Mr. Chairman, yesterday and also in the course of the Session I became utterly convinced of one thing and that is that the United Party is running away from the major and perhaps also the most important problems in this country. I have only been a member of this House for one year, but I have come to the conclusion that the Opposition consistently refuses to discuss the basic relations issues. They came to this Session with a new policy, their so-called federal policy. This was a policy which was to grip the imagination of the voters, which was to serve also as a solution to South Africa’s relations issue and in the nature of the case, was also to have helped them to come into power. But what has happened now? They are afraid to discuss that policy. I want to suggest here this afternoon that the Opposition is afraid to answer questions concerning that policy, not only in this House, but also outside this House. At the time of the by-election in Caledon I attended Mr. Harry Schwarz’s meeting at Grabouw. There, young organizers of the National Party put simple questions to this so-called leader and, Sir, he was nothing but an acrobat on the stage. He consistently refused to reply to questions which were put to him. I want to suggest this afternoon that the Opposition is afraid to present their policy to the voters of South Africa.

I want to go further. I also want to suggest this afternoon that that policy of theirs has died a quiet and imperceptible death. Therefore it is true that we have today an Opposition without a policy. [Interjections.] If they dispute and oppose this statement, they have now, in this debate, the opportunity of coming forward and telling us what their policy really is. I want to go further and also suggest this afternoon that the father of this policy delivered the burial address of this poor little thing on 8th February. When a simple question was put to him, namely “Why did you change your policy?”, he said: “It is now what it is”. So it stands recorded. When the father of this policy had the opportunity to go into it in depth and present it to the voters, all he could say was, “It is now what it is”.

Sir, now the Opposition comes along and clutches at bread and butter, and yesterday potatoes were also thrown in. I wonder, Sir, whether sweet potatoes (“patats”) would not have been a better combination. I think they would have liked to use sweet potatoes, but the sweet potatoes were getting too hot—the hot potato of their federal plan—and then they dropped it. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point coming along in perfect health to this House with a loaf of white bread under his arm and complaining about conditions! [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to say in all earnest to the Opposition that no political party in South Africa and no political party in the world can live by bread alone. In fact, this is also a Biblical expression. The strength of a political party, wherever it may be, in South Africa or in the world, lies in something more than wages, in something more than prices and in something more than growth rates. It is true that this country and its voters of whatever political party—it does not matter what the name of it is—want the answers to the major questions of destination and of continued existence. In the hearts of our voters there is one major, overrising question and that is, “where do you want to go with us?” Therefore we want to challenge the Opposition this afternoon to give the voters of South Africa an answer to that question. But, Sir, they do not have those answers. It is for that reason they are all posing here as economists. I think that what they are really doing is queueing up for the post of the hon. member for Parktown as the shadow Minister of Economic Affairs and of Finance, then we must remember, Sir, that Harry must also be included. I believe that we shall then really see some swindling going on! Sir, the country does not concern itself with their economic chatter, because this Opposition of the day does not have the answers to the important questions and the urgent questions of our time. The elections since 1948 and the by-elections of last year have clearly indicated that this Opposition has no answers to the major questions of the day.

Sir, this afternoon I wish to make the statement that after 25 years we have a Government in power which is unfolding and developing its policy to the full, a policy the basic principles of which remained unaltered, and on which we are still building. But, Sir, now we have this extreme contrast: After 25 years we have an Opposition in this country which has no policy whatsoever. Sir, I want to put this question: How can the hon. the Opposition find time to consider these matters if they are totally confused? How can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition find time to reflect on these great and urgent matters if he must run all over the country extinguishing fires? He had hardly extinguished one fire when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout last week got up in Cape Town and made a speech before a meeting in which he declared quite frankly that he offered no excuse for the fact that he was engaged in and would continue to work for the rejuvenation and the renewal of the United Party so that it could eventually take over the Government of this county. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he endorses this statement and this speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to ask him whether he also endorses the speeches made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout here? Earlier on, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout maintained in this House that it was as a result of the apartheid measures of this Government that there is friction in this country. Sir, we want to challenge that hon. member to indicate where that friction exists in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I take this opportunity— and I think in this regard I speak on behalf of all hon. members of this House— to express our sincerest sympathy, our deepest regret, to the dependants of the four Bantu constables who were killed on the border yesterday. They were there in the performance of a duty which ultimately, is also the duty of all of us, one which placed them in the danger zone, and therefore also between us and that danger. Just as Whites lost their lives there in the past, so, too, did non-Whites lose their lives. Once again this brings us closer to the reality South Africa indeed has to face, and once again I want to take this opportunity to express appreciation to everyone, the Whites as well as the non-Whites, who are fulfilling their duty under those circumstances in such an exceptional way, who are fulfilling their duty in such a way that they are not stopped by the dangers of which they are indeed aware and which they share every minute of the day. We readily pay tribute to what is being done by everyone there, and we express our sympathy to their next of kin.

†When the debate was adjourned last night, Sir, the hon. member for Transkei had put certain questions to me. In the course of his speech he made certain accusations. I now take this opportunity to reply to the hon. member, who also happens to be chairman of the caucus of the official Opposition. First of all, Sir, the hon. member for Transkei made the accusation that as far as I was concerned, I gave no direction whatever, and immediately after saying that he made the accusation against me that I had departed altogether from the policy laid down by the late Dr. Verwoerd.

On apartheid.

Sir, how is it possible that on the one hand I sit here like a dummy giving no direction whatsoever and on the other hand I depart from the policy of Dr. Verwoerd, this giving quite a different direction? That of course simply cannot stand; it makes nonsense of the whole argument of the hon. member. But then, six or seven years after the death of Dr. Verwoerd, the hon. member came along and, referring to Dr. Verwoerd’s policies, said first of all that the whole policy of separate development was a blunder. That of course is only his opinion. It maybe that he will later take the opportunity in this debate to answer the question I put to the hon. member for Durban North as to why the United Party in fact changed its policy. I think that as chairman of his party’s caucus he is admirably suited to give us that very reply. Perhaps in the same breath he can tell us whether he is a Schlebusch fan or not because naturally that question too comes to the fore. [Interjection.] I appreciate that and I am very thankful, to say the least. But he not only said that the whole policy of separate development, as far as the late Dr. Verwoerd was concerned, was a blunder, but now, six or seven years after Dr. Verwoerd’s death, he comes along and says Dr. Verwoerd was wrong in everything he did, and then he went on to say that Dr. Verwoerd created a façade and that that façade was now crumbling. Well, the late Dr. Verwoerd sat in this House for more than 16 years. He was a Minister and later Prime Minister, one of the greatest South Africa has ever had. To come now, as the hon. member did, and to say that the late Dr. Verwoerd only created a façade and that in fact he was wrong in everything, is ridiculous. He sat in this House as a Minister and as Prime Minister for more than 16 years and for the chairman of the United Party’s caucus now to make these accusations does not say much for the Opposition. If for 16 years the late Dr. Verwoerd only created a façade, and if for 16 years he was wrong in everything he did, then surely this is a very stupid Opposition. Surely it is a very stupid Opposition who could not convince the electorate of South Africa in 16 years that this was only a façade. Surely during that time they had the support of all the English newspapers in this country. They went round the country from one election to the other and they had all the opportunities in the world to expose the fallacies of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy but they could not do so. As I have said, surely that must be a very stupid Opposition. But what is more, not only did they not succeed in exposing the fallacies of the policy but in actual fact I want to say, as I have said before, that they have now adopted, as far as one can make out their policy, all the major issues of the late Dr. Verwoerd’s policies. They have in fact adopted them all, as I will go on to illustrate in a moment. The hon. member has asked me about the political future of the Coloureds and the Indians.

Whom must I ask?

I say so for the simple reason that they have adopted our basic policies as far as the Indians and the Coloureds are concerned. [Interjections.] I will come to that in a moment. Hon. members will recall that their policy was always that the Coloureds, first of all, must go back to the common roll, but they shifted their stand on that. Then their policy was that the Coloureds must be put on a separate roll but be represented in this House either by Coloureds or by Whites. That was their policy all along, Sir.

It is yours too.

Yes, I am coming to that; I am dealing with your policy now.

Which one?

Yes, that is the point. As a matter of fact, I will have to deal with a whole lot of policies. Be that as it may, fortunately we have the time to do so. However, hon. members will know that they said the salvation of this country rested on the Coloureds being represented in this House, the Indians being represented in this House and the Blacks being represented in this House. That was to be the whole salvation of South Africa; there would be no political future for South Africa if this were not to happen. What is more, hon. members will recall that when we called the Coloured Representative Council into being, they fought it tooth and nail.

On what grounds?

They said it was wrong in principle to have such a council.

No, we opposed your type of council.

The hon. member says they opposed our type of council. Well, then again I must say that this is a very stupid Opposition because now they have adopted that very council.

We are in favour of an elected council; not a nominated one. [Interjections.]

The hon. member has plenty of time to explain his party’s policy. He has all the time in the world in which to explain it. I am putting this to him, and if he denies that, then I ask the hon. member what he is prepared to give to the Coloureds which we have not already given to them and which we are not prepared to give to them.

The Nico Malan Theatre, for example. [Interjections.]

Order!

In spite of what others have to say about the hon. member for Yeoville, I am a fan of his. If he now says that the only difference between … [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. member wants to say by means of this interjection that the only difference between his policy and mine is the Nico Malan Theatre, then we are certainly getting places.

I did not say it was the only difference. I mentioned the Nico Malan Theatre as an example.

But they have adopted our policy as far as the Indians are concerned.

You are flattering yourself.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has just made that interjection. The Whips of his Party summed up the new members who came to this House, and in spite of the fact that he had lost an election or two before, they placed him second last in the order of seniority. I think they did Mr. Bands a disservice. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to come back to the United Party and its policy. I have said that as far as the late Dr. Verwoerd’s policy, the policy of this side of the House, is concerned, the United Party has adopted all the major features of that policy, not only with regard to the Coloureds, not only with regard to the Indians, but also with regard to the Bantu because they have now adopted the so-called “Bantustan policy.” [Interjections.]

Order!

I am perfectly willing to hear their defence on this accusation and I am perfectly prepared to argue it with the hon. members on the other side of the House. As a matter of fact, there was a time when the hon. member for Yeoville insinuated, way back in 1963, that they foresaw this possibility—if I understood the newspaper reports correctly.

*What the hon. member said about my predecessor at this juncture, after all these years, i.e. what he did say here, is not consistent with the facts and does not further the hon. member’s case in the least. The policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd is being implemented by this Government.

Yes, in regard to sport as well.

It is being implemented in its logical conclusions by this Government, and this Government will …

What about sport?

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District …

What about sport?

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must adhere strictly to what the Chair has to say if he is called to order. I warn the hon. member. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Not only is the policy of Dr. Verwoerd there, and not only has his policy, as far as one can determine, been taken over by the Opposition, but the policy of Dr. Verwoerd has made it possible for non-White leaders to emerge and state the standpoint of their people, and it makes no difference whether we agree with this or not. This policy has made it possible for those people to acquire status and it has made it possible for them to serve their people if they so wish. They are people of status, although some of them may be more aware of their status than others are, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for example, is particularly aware of this for he says that they are better than “benches of members of Parliament”. Well, he knows his own people and I do not want to argue the matter with him. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me to reply to two matters which he raised. The one was the question of the urban Bantu and the other the question of Bantu governments that might under certain circumstances not be prepared to ask for independence, negotiate or take it, whatever one would like to call it. By now we are accustomed to the hon. gentlemen opposite falling back on the urban Bantu when they get stuck in respect of other matters and cannot make any progress. If I understood them correctly, their policy in respect of the urban Bantu—they must correct me if I am wrong because I do not want to make an incorrect statement in this regard and so base a false premise on that statement—is that there will be two parliaments for the urban Bantu. My friend can tell me whether or not I am correct.

Tell us about your policy.

I beg your pardon?

You tell us about your policy.

I am not talk ing to you; I am talking to your leader. [Interjections.] My friend the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could just tell me whether I am correct when I say that there will be two parliaments for the urban Bantu. That is how I read it, and if I read it incorrectly I would like to know, and if I am right I would like to know that as well.

I shall deal with it.

You could just tell me whether there will be two, or more than two. I do not want to be unkind to my friend, but I find it surprising that in regard to a matter such as this he does not even want to furnish me with a reply by way of an interjection. However, let us leave the matter there. There will presumably be two parliaments for the urban Bantu, and of course homeland parliaments as well, possibly eight of them, hon. members said. Just to show how ill-considered the entire business is, if one has made provision for the urban Bantu with two parliaments, or one if one now wants to reduce the number, and one has given the homeland Bantu eight parliaments— where we are eventually going to end up with all these parliaments I do not know of course …

What about your policy in South-West Africa?

We shall argue that matter with hon. members at a later stage. Then, to my mind, the question still remains, and we have not received a reply to it yet, that apart from the Bantu in the homelands, there are hundreds of thousands of urban Bantu, and just as many Bantu on the farms. I have not yet seen any reference anywhere, in anything that has been published or said, to these farm Bantu, who live and work on the farms, being incorporated anywhere or to their being given the franchise. Or are they going to be given a parliament? Are we now going to have a parliament for the farm Bantu as well? Where do we incorporate them now, for they say that it is absurd to give the franchise to the Bantu who are outside the Bantu areas. That is a question to which I think they may as well give us an answer. It would be strange if we were to give the franchise to all of them but not the farm Bantu. If that is the policy of the hon. members, I should like to hear what they have to say to us in that connection, whether they want to create another parliament quickly. Every time hon. members find themselves in difficulties in respect of their policy, they fall back on the urban Bantu. The first thing I want to make very clear in this connection is that this Government will do nothing or will agree to no policy which would bring about estrangement between the urban Bantu and their homelands. The irrevocable policy of this Government is not only to preserve the ties which bind the urban Bantu to their homelands; the policy of this Government is also aimed at strengthening these as much as it can. Its entire policy is geared to doing just this.

Do they agree with that?

I shall come to that in a moment. I not only went on a tour, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, but also set aside several days for holding conferences with the urban Bantu. For that reason I can take up the standpoint that I know what is happening in regard to this matter, over and above what I am told by my colleagues who are in daily contact with them. I have gained personal experience in regard to this matter. To reply immediately to the hon. member’s question I want to say that while spending days speaking to dozens and dozens of urban Bantu, I went out of my way to ascertain whether the reproach which hon. members opposite are constantly levelling, the reproach of “detribalized Africans”, is true. I want to make this very clear: I did not find this to be the case. On the contrary, I found among those people a profound desire to preserve their ties with the homelands. I found among them a profound respect for their traditions, their morals and their language, and I found that they regarded these as being anchored in their homelands. That is what I found. And this Government will consolidate these ties at all times. It is for that reason that the Government formulated this particular policy. It is for that reason that, inter alia, the delegate system was introduced: precisely in order to facilitate contact between the urban Bantu and their homelands and to preserve the ties. This system has only been in operation for a short time, but I foresee that it will hold great promise and that it could be of great advantage to the Bantu. But more than that, this is also the policy of the Government because the urban Bantu do not only have an interest in, but are in fact deeply attached to their homelands—and this applies not only to the urban Bantu, but also to the Bantu who find themselves on the farms and in the rural areas. The only reason why they are not in the homelands is because the homelands cannot provide employment for all of them. But this is not only a problem our homelands have; it is a problem the whole of Africa has. We did discuss this here on previous occasions and I offer no excuse for mentioning it again. It is a problem which applies not only to our homelands, but also to Lesotho, the Swaziland, to Malawi and to Botswana, viz. that they will be compelled to seek employment for their people beyond the borders of their countries. This will remain a problem for a very long time to come. It will remain the problem for generations to come. Why are their 88 000 Malawians in South Africa? They would not have been here if Malawi had been in a position to employ them herself. Why are there 40 000 or 50 000 labourers from Lesotho here, or whatever the number may be? It is because they do not have opportunities for employment in their own country. The same applies to the Swazi, the Botswana and to the inhabitants of every other Bantu area. It is equally applicable to our Bantu areas. They have to rely on us for employment, until such time as they are able to employ their own people. If that were not the reason, they would not have been here. Just as the Basuto formerly recorded their votes in Basutoland while they were working here in South Africa, so we can make it possible for the homeland Bantu to vote when members are being elected to their respective legislative assemblies. This works well in practice; interest is shown for this and no fault whatsoever can be found with the system or with the policy.

We realize that the urban Bantu have problems which are peculiar to them. Because we realize this, we have already adopted certain measures. As frequently as is necessary we shall adopt further measures to effect changes in their position. It was with that end in view that we established the administration boards last year, to bring relief in regard to certain legitimate grievances which had been raised by the Bantu, so that there would be more scope for them and so that they could have greater mobility. There were problems in regard to allowing Bantu wives into the urban areas, problems which were brought to our notice by clergymen and by the Bantu leaders themselves. We brought relief in that connection. Hon. members heard about it in this House. Because we realize that this is a major problem, we are giving it our urgent consideration. We will, as I have said, review the position and bring relief as frequently as is necessary. But there is one thing hon. members must not ask us to do, and that is to grant the Bantu proprietary rights in the White area. This is a rudimentary decision from which this side of the House definitely has no intention of deviating. If hon. members opposite say that they will grant proprietary rights, there is one pertinent question I want to put to them. Just as some of the urban Bantu have been here for generations—and this is true—so, too, there are Basutoland subjects who have been her for generations. Are hon. members prepared to grant them proprietary rights as well? Are hon. members prepared to grant proprietary rights to the Swazi who have been here for generations? These are all questions to which hon. members opposite will have to give us the replies.

This is your Vote, not ours.

I know that it is my Vote. But my Vote creates an opportunity for the hon. member to tell us whether they have changed their policy or whether it is still the same. If he is too shy to speak he can write me a litte note.

I am never too shy to speak to you.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me to reply to the discovery made by the hon. member for Durban North with reference to interjections by way of which I replied to his questions. He put the following question to me: What about those homelands that refuse to become independent and link such refusal to the land issue? Of course other reasons may also emerge. However, this specific case is linked to the land issue. I should like to hear what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to say about this matter. It is a matter of cardinal importance to our people. Is any party in this House prepared to go further than the 1936 Act? This side of the House adheres unequivocally to the standpoint that it will implement the 1936 Act, and that it will give the Bantu the land as provided for in terms of that Act.

Independence included?

Surely that is nothing new. I do not know whether this is the first time that hon. member has heard this. However, we have been saying it across the floor of this House for many years.

Is it stated in the Act?

No, it is not stated in the Act. The Act simply provides that the Bantu should be given that land. I say that I shall give them that land, and once they have that land and they then want to become independent, I am not going to stop them. But let me put this question to that clever hon. member: If there is a Bantu homeland that wants to become independent, is the hon. member going to prevent it from doing so? Is the hon. member going to refuse to allow it to become independent if it says that it wants to do so? That hon. member makes interjections while I am speaking. Why does he not have the courage to tell me now whether or not they will allow a homeland to become independent? But I think this is a question to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can give us a reply once again, if he now claims to have done so before. He must tell us whether it is the standpoint of the United Party that they will allow that homeland which wants to become independent, to do so—yes or no. After all, the question he put to me was a simple one.

But you are having a hard time replying to it.

Sir, perhaps I am taking rather long, but I have to take the mentality of the opposite side into account! [Interjections.] If a homeland does not want to become independent as a result of the fact that I do not want to give it more land, then that is its affair. Once more I want to make this very clear. This Government is going to lead it along the road to independence just as far as the stage of full self-government. This Government can lead it along the road to such self-government, but the next step, viz. to become completely independent, rests with that Bantu nation itself, with its leaders and its people. If it should then in its wisdom decide, because of some grievance or other, because it does not have enough land or for whatever reason, that it refuses to become independent, it would remain at that stage of self-government which it has attained. It would not then be able to blame me for its not having become independent; it would definitely not be able to blame me for that, but if it should think that it would then be able to use that as a lever to get the franchise in this Parliament, it would be making a grave error. It would then be making a grave error, for that it will definitely never get. In other words, I now want to make this very clear, in all kindness, to the Bantu leaders: If they are hiding behind this, if they think that they would be able to bargain for a better deal as a result of that, then they are mistaken. That will simply not work out.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then asked: What has now become of their self-determination? Previously the reproach was levelled at us in this House and in the outside world that we begrudged these people their independence. Now, indeed, the situation is gradually being reversed; the reproach is now being levelled at us that we want to make these people independent. That is the reproach which is now being levelled at us. Consequently I cannot begin to understand how any person can have any problem in this regard when I say that, on the road of constitutional development, they can be led by this Government up to that stage, and if they do not go further, it is their own choice to remain where they are; it is not this Government which is forcing them to remain where they are; it is not this Government which is refusing to grant them their independence; then it is they who took that decision of their own free will because they want more land, which this Government is not prepared to give them. I do not know what the standpoint of the hon. members opposite is in this connection. This is my reply to the two questions put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir, the Prime Minister started off in his usual jovial manner, relieving the tension of his followers who must always be worried when they think that he has to make a responsible statement in this House. He started off by attacking me.

I replied to you.

Yes, his reply was in the form of an attack on me for daring to criticize the late Dr. Verwoerd and his policy. Sir, the Prime Minister has said, not once but several times, that we in the United Party have accepted the Nationalist Party policy. He said it several times; he does not deny it now. I want to ask him this: If we have accepted their policy, is their policy one of race federation?

I talked about the basis of your policy.

I am sorry, the hon. the Prime Minister said that we had accepted his policy. Is his policy one of race federation? Sir, you cannot stop at community councils. There is an end to our policy, but there is no end to his policy. He asked me why we were asking him what his policies are. We have every right to ask him. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who spoke just before the hon. the Prime Minister, said that the people will not tolerate a party which has no policy. That is quite true; people will not tolerate such a party, and I have asked, and we on this side have asked and will continue to ask, the Prime Minister when he will get up and tell us what his policy is for the Coloureds and the Indians. Sir, you cannot ignore those people. You cannot get up and say, as an excuse for having no policy, that our policy is the same as the Government’s policy for the Coloureds and the Indians. The Prime Minister knows, or should know, that that is not true. He knows what part the Coloureds and the Indians play in our race federation scheme. He ought to know that it is more than just a community council. And who started the idea of community councils? Not the late Dr. Verwoerd. We did. The late Dr. Verwoerd analysed the community councils which we proposed for the different race groups and found them wanting; he ridiculed them, and now we are accused of having taken over his policy. Sir, how did the local councils for the Bantu start? Who started the old Bunga in the Transkei? The Nationalist Government? Absolute nonsense! Dr. Verwoerd tried to do away with it, but he had to go back to it. [Interjection.] I am sorry, he did. All that is being done in the Transkei now could have been done without establishing territorial authorities. You could have done what General Smuts proposed to do in 1947. General Smuts proposed to do just this sort of thing in 1947 with regard to the Bunga.

We have not got a Bunga in the Transkei.

I said that we had a Bunga in the Transkei. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister attacked me, too, for saying that the façade of Verwoerd’s structure is crumbling. Of course it is crumbling. He is not abiding by that policy any more. He says that we are a weak Opposition if we could not convince the public that Dr. Verwoerd was wrong. Sir, all the criticisms that we levelled against his policy are now being proved to have been correct, but the public accepted Dr. Verwoerd’s policy because it was an easy policy; it seemed so easy to have complete separation, “algehele apartheid”, in terms of which there is no contact and no friction between the races. Dr. Verwoerd tried to carry out that policy, but the whole edifice has collapsed. Despite what the hon. the Prime Minister says about the urban African now, the whole of Verwoerd’s policy was based on one thing, and that is that the reserves had to be developed to the extent where they could Drovide a home for all the Africans, and in that homeland they were to enjoy all their national and civic rights. That was the moral basis of his policy, that the urban African could go to the reserves and enjoy his rights there. If he cannot do it, then there is no longer any morality in that policy. If the urban African is living here permanently and is not merely a temporary sojourner, then there is no morality in the Government’s policy, and if the urban African have to continue to live in what are almost hovels, without having decent housing and without having the opportunity of enjoying family life and of building decent houses for themselves, then I say there is no morality in the policy.

Sir, let us come to the question of the reserves and the acceptance of the Government’s policy, as the Minister says, by the African leaders. The African leader who was most responsive to the policy of the Government was Chief Kaiser Matanzima. What is his accusation against the Government now? He is accusing the Government of mala fides: he says that they are not carrying out Dr. Verwoerd’s policy to its logical conclusion. Sir, I asked the Prime Minister recently whether Chief Kaiser Matanzima had made a request to him for independence. The Prime Minister did not answer the question. He said that he was answering it merely as I had put it on the Order Paper, and my question was whether Chief Matanzima had asked for full independence. Perhaps that is the reason why the Prime Minister did not answer the question, because Chief Matanzima might not have asked for full independence. But there is no secrecy about this matter. It was not a confidential communication, because the chief himself has said this publicly to his congress. Sir, I ask the Prime Minister now to tell us in this House—we are entitled to know—what request was made to him by the chief and what reply was given by him, the Prime Minister.

There was never a request for independence.

So if Chief Kaiser Matanzima said to his congress that he made a request to this Government for independence, then that is not true?

No; he never made such a request for independence.

So Kaiser is telling an untruth?

I am just telling you what the position is.

Sir, as long as we know that there was no official reply given we take the matter no further. Naturally we assumed, in view of the Government’s policy and the Prime Minister’s continual invitation to these leaders to ask for independence or to negotiate with him for independence, that such a request would have been made to him, and we wanted information in that regard.

Sir, I want to get back now to the reserves. As I said, the whole basis of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy was the development of the reserves, and I do not think there is any economist today who will say that the ambitious programme set out by the Tomlinson Commission can be carried out; it can never be carried out, which means that more and more Africans will have to come to the White areas to seek work, as the Prime Minister has said. They have to come from Lesotho and from Swaziland. Why do they come here? They come here because they have got to find work.

Naturally.

The Africans in the reserves have to do the same thing, but there is one big difference. The Africans in Lesotho and Swaziland are not South African citizens, but all the Transkeians and the Zulus, etc., are South African citizens, entitled to different treatment. Is the Prime Minister not prepared to admit that? Cannot he see the difference? It is no good telling us that the Basothos cannot have political rights here. Nobody suggested that the Basothos should have political rights here, but the South African citizens have every right to have political rights in this country, and if the Prime Minister is not prepared to give some civic rights to the urban African who is permanently urbanized—and he admits that there are some who are permanently urbanized—then I say there is no morality in his policy. Dr. Verwoerd refused to accept the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission in full because of the expense involved. Sir, Dr. Verwoerd was practical in this sense that he realized that the taxpayer would not stand for the demands which would have to be made upon him for the full development of these areas. But I say to the Prime Minister that unless he comes forward with a definite policy telling us what civic rights he plans for the Africans who are permanently urbanized in this country, who have no hope of going to the reserves, who cannot go to the reserves, not only because there is no work for them but because there are no homes for them, he is not facing up to the question as to what is to happen to these urban Africans. I want to say to him, too, Sir, that we are not going to let him rest until he has the courage to get up here and tell us what his policy is with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. How many more years must we wait? The Minister says that it took us 17 years to find that Dr. Verwoerd’s policy was not working. Sir, this Government has been in power for 25 years. Surely it must have had some idea as to what was going to happen to the Coloureds. Surely it must have had some idea as to what was going to happen to the Indians.

You will get the answers.

When?

We are asking for the answers; that is what we want to get.

You have had them time and again.

Sir, the Prime Minister says he has given us the answer time and again; we have obviously missed it. Perhaps he will be more patient with us. I ask him now to get up and to spell out the answer to us clearly so that we can understand it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was not so very long ago that the hon. member who has just sat down also had occasion to speak about the subject which he raised here today, and that is the position of the urban African. He tried to set out in detail what the policy of the United Party was in that regard. He started off by saying—

I would like to turn to a few of the remarks the hon. member made just now before he sat down, when he started in the same vein as the hon. member for Hillbrow and spoke about morality in reference to political rights and said there was no morality in the policy of this party. Now let me put a plain question to the hon. member and to the hon. member for Hillbrow who on occasion said it was immoral that 16 million people could only own 13% of the country whereas the rest owned 87%. I want to ask the hon. member this. Are they prepared to divide, on a basis of complete morality, in the way they put it to us every time, this country according to numbers of the different races? [Interjections.] I did not raise that question. The hon. members need not be indignant about it. It was the hon. member for Hillbrow who said it was immoral of us. I can prove it out of Hansard and when our Vote comes up I will do so. But I want to turn to the hon. member who has just sat down. He spoke about morality too. He said it was immoral to treat these people in the way this Government was treating them. I would like to ask him whether it is moral to give them only part representation, an inferior representation? They are the same human beings, the same South Africans as the Whites.

But you give them nothing at all. That is the point.

Sir, where does the morality come into the picture now? If you give them a little bit, the little bit which the United Party is prepared to give them, it is moral. This side of the House has said that we will give them everything they want in their own areas, in their own country.

*But I want to go further. The hon. the Prime Minister has already mentioned this. Why do we hear nothing of the rural Bantu? Let me tell the hon. gentlemen, if they perhaps want to make a study of that, that it is not only the urban Bantu we are dealing with. In South Africa, according to the 1960 census, 40% of the Bantu were non-urban Bantu, people on the platteland. What are you going to do with them? We have said what we want to do with them. We want to strengthen their ties with their homelands. And having said that, we are saying it in all honesty, in the knowledge that there are many difficulties on the road ahead and that there are many people who have, to a large extent, become uprooted, and that it is our duty to ensure that those people will remain as happy as possible in the areas where they come to sell their labour until such time as the homelands are developed and they return to work there. [Interjections.]

Hon. members appear not to believe that, but the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of the Bantu administration boards that were developed in the course of the year. We have introduced, aid centres. This year a start was made on a branch in the Department of Sport and Recreation so that their interests could be looked after in all spheres. In this explanation of the hon. member for Transkei a lot of things were mentioned that will supposedly be done by the United Party. Sir, they need not begin. All these things, except home ownership, are already taking place.

Where?

If hon. members want to ask me a definite question, they do not have to shout in chorus. Anyone who wants to ask a specific question about a specific matter is welcome to do so and I shall take my seat if he wishes to do so. But to shout in chorus does not get us anywhere.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister where in the White areas is higher technical training available for Bantu?

I would be able to answer if the hon. member would tell me where in the Bantu areas higher technical training is available for Whites? [Interjections.] Where are special institutions erected for Whites in the homelands? We erect these institutions for them in their homelands. And here you have heard that we are also engaged in in-service and pre-service training.

But I just want to say a few words about this home ownership story.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us where a Bantu qualified as permanently resident in a prescribed area will be entitled to move to, to seek work in, to visit or to reside in any Bantu area under this Government’s policy today?

I have already said that the Bantu administration boards have been instituted and the hon. the Prime Minister has already spoken about this matter and the greater elbow-room.

I just want to mention one more thing, and that is the question of home ownership. And I think it is necessary for this to be said here today. It has been said by hon. members opposite, time and again, that home ownership would create a Utopia. I now want to invite hon. members to go and look at where there is not only home ownership but also land tenure, just outside Pretoria in the Winterveld area, which belongs to Bantu, completely and in toto, and where there are slum areas, worse than at any spot that exists in White South Africa. They own the land; they own the houses. They also owned these in the Fingo location. They owned them in Alexandria. Did hon. members see the conditions in Alexandria where there was home-ownership and land tenure? Did they see it in Evaton? Did they see the conditions there, which were so serious that the White Government had to buy up the land there so that provision could be made for those people? Are hon. members aware that although there is now home-ownership for the Bantu in the Winterveld area and although there are full ownership rights for them, this Government must now begin to do clearance work, at the highest cost imaginable, to improve conditions? What is the practicality of that?

I want to add—and with that I want to conclude—that if the hon. members opposite want to understand one thing, they must realize that the Bantu living outside Pretoria belong to various national groups. I can tell hon. members that if they wanted to make a study of that, they would find that one of the first things those Bantu request when they move into the Bophuthatswana area as members of other Bantu peoples, is mother tongue education. They then request, as an example to some Whites in South Africa, that their mother tongue should be respected. They then ask that separate residential areas should be given to them. They then even establish churches for themselves within their national context. They then insist that the teachers who are teaching there should belong to their people. That is what this Government has achieved by cultivating a national consciousness amongst these people and to encourage this. That is also what we shall continue to do in the future. That is what we aim at.

If hon. members are levelling those accusations about accommodation on a family basis, I want to ask them to argue factually when they are arguing about these things. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Development said just the other day and proved that 80%—79% to be precise—of the Bantu in Soweto and in the vicinity of Johannesburg, and therefore including the migratory labour of the mines, are being accommodated on a family basis. This incitement about accommodation on a family basis, this incitement about the way in which it is done, merely results in estrangement between people living in the same land area and can do nothing else.

†If there is something which is immoral, then I say it is immoral to bring to these people the hope for things which they can never get and which the Opposition knows is impossible to give to them, even though they make these wild promises from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved in this crossfire about policies, but one thing which becomes more and more obvious to me as I listen to debates in this House, growing odder by the day, is that the Government refuses to accept the reality of South Africa as one multi-racial country and it has run into dire problems as a result of this, trying to divide the country, morally or immorally, fairly or unfairly, but certainly with no prospect of any success of the existing homelands ever providing any real subsistence or decent standards of living for the millions of Africans who live in this country. For hon. members now to talk about Zulus and of members of the other African tribes living in South Africa as if they were already members of independent countries, is just so much nonsense. To go on pretending that one can give the four million Africans living in the urban areas and the three to four million Africans living on the White farms political rights in areas which they have never seen and which their children certainly are not likely to see, is so much self-deception. For the United Party, which does accept the fact that South Africa is one multi-racial country, to believe that its policy of offering a sort of spurious federation, with urban Africans getting two so-called “assemblies” and without, as the hon. the Prime Minister quite correctly pointed out, any allowance being made for the Africans living on the White farms is, I believe, equally unrealistic.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, there is only one policy and that is the realistic one of accepting South Africa as one multi-racial country and giving rights to all the people who live in the country where they live, where they work and where they will die, of giving equal rights on a qualified basis to all who can obtain those qualifications and, what is most important, of giving an opportunity to everybody to obtain those qualifications. It is an evolutionary system towards, in fact, a universal franchise.

Having said that, I want to say at once that I consider this debate to be a very disappointing one. I, like everybody else, have been waiting with bated breath for some dramatic announcement. We have become used to it from the Prime Minister’s Vote in the past. In the past we had all sorts of interesting disclosures, for instance of private correspondence between the hon. the Prime Minister and leaders of other African states. We have had all sorts of interesting disclosures about State security and so on, but this year, however, we have had no dramatic disclosures at all.

I want to give you the floor for a change.

Well, that is very nice of the hon. the Prime Minister and I intend taking full advantage of the opportunity he is so kindly giving me.

About ten minutes ago I was presented with the third interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations.

And you have read it already?

No, I have not read it; but I have glanced through it. Funnily enough it does not take very long. If one reads the introductory paragraphs and the conclusions, one gets a fair idea of what is in this report. As far as I am concerned —and I may change my mind after a more detailed study of this report—I would say that this is a half-baked analysis of a lot of pseudo-psychological nonsense—nothing but that. It is a whole lot of nonsense about all these sensitivity experiments which have been conducted at Wilgespruit and elsewhere. What this has to do with internal security, the safety of the State or anything else like that, I find very difficult to understand.

Why do you not read the report?

Let me tell the hon. member that I have read quite a lot of it. In regard to this report I want to say as well that I see that Nusas is involved in it because it appears that in the past they have been using leadership training programmes and this apparently is the main reason why the commission feels it necessary to recommend that possibly further steps be taken in this regard. To the best of my knowledge—and I may be wrong— Nusas abandoned these training programmes about three or four years ago. They abandoned these courses by, what I believe, was a resolution in 1969 …

The report says 1970.

According to my information it was 1969, but of course, I will bow to the learned commissioner. My information is that it was in 1969 that they abandoned these courses. Then having said that this practice was abandoned in 1970, the commission goes on to say that this is no official disavowal of the training system. Therefore it recommends that some further notice be taken in order to institute control measures similar to the control measures which apply to medical practitioners and allied professions. I have no time for this sort of leadership training programme. It is not my cup of tea at all.

Do you condemn it?

I do not know enough about it, but this report seems to be a lot of absolute nonsense. I am pretty sure that the hon. members of the commission do not know an awful lot about it either. The only people who can really give a considered opinion about it are expert psychologists. I see they have taken the view of certain psychologists and I am prepared to abide by such expert opinion. I still want to know why this report is going to make people’s faces red. There are a few four-lettered words in this report admittedly, but none of us is a child any more. We have all read four-lettered words before and who knows, some of us may even have used them. I do not see anything in this report that is going to make me change my mind one iota about what I have said about the first two interim reports. They have nothing to do with it. This report has nothing to do whatsoever with the first two reports, the first of which recommended the setting up of the internal security commission and the second one which recommended that urgent action should be taken against the eight students who have been banned. Believe me, urgent action was immediately taken by our Prime Minister, who has a follow-through second to none. I say immediately that having glanced through this mass of nonsense …

Have you read it?

It is an absolute lot of nonsense. There is not a word in this report that has any connection whatsoever of any importance with or of any real relevance to the first two interim reports. My face is not red but if it is red, I can only say that it is red from exasperation. It certainly is not red, I can assure the hon. commissioners who are here, with embarrassment about the standpoint I took regarding the first two reports of the Schlebusch Commission. So here we are beating about the Scle-“bush” again, if I may coin a little phrase, and it is not worth the time of this House. I do not believe it is worth the hours and hours that members of this House are spending in analyzing these leadership training things which for me personally would have no attraction at all. I do not like these group therapy classes and I certainly do not enjoy making confessions, etc., in public.

You would not object to it continuing?

People have their own tastes. Certain people go in for psycho-analysis and others go in for various forms of group therapy. What I do say is that this sort of thing should be done under proper scientific control. I am prepared to concede that. It appears that the experiments that were conducted do not appear to have had proper scientific control. My point is that, firstly, I do not know what this has to do with anything which is likely to effect the security of the State. Secondly I do not think it is worth all this trouble, especially for a commission to spend hours and days of work on it. But primarily the point I want to make is that there is nothing in this report which makes me change my mind about the first two interim reports and the comments which I have made about those two reports.

Having said that about the Schlebusch report, I want to say one or two things about what the hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned. He took urgent action a couple of months ago following on the first two interim reports of the Schlebusch Commission. I think I have made my views very clear about what I feel about those bannings and about the fact that I believe this action to be completely unjustified. I want to know, and I want the hon. the Prime Minister to tell me, whether those papers which we were talking about, and the evidence, etc., had been sent to the Attorney-General, and had he as yet had any result? Is it intended that prosecutions are going to follow? I think it is important that the country knows this. People are very interested to know.

I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that there are many things that do warrant his urgent attention in South Africa. There are many far more important things that warrant urgent action in South Africa, and I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what in fact he is going to do about matters which I consider to be of far greater importance than anything which has been produced by the Schlebusch Commission. I want to know what the hon. the Prime Minister is going to do about the obvious deterioration of the quality of life amongst the African people in South Africa. We have heard about improvements because magisterial districts now allow greater mobility of workers. We have heard about the aid centres, and I want to say at once that I do think they are doing valuable work in keeping people out of gaol for the simple crime of looking for work and not producing documents. Every single worker in sociology in the urban areas of South Africa will inform the hon. the Prime Minister that the quality of life amongst urban Africans is deteriorating. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Houghton here this afternoon. I know that the hon. member got hold of that report a few minutes before she began her speech …

I got it sent to me from the Clerk of Papers at 2.30.

… and I now want to level the accusation against her here that she was already prejudiced against this report when she came to this House this afternoon. No information contained in that report which could cause her to reverse her decision, will convince her that that report is based on facts. This is the kind of thing one gets from the liberalists to whom this hon. member and certain hon. members of the United Party belong. They have certain preconceived ideas and they stand by them. Nothing in the world will cause them to abandon those ideas. I want to say that many of her kindred spirits are still members of the United Party today. There is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is one of them. The member for Port Natal is also one and then there is also the present leader of the United Party in the Transvaal. All these people are her kindred spirits.

I would like to deal with the hon. new leader of the United Party in the Transvaal but, before doing so, I just want to reply to one thing that was said here by the hon. member for Transkei in connection with the urban Bantu. I went to the trouble of checking on the 1970 census living in the urban areas. What are the facts in connection with these people? With these facts I want to prove that the statements made by hon. members to the effect that those people have no nationalities where they are living, are completely false.

[Inaudible.]

These are the 1970 statistics. If the hon. member wants to go to the trouble, he can go to the library and get it there. I want to refer in particular to the Bantu in Soweto, because this is the area which everyone is so concerned about today. In Soweto the Xhosa population is 82 000; this is 10% of the population of Soweto. The Zulu population there is 245 000, 30% of the population. The Swazi’s are 4%; Ndebeles are 14 000 or 2% of the population of Soweto; the North Sotho are 78 000 or 10%; the South Sotho are 108 000, or 13%; the Tswanas are 146 000 ot 18%; the Shangaans and the Tsonga are 57 000 and constitute 7% of the population; the Venda are 32 000 or 4% of the population; only 2% of the population of Soweto are people who cannot be specified. Now these hon. members come along and make the statement that those people are, as they call them, detribalized people who have no national ties. I want to say today with all the responsibility at my command that all these other peoples I have mentioned are, by means of the system of deputation, as indicated here by the hon. the Prime Minister, have very close ties with their various homeland governments. We hope that the statement which has been made here, has been disproved once and for all because these peoples in the White areas, and in Soweto in particular, have to a very great extent close ties with their homeland governments.

In regard to the terminology used by the hon. member for Houghton here at the beginning, I want to say that we agree 100% with her that this is the policy of the Progressive Party. She said that South Africa, according to the viewpoint of the Progressive Party, is a “multi-racial” country. She said that all the peoples living here, must be organized within this “multiracial” context and that all must enjoy equal rights here—she used the words “equal rights”. I said there were people in the United Party who shared this point of view. I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to stand up here and tell us whether he agrees with those people who are members of his party, in particular with the present leader of the United Party in the Transvaal? Does he agree with all the statements the leader in the Transvaal made in this connection? That leader uses the very same terminology and propagates the same line of thought as the hon. member for Houghton. He is a kindred spirit of her. On 20th February this year the hon. the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal made a speech in the Provincial Council. He said—and I quote it as it appeared in The Argus of 20th February, 1973—

Sir, what does that mean? The hon. member’s point of departure is that in South Africa it is a question of primus inter pares, in other words that we are all equal. This is a question of “multi-racialism with equal rights”, as the hon. member for Houghton said. This means a total rejection of White leadership in South Africa by him as leader of the United Party. This has always been the corner stone of the policy of the United Party. And now again in Aliwal they are spreading this story. Senator Du Toit said in Aliwal the other day there would be White leadership in South Africa for 300 years under United Party government. The hon. the Leader of the United Party is in favour of a division of power in South Africa. He says that he rejects White and Black domination. He makes the domination of one group over another quite impossible. He says that it will be quite impossible. In his speech he pleads for entrenched self-government of each group in South Africa. What does entrenched self-government for each group in South Africa mean? All it means is that each one of those groups will not be able to dominate another. Now the hon. member says that under United Party government there will be White leadership in South Africa for 300 years. I accept that the leader of the United Party, Mr. Harry Schwarz, talks as an honest politician when he says these things. When he says these things he means what he says. This is that under the federal policy of the United Party nothing of what the United Party is trying to bluff the people into believing, will actually materialize in South Africa. And here I refer to the statement that this White government which sits here will have a say over the other legislative councils which will exist. All we can deduce from these statements by Mr. Harry Schwarz, is that he suggests that the Whites and non-Whites will eventually have to have equal rights in South Africa. This will mean that we in South Africa will have a federal government in which all these groups will have equal rights. When those equal rights in that federal government are granted, it will mean that that federal government will be ruled by the people who constitute the majority in South Africa. This can mean only one thing, i.e. that the non-White in South Africa with his majority vote will govern South Africa—as has also been advocated by the hon. member for Houghton. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

“Baasskap”!

The hon. the Chief Whip on the other side said “baasskap”. I know I am his boss, Sir, but I want him to acknowledge it. He must just admit it plainly. And he can salute if he wants to at the same time.

This is the Prime Minister’s Vote. I hope you will excuse me if I come back to the Prime Minister’s Vote. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I have sat with him a very long time in this House. I was here before he was. He has put on a most extraordinary play this afternoon. He has gone to the extreme length of provocation to try to get the United Party to debate his policy instead of dealing with his Vote. I would give him credit, Sir, if he had succeeded. But he has failed.

Must you be provoked into discussing your policy?

You see, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the Prime Minister’s Vote this year we are not going to be provoked even into discussing our policy. We are going to deal with his policy. It must be a fantastic thought to hon. members on that side that we are actually going to discuss the Prime Minister’s Vote. One or two of them, if we are to judge by the verbosity which they have displayed, have found this to be something which is completely beyond their ken, so they have shouted to try to drown the effect which this debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote is having. So, Sir, let us deal with that at once. The Prime Minister went to extreme lengths of provocation. Every parliamentary trick known to a parliamentarian the Prime Minister pulled out of the bag. He couched his language in new terms; he presented the whole thing in a new form— anything to get the United Party away from debating his vote. We are going to debate his Vote, Mr. Chairman, just like that. That is what is before us at the present time.

Once upon a time in the past when a certain two-legged creature found the capacity to realize the objective cause which gave effect to a certain decision, when he was able to link cause and effect in his mind objectively—not subjectively, because he bad been able to do it subjectively before that—at that point he probably became homo sapiens. This is where this Government falls down. They are unable, in the field of human relationships, to get the effect following upon the cause. They provide causes and then they are nonplussed when they get the effect. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal very much with the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon because I want to make my own, but he dealt with the question of Bantu labour coming into our country from other countries where they cannot find employment. He pointed out how they come in here in vast numbers. We accept that; we have accepted it all along. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he may have the cause, the lack of employment, but he is looking at the wrong effect. He thinks the effect is unlimited labour for us in South Africa. As was pointed out by my friend, the hon. member for Transkei, he has tended to equate the Bantu, from our own areas, who are South Africans, with the non-South African citizens who are coming from the other countries. But, Sir, let the hon. the Prime Minister ponder for a minute on the effect of such a development as the Tanzam railway on employment. Let him think what the effects of that will be on those other countries, as a result of the capital which will flow into them for the purpose of providing industrial development. Will the hon. the Prime Minister then think that that is the cause? But what are the effects going to be, in terms of our own labour supply from those countries? These countries can go to foreign agencies, and it is already being done in South Africa; we have been given warning of this in the case of KwaZulu, where foreign capital is coming into our own country, into one of the so-called Bantustans. Money is coming in with a view to investment here in a so-called Bantustan, to find employment. Sir, we are now approaching the position, in so far as our own Bantu are concerned, of which this side of the House has warned repeatedly. We have warned the Government that by continuing with its policy of independent Bantustans, they are going to make of our labour supply of South African citizens precisely the same kind of labourers as we are getting today from those foreign countries like Zambia, Tanzania, etc. We are going to find our labour in the position where they will be the subjects of foreign countries, although they may be within the geographical confines of the Republic of South Africa as it is known today.

I want to deal with this labour, Sir. As a result of the increases in salaries which have recently been announced all over the place, we find starry-eyed folk rushing around, shouting for increased wages. I think it was Lord MacPherson, a man from Britain, a stranger in our midst, who had to say to us the other day: “Please try and think of productivity in relation to the increased wages that you are paying so happily. Please try and bring the two together.” There again it is cause and effect; we cannot just go on raising salaries if there is to be no increase in productivity. Hon. members on that side have dealt with that. They deal with the need for productivity, but how does the uneducated Bantu who is not trained achieve more production? how does he increase his productivity? How does the man who comes in with a broom to sweep the offices and make the tea in a big institution in commerce or in an industrial house produce more? Does he sweep more floors or does he make more tea? How does he increase his productivity? But he has had his wages increased. Do you know, Sir, that in some cases which came to my immediate notice recently, these sweepers are getting twice the amount of the old-age pension being paid to Europeans?

A non-White?

Yes, a Bantu. He is being paid more than twice the amount paid to old-age White pensioners; that is the position today. Sir, if it was necessary because of the cost of living— and I am not arguing about that—that that Bantu should receive that amount so as to bring him above the breadline, then how much more necessary was it that White pensioners should also get an increased amount to bring them above the breadline? Sir, if the test is the breadline, then we have a duty, not as White people, but we have a duty as the Government of South Africa, and we on this side of the House are part of the Government. I do not think I need remind the hon. the Prime Minister that we are part of the Government of South Africa. We are not sitting on the Treasury benches, but Parliament is the Government of South Africa and we are part of Parliament, so there is a duty resting on all of us. If we are going to make the breadline the datum line, then it applies to all races, and the way it is going at the present time it is going crooked. It is not being applied to all. Sir, let us have a look at this datum line for a moment and let us see where we go from here. It is no good saying, as hon. members on that side have been saying, that this increase of wages is now putting the Bantu above the poverty datum line when, although large numbers of Bantu are getting increased wages, there is another big group who are being sacked, because that is what is happening today. I have personal knowledge of one concern where in one big plantation a timber company has sacked 17 Bantu men. It is now using the wages formerly paid to them to pay increased wages to the remainder, and it is going to mechanize.

I actually warned the Bantu leaders about that, way back.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister says that he has warned the Bantu leaders about this. Sir, it is not the Bantu leaders who are paying those higher wages; it is all sorts of other people who are paying these higher wages and they are being patted on the back, but these higher wages are completely divorced from productivity. I want to come back to that because to my mind it is a question here of cause and effect. We cannot remain solvent and we cannot compete in the world markets unless our industries can produce at a price which will permit them to sell in the world markets at a profit. The profit motive still remains. Sir, what is the position of these people who have been sacked in the sugar plantation or forestry plantation when they go back to the homelands? It is no good saying that the other people have had an increase of up to 75 per cent in their wages, because these people who have been sacked now have nothing; what they had has been taken away from them, and in the homelands there is not the wherewithal for them to be paid anything whatsoever.

Sir, I am sorry my time has almost expired, because I wanted to deal with the training of a Native who is being trained for two years at a training college to become a building workman, a craftsman, and to show precisely what he has got to deal with, because I am able to say that the bill is being footed by White men of whom I am well aware and that I have full knowledge of the facts. [Time expired.]

Sir, if the hon. member wants to continue with his speech, I will gladly give him an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Chairman, may I thank the hon. the Prime Minister. Sir, here is the case of this youngster: He is approximately 18 or 19. He came to the attention of a group of White people because he was a caddie up to the age of 12. I am sure that will appeal to the Prime Minister. Sir, there was this differencee between him and all his fellows: He got tins as a caddie, and when he was 12 years of age he had saved sufficient money to be able to go to a White man and say to him, “Here I have R100; will you undertake the purchase of two cows for me at R50 a head, please?” His mother was an old Bantu woman, not educated, not Christianized, one of the raw Bantu women who had worked for many, many years for the White man whom this youngster approached. The two cows were purchased in that scheduled area, where this old woman had her home. This youngster went to school, to a Native school in a Native area. After he had passed Std. 6 he was aged 19 and he said he wanted to be trained as a building worker; not as a white-collar worker, but he wanted to be a builder. He asked what he could do. Inquiries were made and he was told that he could become a master-builder. So he applied. I want to say here, Sir, that the folk concerned came to me and I went to the Secretary for Bantu Administration and from him I had the greatest help and courtesy in every respect. Everything was made possible and easy for that youngster, who was out of time, to go and be trained as a building workman at the Adams Mission, the Zulu training college at Amanzimtoti, a two-year course. It was anticipated that he would have to pay R70 a year as boarding fees, and that was what the papers showed initially. Up to this date the White folk concerned have paid R145, because it was R5 for this and another R10 for that and R15 for something else until today, at the end of the year, R145 has been spent. Sir, where does a Native woman who is a widow get R145 in cash to pay for the training of a youngster like that who is not only a clever lad but who had the character as a boy of 12 to save his money? These people came to me the other day and asked me whether I would sell their two cows because they must get their money. Other steps were taken because White people were interested in the matter and said: “Leave the old woman’s cows alone; we will see that things come right.” That man, when he has done his two-year course, will be a master-builder. For whom does he work and under what circumstances? For what are we training these people? He does not want to be a white-collar worker. In the context of his own living, there in the scheduled Native area today, where there is communal ownership of land, there is no work whatever for a master-builder or even for a thoroughly trained bricklayer or carpenter. There is no scope for him whatsoever. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister does not deny that, that there is no scope for him there.

According to my knowledge there is all the opportunity in the world for him to work there.

To work on what?

To work as a builder in the homelands.

On building daub and wattle huts? What building is there? There is communal ownership of the land. I have said in this House before that I believe that Parliament ultimately will be forced into accepting the position that the Natives will have freehold titles to the land in the Native areas the same as White people have it in their areas. That is the only way they will ever be able to accumulate capital. Capital formation is based on the ownership of fixed property. Sooner or later they will have to do that. But there is nothing whatever for this youngster to do when the time comes. I believe that this institution is turning out something like 200 of these people per annum. When they have gone through that kind of trial and tribulation and when they have had that kind of education and training, then they want to get due recompense for it and in the homelands today, as I know the whole of the South Coast of Natal, there is no opportunity for them whatsoever.

I must disagree with you profoundly.

Yes, the Prime Minister may disagree but he cannot show me a single case where there is a building on which a Native of that kind can be employed. I challenge him to show me where he could be employed. There is no such building. And by the time they have settled the KwaZulu consolidation and we have all that behind us I think the opportunities will be even less. Sir, let me repeat this so that there will not be the slightest doubt as to where I stand. I say that that Native, duly trained after two years, properly equipped, will be unable to find a job at adequate recompense to which he is entitled, having fulfilled all the requirements of training the same as a White man would have had to do.

I say you are wrong.

The Prime Minister simply applies the negative and says I am wrong. But in my opinion this is where we have now come to the crux of the matter. We are either going to train the Natives to attain greater productivity for the central core of the economy of South Africa, or they are going to be dissatisfied. You see, Sir, we have one law in our economy, we have only one economy in South Africa, and not a group of economies. Mr. Blaar Coetzee, I remember, told us here that every Native homeland would have its own economy and he thought that seven or eight economies would be a good thing because they could compete with one another and that would be of advantage to South Africa. But I say there is one economy and to that economy we must all bring our contributions, and to that economy must come the work of all the trained non-Whites in the same way that we get the work of the trained Whites, and if the non-Whites are not to be adequately trained and opportunities are not provided for them they will be dissatisfied.

I should like to ask the hon. member who is doing the building in the Sebokeng Bantu area.

Sir, one swallow does not make the summer. There may be one place where there is employment for Bantu but I am talking now of the generality of the Bantu areas in Natal, where 3 million people are living, in wattle and daub houses or corrugated iron huts, on land which is held under communal tenure. Which of us would build a home on land held under communal tenure if the chief can oust you tomorrow if he does not like you? This is the point. We want to have the Bantu trained and they want to be trained. We want their contribution as trained people in our economy. We need their contributions. If we do not have them trained we will have unemployment among the untrained Bantu, not in scores or in hundreds but in thousands, because this upliftment of wages now has started and the next time the cost of living goes up there will be a further demand for the raising of wages again; and the Government has now put the weapon in the hands of the Bantu leaders in the Bantu homelands, people like Buthelezi, for them to come along and use their influence with their people and to decide whether there is to be a strike or a resumption of work. That power is going out of the hands of the Government, whatever the Prime Minister may think, and it is going into the hands of the Bantu leaders. With another rise in the cost of living there will be another upsurge and a demand for more wages and the people who are going to be left without jobs will be the people at the bottom of the ladder and they will be the troublemakers, in their thousands. The Prime Minister says he does not want unemployment among the Bantu, but the present policy of the Government is causing just that unemployment which he says he is so afraid of.

The hon. member for South Coast was very upset when he started his speech because we allegedly wanted to discuss the United Party’s policy and not the Prime Minister’s policy. But this may be the proper time to point out to them that for 25 years, a full quarter of a century, our Prime Ministers have been listening to criticism being levelled at Government policy from the opposite side across the floor of this House. For 25 years the Opposition has been sitting on that side to criticize the policy of this Government and they are still sitting there. Therefore we are not surprised at the public who are beginning to ask what the main reason is for the fact that the National Party is still in power after 25 years and the United Party is still sitting on those benches. From this side we should very much like to answer that question. We do so with pride. It is because for 25 years we have had leaders on this side who have replied to all the questions from that side of the House. There was Dr. Malan who laid down the policy of separate development for us and who laid the foundations for us. There was Adv. Strydom who developed this and Dr. Verwoerd who built on this. Now again it is our present Prime Minister who is taking the lead so as to develop this policy and have it unfold in all its consequences. These Prime Ministers to whom I have referred, leaders of the National Party, could take over from each other because the policy of separate development has one exceptional feature, and that is that it is constant in its philosophy, in its point of departure, but not stagnant in its process of development. This is the point that we are continually arguing in these open debates.

On the other hand, how do things stand as far as hon. members opposite are concerned? If we look back at the leaders of that party since 1948, it is clear that Gen. Smuts was unable to lead them to success after the disaster of 1948. After him there was Mr. Koos Strauss who left this House with an unpleasant nickname. That brings us to the present Leader of the Opposition. I should like to make three statements concerning the present Leader and leadership.

In the first place I want to suggest that the present Leader of the Opposition has not yet been able to liquidate the politically bankrupt estate he inherited. There are many examples which we could quote, but the best is the continual rewriting of policy, the continual acceptance of new things which were not their policy before.

The second statement I wish to make concerning the party leadership, is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, like his predecessors, has been unable to succeed in reconciling the extremes within his party. I refer to the leftists and the rightists, the liberals and the conservatives, call them what you will. The best example of this which we can quote, is that the leader of the left wing does not have a seat in this parliament, but is outside this House. I refer to the Schwarz-wing. I also want to refer to the Wynberg-wing, whose wings have already been clipped, and to the Bezuidenhout-wing—that man who is continually grumbling and grousing about his party’s policy.

The third statement I wish to make, is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is no longer able to satisfy the English-language liberal Press with his or his party’s policy. We should really be pleased about the clash which has occurred, but we cannot be pleased before we have taken note of the reason why this irreconcilable clash is developing within that party. Why do we have this position? I want to mention just one reason. This is because the United Party, in the 25 years of National Party rule, has yet to find an alternative policy to the policy of separate development. New policies are worked on feverishly, there is feverish re-writing of new formulations of their policy. The person who says these things most harshly, is not a member of this side of the House; it is someone who sits over there. I refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I just want to make a few quotations from what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in recent times. I refer to a speech which he made and which was published in the Sunday Times of 22nd April—

Is that correct? Is that the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Does he endorse this standpoint that they are all engaged in reforming and rejuvenating his party? If they were to admit that, what else would it mean but that they have no alternative policy to the policy of separate development?

Did you not do that with your party when you kicked Albert out?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went further and referred to the homelands. He mentioned them by name. He said—

What does this mean? Does this mean the acceptance of the homeland policy? Does this mean that they accept it on the grounds, as we are able to deduce, that this Government has created it and that now they do not have an alternative to it, that if they were to come into power, they would not be able to undo it? Is that what it means or does it mean that they accept this policy of separate development from a standpoint of principle?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also said—

Is this the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Is he prepared to endorse this policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? Is he prepared to say that for as far as we can foresee, the majority of the White voters will support that policy of the National Party with regard to these various groups?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also said—

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition endorse this? Is it true that he is prepared to say together with his front-bencher that they take a poor and pitiful second place to the National Party? Is that not an admission then of the fact that they have no alternative? Can the hon. member for South Coast take it amiss of us that we should say to them here: Come let us debate across the floor of this House the basic points at issue and not the individual training of a single Bantu or a few points at random. Can he take it amiss of us when we say that we must concern ourselves with the broad principle. This is what has kept the National Party in power for the past 25 years, and this is what has caused that party to be incapable of coming into power. Now I want to ask whether we cannot be told by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to whom the hon. potato peddler from Durban was referring yesterday when he spoke in Camps Bay in connection with “Five Points for U.P. Reform.” Why do they want to reform? Why is it, that they should refer here to people whose ideas within the …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

No, my time has almost expired.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove wants to take a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, may an hon. member refer to another hon. member as a “potato peddler”?

Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the hon. member for Durban Point who yesterday …

Order! The hon. member for Westdene must withdraw the words “potato peddler”.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman. I will refer to the hon. member as the hon. member … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it has been clear to us since yesterday that hon. members on the opposite side of the House are being very careful—and then I am putting it very mildly—about getting round to the hon. the Prime Minister. They give him a wide berth rather than debate his policy with him. That is why we had the joke here this afternoon of the previous leader of the United Party in Natal speaking about one Bantu’s training for 20 minutes. He is the same person who, a few years ago, fought for the fact that no single Bantu be allowed work on a railway line as a patrolman. That is why we saw the hon. member for Durban Point walking into the House yesterday with a bag of potatoes and a loaf of bread. I think the hon. member would have been much more in keeping with his province, Natal, had he brought in what Roy Campbell spoke of: “Where turnips to professors are promoted and pumpkins into parliament are voted.” I think the hon. member should have brought a pumpkin into the House because then he would have been nearer the mark with his joking.

We are discussing the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. His opposite number is sitting there on the other side, i.e. the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is surely correct for us to compare the two persons and their policies in such a debate. This afternoon I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he has control of that party of his, i.e. those sitting here in the House and those outside the House. I want to credit the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his advisers sitting around him with the fact that when their patriotism was tested recently they reacted correctly— I am speaking of their action on the Schlebusch Commission. But at this moment there are actions taking place in the outer circles of his party which the hon. the Leader cannot control. I want to state today that he cannot control them because he hesitates to adopt a standpoint about a top priority in South Africa today, i.e. the security of our country. Not that he hesitates to adopt a standpoint about that, because we comprehend his standpoint. However, he hesitates to adopt a standpoint in respect of people within his party who proclaim other standpoints. He hesitates to act as a leader in respect of people who are called the “Young Turks” there on the Witwatersrand. This also applies in respect of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who says he is not a “Schlebusch fan.” I wonder whether he is a De Villiers Graaff “fan”. After what he had to say the other day at a University of Cape Town gathering, it is very clear to me that he is not one. He said that he honestly acknowledged that he has worked openly, and will continue to work, for a reformed, renewed United Party, and he would do so according to his own methods and in his own way … He gave an account of how that party’s policy had changed each time with the change of leadership and with other elements entering the party and being kicked out of it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is surely preaching revolution against his own party. Without mentioning a single name, I am sure that that is what the hon. member for Durban Point intimated yesterday evening at the meeting he addressed, when he spoke of how reformation must take place within that party. But that is not the worst of it. In a recent speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to what he regarded as being of top priority in this country. He said: There are aspects of the Government’s policy that are creating more unrest and dissatisfaction, ill-feeling and feelings of rebellion, than any agitation that any student in this country is capable of. If we want a parliamentary commission on State security and if the Government is really serious about ensuring a safe future for South Africa, he asks the Prime Minister, above all, first to appoint a parliamentary two-party commission to review all the apartheid legislation applicable here and in South-West Africa since 1948. That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. But the new leader of the United Party in the Transvaal also proclaims that there should be a two-party approach to the question of relations. He extended an invitation to the hon. the Prime Minister—he has the arrogance to bypass the hon. Leader there on the other side—to institute a two-party commission to investigate the relations between peoples. Hon. members who advocate a two-party approach about a matter on which there can be no two-party approach at this moment, are not in touch with reality. For any person with any knowledge of South African politics, National Party policy, on the basis of which the party has been moving and developing for 25 years, is diametrically opposed to that of the United Party which that party, whilst searching and struggling, is always steering in a different direction. People who are advocating a two-party approach to this aspect and are then not prepared to stand by their own people about a matter such as the security of our country, are people who cannot be trusted with the government of this country. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today what exactly his standpoint is in respect of the security of the country. Where does his party stand, here and outside, in respect of the proposed parliamentary commission that must pursue this matter? In addition I want to ask him where the United Party stands today in respect of its approach to the problem of relations in our country.

The what?

The problem of relations and everything that relates to that. The hon. member knows what I am speaking about. I want to refer to the latest policy announcement of the United Party and then I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: How can any voter in this country attach any value to or have any confidence in the practical potential of the policy which the hon. member proclaims …

Look at the Umhlatuzana result.

Let the Umhlatuzana result be what it may. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is sitting in this House and the other person who tried, will never get here. [Interjections.]

He is sitting here next to me.

Those poor people would so very much like to laugh a little; I do not begrudge them that. Very well, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is sitting on that side. That election took place a few years ago.

There was a provincial by-election.

Well yes, there was a provincial by-election and you had a United Party man there who was elected again, but what was the result in Oudtshoorn? [Interjections.] What were the results in Caledon and Malmesbury? It was those results that gave rise to this reversal in policy as a result of which no responsible voter can have any confidence in the United Party today. When the commission of inquiry, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Durban North, was appointed, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told the Sunday Express of 7th May last year—

What became of that? Overnight the policy of non-White representatives coming into this House was relinquished. I want to state that it was relinquished for the reason I have just given to hon. members here, i.e. Oudtshoorn, Malmesbury, Caledon, Johannesburg West and Vereeniging. Those results were involved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it may come as a surprise to many of those listening to the debate that the object of our being here this afternoon is to debate the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister; and not only his policy but also the administration of the Government in the interpretation and application of that policy. It is important that we bear this in mind because, as has been said before me by certain speakers on this side of the House, the vision and the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd has all but gone. It is not the hon. the Prime Minister, I believe, who has willingly changed that; but it is the force of events which has thrown that policy and that philosophy out of the window. I shall demonstrate, or attempt to demonstrate, the validity of that claim. I state it at the outset because, if it can be demonstrated, it is of the utmost importance to the House and to the country that we hear from the hon. the Prime Minister what he proposes to put in the place of what the hon. the late Dr. Verwoerd stood for. I would remind the hon. gentleman, before I go on, that he undertook yesterday afternoon in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, to give us an indication of what he stood for in relation to the speech we heard over the radio from the Secretary for Bantu Education, Dr. Van Zyl, in regard to the new training schemes for the urban Bantu. We still await the hon. gentleman’s reply on this score. We await, too, a definition of the term “temporary permanency”, which was the key to the speech of Dr. Van Zyl. This is of the utmost importance. As I have said, the philosophy of the late Dr. Verwoerd has gone out of the window. It is necessary, in view of what has been said this afternoon, that we get back to some basic fundamentals. Now, Sir, it is basic and universally accepted that a community of people permanently settled and working in an area, will exercise influence arising from their being there as human beings. This is basic and universally accepted. There will be pressure and there will be influence from that group on the governing authority of the area in which they live. That will happen whether you give them voting rights in Timbuctoo, a Bantustan, or anywhere else. They may accept that, but in addition they will demand some sort of influence in the area in which they are permanently settled. It was the acceptance by the Government and by the late Dr. Verwoerd of that obvious fundamental fact of life which led to the development by him of the philosophy of partition. It was his acceptance of that which led to the development of the policy of separate development, with the notion that the Bantu would ultimately be moved back to their areas. It was to be a gradual movement, which led to the phraseology of “temporary sojourners”. This was not just a passing phrase used in debate; it was a concept basic to Government philosophy, i.e. the idea of the temporary sojourner. It had meaning because in terms of the late Dr. Verwoerd’s view—and it was basic— they would have no political and civic rights in the White areas because they were temporary and they were ultimately to go back to their own areas. There was no permanency of any kind for these people in the White areas because they were to go back to the Bantu areas. They could not bring in their wives, they could not bring in their children, and there were no major educational facilities for them there. There were certainly no training facilities in the White areas for them. There was education only of the most rudimentary nature. All this fitted in with the notion that the Black people within the White areas were there as a temporary measure and that they were ultimately to move back to the Bantu areas. The Nationalist Party and the late Dr. Verwoerd looked confidently towards the time when the bulk of the Black people would move out of the White areas. Consequently the whole philosophy was built around their being there temporarily. We had the famous date of 1978, after which the graph would start to bend downwards and the flow would decrease, ultimately turning them back into the Native areas. Now, that was the concept in relation to the White areas. But it did not stand on its own. There was a corollary to that philosophy, namely the creation of self-government in the Black areas leading ultimately to independence. It was never intended in the Verwoerdian philosophy to have millions of expatriate voters in the Black areas. That was never intended, because they were ultimately to move back so that they would be living, working and voting in their own areas. They would be administered within their own areas by a Black government whose voters lived within its area of jurisdiction. The Verwoerdian concept—and I believe I have put it out correctly—hung together. There was a logical relationship between Government philosophy and policy for the urban Bantu as the temporary sojourner and the development of self-government and independence in the Native areas. It was in that measure, talking of a future development, that the late Dr. Verwoerd was able to give plausibility to his philosophy. He could do it because he did not have to relate it to the facts as at present existing. He could give it plausibility and could sell it to the Black leaders. He gave it plausibility by hanging the two together and relating them to a future period. The trouble with the hon. the Prime Minister is that he has taken over the reigns of office in the future period when all this has to be put into effect. And, of course, events have gone against him. Now, Sir, what are the events? The events are the facts of life in the economic sphere. There were two essentials to the success of the policy as advocated by the late Dr. Verwoerd. The one was the continuation of the recession in the White areas which existed when this was framed, and the other was the wholesale economic development of the Black areas so that the urban Africans could obtain jobs in the Black areas. Precisely the opposite has taken place. The economy in the Black areas has reached the stage where it is almost non-existent—even the peasant economy, Sir—and the economy in the White areas has bloomed beyond all expectations, with the result that instead of the flow going backwards, there is a flow into the White areas. The very events over which the hon. the Prime Minister had little control—I concede him that—have blown sky-high the whole philosophic basis of the policy, and the policy itself has disappeared. It has ceased to exist. Now the concessions have started to come. First of all there is the flow, of course, of the Blacks into the White areas. Then the wives are being allowed in. Then there is an increase in the education of the Bantu in the White areas. Now we are to have training of the Bantu in the White areas. And finally, Sir, you have the “temporary permanence” of the skilled African in the White areas, and we are told that only the unskilled labourer is now to be the migrant person.

In the light of this, there is one final factor, and that is the total rejection of the philosophy today by some of the most important of the Black leaders, people who formerly had accepted the plausibility of all this. That is why I say, with the total failure of Verwoerdian philosophy and of the policy which flowed from it, we are entitled to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What are you going to put in its place? The whole thing has crumbled, and it is urgently necessary that we know what the hon. gentleman stands for in this regard. It is not only in the field of Indian and Coloured affairs that there is a vacuum in so far as Government policy is concerned. In respect of Bantu policy, too, there is a vacuum. And remember, Sir, you cannot deal with the urban Bantu separately from the tribal areas. They hang together. The whole philosophy has collapsed. There is a vacuum in respect of the entire field of non-European affairs in so far as the Government is concerned.

The object of this debate is surely—and I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken for nearly an hour and a half—is for the country to be told what is to fill this gap. We have said it from our side in two major debates in so far as our policy is concerned. We are entitled to a reply from the hon. gentleman. He can smile as much as he likes, Sir, but that will not detract from his apparent inability or unpreparedness to tell us where he stands on the major issues of today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House can well understand why the Opposition is parrying for all it is worth in order to avoid discussing the basic elements of their federal policy. But the mere fact that they want to maintain in a debate of this nature, the Prime Minister’s Vote, that we cannot juxtapose and discuss those important, I can almost say predominantly important aspects of the two parties’ basic political principles, is the clearest admission of how they are already running away from that federal overtone in their policy. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, said we should return, as it were, to the basic elements, elementary facts, etc.

And to human rights.

Yes, we stand for human rights within the group context of each people not for baboon rights. Sir, it has been said today that we are breaking down the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd, that we are not following it, and that he designed an ideology which was incapable of implementation. But actually they say the same thing about the hon. the Prime Minister. They say that he, too, has a policy which is incapable of implementation. No one on this side of the House, nor a single Nationalist newspaper in South Africa, has doubts about the policy of this party. Its basic principle is clear; this has been stated repeatedly by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is that the White man will and must retain sovereignty over himself. This is the over-all principle which is at stake for us; the other aspects have a bearing on the method of implementation. All matters in respect of the manner in which this basic principle is carried into effect, are matters on which any National Party Government decides from time to time, in the light of circumstances, economic or otherwise, which prevail at a given time. I cannot put this more clearly than it was put by the previous Prime Minister. In 1964 he dealt with his policy in detail in this House and said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

In what respect does this statement reflect a dogmatic philosophy? Dr. Verwoerd said that there was much room for movement in respect of his policy and that it was not an inflexible policy. He said it indicated a direction. What is that direction? The right of self-determination for every people in respect of itself. Can any hon. member opposite tell us now what deed of this Government deviates from that basic point of departure? From the time of General Hertzog, throughout, that golden thread runs through the history of this party. Do hon. members opposite want to suggest that Dr. Verwoerd followed precisely the same methods in the implementation of his policy as those followed by General Hertzog, Mr. Strüdom, or Dr. Malan and that he implemented it at the same rate as they did? Of course not. Of course there have been accelerations in this rate. Of course there have been adjustments to changed circumstances. With what purpose has this been done? To cause the policy to succeed to an even larger extent. What policy? The policy of constitutional sovereignty, constitutional authority of White over White and of Bantu over Bantu.

It amazes one that the United Party does not want to discuss its policy but persists with the story of bread and butter, of potatoes. History has chiselled out our policy. We are not dealing with dogma and ideologies. They know what has been happening in Southern Africa for the past 300 years—or do they? Are they unable to understand that one cannot undo 300 years’ history by means of instant—one could almost say “plastic”—solutions. One can go back into our history, and one will find the same broad pattern right up to our contemporary history. There was a time prior to 1910 when the whole of Southern Africa was known as “British South Africa”. The whole of Southern Africa was under one colonial power. What happened then? When circumstances were most favourable for a so-called federation, or monstrosity, or whatever one wants to call it, when circumstances were at their most favourable, when the separate Bantu groups in that time were economically the weakest, and their economic non-viability must have been a powerful argument in favour of union that colonial power by no means saw its way clear to create unitary states or federal states. Instead of that the old British Protectorates and the Union of South Africa of that time came into being on a basis which implied separated political rights. The hon. member for Transkei by means of all kinds of quotations and statements tried to prove that we had deviated from the policy of Dr. Verwoerd. Sir, I want to ask him whether he remembers these words which I am now going to quote; unfortunately he is not here, but one of his colleagues can convey this to him—

I ask him whether he knows who said these words. It was General Smuts. Sir, I ask the Opposition: When are they going to return to that completely? Can they see how far they have deviated from this course? Even last year hon. members of the Opposition stood up in this House and said that there should be so many Bantu representatives and so many Indian representatives in this House. Am I correct in saying that this policy was dished up here as recently as last year with a great fanfare and a singing of its praises? Does it appear in Hansard or does it not? And what are we being told now! Now we hear a different story altogether. Sir, what the hon. the Prime Minister said is true. Of course they have stolen half of our policy. What else are the “identifiable groups” for whom they will create parliaments? What is the norm for “identifiableness”? What does it mean? How is one going to identify the groups? How, according to them, is one going to bring about separation! No, Sir, the further basic facts are the following, just to indicate what achievements have been accomplished under this Government: Of all the motor vehicles on the continent of Africa 42% are in use in South Africa. This was the position just recently. Our population represents 4% of the population of Africa and the territory of South Africa represents 6% of the territory of Africa, but just recently 42% of all motor vehicles in use in Africa were in use here; 47% of all telephones in use in Africa are in use here; 63% of everything transported by rail in Africa, is transported here; 54% of all electricity generated in Africa, is generated here; 31% of all cement produced in Africa, is produced in South Africa, and 40% of all minerals produced in Africa, are produced here. Sir, these are the achievements which have been accomplished in the economic field. Here infrastructures had to be created over the vast expanses of our big country; roads, bridges, railways, telecommunications, dams; water had to be exploited. Sir, this was done under an umbrella of peace, the large industrialists could plan and expand their undertakings under the umbrella of stability, and yet there are those of them who are miserly and pay their workers too little. But, Sir, what is important is that it was possible to accomplish these achievements in the safety of a policy of peaceful coexistences all those things were a broad National Party direction which had been indicated and which the hon. the Prime Minister has been following purposefully and with great success; and therefore, when we discuss his Vote—yes, in particular when we discuss his Vote—and when we think of the problems with which this Government has to contend and when we bear in mind on what continent we find ourselves, far from our historical and ethnological homes, and when we bear in mind what we have achieved, then a word of heart-felt appreciation and great thanks is owing to this Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of what I am about to say. I may touch upon some of the points dealt with by the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to say immediately that having heard the hon. the Prime Minister today, this was an exceedingly black day for South Africa. Sir, there are great problems awaiting solution in South Africa, particularly in the field of race relations; in regard to the position of the urban Africans, and in the whole matter of the Bantu areas that refuse to accept the independence offered by this Government. In those areas there are enormous problems awaiting solution. Sir, this side of the House has been saying this repeatedly for many years. Businessmen outside, of both political persuasions, have been saying this for some years. Recently Nationalists have been saying increasingly loudly that these problems need solutions. Sir, the country has been waiting upon the words of the Prime Minister in the debate on his Vote today to get some answers to those questions. Sir, if you think that I am exaggerating, let me just bring you into the picture. On the 12th "March, in Die Burger, the organ of the Nationalist Party, we had this banner headline on the front page—

Then the report goes on:

Not only that, but a few days later, on the 17th March, we again had a banner headline on the front page of Die Burger, “Stadsbantoes kry nou die aandag”. And among the things that were stated in this article on the front page was the following—

Then unless I am mistaken Die Burger told us that today we would be given “leiding” from the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the question of the urban Bantu. I want to say that their mountain has been labouring for months and it has brought forward a mouse, and, what is more, that mouse is no different from the mouse we have been seeing for years from the Nationalist Party. It is that mouse which is causing relations in this country to be severly embittered and to deteriorate and for our economy to go back disastrously.

We cannot even afford to buy cheese.

When the hon. the Prime Minister speaks of a third era, do not let us think that this has no consequence at all because we know that the Nationalist grand strategy was—and I certainly believe it to be—that you go together up to a certain point giving no rights to the urban African but if you find that in fact some of these Africans are permanent, then possibly you may get a division of the ways in the Nationalist Party because you will have to give political rights to the urban Africans. Let me cite in support of this, what was said by a leading Nationalist, or certainly a leading man in the establishment of the “Afrikaanse volk”. He said this on no less an occasion than when giving evidence in the South-West Africa case. This is what Dr. Gericke said, and everyone in this House will know the standing he has among our friends opposite. He said this in 1965 during the South-West Africa case. Just to give you the picture, Sir, I give you the sentence ahead of his words—

These are the questions that some of the best Nationalists have been asking themselves, the editors of Rapport, Schalk Pienaar, Dawid de Villiers, Dr. Eiselen and all these people. These people have been saying clearly that the time is coming when answers must be given to these problems, and these problems are not going to be hidden under the carpet because there is an attempt to sweep them there. Sir, we have waited for today. It is clear that even Die Burger—that very loyal organ of the Nationalist Party and certainly not one that does a lot of “verkenning” (it has certainly not been in advance of the Nationalist Party lately)—but even Die Burger expected a statement today in which this problem was grappled with. Sir, we have not had any grappling with this problem today; we have had a complete evasion. Therefore not only is this a black day for South Africa but it is a most revealing day about the Nationalist Party. We are told that there are divisions in the United Party Let me tell my friends opposite that there are no divisions in our party, but I will say, and I say it on the strength of the evidence we have here today, that there are even deeper divisions in the Nationalist Party than I had dreamed. Because everybody knows that these problems need solution. Everybody knows and many Nationalists say that we are in a state of stagnation. Everybody knows that we are in a state of stagnation … [Interjections] … and that we need answers to these questions. If the Nationalist Party was not divided from top to bottom on this issue, it would have some courage to come with answers. However, there are those who say that Blacks are in a “los hoedanigheid” and there are the others who say they are here on a permanent basis. They are quite unable to come with answers to the problems of the country because it would split their party from top to bottom.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the second half hour? First of all I should like to associate myself and this side of the House with the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of those policemen who lost their lives in the Caprivi strip over the weekend. I ask that we too should be associated with the sympathy to the families of the people who are concerned.

The hon. the Prime Minister promised me last night that he would deal today with the urban Bantu, that he would deal today with the training of Bantu labour and that the would answer my questions about collective bargaining by the Bantu labour force in our White areas. All that we have had to date from the hon. gentleman has been a series of evasions and a series of attempts to get red herrings across the trail.

He has tried to indicate to us that he is carrying out logically the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd. I do not see much likeness between Dr. Verwoerd’s Loskop Dam speech and what the hon. gentleman is doing at the present time. I must say I do not see much likeness in respect of the use of White capital in the Reserves as being carried out by this hon. Prime Minister and what Dr. Verwoerd spoke of. I do not see much similarity between the sort of plans for development of the homelands which Dr. Verwoerd had and what is happening at the present time. Of course that side of the House has been changing its policies in respect of virtually every subejct with which it had anything to do ever since I have known them. The hon. the Prime Minister asked me whether we have changed our policies. You know, Sir, when I first stood for Parliament it was the policy of the Nationalist Party that the Coloureds should be put on a separate roll and that they should be represented by second-class members of Parliament—they should not have full rights. Then, in the next election, we found that they were going to put them on a separate roll, but that they were going to do it with a bare majority in this House and that they were going to be represented by full members of Parliament. Then the next thing we heard was that any representation of Coloureds in this House was an “onding” and that they had to be removed from this House altogether. What did we find? We found hon. gentlemen opposite telling us that that had been Dr. Verwoerd’s policy, but that he had never taken the public into his confidence in that regard. This is not the Prime Minister who must talk to me about changing policy. His party has been changing its policies on almost every thing I have known since I have been in this House.

What about the common roll?

The hon. Chief Whip will remember very well the discussions on the Coloured Representative Council. He will remember how critical they were of the old Coloured Advisory Council, how they condemned it from every platform. Then they came to Parliament and they instituted the Coloured Representative Council. They complained because we opposed it on the basis that too large a section of that Coloured Representative Council was to be nominated. The hon. the Prime Minister turns round to me today and asks: “What is the United Party offering the Coloured people that I am not offering them?” Does he not know that we are offering them a fully elected legislative assembly? Does he not know that they do not have it?

You know that that is what we are doing.

When will they get it?

After the next election …

For the first time, at last I have tempted the hon. the Prime Minister. He is making a statement that after the next election it will be a fully representative council

Why not now?

What is he going to do about a consultative committee between that Coloured Council and this House?

I have told you already.

What representation is that Coloured Council going to have in the affairs of state of this country?

I have told you …

Does the hon. the Prime Minister think that these people will remain satisfied with the situation as it stands at the present time?

Then we talked about the urban Bantu, and what did the hon. the Prime Minister say to us? He says that the one assurance he can give us is that they will never enjoy home ownership in the urban areas. That is all he tells us. He tells us nothing about their civic rights and he tells us nothing what he holds out for them for the future. He tells us nothing about the pre-service and in-service training that they are going to receive. Will he tell us what is meant by the phrase “temporary permanency” that is being used by professionals over the radio in their statements to explain his policy? Where are we going in respect of collective bargaining for those Bantu that he is training? What systems are going to be adopted by the Government to ensure that there is proper negotiation between White employer and Black employee? What system is he going to adopt to see that the present trade unions have their say in what is arranged? I told him what our ideas were, but what did I get from him? I got his Deputy Minister, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, coming in asking us, “What is there that you offer the urban Bantu which we do not offer the urban Bantu?” The hon. the Deputy Minister sat with this report of our Bantu affairs group in front of him. Did he tell us what his plans were for altering influx control and to ameliorate the pass system? Did he tell us what he intended doing about abolishing job reservation and about protecting workers by undertaking that no changes will be effected in the labour pattern without consultation with the trade unions concerned and without applying the principle of the rate for the job to avoid unfair competition? Did he tell us what he was doing to arrange the collective representation of Bantu labour in a manner to be determined after consultation with existing trade unions and organized management? Did he tell us what he was going to do to extend the powers of the urban Bantu councils? Did he tell us that he was going to provide secondary and technical education facilities for urban Bantu in the White areas and to assist them to gain admittance to the universities by restoring the autonomy of the universities? I can go on like that. Did he tell us that he was going to arrange for Bantu migratory labourers not to be required to return to home every year? Did he tell us that? Did he tell us that it was his intention to restore the spirit of section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act of 1945, to accept that Bantu obtained permission to enter prescribed areas in terms of section 10(1)(d) of the Act and that they may acquire rights of permanent residence as in the past? This is one of the most important matters that affect the lives of the Bantu in these areas. Did he tell us anything about Bantu qualified as permanent residents in a prescribed area where they are entitled to seek work, to visit or to reside in any other urban Bantu area? Then the hon. gentleman sat down with the words: “What is there that you offer that I do not offer to the Bantu people at the present time?”

The hon. the Prime Minister is unfortunately faced with a situation where I do not believe he can tell us anything. I think he is faced with a policy which is a contradiction in terms. I believe he is faced with a policy in which he is in this position that on the one side he wants to develop homelands, but on the other side he has to have a strong economy from which the money will come to develop those homelands. Because he is in that difficult position he finds there are conflicting forces at work. There are contradictory ideals; separate development on the one side and economic growth on the other. What is the result? The result is that he has to rely more and more on migrant labour or he has to give up one of the theories on which his entire policy is based. Economic factors are working against him, because they are all moving ever more strongly in the direction of more permanency for that labour force. Why do these people go back to the homelands? Do they get any permanency in their old age? Can people make a living there at the present time? No, there is nothing to encourage them to go back. They want to stay and it is only by compulsion, by force of law, that the hon. the Prime Minister can get them to go back to the Bantu Homelands. And what are the results? The results are, first of all, that there is a redistribution of income in favour of the man as opposed to the woman and the children. The second thing that is happening is that the rural areas have to subsidize the urban areas, because the urban areas need not supply adequate housing for those people. The third thing that happens is that you get the maintenance and development of a differential wage structure getting more and more accentuated than at the present time. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister finds it so difficult to close the gap in the wages between Whites and non-Whites. Lastly, he is getting the perpetuation of poverty amongst migrant labourers, because they are not sufficiently permanent to be trained.

That is the situation with which this hon. Prime Minister is faced at the present time. None of the questions put to him have been satisfactorily answered. If he continues along the course that he is following at the present time then I am afraid I foresee lots more trouble for South Africa and lots more difficulties. I see lots more trouble and lots more difficulties because while he continues with his present policies we are going to have more and more of the many ugly humiliating and bad aspects of what is known as petty apartheid”, or unnecessary discrimination. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister has told us again and again that there is no difference between so-called petty apartheid and grand apartheid. To him there is either apartheid or nothing else. But he did make a careful qualification and that qualification was that the only question is whether certain acts and usages are not unnecessary for apartheid. Let me say that that is a view which certain reformers endorse very heartily, as they endorsed the views which the hon. the Prime Minister enunciated when he spoke as chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch at the beginning of 1971.

He impressed on the students that they must not neglect a man’s identity. He said that no person, no matter what his race or level of development, his background or his wealth, deserves to be looked down upon. He is a creation of God just like they are. I applaud those views. Coupled with that is a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister in this House that if any case can be brought to him where apartheid was applied unnecessarily, that is in circumstances where it was not necessary to prevent race friction or to retain the identity of groups, the would see to it that those cases did not recur.

What we want to know is what the hon. gentleman has done and what steps he intends taking in the future in the light of the present situation developing in South Africa, in the light of the development and growth of the population in these urban townships, in the light of the difficulties he has in respect of his policy. What is he doing to ensure that these hurts do not recur, that these ugly incidents and the unnecessary discrimination do not continue to bedevil race relations in South Africa? His problem today is not as simple as it was in the late Dr. Verwoerd’s time. Dr. Verwoerd clearly foresaw the end of racial discrimination. He said so in 1961. He said: “As our policy is being developed and is stated more clearly, it must be clearly understood that when separation has been carried far enough, discrimination must be eliminated.” Since those days things have changed. Since those days the hon. the Prime Minister finds himself faced, in fact, with three categories of people in South Africa.

The first are those distinguished visitors from independent Black states on our boundaries to the north of us. They come here, representing their States, and are subject to none of the discrimination or restrictions of the apartheid laws as applied in South Africa. In due course they are going to be followed by tourists. What is the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude going to be to tourists coming from those Black states? Are they going to be subjected to separate lifts, and separate post office entrances? Are they going to have to wander around for tearoom, restaurant or café facilities or for public conveniences reserved for non-Whites? If we are to promote dialogue, it will be impossible to create a White state, totally isolated from its Black neighbours and its Black friends further up on this continent. There is going to be greater communication than there is today. There are not only going to be diplomatic relations but trade relations as well. We will want to confer and discuss matters of mutual interest associated with the common well-being of people on the continent. Obviously, these independent Black states, whether they are outside our present borders or whether they are inside and have developed from homelands which have taken their independence, are not going to channel communications on diplomatic and trade lies alone, but there are going to be other contacts. It is unavoidable that, in the interests of friendly relationship, they will want to send their sporting teams to South Africa—their soccer teams, their tennis teams, and their rugby teams. Probably, to begin with, they will play against the Black teams in the Republic but in due course their sense of national pride is going to demand that they play against teams truly representative of the whole of South Africa, or they will break off relations with us in the sporting field.

These are not long-term forecasts, but forecasts of practical problems with which we are going to be faced in the fairly immediate future. They hold out yet another problem, which may very easily in its importance supersede the problems I have mentioned. That problem is going to be what the effects of those contacts, social contact, political contact and commercial contact, are going to be upon our own Black people here in South Africa. Some of them will be permanently—the new phrase apparently is “temporarily permanently”—settled in our urban areas. Others will be in homelands which do not have independence or do not want it on the terms that the Government is offering it. It requires no imagination to appreciate that these people very soon are going to demand to be treated in the same way as the visitors from other states. In all probability the educational standards of our people will be higher; there will be more professionally qualified men amongst them percentage-wise and they will be playing their part in the business and commercial life of South Africa. Do you think they are going to tolerate treatment inferior to that received by visitors from other states who have not yet achieved the standards which they will have achieved here in South Africa? Then there is a third group which will also watch this development with great interest, seeking to make comparisons and starting to make demands. That is the group which has upset so much of the Government’s theoretical thinking, namely the Coloureds and the Indians inside South Africa.

I say this afternoon that unless the Prime Minister is prepared to give thought to these problems now, unless he is prepared to acknowledge and prepare the way for a different approach, unless he is prepared to show more flexibility, then there is little doubt that we are going to see bad feelings develop, which are going to outstrip in intensity even those of which we have been warned by writers even in Government-supporting newspapers. I think here of people like Schalk Pienaar, Willem van Heerden, Dirk Richards, D. P. de Villiers, “Dawie” of Die Burger and people of that kind writing in Government-supporting newspapers. They have been drawing Government attention to what is going to happen and develop. It seems to me that the field of activity to which the hon. the Prime Minister must give attention is a pretty wide one. It seems to me that it can really be divided into three spheres. The first sphere is the area where apartheid is being applied administratively, perhaps over-zealously, in spheres where it is contrary to Government policy that it should be so applied. Unfortunately this contains quite a long list. I do not propose to deal with it exhaustively. In this group of cases you have the question of the refusal of a visa to a world-famous Japanese jockey. This was promptly reversed, which shows that it was not Government policy. It was, however, too late for the jockey to accept the invitation. You had the initial refusal of a visa to the Vietnamese wife of Breyten Breytenbach, a decision later reversed. You had the treatment of the Chinese who played on a miniature golf course in Port Elizabeth. You had the initial disallowance of a Chinese scholar to participate in a school athletic competition. You also had the banning of another Chinese student from an examination room where White pupils were sitting. I believe it is generally accepted today that Chinese will not again be subjected to these embarrassing social indignities. There must be many other examples in this sphere. What is the hon. the Prime Minister doing to see that this sort of thing does not happen in the future?

Then there is the second group of activities in which I believe there is uncertainty as to what Government policy is. I believe the first of these could be the refusal of permission for an Indian doctor who worked for ten years at the Duiwelskloof Hospital to attend the celebration there celebrating the 50-year period that the hospital was in existence. Secondly, there was the refusal of certain Afrikaans churches in Pretoria to make certain of their halls which were standing vacant available for non-White services. The belief in both cases was that these decisions were taken because if they had been allowed it would have been in conflict with Government policy. Those actions were very severely criticized in the Government-supporting Press in South Africa. Then we had a case where a permit was refused to a White symphony orchestra—I believe the SABC Orchestra:—to hold a concert in a Coloured township in Johannesburg, where the soloist was to be a Coloured concert pianist who had just returned to this country after gaining the highest honours overseas. I believe that these are areas in which there is uncertainty as to Government policy.

I now come to the third group of activities in which apartheid has been applied, but wrongly applied. I think this is an area to which the hon. the Prime Minister must give attention. I think the first of these —perhaps the perfect example—is the situation in respect of the Nico Malan Theatre at the present time. I think that deserves the hon. gentleman’s attention. But we had the extraordinary case of the Indian golfer, Papwa Sewgolum, who was allowed to participate in a tournament one year, refused permission the other year, while in the year in which he was allowed to participate he had to receive his prize money in the rain outside the clubhouse in Durban. Then we had the case of a multi-national sports meeting at which South African Whites played soccer against Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in separate teams. But no mixed trials were allowed to select a representative team to represent South Africa overseas. You find that while soccer teams of different races can play against each other, cricket teams of different races apparently cannot, and mixed cricket trials are not allowed. And, Sir, whilst soccer teams of different races can play soccer against each other and boxers of different races in South Africa can box against each other at a multi-national sports meeting, rugby players of different races cannot play rugby against each other in South Africa if they are South Africans. If they happen to be visitors from overseas, then that is all right. It appears that the British are a separate nation from our Blacks, but our Whites are not a separate nation from our Blacks, despite the multi-national policies of this Government.

Then you find something else; you find that separate lifts in most big businesses have been done away with. Are they necessary in Government departments? I do not believe they exist over the way in the Verwoerd Building. Then, Sir, you have the situation where separate counters in ordinary shops for Whites and non-Whites are regarded as ridiculous. Are they still necessary in the post office? I want to know: Have there been clear instructions issued to ambulance drivers as to what they should do in an emergency when they come across a casualty of another race?

I want to know something else: What is the position with this whole group of discriminatory laws connected with the manner in which influx control is applied to the wives of Bantu in our urban areas, in our industrial complexes? For instance, why is it that a wife from one prescribed area can join her husband in any other prescribed area, no matter how far she has to travel, whereas, if she does not happen to come from another prescribed area, she cannot join her husband except in exceptional circumstances, even if there is housing available? I could go on, Sir, but I believe that there are sufficient examples to give the hon. the Prime Minister food for thought. I believe the question is: How is he going to approach this matter? He cannot just let things slide, Sir, because these are the sort of things that cause bitterness, that cause inter-racial hostility and that cause resentment in our country. We on this side of the House have always accepted as a guideline the over-riding theme that we should respect the rights of groups to have their own exclusive amenities, but that we should provide also for areas of choice, that is freedom to share amenities where it is so desired. Naturally, because we have a federal philosophy and approach, it is in the nature of things that we should oppose the whole dogmatic and bureaucratic apparatus of petty apartheid as it tends to be applied at the present time.

The problem of the hon. the Prime Minister goes far outside the confines of South Africa. I think he has already discovered that it is an issue which is affecting the whole question of dialogue with the other states of Africa. If he is to move from isolation to dialogue, he is going to have to accept what apparently he accepted on an earlier occasion, in a speech on the Government’s outward policy, that South Africa’s domestic policy will be an issue in that proposed dialogue. It is contrary to the normal international law and practice that any state’s domestic affairs should be the subject of interference by other Governments. But clearly, if there is to be any further progress in dialogue, then there is going to have to be visible and constructive progress in our domestic policies, otherwise they are going to be a real stumbling block with other African leaders, because I am afraid that no matter how determined we are, we are going to find that our relations with the rest of Africa are going to be very difficult to normalize unless discriminatory practices which are not defensible have disappeared from the South African scene.

I go further, Sir: I think that in the international sphere the need for relaxation is dramatically clear, but I think it should also be clear in respect of our relations with peoples and groups inside our own borders. It is vitally essential that we should develop the right attitudes between race and race inside our own country, and crude discrimination destroys those attitudes. We need contacts; we need avenues of communication; we need opportunities where we can learn to know and to understand each other. It is not enough to have them between state and state, Mr. Chairman; it is necessary also to have them between man and man. I think this thought was very well expressed over the weekend by Prof. Willem de Klerk in the latest issue of the newspaper Rapport. He said that need for communication and contact applies to the official level, to the level of political negotiation, to the religious, the cultural and the sporting level. Common participation was vitally necessary at all levels. Even social contact, Prof. De Klerk said, was necessary to acknowledge the human dignity of other races, for the sake of co-existence, and in order to develop a kind of partnership in South Africa within the framework of separate development. Sir, that is a piece of philosophy which I think could appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I hope that he will deal with these matters this afternoon. I believe they are vital to the future interests of South Africa, to the future interests of all communities in South Africa, particularly to the future interests of the White community in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a hundred and twenty problems here in such a very melancholy way as to cause one to think that we were going under. Sir, I just want to say this to him: In spite of all his melancholy, he may safely leave those problems to this side of the House, which is an enlightened party, which has a Prime Minister who, like a statesman with wisdom and insight, will apply himself to these problems one by one, and solve them.

Sir, I want to return to the hon. member for Houghton. If ever proof was furnished in this House of blind prejudice and of extreme irresponsibility, then it was furnished here this afternoon by that hon. member when she spoke here about the report of the Schlebusch Commission. Sir, I do not wish to say more about that hon. member, because the indescribable lot of nonsense which she spoke here is not deserving of anything more.

Mr. Chairman, the report which was laid on the Table, was signed by all the members of the commission. We are thankful for that, but we just wonder who of those hon. members opposite are again going to dissociate themselves from this report and adopt an aloof stand in respect of this report. The report deals with the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre and with sensitivity training or T-group training. If you ask what these things have to do with Nusas, Sir, my answer is that a very close connection exists between Nusas and Wilgespruit. On the question whether these matters are so urgent that they justify an interim report, hon. members themselves may form an opinion when they read the report. Sir, while the commission was conducting an investigation into the leadership training programme of Nusas, which consists chiefly of a series of seminars, not only did it find that these seminars were in the first place designed to fill a role of political indoctrination, but also that sensitivity training played an important role here. The commission found further that the so-called “trainers” who conducted sensitivity courses for student leaders, were mainly the same people who were active at Wilgespruit. Consequently it was necessary for the commission to take a look at Wilgespruit as well. But, Sir, before I say more about that, I should like to deal briefly with the concept of sensitivity training. This aspect is very fully dealt with in the report. I can only say here that it is a psycho-therapeutic procedure which has its origin in behavioural psychology, which is related to the concept of conditioning as propagated by Pavlov and which has also been described by many people as a form of brainwashing. It is applied in order to influence people in one direction or another, or to bring about a change within the individual as regards his attitudes and values. The whole procedure consists of a group of people being brought together for eight or ten days to talk about the “here and now” only. The so-called “trainer” adroitly ensures that tremendous tension is built up until one by one the people “break” and make a confession of their most intimate secrets. This process is called “unfreezing” and its object is the breaking down of existing norms and values. This is followed by the second step, namely “changing”, and then comes the third step, namely “re-freezing”.

An article on sensitivity training which appeared in the Catholic Digest in September, 1972, had the following to say about it (Annexure A of the Report)—

The writer then posed this question—

In his book, Brainwashing from Pavlov to Powers, Edward Hunter says, inter alia, the following—

Two professors in the U.S.A., Edward Klotz and Harden Jones, who investigated this technique, came to the following conclusion—

Now I ask you, Sir! If this is said of sensitivity training in the U.S.A., what threat does this procedure not present to South Africa with its particular population composition? Research has proved unambiguously that sensitivity training can be applied to change people’s political thinking, and the commission does not have the slightest doubt that this technique is being applied and used under the guise of Christianity by certain amateur psychologists for the advancement of certain social and political views.

Moreover, prominent psychologists have attested that it is extremely undesirable and dangerous for this technique to be pursued without control by people who have no proper qualifications in psychology. Sir, no matter what pleasant-sounding scientific phrases may be thought up for defining sensitivity training, I am absolutely convinced that it is nothing other than a diabolical undermining technique to help destroy the existing order in South Africa. In addition, the spiritual dangers sensitivity training holds for the victims should not be lost sight of. The commission therefore regards it as essential that this matter be brought urgently to the attention of the Government, so that the necessary measures of control may be introduced.

Sir, this brings me back to Nusas and to Wilgespruit. I have already indicated that Nusas used Wilgespruit staff to offer sensitivity courses to student leaders. Of this program Neville Curtis said, inter alia—

Since 1964 the programme has provided virtually every leader in Nusas and some 80% of student leaders on Slack and White campuses in leadership positions. Student leadership in almost every anti-apartheid group has come from the seminars. Large numbers of students who have undergone training are now active in leadership positions within and outside South Africa.

Sir, it is very clear that Curtis is very pleased with the results of this training, and it is also known that Curtis played a very active role in the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre. This organization, the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre, pursues its activities on a secluded farm near Roodepoort, called Wilgespruit. The property belongs to a trust, the trustees of which are the S.A. Council of Churches. It is here where courses in sensitivity training are continually being offered, particularly by the Rev. Dale White, Ioen O’Leary and Joan O’Leary.

In a document, very neatly printed and comprising 66 pages, which was drawn up in April, 1970, in order to solicit funds abroad for Wilgespruit and which was in fact distributed but which was subsequently described in a letter by the Rev. Beyers Naude as a “draft document”, the following persons were mentioned as “nominated members of the advisory council of Wilgespruit”: the Rev. Alpheus Zulu, Anglican Bishop, Zululand; the Rev. Beyers Naude, director of the Christian Institute; the Rev. Dennis Hurley, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Durban; Mr. Fred van Wyk, of the Institute of Race Relations; Justice Moloto, president of the University Christian Movement; Neville Curtis, president of Nusas, and Peter Randall, director, Study Project on Christianity in Apartheid Society. On page 10 of the report, you will find the names of the management committee of Wilgespruit for 1971-’72. In the same “draft document” of April, 1970, the object of the institution was put as follows—

Later in the same document it is said—

Now we know that when these people speak of “change” they do not mean the normal evolutionary change. Nor do they mean that the Progressive Party must take over the reins of government. To read about the strangest abhorrence for the Progressive Party, this report of the lecture given by Daphne Masekela at a congress in Durban should be read. This is Annexure E. They have the strongest abhorrence for the Progressive Party. One of the kindred spirits of these people, Dr. Rick Turner, writes as follows in “The Eye of the Needle” what they mean by “change”. He says—

It is precisely about this that the hon. the Prime Minister sounded a warning yesterday evening. Is this not precisely what the communists say? The Commission finds that it is disturbing that here at Wilgespruit under the cloak of Christianity and under the protecting wings of churches and church leaders, people who are inadequately equipped, people with really doubtful characters, are allowed to proceed with this training. [Time expired.]

Arising out of what the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, said, it is perhaps a good thing to note what the themes are of the papers delivered at specific Nusas seminars to indoctrinate students, and particularly the youth of our people, where this psychotherapeutic technique was applied. At Howick in Natal, in 1971, such a seminar, consisting of our young students, was also held. What did they occupy themselves with? Paul Pretorius delivered a paper about “The Approach to Student Power”. Keith Gottschalk delivered a paper about “Economics and Race”. Dr. Rick Turner delivered a paper about “The Power of Contemporary Radical Thought”, Mewa Ramgobin about “Satyagraha and its significance to the youth of South Africa today”, and Barry Streek delivered a paper about “African Socialism”. Paula Ensor delivered a paper about “Black Power”. Ernest Raleketho delivered a paper about “Black Power in South Africa” and Neville Curtis about “Student as Rebel-Position paper on student action”. From this it is very clear that these people did not occupy themselves with student politics, but with proclaiming absolutely radical standpoints to indoctrinate young people just out of school with methods which are definitely not above suspicion. This is what one of the students who attended that seminar reported to the Committee—

In its second report the commission stated, as its opinion, that Nusas was engaged, not only in bringing about radical changes in this country, as The Cape Times wanted to imply in one of its leaders, but that they were engaged in advocating reformation of the complete system in this country, of the entire existing order and the existing norms. We have had more than enough proof of that. But the conduct on the part of these students and student leaders must not be seen in isolation because it is part of a pattern which is unfolding throughout the world. In a very informative study, by Prof. S. C. W. Duvenhage of the University of Potchefstroom, who spent two years studying student activism in America, he made this very informative utterance, published a few months ago in his book. He quotes a certain Francis H. Horn who made a study of student activism in America—

This is what President Pompidou said—

This is precisely what we found these students to have been occupying themselves with: Not with radical change, but with total substitution of the existing order, a complete substitution of the cultural norms and systems as we find them in this world in our present day and age. In the process, as I have said, use was made of this doubtful technique that was applied at Wilgespruit. I have quoted this passage, and in the light of that one finds it a great pity, very deplorable and reprehensible that a newspaper like The Cape Times blamed the Prime Minister in an article on 14th April for having appointed this commission specifically with the object of disrupting relations between the Afrikaans-1973-04-25 and English-speaking people in this country.

Scandalous!

I quote from the article—

I think that apart from the fact that this is a reprehensible utterance, it is also a gross insult to the English-speaking citizens of our country, because the conduct that resulted from the inquiry instituted by this commission into the activities of Nusas, just happened to affect English-speaking students. However, it must be appreciated that this Government also wants to protect the English-speaking sector of the population’s respect for order, decency and good breeding.

This was not a process to entrench the Afrikaner against outside influences. These forces that have been unleashed amongst the students of South Africa, i.e. the English-speaking students, are forces of the devil aimed at destroying a form of civilization. I want to quote what Paul Pretorius had to say on occasion when he spoke about the question of “Society”. In one of his utterances he said that “society” is so sick that mothers are proud of the fact that their sons are fighting “freedom fighters”—as he termed them—on the borders, but burst out in tears when their daughters spent the night in other men’s beds. That is his view of how sick the present community is. I want to quote from a document that was distributed on the Durban campus. It was issued by Aquarius, one of the wings of Nusas. Doubt existed about whether the document had officially been authorized by Aquarius and whether the chairman of Aquarius had in this case exceeded his powers, but let the matter be what it may; since this document was the responsibility of an official or an officer of Aquarius, it indicates the quality of people occupying posts in this association. I quote—

The second question is—

So one could continue. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that I am unable to debate the Schlebusch Commission now with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and with the hon. member for Algoa …

Why?

For the very simple reason that up to this moment I have not yet received the third report of the commission.

Neither have I.

People outside this House have it, but members of Parliament do not have it yet. Hon. members opposite who are members of the commission, are acting improperly by dealing with the report at this stage, before other hon. members have had the chance to do so. [Interjections.] That, for the information of the Chief Whip, is my reason. I would have welcomed it had we had the chance to read the report, but surely members must first have the chance to obtain the report. I still do not have it, and it is six o’clock already. I hope we shall have an opportunity to discuss it. I would like to take part in that discussion. I would just like to say to that hon. member, as far as radicalism is concerned, that the National Party itself is a radical party and that there are few policies which are as radical as the policy of apartheid.

I want to come back to the brilliant speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with … [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to come back to the subject of the speech, and say that I am sure that all of us were shaken this morning by the report of the death of nine South African policemen and Rhodesian soldiers in the border area of Eastern Caprivi. It has been clear for some time that the onslaught from outside on South Africa is assuming ever greater and more serious proportions. In fact, there are hon. members on that side of the House who are talking openly of war in South Africa. Last year the hon. member for Potgietersrus made a speech in his constituency in which he said he would “not be surprised if we had war in our country within a year or two.” Whether our degree of military preparedness is sufficient to enable us to wage and emerge successfully from any large-scale struggle, must necessarily be left to the judgment of our military people. I do not consider myself competent to pass judgment on that. The question which we must ask ourselves, which every ordinary citizen must ask himself, is whether internally we are as prepared as we can and ought to be. No one can dispute it that the best way to combat and repel terrorist infiltration, is to get one’s country’s own people, all segments and all levels of the population, steadfastly on one’s side. If there are people in one’s country who are going to see an invader, not as a threat but as a liberator, then one is facing the very greatest dangers. In practical terms this means quite simply in our country that the success or otherwise which we shall eventually have against invaders or terrorists, will really depend on what the attitude of our non-White population groups will be towards the White ruler at the moment of crisis. Not one of us sitting here can profess to speak with any authority on behalf of the other population groups, nor is that what I wish to do. Today most population groups have chosen leaders who may rightly speak on behalf of their own people. The best we can do, since they are not here to speak in our presence, is to listen to what they have to say. While I do not like to read long quotations from newspapers, in this instance one has no alternative, if one wants to know what the Black leaders are thinking about the relationship between White and Black, than to refer to their utterances in public. Mr. Lucas Mangope, chief of the Tswana, said recently:

In connection with discrimination he said the following:

These are the feelings expressed by the Black leaders themselves. Among the most striking and disturbing discriminations listed by Mr. Mangope in this statement of his, are the very things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, and which I, too, have mentioned before such as separate lifts, the prohibition on the use of hotel and restaurant facilities, etc. I think we have the right to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister, as the man who has the power in his hands, what he has to say about this. This is not concerned with what we as members of the Opposition say, but what the Black leaders themselves say about their position in their own country.

Prof. Hudson Ntsanwise, chief of the Shangaan people, expressed himself just as strongly against negative apartheid and said—

He was further reported as follows—

Then he mentioned a long list, such as different remuneration for the same qualifications. Further—

Mr. Tom Swartz, the leader of two million Coloureds, syas the following:

That is the opinion of the Leader of the Coloureds. During the past year or two, most of these leaders, Black and Brown, were personally in the company of the hon. the Prime Minister. They personally informed him of their given standpoints and personally told him what the things were which caused friction and bitterness against the White man. We should like to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister what he is going to do and when he will begin to eliminate these areas of friction. The hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite frequently talk here about state security and then they talk about students. Much of what is said here, is transparent party politics. If a member is really concerned about state security and wants people to help him, then he must start at the core of the problem. He must purposefully and earnestly begin to eliminate the areas of friction between White and non-White. Up to now we have had very little of that from the opposite side.

A few years ago the Department of Foreign Affairs issued a White Paper. It was sent to U.N. in answer to certain articles which had appeared in the monthly publication of the U.N. It waxed lyrical about “equal human dignity” being the policy of the Government. The most interesting of all is that the hon. the Prime Minister was quoted—

Six years ago the hon. the Prime Minister told the world that the greatest task facing South Africa and facing him, was the elimination of friction. The greatest responsibility rests on him. We would be obliged to hear from him what he is going to do to eliminate the friction, the dissatisfaction and the bitterness which his own policy has caused on the everyday personal level in the relationship between people—after all, he gave that undertaking. When is he going to start eliminating these areas of friction between White and non-White? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout began by running away from a discussion of the report which was laid upon the Table. I accept that he, as a very senior member of the House, must surely have some background knowledge of how commission reports are tabled. The hon. member ought to know that a report will not necessarily be brought to him, or rubbed under his nose with the words, “Here is the report”. [Interjections.] Sufficient reports are available at the Clerk of the Papers.

That is not true!

Each member of that party who wants one, can get one. [Interjections.] It is very interesting that I have not yet seen the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Mooi River objecting …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, does the hon. member know that one cannot at the moment get it from the Clerk of the Papers?

Order!

That is not a point of order. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton obtained a copy. I am surprised at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout becoming excited …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. gentleman aware that, if one goes to the Clerk of the Papers at the moment, copies of the report are not available?

If there are no reports available at this stage, I do not want to express any opinion on that, but the fact of the matter is that reports were in fact available. In any event, there were sufficient for the Opposition to conduct a reasonable debate on this had they chosen to do so. In any event, I can understand why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout became excited about the matter. He does not wish to discuss this report now. He first wants to have consultations before he discusses this report.

He must first see Harry.

Whether he wants to see Harry or anyone else, is besides the point.

I want to come back to an aspect which was mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said that areas of friction in South Africa must be eliminated. I want to tell the hon. member that the whole basis of the policy of the National Party is the retention of the identity of the White man in all its facets, in the first place, and in the second place the elimination of all possible points of friction between peoples in South Africa. That is the policy of the National Party, condensed into two main concepts. For the very reason that the Opposition also agrees that friction is not desirable in South Africa—the hon. member for Houghton also agrees with that—it is absolutely essential for us, having available the contents of the third report today, not to look in the first place at the method of this sensitivity training. We can still differ on the merits of the method of sensitivity training. In any event, the commission puts it very clearly in its report that it is not expressing an opinion specifically on the scientific character of sensitivity training as a method of teaching. We are expressing ourselves on the contents which are moulded into that method as applied at Wilgespruit and probably at other centres. If we think of the elimination of areas of friction and we investigate this method as applied at Wilgespruit, I should like to give hon. members an example of how these people at Wilgespruit strive towards the elimination of possible areas of friction and towards the creation of a better understanding amongst peoples in South Africa. One gets, for example, the set-up by way of play in which a Black man and a White woman are tied together round the hips with toilet paper—excuse the word, Mr. Chairman. Every now and again they shout: We love each other. The parents on both sides say that it is good. Then a blessing is pronounced on this so-called love relationship and then the law comes along and tells them that they must break up. Everyone present then revolts against the fact that this love relationship must be broken off. If this is a method of eliminating areas of friction in South Africa and if this is a method which is applied in order to break down the so-called race prejudice in South Africa, it can only be described as alarming. I want to repeat that we are not expressing any opinion on the method as such at this stage. We admit that the form into which it has been moulded at Wilgespruit, gives rise to problems for us. I believe that both sides of this House believe in the retention of our White identity. As far as I am concerned there is no doubt about that. This is common ground on which we can move, viz. the retention of our White identity. Bound up with our White identity is our Christian background. Let us now look at what was offered at a so-called church service at Wilgespruit. I do not intend to mention the four letter words, etc., which are mentioned in this report. Let us take some cognizance of what happened at a church service in a church where 120 people of the University Christian Movement were present. Certain things were said, inter alia, about God which were presented by way of litany in a liturgical drama. The one reciter says—

Later the following is said by the fourth reciter—

Let me just tell you for a moment that these people act under the cloak of the church and they also say that they want to eliminate areas of friction. These people reach, inter alia, the following bodies and people, i.e. construction engineering firms, Nusas, the Young Progressives, the University Christian Movement, the National Catholic Federation of Students, the Student Councils of the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town, students in general, school children, teachers, Sunday School teachers, married and unmarried couples, nuns, clergymen, nurses, etc. If these people can involve those groups in this—and I say again, they pride themselves on the fact that they are trying to bring about change in South Africa—and they do so in the manner of which we were informed today by previous speakers, then I want to say with all the seriousness at my command, Sir, that it is absolutely essential for us to get during this session of Parliament that permanent commission which is being envisaged, so that this work may be done. I also address this plea in all modesty to the hon. the Prime Minister. I hope that by that time the storm in the tea-cup on the side of the Opposition as to the desirability of such a commission, will also have come to an end.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to become excited about this report, but I do think it is wrong in principle to adopt a system where, in the case of any commission, a few reports are handed out without all the members receiving it simultaneously. It is now 6 o’clock—and I want to thank Mr. Louis le Grange—he has just placed this report on my desk.

You could have had it long ago.

No, half an hour ago I went to ask the Clerk, and it was not yet available. It is not his fault; I am not blaming him. I leave the matter at that, Sir, but I do not think it is a proper way of doing things to discuss reports before the members have all seen them for themselves.

Sir, every time we discuss human relations in this House, some hon. member opposite loses his temper. I just want to say to hon. members that that will not deter us. We shall continue to give attention in a positive manner to what the hon. the Prime Minister himself called “the greatest task which lies ahead for South Africa”. This afternoon I have been attacked on various matters. In one case the issue in question was a speech I had made, in which I had referred to a reformed, rejuvenated United Party. But the same kind of speech was made by the Minister of Defence, in respect of the National Party, and I did not see any members attacking him on that. I have here a report of the speech made by the Minister of Defence before the National Party Congress in August last year. I am quoting from Die Burger of 8th August, 1972 (translation)—

He advocates a reform of the National Party and a reform of Government conduct in order to eliminate that which is unjust. But when I say it, well, then it is wrong. Why do hon. members not attack the Minister of Defence? I want to ask, since members opposite become so worked up against us, why they do not attack Mr. Blaar Coetzee. He sat in the Cabinet for years as a confidant of the Prime Minister, and he is a person who was good enough to be appointed as ambassador in Rome. Sir, he said recently—and this is already common knowledge—

Not allowing Coloured people into the Nico Malan Theatre in Cape Town is, to my mind, one of the most shocking things I have ever come across. I mean, after all, the Coloured people paid for it so, what the hell, why can’t they go there one or two nights a week? (The Argus, 17.2.73.)

Sir, this is a confidant of the Prime Minister speaking. Why do they not attack him? Sir, why do they not attack advocate David de Villiers. He is managing director of the Nasionale Pers, and he was a joint leader of our legal team on South-West Africa.

Are your own people not dissatisfied with your Leader?

I do not know what the hon. the Prime Minister means by that. Why did they not reprimand him when he said (translation)—

There is a need for a general review …

Again reform—

What have we said which these men have not said? Why do they not attack Prof. Wimpie de Klerk? The hon. member for Rissik attacked me yesterday because I had advocated a commission to investigate all the apartheid legislation. Prof, de Klerk is an enrolled, important member of the National Party. This is what he said at a meeting of the Kempton Park Rapportryers (translation)—

I should like the hon. member for Rissik to listen to this. Prof. De Klerk went on to say (translation)—

Offensive discrimination …

It is a Nationalist who is speaking in this vein—

Sir, these are people who are members of the Prime Minister’s party. What is the difference between what we are advocating here and what these gentlemen, whom I have just quoted, are advocating? These are prominent people who are saying with the same decisiveness what we on this side are saying. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what passes through his mind when he reads reports of this nature in the newspapers (translation)—

That is a report from Rapport. This report goes on to say (translation)—

This is the apartheid we have today; this is the insulting apartheid. Sir, what does the hon. the Prime Minister think when he reads this kind of thing, knowing that he is in control of this country? He has the power to put a stop to these absurdities, these double standards, this hurting of non-Whites. I have here a report from Die Burger (translation)—

Because the Minister of Labour intervened. Here one has a case where White people may serve non-Whites; Black people may serve you in your bed at home, but Black people may not serve White people in public. What kind of policy is this? Sir, I have here a few random cuttings of reports from which I want to quote:

Stand at the wrong bus stop and you land in gaol for five days. What kind of South Africa is this? Is this the kind of South Africa hon. members opposite want? This is not the kind of South Africa I want. I have here another report—

Mrs. Nora Eales made an emotional plea at her home in District Six last night for the authorities to unravel the race classification tangle which separates her from her only son.

The son has been classified as an Indian, the mother as a Coloured, and the son may not live with his own mother, nor may the mother live with the son. Sir, does that make us better White people? How does it save White civilization if one prevents a mother from living with her son, as a result of the absurdities of race classification? I ask the Prime Minister, when he reads these things in the newspapers, what passes through his mind? Does he not think there is something wrong which he should put right? I have another case here, but I do not have time to quote it all. These are the things which are sent overseas and which mar the image of South Africa. Again I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if this is the kind of South Africa he and his party want, then I want them to know that it is not the kind of South Africa we want. Sir, we shall continue with the utmost determination and we shall leave no stone unturned to advocate change, because I believe that our security in South Africa depends entirely on whether we can eliminate these areas of friction and whether we are going to create a better South Africa and better relations between the various races in South Africa. [Time expired.]

[Interjections.] This is the second time this has happened this afternoon that a Government speaker is not available and I believe that this is symptomatic of precisely what is occurring in the Government itself. During the No-confidence Debate we sought an opportunity to raise this matter of petty apartheid with the hon. the Prime Minister but he evaded the issue. We wanted to give him an opportunity to defend his own personal attitude towards this issue, but there was no response from him whatsoever. He has frequently said that if matters are raised in general debates and there is no response from him we should raise it again under his Vote. So we make no apology whatsoever for raising these very vexed issues in which the whole of South Africa is interested.

On the broader issue of apartheid I want to say right away that whilst many of us might disagree with the practicability of this visionary concept of grand apartheid we believe that it at least has a moral defensibility, but when you come to petty apartheid, or unnecessary apartheid or negative apartheid or silly apartheid, then I do not believe that any enlightened South African can condone it. Every time we raise this matter hon. members opposite ask what we mean by petty apartheid. We have tried to indicate before what we have in mind but for the purposes of my discussion it is necessary for me to say that we see petty apartheid as that unfair kind of discrimination which is officially enforced and which is based entirely on the colour of a man’s skin. That is what we understand by it, and this kind of apartheid is condemned by the whole of the outside world, and has been bedevilling race relations here in South Africa. I want to warn the Government that this petty apartheid is beginning to generate antagonisms among the non-White peoples and more particularly among the more sophisticated groups. It is leading to hostility which we will not be able to contain. Unless we can desensitize this issue immediately, it will lead to violent erruptions with dire consequences for all of us.

The contention that we often get from the Government side, that this kind of apartheid was instituted to eliminate friction, is obviously untenable. In fact there is every evidence that this kind of apartheid generates friction and leads to frustration. Now, everybody can see that petty apartheid is there, except those who are wilfully obtuse, and here we find it so distressing that the hon. the Prime Minister puts himself into this category and denies that petty apartheid exists. He is, of course, contradicted on this issue by members of his own party. The hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Johannesburg West, for instance, have conceded that petty apartheid exists. However, they have said that this is merely an interim phase and that once these Black states gain their independence, then it will become unnecessary and will disappear. This, of course, is a highly debatable issue which I should like to take up with them too. On the other side of the spectrum we have the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Wakkerstroom who also concede that petty apartheid is there, but they maintain that it is part of the fabric of apartheid and it is there to stay for all time. Let me say that that at least has the merit of political honesty. Whilst we can accept this kind of duality in the Nationalist Party on this issue, what we cannot accept and what the country certainly cannot accept is this dangerous kind of escapism and rationalization of which the hon. the Prime Minister makes himself guilty, because he has maintained all along that petty apartheid does not exist. In fact, his rationale apparently is that there is no discrimination in South Africa; only differentiation. At the recent congress of his party in Natal he sought to prove, and apparently succeeded to his own satisfaction, that if he were to wake up one morning and were to find that his skin was black, there would be nothing different whatsoever, except, as he said, for certain minor matters of geography …

He would not even be Prime Minister of South Africa.

I believe that in the present climate in South Africa this is the most ill-conceived and dangerous kind of approach. It is dangerous because it is demonstrably false. It shows a cynical disregard of the facts of the situation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just, as my hon. leader has done too, read out long lists of situations which obviously fall into this category. How can you close your eyes to it? There is in South Africa blatant discrimination. During the No-confidence Debate I dealt, for example, with the field of education. I do not want to quote all those statistics again, but I tried to point out that we spend in South Africa at the present time 15 times as much on the education of a White child as we do on that of a Black child. Is this differentiation? If we were subjected to this situation, would we see it as differentiation, or would we see it as blatant discrimination? If the hon. the Prime Minister was a Black worker, what would be the position? He would not be an employee in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act; he would be subject to the provisions of job reservation; he would be controlled by the Physical Planning Act; he would have virtually no security of domicile and of living in a particular area. When he retires one day and goes on pension, he will get about one-eighth of what his White counterpart gets. He would have no freehold title to the house in which he lives. I think that what the hon. the Prime Minister said here today, that it is against the policy of his Government ever to give any form of freehold title to Black people in White areas, is one of the most dangerous things that has ever been said in this House, because what we are doing here is that we are creating a landless, rootless, voiceless mass of people. We are sowing the seeds of communism and we shall come to rue the day that he made this announcement. How is the Black man not harrassed and humiliated wherever he goes? He is discriminated against as far as taxes are concerned, he is discriminated against as far as the law is concerned. There are over 80 laws in South Africa at the present time that deal specifically with the Black man. I have said this before that on the average every day we have 3 000 prosecutions of Black people for offences which apply to them only and to nobody else.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. My time has almost expired. The hon. the Prime Minister says this is not discrimination. These are apparently steps taken by a magnanimous Nationalist Government in order to ensure that the Black people preserve their identity.

Go to the Parade and make a speech there.

How can one go on with this callous sort of attitude, this insensitive sort of situation? It must be rejected by all of us. Recently Prof. Wimpie de Klerk whose credentials should be highly acceptable to that side of the House, said … [Interjections.] When the hon. the Prime Minister has completed his dialogue I would like to continue. Recently Prof. Wimpie de Klerk whose credentials I would imagine are highly acceptable to that side of the House, wrote as follows—

Yet the hon. the Prime Minister says that it does not exist, that it is not here in South Africa. What form of rationalization is this? Has he got blinkers on? Does the hon. the Prime Minister not know what is happening in the country that he is controlling? The point has been made by hon. members from the other side that this is an interim measure and that once the Black states become independent the need for this would all of a sudden apparently disappear. This is also something which one cannot support. At the present time we have masses of foreign workers who are citizens of foreign countries and who live and work in South Africa. Why are they then subject to these rules and regulations which apply? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who is not with us now and who seems to be a great supporter of the idea that petty apartheid will disappear when the Black states become independent, if the Transkei were to become independent at the end of the year, which of these petty apartheid regulations will then become superfluous and will be done away with? Which ones are they? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to hon. speakers on the Opposition side, one would say that nothing whatsoever is being done or considered on that side in the interests of preserving the identity of the Whites in South Africa, and, parallel to that, the interests of the non-Whites in South Africa. What we had here was a tirade, and a list of certain things which are supposedly irritating. Since there has, during the past few weeks, been some slight reaction to a speech which I made here, I think I will be permitted to repeat one little sentence. I said that there are certain forms of social intercourse which need not be covered absolutely by legislation, but, when there are certain things which may in due course fall away or which wear off, it still does not mean that any person who is sensible and who regards the situation in South Africa with wisdom, can say that all petty apartheid in South Africa should be thrown overboard.

It is petty apartheid.

I think that we are talking at cross-purposes a little. If the hon. member for East London City could tell me how he distinguishes between major and petty apartheid, I would be pleased. If there is petty apartheid, I presume that there will be major apartheid as well. How major is this major apartheid? Hon. members now have an opportunity to tell us what major apartheid is. These friends who are now playing with the concept of “petty apartheid” are after all playing it off against its alternative. The alternative to petty apartheid is surely major apartheid, not so? If it is petty, then you can speak about certain things which are petty in the association between White and non-Whites, (but if we talk about “major” and “little”, or as some now want to call it “petty”, then we must see it by way of contrast. When I discuss it, I discuss it with reference to apartheid in the major political set-up. Then I ask: “If you want major political apartheid, what would you dispense with on the lower social and lower political level? What has to disappear if you still want to retain major apartheid?”

How do you translate “petty”?

A writer in New Nation conceded that I am right, that one cannot demolish apartheid to the roots, and still retain major apartheid. One cannot have separate states for these people if one has made them totally acceptable to one another on the social level, on the sport level and on the lower political level, and has intermingled them. After all, one cannot sever the roots of a tree one by one and still expect it to survive.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, before dinner I made the statement that one cannot have major apartheid in the sense that one has separate states for the various ethnic groups, unless this is also based on separation on the level of social life and political life. But I should like to know from the Opposition, since they are making such an attack on petty apartheid, what it is that they call major apartheid. What is major apartheid according to them? Is it separate states? But then we are in difficulties, because they do not want separate states for the various peoples. However, they do want separate residential areas. Am I right in saying that? And they want separate voters’ rolls. If one goes a little further then one is again in difficulties with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because he does not adhere to that. He says that the Immorality Act, for example, is the pettiest of petty apartheid. If he is opposed to the Immorality Act as being the pettiest of petty apartheid— in other words, there may now be legal immorality between White and non-White —then he is morally compelled to say that there must be and there can be mixed marriages. For how else would one make immorality legal outside marriage, without wanting a legal marriage between White and non-White? Do we understand the hon. member correctly? Separate residential areas, separate voters’ rolls, but the social intercourse between White and non-White from which there may be off springs who will then be mixed as far as their racial or ethnic content is concerned, is totally acceptable and, as far as those people are concerned, they are satisfied that they will find a home in society in the Coloured residential areas and that they will find a home in politics among the Coloureds on their voters’ roll. If we want to discuss morality, I am unable to see the morality of that position. To me this is the most immoral situation.

Various speakers had a great deal to say about colour, for example the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be so good as to tell me whether he agrees that we should not differentiate on the basis of colour. I see that he now has correspondence to do. The hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout kicked up a tremendous fuss here about colour as a basis for differentiation in South Africa. There must supposedly be no colour differentiation and one must not be judged on the colour of his skin. The hon. member for Yeoville does not agree. He is the author of the publication Onward-Voorwaarts, fellow soldiers. I have here the December edition of 1971. So it may already be out of date, but I do not think that the hon. member for Yeoville dates so quickly. He says (translation)—

The hon. member for Yeoville is being very level-headed as far as that view is concerned. He is in very good company in this field, except for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In other words, he does not link colour differentiation solely to the pigment of the skin, but he says that it is bound up with a difference in the modes of living of our ethnic groups. The hon. member for Yeoville went further. In the same edition he said—

At the same time I should like to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether the theatre is also included in the social level. Is this not part of the social life? Now he can thrash that matter out himself with his friend near him. Then the hon. member for Yeoville went on to say that he was not in favour of separate states. But then he said (translation)—

A great deal has been said about differentiation on the basis of colour. The fact of the matter is that the United Party is not consistent as far as differentiation on the basis of colour in South Africa is concerned. For the one it must be thrown overboard in its entirety, but the other comes along and says, “Colour is bound up with the modes of living of the various ethnic groups”. After all, this is not an abstraction. After all, colour in South Africa is not something which one introduced with a few strikes of the pen on a few pieces of paper. It is something which is bound up with modes of living and with ethnic groups in South Africa. On the frontispiece of his book Liberale Nasionalisme, Van Wyk Louw says that what lies between us is more than just colour. He adds to that that if we—White, Brown and Black—were to wake up one day and discover that by a dispensation of Providence we were all Black, (translation)—

After all, this is the fact of the matter. We talk so easily about not differentiating on the basis of colour. Let me quote to you what Van Wyk Louw went on to say. He discussed this very approach in South Africa taken by the liberals, who so easily talk as if we were a homogeneous nation of so many million people. He said (translation)—

It is an error of reasoning to act as if it is only a small difference in the pigment of the skin. If someone in South Africa, in our population set-up, with our ethnic differences, is colour blind, he is blind in the sphere of politics as well and does not have an eye for reality in South Africa. In other words, if there are people who are blind, I think that it is the United Party, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular.

Come on, Vause!

I see that the hon. member for Durban Point is in a great hurry.

May I point out that I find myself in very good company when I say that one cannot regard colour as only a small matter which exists on paper. I quote to you what Prof. Rupert Emerson says:

That we admit. He goes on to say—

This is not an apartheid supporter who says this. This is a man who has made a study of the empire, and of the position of nations and peoples. It is he who says that colour and external characteristics continued to be of central importance in the inter-relations between the various peoples. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side of the House have said today, on several occasions, that they would like to discuss matters concerning the Prime Minister’s Vote. This evening I should also like to discuss one of those matters from which the Opposition has thus far run away very successfully, and they did so for a good reason. They are, of course, divided about that to their very marrow.

I want to refer to the restriction of certain students as a result of the Schlebusch Commission’s Report. I now want to state very clearly that an authority that acts responsibly because it accepts its duty to maintain good order in respect of every sphere of life in which its national economy is engaged is compelled—and I want to state this very strongly—to take certain preventive measures in respect of a variety of matters that could adversely affect the community if not adequately controlled.

It is the absolute duty of the authorities and we demand this of them.

When we come to one of the most cardinal aspects of our national economy, i.e. the security of the State, the same people, who in other spheres insist on precautionary measures, curse the Government if it takes precautions to ensure the security of the State. There must be no misunderstanding about this. If the security and stability of the State are being threatened or destroyed, there can be no freedom for the individual. In fact, the individual’s freedom is specifically guaranteed by the security and stability of the State. Therefore it is the duty of the responsible authorities to guarantee the freedom of the law-abiding citizens of the country by ensuring the security of the State under all circumstances.

Now it is a fact that from certain quarters there is opposition to the precautions that have already been taken by the authorities to ensure the security of the State by restricting a number of Nusas students. The only meaningful conclusion one can draw from this is that there are persons and bodies who want to see the security and stability of the State threatened and destroyed as a rapid and efficient method to overthrow the Government and authority. As a result of this conduct it is now possible, for the first time, for the United Party men to see—I am now speaking of the good old Boer stock, men and women, on the platteland who vote for the United Party—what poisonous night-adders the United Party has all the while cherished at its breast.

Harry Schwarz.

Mr. Harry Schwarz’s name was mentioned here, but at this stage I do not want to speak about him at all. I want to leave him completely in the hands of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If he is still able to lead his party, he will demonstrate this to us in his conduct towards Mr. Harry Schwarz. I want to tell him that his people on the platteland expect this of him. They want to see this. I am referring to those people of whom Mr. Schwarz said that they were still walking around in tatters when the Jews in South Africa were already civilized.

The motives of these night-adders in the United Party’s bosom, are of two kinds. In the first place they realize that the Opposition cannot defeat the Government at the polls in a democratic way. In the second place they realize that the English-speaking people of this country are politically more liberally leftist than the Afrikaans-speaking people. They realize that the Afrikaans-speaking people place a greater premium on discipline and obedience to the law than do the English-speaking people.

Oh!

I hear an hon. member on that side saying “oh!” I want to prove this to him. It is not I who am saying this. It is the English Press itself that says it. I read the following in the Rand Daily Mail of 28th December, 1972—

Sir, it is the English-language newspapers themselves that label the English-speaking people as being less disciplined and less accommodating as far as authority is concerned. But, Sir, we frequently see evidence of that amongst the students of our English-language universities. I now ask myself the question: Why must it be so? Has the time not come for those people to see themselves, for a change, as the public also sees them? I want to endorse my statement further by the following quotation from The Argus of 3rd June, 1972, where the following is stated—

To these leftist liberalists—and I am including their newspapers in that—who believe that human beings are perfect in themselves, who believe that people only have rights and not duties as well, who believe that people’s rights give them unfettered freedom, a freedom which may then bring them into revolt against order and authority—as we frequently find at our English-language universities—to them I want to say that the community at large holds them in contempt, even though they are built up by a handful of like-minded journalists of our English-language newspapers. The community in general holds them in contempt because the community in general is definitely opposed to freedom that wishes to ignore legal ties and commit offences against those ties.

And, Sir, while I am now dealing with these leftist liberalists, it is interesting to note what an authority on communism, George H. Sabine, said in his book, A History of Political Theory, in respect of liberalism and communism. He said the following—

Although these Nusas students, who have been restricted, cannot be identified as communists, the evidence on page 15 of the Schlebusch Commission very closely fits the statement of the writer I have just quoted. Here it is stated that this Nusas clique do not believe in any form of authoritative restraint, for example the authority of the parent in respect of the child, of the teacher in respect of the pupil, and of university authorities in respect of the student. That is what the report states.

When one comes to the organization— and this I want to emphasize—of the leadership clique of Nusas, as the report describes it, and since I regard it as a small group of activists living in communes, and committing acts that could bring about a spirit of revolution in South Africa, this also ties up very closely with the following words of the same writer. He states—

When we come to the public reaction to the restriction of these Nusas students, I want to tell you that the United Party is in danger of falling between two stools. They are in danger of doing so as a result of the conduct of extremists at the English-language universities, in the English-language Press and, Sir, as a result of the actions of Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks in a prominent position—too prominent to be any good to the Graaff leadership, and too prominent to be any good for the United Party as a whole. It is very illuminating that specifically these people, who are carrying on so in public about the restriction of these students, are the spiritual allies of those who, not long ago, not only deprived a few students of some of their freedoms, but restricted hundreds of Afrikaners without trial in internment camps. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout resumed his seat this afternoon, after he had followed up the magnificent, brilliant attack by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, not one single Government member was able to get up and reply to him. The hon. Chief Whip on the other side sat there tonguetied and there was a dead silence.

He has no teeth at all.

The hon. member for Hillbrow got up and now the Government is trying to restore the balance by bringing in a second speaker, but they have not restored the balance at all, for although we saw the hon. member for Odendaalsrus getting up here, we heard the ghost voice of a Jaap Marais here tonight, and I do not intend wasting the time of this Committee on the ghost voice of a Jaap Marais.

†I want to come back, Mr. Chairman, to the evasions which we have seen this afternoon and yesterday. Yesterday my hon. leader posed some fundamental questions to the hon. the Prime Minister, fundamental questions affecting the future of South Africa. This afternoon he repeated them and he added to them further questions which affect the whole philosophy of the Nationalist Government and the whole future of South Africa’s direction of development. Speaker after speaker has followed, Sir, and the Prime Minister has sat still and silent in the face of the challenges and the demands for answers from this side of the House, and now we understand why he has sat silent. In the Prime Minister’s Vote provision is made for an amount of R9 million for the Bureau of State Security, the BOSS as it is known in common parlance. But we have discovered this afternoon and this evening that there is a greater boss who determines the course of debate and of politics, because where we have demanded replies from the hon. the Prime Minister, we have got them instead from the chairman of the Broederbond. The hon. the Prime Minister has sat silent until the real “boss” has now given him the lead for which he has been waiting. That can be the only explanation for his total silence and his evasion of the questions which have been put to him. Mr. Chairman, we face the moment of truth for South Africa. Both the late Dr. Verwoerd and this hon. Prime Minister stated as the ideal, as the ultimate goal of Nationalism, as the ultimate goal of separate development, as the ultimate goal of apartheid and separate freedoms and “selfbeskikking”—call it what you will —the elimination of discrimination based on colour in the life of South Africa. The Nationalist Party set as its goal the elimination of those things which discriminate and accepted the ideal, of self-determination, of separate freedoms, separate independence for independent Black states within the heart and the borders of South Africa, independent states with their own parliaments. Full states with the right to make treaties with other countries, the right to have defence forces and police forces, and the right to all those things which give sovereignty to a sovereign nation; and when that happened then discrimination would disappear because then we would have achieved the ideal of apartheid, the ideal of separate development. This afternoon my hon. leader taxed the hon. the Prime Minister with questions on the things which hurt, the things which insult the dignity of people, the things which strike at the soul of a man, whatever his colour may be, and he challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to tell South Africa what he, the Prime Minister, has done to remove from the national life of South Africa these things that hurt people and he named some examples. He said: “What have you, Mr. Prime Minister, the man responsible for the policy of South Africa, done to remove these things that hurt the soul and the conscience of people, people who have an individuality and a personality which you as Prime Minister recognize and which you have held up as something which we must respect? Sir, my hon. leader has asked what has been done to eliminate the things which hurt a person as a person. The hon. the Prime Minister remained silent. There was no interjection from him; there was no clever joke from him, no joke of any sort, clever or unclever. There was no attempt even to introduce a red herring. He left it to backbenchers to introduce red herrings on every conceivable issue. He came here with a third Schlebusch interim report which none of us had then seen.

That is not true.

We have just had a Nusas speech from the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, and now we know what we have been waiting for; we know that the real “boss”, not the BOSS for which we are voting R9 million, but the real “boss” has now spoken. The hon. member for Waterberg, the chairman of the Broederbond, has now said that in fact “groot apartheid” will not eliminate “klein apartheid”. Let me just deal with this for a moment in passing. I do not know whether “klein apartheid” is the right translation of “petty apartheid”. I would say “kleinlike apartheid”. We talk of petty apartheid, but let us call it “klein apartheid”. The hon. member for Waterberg …

Waterberg.

You see, Sir, even if you pronounce Waterberg the English way, the chairman of the Broederbond objects to it. He even objects to the English pronunciation of the name. Sir, we expect that from the leader of an organization which has taken an oath based on blood to make Afrikanerdom the boss of South Africa, to make Afrikanerdom the controller in every field of life in South Africa. Sir, we now call upon the hon. the Prime Minister to stand up here tonight and either to refute the hon. member for Waterberg and to say that in the concept of separate development he sees the end to racial discrimination based on colour, that he sees an end to the things that hurt people, or he must stand up and say, “I accept the boss; I accept the order that has been given to me to preserve ‘klein apartheid’, to preserve discrimination based on colour, because if we remove one of these ‘klein apartheid’ things, then the ‘groot apartheid’ structure will collapse.” We have removed it in sport, in athletics; we have removed it in allowing Maoris into South Africa; we have allowed a Black rugby team to play against White visitors; we have removed it in various fields under the present Prime Minister, but the hon. member for Waterberg says that if you remove “klein apartheid” you destroy the roots and the tree of “groot apartheid” will die. And now the hon. the Prime Minister must tell us: If you cut off a root and you allow people to run together, to box together, to swim together, to drink together, to stay in an hotel together, have you then destroyed “groot apartheid” as the hon. member for Waterberg says? That is the challenge we make tonight.

I shall come back to the hon. member for Durban Point in the course of my speech. Let me just tell him at once that I expected him to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Waterberg according to its merits.

But you are Prime Minister, not I.

Even if the hon. member is not the Prime Minister, I nevertheless give him credit for having some common sense. Besides, it is the accepted thing in this House to reply to arguments advanced from the other side. The hon. member for Waterberg advanced arguments to which the hon. member did not try to reply, for the simple reason that under the present circumstances the hon. member did not see his way clear to replying to those arguments, because the hon. member for Durban Point knows just as well as I do that the accusation made by Mr. Schwarz when he became the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, i.e. when he said that in future there would be no more double-talk under his leadership, still holds true today. He knows that, and I know the hon. member for Durban Point is a sport. Would he allow and would his Leader allow the hon. member for Hillbrow, who spoke here this afternoon, to make that same speech in Aliwal North?

Why not?

I challenge him to go to Aliwal North and make, word for word, the speech he made here this afternoon. I should very much like to see that, and the hon. member for Hillbrow has time until 9th Mary to do so.

And I shall pay for his ticket.

What is more, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now incorporated the party of South-West Africa, and along with that party he has incorporated the mouthpiece of that party, namely the Suidwes-Afrikaner. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has ever set eyes on this, the only mouthpiece which his party has. If he has not read it, I want to recommend that he should in fact do so. If he does so, he will find that one of the things which makes it difficult for any person in South Africa to promote sound race relations, is the very articles published in that mouthpiece of his in South-West Africa, a publication which could just as well have been the mouthpiece of Jaap Marais or of Albert Hertzog, a publication which blatantly exploits anything done by this Government to promote sound race relations. Every hon. member who merely glances his eye over that publication, will agree with me that this is the position. But now I want to say this at once to the hon. member for Durban Point. I listened to the full speech made by the hon. member for Waterberg. I also listened to the speech made by him the other day, and I agree with every word which the hon. member said. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Waterberg said nothing other than what I myself had already said in this House. But I am coming back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will remember very clearly that when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made his attack on petty apartheid and was good enough to furnish me across the floor of this House with his definition of petty apartheid, which includes everything, for the definition given by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not exclude anything—it amounts to the breaking down of all dividing lines …

Enforced dividing lines, not natural dividing lines.

I shall come back to the hon. member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will remember very clearly that I asked him whether he agreed with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but to this day he has not replied to that question. He has never taken up a standpoint on that definition of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I give him credit for being the only person who has ever given a definition of it in this House. All the other hon. members hold forth, but when one asks them for a definition of it, one can wait indefinitely and one will simply not get it from them. But, to be more specific, one would expect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in view of the fact that he, too, made attacks on me —and I shall come back to what he said —at least to make an attempt to give a definition of his own accord. But up to now he has not done so at all, and we shall not get one from him either, no more than he will discuss his policy with us in this House.

We shall do so in our time.

I shall come back to that.

†We had to hear from the hon. member for South Coast—I almost said the farther of the House, because I think we can call the hon. member that—this afternoon that whatever I may do or say I will not provoke him to talk about their policy. Since when, Sir, in this Parliament of ours must you go so far as to provoke an Opposition to talk about their policy? [Interjections.] I would have thought that political parties come to this House and that they willingly seize every opportunity to talk about their policy.

This is your opportunity to talk about your policy.

I have talked about my policy today and yesterday.

When?

And what is more, I translate my policy into practice every day, and the hon. member will also hear about my policy tonight. But even if I do not want to discuss my policy, I have never said to hon. members opposite that even if they provoke me I am not going to talk about my policy at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

Do not be such a coward.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member here entitled to refer to the hon. member for South Coast as a coward?

I never said that.

You did.

Order! Did an hon. member say that?

I did not say that.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

On a further point of order, Sir, here again we have an incident of an hon. member not owning up.

Order! The hon. member must raise a point of order.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member knows that he said it and I know that he said it. [Interjections.]

I heard the hon. member saying it.

Order! The matter has been disposed of. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to other matters I want to refer briefly to the report about the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre. I want to say immediately that the staff of this House—I want to refer especially to Mr. Venter, the Deputy Secretary, and Mr. De Kock, Clerk of the Papers—went out of their way and worked overtime and over the holidays to get this report to hon. members as soon as possible. From inquiries I have made I gathered that this report was available to all members this afternoon.

Late.

It was put in hon. members’ post boxes.

No! [Interjections.]

I am told that this was the position.

In the post boxes of members on your side.

I am told that all members could get this report this afternoon.

At six o’clock.

Therefore I want to thank those members of the staff, who, as I have said, went out of their way to make this possible.

You gave them an impossible task.

Order!

If you will permit me, Sir, I should like to say that at six o’clock the Clerk of the Papers told me that I would be able to get a copy at half past six. That would be the first chance that I would have today. I want the hon. the Prime Minister to take my word for it.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I can only give what information I obtained on this. I shall certainly check on what the hon. member for South Coast has said now. The hon. member will know that quite early in the afternoon the hon. member for Houghton came in with the report …

Where did she get it?

I stole it, of course! The Clerk of the Papers sent it to me.

… and several other hon. members on the other side also had this report early this afternoon. [Interjections.]

If I may refer to this report, I want to say that I accept this unanimous report coming from responsible members of both parties, members who have set about their task in the best traditions of this House. I wish to thank, as I did in the case of the previous reports, hon. members who worked long hours to make also this report available to the House. Having read this report, I want to say that my summing up of Wilgespruit is that it is a nest of iniquity. [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon. members to give the hon. the Prime Minister an opportunity to make his speech.

I want to be fair and I want to give the benefit of the doubt to those churches and those ministers of religion who are connected with this place. I think that they should have known what was going on there, but in spite of that I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not actually know what was going on there. Therefore I want to give them an opportunity of, say, three weeks to make their position clear and see whether they are prepared themselves to clear up that nest of iniquity. If they do not, they will leave this Government no option but to take the necessary action. [Interjections.]

*With great prolixity the hon. member for Hillbrow made mention of what I had said in Durban on the occasion of the congress held there. I spoke there, to be specific, in reply to a question that had been put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When he put this question to me in public, a day or two before I was to speak in Durban, he apparently did so in an attempt to win the goodwill of certain people in Natal. The question was what I would do if I woke up one morning and found that I was black. That was the question which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to me. This was my reply to that question. I told him that if I were to wake up and find that I was black, I would, amongst other things, find the following: I would find that as a Black man I was not allowed to sit in this Parliament, and I said that this was also the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. I also said that I would, for instance, find that I was not allowed to send my child to a White school. As far as I know, this is also the policy of the hon. members opposite. I said I would find that I was not allowed to travel on the trains with the Whites; as far as I know, this is also the policy of the hon. members opposite. I said I would find that I was not allowed to go swimming in the Durban swimming baths, and as far as I know, it is also the policy of the U.P. City Council and the Opposition that this may not be done. This is the way I replied to the question put to me by the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to put this question to the hon. members once again, and I shall come back to other examples; the question is: “Where are we headed and what use is it to any person in this House or in South Africa to profess by way of conducting a debate that one is advocating a certain standpoint whilst one knows in one’s heart that in practice one does not advocate that standpoint?” What is the use of making promises to people now, while one is in the Opposition, whilst one knows in one’s heart that one is not going to carry them out if one should come into power one day? What is the use of professing these things now, whilst one propagates the exact opposite in the rural areas when one fights elections there?

Prove it!

Surely the hon. member is the last person who should ask me to prove this, for surely he knows that he is the person who referred to “Kaffirs” at Zeerust in the Western Transvaal. [Interjections.]

I was quoting the then Minister of Health, Dr. Carel de Wet.

Surely the hon. member knows how he exploited that, and surely the hon. members know how they exploited these things in Brakpan and in other constituencies. After all, there is no need for us to have any doubt whatever about these things now.

Now I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout once again availed himself of this opportunity so as to rage about petty apartheid. What I find most interesting, is the way the hon. member for Bezuidenhout started his speech, namely by complimenting his leader on the brilliant speech he had made. As the English say, if there has ever been a back-handed compliment, that was one for you. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows just as well as I do that day in and day out he allows himself to be used by the forces seeking the downfall of his leader. Surely he know this. Last Sunday they used him against his leader.

Do I print the newspaper?

The hon. member does not print the newspaper, but the hon. member says this kind of thing so that it may be used against his leader. He is bluffing nobody if he thinks that this is not a transparent game. Surely everybody knows what he is referring to. Surely everybody knows what his intentions were when he spoke at the University of Cape Town. But when he comes here, here in this House, he does not have the courage to say in front of his leader what he says behind his back. He does not have the courage to do so.

That is a mean remark which you are making.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must withdraw those words.

May I put a question?

No, I do not want any arguments. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

But how dare the hon. the Prime Minister say that I say things behind the back of my leader which I dare not say to his face?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Very well, I withdraw them, but then …

Without any qualifications. The hon. member must resume his seat.

But the hon. the Prime Minister has insulted me.

The hon. member must withdraw from this Chamber.

But surely I did withdraw those words.

But you are not heeding my request to resume your seat.

But I did withdraw those words, Sir.

The hon. member is not obeying the rules. He must withdraw from the Chamber.

I think it is a damn disgrace that the Prime Minister … [Interjections.]

(The hon. member thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.)

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the Prime Minister … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! I want no further interjections. The hon. member for Transkei is taking a point of order and I am giving him the opportunity to do so. I shall say who is to sit down and who not.

The hon. the Prime Minister made a shocking allegation against the member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.]

Order! That is no point of order.

But I am taking a point of order against the hon. the Prime Minister.

This is no point of order; it does not affect the order.

Surely, I am allowed to address you on a point of order.

I have heard what the Prime Minister said and also what the member for Bezuidenhout said. I instructed the member for Bezuidenhout to withdraw a word, but he would not listen.

I now want to address you on the Prime Minister’s remark, which I consider was unparliamentary. The hon. the Prime Minister accused the member for Bezuidenhout of a cowardly action, of saying behind the Leader of the Opposition’s back something which he was not prepared to say in his presence. That is an accusation of cowardice.

Order! The words used by the hon. the Prime Minister are parliamentary and not unparliamentary. That is my ruling.

Are we then in future entitled to accuse a member of cowardice …

It depends upon the wording.

I then ask the hon. the Prime Minister to get up and tell the House what he meant by that remark.

Order! The matter is settled. The hon. the Prime Minister may now proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall repeat it exactly for the hon. member’s sake. I said that before this altercation took place. [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon. members to preserve the dignity of this House, otherwise I shall take steps to ensure that this is done. I also rule that if hon. members do not afford the hon. the Prime Minister the opportunity to make his speech without interjections, I shall take other steps. The hon. the Prime Minister may now proceed.

I have already, on a previous occasion, told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what I mean. When he gave that address at the University of Cape Town he had a great deal to say behind the back of his leader, but when he came to this House he commended him on the great speech he had made. I told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I am not mincing matters, that he was a big shot behind the back of his leader, but that it was an entirely different matter when he was in the company of his leader.

Is that not an allegation of cowardice?

The hon. member for Transkei can make of it whatever he likes. My words ought to be clear enough to him.

All the Japie supporters are walking out.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout quite justifiably …

Another Boer hater.

Order! The hon. member who used those words must withdraw them; they are unparliamentary.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman.

I am warning hon. members now! The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

On a previous occasion the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here, as was mentioned here by the hon. member for Waterberg, that the crudest of all crude apartheid was the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. Hon. members are making an outcry about petty apartheid. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point, who also discussed these matters, whether he is in favour of these two Acts being abolished? I know hon. members opposite said that they would review this legislation, but that is not what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says: “Down with petty apartheid under all circumstances! Down with it at once!” The crudest and the pettiest apartheid is, according to him, mixed marriages and the Immorality Act. Surely hon. members may therefore draw their own conclusions about what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is heading for and what the policy is which he advocates. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to the difference which exists between the salaries of Whites and those of non-Whites. Surely that difference has been there all these years. It was there when hon. members opposite were still governing.

It was much smaller.

No, the difference was in many respects far greater. Not only was it in many respects far greater, but people who are today occupying certain positions simply would not have been able to occupy those positions when hon. members opposite were governing. But, what is more, they do know that this gap is an historic gap. Surely they know that it is the declared policy of the Government to marrow that gap. Surely they know that steps have in fact been taken already. I want to inform hon. members that I discussed this matter personally with the non-White leaders. I explained it to them. I explained to them the problem that one could not narrow that gap all at once, but that it was a question of millions and millions of rands which this Government, or any government whatsoever, does not have at the moment. I explained that it would have to be done gradually and that it was a matter of history, just as it was a matter of history that there was a difference between a remuneration for men and a remuneration for women, which is another matter that cannot be justified on other grounds.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister why, in view of the statement he has just made, in the latest Public Service increase the real gap between Whites and non-Whites doing the same work with the same qualifications, has in fact increased? As a result of the percentage increase of 15% and 20%, the real gap has increased. Why, in view of his declared policy, has he done that this year?

It depends on what side one looks at it from. For the first time in our history a start has now been made by giving the Whites 15% and the non-Whites 17½%.

But that increases the gap.

What is important about this is that one has stabilized that principle in that way. The non-White leaders realize this too. One will continue to narrow that gap as frequently as one is given the opportunity to do so.

The hon. member for South Coast is not present in the House at the moment. The hon. member raised two matters. The one matter which the hon. member for South Coast touched on was that of the young Bantu qualifying himself at present in some or other branch of the building industry. The hon. member for South Coast was very concerned about the possibility that such Bantu would not be able to find suitable employment. They are not the first Bantu to qualify themselves in the building industry. There are many hundreds of Bantu who are already active in the building trade. They have already received their certificates. All of them are working in the Bantu areas. There will just never be a time when there will not be work for them. It is not, as the hon. member for South Coast said, merely a question of their having to build huts. There are major construction works in progress in the Transkei. There are those construction works which are connected with the various capitals of the homelands. There are school and other buildings which have to be erected. I can give him the assurance that the Bantu will at all times be afforded every possible opportunity …

May the Zulu go to the Transkei?

There is so much work for the Zulu in Zululand itself.

I am referring to the Transkei.

We are trying to train the people of every homeland for service in that homeland.

To do what?

They must build. What else are they to do? Did the hon. member not listen to what I have just said? The homeland capital of Zululand has to be built at Ulundi. Does my hon. friend think there is no work for a Bantu who is qualifying at the moment? I am dealing with that case. We should not be foolish now.

The hon. member for South Coast raised another matter as well, which has nothing to do with our politics but which is a very important matter. This is a matter which I discussed previously with many non-White leaders, not only of South Africa but also of elsewhere. It is to a very large extent the dilemma of the non-Whites of the entire Southern Africa. As we see it—and I do not think our way of seeing it is wrong —the basis of development of any nation in any country is private ownership of property. Now one has the unfortunate position, not only in our homelands but also in the African states, that there is no faith in private ownership. Consequently this a matter which is going to impede their development no end, as I see it. This is a matter which most certainly deserves the attention of all leaders of non-White peoples. How they are going to solve it, I do not know. All I know is that their entire tradition runs counter to this, and that there are some of those leaders who told me that they would not even try to do it, for they knew it is an impossible task to try to achieve that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put further questions to me Quite unjustifiably he levelled a reproach at my predecessor in regard to his Loskop speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do—this has been said before across the floor of this House—that the late Dr. Verwoerd instructed our representative in New Zealand to inform the New-Zealand authorities that as far as their team was concerned, we did not select their team and did not ask for their birth certificates.

But what did he say at Loskop?

At Loskop Dr. Verwoerd was dealing with an entirely different situation. He was dealing with a situation where people wanted to dictate to South Africa what it should do and what it should not do, just as Mr. Kirk now wants to dictate to me—and I will not be dictated to by Mr. Kirk; and we had the same situation—I am not running away from it—that time when Britain wanted to dictate to us who we had to accept in regard to the cricket tour which took place then. At the time they omitted a certain person on merit, and under pressure from agitators they subsequently included him again, with a political objective, i.e. to cause trouble here in South Africa.

How can you say that?

I can say it. Does my friend not remember the Press reports which appeared in that connection at the time? Does my hon. friend not remember the agitation which was started as a result of that? My friend cannot possibly say that I am being unfair in this connection.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the civic rights which the urban Bantu have. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that there are such things as urban Bantu councils, and he also knows that it was possible for those urban Bantu councils to receive delegated powers from the city councils under whose jurisdiction they fell.

Not from the city councils.

I beg your pardon?

May I ask a question? Is it not necessary for them to obtain the consent of the Administrator before they may grant those powers to the councils?

No, that is not the case. They were able to delegate those powers to the urban Bantu councils after consultation with my friend, the Minister here. That is the position. And let me say this now: What powers did the Johannesburg Municipality transfer to the Bantu councils, and what did they ask my friend to do in that connection, which he refused to do?

As the Minister; he knows.

Yes, I am telling you now. Sir, here the city councils had the opportunity of giving those people real powers. These are the civic rights in regard to which my friend is now picking a quarrel with me. The U.P. City Councils failed in their duty in that respect. That is the truth of the matter. I can clearly understand that, just as the Whites want to manage their local government and just as the Coloureds have to manage theirs, so there will also be a need among the Bantu to look after their own local government, and the Government will most certainly encourage them along that course. The Government will not place obstacles in their way when it comes to exercising those powers of local government.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has …

You are struggling now.

No, I am merely trying to read my own notes; that is all I am trying to do. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put three questions to me. In the first place, he spoke about “the area where apartheid applies administratively”. The only example he was able to dig up in that connection was the hoary one of the case of the Japanese jockey. That was the only example he was able to give me in that context. He asked me: “What are you going to do to see that it does not happen again?” It is not necessary for me to tell him what I am going to do in that connection. Surely he has seen what has happened in the meantime. Surely he has seen this, and surely he knows what our present relations with Japan in this connection are. He knows that a team of Japanese gymnasts is here in South Africa at the moment.

In the second place, he mentioned the question of the doctor at Duiwelskloof. That is a case which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Government. It was not an instruction from the Government. It was the local people who, in their wisdom, took that decision. I now want to know this from hon. members opposite: Is it their policy now to lay down codes of conduct for local communities in this connection and then to make these compulsory for them, yes or no?

But they were trying to implement Government policy.

Sir, I have just told the hon. member that this was not a Government function. It had nothing to do with the Government agency. Those were the feelings of the local people, in the same way as the feelings of the Bloemfontein people in respect of their sports stadium were local feelings too, and the hon. member for Durban Point knows that I have consistently refused to intervene in such matters, for it is the right of local communities to form their own opinion in respect of these matters. Irrespective of whether I agree, it is a right which I am not prepared to take away from local communities. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to mention the question of a symphony concert. I have never heard of it. Consequently I do not know what the circumstances were. I shall make inquiries, and if it is necessary, we can discuss this again at a later stage.

In the third place, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Nico Malan Theatre. I am surprised; the decision in respect of the Nico Malan Theatre was taken in 1965. At the time hon. members did nothing whatsoever about it that I am aware of.

I did so myself in the Provincial Council.

I am now referring to hon. members here. When did the hon. member for Green Point come to this House?

I raised objections in the Provincial Council on behalf of our Party.

Yes, but I am now referring to this House; I do not know what happened in the Provincial Council. Over all these years that decision stood like that until the left-wingers—and I make no apology for saying this—in the United Party set an agitation afoot in this regard. It was only when they began with the agitation of a boycott that this matter was broached again; before that time one had heard nothing whatsoever about it.

What about Blaar Coetzee?

So a thing is right so long as you do not see it.

If it was so galling, I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point why he did not raise the matter in this House? Surely there were many opportunities for him to do so.

The Provincial Council was responsible for the matter, and it was raised there.

Then why is it being raised in this House now, and why was it not raised here at the time if it was such a galling issue to hon. members opposite?

Sir, the hon. member then went even further in his attempt to find a stick with which to beat the Government by referring to the case of Papwa, which also occurred in 1964 or 1965. The hon. member found it necessary to discuss that case now, and since he did hold forth on sport here, I take it amiss of the hon. member that he did not say a single word about the South African Games, which have just ended, although he did raise that matter here.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition might as well look up the speech he wrote out and then read out here, and he will find that he did not say that.

Did I not mention the White team which played against the Bantu and the Coloureds here?

That was all the hon. member said. But he hurled reproaches concerning Papwa in this connection. However, he did not for a single moment have a good word to say about the South African Games or the way they turned out.

Sir, if hon. members—and with that I want to conclude for the moment—refer to changing a policy, then I want to make it very clear that I spelled it out very clearly at Kroonstad—and full publicity was given to this in all the newspapers—that what we were doing was in fact the full consequences of our policy. I made it very clear there that as far as that matter was concerned, we were at the third phase of the development of our policy, viz. that the relations between peoples would become more and more prominent, and hon. members need only observe what will happen here in South Africa in future. It is not necessary for me to discuss the policy. On the contrary, hon. members will see it developing in practice because we are in earnest about this matter of sound relations. I said on a previous occasion—and I meant it—that if there were unnecessary measures, I would at all times be prepared to do away with those measures, because unnecessary measures may not be allowed to stand in the way of sound relations in South Africa. But having said that—and then I am not only speaking on behalf of my own people, but, as I know our people, I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority of our people in any case—I want to add that there are two things which our people absolutely demand of us, in respect of which they want from us an absolute assurance, and the one is that we will design and direct our policy in such a way that we shall continue to preserve our White identity. Consequently, when reference is made to the repeal of the Immorality Act and to its being the crudest of the petty apartheid measures, then I maintain that it is one of the measures which will and must remain under all circumstances, and the same applies to the Mixed Marriages Act; for we are in earnest about preserving the identity of the Whites. But apart from that identity, there is a second matter which our people expect of us, not only my people, but also your people. They expect of us not under any circumstances to share the sovereignty over our own people with any other people. That is, to my mind, where the danger lies, and I have discussed this before. If the United Party is sincere about its race federation policy— and it can only be sincere about that race federation policy if it grants full and final responsibility to the multi-racial parliament —if it is not prepared to give the federal parliament the final say, then I say the United Party is not being sincere about its policy.

Hear, hear!

Does the hon. the Prime Minister therefore mean that the Coloureds and the Indians will have no share in the sovereignty of South Africa?

Sir, one must retain the sovereignty over one’s own people. That is what I said.

Share.

Share? One may not share it with other peoples. One must retain it for oneself alone. [Interjections.] But the hon. members are constantly coming back to the Coloureds and the Indians, and then, in doing so, they pretend that we are trying to evade them now in respect of that matter. To my regret I shall have to spell out the entire matter again, as I have already done before.

When we established the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and gave that Representative Council powers and privileges over the Coloureds themselves, when we said we were going to give them Coloured education, welfare services, etc., then those hon. members opposed us. They opposed that entire Bill.

On the form of the council.

Now they are not only accepting one Coloured Parliament, but two.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister why he is wilfully using the word “parliament” when he refers to our legislative council, but when he refers to the council of his Party, he uses the correct term, the correct expression? Why is he wilfully using the word “parliament” when he refers to our legislative assembly?

I was honestly under the impression—but if the hon. member tells me that I am wrong, then I accept it like that—that that was what they themselves called it and that their newspapers also called it that, when they still had newspapers. But if the hon. member now tells me that it is a council, then I accept it like that.

A legislative assembly.

Very well, a legislative assembly. Now the hon. members accept that legislative assembly, with the same powers. We said that it would eventually be a fully elected council. They say it should be a fully elected council. I reply readily to the hon. member’s questions, and I therefore think he will do me the courtesy of replying to my question as well. Which powers which we have not yet given to the legislative assembly of the Coloureds will they give to it?

Personal taxes, for example. [Interjections.]

The hon. member has said “personal taxes, for example”. Is the hon. member aware that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council does in fact have that right?

No, they may only collect them.

No, they can adopt such legislation themselves. It is stated in the constitution of that legislative assembly of the Coloureds. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? If the Coloured Persons’ Council has the power to levy taxes, why was it necessary last year to amend the legislation so that the control over the Budget was placed in the hands of this Government and not in the hands of that body?

But surely that was done for completely different reasons. It had to be done so that if the Coloured Persons’ Council could not fulfil that function, someone else could fulfil it. That is the reason why the legislation was introduced in this House last year. However, be that as it may; I say that they do have that right. The only difference which the hon. member now says there is between their Coloured policy and ours, comprises two things. The one is that they may levy personal taxes, and the second is that they may send a few people to the federal parliament.

No, many other things besides.

But those are the only things the hon. member has just told me about.

They were only examples.

The hon. member is a capable member. He is a member who has the policy at his fingertips. Does he want to tell me that, if they had given thorough consideration to their policy, he would not simply have been able to rattle off a list of points here concerning everything they would give the Coloureds?

I could, but we are discussing the Coloureds under Nationalist Party policy. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am afraid we are now hearing the same story we heard last year from the hon. member for Yeoville when he said that he could, but he did not want to.

When we come to the Indians, we have precisely the same position. After all, we have made it very clear that the Indians will follow the same course as the Coloureds, that they will receive the same type of assembly, that they will even receive the same powers which those people will receive. Now, ultimately, the difference between our policy and the new policy of the United Party, the policy they found last year, is that they will give them representation in the federal parliament.

Federal council, not “parliament”.

I do beg your pardon. The federal council. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is reproaching me once again, in spite of everything we have said, for there being no consultation with the Coloureds on the liaison in regard to which I myself said a few years ago in this House there should be between this Parliament and the Coloureds, and eventually between this Parliament and the council of the Indians. Surely I made it very clear that the liaison machinery was a matter for negotiation between this Government and the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Surely I went out of my way to inform hon. members during this very session that we had in January of this year again given thought to the liaison machinery which exists between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and this Government, and that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, after they had deliberated separately—not only the members of the Executive, but also the leaders of all the other parties in the council as well as the Coloured leader of Natal— came back and said that they, having given the matter very serious thought, were of the opinion that the best liaison machinery at this juncture was still that which existed at present.

What has the commission to decide in the political field?

The commission has to make an evaluation because of the fact that there are numerous people who are talking about the Coloureds without talking about them authoritatively …

After 25 years.

… without their having the facts of the matter at their disposal. In consultation with the Coloured Persons’ Council I saw fit—and I want to make it very clear that this was not because I wanted to look for a policy; that the Coloured Persons’ Council knows as well as I do—to establish such a commission. The Coloured Persons’ Council agreed with me that all and sundry, whenever they were unable to discuss anything else and sought to make headlines in the newspapers, discussed the position of the Coloureds. In consultation with the Coloured Persons’ Council we decided that we had to make an evaluation, covering all spheres, of how the Coloureds had developed since 1961. Apart from the evaluation that has to be made, consideration has to be given to where the bottlenecks are so that one may, in consultation with the Coloured Persons’ Council, eliminate those bottlenecks. Hon. members must not for one moment think that we do not discuss all these matters such as apartheid, and so on. We discuss these matters with one another; we discuss them very frankly with one another, and we arrive at a good understanding in regard to them. It is not a case of our talking at cross-purposes; it is not a case of my dictating to them. What happens is that they state their standpoint as they see it, and I state my standpoint as I see it. We have always had exceptionally good talks. What I do find interesting in that connection is that these people were in former years denounced as being Government stooges. At that stage it was said that they were pre-eminently Government stooges, and chief Matanzima was the greatest stooge the Government had ever had. And now? Now it is an entirely different picture. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout goes so far as to draw a comparison between those people and the hon. members opposite.

I never said so. I always said that he was twisting you around his little finger.

Who are you referring to now?

I always said that he had the Government exactly where he wanted it.

And who are you referring to now?

Chief Matanzima.

When the hon. member makes such a nonsensical remark, surely he knows that it is not true. Surely he knows that the Chief Minister of the Transkei asked me for certain districts, and I told him straight out that I could not give him those districts. Who is twisting who around whose little finger now?

But that is the whole trend. [Interjections.]

If they come into power, that is the man they want to use in their federal parliament. I quite understand now why it is impossible to get hon. members opposite to discuss their policy. We have almost reached the end of this debate; there is very little time left for this debate.

This debate will bear the stamp of being the one in which an open invitation was extended to members of the Opposition to debate their policy man to man with us in this debate, and in which they deliberately did not want to avail themselves of that opportunity. If they deliberately did not want to avail themselves of that opportunity, I wonder why that was the case. It could only be because they themselves realize by now that their policy is so ill-considered that they cannot discuss it and have returned to the factory. Otherwise it could be that they want to catch the electorate of South Africa off its guard with this policy. Whatever the reason may be, this has been a sad day, because hon. members opposite have not been prepared to discuss their policy across the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that the hon. the Prime Minister was the last person today, the 25th April, 1973, to talk about “stooges”. The only glimpse we have had from the hon. the Prime Minister about his policy, about the question we are asking here and about why we are voting all this money for the policies of this Government, was by means of an interjection. The hon. the Prime Minister made that interjection during the speech of my hon. leader. That was when my hon. leader said to him that we would have a representative, a fully elected Coloured representative council. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say to him then? He said that they were going to have it after the next election. Why after the next election? I will tell hon. members why after the next election. Because they want to make sure that the next election will go the way it ought to go. If it does not, they will do what they did last time. What did they do last time? That hon. gentleman talks about stooges, but what happened last time? What is now the Opposition party had a landslide victory, but the Government then nominated members of the party which lost as members of that council. In many instances they even nominated the actual candidates who had been defeated by the Coloured people themselves. And then they talk about stooges!

That hon. gentleman has the temerity during his Vote, the one opportunity where he stands here before the country and before Parliament to answer for his policy, to talk about this and to suggest to us that we are not talking about our policy. I have been around here not as long as that hon. gentleman, but I have seen a few Prime Minsters’ Votes, and usually the Prime Minister answers for himself in the Votes that I have seen. Rut that is not happening here. That hon. gentleman has been putting up skittles all day long and then knocking them down.

The one thing the hon. the Prime Minister has not referred to is the grave he dug for his own policy and his own leadership when he answered the questions that I put to him during the No-confidence Debate earlier this year. What he in fact did —and I was looking forward to his answer to my hon. leader’s speech—was to build a coffin as well today, because he did not try to get out of the implications of those answers; he laid it all on the floor again. I am now dealing with the question of what happens if all the so-called Bantustans opt not to have independence but opt to remain within the Republic. What did he say? The answer was that they will remain as they are and if they do not want to become independent, because there is not enough land—and that is not the issue—that is their problem, their “saak”. I want to tell him that that is not their problem; it is our problem. It is very much our problem. It is the problem we have to face here. It is that hon. Prime Minister’s problem and he has to give an answer as to what he is going to do about it.

He talks in the most incredible way about the fact that we must keep the sovereignty of our own people. Of course. And if you have a country of many different peoples and you want to keep their sovereignty and their integrity, how do you do it? You can only do it in a federation, unless there are no matters of common concern, in which case they can all go their own way. But there are matters of common concern and let us not bluff ourselves, because that is what it is all about. What is happening on our borders? I am sorry that I have to refer to this unfortunate incident. There were Black people on our borders defending the borders of a country with an integrity, a whole. They were defending all the people in that country. But that is what it was about. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister has run away from. What he has tried to do here is to become a modern political Herod, because he says that if they do not want independence that is their bad luck and that he washes his hands of it. You can never wash your hands of it. One thing you have to remember is that no matter what the hon. the Prime Minister says they will still be here. We will still need them and they will still need us. They will not survive without us and we will not survive without them.

But what does that have to do with the argument?

This is the whole argument that we have in South Africa. We have a symbiosis of the White people and the Black people. The one cannot survive without the other; the one needs the other to survive. I think it is fair to say that no matter which party talks about the future in this country, every single party including the Government party, has to give life and place to the aspirations of the non-White peoples of this country. If you cannot do it, you have no future. I would like to go on and deal with many more of the things the hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon in this regard, but there is another matter I would like to raise. I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice will not leave just yet because what I have to say concerns him.

We had what I can only call a most incredible statement from the hon. the Minister of Justice—we have heard nothing from him since—and that was when the hon. member for Houghton moved the adjournment of the House on 8th March this year to discuss the banning of the SASO members. What happened? My hon. leader spoke and said, and I quote from Hansard, col. 2270—

He read out all kinds of things that these people have said—

Hon. members interjected “hear, hear!”, and my hon. leader continued—

The hon. the Minister of Justice then interjected and said:“You give them a platform.”

Raise it under my Vote.

No, it is no good raising it under the Vote of the hon. the Minister …

You will be reported to the boss.

We know what the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Justice is, namely that he will not take the SASO men that he banned to court because, if he did, it would give them a platform. That is his attitude. What we want to know is whether that is also the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister. I find it very hard to believe that it can be. Talk about giving platforms, that hon. Minister has given a platform to our enemies to attack us and beat us with; he has given a platform to the sympathizers of those people, whatever their cause was and, from what the hon. the Minister read, it was not a very pleasant one. However, it certainly caused the Government to take the steps which it did take. Does the hon. the Prime Minister realize—and I speak to him as the former Minister of Justice—that what that hon. Minister has said was that the Minister of Justice would make a political decision as to whether or not justice would take its course, that the Minister would take a political decision as to whether or not the laws of this Parliament would be implemented in the courts of our country? He turned his back on the courts of this country. He destroyed the credibility of any actions that he has taken in respect of this Act. He has served notice on our country that the judicial process of Western democracy, which is so much part of all of us in this country, is to be used at the whim of the Government. What he said is that even if there is a prima facie case with regard to a most serious offence relating to the safety and good order of this country, there will be no trial if the Minister of Justice considers that it is not politically expedient to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after the hon. the Prime Minister had spoken, we heard the speech by the hon. member for Durban North. I really thought when he began that the hon. member was at last going to tell us something about the United Party’s policy because, since we heard about it by chance at the beginning of this session, the United Party has been avoiding having a discussion on it like the plague. It is clear that their policy still is what it is, or what it was. As the hon. member for Durban North said, “It is what it is”.

It struck me this evening that the United Party, who raised such objections to the working of the Coloured Representative Council within the framework of the policy of the National Party, make provision for two Coloured councils in their policy. I do not think it is worth the trouble to reply further to the hon. member for Durban North with regard to what he had to say. I really do not think he discussed a single topical matter which belongs under a Prime Minister’s Vote in South Africa.

Who are you to judge?

For the past few days economic matters have been discussed in this House ad nauseam. This was done at every opportunity when debates offered any opportunity for such a discussion. The relations policy was also discussed once again in spite of the fact that the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development still lies ahead. An attack on apartheid was made here. In the light of the standpoints taken up by the United Party with regard to apartheid, I need now have no hesitation to go to my constituency and say that that side of the House stands for eventual social integration. After all, they want to do away with every aspect of separate development in South Africa. That is what they propagated in every speech they made in this debate and in previous debates. I am entitled to say that the standpoints of that side of the House bear witness to political poverty. A subject which, to my way of thinking, belongs under the Vote of the Prime Minister is how the Prime Minister has been governing this country during his term of office. What has characterized his rule during the past seven years? The past seven years have been characterized by stability and growth such as have never before been experienced in South Africa. In every sphere this Government has set up a remarkable record of achievements. One of the most important characteristics of the rule of this Prime Minister has been the peace and stability and the maintenance of law and order which have been experienced. Social security is more important to the inhabitants of South Africa than any other matter. Already as Minister of Justice this Prime Minister laid the foundations as to how social security was to be maintained in South Africa. There may possibly be a difference of opinion as to how this should be done. But there is no country in the world that has combated communism and undermining activities more effectively than has been done here in South Africa by this Prime Minister. Authorities in the field of political science have been trying for a very long time to find a formula in terms of which the effectiveness of governments may be determined. Some have tried to determine this by drawing comparisons between the expenditure of various countries on certain social services—welfare services, defence and education. Others have tried to do this by making analyses of elections; others again have tried to do this by noting to what extent shuffling took place in the executive, the so-called “executive turnover”, but the most important aspect as far as I am concerned is the standpoint of the World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators by Russett who based the formula “on the deaths from domestic group violence of population”. Sir, this interesting study will show you that in South Africa the figure stands at only 33, as against a world average of 107, whereas the total for certain countries in the world exceeds 2 000. And, Sir, this is the position in South Africa with a free press, a free democratic system, a limited Police Force and a Defence Force which has never been used for internal security.

Are you talking about 1939?

That, Sir, is the position in spite of the difficult ethnic composition we have in South Africa. But there is also a second major characteristic of the rule of the hon. the Prime Minister, and that is that the Prime Minister has succeeded in warding off from South Africa one of the greatest monstrosities in the world, namely socialism. Sir, I regard this socialism as a precursor of communism. Therefore we are continually sounding warnings and our Prime Minister, too, sounded a warning in the course of this debate with regard to the pressure exerted by the Opposition in respect of wage increases without an accompanying increase in productivity, and in respect of welfare services which do not take into account the gross national product and the gross national income. Sir, we are continually hearing from that side of the House that we must introduce national pension schemes; that we must introduce a national medical scheme. I worked under a national medical scheme in Great Britain, Sir, and I want to tell you that it is a monstrosity. This Government has maintained this antisocialist policy in South Africa, but in spite of that it has not neglected the social services in South Africa. We have complied with one of the requirements set for us by experts in the field of political science, namely to create social security in South Africa without promoting socialism. In sharp contrast to this policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, which is one of the characteristics of his term of office as Prime Minister, we continually have this pressure from the United Party, purely and simply to gain votes, to steer South Africa to an ever-increasing extent in a socialistic direction. No, Sir, we in the National Party believe in the right of self-determination of people. We believe in the right of free enterprise and we have respect of the right of ownership in South Africa. Sir, the United Party must ask themselves what the full implications of a welfare state in South Africa would be. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate various aspects of the relations politics in South Africa were raised.

What about the Leader of the Opposition? He was on his feet.

Order! Is the hon. member making a reflection on my decision? I warn the hon. member.

No, I was not. I was making a statement of fact.

I warn the hon. member.

Sir, I said that in the course of this debate various aspects of our relations politics were raised. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is no longer with us, in this regard also referred to sport as so-called aspects of petty apartheid in South Africa. Surely it is therefore necessary to say a few words about sport and our relations politics in South Africa.

Repeat what you said during your election campaign.

The significance and the value of sport has changed in the course of the history of mankind. For instance, the Greeks viewed sport in a completely different light than did the Romans or mediaeval man or the child of the Renaissance. Without dealing with this interesting shift of accent which took place in regard to the significance of sport in the course of history, we would be able to say today that one of the most important meanings sport has in our modern time is that it has obtained international status. As Eugene Finck remarks in his very striking book, Spiel als Weltsimbol, sport has quite rightly become a world symbol. Sport has become an international medium, a medium for publicity, a medium for status as well as a medium in which the international relations politics manifests itself in South Africa.

Do you agree with Danie Craven?

But when our pattern of sport and our sports policy in South Africa are discussed—and the hon. members of the Opposition may also take note of this—these should be discussed with the same sense of responsibility and vigilance we display when discussing other relations levels with the outside world; with the same sense of responsibility we display when referring to South-West Africa or our relationship with the United Nations. Perhaps one could give the Opposition some credit in this regard. In this regard they display some responsibility. Therefore I plead in the interests of sport and in the interests of South Africa that we display the same diplomacy and the same dignity when speaking about the development of our sports policy in South Africa. The international significance of sport cannot be under-estimated today. It is definitely not for the sake of sport that our enemies abroad, and not only the enemies of this Government but the enemies of the White man and the enemies of the existing order in South Africa, have chosen sport as the medium to wage their war against South Africa. No, these enemies of ours realize the international impact of sport. Therefore it is important that everyone who really has the interests of sport at heart, should act in a responsible manner. Today there are many people who come forward as the champions of sport; this I experienced during the recent election in Johannesburg West. They are people who come forward as so-called political champions of sport, but people whose contribution to sport in the past and whose interest in sport as far as I am concerned are doubtful. But when people really serve the interests of sport— and I believe that there are members on both sides of the House who want to do this—they must discuss this subject with the greatest caution and responsibility on this subject, and this also applies to the Press in particular. In this regard I think we can also congratulate our hon. the Minister of Sport on the correct and very responsible way in which he managed, under difficult circumstances, to handle even the most critical questions from the Press during the recent sport festival in Pretoria. When I speak of responsibility in regard to sport, then the greatest irresponsibility towards and the greatest disservice we can do to sport in South Africa, is the constant attempt by some newspapers and some people to confuse the minds of people in South Africa concerning the difference between so-called multi-national sport on the one hand and integrated, multi-racial sport on the other.

What is the difference?

The champions of integration, also in the field of sport—and the hon. member for Hillbrow can listen to this, too—want to interpret every point of contact between people of different races, every occasion of contact and encounter and every international competition as a step on the road to integration and multi-racialism in South Africa. These people deliberately do not draw a clear distinction between human relations on the one hand where contact, dialogue and encounter is possible, and political, organized national relations on the other. No, contact and liaison and sports competition at international level between White and non-White is within the framework of separate development not part of a process of integration. [Interjections.] The hon. member may laugh about it because he has never thought about it seriously enough. [Interjections.]

Order!

The policy of separate development does not want to eliminate the points of contact between members of the different peoples in South Africa, but wants to make this possible in a peaceful and orderly manner. In South Africa this is only possible on the basis of the policy of multi-national separate development. [Interjections.] The hon. members on the other side may laugh, but the policy of multi-nationalism has come to stay. Even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has begun to accept it. It has come to stay and if they want to serve sport and if they want to serve the interests of South Africa, I think hon. members on that side of the House must abandon the silly sports policy of theirs, their policy of wanting to pass responsibility on to the clubs and the sports bodies for them to make the decisions. This is a sports policy they share with the Progressive Party.

That means we cannot go to New Zealand. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to appeal to members of the United Party.

“Hon.” members.

Thank you. I want to appeal to hon. members of the United Party to heed the appeal the hon. member for Wonderboom made earlier: Accept the principle of separate development, of multi-national development in South Africa. [Interjections.] I appeal to them to accept it as the basis, as the only sound basis for conducting sport in South Africa.

You have to put the ball into the scrum again.

Dawie, you are off-side.

Order!

This policy offers ample opportunity to every sportsman in South Africa. I now want to ask hon. members of the United Party to accept this policy, instead of trying to take advantage of the sports policy. I want to make the same appeal to every sportsman in South Africa. We must accept the basis of this policy and use every opportunity which makes possible the development of this policy so that South Africa may take her rightful place among the nations of the world in the field of international sport.

Mr. Chairman, it was indeed interesting to hear the responsible approach by the hon. member for Johannesburg West when he started his speech and spoke about the success of the Games in Pretoria. I share with him and with the hon. the Prime Minister the great pleasure at the success of those Games. But I cannot help mentioning the fact that while this distinction between multi-national and multi-racial sport is maintained, and while the Government insists on interfering with the choice made by the responsible sports administrators here in South Africa, I am afraid that there are limits to the success that we can achieve. The hon. member for Johannesburg West this evening spoke about multi-national sport within the compass of self-development. I wonder whether what he is saying coincides with the wishes of the South African Rugby Board, which is the responsible body here in South Africa. I wonder whether, if regard had been had to their wishes, we would not have had a Springbok team in New Zealand this winter.

To the hon. member for Newcastle I would say that while I have no doubt that he would have great pleasure in attempting to frighten his constituents with suggestions that the United Party is socialistically inclined, he will find that he is contradicted by nearly every other member on his side of the House, because they persist in accusing us of being capitalistically inclined. Let me say to him that in so far …

He does not know the difference.

… as he has experience of the social security schemes in Britain, they differ very materially indeed from the State-assisted medical aid schemes we want to see here in South Africa, with every patient having the right to choose his own doctor. They also differ very materially from the national contributory pension scheme for which this party has asked for so long.

I come back to the hon. the Prime Minister. In the closing stages of his Vote I want to place on record that we still have not had a satisfactory explanation of what is meant by the “temporary permanency” of Bantu labourers in our urban areas. We still have not heard satisfactorily from him what the ambit or the scope of the scheme for training those Bantu labourers in the urban areas will be. Are they going to be allowed to be trained as skilled artisans or not? Are they going to be used in the White areas as skilled artisans in due course or not? We have had all sorts of suggestions, but we are realists and we know what the economic demands on South Africa are. We know what a shortage of artisans there is going to be in this country if we are going to maintain anything like the development rate envisaged by his own Economic Development Programme.

I want to go further and say that we still have had no satisfactory answer from the hon. gentleman in respect of what system of negotiation between employer and employee is going to be adopted by his Government and what the role of the existing trade unions is going to be. If we are to have industrial peace in this country and if we are to have an end to strikes which are illegal and uncontrolled, it is vitally essential that some system of collective bargaining be evolved in which there is a proper responsibility where both employer and employee play their part.

Then he hon. the Prime Minister made much play of my question to him about what his position would be if he woke up as a Black man in Durban. In fact, I think he misunderstood the question, since the real question to him at the time was what his position would be if he woke up as a migratory labourer in the Bantu urban areas in and around Durban.

That was not clear.

It may not have been clear to the hon. the Prime Minister and I accept that, but it was the result of my visit that very day to one of those urban Bantu townships. I said that waking up in that condition he would find that he had no security, that he came on contract for a period, that there was no chance of receiving proper training in the sort of jobs that he hoped to do, that when he had served his time he would never know whether he would come back to the same boss. I know it was supposed to be guaranteed, but it did not happen. I made mention of all the evils of that migratory system which are known to every church in South Africa and the economic difficulties flowing from lack of mobility, low wages and little or no possibility of advancement. I appreciate that the hon. gentleman answered the question in the manner in which he thought it was put, but that is what I dealt with at the time.

Now we come to the question of petty apartheid. The hon. the Prime Minister has accused me once again of not having given a definition. He is less than fair, because when this matter was raised across the floor of the House I think two sessions ago, I adopted the definition of Prof. J. H. Moolman, namely “colour separation carried to absurd lengths”.

You only referred to it.

No, I adopted it. I associated myself with it.

Read your Hansard.

I have no doubts on that subject, Sir. I adopted it as my definition, namely colour separation carried to absurd lengths. What I tried to do today was to deal with three examples of that colour separation carried to absurd lengths here in South Africa. I tried to divide them up by showing firstly, that in certain cases colour separation had been carried to absurd lengths contrary to Government policy. Secondly, I dealt with the position where colour separation had been carried to absurd lengths where there was uncertainty as to what Government policy was, and thirdly, where it had been carried to absurd lengths, and although in accordance with Government policy, I felt that it should be reconsidered by the hon. the Prime Minister, because of the bad feeling it could create and because of the difficulties it could give rise to here in South Africa. I raised the question of the Nico Malan Theatre and the hon. the Prime Minister asked quite fairly why I did not raise it here before. Because for the first time I heard, when his former ambassador came back from Rome, the statement that he believed Dr. Verwoerd himself had been responsible for that decision. That is the reason why it is raised here. If Dr. Verwoerd was responsible before, it is not illogical to assume that the present hon. Prime Minister is responsible at the present time. If the former Prime Minister was responsible for bringing that state of affairs about, then surely this hon. Prime Minister has the influence to see that a change is made and that a more considerate approach is adopted. I raised other matters in connection with this whole business, because I believe a very real responsibility rests on the Prime Minister to give us some guide-lines for the future, to give us some guide-lines as to where this petty apartheid should be applied and where not. There is uncertainty now. People do not know what Government policy is. People do not know what the rules are that are being applied. The hon. the Prime Minister suggests that when you examine these things you must do away with the Immorality Act. He knows what the policy of this side of the House is in that regard. He knows it will be sent to a proper commission of inquiry and he knows who will be represented on it …

That is not what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says.

That is the policy of the party and I am not aware of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout having said anything else. The policy of the party is perfectly clear in respect of the Immorality Act and has been so for years. But the point that I do want to get across to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the country tonight is that it is these little hurts, these ugly little things, these infringements of human dignity, that are doing so much harm to race relations here in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today the hon. the Prime Minister has been explaining for 2½ hours, but it looks to us as if all his explanations are of no avail, because hon. members opposite do not understand. They do not want to understand. He spoke in very simple language and answered many of these questions, but they did not want to understand. It seems to us as if there is, in fact, something lacking in their mentality.

I should like to touch upon a point which I find to be very important in this country, and it is something about which the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly spoken, today as well, i.e. sound relations between population groups. There is a great deal of talk opposite about growth, wealth and a better life for everyone, but the question, as far as I am concerned, is: What is the use of our making money and not being able to have sound relations between population groups and therefore peace and order in South Africa? You will agree with me that it is the pleasant duty and privilege of the hon. the Prime Minister to advocate sound relations between population groups in South Africa, and he does so with very great seriousness. What bothers me is that, in my opinion, there are people in the ranks of the United Party who are purposely trying to break down sound relations between population groups. The question then arises, as far as I am concerned: Are they doing it for personal political gain? Do they think that by allowing this process of fragmentation to take place or to propagate it they will achieve short-term benefits for themselves? Or are they so pent-up in their hatred of the National Party that they would violate the sound relations between population groups just to injure and try to break the National Party? These people are sowing seeds of hate amongst many of our people in this country.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and specifically to a few ideas of his from a previous speech. On the basis of that, I then want to make a few remarks. In Hansard of 21st February of this year, col. 1134, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout used these words, inter alia:

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.

He states further—

I want to state that under this Government a tremendous amount has been done in the past 25 years to give the Coloureds the opportunity to achieve their own life’s ambitions. What can a person’s ambition in life be? Does he want to become a doctor, a teacher, a solicitor, a chemist? These possibilities have been created for them by this Government. I do not think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has the right to say that by our policy we do not give anyone the opportunity to achieve their ambitions in life.

There is another matter that bothers me. In Hansard of 1972, col. 8441, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—and here it seems to me as if he had something against the Afrikaans-speaking people:

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is saying a very dangerous thing here. He is saying that we,—and I am mentioning Afrikaans-speaking people in particular— are applying a policy of humiliation as far as the non-Whites are concerned by what we are doing in this country to establish sound relations between population groups. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister asked him this year, on 27th February (Hansard, col. 1549) why he specifically pilloried the Afrikaner. Sir, who does he want to impress? Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in his megalomania, want to impress the integrationist, the Progressive or Nusas? I think he is doing the Coloureds an injustice by saying this. I think he could rather encourage the Coloureds to make responsible use of the opportunities the Government is creating to help them.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude I shall just reply to one point raised by the hon. member. This point is that he gave us his definition as follows: “Colour separation carried to absurd lengths.” I put this question in all humility to my hon. friend: “What does this mean?” If someone were to have to apply it now, what criterion should he use? Surely the hon. member knows just as well as I do …

The two of us know very well.

But surely the hon. member knows just as well as I do that there will be a world of difference between his view of this matter and that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; and the view of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will differ from that of the hon. member for Yeoville; and the view of the hon. member for Houghton will differ from those of both those hon. members, and will perhaps correspond to that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—I do not know. Surely this is how the views will differ. The hon. member is a lawyer, not so? Let him throw this definition in the midst of the officials and the people who must apply it. It is, after all, a definition which would not stand up in court. Surely no court would take notice of a definition which reads “carried to absurd lengths”. Surely it is clear that this would not hold water; it is so vague. But what I can understand—and my friend will not take it amiss of me if I say this to him in conclusion—is that this is absolutely typical of his policy. It is wide open to any interpretation. One can interpret it precisely as one pleases. So, for that matter, it does not take us a jot or a title further.

But you say it does not exist.

Yes, I did say so, for the simple reason that it brings one to this absurdity when one tries to give it a definition. I said that the only way in which it could be approached—the hon. member for Waterberg is quite correct as far as this is concerned—is by saying that there might be measures which were not necessary for the purposes of drawing a distinction and drawing boundaries. Because what is the hon. member saying now in terms of his definition? He is saying that there must be a distinction and separation. He therefore concedes in principle that a distinction must in fact be drawn, that there must be differentiation, or even that there must be discrimination. You will remember that immediately prior to the by-election in Bethal-Middelburg, when my predecessor was still sitting here, the hon. member for Yeoville admitted that discrimination did exist in the policy of the United Party. It appears in Hansard; I can give it to him. Surely one cannot come along with this kind of rider now, while it is also one’s own viewpoint. This simply takes one no further at all.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.