The ethnic composition of South Africa compels every person who is concerned with politics in this country to move in one of two directions. The practical key question in our present political dispensation, particularly at present when circumstances have changed on our border and in the world, is just one of two. This key question is what view one takes of South Africa.

Does one see it as one multi-racial unitary state with 22 million inhabitants or does one see it as a sub-continent on which various peoples live and are on the road to their own final destinations, each people with its own identity, its own full status and its own self-determination. Both these viewpoints are possible; both are practicable, and both are acceptable to the world, provided one is prepared to accept the full consequences of the road one chooses. I should like to quote examples of why I say that they are acceptable. The United States of America is probably one of the clearest examples of a multi-racial unitary state in which the Government was prepared to accept the full consequences. The South American continent, composed of a whole number of countries and peoples, with different languages, mainly Spanish, but also Portuguese, is an example of the continent on which different peoples with different historical backgrounds and traditions form new states. Another such example is the sub-continent of Western Europe on which all the inhabitants do not form one people or one state, but on which different peoples form independent states.

What is the position in South Africa? Our population set-up is identical to the position on the sub-continent of Western Europe, or South America or America, identical in this sense, that different peoples with different languages are also found here. The Xhosa and the Zulu differ from each other just as much as the Swedes and the Germans or Hollanders differ from each other. Yet they all inhabit one geographical unit. What is the position in South Africa and which choice did the politicians make here? It appears from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on Monday that his party regards South Africa as a multi-racial unitary state and that they believe in the sharing of political power. The same was said by the leader of the Progressive Party, i.e. that South Africa is a multi-racial unitary state and that they believe in the sharing of political power. In contrast to that the National Party stated its point of view very clearly. We do not believe that South Africa is a multi-racial unitary state with 22 million inhabitants. We see South Africa as a subcontinent on which different peoples are grouped together, and we are striving to give each people full status and a right to its own existence.

How does the Opposition want to establish this multi-racial unitary state? How do they want to carry it through to its logical conclusion? And the Progressive Party—how do they want to do it? In the first place—I cannot go into it fully now—they want to give these people, as far as politics is concerned, a qualified franchise. In practice they want to draw a horizontal line working on a basis on which they decide, a line of qualifications and rights of ownership whereby all those falling above the line are full-fledged first-class citizens of the country and all those below the line are not full-fledged citizens, but second-class citizens of the Republic, as they see it. To the group above the line they give an equal franchise to elect representatives to this Parliament, and to the group below the line, they give 10% of the total representation in this House.

A qualified franchise, Mr. Speaker, within the concept of South Africa as a multiracial unitary state, is unethical, immoral and indefensible in the present world and will not be acceptable.

The Sea Point view.

They want to draw a line above the heads of the people. I want to put a question to the leader of the Progressive Party. How many of the voters in South Africa will now qualify for the general voters’ roll according to their rules and regulations? That is the only political right they give those full-fledged citizens of South Africa in their only common fatherland. I say that is discrimination at its worst, worse than in any other political party in South Africa.

How does the United Party want to deal with this matter? They, too, see South Africa as a multi-racial unitary state. They employ a worse kind of political manipulation in order to eventually achieve that which they must achieve for the sake of their composition. They must accept integration for the sake of a leftist wing, but they must stabilize and protect the position of the White man under all circumstances for the sake of a right wing. That is why there is manipulation at work with their race federation policy which is totally unacceptable and which is totally immoral and which is just as discriminatory. We have now finally drawn the information from them that the White Parliament will disappear.

We are thankful for the clarity that we have been struggling for so long to get. Therefore the federal parliament will ultimately be the highest authority, and no one doubts that any longer; it will be the highest authority, and in that federal parliament people will not sit on the “one man, one vote” basis, which is the moral outcome of their policy taken to its logical conclusion, but people will sit there and their representation in that highest authoritative body over the undivided South Africa, in which those people must live out their lives, will be according to the contribution they make towards the national welfare of the State. That is discrimination at its worst on the basis of rich and poor; that is a line of discrimination between the “haves” and the “have nots”; the line which is being drawn is as clear as crystal, an extremely dangerous one. This line of rich and poor, of educated and uneducated, which both the parties on the opposite side have in mind, is the line which gave rise to the French Revolution as long as a few centuries ago. Those who do not have, may not acquire political rights. [Laughter.] That hon. member will not laugh away the truth with a hollow laugh. The world will not allow them to get away with such an anomally; the peoples dare not allow you to get away with it. They will not accept it. It is the worst form of discrimination that one can find.

But, Sir, let us analyse the feasibility of their policy in practice.

What about your policy?

I assure the hon. member that I shall come to that in the second half of my speech. He need not concern himself about that, and I shall then devote the last five minutes to a discussion of the Coloureds. Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to ask a question here in connection with the policy of multiracial integration which is in progress on the opposite side: Will the smaller Black peoples in South Africa accept that point of view? Will it be acceptable to the Venda and the Shangaan who, in the new integrated Southern Africa, will under either of those two policies ultimately have to disappear and be absorbed into the larger Black peoples, namely the Zulu, the Xhosa and the Tswana, and also into the White community.

Will they accept it? Will those peoples voluntarily surrender their identity? Will the Herero in South-West deliver himself up to the Owambo in South-West? I ask this further question: Mr. Speaker, will the large Black peoples accept it? The Transkei rejected it with a 60% poll at a previous election; Bophuthatswana rejected it in the previous election with a 71% poll in favour of a policy which is opposed to integration. Will the large peoples accept it? The answer is a decided no; they do not accept it; they reject it. In the third place I want to ask whether the Whites will accept that policy in South Africa? The Whites comprise the second largest people in this country. There are 3,7 million Whites in this country; it is the second largest people after the Zulu. In the recent election the Whites again unequivocally rejected the entire concept of integration, in whatever form.

Then I want to ask: Will the Asians accept it? There are 600 000 of them, a nation of Eastern origin with an Eastern religion and culture, a nation which isolates itself because that is the way of its culture. Will they accept it? Will they exchange their position for a position such as that of the Asians in Uganda or other parts of Africa where they, as it were, start off on a “one man, one vote” basis and eventually land up without a refuge?

Mr. Speaker, will the Coloureds accept it? If the Coloureds would be prepared to accept it, then why do they continually ask us for legislation to apply influx control to Blacks so that they will not be swallowed up in their areas by the Blacks, and why do they ask us to make laws to prevent miscegenation between Coloured and Black? Even the Coloureds will not accept it. Mr. Speaker, the multi-racial parliament, of whichever of the two parties on that side, will be faced with a number of insoluble practical problems. What language will be spoken in that multi-racial parliament? If Xhosa, Tswana and English-speaking people sit here, what will the language be? Will it be the English language; will it be Zulu? If it has to be the language of the majority, it will have to be Zulu and then some of the hon. members on that side, besides struggling to learn Afrikaans, will also have to learn Bantu languages.

Mr. Speaker, which system of law will be accepted in this multi-racial republic of theirs? Which cabinet will sit there? Will it be Buthelezi as prime minister, with Mr. Colin Eglin, Mr. Reddi, Mr. Tom Swartz and Mr. Japie Basson in his cabinet?

Mr. Speaker, let us come to the full consequences of this standpoint. I said at the outset that this standpoint of the Opposition Parties was morally and ethically defensible provided one accepted the full consequences thereof, and if one regarded everyone as being inhabitants of one multiracial state one dared not discriminate against them on any grounds whatsoever. Let me put it clearly. I want to ask, first of all, whether it is justified and then I want to put a few further questions, in all kindness. In the first place, I want to put this question to the Progressive Party: Are they prepared to abolish the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act? They have already replied in the affirmative. Sir, then I ask the Young Turks, Mr. Japie Basson or Mr. Harry Schwarz: Are they prepared to abolish the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act? I am asking, in all kindness, for a reply. Are they prepared to abolish them?

Yes.

Now I ask Mr. My-burgh Streicher and Mr. Vause Raw: Are they prepared to abolish the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act?

Yes, but not the provisions relating to indecent conduct.

The leader of the Young Turks says “Yes” and the hon. member for Durban Point says yes, except for certain provisions, and the supreme leader holds his peace.

Section 16.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go further; I want to analyse the consequences of the policy. I want to speak about mixed education in primary schools. At present education in primary schools takes place separately in South Africa, according to tradition, for many reasons, inter alia, because the school is the substitute parental home and because the school must, in addition, stimulate the child’s character, culture and national identity. I now ask in the first instance: In a multi-racial unitary state, must everyone be grouped together? I put it to the Progressive Party: Are they in favour of mixed schools at primary school level?

We shall permit it.

The hon. member says that they will permit it, but what will their policy be?

We shall not force it on people.

They will not enforce anything. We get the same reply from the United Party; they are not going to use force; the people will have a free choice. Who in a school decides whether the school will be mixed or separate? Sir, it is a clear question; I get no answer to it. Then I ask the Progressive Party: Are they going to allow separate residential areas? Are they going to allow Blacks to buy houses in Houghton?

If we get into power, we shall not force apartheid on people.

In that case non-Whites will be allowed to buy houses in Houghton. Then I want to put this question to the United Party: Does their policy visualize non-Whites being allowed to live in Houghton and Pinelands?

We will not be treated as school children here; we shall not allow that.

But I am putting the question to the hon. member. Is he not able to reply?

I shall reply to all the questions; I promise you that, but I will not be treated like a child at school.

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem: Hon. members opposite are prepared to hold themselves up to the outside world as being people who have a wonderful solution for everything, and meanwhile they are hedging here. I maintain that their standpoint has a right to exist in South Africa only if they are prepared to carry it through to its logical conclusion. If they are not prepared to do that, they are heading for chaos and problems in this country.

Now, Sir, I have spoken enough about them. I should now like to speak positively about our policy and our standpoint. I want to put the other side of the question. We proceed from the standpoint that people differ from one another. There is variety in the unity of God’s Creation. That is our belief. It does not make people inferior or superior, but it makes them different from one another, and those differences must be handled with the greatest respect and circumspection otherwise it can lead to conflict and friction. That must be borne in mind. The world accepts that there are different peoples. It is proved by the fact that the 52 member countries of UNO in 1945 grew to 134 in 1974. It is commonly accepted that peoples differ one from the other and that each one has its own right of existence. At present the possibility exists in Cyprus that the country will be divided into two and that two peoples will be created instead of the present one. At present this is also being considered in respect of the Portuguese territories in Africa, whether or not this should be so. Now I proceed. This is the way in which Malaya solved its problems, by splitting up into Malaysia and Singapore. This is the way in which India solved its problems, by splitting up into Parkistan and India and Bangla Desh. This is the way the Central African Federation solved its problems and split up into Malawi, Zambia and Rhodesia. This is the way in which a North Vietnam and South Vietnam came into being, and a North Korea and a South Korea. This is the attempt which was made in Africa by Biafra, an attempt which did not succeed in the end. Yet the same attempt was also made there to establish separate peoples. This is the way in which East Germany and West Germany came into being, and both of them, as two peoples, were accepted by UNO as members, in spite of the fact that they speak the same language and were one people up to the time of the Second World War. But now it becomes realpolitik that they are two peoples with two schools of thought.

They are two peoples.

That is clear, and it is accepted as such in the world, that ethnical units are accepted and recognized as full-fledged members of UNO. Numbers do not enter into it. A small country such as Tonga with a population of 100 000, the Bahamas with a population of 180 000, Cyprus with 630 000. Kuwait with 950 000 are all full-fledged member countries of UNO. Why should one of our states, such as Lebowa with 1 600 000 people, or the Tswana with 1 700 000 people, not be acceptable to UNO under the circumstances? Countries such as Jordan with 2,3 million, Liberia with 1,5 million, New Zealand with 2,8 million, are accepted by UNO as full-fledged peoples. Why then should the Xhosa in the Transkei with over 3 million, the Whites with over 3,7 million and the Zulu with over 4 million, not be acceptable to UNO as separate and full-fledged peoples? Let us have clarity. Our policy is very clear and I want to summarize it positively and briefly.

What is the ultimate objective of our policy as we envisage it on a multi-national basis? We believe, in contrast to the political parties on the opposite side, in “one man, one vote”, for everyone in South Africa, but “one man, one vote” for a man’s own governing authority. “One man, one vote” is our policy, not theirs. They discriminate.

And the Coloureds?

The Coloureds included. I am still coming to them. The Indians are also included. They will shortly have the vote. Secondly, we believe in full independence and sovereignty for the individual states without any restrictive ceilings. What more can be asked of any country? We believe, thirdly, in the acknowledgment of the full human dignity of each person as the ultimate objective of our policy. In the fourth place, we accept the retention of the identity of each full-fledged people in South Africa, White and non-White.

What country are you talking about?

I am talking about the Republic of South Africa when we have done with it. We do not believe in sharing political power over one’s own people with any other people. We believe in the full development of our policy in all its consequences.

Sir, let us take a quick look to see who our accusers are. The people who accuse us of suppression and discrimination are in the first place the communist states. How much liberty is to be found in their states, how much recognition of human rights exists in their states, how much human dignity is there, and how much of the principle of “one man, one vote” is to be found there? In the second place, we are accused by the Black African States of the Organization for African Unity of being the suppressors at the southern tip of Africa. What does their position look like now? Let us analyse it. Of the 43 African states, including South Africa and Rhodesia, there are only eight in which more than one political party is allowed. There are 15 military dictatorships that came into power by means of a coup d’etat and they remain in power without any political rights for anyone, and into that category falls Nigeria, which the hon. member for Sea Point visited. They have a military dictatorship. Among them there are 20 one-party states, civil dictatorships, which are one-party states. Zambia, which the hon. member also visited, falls into that group. Where is the “one man, one vote” position? Where is the self-determination of peoples, where is the right of freedom for the individual?

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are discussing here today, concerns change. Now I say very clearly and immediately that it has often happened in the past, in our history, that when problems arise and when it looks as if things are getting difficult, one suddenly has a number of people who ask for change from all directions. All of a sudden a change must be effected in this direction or that; the course must be changed; we must start moving in a totally different direction. Now I want to say—because this is so and the past has often proved it—that those who take fright and get cold feet so easily, are the milksops and the hands-uppers of modern times. [Interjections.] They are people who run away from the consequences. They are the people who want to make compromises with the enemy on the best possible basis, from a standpoint of strength, before it gets too late in their opinion. They, the weak-kneed ones, are the people who want to effect compromises. We are not prepared to effect changes which conflict with or deviate from our policy. We are prepared to develop our policy to its full consequences, with all that that entails, which, from the nature of the case, ultimately offers the ideal solution, as I have just indicated.

Like the sport policy?

In all spheres. I now want to put the position clearly, so as to eliminate doubt. When hon. members ask me whether we are going to develop our policy to the full, I say “Yes”. When they ask me whether it will bring about changes in various fields, I say “Yes, but all the changes will be in the light of and will be tested against the touchstone of multinational development.” When I am asked whether we are going to make concessions in the direction of integration. I say “No, under no circumstances, because that is not our policy.”

What about a policy change?

No policy change is being announced, because the policy is as clear as crystal. We do not need policy changes; the policy withstands the test of time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the time which remains, I should like to speak specifically, in the light of circumstances, about the position of the Coloureds. I think it is necessary for me to speak about it in the light of everything that has occurred recently. I want to start off by saying that the Prime Minister will probably deal with the whole question in his speech tomorrow. For that reason I do not want to anticipate him in any way. I want to mention a few specific points concerning the National Party’s policy in this regard. It is the policy as it was announced by the Federal Council of the National Party and which every member of this party supports. There is not a single member who does not support it. What is the policy? In the first place we believe that the Coloureds are a nascent people in its own right, an embryo people on the road to its own maturity; this is our point of departure. Secondly, the Coloureds are not an appendage of the Whites. That is very clear. That is an official policy standpoint. Thirdly, we refuse to share political power over the Whites with any people. We refuse to share it with the Coloured, too, and for that reason the Coloured cannot and shall not sit in this Parliament. He shall not sit in this House of Assembly or in the Senate. Does anyone want to hear more about it? That is our standpoint as it would mean a political sharing of power if we were to permit it. Fourthly, in 1967 the present Prime Minister removed Coloured representation from this House, and he is not so foolish as to bring it back again. In the fifth place, the solution to the Coloured question, for historical and practical reasons, does not lie on the same road as the solution for the Bantu, not exactly on the same pattern. The solution, therefore, lies somewhere between the two.

I now come to the next standpoint. The National Party’s policy for the Coloureds is a policy of parallel development. Let us view it simply. Parallel lines do not diverge. Therefore, we are not driving the Coloureds away into the hands of other peoples. But parallel lines do not converge either. Integration in any sphere is out of the question. It is rejected; hence my definition. Our policy of parallel development means parallel lines, and parallel lines are lines which never meet, even if you extend them into infinity. I am repeating it because it is so. [Interjections.] Just allow me to finish. When the nascent people has become a mature people ...

Who will decide on that?

The White and the Coloured together. When the nascent people has become a mature people, things will take the course the Prime Minister has spelled out. I might just add that he has been done a total disservice by numerous people in this country who are ignorant, people who say that he allegedly said he was leaving the problem to the future and to future generations. He never said that. He made it quite clear to the leaders that the final form of the liaison machinery between the White Parliament and the Coloured Parliament would be left in the hands of the people who would have to make the decisions at that time. For that reason I say that when the Coloureds become a full-fledged people, substance will have to be given anew to this liaising body and White and Coloured will have to meet around a table and discuss the solution to that question at that stage. Let me add at once that we shall debate the question around a table and find a solution. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members are now being unreasonable with their interjections.

My time is running out and I therefore want to touch on one other matter in regard to the Coloureds. We shall also give the Coloureds, although not on the same pattern as that of other peoples, within our party’s policy, a meaningful content to its own national dignity, within the framework of multi-nationality in our fatherland, and not on the pattern of integration, because that is our policy and our point of departure. At that stage we shall discuss and spell out exactly that final stage and the shape it will assume. In the meanwhile the Coloureds are not a full-fledged people and they have not yet acquired their own national pride. In the meanwhile they are still on the road to maturity. In that process they require help and we give them that help in various positive ways, for example in the sphere of education. Development is being rendered possible for them. It is, however, crystal clear, and that is the point I wish to make, i.e. that we in South Africa are faced by an inescapable choice. Either one sees South Africa with its different nations as one multi-racial unitary state and one accepts the full consequences, which ultimately amount to “one man, one vote” as the only solution, and this everyone on the Opposition side chooses in varying degrees of intensity, or one regards South Africa as a sub-continent on which different peoples can develop alongside one another to full maturity in different ways because they differ from one another. In this way there is, however, full development for everyone and full human dignity for every one. That is what this party advocates—the only solution. The solution of hon. members opposite leads to discrimination, to the rejection of people who should be treated on an equal footing. Their solution leads to revolution in South Africa and that is why the electorate rejects it each time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react to the contribution that has just been made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior and when I do so I must admit that is is with a feeling of sadness rather than anger. This hon. gentleman is not just an ordinary Cabinet Minister; he is the heir apparent, the crown prince, and one would have expected from him some sort of vision. But I must admit that I have seldom heard more verkrampte utterances. When I came to this House the first time I heard the hon. the Minister make a speech, and today I saw him in a role that he had before he came to this hon. House. He told us then that he was a teacher of history. I have vivid recollections of him telling us that after he had taught children history they were all good little Nats. That was his understanding of his task as a teacher of history. I saw him bring to bear on this situation today exactly the same sort of qualities. He tried to treat us as children and he wanted to indoctrinate us, but the only difficulty is that if there are children in this House, they sit on that side and not on this side.

The hon. Minister raised all the old ghosts. He worked out what he thought the United Party’s policies were and he—I am putting it euphemistically—coloured them somewhat. He then did all his normal little calculations and ended up by trying to demonstrate to his satisfaction that our plan was disastrous for South Africa. Then he wrote at the bottom of his work quod erat demonstrandum. He has now proved to his own satisfaction that what we had put forward could not work. Why did this hon. Minister not deal with his own policy? It is quite apparent to everybody that this whole elaborate edifice of separate freedoms is collapsing. He ought to know that. Is he not living in a world of reality? It must be obvious to him that the Black leaders are rejecting his policy. Name me one Black leader in South Africa who accepts your policy at the moment.

All of them.

I will tell you, Sir, why they reject it, they say: “What the Government is offering us is a dummy, and our people have grown up; they are not satisfied with dummies any more”. Where are you going to find a Black leader who will sacrifice his share, as he sees it, of the wealth and the riches of South Africa in order to accept so-called self-determination in an impoverished little state? Of course they will not accept it. This is, I think, the tragic situation. The Government glibly believes ...

May I put a question?

The hon. member does not want to reply to a question.

... that once they have offered so-called self-determination to these Black states, their problems will be solved; There will be nothing of the kind! Your problems will only begin, because where are you going to if you have an imposed solution of this kind which is not sought by any of the Black leaders? Are they queueing up at the present time in order to gain independence? No, they are not. The Prime Minister would love to have a little baby bantustan that he could present to the outside world. But they are not queueing up. Sir, if you have a solution of this kind, imposed upon them by the Government, do you think they will regard it as a solution of their problems? It will mean the beginning of confrontation and of conflict. This is the fundamental fallacy in their whole philosophy. They talk about self-determination. This hon. Minister had a little halo round his head, when he did so with this “holier-than-thou” attitude. But what do they in fact offer the Black Leaders? They offer them independence on their terms or else nothing. It is self-determination with the main options excluded. How can you expect any of the selfrespecting Black leaders to accept this?

But, Sir, the real indictment of the Government’s policy failure lies in the collapse of the SRC ... [Interjections.] I mean the Coloured Representative Council. Here is a creation of the Government itself which after many years of existence is now in a state of absolute uproar. What contribution did this hon. Minister who has just sat down make in this delicate area? He came with characteristic Mulderian clumsiness and put his not so delicate foot into it by closing the door and saying that the Coloured people will never have representation in any central agency which is designed to provide this co-operation and synthesis in our South African politics. By doing this, he has merely given visible proof of the unbridgeable schism which exists on the Government side and their complete inability to cope with the situation. The hon. the Prime Minister has said we must leave this problem to our children; Sir, I say that the sooner our children take over, the better; because they cannot make a bigger mess of it, than the Government.

This whole philosophy of the Government is entirely false. It will fail and I can see it so clearly, because of five fundamental factors. Sir, this separate freedoms policy can never work, because there is too little land. Whenever this matter is raised, the hon. the Prime Minister however says, “Yes, but the 13% that we want to give to the Black people is the best part of South Africa”. Well, in this case the solution is an obvious one. Why do not we, we the Whites, take the 13% which is the best part, and then hand over the rest, the worthless portion to the non-Whites. Then everybody would be happy. The policy will fail, secondly, because there is too little money to make the land adjustments necessary to accommodate all the Black people. It will fail, in the third instance, because there is too little time. Fourthly, it will fail because there is too little willpower on the part of the hon. gentlemen who advance these policies to make the sacrifices necessary to lead to their fruition. Nowadays everyone talks about public opinion polls, and recently we did one too. We asked the voters of South Africa whether they think that apartheid is a solution to our problem and 60% of them said “yes”, they thought that it was a very good solution. Then we asked them whether they were prepared to pay higher income tax in order to pay for independent Bantustans. Eighty-five per cent of them said: “Not a damn!” But I still think that the worst indictment of this whole policy is that which came a few years ago from Die Burger which after all is the mentor of that side of the House. Unfortunately I do not have the original Afrikaans version with me, but I have the English translation. This is what Die Burger wrote in a leading article:

That is the basic credibility gap that has arisen with regard to the policy of that side. Nobody believes any more that they are in earnest, that they are in fact going to try to implement it.

My real theme follows entirely from what the hon. the Minister has said. What I think is so sad is that here we have a basic policy which is built on a structure that has no substance, because I believe that the persons on that side of the House who are setting the policy lines have no real understanding of the immense forces that are at work in our society.

I can deal only briefly today with the economic forces. I believe there is no basic understanding on that side of what is involved. Just look at the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is obviously getting ready to follow me. He oozes understanding of economic affairs. [Interjections.] Even if they do understand economic affairs, as the hon. the Minister of Finance does, they tell us that they will bend and break the laws of economics in order to conform to their ideology. This is really what I want to deal with.

Before I do so I want to say that we have now been in this debate for about four days. I think it is now possible for us to take stock of what has happened. We have heard charges by my hon. leader, and if this debate has proved one thing, it has prove to my mind the need and the necessity for having made those charges. What reaction have we had from the other side? They have dodged the issue all along. Even this hon. Minister who has just spoken tried to do a jinking exercise. He obviously thought that he was some kind of political Phil Bennett and tried to sneak through our lines. The only difficulty was that the pitch was a little bit too wet for him and he was somewhat flat-footed. That is why he fell flat on his face. The only argument we had from that side was that they are right because the voters voted for them in the last election. This is an argument that must be debunked immediately, because since when does electoral support necessarily indicate effectiveness of your administration or the soundness of your policy? In the last war nearly all the Italians voted for Mussolini and nearly all the Germans voted for Hitler. Where will you find Germans today who will say that Hitler was right? Even his erstwhile admirers on that side are strangely silent on this score. Recently the British put Harold Wilson into power in Britain, but who is there on that side who would say that Harold Wilson is right? Let those hon. members on that side who want to say so stand up. Three years ago the Americans voted President Nixon back into power with the biggest majority in history. Who is there today on that side who would say that Nixon was right?

We have just had an election which was very advantageous to the Government. After all, they decided on the timing. They had the advantage—and again I must be euphemistic—of a very favourable delimitation, because who is there on that side who would tell me that they could have won Turffontein, Port Natal or Zululand on the old delimitation? They also had that faithful ally, the SABC which is not controlled by them, but which nevertheless worked overtime in order to create a crisis atmosphere, as a result of which they did well. They have re-established themselves and are back in power. They have increased their support marginally, but this is the question South Africa asks: “So what? What has happened since then?” The hon. the Prime Minister said he wanted to be strong in order to do in South Africa what was necessary. I may just mention that the United Party took South Africa into a major war with a majority of 13 in this House. The hon. the Prime Minister already had a majority five times as great, but he wanted to be stronger still. It was either because he was facing a crisis of mammoth proportions or else, if I may put it this way, he is a very cautious man. Having achieved this electoral support, this majority, what has happened since? Give me one single new initiative that has come in this debate from that side. They are shying away from all the fundamental issues.

Have you raised them already?

I think the tragedy of the South African situation is that hon. gentlemen on that side really do not have any idea of the fundamental forces at work in our society.

*Mr. Speaker, I should just like to mention something briefly because I think it is of major importance in the present situation we find ourselves in. We are in the process of becoming an industrial country. The major characteristic of our time is that of industrialization. We are now in the third phase of this economic development. The first phase began in the last century with the discovery of gold and diamonds. The second phase began in the thirties and the third phase is the one we are experiencing now. As a result of this industrial development, certain indisputable developments are taking place in South Africa. This state of affairs one is unable to control, other than in a marginal sense. Let us just take a few examples. The first one is urbanization. When a country becomes an industrial country, all the people move to the cities in the same way as water flows to the lower-lying areas. Naturally one then has to build dams. One naturally has to introduce influx control, but one can only influence it within certain limits. After all, for all these years we have been hearing about this wonderful year 1978 when the tide would be stemmed. We have had Blaar Coetzee who staked his entire political reputation on this. He was supposed to have stemmed the tide, but where is Blaar Coetzee today? There is nothing one can do about it, except in a marginal sense. Allow me to put it to you in another way: If, in 1930, we had had a Government in power with the same nonsensical policy and if it had succeeded in stemming the influx of Blacks into our cities, do you know what our position would have been today? Our national income would have been one-tenth of what it is at present and our standard of living would have been exactly the same as that of Malawi at present. This is what they are trying to do here. You see, Sir, there is a vast difference in approach. When I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education yesterday: “Do you accept the Blacks in the urban areas as being permanent now?”—in fact, he is the only ray of light in a sombre setting—he told me that all I wanted to do was playing politics. He said all he knew was that they would be here for many years to come. But this is a cardinal approach. If one accepts them as being permanent, one naturally has to find a total political solution to accommodate them. But if one regards them as migratory labourers who are going to be here temporarily only to disappear later, it is of course quite a different matter. This is what the Government is trying to do. This is what the hon. the Minister of the Interior was referring to this afternoon and it is on that basis that the whole of his policy is completely false; because he does not appreciate that these people are there permanently and that we have to accommodate them politically.

†Mr. Speaker, let us look at another simple problem that follows in the wake of industrialization, namely the question of trade unions. Here we have another sorry tale. I was eager to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who himself was a trade unionist, but he apparently has no understanding of trade unions because he says that trade unions are there to cause strikes. He does not know that the very role of a trade union is to prevent strikes. Let us look at the sorry record of the Government in this regard. For years we have said that all workers must have the right of industrial representation and all that we got from the Government, a chorus every time, was: “Do you want Black workers to strike?” What has in fact happened? They did strike. Last year some 50 000 of them went on strike. They were all striking illegally and they should all have been gaoled, but even this “kragdadige” Government pulled back at the last minute, so they were not gaoled. After that, however, the Government came back and changed its own law and then passed a law to say that Black workers could in fact strike, although they still deny them the very basic instruments which are necessary to prevent strikes. This is a very serious issue and I want to put it to this vociferous hon. gentleman from Vanderbijlpark who is now conferring with all his colleagues because he seems to be the chief spokesman when the hon. the Minister is not around.

He is organizing a strike.

Yes, he is organizing a strike. I want to ask this question because right at the present moment Black unions are being formed all over South Africa. They are being formed every second week. I want to ask the Government whether it is going to introduce legislation to stop this happening. Is it going to introduce legislation to prevent the formation of Black unions? If they do so, have they any idea of the ramifications as far as the outside world is concerned and the possibility of boycotts on the part of international trade unions and others? They are quiet. So you see, Sir, they dare not stop the formation of Black trade unions by legislation. So what is happening at the moment is that Black unions are being formed, but they are operating entirely outside the law. There are certain specifications for the existing White unions. They can only use their funds in a given manner; they can only conduct their affairs in a certain way. However, this host of Black trade unions which are being formed all over South Africa, mushrooming everywhere, is operating entirely outside the parameters of the law. There is no control over the way in which their funds will be used; there is, in fact, no control whatsoever. Is this a situation that any responsible Government can tolerate?

I want to pose another question. The Government tells us at every conceivable opportunity that the Industrial Conciliation Act is one of the best pieces of legislation we have ever had in South Africa. We agree with them because we put it on the Statute Book. I want to ask this question: If this legislation is so sound—and we accept this premise—why are the Black people being excluded from it? Why cannot it be applied to them? Is this not the worst form of discrimination? You have wonderful legislation, but you do not apply it to the Black people. I see this as discrimination of the worst possible kind. Here you have a situation developing where the existing bargaining machinery is quite inadequate. The Black people do not accept workers’ committees and liaison committees because (a) they see them as different from what is provided for the White people and (b) they see them as inferior. How can you ever conduct negotiations on a reasonable basis when you have two, three, four, five or ten thousand different little works committees? We are not opposed to the mechanism of a works committee. We can see that it has a valuable role to play, particularly when you are dealing with an unsophisticated work force and a migratory one, but we see it as a reinforcement, as complementary to the trade union machinery. We cannot ever accept it as a substitute. We have a situation where all the Black trade unions are blossoming forth, where they are existing and where they are operating entirely beyond the law, and where neither that hon. Minister nor anybody else on that side has any control over them. Mr. Speaker, this is a highly unsatisfactory and indeed dangerous situation that is developing in our country, because the prevalent situation is unfair to the Black workers because they are being denied the machinery which is created to ensure industrial peace and proper bargaining. It is unfair to the White workers, Sir, because they are being rapidly excluded from the bargaining process because the White unions in many cases represent only 20% of your total work force, and hence they are losing their bargaining powers. But it is also unfair to South Africa and I must warn now that it will initiate a period of industrial strife and uncertainty. It also creates a gap and a hiatus, a hiatus which will be taken up by people outside the industrial machinery. Already you have seen what has happened in Natal. Political leaders from the Bantu homelands now step in and say, “We will negotiate on behalf of our people”. Mr. Speaker, this situation is one that we can no longer tolerate. That is why my hon. leader took this step and said: “There is only one way out of this dilemma; we must use this machinery which we regard as excellent machinery and we must extend its protection to all workers in South Africa.” Sir, what did we get from that side? We got all the old clichés: “You want them to strike.” Sir, they are striking. We got all the old stupid questions such as: “Will the unions be mixed; will they be integrated?”

“Where will they eat?”

Yes, where will they eat; where will they sleep? Mr. Speaker, I know of no government in the world that would dictate to trade unions how they should organize their own affairs. I am happy to leave it to our existing trade unions, because what will happen is this: If the existing unions do not take the Black workers under their protection and look after them, then the Black workers will start their own unions, and this is something that I believe we should avoid, because experience in Zambia and elsewhere shows that once you have separate unions—White unions on the one side and Black unions on the other side—then you become vulnerable to the political agitator. Here, Sir, is a simple step which the Government can take in South Africa’s interest. It is a step on which we would support them. Think how very lucky they are that here they have an Opposition who would support them on important measures of this kind.

Do you support your leader?

Sir, they have an obsession about this; they have a great concern, they are afraid of the trade unions. I often think it is because they remember how Albert Hertzog used the trade unions in 1948 so that that party could ride into power on the backs of the trade unions. Mr. Speaker, once you accept this principle of industrialization, once you begin to realize the financial implications of it, then our situation does not become such a difficult one, because there are all sorts of other things that follow in its wake.

There are important social consequences that follow in the wake of industrialization. It brings about great social mobility and blurs the edges between the different groups. There was a time when Disraeli could say that in Britain there were two groups of people who were like dwellers from different planets because they had nothing in common with one another. He was merely talking about the aristocracy and the workers. Exactly the same situation is arising here. Industrialization is blurring the edges and making much of the discrimination that we thought essential unnecessary. There are important economic consequences that follow from it. All of a sudden the Black worker in South Africa is becoming a consumer and this brings in its wake immense new consequences, a completely new dimension. At the moment it is accepted that the buying power of the Black people in this country is in the region of R1 200 per year but if South Africa were to grow at the projected growth rate then at the turn of this century the buying power of the Black people in this country will be almost R25 million per day. They will represent something like 30 per cent of our national income. When you have that kind of situation, when the Black people of this country represent that kind of buying power, then I can tell you that their demand for the sharing of power, for a greater share of the cake, for greater dignity in our society, will gather nupitus and become completely irresistible. Because of all these factors, the Government’s whole political plan is unsound. The decision before South Africa is not between separation and integration, as this hon. gentleman tried to tell us. Our decision lies between federation and disintegration. If we are not to federate—and you might find fault with our model, and we can argue about the details and the detailed consequences, but in the pluralistic society like ours, where you have different population groups at different standards of development there is only one constitutional model which will allow you to desensitize this situation that could lead to conflict, which will permit you to give each and every group control over its own affairs and yet provide machinery for synthesis at the top on matters that are of consequence to all of us, and that is the federal system. The choice before the Government is an easy one. They can decide to keep South Africa as it is now, small and vulnerable, or they can take those decisions which can make us a great power in this world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow must realize that he is living in a glass house and therefore may not throw stones. The hon. member referred here to the hon. the Minister of the Interior as a “crown prince”, but if there has ever been a crown prince in this House, it is that hon. member. He was the Transvaal crown prince of the United Party, but he has now quietly resigned. I wonder, would the hon. member not like to lift the veil for us slightly and tell us why he resigned? Did he resign because a new leader for his party in the Transvaal came along, that meteoric personage who appeared on the horizon and will fade just as quickly? Is that the reason? The hon. member spoke here of will-power and said the Government did not have the will-power to implement its policy. The hon. member must tell us whether his resignation was not due to a lack of willpower. Was he, as deputy leader of his party in the Transvaal, not perhaps responsible for looking after such old stalwarts of his party as Mr. Etienne Malan? I do think he was responsible for that. Where is Mr. Etienne Malan? Where is Mr. George Oliver? Where is Mr. Sonny Emdin, a man who sat in their front benches? Was the hon. the ex-Deputy Leader of the United. Party in the Transvaal not supposed to look after them? It seems to me, Sir, he had too little will-power. And instead of displaying the will-power and resigning from his party in protest, as the hon. member for Turffontein did, the hon. member only resigned from the Deputy Leadership of the Transvaal. Then he comes along and speaks of crown princes. Sir, the crown prince sitting there opposite is one who has abdicated. And, Sir, he did not even receive his abdication, as a very famous king received it, from his Prime Minister, his leader; he simply signed his own abdication, because of a lack of will-power in connection with his old party associates. There is a whole series of them. There are another two or three others I could have mentioned.

How many votes did you get when there was voting for your Transvaal leadership?

Sir, I did not abdicate and I did not resign.

You were just thrown out.

Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point has nothing to boast about in this connection. I think he has less to boast about than I have. I was not kicked out anywhere, and he was kicked out of his position in his own province. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members must not go playing games with me now; this is not a game of marbles. I want to come back to them for a moment.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also spoke about the Black leaders who supposedly do not accept our policy. We have a whole number of Bantu Governments who, in terms of our legislation and in terms of our system, have their own Parliament and their own Cabinets today. I shall come back to that presently. That is in terms of our system; they accept it and they give effect to it. I should now like to put a question to the hon. member. I am also putting it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in absentia. Or perhaps I should put it to the new Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, who does happen to be present. At the recent deliberations they had a week or more ago in Johannesburg with the leaders of the Black Governments, was there unanimous support for the federal scheme of the United Party, yes or no?

You would like to know.

The hon. member says I should like to know. May I disillusion him by saying that I know quite a lot about what happened there.

Why then do you ask the question?

Because I know what the answer to that question ought to be.

There was a unanimous rejection of separate development.

Sir, just look at the will-power there. Just look at the evasion. I am not asking the hon. member what they said about separate development. I am asking him to tell me what they had to say about federation.

They like federation.

Oh, they like it? I should like to hear whether the hon. member for Yeoville could give me the names of the people who said that.

But you did say you knew what was going on.

I know, and I am now telling the hon. member opposite, if he would just restrain himself and listen for a moment, that amongst them there is no acceptance of federation ...

There is an acceptance of federation.

... not in the words of Buthelezi, not in the words of Mangope, not in the words of anyone else who was present there. In fact, Sir, the hon. member may not know ...

If you are so well-informed about that ...

Sir, may I know who is speaking at the moment, I who am standing, or that indignant member sitting there in his bench?

You (jy) put the questions, but you (jy) do not like the answers.

Order! I should be pleased if hon. members would refrain from using the words “jy” and “jou” in interjections.

Yes, Sir, it was not I. Sir, I put questions to that hon. member and he does not answer me. He answers a question he hopes I will put to him. I asked him whether those people unanimously accepted their federation scheme, as the hon. member for Hillbrow implied here a moment ago. I am telling him they did not do so.

May I answer you?

If the Speaker permits you to do so, you may answer me.

Order! The hon. member may not answer.

Did you not read the statement in the newspapers?

I read what there was in the newspapers, but I also know what the Bantu leaders said.

How do you know that?

That is may affair, but my knowledge was arrived at by honest means.

Watergate!

As is sometimes done, the hon. member for Hillbrow was hinting about the Delimitation Commission. The hon. member must realize that the remark he made about the Delimitation Commission favouring us ...

No, he did not.

Yes, he did. This borders on contempt of that Commission. But I expect that of him.

I said you were very lucky.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are cries of “Watergate”, which the Opposition is making, permissible, because Watergate bears a certain stigma of unlawfulness?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member complained about the delimitation that has supposedly done them an injustice. May I point out to the hon. member that there are a number of seats which the United Party lost to the Progressive Party and where the delimitations did not benefit us. May I also point out to him that there are seats that have in no way been changed, or that have been changed very little, which the United Party lost in any case. The Parktown seat, for example, was changed very little, and where is that constituency today? There sits its Progressive Party member in this House. What happened to Pinelands? The Pinelands constituency remained unchanged, and where is that constituency’s former large majority?

Are you glad that the Progressives won the constituency?

I am going to give the hon. member a very honest answer. I am not going to evade the question as he evaded mine. It matters very little to me which Opposition party has Pinelands. I shall tell him what I regret very much. I regret very much the fact that I cannot see my good friend, Ossie Thompson, here in the flesh again. But if it has to be an opposition constituency, who represents it here leaves me stone cold.

This debate began on a false note, and that was sung by the precentor in this debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He began on the false basis we so frequently have to listen to in connection with policy matters that are weighed up. The big mistake the Leader of the Opposition has again made, and which so many other members also make, inter alia, the resurrected member for Umhlatuzana, is that they think about matters on an integrationist basis, that they place themselves on an integrationist platform, and from there put questions to us in terms of integrationist thinking, and then they also want us to answer them from an integrationist point of view. It is a dishonest game of ideas to ask questions on the basis of one frame of thought and then to expect us to reply in that frame of thought. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked us questions here which have an integrationist basis. He asked, for example: “Do the urban Bantu, like the Coloureds already do, have a representative council?” The fact that they do not have this, he considers to be a very big mistake on our part. But a representative council, such as the one the Coloureds have, does not fit in at all with our policy for the Natives in the White areas. Not at all. It is not our endeavour to give them such a council. In fact, it would be quite wrong, and I shall come back to that again a little later. Getting back to the words of this motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he insists that policies be changed and speaks of adjustments that are necessary in a changing world. That is again the pressure-from-without fear which he is displaying. Let us understand clearly that here too there is a conceptual error on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. It is pathetic, if not naïve, that a few months after a general election, in which he suffered an ignominious defeat, a leader of an Opposition should now return and ask us to change our policy. I think that if there is anyone who should change policy, with a view to what happened in the election, it is the United Party, not ourselves. What naïveté! I can understand why the Opposition thinks so much in terms of policy changes—because it is a chronic disease with them. We cannot keep pace. I wish hon. members opposite would appoint one of their members of Parliament who has been defeated just to keep track, for our benefit, of all the new variations on their policy. We cannot keep pace.

With us it is not a matter of changing policy merely in order to announce a new policy each time. With us it is a matter of the dynamic extension and development of our existing policy from the point of view of our party’s policy credo and basis. We have done that, because our policy is based on a very firm fundamentalism. On that basis our policy has indeed flourished tremendously well in recent years—not only since 1948, but also, and particularly, in the very recent past. Great changes have been brought about, it is true, but not changes which were the opposite of old objectives. They were changes which were outgrowths of our own policy. As has been indicated by other speakers, there have been few parties that have brought about as many changes in South Africa as specifically this party, and we are no static party. These changes were the sign of sparkling life and growth, and not of detraction, substitution and hit-and-miss efforts at achieving something new. I know that this kind of dynamics and policy are not the kind of thing the Opposition wants. We know that very well. We carry these changes through because since we are, loyal to our policy this brings about the necessary extension and development of the nation which is so necessary according to our policy and which is, in fact, necessary to any people in the world.

Therefore I just want to mention a number of the most recent examples of how our policy has developed dynamically. Then hon. members can think about the fact that great changes have, of course, taken place at the same time. As I say, changes are naturally true to the core of our policy. Over the long period of more than a quarter of a century in which we have governed, there are of course many more things to mention, but I am no longer going to refer to the old, most familiar matters. Let me mention to you one of the most striking developments of the past six to eight years, i.e. the fact that in virtually each of our Bantu homelands we now have individual government for each of the separate Bantu peoples in our country. They have their own national tribunes, from whence they can voice the sentiments and also the passions in the hearts of their own peoples, whether for or against us. This is something they never had before, a well ordered tribune. They have their own cabinets, with a total of about 60 ministers—just for the Bantu peoples alone.

How many are you going to have now?

I just want to tell the hon. member that this is not yet the end of it. They have their own legislative assemblies with a total of more than 700 members, of whom roughly a third are elected by means of individual franchise.

More than the number of U.P. members.

The hon. member ought to realize that the Bantu peoples have more Ministers than there are U.P. members in this House. Each of these homeland governments has five to seven of their own departments. In each of the homeland governments there has been, particularly in the past three or four years, phenomenal progress in nationalization, i.e. the take-over by their own people of the administrations of those countries. I can give you an example of what has happened in the past six years.

In 1968 14,5% of the staff posts of all the homeland administrations, which had departments at the time, were still occupied by Whites. At the end of 1973 the percentage had already decreased to 9,9%, while—and this is very, very important—the number of posts over that same period increased by 73%. The administration of those departments has increased, while the occupation by Whites has decreased by about 5%. That is the process that is continuing, something I shall also come back to again. Hereby we have introduced a system of government from their own ranks for each people in South Africa, a system which allows no people to govern another people, a system in which no single power of one people is shared by another people.

This afternoon in the House we have heard, and we already know this from the number of times it has been mentioned from this side of the House, what extreme dangers there would be for us as a White people in South Africa if power sharing were introduced—something which the United Party advocates and which, in particular, comes under the dictatorship of the hon. member for Yeoville. That was followed by a consultation or dialogue, if one now wants to use the modernistic word, between ourselves as a White government and all the various Bantu governments. This took place at the highest Government level, in a way hitherto unknown in South Africa. This was not a matter of all kinds of phantoms and declarations, subsequently called “only a document of nice words” by Bantu leaders ...

Who said that?

Yes, it is you (jy).

Who said it?

It was said of your (jou) document.

Who said it?

I will not tell you who said it, because I know what becomes...

Order! A while ago I requested hon. members not to use “jy” and “jou” in referring to other hon. members.

The hon. member’s, Mr. Speaker. I shall not say who it is who said it, because I know what his fate will be.

You spoke of a Bantu leader ...

Yes, a Bantu leader.

Mention his name.

Who it is is my affair.

The hon. the Minister must not make the allegation if he cannot support it.

I shall repeat the allegation. He said: “It is only a lot of nice words.”

Mention his name.

A further consequence tied in with this is the most recent turn of events. The Transkei’s Legislative Council requested independence for the Transkei. The Government has already replied to that, as hon. members know. At this stage I do not want to say any more about that because I know that my hon. Prime Minister will shortly have something to say about that himself. I do not want to say anything more about that, except to point out to hon. members that this is one of the very important developments, if not the most important development, one of the most important changes or outgrowths of our policy which we can mention to hon. members.

Let me also mention to hon. members a further very important development and change that has emerged in terms of our policy, i.e. our great and forceful attempt, in the past year or so, in respect of the consolidation of the Bantu homelands and the acceleration of the land purchases necessary in terms of the allocation of the 1936 Act.

However, as far as I am concerned there is some small measure of regret, and this afternoon I want to make known for the first time that the short session we are now busy with makes it impossible in practice to carry out, in the space of this year, the remainder of the consolidation work that must be done by Parliament. Because of the limited time at its disposal the Government has decided to give precedence in the 1975 session to the great volume of consolidation work that must be done. I am sorry about that; in fact no one probably regrets it more than I do, because I am the person who said that this consolidation should very quickly be given legal substance. Due to circumstances this must now unfortunately be postponed. I do not actually mind because we have had a fine election result, and that is the reason why we are having these two short sessions this year.

Another very important development that took place, a development which took place so quickly that a very large percentage of South Africa’s White population did not even notice—and legislation has been drafted for it in this Parliament—is the readjustment of our districts in South Africa. When I remind hon. members of it, they will perhaps realize that we previously had magisterial districts which included White areas and Bantu areas in one and the same district. The position has been sorted out, except in Natal where this has not yet been completed. Therefore we now have, in White South Africa, districts which only contain White areas ...

What about Richards Bay?

Richards Bay is in a White area and will remain there as long as we are sitting on this side of the House.

And Port St. Johns?

The Bantu homeland areas are subdivided into individual districts; in other words there are districts in Bophuthatswana, in the Ciskei, in Lebowa, Venda and so on. It is only in KwaZulu that the districts have not been quite finalized yet. Thus in the Bantu homelands of South Africa today we already have 93 districts—if you want to call them that, a perfect geographic partition of our districts between White and Black in South Africa. That was a short piece of legislation that was passed in Parliament without any fuss, and its administrative implementation subsequently took place. I am glad it was passed in that manner, because it is quite an ordinary measure. I have never yet heard of two countries or two potential countries which have allowed their districts to criss-cross and overlap beyond each other’s borders. This has also been the case here.

Let me mention to you a further very important activity of ours, i.e. the decentralization of our industries. I could wax lyrical about how our border industries project has evolved and developed since the early ’sixties. I also want to mention that apart from that, the internal development of industries and industrial undertakings within the Bantu homelands was also of great importance. We have hereby not only brought about an improved population distribution and development distribution in South Africa, but of course we have also introduced a stimulus for lesser developed parts, particularly in the Bantu homelands. I have mentioned the border industry system and also the system known as the agency system with its multiplication effect within the Bantu homelands. In the past few years 115 firms have already been obtained as new undertakings with a staff complement of almost 12 000 Bantu persons in the Bantu homelands. About R36,2 million has been spent in the Bantu homelands on the infrastructure alone, on buildings and on loans—and that has been spent on the number of growth points there are.

Over what period is that?

Over the past few years; let us say the last five years approximately. This is with reference to these figures I have just mentioned. The industrial decentralization has of course gone hand in hand with the extremely essential training system for those workers. Hon. members ought to remember how a few years back we had already begun with a training system for Bantu workers in the border industry areas. Just recall the one that probably drew the most attention, the one near Berlin in the Eastern Cape. And we have also, in the past two or three years, begun with the training of such agency workers and corporation workers within the Bantu homelands. This was done by means of the BIC’s training bureau, such that since 1970 we have already had more than 800 persons enrolled for courses, persons who have already been certificated too for the training they received. In conjunction with this we also came to light, in the past few months, with the training of Bantu workers in permitted jobs in industries in the White area, as you know. A start has already been made on eight centres which are in various stages of construction in various places in South Africa, in the Cape and in the Transvaal.

For the first year, as hon. members will perhaps remember if I remind them of the fact, the Government made R1,2 million available for that purpose. This is the measure which will not only promote the productivity of the manufacturers, but which will also promote the development of those Black workers as people, and which ought to be of benefit to us too in respect of the control of the number of Black people in our midst.

In South Africa we have also made phenomenal progress with transport facilities between the Bantu homelands, where the Bantu workers live, and their places of work in the White areas, such that according to the figures I furnished here last year in the second year of the scheme, in 1971, there were already at least 175 000 Bantu workers per day who travelled between the Bantu homelands where they live and the White areas right on the border where they work.

Are they all subsidized?

They are virtually all subsidized, and rightly so, because throughout the world such industries in scantily developed parts are subsidized, at some places even more than here.

Mr. Speaker, in the very recent past, at the beginning of this year, we gave the Bantu representation as individuals on the councils of the universities, representation whereby the Bantu peoples involved with those universities obtain co-responsibility in the control of those universities. Thus at Turfloop, Fort Hare and also at Ngoya we have given representation in our councils to Bantu persons from the ranks of the Bantu peoples.

May I remind you of one of the finest and most valuable innovations of recent years in the White area—the establishment of the aid centres. There are excellent figures available for the first year in this connection. These are figures I have not yet been able to mention here, but which I now want to mention, i.e. that up to February 1974 there were 140 000 cases of Bantu persons who, because of problems and offences, came to our attention in these aid centres in the White areas, and 107 800 of these 140 000 persons were kept out of gaol. Of these 107 000, 73 500 were released without punishment after they had been helped out of the dilemmas in which they found themselves.

Dealing as I am with the White area at the moment, I could mention many more things, but I hope to elaborate on these further on another occasion during this parliamentary session when there is more time available to me.

To conclude may I just remind hon. members of another very important innovation which is another change in the system that has prevailed since 1910. I am speaking of the introduction of the Administration Boards, 22 of which are now in operation. Since I am mentioning this matter now, I should like to ask everyone, individuals and authorities, to please ensure that they work themselves into the scheme fully and co-operate to make a success of it, because this is in the interests of us all.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately or unfortunately I cannot participate in this debate in the same fervent manner as the two previous speakers did, and true to the traditions of this House, I hope to navigate much calmer waters.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to draw the attention of this House and of hon. members to a situation for which all of us, irrespective of party connection, have to accept some responsibility and at which we all have to work. It is an old subject which is yet ever new and because I feel strongly about it, perhaps because of a Free State country background and rather bitter memories of the depression years, I want to say a few words about it. I refer to the poverty that we still find today among all races and all sections of the community, and this in spite of the enormous economic progress we have experienced in this country over the past years. This is a situation which I feel should be a source of grave concern to us, because in the final instance it carries the seeds of great dissatisfaction, of frustration and even of revolution. It may also be the breeding-ground of Fascism and of Communism. According to estimates it is a fact that at least 2% of all Whites in South Africa, i.e. between 75 000 and 80 000 souls, live below the poverty datum line. This also holds true, Sir, for nearly half the Coloured population of this country and for between one and two thirds of the Black population. There may be those who doubt these facts, but these figures, I submit, are an indication of a situation which causes concern and which is alarming. And not the least alarming aspect of this is the disproportion which is revealed in the incomes of the various race groups—from 12 or 14 to one—an indication of an imbalance which is neither healthy nor fair. Mr. Speaker, the average income figure per person in the Republic is R1 218 for Whites, in comparison with R79 for Blacks, R168 for Asians and R136 for Coloureds. According to the Bureau for Market Research 77% of all Black families had an income of less than R60 per month five or six years ago. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that the poverty of many poor people is their own fault. This is true, of course, but I think that most economists point out today that low wages for unskilled work is a major cause of poverty and this is something for which all of us, as individuals, are responsible. Everybody who employs people can make a contribution in this regard, however modest it might be. Prof. Sheila van der Horst, of the University of Cape Town, stated that there was another obligation we had and that was to increase the productivity of people. She wrote (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new idea; it is a well-known view, a view which was put forward in this country as long as 50 years ago by a Government Commission, the Economic and Wages Commission. But, Sir, the by-products of poverty reveal themselves in many spheres, and we must take cognizance of them as well. I shall point out only one or two concerning diet, because this is something of the greatest importance. In an article in a recent edition of the South African Medical Journal Dr. Neser of the National Nutrition Research Council drew attention to a large variety of vitamin deficiencies, which according to him were found, to a greater or a lesser extent, “in a large number of White children”. With reference to malnutrition amongst less-privileged Whites, Dr. Neser said (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, here we therefore have a problem which concerns people of all colours and all races. For instance, among medical men we find a reference to “chronic malnutrition among Coloured people”. As far as the Blacks in the urban areas are concerned, there is reference to “general chronic malnutrition, probably with periods of near famine for many of them during certain times of the year”. And so I could go on quoting, Mr. Speaker, not what is said by propagandists with hidden motives but by scientists, people who have been making a study of these matters and giving serious attention to it. But I shall content myself with only one more statement by Dr. Neser and that is that there “are vast numbers of people in our country whose essential nutritional needs are never being met in full”. Mr. Speaker, it may be asked why we need concern ourselves now with poverty which, after all, is always with us and, one assumes, will always be with us. But do let us remember that besides moral considerations there are very serious and very practical reasons why we should be concerned, about it. I shall mention only one or two of them briefly.

Every expert will tell you. Sir, that an underfed population is a dangerous population because it is susceptible to emotional influencing rather than logical thinking and action, and that it can easily resort to violence rather than act peacefully. There are responsible people who think that the increase in violence in this country is above all attributable to the enormous gap between poor and rich, and there are political scientists who will confirm that no system of government based on consent can function while the vast majority of the people are economically deprived.

Sir, I hope hon. members will agree with me that this very superficial review of the situation in our country in connection with poverty is not exaggerated. I repeat that I do not want to blame any group or party in South Africa for it, because we are all accessories in this country. It is a situation about which all of us, living as we do in a country so blessed as South Africa, where so much development has already taken place, should feel ashamed. My point is that we have an enormous problem here with explosive properties which can only be tackled by all of us jointly.

Yesterday we heard from this side of the House what the effects of inflation are on people with limited incomes. Here we are thinking especially of people, White or coloured, who have to live on a pension today. I want to say that while we are facing the seriousness and the extent of this problem, and while we intend doing something about it, each one of us as an individual should say to himself what Onze Jan Hofmeyr said or asked in another context: “Are we in earnest about it?”

I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for another major national drive to wipe out poverty. As you and hon. members know very well. Sir, the first one took place during the ’twenties and ’thirties, when a very successful campaign against poverty, especially amongst the Afrikaners, was undertaken. The Carnegie Commission paved the way with the factual data they collected. Personally I feel that the time has arrived for a second drive. But this time I feel that we should tackle the problem on a broader basis, on a broader front, because in many respects it is more serious than what it was 50 years ago. Such action, I feel, will pay rich dividends, because it surely remains true of us South Africans that what we desire for ourselves we also grant others.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to me to congratulate the hon. member for Parktown on his maiden speech in this House. It is a great moment for any person when he has to rise in this House to address this highest assembly in South Africa, and one is under great stress when one does so for the very first time. But it is a pleasure to me to congratulate the hon. member. He has stated his case in an excellent and competent manner and I believe that he will in future make similar contributions in this House. As the hon. member said, poverty is a matter of concern to us all and we should like all the components of the populations in South Africa to be well provided for. However, as the Holy Writ tells us, we shall always have the poor with us. Nevertheless I may comfort the hon. member by saying that when we look at the income of our people in South Africa we may take pride in comparing the income of our Black people with that of the Black people in the rest of Africa. One hopes and trusts that by working and building together in South Africa all the population groups will thrive under the prosperity which this country holds out to us all as we move into the future.

The world in which we live today is certainly a world beset by problems. There is no country in the world, especially in these times, which does not have a great many problems to contend with. One thinks of the political instability which prevails in the Western world in particular. We see that the issue in the Western world is the choice between capitalism and a certain degree of socialism. We see that several minority governments are in power. This contributes to the instability of this dangerous world in which we live. A coup d’état was carried out recently which affected an area bordering on our country and which will certainly affect our thought and our future. The world has the problem of international terrorism to contend with. Almost every country in the world is facing this problem. In addition we see that we are experiencing one monetary crisis after another, for there is uncertainty in the monetary field, there is instability, there is doubt and there is despair which can only harm the economic situation of the world. The energy crisis has descended upon the world like a thunderbolt on a cloudless day. The economies of various countries are staggering under this crisis. This, amongst other things, has resulted in an inflation rate which is getting out of control in some places and threatening the survival of governments. It is even endangering the liquidity of nations. Furthermore we see a militancy in the trade unions of the world, which, in spite of the approaching economic recession, in spite of unemployment, are still making unrealistic wage demands which do not take account of the reality of increased productivity to justify these wage demands. Many of the Western countries predict a negative growth-rate for 1974. This means increased unemployment and a lower standard of living. The lower income groups in particular will go short of food in many parts of the world. Most countries have tremendous balance of payment problems, as a result of the phenomenal increase in the price of oil all over the world. One realizes that South Africa does not exist in a cocoon, isolated from the rest of the world, but that these matters must affect South Africa as well. Under these circumstances, however, one can only feel thankful for living in this South Africa. One is grateful for the order, the peace, the prosperity and progress in the country, and one feels proud when one realizes South Africa will probably have the highest real growth-rate in the Western world for 1974. One can only be grateful that for the past 26 years a Government has been in power which has created, the circumstances and the conditions which have enabled South Africa to retain its strength in a weakening world. We cannot escape these problems; they must affect us. However, we are fortunate in not having a minority Government in this country, but a Government which has emerged from the struggle stronger than before. When one thinks of the all-important problem of relationships that we have in South Africa one can only be the more grateful for having a strong Government today. Furthermore one is deeply aware of the challenges that await us on the road ahead. In addition to all these problems experienced by the other countries, and by us as well, we have this one crucial problem, namely the problem of relationships. When one looks at the world in which we are living today, one sees that since the Second World War we have experienced one particularly important development, and that is the emergence of the Third World. Together with this we have seen, firstly, the emergence of the communist power after the Second World War, something which has become a very important factor in world politics and which has brought about many changes and changed attitudes in world politics. As a result of this new spirit in world politics after the Second World War we have experienced, amongst other things, the decolonization of Africa. Previously we were only three independent states in Africa; today there are already more than 42. These changes have penetrated into our very midst. We have a Lesotho, a Swaziland and a Botswana on our borders today—all independent states. We have seen the whole world advance to a point where the question of colonialism, of the domination of one people or nation by another, has been totally rejected by the whole world. The passing of the Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in particular has shown us that the domination of one people by another has been totally rejected by the world and by the world community. Together with this has come the question of “one man, one vote” and the world has come to the conclusion that the right of a people to determine its own destiny is beyond dispute. The whole Western world, the U.N., and also those who sometimes do not mean what they say, all recognize that one overriding principle in the world today, i.e. that every people has the right to sovereignty and to self-determination and that no one else has the right to determine its destiny. The principle which has emerged from this and the rule which has been laid down is that of “one man, one vote”. This the world has accepted as the God-given and inalienable right of every person and nation.

When one observes what has happened in Africa, one sees that decolonization has been carried into our very midst. When one proceeds to look at the South Africa in which we live, one sees that it consists of various peoples. We have the Bantu peoples, the Coloured people, the Asiatics and the Whites. Then jeering remarks are made and the National Party is accused of having an ideology which is removed from reality, an ideology which cannot be implemented, a policy of separate development which cannot be carried out because it is allegedly impractical by definition. One of the main arguments advanced here against our policy is that the proposed Bantu homelands are not viable. It is argued that because they cannot be economically independent this policy can never succeed. Hereupon one asks oneself: What about Lesotho, which borders on our country? What about small countries such as Bahrein or Qatar, both of which have smaller populations than most Bantu homelands here in South Africa? Why then are they independent today? Why are they recognized by the world community as sovereign independent states? Why are they admitted as members of the United Nations Organization? If it can be done in those cases, why cannot our homelands, most of which are bigger, more populous and economically more viable, and most of which have a higher per capita income than most African states, not be accepted by the international community? Why cannot they achieve full independence? I have already said that economic viability or economic independence is not an essential requirement for sovereign political independence.

But I should like to come to an important principle in this policy of ours, namely the argument which is being advanced here by the Opposition parties, the standpoint which is being adopted that one may disregard and ignore the multi-nationalism of South Africa, Sir, there is a great deal of talk, and Chief Buthelezi is frequently quoted. Have hon. members taken note of what he says when, on a visit abroad, he is asked about his nationality?

He says he is a South African.

You are talking nonsense. You know that is not true.

He says he is a Zulu.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “You know that is not true”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot understand why we still have to argue this point in this House. This is one of the facts of South Africa which we cannot escape. Those people form separate peoples and they are proud of them. They are people who are proud of them and who are not going to give up their identity. Multi-nationalism is an inescapable fact in the South Africa in which we live, something on which we must surely reach consensus so that we may build on upon that foundation.

I should like, for example, to ask the hon. member for Simonstown a question. I do not want to lay a trap for him. Why does he not become a German, a Dutchman or a Frenchman?

I am a South African and nothing else.

And does the hon. member wish to remain one?

Yes, of course.

Of Course, Sir, and that is the point.

Being a South African means the same for English and Afrikaans-speaking people.

But the hon. member does not wish to become a German, a Frenchman or a Dutchman, and not because he looks down on them. It is not because he does not respect them, but because he is what he is, and he does not want to be anything else. When he says, “I do not want to be a German”, he is not insulting the German nation. When he says, “I do not want to be an Afrikaner”, he is not insulting me, because he is what he is, and he is proud of it. He has a tradition and a culture, and he does not want to give them up. So, the point I want to make is this: Why are the parties opposite asking the Zulu, the Tswana and the Swazi to become a South African? Why do they refuse him the right to remain a Zulu, a Tswana or a Swazi? That is what he wants to be, after all. Why do they not give him the political framework to be what he is? For he does not want to be anything else. He is proud of what he is, as the hon. member for Simonstown is proud of the fact that he is a White South African. That is the crucial point. Take our Coloureds, who are a nascent people ...

What are they now?

They are a people in the process of developing. Hon. members know that the Afrikaner people became greatly anglicised after the Anglo-Boer War. Do hon. members know why? They were poor and they were defeated. Let us be honest. Many of our people were inferior. As the Afrikaner people progressed in all spheres of life, as their education progressed, as they distinguished themselves in all other spheres of life, they did not want to become anglicized any longer. This applies to all the other peoples of South Africa. Surely it is an indisputable and God-given right to be yourself, and for that reason it is our duty to give them that constellation and that political foundation and framework that will enable them to develop in order that they may have sovereignty over themselves, for that is their right. This must be done without injuring their human dignity. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party is not here, because they give themselves out to be a modern party. The United Party accuses us in this motion of censure of not adapting ourselves in time. Now I want to ask the hon. members on that side of the House whether they are prepared to go as far as “one man, one vote” in South Africa.

But you are saying that you will go that far.

I am not asking what we want to do, but whether those hon. members are prepared to go all the way to “one man one vote” in South Africa, as the world demands of us, as the Declaration of the Granting of Independence to the Colonial Countries and Peoples demands and as world opinion demands.

Yes, but in a federal context.

I shall tell you that you will not go all the way.

Why not?

You are not prepared to go all the way.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair instead of conducting a direct dialogue.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Neither of these parties is prepared to do so, but what are they doing? Their ultimate aim is the same. The Progressive Party has one method, on the level of the voters’ list, and the United Party has a different method, on the level of a federal assembly. They are practising the most underhand and the most blatant kind of discrimination by discriminating against people on the basis of their possessions, on the basis of their degree of education.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “most underhand”. It is unparliamentary.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. These two parties are practising a blatant kind of discrimination which cannot be accepted by the world, and which certainly cannot be accepted by the conscience of the National Party. They are clinging to a concept from the old colonial period during which people who were richer and more educated ruled over other people who were poor and uneducated. This is a blatant form of discrimination. I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition and hon. members of the Progressive Party—it is a pity that the two hon. members of the Progressive Party who have already spoken are not present—that Africa and the Bantu leaders are laughing at them up their sleeves. They are laughing up their sleeves at those hon. members because they are politically naïve in thinking that that blatant form of discrimination, discrimination on the basis of a man’s education and his income, will be acceptable to the world. They will throw you out with the bath water. They will not accept it.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, if one goes further, one will see that the two parties both reject the principle of “one man, one vote”, i.e... .

That is not true.

The hon. member for Maitland was not present just now; he had better read my Hansard. Both of them reject ...

I have been sitting here all afternoon.

The hon. member was only physically present. Both parties reject the principle of “one man, one vote”, the principle demanded by the world. I want to test them further. I shall ask the hon. newly elected member for Umhlatuzana, for example: Do they recognize the right of peoples to be sovereign and to govern themselves?

He says “No”.

So you do not recognize the right of peoples to develop to full sovereign independence? I am dealing with cold, practical politics, but these hon. members are not prepared to go with me all the way. They allege that their policy will satisfy the world and the demand made by the world, the world which is satisfied with nothing less than the right of self-determination for all peoples. Surely that is what the world openly demands. So the hon. members opposite are not prepared to accommodate that demand in their policy. For that reason I want to say: May South Africa be saved from being led by political tricks of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lydenburg has just delivered his speech and I want to say at once that on previous occasions I have seen him in a more tempestuous mood than he was in this afternoon. I must say he was very calm, but in my opinion his lecture did not really suit him very well. In fact, I rather preferred him in his more tempestuous mood. I think he is more effective in that mood. Be that as it may, I want to dwell on his speech for a few minutes and just refer to what he in fact had to say concerning a few points I have noted down. I want to refer to this “dirty water” argument of his, if I may call it that, that is to say, the question of the baby being thrown out with the dirty water, the question of discrimination. It amazes me, particularly in view of the fact that the Coloured has played such a prominent role in the debate over the past few days, that an hon. member in this House can stand up and talk about discrimination and impute this word to his political opponents. If there is one party in South African politics which has excelled itself as far as discrimination is concerned, without ever using the word, naturally—the art is not to say it, but to do it nevertheless—then that party is this same Nationalist Party. Really, I do not think it behoves the hon. member to come to the House with this kind of argument. He is impressing nobody. The hon. member went on to say the Coloureds were a nascent people and asked, “How dare we deprive them of this right”? If a Coloured were to arrive in Britain and they asked him “What are you?”, what do you think he would reply?

What would you tell them?

I shall tell you what he would say. I was present, but perhaps the hon. member for Lydenburg was not, when we heard a voice in the House the other day ...

Outside the House.

Yes, outside the House, but did you hear it?

It was a reference to Cadman.

No, it was a reference to the facts of South Africa. What did that man say? He said: “I am a South African.” That reply you would also receive from the Coloured in London. By the way, the hon. members also referred to the Zulu, Buthelezi ...

What kind of drama do we have here now? What are you proving?

Very well, if you do not like London, let us make it New York. It does not matter. I referred to London simply because I happened to meet the hon. member in London one day. That is the only reason.

[Inaudible.]

Both of us behaved ourselves and the hon. member need not feel uneasy. It so happened that the hon. member and I and other hon. members were in Britain at the very time when headman Buthelezi was there.

He is not “headman”.

But do you confer the title on him? I am completely open to correction. What is he now?

He is “Mr. Buthelezi”.

Then I shall say “Mr. Buthelezi”.

Your heart is not really in the debate.

I shall come to the hon. member shortly. It seems to me he reads Rapport; I hope he believes Rapport too. It so happened that Mr. Buthelezi took part in a television programme in London and the same question which the hon. member put here this afternoon, was put to him. He was asked: What do you call yourself? That Black man said with great pride: “I am a South African.” It is no use the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education pointing his finger at me.

May I ask a question?

No, I am not prepared to allow it. It is not that I am afraid of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but if he threatens me he may go ahead and ask.

I just want to ask the hon. member whether he has read anywhere—it appears in Hansard too—that headman Buthelezi also said: “I am a Zulu and I belong to the Zulu nation”.

Mr. Speaker, I am an Afrikaner, but if the world asks me what I am, then I say that I am a South African although I come from Afrikaans stock, just as headman Buthelezi comes from Zulu stock. The hon. member for Lydenburg.. .

But you were also a Greyshirt.

Hon. members try to impute all kinds of things to me, but what they can in fact tell me is that I belonged to the Ossewa-Brandwag I have said before that I learned many things from them, that is to say, from the Ossewa-Brandwag. The hon. the Prime Minister also belonged to them. The difference is just this: The Ossewa-Brandwag taught me that when one is dealing with the Nationalist Party, one needs to be very, very careful. When I now read in Rapport about my particular position in politics and I see that it has been taken over by an English-language newspaper, I can only shake my head because I am reminded of the lesson I learned in my youth. I shall not forget it easily—take care!

The hon. member for Lydenburg advanced another argument. He asked how we could say that unless there was economic progress, the Bantu states could not become independent. That is not the question. The question which he, as one who believes in the policy, must ask himself, is: Do they want independence? He knows full well the answer is: “No.” It is a question of acceptance. Both the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Minister of the Interior—I am sorry he is not here—asked us today: Do the Bantu accept your policy? Do the Coloureds accept your policy? I want to put a question to them, too. How many of them can tell me that the Coloureds accept their policy? How many of them can tell me that the Bantu accept their policy? The significance of this question is far more important in their case because they are the people at the controls, in the driver’s seat, and they have to call the tune and take the steps and act on behalf of South Africa. That is why the question is so important.

The hon. member for Lydenburg demonstrated one thing to me very clearly. He is a candidate for political change and policy change in South Africa, and I shall tell you why. That hon. gentleman considers world problems. He applies his knowledge and he sees what is coming in South Africa and he asks himself: Are we doing the right thing? He feels worried; naturally he feels worried. I wish the hon. the Minister of the Interior had read today’s Burger. T wish they would read Die Burger better; if they did some of them might change. Mr. Willem van Heerden wrote a key article in Die Burger and the whole essence of his article was: “Change, change.” Then the hon. the Minister of the Interior comes along and, believe it or not, he uses the terms “parallel development”. Sir, do you know what this man, Willem van Heerden, said? He is a profound politician and he is certainly not a supporter of this side of the House.

Who told you that?

He is a man who thinks, who does the thinking for that party. He says that the concept of parallel development is out of date, and unless it is given new content, “it must be discarded”, and yet that hon. member, in these times we are living in, comes along and says that that is where he stands. Sir. at universities, among the young Afrikaners, among the young English-speaking people, spreading like a bush-fire through the youth, there is talk of change and adaptation because things are not going as they should.

Tell us about the White Parliament.

Sir, when I see the signs of the times and when I hear about changes and adaptations, it sometimes seems to me to be a tragedy that the Nationalist Party does not realize what a powerful position they are in in South Africa to make those very adaptations.

You want us to deviate, not adapt.

Sir, let us take a look at the situation. The hon. the Prime Minister, with his party occupying the powerful position that it does, will be the first to acknowledge that the Nationalist Party stands today in the history of South Africa as virtually the exclusive political home of the Afrikaner.

The political home of Nationalists.

It is the political home of the Nationalist Afrikaner, if you want to call him that.

Of Nationalists.

I know there are a few English-speaking members of that party, and I do not hold it against those English-speaking people. They have every right to their point of view. But. Sir, the very fact that there are a few English-speaking people sitting with them in the Other Place, for example, underlines the fact that the Nationalist Party has become the exclusive political home of the Afrikaner in South Africa. But more than that: They are not only exclusive: they are not only almost homogeneous; they have the most powerful party, in terms of numbers, in this House. As a result of this homogeneous position of power, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are in a position to do virtually anything in South Africa today and to bring about any change. The hon. the Prime Minister and every member of that side of the House will acknowledge that they are not sitting here because their supporters enthusiastically support the Bantustan concept. In the recent election I paid calls at dozens of Nationalist homes and everywhere my parting shot was: “Do you agree with the Nationalist Party’s Bantustan policy?” Sir, of the hundreds of people to whom I put this question, only one man told me that he agreed with it. Why do these people vote Nationalist?

Then they should have voted for you.

Sir, many Nationalists did vote for me. [Interjection.] The hon. member asks me what I want from Nationalists. I want their votes, and I got them, too.

Did many Nationalists vote for you?

Yes, many, with the exception of that one man. He, too, will vote for me one day. But, Sir, let me get back to my argument. I was referring to the homogeneous position of power from which the Nationalist Party governs, and if there is the least sign on the political horizon that changes are necessary for the welfare of the people of South Africa, then I say that no party is in a better position to effect the change, specifically in respect of the colour question, than that party. But for some reason or other those people are trapped, and I want to say to the Prime Minister with all respect ...

It seems to me you have Harry on your mind. [Laughter]

The hon. member says I have Harry on my mind. I say to him that he is purely and simply out of his mind. He is free to infer from that what he likes. I say that if the Nationalist Party and the Prime Minister with his Government are prepared to bring about changes on a few fronts: on the Coloured front, arising from what my hon. Leader said; on the labour front, arising from what the hon. member for Hillbrow said; on the front of the urban Bantu ...

What must we do?

I am coming to that. If he is prepared to do this, then, I say to the hon. the Prime Minister, not only will his own people support him—he has their support in any event—but he will also be in a position to rely on the support of thousands of English-speaking people.

The question which must be put, is very simple. Is the White man prepared to change, if it is necessary, in the field of human relations in particular? Sir, I say to you: “Yes”. The Afrikaners and the English-speaking people do not differ fundamentally in their approach to the non-White races. On both sides we have youth fronts. youth wings, who perhaps want to move faster, but generally speaking, the White man, English and Afrikaans, is prepared to change. Of that I have not the slightest doubt.

The other question I want to put is this: If the people are prepared to change ...

Tell us what changes need to be made.

I am coming to that. If the answer is that they are prepared to change, then the second question is whether adaptations are necessary; is it necessary for adaptations to be made in South Africa? And again I say yes. But before I come to the adaptations and what must be done, I want to say this. When one has to do with human relations, one must remember that man is not a machine. If anything goes wrong with a machine, one switches it off and rectifies the fault and that is that. But man is constituted differently. He carries the good and the evil of the past with him. He takes it with him into the future often as a standard, and if anything is allowed to go wrong, if one allows the relations situation of people to reach a crisis, then one has little success in rectifying or neutralizing the damage done, and that is the danger to be borne in mind when one has to do with human relations.

Your time is up and you have still not come to the point.

I have only a few minutes left. I now come to the changes. The first one I want to deal with, is in respect of labour. Where is the hon. the Minister of Labour? A vital attitude has been adopted by this side of the House concerning the establishment of trade unions for Bantu in South Africa. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark tried to reply to it, but he gave the matter a wide berth and said nothing. Here is a situation which requires adaptation. What are the facts? The fact is that legislation is not required for establishing a trade union, Black or White. One does not require the Industrial Conciliation Act for establishing a trade union. But if one allows people to establish trade unions in every possible way, the result is instability and uncertainty in industry. [Interjections.] There is no point in my mentioning these things and you remaining silent about them.

Tell us about the changes that need to be made.

I want to say today that that hon. member must not say that they as a party set their faces against Black trade unions. Sir, Black trade unions are being established every day, outside the law.

And we are opposed to that.

And I foresee the possibility of troubled times ahead. That hon. member must listen carefully now. I foresee that, while we now have the opportunity to place the Black trade unions within the ambit of our law, the time may come when he will say that he wants to have nothing to do with our legislation. What will then be the outcome for South Africa? The most unimaginable chaos in the industry of our country. That is what the outcome would be. That is why I say that the Nationalist Party will have to look sharp; time is running out very fast in this regard. The hon. the Minister of Labour will have to move very fast if he wants to save this situation for South Africa. I want to go further. I still have a few minutes at my disposal.

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations spoke about the Coloureds for half an hour, but he said nothing about the Coloureds. All he said was: “How could you say that their parliament was in a state of collapse?” If I may address myself to the hon. the Minister, I want to suggest to him that we should compare the situation with an analogous situation in the White Parliament. Let us suppose that the majority of members. Nats, U.P. and Progs, of the Whites’ Parliament say that we do not want the hon. the Prime Minister, that we do not want the Cabinet and that we do not want this House. Let us suppose that the majority votes in favour of such a motion. What would the position of this Parliament be in that case? This Parliament is the pinnacle of the whole Government machine in South Africa. If that were to happen to this Parliament, I say:“Parliament will be in a state of complete collapse.” After all, that is what has happened in the case of the Coloureds’ Parliament—there is a state of complete collapse. There is no doubt on that score. However, the hon. the Minister asks how we dare speak of collapse.

Tell us what needs to be done.

My hon. Leader has spelt out what needs to be done. He has been spelling it out to that side of the House for many years now. The tragedy is that they heard it, but did not bring about adaptations and changes. That is the point. There we have a council and people with political rights, but what powers do they really possess? Do the hon. members really think they can bluff the Coloureds with that kind of council and then say that there is no discrimination?

What powers did they have in the old days on the common voters’ roll?

I could continue in this vein. We have spelt it out for theme very where and now we are spelling it out for them again. They are heading for dangerous problems with the urban Bantu. What are they going to do about them?

What must we change?

Now I am to give the answers, but after 26 years they are still seeking the answers. I could continue in this vein. On point after point this Government has failed totally to do its duty and adapt timeously. The point is that it is not only a question of adapting one’s attitude; the hon. members must change their policy radically. The hon. members will have to throw their present philosophy over board in its entirety. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education says that he is opposed to migratory labour, but there is no point in his saying that. Migratory labour is the essence of the whole philosophy of the Nationalist Party and he of all people should know it. His being opposed to it gets us nowhere—I am amazed that he is still sitting over there. However, migratory labour is going to increase in South Africa. It is the policy of the Nationalist Party that virtually every Black man must be a migratory labourer.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, wait a moment. All the Bantu must be linked to the homelands. If arguments are raised against that, they come along with an excuse by asking’ “What is happening overseas? What about the guest labourers overseas?” [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. member what adaptations we need to make in respect of the urban Bantu.

I am pleased that the hon. member is becoming serious. The point is that the hon. members know that the position of the urban Bantu must be attended to. However, they are unable to break away from the present situation since it forms part of the whole philosophy of the Nationalist Party. It is of no avail for the hon. the Deputy Minister to come to this House in the garb of a high priest and say that he does not like it in the least. If he really does not like such a cardinal point, he should say that he rejects the whole philosophy of his party. That is what he must do There is no point in his sitting over there. I believe that the Government has in all respects failed to adapt, that it has failed to adapt or to change its policy or do so timeously in the interests of South Africa. I believe therefore that my hon. Leader’s accusation is justified.

Mr. Speaker, I have always listened with great interest to speeches made by my friend, the hon. member for Maitland. When he rose this afternoon I listened with great expectation to what he was saying. But I must say I was very disappointed. I know him, and know that he can do better. He can do far better. The gist of the entire speech made by the hon. member was that the National Party should change its policy because it had won the election. He said that the National Party was in a very strong position, the powerful National Party which had won the election by such a big margin. From that he then deduced that the National Party should change its policy. The National Party should, after having received this clear mandate from the voters of South Africa, immediately abandon its policy at the insistence of the Opposition, which received the worst drubbing in its history, and accept the Opposition’s policy. As I have said, I expected more in the way of logic and insight from a friend whom I esteem, and whose intelligence I rate, so highly.

I should like in the light of what I have said, to discuss with my friend the hon. member for Maitland certain changes which he asked for, but there is a question I am compelled to ask. What became of the motion of censure? We are debating a motion of censure moved by the Leader of the Opposition and apparently supported by my hon. friends of the Progressive Party. But I do not find that any great amount of censure is being levelled at the Government. However, I do find other tactics. I find that the Opposition cannot recover from the beating it has been taking during the past few months.

I do not think people fully appreciate what a beating was really meted out to the United Party. At the last general election the United Party, the once mighty party which at one stage had 111 members in this House, could only muster 358 000 votes, i.e. 31 per cent of the electorate. The National Party, on the other hand, against whom we hurled the reproach in the old days that they were still a minority government in three elections after 1948 because they could not muster a majority of the votes of the people, mustered no fewer than 642 000 votes at the last election, almost twice as much as the once powerful United Party. This is now the Party whose speakers opposite are saying one after the other that we should accept their policy and that we should change our policy in their direction, a direction which the people refuse to accept and keep on rejecting with ever-increasing majorities at every election—except in 1970, but that opportunity the United Party threw away, because they did not realize that they owed the number of votes cast for them to the firm action taken by the hon. the Prime Minister against the Hertzog group and its pernicious statements in this House, and that if they wanted to succeed, they should have displayed the same firmness against certain pernicious ideas in their own ranks.

No, the purpose of this motion was not to censure the Government, it was operation save-my-skin. This was an attempt at salvaging something from the debacle of 24 April. They hoped that, with the increasing problems which are being experienced in the world and with the dangers which are building up against South Africa and which are going to require great skill and daring from the South African people, the people would become afraid of the policy of the National Party. They wanted to see what advantages they could derive from that situation with concessions to the left. Sir, on the eve of that attempt came Pine-lands, and then Umhlatuzana. And the drubbing continued and the rejection by the people of South Africa continued, and there is no comfort whatsoever for the United Party in any of the events in South Africa during the past year. The people are rejecting them, and they are disintegrating.

And it smells.

My hon. friends of the Progressive Party are conducting themselves in this House—I admire their temerity; I think it is brave of them—exactly as if they had won the election—with 6 per cent of the votes and seven seats in Parliament! But, Sir, where did they, where did any Opposition party make progress at the expense of the National Party? The National Party, on the other hand, is making progress at the expense of them all. The Progressive Party is making progress at the expense of the United Party. They are the scavengers of South African politics; they are preying on the dying body of the United Party, and then they think they have won the election.

The United Party is now trying to undergo a metamorphosis. I think they have read the interim reports of the Schlebusch Commission, now the Le Grange Commission, and have discovered what a change agent is. Now the United Party is trying to save its skin by also becoming a change agent. They want to dictate to everyone how one should change, how one should renounce one’s traditions and how one should accept new policies. As it is, I am the only person who listened to them. I am the unfortunate person who faced up to reality and who was willing to change; they are merely talking about it. But, Sir, I was very interested to hear what they are going to change into. My hon. friend from Maitland referred to the fact that they are now going to accept Bantu trade unions and like the Progressive Party—and I congratulate the Progressive Party on this—they are now going to change the definition of an “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act to include Bantu artisans and to recognize Bantu trade unions without exception. This is a very considerable shift in policy; but what I am a little concerned about, is that we have merely had an announcement. The hon. members for Hillbrow and Maitland discussed this matter, but none of them could spell out clearly to us how they are going to apply that policy in practice or how they are going to prevent or avert the dangers to which the hon. member for Hillbrow himself referred—that one would be creating a possible breeding ground for the agitator. They say nothing about that; they say they are going to leave it to the trade unions to decide whether they want separate or joint trade unions. But, Sir, if one has a policy, surely one gives guidance in the implementation thereof. One cannot merely sit back and say: “Do what you please”, regardless of the interests of South Africa, regardless of the danger to racial peace or of agitation and the creation of discord in South Africa. One really ought to have a course and an insight into these matters. But they say nothing about this. My hon. friend for Durban Point looks so pregnant to me—he would so much like to make a speech, and I hope that, if he enters this debate, he will give us a little more information on these matters and will spell out to us a little more clearly what their policy is. What struck me in the speech of my friend from Maitland was that he spoke about the matters we should change—and with great emphasis and, as always, with eloquence—without saying a word about the disappearance of the White parliament in South Africa. This is a brand-new item of policy. On a previous occasion I told of the problems we had had in getting clarity on this matter. Now there is clarity. The days of this Parliament are numbered, and in its place a multi-racial federal council will be established, not parallel to it, but in its place. Even if they had said that they were going to begin by giving all races representation in this Parliament under White leadership, so that they could all participate in the creation of a federation in South Africa, it would still have made sense, whether one agreed with it or not. My objection to this new policy has always been that a White Parliament is going to be created, as well as a federal parliament where the non-Whites are inevitably going to be in the majority, even before the White Parliament has been abolished. Then the conflict is already there; then the polarization is there; then the greatest danger in the history of South Africa is there—a struggle between a non-White organized majority and its parliamentary institutions against the Whites of South Africa in their separate parliamentary institution. Surely that is wrong; surely that is short-sighted; surely people who think along these lines are not South Africans. That is what my hon. friend for Maitland should discuss. I shall listen with interest to what the next United Party speaker has to say on this interesting point.

There is progress in one respect, which is that at least we now know for certain that as long as my hon. friend on the opposite side have this policy—we do not know for how long—they will not be able to back down again. They now stand for the disappearance, for the phasing out of this Parliament. There can be no argument about that. It seems to me that the harder the blows meted out to the United Party and the smaller it becomes, the more honest it becomes. [Interjections] One wonders whether, when it is on the point of disappearing, it will not achieve the ideal of the old Oxford Group, i.e. “Absolute honest, purity, unselfishness and love”. We are all looking forward with interest to that happy day.

When our friends speak of change, the change which they demand of us and the change they wanted to effect themselves, one must look at who is asking for the change. What responsibility do they bear when they make these points? What hope do they have of doing anything to bring about that change in South Africa in the lifetime of most of them, or in the lifetime of most of us? It is very easy to make demands. When I was a university student we formed a new party every 14 days and every time the policy was better than the previous one—Utopia, because you know you are never going to bear the responsibility of implementing that policy. I want to suggest that the United Party, when they speak of changes, should first indicate to us that they are able to make progress in South Africa, that there is hope that they will be able to take over the reins of government in South Africa and that their prescription for change has meaning and substance for the future of South Africa. At present it is mere idle talk.

I agree that a very great change is necessary in South Africa, but then a change in the opposition to this Government, into an Opposition which is responsible and which sees South Africa as it is and not as they are now, in their irresponsibility, dreaming that it can become. We must get an Opposition that can see where South Africa is going, what its destination is, and what the will of the majority of people of South Africa will be able to achieve. It must be an Opposition which is willing, when they criticize, also to contribute constructively to the development of a new dispensation in South Africa, a dispensation of real changes for the better. Both parties opposite prefer to withdraw themselves from South Africa, to remove themselves from the progress being made with a tremendous experiment. Actually it is no longer an experiment; it was an experiment, because it is now a reality. They are removing themselves from reality. They are living in a dream-world. They are unpractical—in South Africa but not of South Africa. It is time there was a change in such an Opposition. That would be the greatest blessing they could give South Africa. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, look at their reaction! Look at their reaction when they hear about a dissatisfied non-White, whether it is a homeland leader or a Coloured leader. The next day they are closely closeted with him and are seeking comfort from him. The reality of South Africa’s position is that, if you want to effect changes in South Africa, you must in the first place convince the White voters that the change which you want to effect will be a worthwhile one. That is simply the way things are, whether you like it or not. What we must guard against in South Africa is that some of us, in our frustration and defeat, do not perhaps go further than merely to seek comfort from non-White leaders, but might perhaps seek an alliance with the non-White leaders against the majority of the Whites in South Africa. I think they are playing with fire and therefore I want to say to them in all earnest: This Parliament is going to determine the future of South Africa, certainly as long as we live; accept this and work through this Parliament and not through foreign agencies which have no place in the debates we are conducting here, decisive debates for South Africa.

Eglin himself goes beyond our borders to look for alliances.

But he is not important.

The hon. the Opposition does of course have an excuse which they offer to explain the predicament in which they find themselves. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was not owing to problems of policy that the people are becoming alienated from them or are becoming disillusioned, but merely because of a reaction to personality problems in the United Party. I know the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He believes this. He would not say this if he did not believe it, but it is the worst piece of self-deception I have ever come across in my life, because it is not true. The facts deny it. It is an incorrect view, an incorrect assessment of reality.

An error of judgment.

What they are experiencing in the United Party are not only personality problems; they are profound differences on policy. I have here one of the most revealing documents I have laid hands on for a long time. It is a statement by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on his readiness, his willingness, his preparedness to become leader of the United Party. He did not wait for nomination; he simply offered himself as a candidate. I am mentioning this document, for anyone who wants to know what is wrong with the United Party, whether these are personality problems or other problems, must study this document. This is a senior member of the United Party who has changed his political allegiance 11 times already—and he is reproaching me for having changed once.

You are lying.

Now he wants to change the United Party into a 12th party to which he can belong.

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

Very well. I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

Here I have the Sunday Times of 26 May—two months after the election—and here are the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He cannot deny it for this is what he said in a formal interview—formal questions and formal answers. He said—

That is to become leader of the United Party—

Anyone who is serious about politics will try to displace his leader.

You are fibbing.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. Sir.

I am sorry the hon. member is reacting in this way. I did not want to hurt him. I am merely seeking the truth.

Then why are you finding it so difficult to keep to the truth?

[Inaudible.]

I wish I had time. I could take them one by one and soon none of them would be left. I am sorry the hon. member has left the House now. I wanted to read this out to him, in his own words—

That was only one month after his Leader had taken a severe beating, and with these words the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was stabbing him with a dagger in the ribs. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been doing his best now for the last 16 or 17 years, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says by insinuation that if this had happened to him he would have retired long ago. He wants the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to retire because he wants to take over the United Party. But what does he want to do when he has taken over the United Party? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in this interview that he saw the United Party as a means of serving South Africa. What does he accept or approve of in the United Party as it exists today? He enumerated what he was going to change. I want to read out the list to you, and then I ask you, for heaven’s sake, would someone please tell me what there is in the United Party that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does approve of? What is he doing in that party? He does not belong in that party! He must please, for heaven’s sake, not come over to this side, for then I will have to leave again! He was asked—

That is, changing the United Party—

And then he goes on “in public” to say the following—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in turn, said there were no difficulties in regard to policy. Here we have the self-appointed successor to the Leader of the Opposition, and the first thing he is going to reform if he comes to power, is policy. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not receive this document?

Yes, I did.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to say that he would change the policy, and then—

He wants to change the authority of the central congress of the United Party. He will even change the authority of the leader himself—

Whatever that may be—

He is not satisfied with that; it is no wonder he walked out—

I may as well say farewell to the hon. member for Yeoville now—

That is just in case he omitted anything—

But we are asked to believe that there is nothing wrong with the United Party. But this man, who is with the aid of the Sunday Times organizing a palace revolution in the United Party, can find nothing which he does not want to change urgently if he becomes leader; he is dissatisfied with everything. There he sits, Mr. Speaker, one of the shadow-Cabinet members of that party.

Mr. Speaker, the other people who speak of changes are my friends of the Progressive Party. They came under heavy fire yesterday from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. I am a merciful person, but there are a few questions on my mind which I feel compelled to ask them. I was looking forward to the speech of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Sea Point, because I know he is competent. I thought that he had an opportunity here to make what the Americans call his “keynote address”; that he would set the seal on the quality of his leadership; that he would announce to us the policy of the Progressive Party as he sees it and as he is going to apply it and implement it if afforded the opportunity.

But, Sir, we did not get this from him. What we had from him was what is called in English a re-hash of the speeches the hon. member for Houghton has been making here for the past 13 years, and the hand of Jackie Beck was clearly to be discerned therein. I am still waiting now for a declaration of faith, for a standpoint, from the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party. He will have other opportunities to speak, and I shall listen to him again.

It was a motion of censure.

Sir, a motion of censure, where the people proposing the motion of censure have no alternatives, is a confession of bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why we heard nothing about their policy because it is an indefensible policy.

† I would like to put a few questions to my hon. friends of the Progressive Party because I am seeking clarity. I would like to have a debate on merit and on facts. They stand for a qualified franchise. At one time they wanted to give the vote to people who had passed Std. 6 and who earned R50 a month. Now, following the example of Cecil Rhodes who put up the qualifications from time to time as more non-Whites could qualify in the old Cape, they too have put up the qualifications. The figure now is R810 p.a.—why R810 I do not know—and the educational qualification is still Std. 6.

I want to ask them this question seriously: Do they genuinely want to go back to the mistakes of the 19th century? Won’t they move with us into the 20th century? Do they really believe that the people of South Africa are still where they are in the days of Cecil Rhodes? Do they really believe that the people of South Africa will believe that a person who has passed Std. 6 and earns R810 is civilized, but that a person who has also passed Std. 6 but earns R809-99 is a savage?

Mr. Speaker, they stand for merit only; they do not know such a thing as race; they are only interested in merit—the merit of a difference of one cent a year in a man’s earnings. But, Sir, when they want to reassure the people of South Africa that they will be safe and secure as minorities in South Africa, they come forward with devices to protect the people, devices which are blatantly and undeniably racial. They say that in the election of the Senate, which will be very powerful and which will be able to veto legislation left, right and centre, with no machinery for resolving the deadlock, a man will not be elected unless he gets a significant proportion of the votes of all the races. Something like one-fifth of the votes of each race must be cast for a Senator in the election. Sir, that means that they will have to have separate rolls; it means that they will have to give a veto to minorities over majorities in South Africa in elections. It means that their whole departure constitutionally is racial ...

You do not understand it.

Of course I understand it. That is my trouble; I do understand it. Mr. Speaker, they say that in the Senate no constitutional amendment will take place unless it has been approved at a referendum by each race separately. But they must vote separately then; they must be counted separately. Where is the merit now? Where is the talk about not knowing racial distinctions when you are scared out of your wits of the majority races in this country and want to frustrate the will of the people with these devices?

Quite wrong.

He says I am quite right. Well, that is fine. I did not know he realized it. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, my heart bled for the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon as I watched, blow by blow, the light-heavyweight championship for the position and title of chief joker of the Nationalist Party, and I saw him take a technical knockout. Now there is a new chief joker in the Nationalist Party, and I think that if there were an Oscar for acting then the hon. member for Turffontein would take it without any doubt. Clearly he is following in the hon. the Prime Minister’s footsteps in trying to make a joke of the things that matter for the future of South Africa. If this is the spirit in which he wishes to pursue his broken political career, then the hon. member for Turffontein is entitled to do so. He spoke of the winds of change. The winds of change have certainly blown through that hon. member, Sir.

Now I accept that the hon. member for Turffontein is an honest man and an honourable man, a man who believes in the things in which he says he believes, a man who comes to his conclusions honestly and by conviction because they spring from his heart; they are the things in which he believes and for which he fights. Am I doing the hon. member an injustice if I say he believes in the things he says and does? I do not want to Hansardize him. I want to reply to the hon. member with a little green book for which that hon. member himself is responsible, a book issued by the Division of Information of the United Party, issued under his chairmanship. It was held back for months, because that hon. member insisted on putting his personal imprint and character into the presentation of this book. Mr. Speaker, the one thing on which that hon. member was convinced, the one thing in which he sincerely believed, the thing about which we argued at times, was that he said that the presentation of our federal policy should first present the dangers under the Nationalist Government. And these were the dangers—

Then he says—

*Now, Sir, he rises here to deal with the policy he presented. I quoted what he has to say in this book on the subject of Parliament—

These are that hon. member’s words. What did he try to present this afternoon? The quotation ends as follows—

That hon. member is an honest hon. member. I want to ask him whether he was dishonest when he said that, or has his whole philosophy of life, his whole view of life changed within a year because he is sitting in those benches? Is that why he repudiates fundamental principles in which he used to believe? [Interjections.] I am not going to waste my time with a Piet Pompies or an A1 Debbo; we have important matters to discuss.

We expected to have some fun and games from the Government side in the course of this debate; some cheap politicking. What surprises me is that we have had so little of it. If I had had the weapons to use against them that they have to use against us, I would have done a great deal better. [Interjections.] I say that advisedly, because it shows that the problems and difficulties on that side of the House are of such a serious nature that they cannot have fun and games any more when an opportunity is given into their hands. But we did not expect this almost complete evasion of the realities of South Africa. We did expect that somewhere from the Ministerial benches some account would be taken of the realities of South Africa. I think the hon. members on the Government side have celebrated with such abandon that they are now sitting there with a political hangover. They are sitting there with red eyes, still counting votes. However, there is something in South Africa which is much more important than votes. That side of the House still does not realize that it cannot just push a button to make the world stand still so that it can get off.

You are lying.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. members on that side are lost in a world which has passed them by. I accept that we have received a setback. It is no use trying to deny or underestimate it. It is natural for an opposition to experience something of this nature after 26 years of frustration. You grow frustrated when you see your country that you love being destroyed by a Government with red eyes which spends all its time counting votes instead of facing the real problems of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what caused our frustration. We had to watch the damage that was being done to our country by policies and maladministration which has brought it to a dangerous pass. If we had problems they were not really important—they were child’s play compared with the problems experienced by that side of the House.

It is apparent from all their speeches that they as a Government know that they must adjust or get out. They have touched on this and that, but they have confined themselves to superficialities such as those uttered by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation or in respect of a few pop singers, etc. Those things are all trivialities. They dare not touch on the crux of the problems which South Africa faces today. It almost seems as if the spirit of an Albert were still present in their souls. They are like a missionary’s convert. He does not believe in it any more, but when he sees the ’Mthakati, he says in his heart “aungiasaba”. He may have been converted, but he is still afraid. This Government still feels exactly the same about Albert Hertzog who used to sit here and about the hon. member for Waterberg. They have been converted and they know they are living in the 20th century, but when they see the ’Mthakati of votes, the witch-doctor of votes, the warnings addressed to the Prime Minister by the hon. the Minister of Information and the hon. member for Waterberg, when they hear these people say, “Be careful, I am watching you, do not deviate from the past,” one observes that the fear is still present in their minds. They know they must change and adapt themselves, but still they fear. As I have said, compared to this our problems are child’s play.

Before I proceed to say what I want to say about our policy and that of the Government, I want to make the hon. the Prime Minister an offer. He believes in self-determination and I now want to suggest that he undertake an experiment in self-determination. He must undertake this experiment in the seven constituencies represented in this House by my hon. friends of the Progressive Party. Please implement their policy in those seven constituencies.

May I test your policy in yours as well?

Yes, certainly. But let us test their policy in their constituencies and let us see how that experiment turns out. Let him implement there all the aspects of Progressive policy in regard to the schools, the swimming pools, the local governments, etc. Then we shall see how many of the Progressives will return if their policy is implemented in their own constituencies.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

While the hon. member is saying that of the Progressive Party, is he prepared to argue the matter in respect of his own party, in the light of the fact that his Leader says that all social separation should be removed?

No, that was not what my Leader said. That was how the hon. the Prime Minister’s two quiz-kids represented the matter. They misrepresented our policy and then argued on that basis. My Leader said there should be a choice for those who want to be separate and for those who want to associate with other races. That, clearly and unambiguously, is our policy on social intercourse. The hon. the Prime Minister is free to implement it, and I hope he will, because it will help to improve race relations in South Africa.

†But what I want to come to is what I believe is much, much more important than the political game which the Government members have been playing, viz., the issue of polarization in politics in South Africa, namely polarization between left and right and polarization between White and Black, in the knowledge that polarization must lead to confrontation. You cannot have polarization in the circumstances of South Africa without confrontation. I charge the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that in order to win votes and to harm the United Party he has deliberately and willingly played the polarization game. He played the either-or politics, the either-this or either-that, the no-middle-road-politics, the realignment politics. He said there would be a realignment, a polarization of left-wing and conservative. Deliberately and with intent, he has sown in the minds of the people of South Africa the concept of only two alternatives: Total separation and fragmentation or total integration. Although it works on short term, to win votes, unwittingly but nevertheless recklessly, the hon. the Prime Minister thereby made himself a tool of the forces of confrontation, a tool of the forces that want to see a left-wing front in South Africa massed against a right-wing Government. The hon. the Prime Minister himself became a tool of that movement. He became the hero of the manipulators of Nusas, who, as we have heard from previous reports, pleaded for polarization and then confrontation. What an unholy alliance: The hon. the Prime Minister, the Progressive Party and elements of the left-wing political Press! This was the unholy alliance which played the polarization game, each expecting that it would draw the lion’s share from a broken United Party. Now the hon. the Prime Minister must count his spoils. He has got the hon. member for Turffontein, and could put up entertainment tax—he has gained something there, perhaps for the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has got the hon. member for Stellenbosch as a Deputy Minister, and he has got six more Progs. He may also have picked up a few supporters of the United Party along the way. But I want to warn him of this: He need not be so sure that those he has picked up are going to be standing behind him and not behind the hon. member for Waterberg when the crunch comes. [Interjections.] I hear the groans which indicate that those hon. members know that it is true. But the hon. the Prime Minister and his collaborators have made a miscalculation. He has hurt the United Party, yes. He has damaged us, yes.

You hurt yourself.

The hon. the Prime Minister with his polarization politics was part of that game. But he must not believe everything he reads in Rapport. He can ask the Minister of Information if he does not believe me. He should also not believe everything he reads in the also-ran in the Sunday circulation stakes, the paper that has been toppled from the top. Nor should he listen to its spiritual echoes. Because if he believes these things, he is bluffing himself.

I want to tell him, in the few minutes that I have, why he cannot destroy the United Party as the home of political moderates in South Africa, and why he cannot have the people that he really wants, on his side, the real South Africans. I believe hundreds of thousands like myself, wanting a future for our children, could no more have a home in the spiritual prison of the Nationalist Party, in its spiritual exclusivism, than we could ever have a home in the conceit of the Progressive Party class society. We accept the pride of group identity and neither the one party nor the other party can give me a political home. Firstly, there is the concept of unity of the Nationalist Party. A unity based on the ganging up of Whites against other groups to me is not unity. “Bywoner” status to me is not unity. I want room to live as a free South African, free and independent, living within the law the way I want to live not being told how to think, what to read and what to see, not a spiritual slave to a narrow concept. I reject fragmentation, because I believe in interdependence. I reject separate loyalties, because I believe that we need the loyalty of all South Africans to his Government, to this South Africa, not as a matter of expediency and not to help the hon. the Minister of Defence to fight against terrorism. We need each other because it is right for South Africa in the building of a greater South Africa. I reject the rejection, which is inherent in this Government’s policy towards people of different colour and different ideas—a rejection which will reap a harvest of bitterness and hate. I could give reason after reason, but I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that with the party he leads and with the spirit that motivates that party he need not look to our kind to polarize into his party.

Equally there are positive reasons why he cannot destroy the United Party. I want to tell him and this hon. House—they should already know it since it has been in the Press—that in the first caucus meeting after the election, in May, this party took a unanimous decision to remain the centrist force in South African politics. Every one of us, every one of my colleagues and I myself supported a decision reaffirming the role of the United Party as a centrist force in South African politics, a force moving forward under ...

Explain.

I shall explain. It is a party moving forward neither to the right nor to the left. It is a party moving forward on its own road with its own character and its own identity. This party has an identity of its own, not the identity of the Nationalist Party nor of the Progressive Party. We are moving forward in the direction we have chosen as the instrument of peaceful change, radical change if necessary, and dramatic change, if it is necessary to meet the challenges of reality in South Africa, not for the sake of change, but to meet reality.

Are you speaking on a motion of censure?

Yes, I am speaking on the motion. It is a motion of censure because that Government has failed to adapt to the challenge of the time. I am showing how we can adapt and how we have adapted. Change is nothing new in this party.

That is true.

In 1971, three years ago, my Leader appointed a constitutional committee. It did not produce a sudden, instant solution. We worked for two years and we produced the basis of the policy which is the policy of our party today. It was not a bunch of radicals who produced that policy. The hon. member for Durban North was chairman, and the hon. member for Hillbrow and I were members. All three of us are sitting on these benches. We were not radicals; we produced what we believe is the framework needed to meet the demands of South Africa. We accepted change then as we accept it now. We are not motivated by any mystic group; we are a united party, and every decision that has been announced has had the unanimous support of this party. It is perhaps necessary to clear one issue. We have been accused, and it has been presented in some news media in that way, of having changed our attitude towards the role of this Parliament in our federal policy. [Interjection.] I wish I had had the time to play quiz-kid with the hon. quiz-kid Ministers, but I do not have the time. I could have had much fun with them. As far back as 22 February 1973, speaking of this Parliament, I said the following in this House. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1198)—

Still speaking of Parliament I also said, and I quote from col. 1199—

There is no disagreement between the hon. member for Durban North and myself. This is the policy which was adopted from the recommendations of the constitutional committee. With this Parliament as the creator, the builder, the regulator, the initiator and the instigator, ultimately this Parliament will be the master of its own destiny subject only to a referendum of the electorate of South Africa. We have not hidden this before; it is inherent in our policy and I myself have stated before that this Parliament has the power to transfer all its powers. Mr. Speaker, I have no time to elaborate on this now but these decisions are the decisions of all the members of this party, and I call the hon. member for Yeoville as my witness. He and I worked together on that committee. We were party to it and unanimous in our acceptance of this policy and have agreed whenever it was discussed. We never differed on any single issue of the policy of the United Party as we have put it here. I hope this will clear the issue once and for all and show that we have no doubt about our policy and our direction.

The federal plan has opened new vistas because it offers security to South Africa, security through the regulator, which this Parliament will be. It will offer security and evolution, and because of this security it will be possible to look to changes which are not possible in safety in a unitary State. Under a federal constitution many things which we ourselves accepted could not be done even a year or two ago can now under the security of a federal structure be done. The federal structure gives recognition of group identities and protects each group, majority or minority, from domination by any other. It gives security to the White group, to the Coloured, to the Indian and to the Black as South Africans without losing their identity. It is an evolutionary process with a regulator and a referee and has opened up new vistas into which we can move with safety. That is why my hon. leader could call this a policy of radical conservatism. It is radical in so far as it can accommodate radical changes. It is conservative in so far as it can conserve security and the identity of communities and in so far as it can conserve the stability of our society, all that is good in South African life, conserve economic strength through common effort, military strength through common loyalty. It is radical in so far as, within the secure framework, we can move forward without fear of domination to recognize human dignity. I am no starry-eyed liberal. I am a South African realist and I believe that this party has produced the only realistic answer, an answer which those hon. members, for the sake of their children, will have to turn to in order to save them when this Government collapses, a collapse which has already happened although it is not yet visible. Finally I wish to say that my leader took the initiative to start on a new safe road for South Africa and he appointed the committee which headed the discussion which produced what I believe to be the guarantee for every race group of a fair, decent and proper share in government. There would be no domination of numbers or of groups but there would be participation and sharing between identifiable communities, and not the parallel lines which never meet. Mr. Speaker, we in the United Party believe that this Government is deserving of censure because where we can adapt as I have tried to show they have been unable to adapt to the demands of today.

Mr. Speaker, what we have been seeing in this debate over the last few days is the Opposition, the United Party, on the run. They are on the run from Messina to Cape Town, from Durban to Nelspruit, and from Dan to Asher and from Gad to another Asher. They are on the run, and there is a reason for this. I want to ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat whether he can tell us something. His hon. Leader announced important policy changes by the United Party here on the so-called phasing out of this Parliament, on trade unions and on the point which the hon. member who has just resumed his seat made himself, viz. that they will allow integration on a local level and that they will leave it to those people to choose. Now my question to the hon. member, and at the same time to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this: Can they tell us whether they submitted these extremely important policy changes announced here to the United Party congresses, whether they were approved there, or even discussed there? During the election they had all the time and all the opportunity in the world to make an admission and to inform the country about the eventual elimination of the House of Assembly. Why did they not put it to the voters? They come here now and put this case. I want to put a further question to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. If, on a local level, they were now to leave it to the communities, i.e. that integration may be applied on a local level, without forcing them to choose, if I have understood him correctly now—and they owe it to the country to explain this matter—what is the position going to be if, on a local level, one of the groups were to refuse to do so? What is the position going to be then? There will be some of these groups which will refuse to do so. I could, just for fun, mention various examples straight away. If they were then to give these people freedom of choice, an injustice is being done, if it is the Bantu who refuse to do so, in respect of those Bantu if the Whites are prepared to do so. If the position is reversed then the same applies in respect of the other group. Therefore we should very much like to know from them what they are going to say to the country in this regard. I also want to say this at once to my hon. Progressive friends: They also adopt that standpoint. Each one of them came to this House on a so-called “best man ticket”. They did not come here on policy, not one of them. They came here as a result of a protest vote against the United Party. We shall watch with great interest in future how these matters are stated here. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party right now that he must prepare himself to come and state his policy in this House. I do not want to elaborate on which my hon. colleagues said to them here. I just want to point out that while he was on his African visit I think the first question a Black journalist put to him was: “Will your qualified vote lead to majority rule in South Africa?” The reply which the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party made to this was: “If you ask me whether it will be immediately, then the reply is no, but if you ask me whether it will happen in the near future, then my answer is yes.” That, then, is the position in respect of the Progressive Party. Therefore, if they now level their accusation at the Government here, as set out in the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that—

then I want to say this to the hon. Leader: I do not know of anyone who has adapted himself more rapidly to changing circumstances than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He has been doing so for 16 years. Sir, I want to mention a wonderful example. A few weeks ago we had the by-election in Umhlatuzana. In the general election the United Party had had a majority of several thousand votes there. Changing circumstances in South Africa led to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana winning the seat by only 30 votes several weeks later, and do you know what the comment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was when he was asked to do so by the newspapers? His comment was: “I am pleased with the result.” There you have a wonderful example of how he and his party adapt themselves to changing circumstances. But, Sir, what have they gained in the process? They have only lost. In this process they are making fools of themselves, and now in the process they also want to make fools of the people of this country. While I am on this point, I just want to say this that one could really ask the Opposition: “How silly can you get?” If it had not actually been stated in the newspaper, I would have looked and looked again to see whether what I was reading was really there. On 22 April 1974, at a meeting in Durban, the hon. member for Durban North stated—

Now the United Party comes here with a motion of censure in which they allege that we are not adapting to changing circumstances in the world. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on that side: Of course we admit that there is a changing world. We admit it and we say that we are taking cognizance of it. This side of the House is in fact taking cognizance of those changing circumstances in the world. Sir, I mentioned an example here of how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adapts himself to changing circumstances but how he loses in the process, and I now want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that side of this House that this Government is not prepared to allow itself to be stampeded as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party allow themselves to be stampeded by changing circumstances in the world. I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Does he want to amend and adapt his policy until he has satisfied the U.N.? Sir, that is adapting to changing circumstances, but what is going to happen in the process? In the process what happened to the United Party is going to happen to this country; it will suffer one defeat after another and it will make a laughing stock of the Republic of South Africa in the eyes of the world. Therefore, when we speak of adapting to a changing world, we must be careful how we approach this matter for it is in fact in a changing world, in which everyone is calling for changes and adaptations, that one has to keep a clear head; it is in fact under such circumstances that stability and confidence are the assets in greatest demand and the scarcest and most excellent assets for a people and a country, and, Sir, these South Africa has, thanks to a strong Government and a very good Prime Minister. Therefore—and there must be no misunderstanding on this score; my colleagues here have emphasized this one after another and I also want to emphasize it—although the National Party Government concedes that we are living in a changing world, although we take cognizance of it and it is important in the circumstances in which we are living that this should happen, it must be thoroughly understood that the National Party Government will continue to implement and develop its policy, based on fixed norms and on fixed principles, with decisiveness and purposefulness, but also with full appreciation of the fact that we are living in a changing world, taking fully into consideration the need for acceleration, but always, too, with appreciation of the need for the preservation of norms, the preservation of principles and the preservation of stability and confidence, because these are the things which are most necessary in a changing world, and which are also most necessary in the case of our own people and country under difficult circumstances today. I wonder, Sir, if one scrutinizes the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition carefully—and I have done so and thought about this position very deeply—whether his motion is not a compliment to the National Party Government, and whether it is not in the interests of this country to point out that this Government is in fact not prepared to adapt to a changing world merely for the sake of change, and whether that is not the reason why this country and its people, including the non-Whites, have so much confidence in this Government. For change merely for the sake of change, and adaptation merely for the sake of adaptation, is in fact one of the greatest dangers of modern times, and has already caused many a country to plunge into the abyss. I could mention examples, but I shall leave it at that. One could really save this world in which we are living (translation): “Here everyone clamours for change and deplores it day by day,” and no one more so than the hon. Opposition on those benches. Change must strive for improvement, and existing norms may not be discarded in the cry for change if it is not certain beyond all doubt that its effect will be better and firmer norms which can take their place. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the strength of a nation does not lie in change; the strength of a nation lies in its willingness to strive to maintain itself, and in these very difficult circumstances the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is described by the English-language newspapers, such as The Star, in the following terms—

Now I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is in fact in this changing world, if one considers his motion carefully and analyses it, that he comes forward with a line of thought which cannot inspire confidence; and they cannot and will not be able to move forward under these difficult circumstances in which we are living because the strength of a nation, in these very circumstances the strength of our nation, does not lie in a cry for change or adaptations to change, but does lie in a willingness to strive to maintain itself. And the National Party Government says loudly and dynamically to the world, and not only to our own people, that we are prepared to strive to maintain ourselves under all circumstances. The strength of a nation lies in remaining what it is; it lies in its viability, in its stability, in its ability to develop, and to give its people, and to the non-Whites in this country, a good subsistence and future and, what is very important, to give to young people an ideal and to offer its young people a future. Sir, this is what the National Party will do dynamically and with strength under our leader and according to the Dispensation and Will of Almighty God. I want to ask them whether they think I should present to my children and our young people the ideal of adapting to change? What ideal is that? Surely what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said is superficial. Then they want to move forward under difficult circumstances and in a changing world. His motion is a charge against himself, seen against the background of the difficult circumstances which South Africa and the world are experiencing. It is an ill-conceived motion which means nothing. It is a motion coming from a party which is dying before our very eyes. That is what is happening. I cannot hold up to my children and to the youth of South Africa that they should adapt to change. I must hold out to them that they must, in this difficult world in which we are living, control the circumstances; and to be able to do that requires a struggle, sacrifice and sometimes difficult deeds, and not the easy road of the Leader of the Opposition. That is why there is no confidence in him and his party. Instead of providing guidance here in the golden opportunity accorded to him after the terrific beating he took, after they had been stampeded by the English-language newspapers and by the Progressives—and by their voters and by all that lives and moves in South Africa, including the non-Whites, and of course by us on this side of the House—while he had this great chance, he came here with this hollow cry of adaptation to a changing world. Sir, I find it difficult to imagine anything which will bring home a greater lack of confidence in the United Party, particularly among our young people, if this their message in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Furthermore I want to say to hon. members on the opposite side that apart from this, change is a matter which should be approached scientifically and with skill. It is a phenomenon, a phenomenon to which, as I say, one cannot close one’s eyes. The scientists—and I am now speaking as a social anthropologist by training—have determined and proved long ago that change is structurally determinable in every community in terms of that community’s systems of value and value-judgments. The motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition takes no cognizance whatsoever of this powerful scientific fact of modern times. Change merely for the sake of change is a lethal curse and evil in the world in which we are living, and the scientists have proved this and are in agreement concerning it. If one wants to effect changes outside the structural determination of change within a community—and therefore our community as well—one finds oneself on dangerous ground. “Structurally determined” is a powerful scientific concept. It is like a wagon-wheel. If you know what the circumference of that wheel is, and you know where the hub is, then the spokes of that wheel cannot extend further or fall short of the circumference of the wheel; it is structurally determined. So, too, changes in our community are structurally determined. The most dangerous thing this Government can do to plunge this country into misfortune, is to turn back the clock, perhaps to turn it back for years. Since we are dealing with the delicacy of relations between Whites and non-Whites, the most dangerous thing this Government can do will be to fail to take cognizance of this scientific fact that change is structurally de termined in terms of the value-judgments of a nation. If we were to do that we would be contributing and helping to cause chaos in this country, and under our specific circumstances it will assume even worse proportions than chaos. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has therefore proposed a totally ill-conceived motion and advanced a totally ill-conceived argument which cannot withstand the test of reasonable argument. Nor can it withstand the test of reasonable argument in the political sphere, as my hon. colleagues indicated. I would also have liked to argue the matter with the Opposition on political grounds, but it is not necessary for me to do so because it has already been done effectively, and therefore I am doing so on scientific grounds, from the view point of a social anthropologist.

I come now to a third important concept and point posed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one to which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior and Transvaal leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party adopt the same standpoint, namely that South Africa is one mixed, multi-racial society. The hon. member for Orange Grove is shaking his head. It sounds like “yes”. We accept it that way.

It is his maiden speech.

Yes, it is his maiden speech. I have never discussed this before in the House, but this afternoon I feel compelled to do so since the Progressive Party now enjoys increased representation in the House. Let us examine what the scientific undertone is of an acceptance that South Africa is “one mixed, multi-racial or plural society”. I speak with great humility when I say that from 1949 to 1952 I wrote a treatise at the University of Oxford on this very same subject. At the most liberal university in the world I proceeded on the assumption that South Africa is “a mixed, multiracial society, a plural society”. I examined this position fundamentally and put months of work into it. I investigated in an objective and an honest way, and on scientific grounds, whether if this community is “a racially mixed society”, what is the result. That is the assumption from which I was prepared to proceed, and I analysed and investigated it scientifically to establish where it would lead. That was almost 25 years ago. The first characteristic of this community was, then “that this plural society is characterized by, firstly, a lack of common will”. If the hon. member knows nothing about these things, he must please sit quietly because my time is limited. “Whereas in a homogeneous society you have a common weal, then in this plural society you have a lack of common weal.” Secondly, “you have an increase in common social demand,” for owing to the migration from the Bantu homelands, and owing to the increasing demand by the non-Whites for the same Western goods, there is an increase not only in economic demand, but also an increase in common social demand. This is as plain as a pikestaff, and anyone can see it. If these are now the major characteristics of this society and one analyses the entire process in all its facets, one arrives at the scientific conclusion that this society, proceeding now from the fact that it is one, multi-racial mixed society, distinguishes itself in particular through three characteristics which are structurally determined and which one cannot change; they are firmly determined by the structure of the society. Then the three structurally determined characteristics of this society as “a multi-racial mixed plural society” is in the first place a circumstance which is called “resentiment” which means something more than “resentment” and is a term borrowed from Nietsche which I explain as follows: “This resentiment is a sentiment that has three interlocking elements”. Now one can mirror this concept which was used 25 years ago against the circumstances today to the extent to which we are in fact dealing with certain problems in the White areas, problems to which we do not close our eyes: “Firstly, diffuse feelings of hate, envy and hostility. Secondly, a sense of being powerless to express these feelings accurately against the person or social stratum evolving them, and thirdly, a continual re-experiencing of this impotent hostility”. Since I am discussing this, and since it is a structurally determined phenomenon, those hon. members, as my hon. friend the Minister of Forestry and Water Affairs pointed out to them, must be very careful how they deal with the question of relations in this country. We can fall prey to these circumstances because we are dealing with delicate human relationships. Who are the hon. Progressive Party members, or the United Party members to claim for themselves the monopoly of being the only people who are establishing sound relations between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa? I want to say at once that I take pride in establishing good relations with non-Whites, and so do all my colleagues on these benches. We do in fact realize...

Do you know how they feel?

Of course I know. I have just read out to the hon. member what will be structurally determined if they are not careful. I want to say at once that of course we take the human factor continually into account in the development of our policy of multi-national development, and we are called upon to create good relations between Whites and non-Whites. But what I object to is the fact that hon. members opposite claim to have a monopoly in that sphere. We have just as much right to that, and if one looks at the records, I will be able to demonstrate that this National Party Government has done far more for the creation of sound relations between the Whites and non-Whites than the Progressive Party or the United Party, and do hon. members know who knows this best? Not I, not the Whites, but the Black and the non-White people of South Africa. Go and talk to them as I talk to them.

Then this society, as “one racially mixed plural society” is characterized in the first place by “resentiment”, which cannot and will not but, in a subsequent phase, result in “rebellion”, because that is structurally determined. It is a further phase of these three “interlocking features” which I have mentioned. This indicates irrevocably that this society, as “one racially mixed plural society”, as Emile Durkheim described even then is an “anomic society”, a “sick society, perpetually and chronically sick without any possibility of healing”. Structurally determined this must result in one thing, and one thing only, and that is revolution.

Sir, it is in the face of these important, scientifically accepted facts that I am a convinced Nationalist. My conviction is not only based on politics, of which I am very fond, and not only based on cultural considerations, which are very dear to me. I am a Nationalist by conviction as a scientist. I know, as certainly as the sun rose this morning, that the future of this country cannot or will not lie along the course of either the Progressive Party or the official Opposition, because both proceed from the incorrect basic premise, viz. “one racially mixed society”. The solution of those of us on this side of the House is an attempt to escape this, to undo this inevitability confronting us, for which we have a scientific explanation. Seen in this way, the policy of multi-national development becomes an exciting possibility, an exciting task for which one can give of oneself and of one’s best. The late Dr. Malan said, upon reaching the age of 80 years: “The greatest joy and happiness in life is savoured by devoting oneself unconditionally, with all one’s strength and talents, to a cause far greater than oneself.” Sir, such a cause is this question of the implementation of the policy of multi-national development to its logical conclusions, and not only for the National Party, not only for the Afrikaners, but also for all my English-speaking friends, and all the non-Whites in South Africa. This is what I call upon them to do. I know there are friends sitting opposite who can no longer be happy in that Party. I am calling upon them on scientific and other grounds to consider this matter, since we are living in a changing world and to decide since it is necessary now, and they are able to do so. Let us co-operate in this country and not squabble with one another unnecessarily. Let us participate in politics on a high level, so that we can give our people a wonderful future and leave our children something which is better than what we found, viz. the resolution of a very difficult situation in human relations. I speak from the experience of a person who has participated in public life for 25 years when I tell you that through the policy of multi-national development and its implementation, I am able as a White man in this country not only to look any non-White squarely in the eyes, but also to hold up to him a prospect which is not possible under any other policy in South Africa. I can hold up to him the creation of ever better and finer relations between people, as well as possibilities for his children, possibilities by means of which South Africa can show the world that we are not only engaged on an experiment in human relations, but to demonstrate something wonderful to the world in the second half of the century, viz. how people of various races can live together happily in a country to the prosperity of all in that country. This is the possibility which multi-national development holds for this country and its people.

To come forward, against this background, with the allegation that we are failing to adapt ourselves to a changing world sounds extremely hollow and meaningless to my ears, an attitude which cannot engender confidence in anyone in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has, with that motion, dealt himself another death blow in this debate.

Mr Speaker, we have now listened to an hon. Minister who has today revealed himself as the gentleman with scientific approach to everything, particularly race relations. He is now the great advocate of the scientific approach. I am not going to argue with the hon. the Minister about the way he blew his own trumpet in this matter. I shall leave it at that. I just want to tell him that we on this side of the House have repeatedly in the past had to return those hon. gentlemen to the realities of the situation in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation argues in a vacuum, and as if in South Africa there is a complete division between various communities. He does not think we mix with the Black man in any sphere. He thinks that we and those people have no need to get any closer to each other and that each community can become an entity completely on its own.

The hon. the Minister told us we must not tell them to make changes, because they are in fact making changes, but the hon. the Minister also told us for a full five minutes why one should not change for the sake of change. The hon. the Minister is of course quite correct. One must not change merely for the sake of change. The whole plea of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that we should specifically change for the sake of improvement. If there is one hon. gentleman who has a lot to do to change the Government’s past policy, it is that hon. Minister. After all, he is the hon. gentleman who must get away from the philosophy laid down in 1965, the Loskop Dam philosophy, where it was stated in a speech that we shall never allow any non-Whites in any foreign team visiting South Africa. That hon. gentleman in busy all day trying to explain to his own party, and also to his young people, that the changes he is making are essential to his policy of multi-nationality, that they are essential for the sake of cultivating good relations and that it is essential to keep South Africa in the world of international sport. It is surely true that the hon. gentleman must do this, not so? He says that his policy goes even further and that in the course of time the Government’s policy will evolve even further in that direction. It is specifically the problem tens of thousands of educated non-Whites in South Africa are faced with. They say that when Black people visit this country they are received in the best hotels, but if one of our own non-White leaders come to a White city, many of those doors open to the foreign Black people are not open to them. The hon. the Minister speaks of the fact that we on this side of the House want to make changes, and that the changes we want to make will be to the detriment of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the object of his policy of multi-nationality is to get rid of all discrimination in South Africa in the course of time. Is that the policy? If that is not the approach, the whole bottom drops out of his policy of multi-nationality. There is the hon. member for Johannesburg West. He has on occasion said that if major apartheid succeeds, all discrimination in South Africa will disappear in the course of time.

What do understand by discrimination?

The hon. member said that. As far back as 1951 the hon. Minister of Finance said that apartheid actually means equality. If the hon. gentleman attaches these high moral values to the apartheid approach, why is he opposed to the United Party telling the Government that it should make certain changes even within the framework of its own policy? That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out to the Government what it ought to do, for example, in respect of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. You do not have to do this within the framework of the United Party’s approach; you merely need to make the changes within the framework of your own approach. Then you will show improvements in the approach you have.

The hon. gentleman asked me: Where does the idea of recognizing trade unions amongst the Bantu come from, and did the United Party’s congress pass such a resolution? The hon. gentleman knows that the Leader of the Opposition obtained from his congress the power to change any aspect of United Party policy if he wished to do so. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to make a cardinal change if it is necessary, I just want to refer the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation to an interview which the hon. the Prime Minister granted last year concerning the position of Bantu trade unions, the question of “trade unionism” amongst the Bantu. This is according to a cutting from the Eastern Province Herald of 10 October of last year. The hon. the Prime Minister conducted an interview with a certain Mr. Feather. Mr. Feather was one of the delegates of the British Trades Union Congress Delegation. They were here to investigate labour conditions in South Africa. After they had had an interview with the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Feather spent a further 15 minutes with the hon. the Prime Minister. Then Mr. Feather said the following—

Now comes the illuminating point he made—

I have never, in any shape or form, come upon a denial of this point from the hon. the Prime Minister or from his office. These people from the British Trades Union Congress Delegation left here under the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister is in favour of “collective bargaining” amongst the Bantu and that the hon. the Prime Minister would not be opposed to trade unions evolving amongst the Black people in an evolutionary manner. Now it is being presented as a terrible thing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has proposed here that we should also move towards establishing trade unions for the Black people in South Africa.

You will have to explain that at your congress. My question was simply whether you had decided about that at your congress.

But then the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement must also be explained. Then he must surely explain it to his congress as well. Nowhere in the public Press have I seen, on the part of the Prime Minister or his office, anything contradicting that or stating that that is not his standpoint.

The hon. the Prime Minister wants to know from us whether the United Party is in favour of social mixing. How many times must we still tell the hon. gentleman—and this side of the House accepts this—that a certain pattern has developed in South Africa over the last 25 years, a pattern in which the communities are together and have their own community development and that, for the sake of orderly government, institutions must be granted to those people? They come along with the old story—that is the impression they want to create—that the United Party completely endorses a unit community in South Africa. We are as little in favour of social mixing, in the sense that the population in South Africa should be completely mixed, as the hon. the Prime Minister or members on that side can be said to advocate social mixing by virtue of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister would quite possibly receive a Black man at his home or on any specific occasion. What the United Party advocates is that one should have a free community in this country. One of our problems is that all the Black people are no longer at a low stage of development. They see the proof of our culture and they also want to enjoy them. We cannot continue keeping the doors shut to those people.

[Inaudible.]

Very well. I do not know why that hon. member is arguing with me.

What are you crying about then?

I say that we on this side of the House are correct in saying, for example, that there ought to be restaurants in South Africa, that there ought to be hotels, which are open to all races, that there should also be such cinemas and that people ought to be able to make a free choice. If that were to happen in South Africa, I want to give that hon. member the assurance that the heavens would not fall down on South Africa. He must also realize that even in terms of his policy of multi-nationality—I have already tried to make this clear to the hon. member •—he will increasingly find a trend indicative of the fact that we shall have to have more social intercourse with non-Whites so that ideas can be exchanged, so that good relations can be cultivated and so that those forms of discrimination which these people object to, can be eliminated.

This now brings me to the point I should like to make in respect of the matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated here in connection with the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. The CRC has now been in existence for quite a number of years, and this Government has not been unaware of the things which have taken place in this council over the past few years. For example, this Government has not been unaware of the discussions they have had and of the resolutions passed by this council. For example, as far back as 1971 certain resolutions were passed by this council, resolutions boiling down to the following: That the council in toto objected to all forms of discriminatory legislation, forms of discrimination which in any way restricted the progress of the Coloureds. Secondly they passed resolutions in respect of doing away with all legislation dealing with job reservation. They passed a motion to the effect that they wanted legislation in terms of which all services at their disposal should be taken over by the Coloureds; for example that they also wanted matters such as road transport in their hands; and that they also wanted their own areas proclaimed chiefly for Coloured interests. They also asked that a policy of equal pay for equal work should immediately be introduced. They similarly asked too, for example, for a commission of inquiry to investigate their housing conditions; they similarly asked the Government, for example, to leave it to all sports bodies to formulate their policy so that all South Africans can participate in our national and international sport. Sir, they have similarly asked, for example, for the transfer to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council of local government which is now in the hands of the Provincial Council. They also asked that all members of the council should be elected and that there should be no percentage nominated by the Government. Sir, that is the type of resolution they passed. The Government was not unaware of that. In the memorandum which Mr. Tom Swartz presented to the Government in 1972 he said very clearly (translation) “that progress had been made, but that we had reached a dead end and our people were beginning to show signs of frustration. There is already a strong feeling of frustration and hatred amongst the intelligentsia.” Sir, that is the situation that gradually developed in this council. Where previously one encountered a situation where we perhaps used anti-non-White feeling in our White policies, one now has the situation of anti-Black feeling coming to the fore in the political life of the non-Whites. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations is aware of that. As far back as 1971 the Coloureds asked that the University of the Western Cape should have a Coloured or non-White rector, but the Government waited until last year, when we had the difficulties at that university, and only then decided to appoint a commission, and even before it had appointed the commission, it was announced that a non-White would become the rector of that university in 1975. Sir, it is within the framework of multi-nationality, of parallel development for the Coloureds, that these difficulties cropped up. Surely the Government should have taken timely action; they should surely have done something to de-charge this situation, not only to prevent increased bad feeling between Whites and Coloureds, but to improve relations between Whites and Coloureds, and also to make the Coloured Persons Representative Council an institution which the Coloureds could be proud of. Sir, they can only be proud of that body if it can pass resolutions which the Government will pay attention to, and if it really has some power; then the Coloureds would have confidence in that council, and then we would also know that that council is an institution serving Coloured interests. Then one would not have resolutions to the effect that that council should be abolished as an institution for the Coloureds. No, then these people would be proud to make this institution a true Representative Council. But, Sir, that is not the only thing the Coloureds are worried about; there is also something else they are worried about, over and above all the discriminatory legislation, and that is that they can never have a truly sovereign parliament for themselves. That would be impossible. Even though hon. members on that side say that the parallel lines will never meet, and even though some members on that side state that these lines are more likely to diverge, this institution of the Coloureds can never become a true sovereign parliament. And, Sir, if it cannot become a sovereign parliament, what else are we to do then in this country? Then the hon. members on that side will have to liaise with these people with a view to giving them an opportunity to decide about their own future. Let me warn the hon. members on that side—and I am doing this in all humility, and not in order to drag the non-Whites into our White politics—that the non-Whites will simply not be prepared to tolerate this situation any longer. One cannot create leaders amongst certain people and then ignore them. One cannot create leaders and then not give them the opportunity to plan things with one. It is as simple as that, and they are being ignored on every occasion. Unless we, as Whites, are prepared for joint planning with these people, to whom we cannot give a separate state, or separate land areas, unless we are prepared to give them the opportunity for true co-participation, and as long as the present situation continues, we shall have problems in South Africa and we shall not solve our problem of race relations. A few years ago the hon. member for Moorreesburg said there should be a close partnership between ourselves and the Coloureds. The hon. the Minister of Planning, when he was Minister of Coloured Affairs, said the Whites and Coloureds are travelling the same road together. Then there was no talk of parallel roads; we are on the same road. I want to agree with that hon. gentleman. I want to agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg. I do not agree with these people who speak of the parallel roads which will never meet and which will diverge even further. If that is the approach, I want to ask them: What answer do you have to this obvious shortcoming in your approach, i.e. that of not giving the Whites and the Coloureds a joint opportunity to decide their joint destinies in South Africa? If you do not grant that opportunity, relationship will not improve and we shall have one clash after another between the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Minister of Coloured Relations and the Government. But if we are prepared to give these people their full citizenship within the framework of a federation, if we are prepared to join them in planning their future, I can foresee our having better relationships, and we shall truly have a situation such as that proposed by the late Dr. Dӧnges when he spoke of 5 million hearts beating as one in South Africa.

I shall shortly come to the hon. member for Newton Park, with whom we had to exchange words today in connection with the Coloureds. He is, of course, very pleased about the fact that he did not find it necessary to speak on agriculture. I expected him to say something about agriculture but we have had so much rain and things are so prosperous in the field of agriculture that he has decided rather to discuss the Coloured question, which really is a problem.

Sir, we are dealing here with a motion of censure. I want to congratulate the United Party Opposition on one thing. I have never seen their equals when it comes to taking a beating. To me it is quite amazing. After 26 years they come back for more every time! With the exception of the beating they took in the election, it is hardly possible for me to visualize their taking more of a beating than they have been taking in the course of this debate.

And we are still in the right.

This is what is so surprising. They do not learn. They try to give the impression that they are still in the right, but every time their defeat is more resounding. It seems to me they are beginning to suffer from shell shock. They simply cannot comprehend the situation any longer. I do not think it is appropriate to kick a man when he is down, but in politics this might be necessary now and again. In this case it is definitely necessary, but in their misery I shall endeavour not to make these people out to be even worse than they are. In their own interest, however, I want to draw their attention to one or two matters, for I do think that we as democrats must accept that a good opposition is a requisite for a democracy to function well. Our problem is precisely that we have an opposition that has broken down completely and is becoming progressively more weak.

We are faced here with the phenomenon that some of the hon. members of the Progressive Party have taken seats in this House which used to be occupied by senior members of the United Party. I refer to the hon. members for Parktown and Orange Grove, and one may possibly mention Johannesburg North in this regard as well. What happened there?

Money-power politics.

I believe that this business of “vote for the man”, which has become a slogan, was not decisive and neither was money. Money could possibly have played a role, as the hon. member for Durban Point suggests, but I believe there were more important factors. I want to suggest that eggs from the ranks of the United Party were placed in the nest of the Progressive Party which were then hatched by the latter party. I refuse to believe that people will abandon members like Sonny Emdin and Etienne Malan overnight. There must have been more than an organized attempt on the part of the Progressive Party only; there must have been organized disloyalty in the ranks of the United Party as well. I am telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now that I am convinced that this is so. I believe there is an organized attempt afoot in the United Party to get rid of some of its esteemed, leading members. I should like to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that I refuse to believe that a party could have had a majority of approximately 4 000 votes in the general election and then be contend with a majority of 30 votes in a by-election a few months later.

Against whom was that majority of 4 000 obtained? Why did members of the Nationalist Party vote for Mr. Gerdener and the Progressives?

As far as I am concerned, this did not happen. Nobody asked them to vote for the Progressives.

Your papers, however, say so.

The position is simply that that party has found in certain seats on the Rand, and now in Umhlatuzana, that its image has been tarnished and that the number of votes it has been able to draw has been reduced drastically. Why has this happened? I am telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this cannot be so only as a result of a Press which has turned against them and it cannot be so only as a result of the fact that a few stray Nationalists voted for Mr. Gerdener. The position is simply that there is an organized campaign in progress in the ranks of the United Party to undermine the leadership of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members who sit over there. I cannot see there being any other reason and I raise this matter so that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may ponder on it. I think this is something which requires further thought.

It is of importance in this country for us to exchange ideas on relations politics and a great deal has been said about it this week. The general approach of that side throughout the years, from the side of the Official Opposition as well as from the side of the Progressive Party, has been that this side has an ideological approach. It is time they forget about that argument. They have lost election after election with that argument, and they must please forget about it, because what is the position in fact? It is that the Government are the people who are realistic, who accept the position as it is. We have different peoples, languages and cultures in this country. We have different races and people with different backgrounds and different approaches. This is what this Government recognizes and to which it adapts itself.

Now, what is ideological about the acceptance of that which exists? The people who come forward with ideological approaches are those on the opposite side of this House. The United Party does it to a certain extent, but it is the Progressive Party in particular that does it. They are the people who advocate that we are one country and one community, that we are all South Africans and that no basic differences exist between the population groups of this country. This is the ideology which the United Party advocates and which the Progressive Party advocates to a greater extent. If they continue advocating that story, their problems will become ever greater in the future.

Those of us who work with the Black peoples from day to day find—and I think that it is necessary for me to bring this to the attention of this House—that just as we as the White people consist of Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people with our own cultural alignments, people formed by the Western civilization who have developed a certain outlook on life as a result thereof, so the Black peoples have in their ranks very deep differences, cultural differences and differences in their customs. It is often said that this Government is engaged in dividing this country and the people of this country. I stress again that we simply accept that there are differences amongst people, and if the Government were to accept the appeals made upon it for the recognition of smaller groups, we would get further division still. I want to mention what I might have mentioned before and what I have already said in public, and that is that the Government has tried to unite certain cultural groups of the Blacks. We united the Southern Ndebele with the Leboa. We said that they had a common language and had been living together for many years and that they could work out a future for themselves under one Government. The Southern Ndebele, although scattered on farms for 80 years and not having an identifiable homeland, came forward a few years ago and repeatedly made representations and said that they were a few hundred thousand people only, but that they were Southern Ndebele and not Pedi. I can also mention other examples of representations that we have now received from Vendaland from people who are asking for separate identification and are trying to bring us proof. The Northern Ndebele are, in certain cases, also making similar representations. I mention it, because it is necessary for us to take cognizance of the fact that people, in spite of having been scattered on farms for 80 years and in urban areas, have come forward and said that they have retained their identity. They say they have not abandoned their languages and cultures, in spite of the fact that they have had to live amongst other people. Where does one find a better example of that which is dear to people and serves as a stimulus and has value for them, causing them to be identifiable as a people? They come forward and say they belong to a specific group and that they are not merely Blacks. I want to take this very important aspect further, to the urban Bantu, about whom such a great deal is said.

Who is the chief of that Southern Ndebele group?

David Mapoch is the paramount chief of the Southern Ndebele. I should just like to tell hon. members who talk about “headmen” that there is a difference between a headman and a chief. With the Bantu a chief is a person who occupies a very high position. Buthelezi is a chief and not a headman. I am just mentioning it, because this is not a chief in the militaristic sense of the word. These people take offence if they are referred to simply as “headmen”. We must approach this position I have mentioned in a very realistic manner. We have people who talk very emotionally about the eight million Bantu in the urban areas. After the emotional outbursts concerning migratory labour and with reference to the approach that families should live together, I should like to say with regard to the urban Bantu that we find at present, especially from the ranks of the rich in the Progressive Party, that these people insist on their servants sleeping in the backyard and not with their husbands and children, so that madam and master may be served in the evening and early in the morning. This is the greatest evil we experience in our urban areas at the moment. I want to point out that members of the Progressive Party who present their policy here with great ostentation, as well as supporters of the United Party, kick up a row in our urban areas about migratory labour, something which is in fact minimal in this country, except in the mines, but when we tell them that their servants should go home to sleep with their own families at night—there where they have the privilege to have families and the majority do have this privilege—they continually come forward with requests by means of which they want to restrict these people. This is what I call hypocrisy and this is what the White person in this country must face up to, to whatever political party he may belong. We must not come and talk here of people wanting to be with their families, while we subtly undermine in different ways the policy which envisages this. Especially in the liberal press it is announced with banner headlines that that important family bond should be maintained, but then they undermine the policy of the Government who wants to retain the family unit as far as possible.

Where does your servant stay at night?

I have one Bantu servant who stays in her room with us. She does not have a family. In the past I saw to it, when I had people with families, that they got home in the evening as much as possible.

Mr. Speaker, there is constant talk of policy adjustments. Here there is a major inconsistency. Over there we have a party that advocates a policy to which it has made many amendments over a period of 26 years, and that went into an election with a brand-new policy.

When?

The April election. How old is your federal policy? It has hardly opened its eyes. Over the past year or two they have just had time to shine it up when we went into the election and here they are back having suffered the greatest defeat ever. There are various reasons they can advance for this. I myself also mentioned where they should go and look for what was amiss. Now they come along here and what positive approach have we had from them in this debate?