind him who accepted it with great acclamation and broadcast it even further. We heard about three phases and now I am not speaking now about the bleeding-to-death phase such as the phasing out of this Parliament, but of periods in the development of their policy. We heard about round-table conferences; we heard about the hammering out of agreements; we heard about 25 representatives of non-White groups in this Parliament and we heard that Coloureds would be represented by Coloureds in this Parliament. When listening to the different policies of the United Party it reminds me of Andy Capp’s wife who said that the condition of the United Party is serious, but not hopeless. Now, in 1973, the condition of the United Party is hopeless, but not serious. Let us for a moment refresh the memory of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, because it seems to me as though we should not take his tirades too seriously. I should like to refer to column 8348 of the Hansard of 1972. I should like to know from the hon. member as it is a pity the hon. member is not here at present; however, I should like to know from him on a subsequent occasion whether he still agrees with these words he said in that debate. I quote—

And then he exclaimed with great indignation—

Now I know that the hon. member said at that stage that it is unfair to apply circumstances which prevailed during a certain period to circumstances applicable to another period. But this had nothing to do with situations; it had to do with policy. I should like to refer to col. 4943 of the Hansard of 1972 where the hon. member said the following—

He asked further—

That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked. What has happened to that policy now? I want to know from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he still adheres to that point of view. If so, how is it possible for him still to feel at home in that party? If not, surely he is associating himself with our idea of uplifting the Coloureds. Surely, he is then a party to the plagiarism mentioned by the hon. Prime Minister during the No-confidence Debate. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went even further, and I quote from Hansard, col. 4943—

I quote rather comprehensively from the words of this hon. member, because he has now made himself available as the new leader of the United Party. He is ready to take over. We must therefore very definitely take notice of what he says. In Hansard, col. 4945 of the 1972 Debates, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says—

Then the hon. member goes further in col. 4945—

What is this sovereign White Parliament that gives and takes away powers and will remain White but supremacy? White leadership is White supremacy and nothing else, unless one is a leader in name only and the master is the watchdogs around the kennel. Now I come to the best part of it all. In col. 4945 the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says—

Now they themselves come along and hold out the prospect of two such councils. The collapse will thus be twice as bad; the explosion will be twice as loud. In column 4945 the hon. member for Bezuidenhout goes further—

When reading these words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, one understands why we did not have the privilege of hearing the hon. member for Bezuidenhout speak in the No-confidence Debate this year. Surely, he cannot reconcile these statements with the new policy of his party. As far as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is concerned, I should like, in conclusion, to fling back at him in his own words the prophetic vision he cast over the whole country—

I should like to know from the United Party what their policy means other than “a few crumbs from the White man’s table”?

That is your policy.

No, that is the policy of the United Party because they said there would be Coloureds who would be represented in this Parliament by their own people. That is the policy of the United Party and that has been said here time and again, not only by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but also by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others.

That is the crumb policy.

And the hon. member for Orange Grove tried to put us off with the old story about the explanation why they have abandoned this important aspect of their policy. He must not think we will allow ourselves to be misled by that.

Give me an answer.

The answer is recorded in the Hansard of the No-confidence Debate. I have read it and I am none the wiser. It has not clarified the matter at all. But let us go back for a moment to the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the 1972 Debates. We must remember that this new policy of theirs saw the light of day three months after the debates took place in this House. But this is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in col. 5290 of Hansard—

Three months later he did the very same thing. What of the dangers involved by never giving those people representation in this House or in any central Parliament? Now I ask: What must we say when the United Party comes along, in 1974, and once again submits a new policy to us with so much conviction and persuasiveness? What confidence could the man in the street have that any mandate the electorate of South Africa give them, would be carried into effect? Invariably it brings one back to the method by which that party gave Indians the vote and representation in this House in 1946.

But when I listen to what they say, it seems to me that they have not considered the basics of the whole of this issue. They still do not understand what the federal concept involves. Surely, the constituent elements of the federation are at least sovereign. They are autonomous bodies and one cannot give and take at one’s own discretion. The legislation of the sovereign body with regard to matters over which it has unassailable autonomy, cannot be tested against the laws of the central Parliament, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said. It is not subject to the right of being tested. Surely, Harry is right; I am not speaking about Harry Schwarz now, but I am referring to their previous mentor, Harry Lawrence. Surely, there can be no overlapping of or a right of being tested. It would be chaotic. How is it possible to have, in one geographic unit, one legislative body that is predominantly sovereign, but in its own discretion, being so inconsistent and capricious as Cicero’s description of women, gives to subordinate bodies within the area the right to exercise certain functions? I think those people on that side of the House should once again go into the question as to why federation has failed in other states in Africa.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the division of power; he referred to a senior partner and a junior partner. He should read his history. It is as a result of this very idea of junior and senior partnership that in particular the federation of Rhodesia and Nyassaland failed. Does he imagine for one moment—and is he being honest and sincere—when he thinks that the Bantu and those of a different colour would be satisfied to be a junior partner, subservient to a House of Assembly which is sovereign and which will remain sovereign as far as we can see, as was said here by the hon. member for Durban North? In the same way as there was no substance to that 1972 policy of theirs so this octopus federation concept they are presenting here today, has even less substance or meaning and it will have no appeal to any voter who uses his brains.

Mr. Speaker, the ignorance of the hon. member for Brakpan, concerning the policy of the United Party, is inexplicable, but his ignorance about his own party’s policy is unforgivable. In the few minutes that I have before we adjourn, I should like to give a piece of homework to hon. members opposite, and in particular to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I hope he will listen. As you know, Sir, we have never been afraid to tell hon. members opposite what our policy is. We have not been afraid to give the elementary thinkers on that side, by means of a sketch, a diagram, an idea about how our federal plan will look. We have not been afraid of that. Now comes my challenge to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I challenge him, or any member on his side: Give us a sketch of what your policy looks like. I impose only two conditions: The first is that that sketch should be signed by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The second condition is that I shall have the right to give it to the Press. To encourage hon. members, I am prepared to give R5 to any recognized charitable organization if tomorrow, when I resume my speech, I have a copy—I shall make it R10!—of what their policy looks like on paper. That is my challenge. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how their eight lonely, floating, independent old fly-spot Bantustans would look on paper; how those Bantustans would have to be in touch with a central Parliament from which they are completely divorced?

You would make one Bantustan of the entire South Africa.

I hope the hon. the Chief Whip is also going to take part in this competition. Please, I should like to see his nice drawings. He can draw well. Let him sketch us this plan of his independent Bantustans. Let them tell us, too, since they are asking us, what powers they are prepared to give their own Bantustans today. One small question to the hon. the Minister: Is he prepared, for example, to give the Department of Immigration to the Transkei Government today? Is he prepared to give the Department of the Interior, with the full powers they have with us, to those eight states? They ask us the questions, but after 25 years of rule he cannot even answer that question.

May I ask a question? May I ask the hon. member whether their policy is an old one or a new one?

Sir, the basic principles of our policy are as old as the truth, but the machinery we have is as new as the Concorde! But I am still waiting to hear from the hon. the Minister: Is he going to give us a sketch? Is he going to transfer the Departments of Immigration and the Interior? After 25 years they do not know the answers. They do not know what their policy looks like. But now they have a chance to show it to the country and to the people. The Press is anxiously waiting for the sketch we are going to get tomorrow, for the sketch similar to this one of the U.P.’s federation plan, which I have in my hand. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Can he tell us where he is going to get buyers for the Concorde?

Sir, our machinery, our policy, is as modern as the Concorde; there will be many more buyers for our policy than for the Concorde, and there will be many buyers less for the old midge-plane policy they have today.

Sir, I was particularly surprised to hear the speech of the hon. member for Wonderboom. We know that the hon. member for Wonderboom was once a mediator for South Africa at the United Nations. We supported him and the team there, and also at the World Court.