Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned on Friday, I was referring to the report of the Inflation Committee of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. This report has been public knowledge since April of this year. Since that time there has been very little public reaction as far as the authorities are concerned to its recommendations. We therefore expect during this debate to have a formal pronouncement on this matter and we look forward to hearing this from the hon. the Minister. What is also important is not merely the fact that the plan is accepted—one assumes, of course, that the plan will be accepted—but what action will actually be taken. I believe that the difficulty is that the public are tired of exhortations to fight inflation. The public, and the workers in particular, are prepared to make sacrifices in order to combat inflation but they certainly do not expect to be alone in making these sacrifices, neither do they expect these sacrifices to be made by the poorer sections of the people in our country. If these sacrifices are to be made, everyone must make them on an equitable basis. This means that not only employees and workers—I want to stress this point—must make these sacrifices, but also employers; not only the ordinary John Citizen but the State as well. What we expect therefore is not simply pious statements that the Government will investigate the question of the cutting back of expenditure which is referred to in the Inflation Committee’s report. We expect to be told what is actually being done in regard to this matter. We want to know what is actually being done to cut back on expenditure as has been recommended in this report. We know that the preliminary work in regard to the preparation of the budget for next year is already under way. We would have expected the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is not here today, to have told us at last something about his cut-back plans in respect of future public expenditure, and we have had nothing from him but silence. We believe that if action is to be taken, the State must set the example and the State must cut back on non-productive expenditure in respect of items that can be postponed. This is what we expect to hear and we hope to be told about it today. Obviously, we cannot expect the Government to fight inflation alone. This is true. However, the example must be set by the State because the State is the most influential and powerful body as far as the fight against inflation is concerned.

There is another matter of perhaps even greater importance which is contained in the report of this Inflation Committee. I am referring to the education, training and employment of Black people in more skilled occupations in White areas. This report calls for—

If this challenge is accepted by the hon. the Minister, this could well be the most exciting breakthrough not only in the fight against inflation but in regard to labour relations and race relations generally for many years. Has this been accepted? What precisely will be done? Are we to have more than just pious words in this regard? There are a few specific questions which I want the hon. the Minister to deal with. In the report it is stated specifically that more money should be set aside for the training of Black people in White areas. Has this been done? Has this recommendation been accepted by the Cabinet in principle? Will the money be made available for it? There is also the question of the negotiations that are to take place in order to remove restrictions. Have these negotiations already been entered into? What are the restrictions which it is contemplated will be removed? What will actually be done in this regard? What is even more important is the reference to social and legal impediments that are to be removed. What does the hon. the Minister have in mind in this regard? What is going to be done in this connection? The fight against inflation is one which cannot wait for years while commissions investigate the problem. There must be no delay in regard to recommendations. Immediate action is required. The aspirations of our Black people for more training in order to acquire greater skill are urgent. We need more than lip service. We need decisions and we hope to hear them from the hon. the Minister here today.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to enter into this debate on inflation. I rise to bring the fishing potential of the Southern Cape to the attention of the hon. the Minister once more, and to advocate to him the establishment of the facilities so as to render possible the exploitation of this potential by our own people.

It appears that approximately 1,2 million tons of fish is caught along the South African coast each year, of which South African fishermen catch approximately 100 000 tons only, or less than 10%, while Russian, Japanese, Chinese and other fishing fleets remove approximately 1,1 million tons of fish from the sea around South Africa each year. A conservative estimate of the value of one ton of fish before processing, is R300. Therefore the value of fish caught by foreign fishing fleets along our coast each year, is at least R330 million. Of the said 100 000 tons of fish caught by our South African fishermen, only about 10% is caught along the Southern Cape coast, although of the richest fishing grounds, the very ones which are exploited by foreign fishing fleets is situated there.

The fishing harbour at Still Bay on the Southern Cape Coast is under the control of the hon. the Minister and his department. Consequently I want to appeal to him to extend and to improve the existing facilities at that harbour so that it may safely be used by more and bigger boats for exploiting the fishing grounds in that area.

To be more specific, the fact is that the harbour is very shallow. Normally, boats enter the harbour at high tide and can then be pulled up a slipway by means of equipment operated by a machine with a reasonable degree of safety and ease. Unfavourable weather, however, often compels the boats to return to the harbour at low tide, and because of the fact that the harbour is so shallow, it is a dangerous operation to bring the boats ashore in those circumstances. In the recent past there has in fact been talk of deepening the harbour, but up to now nothing has come of this.

At present there are 17 fishing boats, approximately 20 to 25 feet in length, of which approximately 11 are in regular use, at Still Bay. These boats provide six White and approximately 120 Coloured families with a living. In addition to these there are approximately 20 boats, approximately 16 to 18 feet in length, with outboard motors, and these boats fish from Still Bay throughout the year. At holiday times there is, of course, a further run of boats on the harbour at Still Bay, from where they go fishing, on pleasure cruises, etc. The firm Irvin and Johnson has a depot in the harbour area and handled an average of 340 000 kg of fish per annum. A considerable quantity of fish is also sold or provided directly to consumers by the fishermen.

Sir, I say the potential is there, the interest is there; all that is required, is that the harbour be enlarged and made more safe and that the necessary facilities be established. Sir, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to supply this need, and I do so with full confidence that he will not disappoint me.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that the hon. member for Mossel Bay will excuse me if I do not follow his argument. I want to raise another matter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he is going to give us a clear, concise and constructive reply as to what the future is of Algoa Bay in respect of its development as an ore exporting harbour. Too long there has been indecision and vacillation by the Cabinet in this regard. If the Cabinet had taken the right step five years ago, the St. Croix project would have been in full operation; we would have been exporting millions of tons of ore; we would have been earning foreign exchange and we would have been combating inflation, but because of the vacillation of this Government, this whole project has been delayed at the expense of the economy of the country as a whole. The hon. member for Van-derbijlpark, when he took part in the debate on Friday, waxed almost hysterical in his reply to the hon. member for Walmer, but he missed the point altogether. We on this side of the House are not attacking Iscor as a steel developing corporation. We are attacking Iscor because it is extending its influence far beyond the terms of reference of the corporation. They have come with their grandiose schemes and they have interfered with private enterprise, and this is what we are attacking. We are fast approaching the stage where we are almost getting on to a socialistic basis if these vast corporations are allowed to interfere with private enterprise, private enterprise which was geared up and which had the financial resources to develop the St. Croix project. If there had been nothing to stop it, this project would have gone ahead. I believe that because of the intervention of Iscor, they put a spoke in the wheel of normal private development in a particular area, and I want to register my protest as a representative of that area. Sir, we have been very calm about this situation. We have watched the extensive lobbying that has been going on by Iscor and! we have noted the vast support that the Saldanha project has. Sir, we have never opposed Saldanha. We believe that it is in the national interest, but we have always said that there is room for two projects. St. Croix could have been developed and Saldanha could have been developed. We always said that they should be phased in, first St. Croix and then Saldanha. But our area has been entirely neglected. The hon. the Minister smiles. I hope he will take this matter just a little more seriously. Our area is subject to all sorts of controls. We are a Coloured preferential area; we are subject to the provisions of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act, which stands like a sword of Damocles over prospective industrialists. We have borne all this in the national interest. Where we had the prospect of providing something in the best interests of the country’s economy, Iscor was allowed to extend its tentacles far beyond the scope of what it should have been allowed. I believe that we are entitled to know from this hon. Minister what the future position will be in respect of the export of ore through Algoa Bay, and what is going to be the future of the present installations there. Sir, we are surprised, when we think of the extent to which the South African Railways have been prepared to co-operate, the extent to which they in fact extended the carrying capacity of the line from Sishen down to Algoa Bay, that their interests were not taken into account. What is going to be the future in regard to that extra carrying capacity which has been provided by the South African Railways? Sir, I believe that these are matters on which the hon. the Minister must be constructive, clear and concise when he replies. I believe that the hon. member for Walmer had every right to raise this issue. I believe he raised it constructively. He raised a pertinent point. I hope that the Minister in his reply is not going to become too hysterical about this matter and that his reply will be constructive so that we in the Eastern Cape will know what this hon. Minister has in mind for the future development of the Eastern Cape. I look forward to the hon. the Minister’s reply.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to discuss the subject which received the most attention in this debate, I should like to refer briefly to various other subjects to which hon. members referred during this debate. I want to hasten to add, of course, that I appreciate the participation of all hon. members. I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Von Brandis for his constructive contribution with regard to the possibilities of a new form of conveying freight. I also want to thank him for having sent me the relevant information this morning. I assure him that I shall make it my business to go into this matter.

I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that I shall react to what he said when I react to what was said by the hon. member for Walmer. I also want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I shall similarly react to his statements when I come to the anti-inflation programme.

Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Walmer, not because I am singling him out for priority treatment, and certainly not because I think he deserves it, but I am doing this because he was the first speaker on the opposite side who did not discuss inflation but who broached another subject. Sir, there is a very fine rule which the hon. member and I are both familiar with, or ought to be familiar with, which is that the hands of a complainant who goes to court, as well as those of his client, should be clean. I listened to the hon. member, and I want to begin by saying that I have very seldom in my public life seen a more arrogant performance than that of the hon. member. But more than that, Sir, I have very seldom in my life seen a performance less substantiated by facts than that of the hon. member’s speech. I want to make the general statement that in his speech on this specific subject the hon. member was not motivated by national interests. I want to go even further and say that I do not think he was motivated by the regional interests of Port Elizabeth.

His own interests.

Sir, I think he was motivated by the personal interests of a small private enterprise group in Port Elizabeth.

Utter rubbish!

The hon. member began—and he will be afforded the opportunity of disputing this—by quoting in substantiation of his statements a letter from a person whose name he kept anonymous, a person: whom he was not prepared to identify. The following question now arises: If his case is correct, why the hesitation to reveal this source? Why is the hon. member not prepared to take this House into his confidence and to declare his sources, so that we can evaluate these sources. [Interjections.] For you see, Sir, the facts are not correct. On the contrary. This is mere gossip. The hon. member put certain questions to me which he tried to get on to the Order Paper, and he is asking me now to reply to them. Sir, I do not intend replying to them. I intend replying to him personally. I discussed the future development of St. Croix with him. Secondly, I want to tell him that I explained to him what the circumstances and what the facts were. Thirdly, I told him that any further debate could only be prejudicial to the scheme. But this hon. member is not prepared to act in a responsible manner with regard to this scheme. In fact, I want to make the general statement that the history of that scheme is marked by irresponsible conduct on the part of hon. members on the opposite side.

Utter nonsense!

Let us consider the allegations which the hon. member made. He alleged that there had been a secret agreement between Iscor and Associated Manganese.

†Sir, he went further and suggested that I connived in this secret agreement.

I did not use those words.

You used the word “connived”.

*The hon. member must not withdraw his words now. I know it was not his common sense talking. I cannot reproach him for this either, for he has very little of that commodity. But let us see what the facts are. The hon. member said there was an agreement. I say that his source lied to him. There was no agreement. Secondly, he said I had been a party to this secret agreement. I say that here, too, his source lied to him. There was no such agreement, and therefore I could not have been involved in it. Sir, I repeat, that the hon. member’s entire speech—unlike that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who advocated a scheme for which I am not reproaching him—was motivated by other considerations entirely. What are the true facts? The facts of the matter are that private entrepreneurs on the Sishen/Saldanha scheme negotiated in regard to their traffic, not with Iscor, but with the S.A. Railways. In fact, even S.A. Manganese, in which Iscor has a financial interest, does not even negotiate in regard to its tariffs directly with Iscor, but with the Railways. Why is the hon. member now trying to sow suspicion in regard to matters which require far more responsibility than he displayed?

What about the Sishen/Saldanha line?

I am replying to the hon. member’s accusations now.

† I should like to suggest that the hon. member has been taken for a ride on false information, and I use the word “false” deliberately. I would like to tell him that I reject the suggestion that there was a secret agreement. I reject the allegation that I was a party to that agreement, or that any of my predecessors was a party to an agreement of the nature he described. Sir, I would even go further and ask him: Before the Government decided that that line would be a multi-purpose line, why did private enterprise not proceed with the development of St. Croix? At that stage there was no question of rail tariffs which prevented such a scheme from that particular angle to go forward.

*I want to say at once, and the hon. member ought to know this, and in my opinion this makes his offence even greater, that before the announcement that Iscor’s line would be a multi-purpose line, there was after all an opportunity for the private entrepreneurs to which he referred, to develop that harbour. But what are the facts? Even the private entrepreneurs such as Associated Manganese, inform us that they would never have conveyed traffic on that line, even if there had been a harbour. Sir, I come to the conclusion—and with that I dispose of this matter—that the hon. member was in fact advocating and propagating only the interests of a few people here, a few people who, so I believe, have vested interests in the development of a harbour there.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense, but if I did, the hon. member should understand it because that is the only thing he can understand. He was not advancing a plea on behalf of public interests, and even less on behalf of national interests.

†The hon. member accuses me of wearing three hats: that of Iscor, or private enterprise and of the national interest. I would suggest that he wears one only, and that is secular interests.

*Now I want to go further. I told the hon. member, and I want to repeat this now, that the Government had announced that it would consider the representations or proposals for the development of St. Croix harbour, and it invited the proposers of the proposals to, and held, negotiations with them. But one important consideration which has to apply, apart from others, is that a certain guaranteed load of ore has to go to the harbour in respect of the development there. The hon. member knows this. To make the harbour profitable, it is necessary for the volume of ore being conveyed to the harbour to grow. This the hon. member also knows, and he knows that at this stage there is still no indication of the operating costs of the harbour. He made out that we had abandoned St. Croix. Surely that is not true, Sir. We are still holding constant negotiations on this particular matter with the private entrepreneurs. Sir, it is not going to help us at all if the hon. member acts in this manner. He can play his petty political games here if he likes; it is not going to help him at all.

I come now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I can tell him that there are considerations relating to the development of the harbour which are purely in the hands of prospective developers. He must accept this from me. I am not prepared to disclose the particulars of those people in this House before the matter has been finalized. I think that he will understand that to do so would be irresponsible of me. Thirdly, I want to tell him that my department is awaiting the final proposals of possible developers and as and when we receive these, as well as the relevant conditions, consideration will be given to them. I hope he accepts this from me as the responsible standpoint which has been adopted on this subject.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks, from what he knows of the subject, whether it is desirable to have two harbours to export iron ore in big ships, and whether he considers it in the interests of the country to have a second harbour?

From the nature of the case it would be wrong to say either “yes” or “no” to him now. The entire question of the development of a harbour in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere is dependent on the costs of the construction of the harbour, the administrative costs of the harbour, and the capacity of the railway line that has to serve the harbour. Therefore, the hon. member will understand that it would be extremely irresponsible of me if I were at this stage to give him a specific or definite reply to his question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Minister a question?

No, I am sorry.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked me to excuse him for not being able to be here this morning. He asked what the increased costs of the Sishen-Saldanha scheme would be. Together with additional work the increased costs will amount to R603 million. I shall personally furnish him with detailed information in this regard.

The hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Durban Central and other hon. members, discussed television. The hon. member for Parktown emerged on Friday as the champion of the rights of the poor people. I have never in my life seen a greater contrast in behaviour as that in the hon. member’s behaviour, and I am saying this against the background of which group he represents in the House of Assembly. But let us begin first with the hon. member for Durban Central. What accusations did he make? He said, and in this he was supported by the hon. member for Parktown, that the Government had, by allowing only six manufacturers, created a monopoly. I have never before in economy heard of a Government creating a monopoly when there are six manufacturers that display individualism. The second point he made, and this point is important, was that the Government had guaranteed the manufacturers a minimum profit margin. Surely that is not true. The guarantee of a minimum profit margin surely means that if the manufacturers do not make a minimum profit the Government has to pay for it. Surely this is what a guarantee means. There is nothing further from the truth than that the Government determined a minimum profit margin for the manufacturers. I honestly do not know what the hon. member’s sources of information are. I think it is important that I tell him at the outset that there were specific reasons why the Government restricted the manufacturers to a certain number—in this specific case to six. History has proved that it happens in any country in which television is introduced that only a limited number of manufacturers remain in the market. Secondly, it is a highly sophisticated industry which requires really advanced technology research, major investment and turnover to make it efficient and effective. In addition it requires intensive training programmes and service staff. In our case the Government, out of all the applicants, identified those that were unable to comply with the high demands, and consequently it may be concluded that those firms that are registered are in fact able to comply with these demands. The hon. member should also bear in mind that in this specific industry there is a very acute shortage of trained manpower. This was the case in the past, and is still the case today. The grave danger existed, and I believe that it still exists today, that it could have had a disrupting effect on our telecommunications system if too many manufacturers had been allowed, and had drawn on the staff of the department concerned, to which reference has been made, for their manpower. He will understand that it would have been easy to attract employees from the public sector to this sector by virtue of the fact that it is far easier to adjust salary scales in the private sector. Secondly, the hon. member will realize that a duplication of manufacturing facilities would have imposed further and heavier demands on manpower than were being made. He will also know that a larger number of manufacturers, larger than the number required to ensure effective competition, would have entailed additional costs because the individual turnovers would probably have been lower and the individual costs consequently higher.

The hon. member for Parktown asked me what the position in respect of Swaziland was. The hon. member will of course understand that in respect of Swaziland, that country, together with other countries, has a customs union agreement with South Africa. The hon. member will also know that in terms of this there is free traffic and movement of goods between one country and another. The hon. member knows, or ought to know, that we are constantly holding talks with the countries that are members of the union, particularly with a view to the rationalization of industry. Lastly, I want to tell the hon. member that he will also understand that I consider it in the national interest not to discuss in details the position of a member country here, except to inform the hon. member that in terms of the measures on which we reached an agreement with Swaziland the manufacturer in respect of numbers, aftersales services that he has to render, as well as quality control, has to comply with the same requirements as we require of the South African manufacturers. I am asking the hon. member to accept that I cannot furnish further particulars in this regard.

The hon. member also discussed the costs of television, and said that ours was one of the most expensive. We must always bear in mind that we are at the start of a new industrial direction for these manufacturers in South Africa. As a comparison —and I accept that the hon. member will grant that I do not have to mention the name of a particular manufacturer concerned, for it would be wrong to do that —in the case of a specific set which is in great demand overseas, the factory price in South Africa is R606. The price of the specific set to which I am referring is R560 in Austria, R450 in Germany and R470 in Holland. Taking into consideration the estimated price structures and the fact that we have just started. I think that the achievement of our industrialists in this regard has been a good one. The price here in our country is higher owing to the fact that there is sales duty on the television sets. I do not want to discuss this, because it falls under another Vote. If we consider the contribution that the State has to make from the general revenue funds in order to give us an efficient television service, then it is not unjustifiable to levy this duty on the sets. In addition residual customs duties are payable. Eighty per cent of the components are at this stage being imported, and the transportation costs of the imported components represent approximately 12½% to 20% of the costs. Therefore there are reasons for this. The hon. member will also know that royalties are payable by the South African manufacturers to the patentees. In addition, the hon. member will know that our market at this stage is relatively smaller than the overseas markets, and that all these factors contribute to affecting the prices of the sets. Lastly, I want to say that the industrialists have been given no guarantee of a specific profit. What has in fact been done, is that in terms of mice control powers an agreement was reached with the manufacturers that they would be allowed a maximum of 15% gross profit for the first year, before the payment of interest and taxation. After this one year the position would be reviewed. In respect of the dealers, the maximum margin which they may take was fixed at 50%, whereas they had asked for 80%. This determination, too, is subject to review after the first year, so that we may determine the results of the establishment and stabilization of the market.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred to motion picture subsidies. I have taken cognizance of what the hon. member said. The hon. member knows that I have already asked the Board of Trade and Industry to investigate the continuation of the subsidy system and, if so, the conditions under which this ought to be done. The representations made by the hon. member in this regard will be taken into consideration.

I want to thank the hon. member for Paarl for his contribution. He pointed out the dependence of South Africa and, in fact, the world, on natural rubber which, as the hon. member rightly said, was supplied primarily by less friendly-disposed— if I may adapt the customary term in this manner—countries. It is true that the development of synthetic rubber throughout the world has already made many countries less dependent on natural rubber, and is also keeping price increases for natural rubber in check, to the benefit of us all. The ratio between the consumption of synthetic rubber and that of natural rubber in the world is at present approximately 2: 1. in South Africa, as the hon. member quite rightly said, the percentage is far higher. Without dealing with the technical aspects —and I want to admit at once that I am not qualified to deal with this—I just want to mention that synthetic rubber, the so-called SWR, has been manufactured locally for a considerable time, and that it could be used to an even greater extent than at present as a substitute for natural rubber. I learn from the scientists that a new kind of synthetic rubber, the so-called PIR, is virtually a complete substitute for natural rubber. A local company in South Africa submitted plans to the Department of Industries for the manufacture of this synthetic rubber some time ago. In order to make it a completely South African industry it is necessary for it to be integrated either with the envisaged manufacture of other synthetic materials from coal or with the by-products of Sasol 2. The company concerned is giving attention to these specific facets, and I think that under the circumstances the hon. member will agree with me that the appointment of a technical committee is not necessary at this stage.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, as well as the hon. member for Smithfield, discussed the local content of motor vehicles. I want to begin by telling the hon. member for Cane Town Gardens, who alleged that the price of motor vehicles in South Africa had increased between 10% to 15% per month that I really do not think that this statement is factual or correct. It is true that the price of motor vehicles has increased, and I concede this. Unfortunately we do not have statistics to demonstrate the precise increases, but as far as I was able to establish, the increases at the end of 1974, compared with the prices in 1973, were as follows: Model A—11%; model B—14%; and model C—13%. These are price increases per year, and not per month. One has to expect that the locally manufactured article will in many cases cost more than the overseas article. The hon. member will also be aware that the local manufacturers are dependent on a large percentage of imported components, and that the prices of these components, when they are in fact available, has risen considerably as a result of the inflation rates in the countries of origin. The hon. member advocated that we should not go beyond Phase III of the content programme, which terminates at the end of next year, and which will then bring the local content up to 66%.

The hon. member for Smithfield depicted the other side of the picture for this Committee, and I want to thank him for doing so. I am therefore confirming that there are two facets which have to receive consideration. It is true that Naamsa, the association of the motor manufacturers, came to see me about requests similar to that of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. It is also true that a minority group among the manufacturers, who did not agree with the majority, also came to see me. I also saw the component manufacturers in regard to an investigation which Prof. Swart instituted on behalf of the Suid-Afrilkaanse Handelsinstituut into the motor industry and the local content programmes in other countries. As a result of all these interviews I decided that it would be best if the Board of Trade and Industries were requested, against the background of the new economic circumstances, to give close and analytical attention once again to whether to depart from the programme and its continuation. In my opinion the only norm which could and should be applied here is what the interests and requirements of the country are. We shall have to consider whether the application of capital and manpower, and the strategic requirements of South Africa in the circumstances in which we are now living, require the continuation of this programme or whether on the other hand, there are not greater priorities for the application of capital and manpower. Seen in this way, I believe that both hon. members will agree with me that this is the only responsible approach I am able to take in this specific regard.

In general I should like to thank my colleagues for their contributions to the debate. Of course it goes without saying that I shall react in greater detail to hon. members on the opposite side, because they made specific statements and adopted standpoints which I think deserve to be replied to. However, I would be failing in my duty if I did not say that I have great appreciation for the points of view put forward by my hon. colleagues here. The hon. member for Florida made very constructive suggestions in regard to how we could make our local industries, inter alia the textile industry, which is going through a difficult time, more competitive on the export market. We also believe that to the extent to which we are able to find an export market for our products and are able, to increase our turnovers, this must have a cost-reducing effect on our domestic prices. I should like to ask him to put his ideas and any other ideas he may have in this regard, in writing for me. I shall then ensure that they reach the bodies that are concerned with this. I want to thank the hon. member for Wonderboom for the very interesting elucidation of our energy resources. This is one of the most real problems which the entire Western world is having to cope with today, and which, in fact, is having a disruptive effect on their economies. I want to give him the assurance that the Petrick Report, to which he referred, and which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Mines, discussed, and the other matters attendant upon this and which also have a bearing on the problems of our energy needs, will be studied thoroughly. I want to tell him that there is a committee of officials and scientists which has to advise the Government in this specific regard after the necessary investigation has been instituted. There is also a Cabinet committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of Planning and the Environment, which has to co-ordinate the activities.

The hon. member for Carletonville spoke in lyrical terms of the sun, and after I had had to listen to the jeremiads from the opposite side, the sunshine which he spoke of proved, for a while, to be an interesting change. The hon. member mentioned one important aspect, and although he is not here at the moment—he tendered his apologies for not being able to be here— I believe that it is of general interest that I spend some time discussing it. He referred to the extensive programmes which the public sector has to undertake in future through, inter alia, the State corporations and the Government itself, with regard to the establishment of infrastructures. He presented a plea—and I want to emphasize this—that we should ensure very assiduously that the capital we have available is applied in the most productive manner, and that we make a priority analysis of those services which are more important than others. I want to make haste, and say that he endorses a standpoint which I have already put to those State corporations which fall under my department, a standpoint which the Government in general and my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, in particular, are already in earnest about. I believe that it is in our general interest that we apply the scarce resources of our country as effectively and productively as possible.

I come next to the last subject I want to discuss. However, I first want to thank the hon. member for Germiston District for having made my task in replying to the complaints which were made so much lighter. I also want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for having replied to much of the criticism on Iscor and on the Sishen / Sal dan ha Scheme.

Apart from the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who made recommendations on how inflation could be combated— recommendations which he took from the programme of action submitted to the Government—and the hon. member for Yeoville, few, if any, concrete proposals on how this problem may be overcome, were forthcoming from the opposite side. There was of course the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg, which he himself did not really regard as being a speech, and in which he said that we should abolish apartheid.

You are being ridiculous now, and you know it. You are merely playing politics. *

The hon. member himself said that it was not a speech, and I agree with him. There I do not know why he is becoming excited.

The degree to which we succeed in combating this problem will in the first instance depend on the hon. members here. I think this is important enough for me to repeat it: The degree to which we succeed in overcoming the problem will depend on the members of this House, on the degree which we will all succeed not only in adopting a responsible standpoint here, but outside this House as well, when the temptations of political gain come our way. In the second place, I want to say that I listened attentively to the hon. member for Constantia since he is known to be a person who is able to make a meaningful contribution on matters of this nature.

What contribution did he make, to the discussion of this matter? He told us that inflation, in the first place, erodes personal savings. In the second place he said that it reduced the buying power, salaries and wages. In the third place he said that it had a detrimental effect on the position of the pensioner. I have no quarrel with any of these statements. But what did the hon. member then proceed to add? And this is the sum total of his contribution. He said the only people who have a vested interest in inflation is the Government, because the Government is receiving increased revenues as a result of it. This is precisely what I had in mind when I said the degree to which we succeed will depend on all of us, and will depend on the degree to which hon. members on the opposite side are able to resist the temptation of turning this problem into a political football. I am saying this with all the earnestness at my command. Implicit in his statement is the allegation that the Government has a vested interest in inflation to such an extent that it is not going to make attempts to check it or to combat it. I want to tell the hon. member that this was a shocking allegation he made. I want to tell him that although I agree with him that inflation has a detrimental effect on the material welfare of people, and that the lower income groups are being most sorely afflicted by it, it is a fact that if the only effect of inflation could be measured in material values only, it would be less dangerous.

Come to your programme.

I shall come to it, but it will take a long time before I do so, because I first want to see whether I cannot foster in the hon. member and his colleague an attitude of mind which will enable them to evaluate matters properly. [Interjections.]

The hon. member will understand that the implications, if we do not combat inflation, are far wider than the financial disadvantages it constitutes. It has social implications which could assume far greater proportions in our country than in other countries. It also has political implications—and I do not mean party-political implications— which could be far more dangerous in our country than in other countries. It affects the nature of military preparedness, and it affects the nature of the role we have to play in Southern Africa. That is why I say that in our country the handling of this problem forces us to a greater responsibility than that in other countries. I believe that it forces us to make a national effort. I believe that all of us have a responsibility in such an effort. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government does not have a responsibility, for it does. I want to advocate that we all regard it as a national task to check inflation, because its fruits could be more bitter in South Africa than in other countries.

It would not be fair to lay the causes of inflation at the door of one body only. It would be a mistake to reproach the Government as being the only cause of inflation, or being the only possessor of the means to check it. It would be equally wrong to place the responsibility on the shoulders of a specific part of the private sector, but, Sir, what has become true for the world, has become true for us, and I do not think I can present my standpoint to you if we are not able to succeed in identifying the causes. What do I regard as being irresponsible? I regard it as irresponsible that it has become established practice to say that the Government is responsible for the causes and for the solution. I find it irresponsible that the general public are being misled, and blatantly misled, to believe that the only answer lies in the actions of someone else, specifically the Government. Sir, I am speaking in general terms now; I am not dealing with the hon. member for Jeppe.

No one said that.

You have said enough this session; keep quiet for a moment now.

Sir, it is a phenomenon in the world, and here in our country too, that the impression exists among the public that the solution to the problem lies elsewhere, and my plea is that all of us, including the hon. member for Jeppe, who is so fond of making statements for the newspapers, should become just as emotionally involved in the solution to the problem as the hon. member for Jeppe became emotional about the effects. If it were true of our country that the Government was responsible, surely this would be true of all capitalistic countries. Hon. members maintain that it is of no avail saying that a part of the problem is due to imported reasons. I agree that it is of no avail, but, Sir, we shall have to bring the truth home to the public. All of us will have to tell the public that 85% of South Africa’s imports, consists of capital and intermediary goods. We shall have to tell the people that the prices have doubled, or more than doubled, and that this is having a detrimental effect on the production of goods and services in South Africa. All of us will have to tell the people that the accusation that the Government is incompetent or unwilling to solve this problem, has no foundation. Sir, I want to go further and tell you that there is a variety of reasons and causes which we have to consider. Secondly, I want to say that because inflation finds expression in rising prices, the impression, or the wrong impression, exists that the Government, because it has policy instruments at its disposal, is responsible for and capable of solving the problem. Sir, it is true that the Government has policy instruments at its disposal. It is equally true that it is making use of them. It is also true that there is legislation before this House of Assembly to project the public against malpractices. The hon. member for Yeoville said that he would co-operate to place that legislation on the Statute book.

The present inflation rate, if we were to calculate it on an annual basis, is a maximum in the history of our country. Last year the seasonally adjusted inflation was in the region of 11,5%. Even the consumers were beginning to experience a decrease in the buying power of the money. But the renewed wave of price increases in the first half of this year unleashed a further stream of protest on the part of the public. I am not reproaching them for doing so, but what I want to say is that it is being deliberately stoked and fanned by many people and by many media. This morning I saw reports speculating on an increase in specific commodity prices. I made the plea in this House that we should not speculate on expected price increases because this results in market disturbances, and does not help in any case. The Government is being accused on a large scale by the public and also by hon. members opposite of doing nothing to prevent this wave of inflation or to protect the consumer against it. It is even being alleged that price increases are a symbol of large-scale exploitation of the consumer by the farmer, the manufacturer, the dealer and others. Pleas are then advanced for us to adopt negative measures to combat them. Sir, I think the tragic ignorance which is being revealed, and the malicious wilfulness on the part of many people in this specific regard in making these unfounded statements in public, could of course have the effect that we will not be successful in our overall programme of action for combating inflation.

But I do not think this gets us much further. The fact of the matter is, and I want to make a plea in this regard to all bodies and through all the media, that our efforts and the efforts of other people are being seriously prejudiced by the completely misplaced psychological consumer temperament which is being built up, not to protect consumer interests, but to make political capital. I am once again pleading for a different approach. It is true that other countries have the same problem, even the countries mentioned by hon. members, but it is equally true that our consumers are not very interested in what is happening elsewhere, for they are experiencing the conditions which are prevailing here, and not there. It is true that the consumer is not interested in the fact that we are importing a major component of our inflation. To him inflation exists here, and not there. But it is of no avail either to ignore the existence of these components. However, I want to say at once, that there is a component of inflation which originates internally, and which cannot be dealt with by means of international action. To deal with it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, the dealer, the consumer, the worker and the Government, and I think that when we accept that it is the responsibility of all these people who are involved in its creation, we shall make progress. I would be failing in my duty if I did not issue a warning against an international psychosis, which is also revealing itself in this country.

The salaries and wages of salary and wage earners throughout the world have increased at a far greater and more rapid rate than the consumer price index. As a result of that people are able to allow themselves a higher standard of living than ever before. Let me say at once that I have no quarrel with the fact that we have to try to assure our people of the highest possible standard of living. But a standard of living, the various levels of this, is earned; we do not receive it as a favour from anyone. We have to learn, whether we want to or not,—the hon. members may shake their heads if they like—that we can only achieve our standard of living and raise our standard of living by making greater contributions to those processes which determine standards of living. It is not only the salary and wage earners who say that they should be assured of a higher standard of living. The same applies to the entrepreneur, the manufacturer and the dealer —in fact, this applies to the entire broad spectrum. The method they find to ensure their standard of living, is by making increased profits.

In conclusion I want to say that all the members on the opposite side of this House advocated that we should narrow the historic gap in salaries and wages between the population groups. This is a sentiment which all of us endorse, and continue to endorse. We must know that much of the increase in salaries is not accompanied by increased productivity. For that reason we must seek answers wherever we can. Let me refer briefly to what happened in November 1973. The economies of the world were disrupted as a result of the increase in the oil price. We did not remain unaffected. The ripple effect reached our country as well. For that reason we have part of the solution in our own hands in this specific regard because all of us are consumers of fuel. The steps we are taking …

The Minister of Finance raised the price even further.

Let me refer to the steps we are able to take. There is the Price Control Act, which could be applied. I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who would ask me to apply this over the entire spectrum of the economy. I want to say at once that price control should be applied when exploitation occurs and not when normal business rules apply. Price control should be applied when there is no proper competition on the market, for we must understand that price control could place a premium on inefficiency. We must understand that price control could ensure a specific profit, and that when price control is applied, the weakest operator also has to operate profitably.

We could also apply the Rents Act, which is a protective measure. I do not think there is any person on the opposite side of this House, or elsewhere, who would advocate that this is the instrument which could be applied throughout. There are people who maintain that we should protect the public against exploitation and against malpractices. I fully endorse that standpoint, and I now want to make an appeal in spite of our objections in detail to the legislation, to the effect that we ensure that the principles of this legislation are placed on the Statute Book during this session so that we can utilize it. What is the other? There is the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, and I have indicated that I am going to institute an investigation in terms of this Act. I have indicated that price maintenance is constantly being investigated. Hon. members can read about it in this morning’s newspapers. When we have finished with all these protective measures, the big question of how we can deal with this matter in other ways, still remains.

Hon. members are entitled to know what the Government’s standpoint in this regard is. The Government is, under the circumstances, not in favour of a deflationistic policy of direct intervention in, or a damping of, the growth rate of our economy. When we consider our objectives, we must remember that there can be no question of there being only one, but that we are continually considering the objective of a high or stable growth rate as against price and economic stability. Our approach in this country can never be that we should damp growth to such an extent that we might have unemployment among our people Examples were given to me of the people in Canada, the U.S.A. and in England. I do not want to burden hon. members with statistics, but what was the disruptive effect in the U.S.A. in which there were more than 9 million unemployed persons walking the streets? What is the position in West Germany, which not only has unemployed persons, but has also taken steps to repatriate their foreign workers? This course of action and measure are not available or open to us. We must therefore consider alternatives. It is time we let a few words of gratitude be heard for the circumstances under which we are living in South Africa, for it can be said without fear of contradiction that there is not a Western country which can compete economically with South Africa, and it is not one sector, but the total ability of the people in the country which has accomplished this. We are equally unable to recommend drastic State intervention in our economy, such as a system of wage and profit control. I know that this has been done in France. Once again hon. members will agree with me that in the long term this is going to have precisely the opposite effect. It is going to damp production, it is going to damp investment, and it is going to have a detrimental effect on the supply of goods and services in South Africa. I have already dealt with a system of expanded price control with hon. members. As regards the cause of the inflation rate in our country; apart from the external factors, we must agree with one another …

May I ask the hon. Minister a question?

I just want to dispose of this point: the hon. member may then ask his question. The cause of the inflation rate is attributable to unavoidable cost increases experienced by local entrepreneurs owing to the high price of imported machinery which represent 85% of our imports of equipment, components and materials, cost increases which they are not able to bear themselves. The result is that they increase their prices. There are signs that given conditions in the outside world could improve the position, depending on the oil price at the end of October. Another cause is the increase in food prices. Hon. members—everyone in fact—knows that South Africa, when seen from an agricultural point of view, is not an agricultural country when compared with many other countries. However, we shall all have to concede, too, that it is our responsibility to allow the agricultural sector to produce to its maximum and optimum to meet not only our needs but also the needs of the other people on our continent. I have said that the Government was unable to stem the increase in overseas prices. Nor can it do anything to stem the increase in food prices, except if it agrees to making vast amounts in subsidies available which, in order to be capable of administration, can only come from one source, namely taxation. This will however, have a resultant effect on production. Other countries have taken steps to their detriment.

There remains only one alternative— and with this I want to conclude—to combat inflation constructively, without causing the disruption of the economy, and this is to increase the production of goods and services in our country without a corresponding increase in costs. There is no other way. We are all involved in this alternative, for all of us produce and all of us consume. It will be of no avail of everyone to seek the solution elsewhere. We must return to the homefront and seek the solution in ourselves. This means a greater production per manhour which is spent on every economic process, but without an increase in salaries, wages and profits. I believe that our goal should be to utilize a variety of facets to be able to do this. This implies—and I am conceding this today for everyone agrees with this—the training of manpower. It also means more efficient management and more efficient utilization of labour by the management, and the optimal utilization of manpower. In addition it means the organized activation, in the first place, of all groups of our community to intensify their production efforts. We can take all steps, jointly and severally, but if we do not undergo a change in attitude, we shall not succeed. If we do not acquire a new sense of discipline in South Africa, we shall not succeed. We must have no doubt about this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a high standard of living. It is a goal we all set ourselves. However, it must be earned by means of physical production. The problem with which all of us are burdened—this is to a great extent what lies at the root of the internal component of inflation—is the fact that many of us appropriate for ourselves a higher standard of living than we have earned. We shall have to bring our standard of living to a level which corresponds to our input in the reproduction process in our country.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? When will you be in a position to make the announcement to the public with regard to the collective programme of action to reduce the rate of inflation in South Africa, which was presented by the Standing Committee on Inflation of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, which I understand is receiving the attention of the Cabinet as seven or eight important matters placed before them for consideration.

The answer is “now” (nou).

English or Afrikaans?

The answer is “now”, Mr. Speaker.

*I want to react immediately, and with that conclude, by saying that the Government has received the report of the joint action committee, which hon. members have seen. The hon. members who have read it will agree with me that the emphasis in the report is on joint and collective action by all.

And by the Government.

Yes, I said “all”. This will require a great measure of discipline from us—discipline on the part of the consumer, the worker, the salary-earner in terms of his demands, and the dealer and industrialist in respect of their profit levels. I want to repeat what was stated in the report, namely that there is no painless solution to the problem, there is only a painful one. If we are to win in the long term, we shall have to take steps in the short term which are going to be painful. The Cabinet has considered the collective programme of action that was submitted to it …

Six months too late.

That is the spirit I have to denounce. [Interjections.] The Cabinet has considered the report and has allowed itself to be led by the comment of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister, which, as hon. members know, consists of persons from the private sector as well. The Cabinet has also allowed itself to be led, in the consideration of the proposals, by confining itself to the collective programme of action which was recommended to it by the anti-inflation committee. The Cabinet did not express an opinion on the identification of the problem as it is stated in the report because we did not believe that this is necessary. The Government considered it advisable to effect certain amendments to the proposals for collective action against inflation set out in this programme. The Government discussed the amendments in the programme with the committee, and these are accepted by the committee. The first point I want to make therefore is that we have a programme which is acceptable to the private sector as well as to the public sector. I discussed these amendments with members of the private sector, and with the Advisory Committee on Inflation. This was on 12 June 1975 and was attended by colleagues of mine to whom I shall refer in a moment. The proposals, as amended, were accepted at the meeting by the private sector. The Cabinet resolved further that the implementation of the programme, which has now been jointly accepted, should be vested in a committee of Ministers because the Cabinet regards this as being one of the highest priorities. The Ministers involved in this are the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Planning, the Minister of Public Works and of Community Development, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. This committee will function under the chairmanship of the Minister of Economic Affairs, who will also be responsible, through his department, for the co-ordination of the programme. The second point I want to make is that the Cabinet Committee, in the implementation of its task, will be assisted by an advisory committee which will consist of three senior officials and representatives of the private sector. The Government has also decided that, in its actions against inflation, it is not going to confine itself only to the measures proposed in the programme of action, but will also put supplementary measures which have not been proposed into operation in order to wage the struggle against inflation more purposefully. The Government will do this if it is of the opinion that other measures are necessary under the circumstances. One of the matters which is of importance, and which is not dealt with in the programme of action, is the removal of unjustified restrictions on free competition in the South African economy. The Government regards it as being of the utmost importance, in the important goal it has to endeavour to achieve in the combating of inflation, that there has to be proper competition in the market situation. Consequently it is with this purpose in mind that certain amendments to the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act have already been passed, but in addition, with this purpose in mind, I have already appointed a commission of inquiry into this specific subject. I trust that the commission will see its way clear to completing its task most expeditiously, and reporting to the Government and to me in this regard.

An additional field of action which is indirectly related to the Government’s struggle against inflation, are the measures which the Government has already put into operation to protect the consumer against practices of an undesirable nature. I have already referred to these. Further proposals in this regard are contained in the Bill in regard to trade practices which is at present awaiting the consideration of this House, and in regard to which I again ask for co-operation so that we can pilot it through. I think the effective protection of the consumer against trade practices of an undesirable nature could contribute a great deal to indemnifying him against unjustified expenditure so as to alleviate in this way the burden on him of the cost of living. I regard it as being a really important achievement in our struggle against inflation that the Government and a large variety of organizations represented on the standing advisory committee and as such representing divergent interests, have succeeded in achieving unanimity on a collective programme. This was, I think, no easy task to begin with, and I want to express my appreciation to everyone involved. I want to express my appreciation to the representatives of the private sector, and to the officials. I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Secretary for Commerce, who was the chairman of the officials committee.

Hon. members must not regard the programme as being a magic formula which will, within a short space of time, solve our problem in a magical way. Many of the measures accented by the Government and also of the measures adopted by it previously can produce results only in the long term, but this in itself does not detract from the proposal. The programme comprises a well-considered and comprehensive information and incentive campaign, which will be financed by the Government but which will be implemented by a professional private concern. This contains a broad series of measures which will be applied by the Government and the private sector both in the short term as well as in the long term to raise production and productivity in all spheres throughout the economy of this country. I shall make the programme available to hon. members. I want to conclude with a last plea, namely that we should pledge our support in general to the programme, to which I also pledge the Government.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? As I understood him, the report on inflation of the advisory committee was accepted by the Cabinet with certain amendments. Apart from the amendments announced by the hon. the Minister, are there other amendments in that document which the hon. the Minister is going to make available, or have all the amendments already been announced?

The answer to that question is that no amendments have yet been announced. The amendments are contained in the document which I shall make available to hon. members and to the Press.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments as printed in my name on the Order Paper—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, today we are approaching the end of a session that has been remarkable in many ways. I have sat in this House for quite a long time and I suppose I have developed a sort of ability to read the House, a sort of connoisseurship on parliamentary moods and occasions, and I do not think I can be contradicted by anybody if I say that this session has had a somewhat unusual and remarkable quality.

Hear, hear!

By “quality” I do not mean “excellence”. For the past five months we have been faced with a Government that, save on very rare occasions indeed, has declined open engagement with the Opposition in respect of the main issues in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the Government have been busy outside Parliament and the hon. the Prime Minister, in particular, has been very busy outside Parliament with events outside the House and he has dealt with them outside Parliament. Perhaps because of this pre-occupation, hon. members on the Government benches have been strangely withdrawn and strangely timid to commit themselves in respect of the important matters with which the country is faced. In fact, what we have been treated to during the session, have been numerous speeches of a negative and a defensive nature and with great reluctance to engage on any new commitments in respect of policy at all. They have rather reminded me of people who are afraid that whatever they say today, will leave them stranded tomorrow on the beach as a result of a change in tide. We have seen across the floor of the House many troubled faces, many bewildered faces, many with unhappy sidelong and diverted glances. At the same time what we have seen, is an unwillingness to break new ground, an unwillingness to face up to the new problems, the urgent problems, that press upon South Africa.

There has been another interesting phenomenon during the session and that has been the presence and the attitude of the new, fragmented opposition parties. We have become accustomed in this House to the hon. member for Houghton who, despite her tendency like a tram to travel up and down on the same course all the time, familiar as the route was, could at least be counted on for a certain consistency of style and purpose. However, now we are treated to a fragmentary opposition whose main pre-occupation is not the Government, but the official Opposition. Despite their boast that they were going to be the effective opposition, their speeches and attitudes have only occasionally been directed towards the Government. Far more often they have deliberately sought, through their parliamentary activities, and especially their activities in the Press gallery, to see what they could do to embarrass the official Opposition.

You have done it so well yourself.

They might have had a little success, and the hon. member’s interjection might have been justified, were it not that, as in recent debates over homeland consolidation and over the Christian Institute, their real purpose was so blatantly opportunistic for everybody to see. These manoeuvres have all collapsed. Now there is a new campaign, a new campaign compounded of whispers, hints, innuendoes, contrived leaks, and what is it all in aid of? It is to put about the ridiculous suggestion that the United Party is seeking a coalition with the Government which, of course, everybody knows is absolute and arrant nonsense. We repudiate it, Sir, completely and without any qualifications. All I can say is that I am grateful for the opportunity that this silly rumour gives me to say exactly why in the year 1975 the United Party never had greater cause to affirm its own policies and to reject the fake doctrines of the parties to my left. You know, Sir, we in the official Opposition have got different standards from the Government in respect of many, if not all, matters, and likewise we have different standards from the minor parties to the left of us. In setting out our ideas we have tried to avoid the slavish adherence to formulae, so dear to the Government in its attempts to avoid the results of its policy, and we have also tried to avoid the gimmicks which the Progressive and the Reformist Opposition parties use to hide their lack of policy. Sir, we have tried to be frank with the public. We have geared our policies to meet the rapidly evolving nature of modern South Africa, but we have been aware at all times of the economic gaps and the social gaps that still impede progress to human dignity for all. At the same time we have been flexible enough to adapt to the demands and the opportunities of a changing world. Sir, hon. members will know that we believe that the solution in the field of race relations lies in a federal framework, a federal framework in which there will be protection for minorities against domination by majority groups; in which there will be a common loyalty to one State, in which there will be common co-operation between all groups and in which there will be a real national unity. We know, of course, that the parties to the left of us, the Progressive-Reformist group, talk about another kind of federation, a federation of a large number of small geographic units. In virtually every single one of them the minority groups will be overwhelmed. That is one reason, Sir, why their party, still to be born, is already doomed to remain a small, urban, English, wealthy, upper middle-class party with no hope of any real growth at all.

Why are you so worried?

Who is worried?

Very funny and very entertaining.

Sir, the Nationalist Party do not stand for one loyalty to one country. They will not tolerate federal ideas. They provide no protection for minorities, and least of all, for the Coloureds and Indians in their scheme of things. You see, Sir, theirs is a party of theoretical politicians seeking to implement a plan which is daily contradicted in practice both at home and abroad. They are like people swimming against the current that carries them further and further away from the shore, and while they are vigorously thrashing the water, they seem unable to strike out on any new line and they get further and further away from their objective. In the constitutional field they seek to impose unilaterally a plan for the fragmentation of South Africa. The impracticability of that plan is made more obvious every single day by the rapid changes in our population patterns and our economic patterns and by the clearly expressed views of the majority of Black leaders and above all, by the absurdity of the maps which the Government has now been foolish enough to publish. In constitutional terms they reject the benefits of federation and instead they face what? They face growing dissent in the homelands, the rapid breakdown of their policies in the urban and industrial areas, and for the minorities, the Whites, who are greatly outnumbered in their own homeland, and the Coloureds and the Indians, who have no homelands anywhere, there is no ultimate protection against domination by the majority. That is the point I want to bring home. There is no ultimate protection from domination by the majority.

Now, the Progressive-Reformists, as I have said, also have a kind of federation and they have taken a sort of curious geographical model in which, as I have said, the majorities will dominate the minorities everywhere. This of course is the very opposite of the essential purpose of federation. It can only serve to weaken the confidence of the very people for whose protection the federal system can provide. Sir, they have also done something else. They have fallen into the map trap. I thought it was only the Government which had fallen into the map trap but the Progressive-Reformists have also fallen into the map trap. Can you believe it, Sir, in the middle of an economic revolution which is transforming South Africa from an agricultural into an industrial society, an economic revolution which is changing the employment and residential patterns in great parts of the country, a revolution which is launching millions of Black, White and Brown on a second Great Trek, the Progressive Party has decided to draw a constitutional map, a static map in a changing world. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous, Sir? Unlike the Nationalist Government, of course, they have not yet published the picture of this static map in a dynamic society. I wish they would. In fact. I am going to challenge them to do it because I believe these two sets of maps are going to become Africana in due course and our children will be invited to go and look at them like they look at Bushman paintings today.

We in the United Party are deeply aware that political, economic and social progress is ardently desired by all our people, but that it can never be fully achieved while minorities have the fear that that very progress itself will subject them to domination by a Black majority. I believe these minorities have yet to realize that domination is not inevitable, that it is the precise purpose of federalism to achieve progress for all while ensuring protection of the special rights and the special interest of minorities. I believe that having experienced only the workings of a unitary system borrowed from an ancient homogeneous society with its winner-take-all political results, they have yet to learn the lessons of the great plural societies one sees in Europe, America, Australia and in Asia at the present time. I think I can bring it nearer home and say they have yet to discover, as Messrs. Mudge and Van Zyl did in South West Africa that, and I quote—

That, Sir, comes from the Sabra conference at Windhoek on 5 June of this year. I believe it is this determination to retain their identities, this crucial matter with all population groups, which is being lost sight of by certain sections in this country. To them it means that their languages, cultures, traditions and customs must be safeguarded and protected. It is precisely in this regard that you have one of the strong points of the federal framework and plan of the United Party. Under that Scheme each community State is clothed with the necessary power and the necessary authority to protect its own language, culture and traditions, in other words, to manage and control all those matters of peculiarly intimate interest to the community concerned. I believe the Government is aware of this tendency and I believe that it is unable to cope with it. It either over-compensates in some cases by saying that it is impossible for people to retain their identities without independence, or it is frustratingly repressive, as it is with the Indians and the Coloureds, in that it refuses them any say in the central Government which is the final arbiter of their destiny. It is only the United Party which avoids both those pitfalls by arranging for each community to safeguard its own identity itself while at the same time affording it a fair and full say in matters of common concern through a federal assembly. I do not believe that the Progressive/Reformist groups understand the importance to each population group of maintaining its own identity or the unwillingness of those population groups and communities to submerge that identity in that of others. Perhaps they think they can cope with it by drawing fancy boundaries in maps for the various little states which they hope to create. I believe that this must be one of the most unrealistic and impractical solutions ever destined to be voted down by the electorate in due course.

There is a third advantage of United Party policy. That is that it ensures civilized government and orderly change. I wonder if this can be said about the plans of this Government. Through the existing Parliament a United Party Government could mastermind change and ensure that it is applied in an orderly manner, but there will be room for flexibility. It will not be tied down by outworn formulae, it will be in a position to adapt to changing circumstances and it will be able to seek other solutions after full consultation and discussion with the groups concerned and represented in the federal assembly. This Government, however, is obsessed with the Theory that contact between Black and White is likely to cause friction, and because it believes that, it is trying to hasten independence in areas which are totally unprepared for it and which have no hope whatsoever of economic viability. Having lost control with independence, the Government will sit back and deny responsibility for any maladministration or any economic disaster or any other misfortune which may occur. These are not wild statements; they can be authenticated from good Nationalist sources. The one is an article in Rapport of 25 May this year. I quote—

*This is what Rapport says. There was a Mr. Frikkie Buitendag, the managing Director of the East Rand Bantu Administration Board. This is what he said—

There was professor Johan Heyns, head of the theology department of the Dutch Reformed Church at the University of Pretoria. He said—

He went on to say—

Then there was Dr. G. F. Ockert, Regional and Town Planner of Pretoria, who said—

†Mr. Speaker, I was always prepared to say that once independence came, the Government would lose control, and that it could no longer ensure orderly change, but it seems to me in the light of this sort of report, that even before independence has come the Government has lost control and that they are destroying any possibility whatever of bringing their plans to a successful conclusion, in this last session of Parliament the Government laid before the House final plans for the consolidation of the homelands. What did we find? On its own acknowledgement homelands like KwaZulu and Bophuthatswana will always, in so far as this Government is concerned, consist of half a dozen or more disconnected, disjointed pieces of land. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, that to any person with the slightest degree of intelligence and common sense, surely political independence for these areas on this geographical basis is utterly impossible and absolute nonsense. This seems to me to be the end of the road. These are the final consolidation plans. The hon. the Minister said so. This is the moment of truth for a Government whose policy for the past 30 years has been to tell the people of South Africa it will solve these problems by creating independent Black states which will give them a solution in the racial sphere. Now they come to the ultimate realization that they cannot provide sufficient land to have independent Black states which are viable in nature. Now they tell a story about the United States and other island states to justify disconnected tracts of land forming one independent state. Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous?

The Progressives with their new plan are no better off when it comes to orderly change because not only do they seem to place a premium on the vote of the unqualified, but once their new constitution operates, it is clear that there is no guarantee whatever, apart from some constitutional gimmicks, to ensure civilized government. In fact, there is less guarantee under this scheme than under the old one and in all conscience that one was foolish enough.

*It has become fashionable today to speak of detente. Everybody supports détente and we on this side of the House have repeatedly promised that we as the official Opposition will give the hon. the Prime Minister our full support in achieving the aims of détente. Having said this, there are nevertheless a few remarks I want to make in this connection. The first is that now that dividends are being reaped from the contact with the Black states in Africa and it is being realized that South Africa forms part of Africa and is one of the African states, one cannot help feeling disappointed about the time which was lost in the past in trying to achieve this contact and in trying to form closer ties with those countries. Hon. members know, after all, that this side of the House pleaded for this repeatedly.

There is a second matter to which I want to draw attention, and this is that before we achieve détente in Southern Africa, there will have to be very hard work and clever planning before we shall be able to create sound foundations for permanent peace. Ties will have to be forged on the basis of common interests; foundations will have to be laid on which we can build in the future. In this regard I believe that there is no time to be lost, not only as a result of the developments in Southern Africa itself, but because of the developments in the Indian Ocean and the dangers these may hold for peace in this part of the globe.

†Then there is a third matter to which I would like to draw attention. That is that détente abroad will never be achieved without detente at home. In this regard I believe that the United Party is the only party which is giving a clear and responsible lead not only to the country but to the Government as well. The first thing to be tackled to achieve détente at home is the planned and systematic removal of discrimination based on skin colour alone. In this regard Government policy over the years has created, tragically, a legacy of hatred and suspicion which will require almost super-human efforts to overcome in order to re-establish mutual trust and goodwill. We all know that the Government has stated that discrimination is unjustifiable and untenable, but having said this, what steps has the Government taken to do away with it? When you examine the scene, the steps taken by the Government have been so few and far between, and so paltry and so insignificant, that at the moment they can only be seen as empty phrases and hollow promises. In fact, the Government’s whole treatment of this issue is more confusing even than its sports policy and, heaven knows, that takes a bit of understanding. One thing is clear: No progress is going to be made as long as there are attempts to delay it with suggestions that differentiation and discrimination are the same thing. There is not going to be proper progress made until there is planned consultation with the Black and Brown people concerned who suffer under discrimination and their views on the subject are obtained. South West Africa has a purely advisory multi-racial council in which matters of this kind can be ironed out. Why cannot South Africa have something like that? I have suggested a multi-racial council of state with purely advisory powers. The government shies away from it and you get no answer. Why are they afraid to accept it? In South West Africa it has been reported that there have been lectures for civil servants and officials on how members of other race groups are to be treated and how discrimination is to be removed. Is it not time that we had something of the same sort in South Africa? I am afraid we are not going to get it, because no matter what this Government says about the removal of discrimination, it knows very well that its removal is contrary to the theories underlying Government policy. Some of us have been here long enough to remember a former Leader of the House, Mr. Ben Schoeman, telling us categorically that the Government discriminated because it was its policy to discriminate. Look at the treatment the Coloureds and Asiatics are getting. Is that not discrimination? Is it not discrimination according to Government policy? No, I do not believe the Government is going to achieve this aim.

We also have the Progressive/Reformist group on this issue. They have another problem. If their new scheme is going to work, they are going to have to have forced integration in the new states they are trying to draw on the maps. We had a foretaste of their thinking in the amendment they moved to the Liquor Bill. No matter how much they talk of freedom of choice today, the end result of their gimmicks will be forced integration in South Africa, something which could cause far more trouble even than discrimination is doing at the present time.

What about your party’s problems?

My friend asks what about my party’s problems. I am so glad he has raised this point. I believe that the United Party’s plan for the removal of discrimination, within the framework of a federal policy, would be painless, harmonious …

And useless.

… and effective. It would be based on personal choice, on the provision of both open and exclusive amenities, on proper consultation at all levels and the fullest control by each community state, consistent with good government, of the intimate affairs of that community. What could be simpler than that?

The second thing to be tackled to achieve détente at home is, I believe, a new deal for the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Blacks. Their future has been debated very often in this House.

You should join the Democratic Party.

In that regard, the most obvious characteristic of present Government policy is escapism. It is even trying to escape from the inadequacies of its own policy through a process of self-delusion. I suppose that everybody knows, except this Government, that the Government has no answer to the urgent problem of the future position of the Coloured and Indian groups. To think that the CRC, even with greater powers, and the Joint Cabinet Committee can provide a satisfactory avenue for the realization of the hopes and aspirations of the Coloured group is so politically unrealistic that it needs no comment. A fortiori the same thing applies to the Indian group. When one comes to the urban Blacks, Government policy is equally evasive and equally escapist. It admits that we cannot run our economy without these people. It admits that they cannot be removed from the urban areas and that they have now acquired a permanence by providing for them to buy or build their own homes on a 30-year leasehold basis. But it still regards them as being in these areas “in ’n los hoedanig-heid”, in a loose capacity. It still believes that their political aspirations can be met by regarding them as citizens of the homelands and involving them in the political structure of those homelands. I want to say that I believe that this is a basically dishonest policy. I believe that the policies of this Government with regard to Coloured’s, Asiatics and the urban Bantu are on a collision course and cannot do otherwise than lead to confrontation. The United Party’s alternative policy is also familiar to the House. It provides for basic needs like better housing facilities, home ownership, undisturbed family life, educational and technical training in the areas where they live, business and industrial facilities, local self-government, greater mobility of labour, standing liaison committees with their legislative assemblies and Parliament, and, through their legislative assemblies for each community, maximum control of their own affairs consistent with good government, and also a real say in the federal Assembly which will control matters of mutual concern. I believe it is only along these lines that a fair and just solution can be found.

What of the rural Blacks?

As I have said before, they will have a choice between urban legislative assemblies and their homelands.

I do not want to say much about Progressive Party policy in regard to these people, because that policy is still so nebulous. I think one cannot help being struck by the fact that the old Progressive Party policy has suddenly become not only negotiable but also dispensable. I always believed that that policy, a mixture of geographic federation and a qualified franchise, would be unworkable and unacceptable not only to the Whites, but also to the Blacks and the Brown people, but at least it was clear, it was based on principle and we knew what it was all about. I believe it must be a shock to those who believed in the integrity of the Progressive Party and its policy to find that it was nothing but a dispensable formula that could be cast aside for expedience and for the party political ambitions of its leaders. It is difficult to treat these new proposals as a serious attempt to provide a constitutional framework for a solution of our political problems because they seem at best to provide a confused compromise of conflicting concepts which are going to prove even more unworkable than their previous policy.

The third thing necessary for détente at home, as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has pointed out so eloquently today, is a realistic attempt to deal with soaring living costs and a dangerous rate of inflation which is not only playing havoc with the living standards of the entire population, but can have a disastrous effect, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, on race relations in South Africa. There can be no doubt that it is having an effect upon savings and investments and that, as a result, it is affecting our future growth. This, for a poor and rapidly expanding population, is a desperately serious situation which has to be coped with. I believe that the tragedy of South Africa is that it is one of few countries which could have combated inflation successfully without resorting to the recessionary methods applied overseas, as the hon. the Minister pointed out today. I agree with him in this regard. Had we energetically equipped and used the labour resources we have in abundance, I believe the equation of too much money chasing too few goods could have been much more effectively balanced until other factors intervened. However, the Government failed to grasp the nettle. Even more serious has been the almost complete inactivity of the Government to take any steps to combat inflation. There seems to have been a pathetic acceptance that inflation is inevitable. It has been suggested that inflation has been imported and that we do not know to what extent it has been imported. Sir, what have they done? We had the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council study the subject seriously, and produce their collective programme of action to reduce the rate of inflation in South. Africa. If you read that, you find that it has a series of excellent proposals. I believe a lot of them were lifted bodily from the contributions made by United Party speakers in debates in this House. It is what the United Party have been telling the Government to do for years. But what effective action has been taken up to now? What has been done to implement the suggestions in any meaningful way? Because nothing has been done, the inflation rate was 14,6% per annum in April. Why was regard not given to United Party proposals sooner? The hon. the Minister today spoke about productivity. How long have we on this side of the House been telling this hon. gentleman and this Government that the only way to fight inflation is to increase productivity? We have said that it can only be done by better training, better technical assistance and more job opportunities. We heard these words of wisdom falling like pearls from the mouth of the hon. the Minister this morning. Do you know, Sir, it is a wonderful thing to feel that you have made a convert. I wonder if I could not convert the Minister to something else. I wonder if I could not get him to realize that as long as he has this apartheid policy, this separate development policy, he is going to have to contend with inflationary forces that other countries do not have to contend with. He is going to have to contend with inflationary forces because he is going to have a dual economy. What is more, he is going to have to duplicate essential services which would not be necessary if he had one economy. He is going to find competition in the allocation of scarce resources for development. He is going to find inhibitions in the best use of our labour force. We have told him so often that unless he will educate that labour force and that unless he will train it, he is not going to get the best use from it. But, Sir, what has been happening? He has been subordinating economic theory to political expediency, which is always the most dangerous thing to do. Now he comes here and asks for a new approach. I think the most important thing we want to know about is what the approach of the Government is going to be. Is it going to do away with job reservation? Is it going to recognize Black membership of trade unions? Is it going to see that these people get proper technical training and proper education in the urban areas where they live? I believe that what we are up against is not an economic problem; we are up against the political obstinacy of this Government and its policies.

The fourth matter that has to be looked at in the interests of achieving detente at home is a proper stance on civil liberties. Nothing destroys good human relations more quickly than a disregard for the civil liberties of people. I believe that in this regard the United Party has held a nice balance between the freedom of the citizen on the one side and the safety of the State on the other. It has stood firmly through the years for the freedom of the Press and for the rule of law, and it has been against restrictions without trial from the time they were first introduced in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950. I sat on that Select Committee, so I know what the attitudes were. We have said quite clearly that restriction without trial can only be tolerated in times of war or national emergency, and then should be subject to review by a judicial tribunal. I think it is common cause and it is known that we on this side of the House think the Government is far too authoritarian in its approach and far too cynical about civil rights. I cannot go along either with the attitude of the Progressives, who seem to have a completely permissive attitude towards the safety of the State and who act as though almost every Select Committee of this House and every commission not presided over by a judge is guilty of invading the rule of law. At the same time, Sir, some of them talk about allowing the Communist Party to operate freely in South Africa. They seldom have a word of criticism for the contempt of the rule of law in most communist States and in many of the emergent States in Africa. No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot go along with that frame of mind.

I believe the primary objectives of détente abroad are of course peaceful co-operation between the States of Southern Africa and a successful settlement of the South West African and Rhodesian problems. In relation to Southern Africa, I want to say two things at this stage. Firstly, if we want détente, then all the nations in Southern Africa have got to learn to work together. Secondly, whether we like it or not, the Organization of African Unity has become important not only in Africa, but in Southern Africa as well. It has become a reality on the scene. We are going to have to live with it and we are going to have to come to terms with it.

As to South West Africa, there seems now to be broad agreement between the Government and the United Nations that the peaceful solution of this dispute lies along the road of self-determination and independence. The gap, or gulf, of disagreement seems to have been lessened. But there are still great difficulties concerning method and interpretation. I believe that any solution with any hope of success must include the preservation both of the territorial integrity of the future independent State and the protection of the rights of minority groups. I believe that only a federal solution, only a solution on federal lines, can achieve these aims and convert South West Africa from a diplomatic liability to a diplomatic asset for South Africa. Once again, Sir, the Government has failed to grasp the nettle. It still speaks of all options being open and it leaves the initiative to the Executive Committee of South West Africa. Sir, that is not good enough. That is not going to satisfy even our friends at the United Nations Organization. It seems to me that since the end result seems to be virtually agreed already between the Government and the United Nations, surely South Africa must accept some real responsibility for the way in which that result is to be achieved. I have suggested the sending of someone of ambassadorial status to get a conference between the various groups off the ground. I have made other suggestions. If we can negotiate this hump, then I have very little fear for the future, for South West Africa has so many essential links with South Africa that I have no doubt it is going to find a safe harbour within the confines of the broad and rich economic complex of Southern Africa.

Of even more intimate concern, though less directly our responsibility, is the future of Rhodesia. South African sentiments and sympathies run strongly in this regard because so many of these people are our own kith and kin. I believe therefore that it is a matter of the most anxious concern to South Africa how best we can serve their true interests by contributing to a peaceful and lasting settlement. It is a settlement that is going to have to be achieved by Rhodesians for Rhodesians. It still seems to be mutually agreed not only by White people of South Africa but also by responsible Black people, supported by influential members of the OAU, that a peaceful settlement, even at the price of considerable concessions on both sides, is infinitely preferable to the devastation and the lasting hostilities that could be caused by a racial war. I believe, Sir, that we have got to stand ready to contribute, by whatever good offices and guarantees we can provide, to ensure that the solution will be peaceful and will be durable. We have also got to learn to remember that time in this regard is not unlimited.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this House goes into recess in two days’ time. It is unlikely to be called together again for six or seven months. During that time much can happen. In fact, when one reviews the speed of change both in the outside world and on the continent of Africa, it would be surprising indeed if many important new issues did not arise and many old issues were not pushed into the background. As a result, Sir, there are many South Africans of all races and all parties who are looking into the future with some unease and with a certain amount of trepidation. We in the United Party have become conscious of this move amongst the people. It results sometimes in their clutching at straws, in seeking security in transient, stunt solutions which have no relation with reality. It causes them sometimes to opt for strange candidates and policies, often to their later regret. It has even led some people, unmindful of the basic historical lessons of South African politics to advocate re-alignments on the strangest of lines. I saw one saying that there should be a realignment in South Africa between conservative and liberal thinking. Sir, I thought that 40 years ago J. H. Hofmeyr had knocked that on the head when he pointed out the dangers of such an alignment in South Africa. To all these people I want to say today that there is no party better prepared nor more able to cope with drastic change and adaptation than the United Party. We cleared the decks; we put our house in order. We have got rid of certain discordant elements that were impeding our growth and hindering our day-to-day business. Sir, the very wideness of the spectrum of public opinion from which we draw our support not only makes for flexibility but it makes adaptation easier. You know, Sir, as a party we have often been right when the Government and everybody else have been wrong. We were right about the leads we gave the people about immigration, about Black South Africans at U.N. with our diplomatic mission, about air pollution, about environmental control, about Black diplomats, about the Nico Malan Theatre, about the narrowing of the wage gap and a host of other matters. I do not think that South Africa would have been in this position today if we had been listened to earlier. Sir, our policies on the really important issues in South Africa today are clear and unequivocal. I just want to recall a few for you. Within the general framework of the maintenance of law and order, we believe without qualification in the rule of law. We believe in the freedom of the Press, in the right of the individual to decide for himself with whom he wishes to associate. We believe in recognition and protection of the identity of our various community groups within a common South Africanism. We reject racial discrimination not only because it is ethically wrong but because we cannot build a secure future for all South Africans on that basis. Sir, we believe in our federal policy which provides for participation by all population groups in our political processes, while safeguarding the fundamental values of Western civilization and the right of minority groups. Ours is the only party with a policy that guarantees security, peace, prosperity and justice to all our people.

You sound like a preacher of some sect.

My hon. friend says that I am a “preacher”. Well, a “preacher” always looks to the future. Let us see what is going to happen to the future of that hon. gentleman. Sir, what is our future role? What distinctive functions have we to perform? I think firstly we have to combat the polarization between White and White and White and Black which is the essence of the policies of both the Progressives and the Nationalist Party. Without it they would lose their right to existence. The Nationalist Party still relies on Afrikaner blood-ties and sentiments as the main ingredient of its support among the Whites and it still believes that contact between Black and White will cause friction in South Africa. That is why it wants polarization. The Progressive Party is set on making common cause with the Blacks and a few Whites against the rest of the White community in South Africa. [Interjections.] Secondly, we of the United Party stand firmly as the only party in which English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans can co-operate on the basis of complete equality and acceptance with full recognition of their linguistic and cultural heritages, bound by a common South African loyalty. Thirdly, we must fulfil our role as the only party which in the field of race relations can effect a symbiosis of the divergent interests of the various groups and bind them all together as South Africans.

Sir, the life of this Government is not limitless. Even the Chief Whip knows the time is coming when it will fall because it is steadily being overwhelmed by the accumulating pressure of events both at home and abroad. When that happens, the people of South Africa are going to seek an alternative Government with a different philosophy, modern policies and new programmes of action. Sir, I believe that is the role of the United Party. I will go so far as to say that if there were not a United Party in existence today, it would be necessary to invent it in the interest of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition devoted much of his speech to the overall political situation in our country, with special reference to the mutual relations between the Opposition groups. I think that it is as well that we should give due attention to this matter in this final major debate of this session. Quite rightly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to major developments which may be expected to occur in the coming recess. Everything points to the fact that important events and developments will undoubtedly take place during this recess, beyond our borders, perhaps, but within our borders, too, exceptionally significant events in the political sphere are undoubtedly going to take place during the recess.

Seen from our point of view, from the point of view of the governing party, we have now reached the end of a session which has been very fruitful for us. The Government is, in fact, very happy about the fruitful session we have had. We have reached the end of six months in which our highly respected Prime Minister has done and achieved so much in the interests of sound race relations in our country and beyond our borders that at the end of this session it is truly with much gratification that we as the ruling party can look back on the entire session. It is true that our country and its people are engaged in a bitter struggle against inflation, something to which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs also referred. But which developing or developed country in the world is not engaged in just such a struggle as we are engaged in in South Africa? As we heard this morning from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, we are not simply accepting this situation with a shrug of the shoulders. On the contrary. You have heard how the State and the private sector are joining forces in an energetic effort to help tame this wild horse, inflation. The fact is that even though inflation is bothering all of us today, and even though this is an uneasy situation for all of us, our people in South Africa are in fact, prospering. In material terms, we are doing exceptionally well. In fact, if that were not so, this country would not be enjoying the high degree of industrial peace we are enjoying today. If it had not been that our people, White and Black, were prospering as they are in fact prospering, then we should not have had the high degree of industrial peace we have today. As far as future employment opportunities for White and Black—in fact, for the entire population—are concerned, I foresee that in view of the tackling of gigantic projects such as the Sishen-Saldanha project, the Sasol 2 project, the Post Office’s new communication system and the uranium enrichment project, we shall not only have a shortage of White labour in the coming decade, but a shortage of Brown and Black labour as well. As a result, there is no possibility, practically speaking, that there will be unemployment among Whites or Blacks for the next decade. On the contrary. Our common task will be to train our available labour, of whatever colour, as well as possible, to enable them to deal with the enormous tasks which will have to be performed in the next decade or so. A task of training and employment of such gigantic proportions as the one which is to hand, can only take place without shocks and without labour unrest if it takes place within the framework of the National Party’s labour policy. Because the Government is causing South Africa to follow along the sound course of orderly employment of all population groups, the position today is that although we have inflation in our country, we do in fact have development of the country, we do in fact have full employment and we are experiencing the labour peace to which I have referred.

However, there are other things, too, for which we are intensely grateful at the end of this session. To a very large extent we are also experiencing racial peace in the country today, and what a unique achievement that is! When one calls to mind other countries which also have different race groups, I think it is a unique achievement for South Africa, with its particular race structure, that we are able to enjoy such a high degree of mutual and sound race relations. There is another aspect of our relations situation, too, which we are all really very happy and grateful about. This is the relaxed spirit prevailing today in the relationship between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people. Take, for example, this same session, which is drawing to an end. Of the 22 years in which I have had the privilege of sitting in this House of Assembly, this session has undoubtedly been one of the most relaxed, in this regard, which I have seen, and this corresponds with what we find outside the House. I want to say without hesitation that there is a spirit of understanding and goodwill towards the Afrikaner among the English-speaking people in our country today, and the fine article by the hon. member for Mooi River which appeared in Die Burger the other day, and which I read with great attention, testifies to this. When one reads such an article which represents English opinion, one feels that there is really a relaxed situation in South Africa.

He is just in the fold a little.

Yes, but we shall be coming back to the fold shortly. This is encouraging as far as the future relations between the two language groups are concerned. In addition, there is the fairly general feeling of appreciation among the English-speaking people in South Africa for the actions, the role and the work of our hon. Prime Minister. Wherever one goes in this country, one finds a fairly general feeling of appreciation for the work done by our hon. Prime Minister among English-speaking people, irrespective of the political party to which they belong. In my opinion, this phenomenon is chiefly ascribable to what many English-speaking people have already told us, viz. that in the times South Africa is experiencing at present, and in view of the role it has to play in South Africa, the National Party, under the leadership of Adv. John Vorster, fills English-speaking people in South Africa, too, with a feeling of safety and security. The successful actions of our hon. Prime Minister and the Government have, however, given rise to another by-product in our politics, viz. they have almost administered the coup de grace to what remains of the United Party. I fear that when I consider developments, I am forced to summarize the situation as follows: However necessary a strong opposition party may be in a country with a parliamentary system, the United Party, alas, has had its day in this country because the members of that party themselves no longer have a purpose in which their party believes deeply enough to be prepared to fight for that purpose. That is why we have had so many coalition rumours recently. The hon. the Prime Minister has already described these rumours as “rubbish” and that is precisely what they are. The National Party has more than a two-thirds majority and never loses by-elections. We are even going to contest a seat such as Gezina in the coming by-election, whereas the United Party is not even going to have a candidate there. We have the same position as we had during the last by-elections whereas the United Party is not even going to have a candidate there. We have the same situation we came across during the last by-elections. That, then, is the situation in which we find ourselves today. Just imagine the National Party wanting to form a coalition with a party which no longer even contests by-elections! Surely that would be a meaningless futility. It is hardly imaginable that a party like the National Party would form a coalition with a party which no longer has a purpose and a function in the country. Why and for what reason would it do that? What reason has a strong party, under the leadership of a Prime Minister such as the one with which we are blessed, to form a coalition with a diminishing section of a party? The fact is that for the umpteenth time, we have received a renewed mandate from our voters and we are carrying out that mandate in all earnest, notwithstanding the obstacles we encounter along the way. Obstacles do not deter us. On the contrary. We are continuing to carry out the mandate properly and systematically. Now, one would be justified in asking why a party with a mandate which it is implementing in all earnest, should form a coalition with any party or section of a party. We know where this story comes from. We, who sit on this side of the House, and who have been observing the turmoil in the United Party throughout the session, we who have seen how, time and again, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has found it necessary to avert further splits, we who are aware of the Basson/Olivier disturbance in those ranks, we are fully aware of all these things. I want to say in a nice way to all those hon. members in the United Party who have become weary of the ferment in their party, and who feel that they want to leave the sinking ship, that the National Party will conclude no coalition with any other party or section of a party.

What did you do with Havenga?

Our principles are known to those who are interested. Consequently there is only one way for those who want to enter the National Party, and that is to do what my hon. friend, Mr. Marais Steyn, did, namely to join the National Party without making demands or setting conditions. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended for lunch, I was referring to coalition rumours which were doing the rounds in the country and I stated the attitude and the stand point of the National Party in this regard. I said that unconditional acceptance of the entire policy of the National Party was the only practical and honourable way open to anyone who wanted to join the National Party. I think there could be a reaction to this such as that which we see in the article written by the hon. member for Mooi River. The reaction could perhaps be that we should form into a laager with this standpoint I am stating here. However, I want to put it clearly to the hon. member for Mooi River, and to everyone opposite who is interested, that the National Party is very jealous of its solidarity. We are very jealous of our solid party unity. This party unity is built on the solid basis of the party’s principles and we certainly do not intend meddling with this essential unity in any way by compromising or by whatever means. In fact, in view of the laager accusation, it is not only for the Afrikaner that our unity affords us protection and is a means of preservation, as history will show. I have no doubt that in the course of the next 10 or 20 years, history will show that this attitude adopted by the National Party has in fact guaranteed the protection and security of all our English-speaking people, too, in this country. History will pass the verdict on that.

Having said all this, I want to add that I feel truly sorry for the United Party this afternoon. [Interjections.] One of the reasons for this is the fact that they no longer have any Press mouthpiece today. We who sit on this side and who have known what a Press mouthpiece means from the days when Die Burger first became our mouthpiece here in the Cape in 1914, and what its value is to a party, fully realize that in the political structure in our country—this may apply to other countries, too, but I am confining myself to our own country—it is virtually impossible for a party to come into its own without adequate Press support. Today, the National Party is in the fortunate position of being supported by a number of Afrikaans-language newspapers …

But you are all directors of those newspapers.

… which helped us to attain our present position. [Interjections.] These Afrikaans-language newspapers helped us to attain our present position. Even though their journalistic offerings differ from those of the past from time to time—there have been changes—basically they remain co-fighters in the cause of nationalism in the country.

In other words, you want to withhold the facts from the people.

In reply to the hon. member for Durban Point, who made that remark laughingly—I know that he does not believe it himself—I want to say that if their people were as introspective as are our Afrikaans newspapers, the political activities and actions on that side would be far more successful.

May I put a question?

The hon. member knows how limited our time is. Unfortunately I have only a few minutes left.

I now want to deal with the people on the other side. What really disturbs me is that in view of the present developments in our political situation, there is something which is going to occur during this recess, and that is that we know that during the recess, political developments are going to take place on that side and it is disturbing to consider who will now have to fill the political vacuum which will be caused by the inevitable disappearance —and I say this in all seriousness—of the United Party.

Oh, shame!

The hon. member can say “Oh, shame!” if he wants to. We shall see each other again in this House next year. If there is one thing which many hon. members opposite know in their heart of hearts, it is that they could not risk embarking on a general election tomorrow, because if they were to do so, many hon. members of the United Party would not return to this House. Evidently —I am now referring to the political vacuum, which is a disturbing phenomenon —that “bontebokparty” over there, the Jameson-Progressive Party—perhaps they will get themselves another name at their merger congress, but until such time as that happens, that is surely their name— is now going to fill the political vacuum. As a political realist who grew up with politics, I want to express my conviction today that despite the full support of the English Press which that major party enjoys and will continue to enjoy, and despite the fact that they can win seats from the United Party, they will remain a small group in this House. For the next year or two I am prepared to look everyone in this House squarely in the eyes in regard to what I have just said. Something else which is, to me, an additional consideration which will result in their remaining a small group, is the fact that those who at present rely on the support of the mass of English-speaking people and hope to receive assistance from that quarter, will find, if they have not found it out already, that they are not on the wavelength of the mass of English-speaking people in South Africa. If they want to be very realistic, they must realize that the Van Zyl Slabberts who will vote for them are far and few between in South Africa. There may be a Van Zyl Slabbert in their ranks, but the Van Zyl Slabberts who will vote for them, are very far and few between in South Africa, and there is not the slightest possibility that there will be enough of them for them to conquer the “deep platteland”, and not only the “deep platteland”. Do they see themselves winning seats such as Parow, Alberton or Koedoespoort? Do they see themselves winning such seats? As far as the English-speaking people, from whom they will seek the major part of their support, are concerned, they will find that the greater part of the English-speaking people in South Africa are basically conservative and want to retain their own way of life. In this regard, the investigation in depth carried out recently by the University of Cape Town is very interesting. A report concerning this investigation appeared in the newspaper entitled “Radical UCT Image False”. I want to quote just one interesting fact from the report, a fact which became evident from these two investigations in depth—

This refers to the students of the University of Cape Town. With reference to this, and also on the basis of one’s own experience, one can say that the fact that this is stated of the University of Cape Town, here in the liberal South, merely supports the standpoint and the observation one finds throughout South Africa in conversations with English-speaking businessmen and others, namely that the greater part of the English-speaking people in South Africa are so attached to their tradition and their way of life that they have no intention of exchanging it for a Black “Eglin pie”. This is, in fact, what that party is going to find in the future. In view of these sociological facts about the population, one trusts that for the sake of South Africa, this new combination which must now be given a name will find after the next general election that it is still an insignificant group in this Parliament. One only hopes that they do not then, through frustration, try to employ extra-parliamentary means to realize their ideal of assuming power. In fact, now that it has been a Republic for so long, and since its republicanism is a recognized fact, South. Africa needs an opposition in this parliamentary system which is, in the first instance, rooted in republicanism, which has a deep respect for the South African way of life and does not try to undermine it at every turn. Such, acceptance could make of an Opposition in this country and in this Parliament such a dynamic force that it could, in fact, play its full role in the times we are living in today. We can only hope that out of the turmoil that is taking place in the United Party at present, something of which we are going to see a great deal over the next few months, an Opposition of this kind will crystallize out.

I have now said enough about the Opposition and their dilemma. We on this side are unacquainted with dilemmas of this nature. Consequently we have nothing to discuss with each other. What is even more important is the fact that we on this side need not seek a task for ourselves. This party is not seeking a task for itself today. It has a task. We as Nationalists have a great task, and that is to give our full support to our Government and our Prime Minister so that they can preserve the freedom we have won and our White identity in this country for all time. This is the task of this Government and of this party. The National Party brought about the Republic and made it a gigantic success. We have made separate development an irreversible fact and we are now engaged in extending our national relationships at home and abroad so that White and Black may live together in peace and with respect for each other in this country and in this southern part of the continent. Any party, any government, any Prime Minister who does this for his country and its people, whatever their political persuasion, certainly does not deserve the attacks that have been made on him. On the contrary. In my opinion, a Government which does this for its country and its people deserves the sincere appreciation of all sincere South Africans because the course and the actions of this Government not only afford political protection for those who, so to speak, are in this laager. The actions of this Government and the course it takes in this country afford a secure future for Nationalists and United Party supporters in this country, a secure future for all the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to react to that part of the hon. the Minister’s speech which was aimed at this side of the House. I want to say right away that we find it increasingly distressing to have that kind of contribution. The hon. Minister did not once refer to what my hon. leader put before this House, not even obliquely. Here he was given a complete exposition of the South, African political situation. He was told where we stood, where those on our left stood and where the Government stood. But he did not even refer to that obliquely. He trotted out a well prepared speech, which he obviously worked on over the weekend, but he never once spoke to us. He was talking past us. We find this happening more and more frequently. This is not a debating society so that one can carry on like that, coming forward with “stryddag” speeches. After all, this is supposed to be a debate in which we can exchange views and meet one another’s arguments. The hon. the Minister in contrast became terribly distressed about coalition talk. His own leader said that he does not want coalition and my leader said he does not want coalition; so what is he getting so worried about it? Is this perhaps an indication of certain latent stresses in that party? He trotted out a long eulogy of the Prime Minister and the wonderful things the Prime Minister was doing. We have complimented the Prime Minister on what he has done. I just want to say, however, that the degree of eulogy which is now swung his way, has broken many a bigger man. I also want to say this to him: Why does he not express one word of gratitude to the Opposition? Have we not made it easier for the Prime Minister to do what he is doing at the moment? Have we not done the front running in all these things? Sir, you will remember the philosophy of hon. members on that side of the House. We were always told that it would be the thin end of the wedge; that if you give these people the small finger they will want to take the whole hand. Are we embarrassing the Prime Minister now that he is taking the steps that ought to be taken in South. Africa’s interests? Sir, can you imagine what the position would be if the roles were reversed; if we had to do what this Government is doing at the present time? There would not be a single hon. member on that side now; they would all be addressing protest meetings in the rest of South Africa. I say to hon. members opposite that when they talk about this, they must also give the Opposition some credit.

The distressing situation is that we are not talking to or at one another any more; we are beginning to talk past one another, and I saw no better manifestation of this than the speech of the hon. the Minister of Labour here this afternoon. Sir, that is why we must take stock of this situation; that is why it is increasingly felt outside of this House that we have become irrelevant.

The Opposition has.

We are not dealing with issues that are of consequence. When it comes to matters that really matter, we are completely ineffectual. Take an issue such as inflation. This has been debated for 10 years. When I came here the hon. the Minister of Finance at the time was terribly distressed because the rate of inflation was 4%. We spoke volumes and volumes of words about it. Sir the hon. the Minister who is charged with controlling inflation spoke here this morning for an hour and a half and he never touched on this subject as such. He told us that they were going to appoint another Cabinet Committee, a committee which consists practically of the whole Cabinet. The only difference is that he will be the convener of it and not the Prime Minister. Sir, people outside do not believe that we are dealing with issues that matter. They do not believe that the Government is capable of dealing with them. I think the time has arrived when we should take serious stock of the role of Parliament and what we are doing, because increasingly people outside are beginning to see us as irrelevant.

Sir, you have not got government by Parliament any more, you have government through the Cabinet. It is true that the Government churns out new laws. Every session one law after another is passed; every session we pass up to 100 laws. Have you ever analysed them, Sir? Have you ever tried to determine whether any of these new laws extend new freedoms or new privileges to our people? They do exactly the opposite. The Government always seems to feel that some additional control is necessary, that some further restrictions must be imposed, so session after session they churn out more and more new laws and they re-hash all the old sterile arguments, as the hon. the Minister of Labour has just done. We are not getting any nearer to a fruitful and meaningful discussion of matters which really affect the people of South Africa. Sir, we have tried to do it. I tried previously to say that we should at least agree that there are certain issues on which there is agreement and then work within that field. This was misconstrued by certain sections of the Press, It was said that if you seek consensus, it is a “toenadering” approach. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. At the beginning of this session, I tried to do it differently. I suggested that we should project ourselves 10 years ahead, the rationale being that once you have a built-in impetus, certain developments are entirely predictable; that we could determine what is going to happen in South Africa in 10 years’ time, then we might as well take these steps now. There was no reaction from that side of the House, because hon. members over there usually take their cue from the Cabinet and the Cabinet had not had time to think that far ahead.

Sir, let us do another experiment today. Let us try to come back to the issues that really matter. Although this might be seen as something entirely academic by hon. members opposite, it will not detract from the usefulness of the exercise. Let us for a moment assume that our roles are reversed. Let us assume that we on this side have the power to do things in South Africa. Let me indicate to hon. members opposite some of the basic steps that we would take immediately. I am not dealing now with long-term objectives. Let us deal with just some of the steps that we believe should be taken now and that we would take. Although we set the tone in many of these things, now apparently through some political freak we on this side are all verkramp and all the verligtes sit on that side. We are told that unless you accept independent Bantustans as a solution to the race problem in South Africa, then you are verkramp. Sir, I can only gaze in admiration at the verligtheid which emanates from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and the hon. member for Carletonville. Now if we are so verkramp and those who sit opposite are so verlig, let them then take part in this little experiment. Let them indicate to us subsequently which of these steps they would be prepared to introduce immediately. This is now a test. We are not talking about distant objectives; we are talking about the issues facing us now. Now obviously I cannot cover the whole field of rational endeavour. I could at best only give a brief sample, and I will attempt to do so under the broad headings of social, economic and political issues.

But before I do so, let me indicate that there is a basic difference in philosophy between that side and this side as far as method and style of government are concerned. Sir, we would not be obsessed by laws. That side, if any problem arises, passes a new law. They think they can solve any problem by passing a law. Sir, we believe basically that in the long term the best Government is the one which governs least. Many of these laws which exist at the moment can be done away with. We certainly would not pass all the laws that this Government has passed. If that is your philosophy then you can begin to break down this tremendous bureau-cratie structure which exists at the present time, and you can then run South Africa and operate it with a smaller Civil Service but a more efficient one and a better-paid one.

There is a second basic distinction. We believe there must be greater decentralization of decision-making. A country is like a business organization. When it is young, a great degree of centralization is necessary to get it off the ground, but once it has developed—and this happens in business every day—it then becomes cumbersome if you try to run it in a centralized way. Then the law of diminishing returns begins to set in. This is what has happened in South Africa. A far greater degree of decentralization of decision-making is absolutely essential. But our credo would go further and it would extend also to other issues. We would continually try to see where there were common interests, rather than to define and emphasize differences. We would continue to try to build bridges between societies and communities, rather than to erect dividing walls. We would extend to people personal choice rather than coercion and compulsion. Finally, cognizant of South Africa’s motto, we realize that there is diversity in this country, but that out of this diversity one must seek to create unity and a totality which would be bigger and stronger than the sum of its parts.

To begin with, let me deal just briefly with the social issues in this country, and I am starting with easy ones where there should be agreement. The more contentious ones can come later. South Africa is at that stage of its economic development where we can now either become a mass consumption society or concentrate on prestige projects or introduce adequate welfare services. We on this side of the House, conscious of the fact—and the Government tells us that every day—that we have here in South Africa the most prosperous people in the world and that we are far better off than anybody else—yet realize that when we say that, we must admit also that our social services are some of the worst that you can encounter. We would be sensitive, for example, to the plight of the pensioner. For years we have pleaded that we should have a national contributory pension scheme in this country. This was rejected year in and year out by that side of the House. Now that we have virtually reached a crisis situation a commission of inquiry has been appointed. Sir, we will not require a commission of inquiry; we will not appoint it; we will introduce a national contributory pension scheme. What is more, we will do away with the means test. What is even more important, we will link it by a system of indexing to the cost of living so that pensioners can to some extent be compensated for the erosion in the buying value of their money. We would also introduce a State-aided medical scheme in South Africa, and all those who wish to will be able to make use of it. Whatever I say here now applies not only to White people but as far as possible also to the non-Whites.

Let us come now to a few more contentious issues. I am thinking here of normal services, amenities and social services that are available to people. As I have indicated, our views are quite clear we are opposed to compulsory or forced separation and we are also opposed to compulsory or enforced integration. We believe that if you extend the choice to your people they will in general find their own level. What will happen as far as social amenities such as hotels, restaurants, etc., are concerned? We have indicated quite clearly and it was discussed recently in this House that we believe the entrepreneur, the risk-taker, must have the choice as to whether the services he provides are going to be exclusive and reserved for one particular racial group or whether they will be open. If we did this, we would not have half of the problems we have had all along. The same applies to sport. I am not aware of any nation in the world in the free community of nations where a Government will try and dictate to its people who may play the game and who may not. That must be left to the sports administrators.

What about Australia?

There they do not dictate that kind of thing as the hon. gentleman knows. However, as long as the Government does not leave this to the sports administrators, this albatross of the Loskop Dam will continually hang around their necks.

They are flooding it now.

Let us have a look also at the field of discrimination. Here we have at least made some progress. There was a time when that side of the House told us there was no such thing as discrimination in South Africa. Indeed, we were told by most senior members on that side that if you and I were to wake up tomorrow to find that our skins were black and not white we would find that it made no difference whatsoever; we would merely find ourselves in a different millieu. Fortunately we are now no longer subjected to that kind of sanctimonious drivel. At least it is recognized now that there is discrimination and that something ought to be done to do away with it. The discrimination in South Africa is of two kinds: It is based on custom or it is statutory. Obviously, the statutory type is far easier to deal with and we will deal with it because, as my hon. leader has indicated, we shall have a council of State consisting of senior representatives of all communities as well as a federal assembly on which, all communities in South Africa will be represented. It is precisely matters such as the elimination of unnecessary discrimination that such a body would deal with.

That is another big bluff.

Sir, that hon. Deputy Minister is a bluff; he is not even big. Let us refer briefly to the economic situation.

[Inaudible.]

Just listen for a while. In the economic situation we again see a basic difference in philosophy. That side of the House accepted many years ago the draft Republican Constitution of 1942 in which it was postulated that ultimately all economic power must be in the hands of the State. That is why today we have this kind of State socialism under the guidance of this Government; we have all the disadvantages of socialism and none of the advantages. That is why the State is usurping for itself an ever growing slice of the economic cake. Why could the Iscors and Sasols not be run by private enterprise? Why must the taxpayer pay for them? Why must the taxpayer fork out R1 000 million for a new Iscor and R1 000 million for a new Sasol, because that is what it will ultimately cost? The other night the hon. the Minister of Mines became quite lyrical about the role of the mining industry in this country. He told us the mines were wonderfully run. In fact, he said they were the best in the world and that nobody could achieve this except private enterprise. Give me, then, one reason why Anglo-American, Federale Volksbeleggings or General Mining cannot run our Sasols, Iscors and all the rest of it. The money must come from the businessmen and not from the taxpayers.

Let us look at the question of inflation which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs spoke about this morning but did not in fact deal with. He can never handle inflation because there are certain basic decisions which he must take and which he cannot take because, if he did so, the remnants of the Government’s separate freedoms philosophy would be wiped away. They are dead scared of the Herstigtes. That is why half of the hon. members opposite are canvassing in Middleburg at the moment. To get labour productivity, one must secure mobility of labour. Labour must be able to move up vertically in the job structure, but it cannot happen here because the Government insists on job reservation. One can get increased productivity if labour can move laterally from the less productive to the more productive sections of the economy. One cannot do it here because the hon. the Minister of Planning stops it with his Physical Planning Act. The Government cannot take the steps that are necessary to make our labour more productive because in every case it will clash with their basic philosophy. To obtain greater productivity one has to do away with all these ideological measures which do not solve any of our problems but increase inflation. If I may single out one example— I cannot thing of a greater economic monstrosity—it is the decentralized industrial areas, because it does not do (a) and it does not do (b). [Interjections.] If it costs R6 000 to R8 000 for every additional job opportunity which is created in the decentralized areas as opposed to R2 000 in the established industrial areas, then it is inflationary. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must now afford the hon. member a chance of completing his speech.

Furthermore, we would encourage domestic savings and the steps that we would take would include the following: We would tax working wives and husbands separately; we would reduce the rate of marginal tax. In the third instance we would levy sales taxes on luxury and durable goods only. In the fourth instance we would limit the excessive profits that the Government is making, for example, on the oil pipeline and we would extend some of these benefits to the people who ought to receive them. As far as the production of goods in this country is concerned, we would allow imports freely where our domestic demand is such that we cannot produce competitively. I want to mention as an example a television set. Why must the South African pay R1 000 for a television set when the Americans pay R200 per set? All that the Government is doing is to enrich a certain small number of businessmen to the disadvantage of all the people in South Africa.

My time is limited but I want to refer very briefly to the political field as well. Here again, our basic philosophy is entirely different. We would seek to develop a common loyalty in South Africa rather than sectionalism. We would try to create a greater South Africa rather than a fragmented one. We would extend to all communities the right to share in political decision-making but we also feel that the aspirations and identities of minority groups should be protected. What does this mean in a few words? It means that as far as the homeland areas are concerned, we would regard them as economic and political growth points for certain ethnic groups and we would develop them within that framework. As far as their future is concerned, it will be a matter for discussion later on, but my guess is that the homeland leaders would prefer to be outonomous units in a strong South Africa federation rather than to be independent, to be kicked out, to be defenceless, to be impoverished and, in that sense, to be unstable.

We would regard as most important in this whole context the position of the non-homeland Black man whether he lives in a city or whether he lives in a rural area. Particularly as far as those who live in the cities are concerned, we have indicated what we would do. My hon. leader did so again today. We accept them as a permanent element in South Africa. There is not a single member on the other side of the House who is prepared to admit to the permanence of these people in our urban areas. Once one has accepted their permanence then one will extend to them freehold title and not mess about with leasehold title as the Government is doing now. One would extend to them all the other facilities which my hon. leader has referred to, namely such as commercial and industrial enterprises, advanced technical education in the areas in which they live and the removal of barriers to further advancement. These are the steps we would take. The point is furthermore that if one can have a council for the Coloured people and a council for the Indian people to deal with their education and all these other matters, for what earthly reason can one deny the formation of a similar agency for the non-homeland Black man? That is what we would do. Once one has these councils working for and dealing with each community in South Africa, then whatever one might call one’s policy and however one might view the position ultimately one will have to create an agency where the representatives of all these communities will have to meet to deal with the issues which affect the whole of South Africa. That is in a nutshell what we have said would be our federal assembly. Hon. members might dislike that, but I certainly have not heard anything from the other side that looks like a better solution. I do not want to go into details as far as the future of this Parliament is concerned. This same Parliament is the agency that must bring all this about and regulate it until such time as the whole system works, as we believe it will. Then this Parliament, in conjunction with the electorate, will decide about its own future.

In the limited time I have had, I have indicated two to three dozen concrete steps we would take immediately. Now I would like to know from the verligtes on that side of the House, the right wing of the National Party, particularly the hon. member for Waterberg—not the hon. the Deputy Minister who always follows me in debate —which of these recommendations which we regard as elementary, the Government will be prepared to introduce immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I can follow the speech of the hon. member for Hill-brow …

Was it a speech, or what was it?

… but that is as far as I shall ever be able to follow the hon. member. I want to try to reply to a few of the fragmented arguments of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

However, before I come to that, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister of Labour said, and emphasize that there should be no misunderstanding about the attitude of the National Party in connection with a so-called coalition. Recently, there has been talk, and this has arisen from previous utterances which were made on both sides of this House, talk about a possible coalition. In this connection, names have been mentioned. It is necessary, once again, to state clearly to both those sides of the House, the official Opposition, as well as to people outside Parliament, including those in the National Party who feel strongly about the matter, that the standpoint of the National Party will remain unyieldingly as it was, viz. that we went to the voters, from whom we received an unambiguous mandate to the effect that any co-operation which the Government can offer and will offer, will take place only on the basis of the policy of the National Party, as laid down by its congresses and reconfirmed year after year.

Perhaps there are people who will take it amiss of me if I do this afternoon what the hon. member for Hillbrow said had not yet been done in this House. To be specific, I want to express a word of thanks to the Opposition this afternoon, not to the official Opposition as a whole, but to some members on that side of this House. I take it upon myself to express a word of thanks, not only to those who sit in this House, but also to the members of the United Party who do not sit in this House, but whose voice, so I believe, is that of the silent majority of the conservative people in that party, especially since the splinter group, the Reformists, have peeled off. I was delighted to see—and I express my thanks for this—that there are members on that side of this House who had the courage to stand up against the violence of the Press and to say that they put the interests of South Africa before the popularity which they could receive in the Press. I just want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana today that his majority could have been much bigger if he had played the popular tune and not wanted to support the commission which was appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister. The price which that hon. member paid in the form of his reduced majority is the price which every English-speaking South African unfortunately had to pay in the past, because he stood by his convictions of a White South Africa and stood for conservatism.

You are one hundred per cent correct.

The hon. member for Simonstown says I am one hundred per cent correct. Therefore, I say that I take my hat off today to those who did this. I take my hat off to those few people with whom I sat for a short while on the Schlebusch Commission. I want to say openly today that when they differed from us, they did not hesitate to tell us so.

†I want to repeat what I have just said. People may think that because this document was signed by all the members, we were always at one with each other when we discussed these matters. That is not so. I can tell you, Sir, that right from the word go we had our differences of opinion on the commission. Not only the hon. member who now sits on this side of the House but all the other hon. members on that side who were members of the commission spoke out freely when they differed from the views of any one of the Government members on that commission. We reached consensus on that commission. On the Select Committee, and later on the commission, we agreed to differ, but by and large we found agreement.

*On that commission, a few members were confronted with this problem of South Africa. It was not a question of pensioners, of a socialistic state or of the other matters of which, we hear now and again. That commission was confronted with the radical question with which we in South Africa are faced and in connection with which English-speaking South Africa must give account. The hon. member for Hill-brow also spoke of the traditional things which existed and which had to be broken down. What do you place first? Is it the interests of South Africa for the present and for the future, as you see them? If you place those first, as I know those hon. members on the commission did, are you going to allow any longer that an English-language Press shouts you or your influence down, before you can bring your influence to bear for the good?

Time is running out. In the first place, time is running out for conservative English-speaking South Africa, the time in which they can make a contribution which will be recorded for all times as a contribution in our history. The time in which they can make that contribution of labelling as a lie that which is being written at the moment—that English-speaking South Africa is not making its contribution to the guidance which they have to give in the political life of South Africa—is running out for them. When one of the hon. members on the opposite side had the courage of his convictions and crossed over to us, a major campaign of abuse was launched against him. Is what always happens in a civilized society not wonderful, i.e. that when a man has the courage of his convictions and is not scared to do something, he receives his reward as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs received his from the hon. the Prime Minister? It was not because he had looked or asked for it. He not only received his reward there; he also received his reward in that the same Press which, had previously decried him to damnation, now tells him that he is an excellent Minister. They are quite right in that too.

There is no need to talk of coalition. I am not addressing myself to the hon. member for Durban Central at the moment. He is an Afrikaner who knows in any case that he belongs among the conservative White South Africans, whether they are English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. I am addressing myself to those who speak English, when I say that we are not seeking coalition. We know that coalition, or the quid pro quo story, will not pay. We are seeking unity, the unity which hon. members on the opposite side desire themselves and which was proved on that commission by people who are just as conservative, and even more conservative, than I can think of being. I also want to say that they are people who cannot, just as I cannot, sit in the same camp as that in which the hon. member for Yeoville sat. The hon. member for Yeoville had to show them this. He and his henchmen had to show you this, and I am not using the word “henchmen” in the nasty sense of the word, but in the political sense of the word. I do not begrudge any man his convictions. I can at least expect respect from a man from whom I differ radically, and respect him too. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point, for example, whether he sees his way clear to belonging to the same spiritual camp as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I also want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that.

†Can the hon. member stay in the same party as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout any longer?

You steal our policy and now you want to steal our members.

I do not want to know about that young hon. member at the back, who still has a lot to learn. Let me say to his credit that I think he will still learn a lot.

*The only thing the hon. member still has to learn is that there is another road for him to take, viz. the conservative road, then perhaps he will have the choice which is still open to English-speaking South Africans today.

The hon. member for Hillbrow put a few questions, but I am not going to reply to each of them. Nonetheless, I do want to mention a few things in passing. In this confusion of arguments, we cannot see the wood for the trees. Every now and then, a new ruse is employed to pull the wool over one’s eyes. I only want to reply to one of the hon. member’s arguments, viz. where he spoke of what is conveniently called the “urban Bantu”.

†When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this term this afternoon, I asked by way of interjection: What about the Bantu living in the rural areas? I would like to repeat that question now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did me the honour of replying by saying that they would have to decide for themselves. The hon. member for Hillbrow also mentioned the subject of representation. Could those hon. members please explain to me, seeing that they have a clear-cut picture of what is going to happen in ten or 20 years’ time, who in the view of the Leader of the Opposition is the urban Bantu in South Africa? Let me mention a simple example. We have Bantu living near the town of Messina in Northern Transvaal and we also have Bantu living near Worcester in the Western Cape. Will all these Bantu be on a common roll? They are near the urban areas and are urban Bantu.

We never talked about a common roll.

Will the Bantu in Worcester be on a common roll with those in Messina? Will the man living near Messina be voting on the same roll as the Bantu living near Worcester? Can any one imagine anything more ridiculous than that? If they do not vote on one common roll, can one imagine anything more ridiculous than that the man living near Messina must feel at one with the Black man living near Worcester?

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

If it could be explained to me how they are going to vote for a representative, I will gladly hear it.

What community is there between the Xhosa living in Soweto permanently and the Xhosa living in the Transkei?

I will give the hon. member a reply which he knows as well as I do. They have a common language. It may be news to many hon. members on that side, but these people insist on mother-tongue education, even in Soweto. Does the hon. member know that only recently the Sothos and the Xhosas on the mines clashed? Why? They were away from their homelands. They clashed because they belong to different homelands and nations. It is as pure and simple as all that.

*However, I want to come back to more important things which, I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow, because he spoke of the philosophic difference existing in our way of thinking. The hon. member is perfectly correct. I want to make one thing very clear today as regards that philosophical point of difference in our way of thinking. I have respect for the standpoint of many people within the United Party. However, I cannot share in General Smuts’ holism, i.e. the idea that the whole should first be put right and that the particular parts should then be put together. The difference in philosophy lies in the fact that the National Party says that the smaller parts should first be made happy. If the hon. member for Hillbrow wants to erect a Sasol in one of the homelands, we shall help him to do so. We shall help him to build the 25 cities there.

For 20 years we have been asking for that.

Twenty years! Surely the hon. member is not a Rip van Winkle who still does not want to wake up after 20 years! Then he must make use of the opportunity now, after 20 years, if this must be true. The hon. member always levels the reproach that we speak about the past and not about the future. The hon. member is always occupied with seeing a vision in the future, ten years ahead. Forget about 20 years ago now, and go and erect a Sasol and the 22 cities in the homelands. That is what we ask of them, of those people who have sincere intentions. There is one great danger which we cannot escape. Here I mean the conservative members of the United Party here and the thousands in Natal, in the cities and in the rural areas whom they represent here.

†There is a danger for South Africa. No matter what people say about what I am saying here this afternoon, there is a grave danger for South Africa. We may be very happy about the division in the ranks of the United Party and we may even chide them about that. We may deride them and poke fun at them.

*However, it has been proved in the countries of the world that the greatest dangers arise from revolution and anarchism. However, there is also another danger on the road ahead. What is revolution? I do not think revolution is always— in the last instance perhaps, but not always—the taking up of arms and the burning down of houses. Revolution is also the destruction of the spirit along the way. Revolution is, for exam-pile, the cultivation of the feeling among people that we as Nationalists are the suppressors of the Black man, as is being said of us. This talk, which originates from newspapers, which is carried out from public platforms where Whites are fighting for seats, is believed not only by the OAU. Nor is this talk used in the U.N. only. I think that I have much sympathy with them, and if I were a Black man in South Africa, I should not look far for my arguments, to show what suppressors the White men of this country were. Because I will go and look for these in the utterances of those people sitting there in the benches of the other Opposition. The hon. member for Houghton and I are too old, we shall no longer be here. The hon. member for Houghton can laugh; I cannot laugh about that. One thing is as plain as a pike-staff and that is that revolution does not take place in one night, only when people start setting houses alight. Revolution begins when people are told that they are being wronged, that they are being robbed, that they are not being given opportunities and that they are being suppressed. I want to appeal to the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in that party and I also want to appeal to those who cast a protest vote against the National Party—reconsider, be fore it is too late! Because the road on which those people’s policy will take us, is the road of death, the road of the death of White Christianity. Sir, I do not want to be sarcastic, but I listened here to the hon. member for Houghton delivering a plea for the Christian Institute and I thought, “What strange bedfellows.” The hon. member acts as an advocate for a Christian Institute which should stand for the values of Christianity, but what does it do under those colours? Protect Christianity? Sir, I hardly dare to let the word Christianity pass my lips, because it cries to heaven that that party lets the word Christianity pass its lips and that it wants to protect Christianity within the Christian Institute. The Christian Institute is supposedly fighting for Christianity, and we on this side are the suppressors, we are the heathens who trample others underfoot and people must be taught to despise and hate the White man.

Sir, when I spoke about consensus three years ago, my remarks were misinterpreted, and I do not want my call this afternoon on English-speaking South Africa and Afrikaans-speaking people who support them to be misinterpreted. Sir, the National Party does not have an open road which it must take; it only has a direction. It has an ultimate object, and we have consistently said what that ultimate object is. We want the survival of White Christian civilization and of the White nation in South Africa. Not only do we not begrudge this to all other nations but we also want to help them to become autonomous, happy, free nations alongside of us. Sir, let people hold it against me if I say this afternoon that there will have to be ties between those nations. If someone says that it has to be a federation, let him then work for it once those people are happily settled in their own countries, in their own national contexts. Whether there should be a federation, a confederation or a commonwealth, is a question which can be decided once that point has been reached, but first let us work and see to it that they are happily settled in their own areas, as people with pride in that which is their own. The National Party does not have a hewn road, nor does its policy have a hewn road. We only have a direction to keep and we have to hew that road for others to follow us. To hew that road, we need help. We need the hands of English-speaking people and of everyone who makes up the White nation. We also need the help of the Brown people, the Yellow people and the Black people living in South Africa. We get this help by dealing with them fairly and justly and honestly. Sir, if the National Party does not have a hewn road to take, but only a direction in which it has to hew its road for others to follow in the future, then I say that the road which there is has become a cross-road for some people on the opposite side. The National Party has chosen a road which leads to the realization of an ideal with the burial of the mistakes which have been made in the past 20 years. I appeal to everyone to do their share to find unity between White and non-White and to build a happier Southern. Africa. If nobody else does so, then I say that my hand is extended to every conservative Afrikaner who wants to help hew this road. But the cross-road is there, and there is no longer much time left to choose. Let the few on that side who want to choose the other road do so, but that road, the road which the other party opposite me is taking, has a clear signboard. That road leads to death. That road leads White South Africa to the precipice. And not only White South Africa, but every man, every Black man, in South Africa who has a love for order and for decent co-existence. That road will lead to death for Coloureds and Indians who have the desire for peaceful co-existence with other people. [Interjections.] Sir, I am prepared to say what I am saying here at any place in the country before the Black people in whose service I am.

Order! What did the hon. member for Stilfontein say about Communism?

It leads to Communism.

Order! Did the hon. member link members of a party to that?

No.

I do not believe that the hon. member accused anyone of Communism. But if my hon. friends on the opposite side, Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, need any evidence to prove that what I have said here is the truth, then they should have seen how two of the hon. members of that side, whom I call the splinter party, have been looking to their side throughout, laughing that derogatory laugh about the conservatism existing in South Africa. If they had seen that, they would know that this is the truth. Here at the cross-roads a choice must be made between the end of the road which must be hewn and the dead-end road of that party, which takes us from silent revolution to bloody revolution and to the ruin of White, Coloured and Black South Africa.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is implying that this party is leading South Africa towards bloody revolution?

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister link any member to that?

I shall repeat the words. I said the policy of that party must inevitably be headed for eventual revolution in South Africa [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I would hardly have called it subtle or beguiling, but nevertheless, taking the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech in conjunction with the speech of the hon. the Minister of Labour, this is quite clearly the mating call to those people in the party on my right who he believes have a greater association with him in their basic philosophy than they have with the hon. member for Edenvale or the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Sir, may I make one or two comments to the hon. the Minister? Would he please stop lecturing to English-speaking South Africans? Will he stop talking down to other people who are South Africans, and will he stop arrogating to himself the monopoly of patriotism, wisdom and Christian virtues? Will the hon. member realize that one of the first attributes of a Christian is a degree of humility? His bombast this afternoon was certainly not humility. That was bombast thrown at this side of the House, which happens to disagree with his point of view. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to stop talking down to other sections of the community. Accept our bona fides as we accept yours. We accept your bona fides, although we think you are misguided, but do not say to other people that they have no loyalty, that they have no Christian compassion, and that they have no concern for the future of South Africa. Let the hon. the Minister stop lecturing to other sections of the community and let him for the first time show a touch of Christian humility when dealing with political opponents. We accept his bona fides, but we deplore his behaviour, especially as revealed here this afternoon.

I want to refer briefly to some comments made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to say that there was one great truth in what he said, namely that he has been in this House for a long, long time. About that there can be no dispute, but during this long, long time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has developed a considerable degree of consistency, consistency in the first instance because you can always count on him to be behind the times. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has thrown out challenges about federal policy and federal boundaries, in regard to a policy which was formulated in this House 15 years ago. Now suddenly in 1975 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition starts throwing out challenges, and he throws out these challenges at the very time when within his own party there are pressures mounting up to try to give a greater geographic content to his own federal policy. At the very time when these pressures are building up within his own party, he rejects the concept of a geographic federation as presented by the Progressive Party.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is consistent in that he will always contradict himself or his party. He contradicts himself and his party when he says that the United Party stood by the 1936 pledge to buy the additional land for the Black people, yet, during the debate earlier this session, he refused to vote for the purchase of the additional land which was provided for by the 1936 Act. [Interjections.] Secondly, he bases the protection of the White community and minority communities on constitutional safeguards and yet, at the same time, when other people produce constitutional safeguards, he rejects these as a mechanism for the protection of minority groups. He says that he defends the rule of law and yet only in the past two weeks he has rejected the concept of a powerful independent judiciary as a gimmick.

Where?

Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition deny that? [Interjections.] Then he must deny the report that appeared in the newspapers. He says he supports the rule of law yet at the same time he supports the unanimous report of the hon. members for Green Point and Mooi River as well as Mr. Etienne Malan who served as commissioners on the Le Grange Commission. Because of the very nature of the composition of that commission, the procedures which it had to adopt and its findings thereof, the report was a violation of the fundamental tenet of the rule of law.

When in difficulty the hon. Leader of the Opposition can always toe relied on to resort to “Swartgevaar” tactics. That is what we have had here today. This is not the same Leader of the Opposition and the same party as last session and earlier this session which came out unashamedly for non-discrimination and which scorned the Government for arguing in favour of differentiation. He is the man who said we must have an open society or supported the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this. Hon. members will remember how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition allowed the hon. member for Edenvale to argue against the Group Areas Act and various forms of separation. This is the hon. Leader of the Opposition who only recently said that his own federal assembly could, in the fullness of time, have a Black majority and that there could be a Black Prime Minister. This is what he said some time ago. [Interjections.] He said that, but now suddenly he tries to forget all this and he tries to frighten White South Africa about the policy of the Progressive Party which makes sense as opposed to the policy of his party. [Interjections.]

Order!

Here is a Leader of the Opposition who is using “Swartgevaar” tactics against his political opponents in 1975. I want to say to him that he will not succeed because those who are sophisticated in South Africa will not fall for his tricks and those who are unsophisticated are already voting for the HNP and will never vote for the United Party.

You are going to lose your job before long.

I want to return to the Government and especially to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister …[Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are unreasonable with their interjections.

I want to say on behalf of the hon. members in these benches that we are disappointed that the hon. the Prime Minister is not present for this final debate in these last three days of the session. We gather he has already left Cape Town and Parliament. We say this because with the tremendous rush of events and with the changes which are likely to take place over the next seven months before we meet again, we would have expected the hon. the Prime Minister to give an updated report to the elected representatives of the people on the situation that obtains today. In fact, the last time the hon. the Prime Minister participated in a debate, other than his brief participation in the snap debate on the Fox Street incident, was way back On 21 April under the Prime Minister’s Vote. There are certain outstanding questions which are of fundamental importance and in respect of which changes have taken place over the past month, or so. The one is the question of our Police Force in Rhodesia. I think we are entitled to know what is happening to our Police in Rhodesia. Have they been withdrawn, are they going to be withdrawn and has anything changed over the past two months? What is the position in South West Africa, following the passing of the dead-line which was set by the United Nations for 30 May? It is all very well for the hon. the Prime Minister …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am busy.

Do you want our Police to be withdrawn from Rhodesia?

The hon. the Prime Minister should tell us what is happening to our Police Force in Rhodesia because we are entitled to know. Secondly, it is all very well for the hon. the Prime Minister to go to Windhoek to a meeting of the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and to talk about South West Africa, but I believe that he should do it in this House and he should update us on the situation which exists there. I believe that he was very correct in reporting to this House on his visit to Liberia but that he was very wrong in not taking this House into his confidence and simply handing out a general Press statement on his visit to President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to satisfy us that the hon. the Prime Minister had such pressing business outside of this Parliament that he could not be here for the last few days of this parliamentary session. I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there has been a tendency on the part of the Government to avoid the crunch issues in debates across the floor of the House. For instance, there was the issue of the Coloured vote which collapsed. The hon. the Minister did not even reply, as a result of which a special amendment to the Rules had to be applied in order to permit him to reply. In the debate on sport, the Minister sat down halfway through his reply and the debate on the Vote was suddenly at an end.

If one looks at the performance of the members on the other side of the House, taken in their entirety, it appears that there is a confusion as to what Government policy is today, and there also appears to be considerable apprehension as to what is going to constitute Government policy tomorrow. The hon. the Prime Minister stated: “We in South Africa are now entering the start of the third phase in the policy of separate development”. This is what he announced and this is his explanation for the steps he is taking. I want to put it to the hon. members opposite that it is nothing of the sort. What we are witnessing today is the beginning of the end of separate development as a viable policy for the government of a multi-racial South Africa. The irony is that, while the most positive step the Government in its own opinion has taken to move in the direction of separate development was the purchase of the remaining land under the 1936 settlement, if one looks at the map subsequently one has concrete evidence that that land and those areas, consolidated as they are, cannot be used as the basis for viable independent homelands in the future. So the Government’s policy has been negated by the very actions it has taken during the course of this session.

*Let us just consider the nature of the adaptations which were made during the course of this session. I am referring to adaptations such as declaring the Nico Malan theatre, the Blue Train and the Drakensberg train and various hotel facilities open to mixed audiences, passengers and guests, the abolition of apartheid at the Lesotho border post, the permission for mixed South African invitation teams in cricket and rugby, the relaxation of the job reservation provisions for Coloured workers in the building trade on the Witwatersrand, the granting of land tenure to Bantu in the White cities on a 30 year basis, the lifting of the restrictions on the travelling, settlement and employment opportunities for Indians throughout South Africa, the acceptance of Coloured officers in the Defence Force as full-fledge officers with the right to exercise authority over Whites, the announcement of the appointment of non-Whites together with Whites on statutory bodies and, finally, the suggestion by the hon. the Prime Minister of mixed White and Coloured Cabinet Committees which would toe allowed! to take joint decisions on matters of common interest. These are the 11 adaptations which were made during this session. Interesting meetings are going to be held when the members on the opposite side report back to their constituencies on what these changes actually mean. The hon. member for Namakwaland will possibly say, in connection with the Nico Malan theatre, that the restrictions have only been lifted temporary. The hon. member for Sunnyside will say that mixed hotels are the continuation of the traditional apartheid policy of the National Party. The hon. member for Waterberg will possibly say that the mixed invitation teams that played at Newlands, are in line with the basic approach of Dr. Verwoerd. There will be a general chorus that these adaptations represent the natural-development of the policy of multi nationalism in South Africa. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. Every one of the steps which was taken, is a step away from the policy of separate development.

†Every adaptation made by the present Government is a step away from a separate South Africa and a step towards a shared South Africa with all the consequences this holds not just for hon. members opposite but for us in these benches and for the millions of people who are not represented in this Parliament. What the hon. the Prime Minister is doing, is not just making adjustments within the framework of the policy of separate development. During the session the Prime Minister has shown that he is responding, willingly or unwillingly, to the fundamental evolutionary forces that are at work in our South African society. By responding to these forces, he is giving increased impact to these forces and increased momentum to the whole process of change. Many of these forces, many of these factors at work, are easy to identify: Material, moral, international, human, economic and sociological. However, there is another one which is less easy to identify in concrete terms. I believe that within the White community a fundamental psychological change is taking place and that psychological change involves the increasing rejection of the legitimacy of race discrimination in South Africa. This is a change which is taking place and with this White South Africans are starting to abandon a basic premise on which successive Governments have based their policies. While many of the “aanpassings” which the Government has made have not affected the lives of millions of people to any great extent, they have been a traumatic experience for many White South Africans who have been steeped in the apartheid policy of the National Party. The Government itself has played its part in what I shall call a psychological revolution in South Africa. It has given a considerable boost to that revolution because of its verbal onslaught on race discrimination. I refer in particular to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in the Senate last year, the speech of Ambassador Pik Botha at the United Nations and the speeches made at the Cape Nationalists’ Congress, in which a frontal verbal attack on the concept of race discrimination was made. So the Government has played its part in bringing about a fundamental change in the psychology of White voters, but what the Government had done, is that although it has given impetus to this psychological change on the one hand, it has failed on the other hand to provide the policy framework within which non-discrimination can be achieved. This is the dilemma of the Government and of the hon. members on the other side: They are arguing in favour of getting rid of race discrimination on the one hand, but on the other band they are sticking to a policy structure through which it is quite impossible to get away from race discrimination. Therefore every time the Government has bad the courage to take a step away from race discrimination, they have at the same time taken a step away from separate development.

Nonsense!

They have taken a step away from separate development and as a result of this the Verwoerdian ideology of separate development is starting to crumble. I want to make it quite clear that we in these benches have no complaint about the Government allowing separate development to crumble. We hope that the Government, pressed on by the opposition in these benches, is going to allow it to crumble at a faster rate. However, what is both bad and dangerous for South Africa is to have a new momentum in the direction of non-discrimination, while at the same time not providing the conceptual framework within which it can take place. The result, if I look at the hon. members opposite, is firstly confusion and uncertainty within their own ranks, and secondly a growing problem of credibility as far as the Government is concerned. If you want to see examples of this confusion and uncertainty, just listen to the hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. member for Waterberg talking about the sports policy; just listen to the hon. member for Carletonville and the hon. member for Moorreesburg talking about Coloured policy; just listen to the hon. the Prime Minister in the end saying: “I have a dilemma on my hands and I have put it in the lap of the Coloured people; they must help us to solve it”; listen to the speech which was made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who finds that important aspects of the Lusaka Manifesto can be linked to and identified with National Party policies; Listen to the speeches of the hon. member for Rellville who says that the theory is that Blacks will go to the homelands, but if they do not, the National Party will have to re-think its policy.

He did not say that; it was a press cutting.

I have the press cutting here, and I shall give it to the hon. member. Listen to the articles and the speeches by a young thinker like Senator Denis Worrall, who says that the ceiling has been reached and that National Party policy can no longer satisfy the people and the political aspirations of South Africans.

However, it is not only a question of confusion; it is also a question of credibility. Much of the credibility of the Government in its claim to get rid of race discrimination is closely linked with détente. It is in the field of détente and African/South African relationships that I can say from my own experience that the questions are being asked and the credibility is being doubted. The hon. the Prime Minister said very correctly about Mozambique, “We do not mind whether it is a Black Government as long as it is a stable Government.” Black leaders say, “That is fine, but how is it that in his own country he will not allow a single Coloured man to participate in the Parliament of the country?” He says about Rhodesia, “All that the Rhodesians have to do is to sit down and negotiate the qualifications for the franchise, irrespective of race, within their country”. And yet in South Africa he rejects the concept of sharing political power. He puts to the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Mr. Ian Smith, the case for the release of the Rev. Sithole from detention, even after a judge of the Rhodesian Supreme Court had found that the Government of Rhodesia was justified. People say: “What about it? In South Africa there are people who are detained and restricted without ever having being brought before a court of law.” They say of South West Africa that although the Government says that all options are open, in this House there are six members of Parliament as well as one Cabinet Minister who are part of a governing party in South Africa which is totally committed to the policy of separate development in South Africa. In South West Africa, they say, the Government has appointed a commission to find ways of doing away with race discrimination. Having examined this problem in South West Africa, the Government says: “In order to get rid of differentiation we have to get rid of enforced separation in amenities, in public places, in shops, in offices and in restaurants.” Yet, in South Africa, we find that the Government continues to argue the merits of differentiation and enforced segregation. This goes on and on. On the one hand we saw the humility of Pik Botha when he spoke at the United Nations. He admitted, firstly, that there is discrimination in South Africa. Secondly he said that the Government believed it to be wrong, and thirdly, that the Government was going to do their best to get away from it. Now we find the Minister of Information going around the world in orbit like a latter-day National Party Uri Gagarin, saying that discrimination has already been wiped out in South Africa. *

After all, that is so.

When you say this kind of thing, and when the hon. member for Stilfontein says that that is so, you are destroying the credibility of your own ambassador, of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I believe that what has emerged during the course of this session is that the policy of separate development, as it has been understood by the National Party and supported by the majority of White people, is becoming incompatible with a policy of non-discrimination. As they get rid of race discrimination. Government members are moving away from separate development. The Government should face up to this; they must face up to the fact that they cannot get rid of discrimination and still have separate development. We will then be spared the tortuous explanations we have had about the Nico Malan Theatre, about invitation teams and the subtle differences between discrimination and differentiation. What is necessary from that side of the House in particular because it is the Government, because it has to give the lead, and because it is its policy that is collapsing, is that it should, during this recess, try to formulate a new conceptual framework and a new set of goals for the South Africa of tomorrow in which there will be no race discrimination.

I believe that this involves four factors. Firstly, in the field of human relationships, it means that we should declare that we are working for an open society in which the individual will be free to associate with whom he wishes without any interference from the Government. I believe that that should be the goal of all parties in South Africa. Secondly, as far as economic development is concerned, the Government must say, as we will say, that the living standards of all South Africans will be raised and that the cost of living will be contained by the full development of the use of South Africa’s total human resources without any restrictions being placed on the development and the use of those resources. Thirdly, as far as government is concerned, it has to be recognized that government has to be based on an equitable sharing of power at all levels by those people who are a permanent part of South Africa, whether they are Black or White, by all who are citizens of South Africa.

Does the hon. member mean one man, one vote?

I am not arguing for a particular form; I am saying that this is … [Interjections.] All those on my right-hand side making all that noise, know quite well that our policy is one of using a phasing or transitional mechanism known as the qualified franchise. What is all the excitement about?

The last point I would like to make concerns the question of security. Let us realize that the security of South Africa will be strengthened by getting the undivided loyalty of all South Africans to a country and to a society which respects each citizen’s dignity and allows him to lead a full life under the rule of law. I know that many hon. members to my right will say that they can also subscribe to these general principles, but there is a fundamental difference between us and them. The Progressive Party is prepared to face up to the consequences of that set of principles applied in practice, whereas the United Party spends all its time running away.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Sea Point started his speech by reacting violently to the hon. the Deputy Minister, it was clear that the hon. the Deputy Minister had touched on a sore spot. The hon. member replied cuttingly to the powerful appeal, which the hon. the Deputy Minister addressed to English-speaking people, to come over to the National Party. The hon. member was unhappy about it, because he knows that the English-speaking people who join the National Party will find many other English-speaking people there and will be at home in the National Party as well. The hon. member’s accusation of bombast sounds very strange coming from him, because which hon. member in the House is more bombastic than the hon. member for Sea Point?

No one.

Which party is more bombastic than the Progressive Party, which calls the bona fides of the Government into question in every respect. The hon. member states that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not accept the bona fides of the Progressive Party, but surely it is a fact that the bona fides of the Government are at all times called into question by the Progressive Party and their Press in the worst and most detrimental manner possible. When that hon. member is prepared to accept the sound motives and bona fides of this side of the House, then, and then alone, can he point a reproachful finger at other people for being bombastic. The hon. member makes the absolutely false statement that separate development is linked to discrimination, and that if one were to do away with discrimination, one would at the same time be doing away with separate development. Surely that is not true, because, after all, discrimination has nothing to do with separate development. The mere fact that people realize and preserve their separate identity, send their children to separate schools, and live separately, does not mean that there is discrimination. We could inspect every aspect of the Government’s policy, and we should find that people live and work separately, because they want to do so and because this causes the least friction. Consequently, the hon. member’s linking of discrimination and separate development is entirely false.

The Progressive Party is going to have a leadership problem on its hands when the hon. member for Yeoville becomes a member of that party. I want to wish the hon. member for Sea Point every success in the struggle that lies ahead of him, because I think he is going to need all the good wishes he can get, even though they come from the National Party. The Progressive Party, as they find themselves here today, are the manifestation of the efforts on the part of the English-language Press media to fashion a party, and if it were not for the English Press, the Progressive Party would never have been sitting in the House. In this attempt on the part the English Press to fashion a party, the details of the Progressive Party’s policy have not been investigated in the slightest. All that has been projected has been an image of the unfair and the inhuman National Party and United Party, whereas they were represented as angels. We are still waiting for details of the Progressive Party’s policy. Take, for example, the issue that is raised so often, viz. the influx control applied to the urban Bantu. I ask myself what the Progressive Party’s policy is in regard to influx control. I ask the hon. member for Sea Point to state across the floor of the House whether, if the Progressive Party were to come into power, it would be his policy to abolish all influx control immediately, unconditionally and without any restriction? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point would do well to furnish me with a reply to the question.

That is silly.

The hon. member for Houghton says that this is “silly”. It is a very important question. The Government is accused of applying influx control. Hon. members must now tell me whether they would abolish influx control immediately, unconditionally and without any restrictions if they were to come to power.

As soon as it is feasibly possible.

In other words, this means that the Progressive Party recognizes influx control in principle.

No.

Of course! If the Progressive Party states that they are not going to abolish it immediately, then surely they are still going to retain it for a time. If the Progressive Party were to come to power, they would retain influx control.

We will not send people to jail because they are looking for jobs, I can tell you that.

The hon. member can continue depicting the National Party as an unfair and inhuman Government. She accepts the principle of influx control in South Africa.

No, of course not.

But on the other hand, the hon. member states, “We will retain it as long as it is feasible and necessary.”

I said exactly the opposite.

She said, “We will get rid of it as soon as feasibly possible.” This means that they will retain it as long as it is “feasibly” necessary. In other words, they will accept influx control. I want to point out to hon. members of the Progressive Party that they have never announced this aspect of their policy to the voters of South Africa. They have only created a false and inhuman image of the National Party and the Government and have glossed over and concealed the fact that they are unable to express themselves in principle against influx control. I leave this aspect of the matter at that.

In South Africa we have the factual situation that the United Party and the Progressive Party have also tried to solve the problem by means of a method with which we differ in principle. In South Africa we have a number of peoples, Zulus, Xhosas, Whites Coloureds and Vendas, and we recognize the diversity of peoples as it is found in South Africa. To deny this diversity of peoples would be to insult many members of non-White peoples in South Africa. There can be no policy based on the idea that there is no such thing as a Zulu or a Xhosa, but only a Black man. This fact must be seen against the central theme of politics, namely that it is a power struggle, and that as the socio-economic standards and standards of education of the Black people in South Africa rise, it is very clear that they will become more aware of power and will demand it to an increasing extent in South Africa. After all, the same applies in South Africa as applies anywhere else in the worlds—“the name of the game is power”. This Government’s policy is based on a number of premises. One is that every person in South Africa is entitled to self-determination. Another is that the aspirations to power of the various peoples in South Africa must be reconciled with each other. This can be done in one of two ways. The one is the sharing of power, and the other is the separation of power. The sharing of power, as presented to us by the Opposition party, the Progressive Party and the United Party, means a federation in which a number of constituent parts jointly elect a federal government. The United Party advocates a race federation and the Progressive Party, a geographic federation. This, in fact, is the issue in South African politics. If this federation is created and there is this central federal body, which group is going to dominate this central Government? Hon. members must not tell me now that it is going to be the Black people or the White people, because it is going to be one of the Black nations, or else a nation in combination with another nation. This exclusion in this central body, where there will necessarily have to be domination by one or other specific group, can mean exclusion of the Whites or it could, for example, mean an exclusion of the Whites and the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians, the Whites and the Vendas or the Whites and the Xhosas. Consequently, the point I want to make is the following: In the present political structure in South Africa, which is concerned with the power struggle, any power struggle which one wants to solve by means of a federation will be converted into a power struggle for control of the central federal body. The issue, therefore, is not the control of a race, but the control which a specific group will acquire there. The liberalists, as we know them, come along with one specific solution in this regard. They want the rights of the minority groups in South Africa to be protected by a bill of rights. I do not want talk about a bill of rights, but I just want to make one remark. As far as a bill of rights is concerned, the sole important matter is the role played in a country by the courts. We have found in Africa that the political bodies and the bench have in fact been powerless as against the central Governments in Africa. We have the examples of Lesotho, Uganda and Swaziland. When problems occur in a country, then it is not a bill of rights which helps one. In many cases in Africa, it is a question of who has their finger on the trigger. Examples of successful federations have been requested in this House. When the hon. member for Rondebosch was asked for examples of successful federations, he said: Switzerland, the U.S.A. and many others, too. But that is precisely the point. A federation must be linked to a Western parliamentary tradition. This works in the case of a liberal democracy. However, we must not judge a federation in South Africa against the background of that of Switzerland and the U.S.A. We must look at a federation with reference to the history and the background of Africa. It is clear that in Africa, federation has failed as a solution to aspirations to power. Of the more than 40 States in Africa there are only two federations today, Nigeria and Tanzania. In both of these countries, democracy has been abolished.

The history of Africa contains a long series of failures which we could mention here today as examples. Until 1972 the Cameroons were a federation. In 1962, attempt were made in Zaire, the Congo-Kinshasa, to establish a federation. It failed. There were attempts to convert the eight French colonies in French West Africa into a federation. That failed. There were attempts to convert the three British colonies of Central Africa into a federation; that, too, failed. Then, too, there was the federation of the French Sudan, now Mali, and Senegal, the so-called Mali Federation. This federation, too, went the way of all the other failures. In 1952, the federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea was successfully established. What do we find today? Eritrea had to pay in blood for its independence. They have to fight to obtain their independence. In passing, I foresee that if we were to establish a federation for South Africa, one of the component parts of the federation—not the Whites, the non-Whites —would fight for their independence. However, that is not all. In 1962, attempts were made in Senegal and Gambia to establish a federation. The federation of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania of 1963 is very well known to South Africa. It was not even able to get off the ground. Another well-known failure was that in Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. What has been the characteristic of all these failures in Africa? Geographic federations such as that which the Progressive Party, in particular, advocates to us, correspond with the United Party’s policy as far as powers are concerned. In other words, the voice of Africa today clearly tells us—we who are sitting in this House of Assembly today: A federation in Africa is dead; a federation in Africa will not work. In a speech which the hon. member for Rondebosch made, he said—

Sir, the hon. member is making a mistake. At the beginning of this century and the end of the previous century, we had the attempts made by Cecil John Rhodes and Lord Malvern to create an imperial federation from Cape Town to Kenya. At that time. England wielded its sceptre throughout the entire area, and there were shining ideals of a pan-African federation, to bring about one mighty Africa. If America could do it, why could Africa not do it? A great power bloc would have been established, but this attempt failed. What came in its place? To date, more than 40 independent States in Africa, with unitary governments. I want to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch that Africa affords proof of the success of this Government’s policy, because scientifically it suits the nature, culture and national awareness of the people of Africa.

Why do the OAU not give us their support?

Because there are so many gremlins in South Africa, like the Progressive Party, who send certain people into Africa to blacken the name of South Africa and its policy and image.

You know you talk a great deal of non sense.

Sir, the Government’s policy is also a policy of reconciling people’s aspirations to power on the basis of independence for the various homelands in South Africa and also on the basis of the recognition of the national awareness, the national character and the national sovereignty of each group. Sir, this is the best way of realizing the great ideal of reconciliation in Southern Africa. There will, of course, be co-operation between these independent States. There will be close co-operation as a result of the realistic facts of the economic interdependence of these regions. Sir, looking at the voice of Africa and at the factual situation, and comparing the policies of the United Party and the Progressive Party with that of the Government, then there is no doubt that the Government and the National Party are pursuing the right course to ensure the security and the prosperity and the welfare of all South Africa’s peoples.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the imperfect knowledge of history displayed by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, he showed two other characteristics this afternoon. He said that history proves that the policy of separate development has been successful in Africa. I should like to ask him whether he believes that the blood which is being shed in Luanda today is being shed as a result of separate development. Does he believe that the history of the Congo and the Mau-Mau and the rest of Africa is the fruit of separate development? Sir, if that is the sort of fruit that this Government offers South Africa, they can eat their own fruit. We do not want to have anything to do with it. The hon. member is prepared to speak about the end of the federation road, but he is not prepared to speak of the end of the road of separate development. Why did he keep quiet about the end of the road of separate development for the Coloureds in South Africa? Why did he keep quiet about the end of the road of separate development for the Indians in South Africa? He did not say a word about that. He is prepared to speak about the end of the road of the policies of other parties, but never about the end of the road of his own party’s policy. Instead, he speaks about self-determination. Sir, what sort of self-determination does this Government offer? It offers the self-determination of Communism, the self-determination of Russia, where you may vote for one party or not at all. That is the only self-determination which is offered; it is the communist sort of self-determination. You can either accept separate development or else you get nothing; you can either accept independence or else you get nothing. That is not self-determination; that is no choice. It is a question of “Like it or lump it or else you get nothing”. Is that the sort of self-determination on which sound race relations can be built in South Africa? No, Sir, that hon. member and all his colleagues tend to attack other parties, but they themselves have no answer to the problems, no solution which will count in the long run.

The hon. member for Sea Point also spoke. As usual, he asked questions, but shied away from any suggestion of stating his own policy.

†He used a few generalizations like “open society”, “human resources” and “sharing of power”. However, when one asks him the specific question: “What is your policy and how will you do it?”, there is a deadly hush. Sir, I do not want to waste time on that hon. member or that party. They are irrelevant, as I have said before, in the politics of today and I do not intend wasting any further time on them.

Wait until the next election.

We have had other interesting speeches. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave us a wonderful recruiting campaign speech this afternoon. Sir, he was fishing on dry land. He makes one basic mistake. He confuses patriotism, the security of South Africa and the safety of the State, with the Nationalist Party concept of conservatism. He confuses the traditional conservatism of South Africa with the policy of the Nationalist Party. These are so far apart that they bear no relationship the one to the other. That is what they miss. They give words their own meaning, and then think that everybody who fits into their own definition will come trailing along and say “Nami futi, baba!” They cannot understand that their brand of conservatism is a bigger danger to the safety of the State and to the future of South Africa and negates all the words which they mouth in defence of that security. Sir, this road which the hon. the Deputy Minister follows is not the road which will lead to finding for South Africa the sort of future which we all want for it.

We have come now to the end of the session, a session which started in a euphoric blaze of hope. The new magic word “détente” loaded the air with promise, promise of an end to violence and terrorism in Rhodesia, of peaceful solutions there and in South West Africa, promise of new vistas within South Africa, and promise of new hope to the millions within South Africa.

Except for the United Party.

With all this expectation at the start of the session we have been told by Ministers here this afternoon —and I think there is some justification for their claim—that the hon. the Prime Minister was at the peak of his popularity; he had the country virtually at his feet. There was almost nothing he could not do, according to the Ministers who were praising him earlier today. It also seemed to the “volk daar buite” that the hon. the Prime Minister was riding the crest of the wave. He was riding high and, let us face it, the United Party had its problems. We had our own internal dissent. It is no use trying to bluff ourselves or anyone else. Nevertheless, at the beginning of this session some of us warned South Africa that the hon. the Prime Minister was not master of his own house. We were laughed at and we were ridiculed. The hon. the Prime Minister himself ridiculed us, but I went on record in the first debate of this session as having said that there were 38 to 40 members sitting on those benches in whose hands the hon. the Prime Minister was a prisoner. They all laughed, but since then I have been told by someone who should know that the figure is not 38 to 40 but much nearer to 50. Whatever the figure is, the fact that has emerged from this session is that the hon. the Prime Minister is not master of his own house.

Prove that statement.

Yes, I will. He is not master of his own house. He is the prisoner of the Herstigtes and the verkramptes who are still in the Nationalist Party. Let us take stock of this session of “what might-have-been”. Let us look at the balance sheet.

*Let me concede, as I said a while ago, that the United Party was having problems when the session started. We had a stone in our stomach, but we applied the normal remedies and got rid of it and, as we expected, the Progressives were there to swallow the stone. Now they have the stone in their stomach!

And your intestines are knotted.

They have a stone in their stomach, while they have lost even what policy they had. In other words, they are now without any policy whatsoever. All they have is a series of vague generalities. I shall leave them at that, for they are as afraid of their own policy as the devil is of holy water. They do not count in real politics.

In the meantime, we are reconstructing ourselves. My hon. leader indicated to South Africa today what role the United Party will play in the politics of South Africa. He indicated how there are the impractical and unrealistic splinter groups on the one hand, splinter groups such as the Progformers, and on the other hand, the Government, whose policy is falling to pieces. Only the United Party still has a direction which offers a practical solution, a practical alternative to South Africa. Let us look at the balance sheet. I admit that there are credit items.

†I must say that I also looked for these credit items but I did not do as well as the hon. member for Sea Point because I am not such a fan of the Government as that hon. member. I only found a short list of credit items. The hon. member for Sea Point is much more of a fan. He listed 11 items on the credit side of the balance sheet. But something has happened and it has happened almost unnoticed. That is that many of the entries on South Africa’s balance sheet have transposed themselves. Where there used to be the word “time” on the credit side of the balance sheet, it is no longer an asset today. That has become an entry on the debit side of South Africa’s balance sheet. Where it used to be good tactics to play for time, because time was an asset to South Africa, time has today become a liability. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has himself in the past referred to the little time that we have.

I say so again.

Let me give a couple of examples. The Government has temporarily taken the heat off some of our problems. One example is South West Africa. Let us, however, remember in our euphoria that over 2 000 Ovambos crossed the border and are undergoing terrorist training by communists somewhere in Africa. Every week that passes they become better trained and every week that passes they become more likely to be a danger to South Africa. With every week that passes they come nearer to operational availability. Therefore, whilst we buy time by taking the heat off, we are playing with a double-edged sword because behind the scenes other people are being trained to try to wreck the détente at which we are aiming. They are being trained to wreck it with force and with violence.

There are now also other factors—I do not need to deal with them—such as Angola and Mozambique, where revolution and uncertainty reigns. All these things tend to make time no longer an asset for which South Africa should strive. This is what makes the policy of the Government even more unrealistic and what makes their speeches so unreal. They stand here in this House and talk of the future as though they have 50 years in which to make minor adjustments here and there, 50 years in which to apply their policy. Do they not realize that we do not have that sort of time? Do they not realize that we do not have the sort of time which enables minor adjustments to be made in order to buy more time?

I believe this session has shown that the hon. the Prime Minister, who had an opportunity to leave his mark on history, will instead have earned that saddest of epitaphs, i.e. “that he tried”. He tried, but when the crunch came and the test came, he put the unity of his own political party before the interests of South Africa; he was a prisoner of the members of his own party and he did not have the courage to say to them: “This is what I know must be done for South Africa and I am going to do it, come what may.” For him the unity of the National Party was more important than the welfare of South Africa.

Give an example.

Yes, I shall give an example. There is, for example, the way the Government is fiddling around with sport because the hon. member for Waterberg and his colleagues say “so far and no further”. Instead of being able to create goodwill inside and outside South Africa, the Government is so panic-stricken and so scared of its verkramptes that it has made an utter hash of everything it has done. It has taken all the joy—all the value —out of what could have been a real asset. When they opened the Nico Malan, they bungled it so badly that they made a shambles of it and created more resentment than goodwill. Even now, they are still fiddling with Pretoria and Port Elizabeth. They are not prepared to grasp the nettle and do the job properly because they are always looking over their shoulders at the people who are in real charge—in real control. So I say that, when the hon. the Prime Minister is judged, he will be weighed and found wanting because he put Afrikaner Nationalism and the strength and unity of his own party above the true interests of South Africa.

That is not true.

The hon. the Deputy Minister who says it is not true knows, as we know, that when the hon. the Minister announced a form of Bantu home-ownership in this House, he had to wrap it round with leasehold title, ifs and huts and qualifications, so that even now, months afterwards, no one knows what it is all about. Consequently, the impact of it is gone; the impact of value to human relations in South Africa and the good it could have done has been dissipated. In the same way, they have taken asset after asset, assets which could have been on the credit side of the balance sheet, and they have devalued those assets because they are afraid to deal with them courageously.

They have gained some English-speaking support in South Africa. At grass roots no one can deny that. However, the test is that after three elections the hon. the Prime Minister, who set as his ideal the crossing of the language barrier in politics, sits in the elected Parliament of South Africa without one single elected English-speaking South African on his side.

It is because they are all in a kraal.

If they are in a kraal, the Prime Minister has failed. The proof is that they did not consider one English-speaking South African voter fit to nominate as a candidate in a seat they could win. They have the hon. the Minister of Finance as a nominated Senator; not even an elected Senator. There are all their seats opposite; they could not find one English-speaking person whom they considered a fit and proper person to elect to the Parliament of South Africa in the name of the Nationalist Party. So there, too, I say that the Government has failed to bring about the national unity which this side of the House alone practises and which lives and exists within its own ranks and reflects South Africa.

Time does not allow me to go on much longer; so I want to conclude by saying that because of the obsessions of this Government with blueprints and plans, it has lost touch with reality. It has lost touch with the reality of the challenge which faces South Africa. It can play politics, but let us test their sincerity. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is not here at the moment. He spoke of the problem of not having a Press. I challenge the Government through the hon. Leader of the House, the senior Minister present. I challenge the sincerity of the desire of the Government to have fair political presentation in South Africa. The Government must now, in this debate, give a public undertaking that on television the Nationalist Party and the United Party will get fair and equal opportunity to present their case.

What about the Progs?

They can make their own case. To me they are not an issue in politics. The real issue is between us.

[Inaudible.]

If the Progs should put anyone up, I hate to think what that hon. member’s voice perpetually cheeping at the back would do. I notice that the hon. the Minister is back. But I do not have time to repeat what I have said. However, I hope he will stand up and say that television will present the politics of South Africa and the parties fairly and equally to the people. Then let us see how far the Government can get with this bluff, with this image which always presents the opposite of what it is really doing because, and I conclude with this thought, where the hon. the Prime Minister may succeed in getting one homeland to accept independence; in six others the whole basis of Government policy has collapsed. It has been rejected and they no longer have an answer for South Africa or for South Africa’s problems.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Durban Point undoubtedly made one of his poorer speeches in the House. I want to tell him that if there is political bankruptcy, it is of no avail to take the line which the hon. member did this afternoon. This afternoon I should like to agree with a line taken by the hon. member for Mooi River during our discussion of the report on the Christian Institute. The hon. member took this line during a previous debate, too, when we were discussing the report on Nusas, and that line was also discernible in an article he wrote which appeared in Die Burger last Friday. We cannot give the hon. member for Durban Point any credit for the standpoints he stated in regard to Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa. But in the course of my speech I shall come back to the hon. member for Durban Point and the statements he made.

In my opinion, it is time for South Africa, and the United Party in particular, to realize that it is not true, as the hon. member for Durban Point alleges, that the National Party puts Nationalism, in the party-political sense of the word, before State security or patriotism in South Africa. In my opinion, the National Party has in fact established the basis on which we can unify the concepts “patriotism” and “State security” into one idea in South Africa. It was specifically the National Party which, owing to its adoption of a standpoint of “South Africa first” could move in the direction which resulted in “patriotism” and “State security” in fact becoming synonymous to us. The hon. member cannot accuse the National Party of viewing nationalism and patriotism or State security solely in the party-political sense of the word. In fact, a vital question faces the United Party, too, in this sphere. It is time the United Party, and particularly certain members of that party—I should like to mention the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Edenvale, who for obvious reasons did not take part in the discussion of the latest report of the Le Grange Commission—made their contribution and stopped trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, as that party tries to do in regard to the security of South Africa when we are talking about patriotism and State security. That party was in agreement as regards the matters which the commission regarded as dangerous to the security of the State. Once we have agreed on this and regard these things as dangerous to the security of the State, the United Party must not come and tell us, when action is taken by the Government, that it is not the action which the United Party would have liked to see. We know that the United Party had certain standpoints in regard to the entire issue of State security. However, we also know —and I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mooi River said—that the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations brought us, Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, together, to investigate, not dangers to the National Party or dangers to the United Party, but dangers to Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, to White Christianity, in the words of the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member also said that we on the southern tip of Africa have a Christian calling and task. He added that the elements and the organizations which we investigated, and the dangers we came across there, were the very dangers which, on this level, at which the White Christian civilization on the southern tip of Africa is being threatened, were the elements dangerous to the security of the State, and that in regard to that sphere, we as Afrikaans-and English-speaking Whites in South Africa should undoubtedly pursue that course together in the future and that in the future we should consider jointly the elements dangerous to the security of the State which could operate in South Africa. However, we achieve nothing by saying, as the hon. member for Durban Point does, that at the present stage the National Party does not have a single English-speaking Member of Parliament.

It is true.

It is true; it is the truth. However, it is due to speeches such as that delivered by the hon. member for Durban Point that it is true. I want to say to this hon. member and to the hon. member for Mooi River that if they see the Afrikaners in a laager in the National Party, and say that the National Party has drawn the political laager around the Afrikaner so that he is unable to break through and follow the true high road of South Africa, they should not make the same mistake—if it is a mistake—which the hon. member for Mooi River accused the National Party of making. They should not make the same mistake in regard to the English-speaking people in South Africa, and try to prove within the United Party policy that the English-speaking person only has a place there in South Africa. That would be an evil day in South Africa. And this while we are already seeing signs of the fact that in South Africa, the opportunity has come for the situation in South Africa to create the possibilities for us to move out of the laager, if there are laagers, whether as regards the Afrikaans-speaking or the English-speaking people, on to the high road of South Africa because we want to follow this road, each preserving his own identity. I believe that the hon. member for Mooi River will agree with me when I say that each of us wants to move ahead with his own identity. The words uttered in the House by the hon. member for Mooi River when we were discussing the Nusas report, had a considerable impact on the students of South Africa. We need only look at what we have today on our English-language campuses. I think there is a far better situation on the English campuses than we had before the Nusas report, when Nusas could simply go ahead and do what it liked. We see that today a change has taken place, and that even Nusas recognizes that they should renounce certain standpoints which they held in the past, and adopt a more moderate attitude. If that is the effect which English-speaking members of this House can have on the English-speaking students of our people, then this is the path which we must follow. We want to follow this path while preserving our identity, and this is where the hon. Opposition—both the official Opposition and the other parties—are unable to read the political situation in South Africa. The course pursued by the National Party, which led by the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, is no longer merely a party political one; it is no longer a course which only the Nationalist can pursue. What the National Party has achieved in South Africa, is the development of a broad national feeling among the people, which that party is simply unable to grasp and understand. Nor is this merely something which has occurred in the recent past. Thinking back to the election of 1966, we saw even then how the National Party defined the course by which national feeling in South Africa could be united. There was a setback in the ranks of the National Party as a result of the death of the late Dr. Verwoerd, and subsequently we had another setback in the form of the Herstigte National Party, which is no longer with us today. We can proudly say that we not only ejected them from our ranks, but that we also saw to it that they had not a single representative in the House. That is more than the United Party can say, because sitting here are some of their people who were ejected from their ranks, but who nevertheless retained their seats. We had a setback in the 1970 election, too. That is quite true, but subsequently the National Party gradually recovered its position. In last year’s general election, not a single party, apart from the Progressive Party, improved its majority by a larger percentage than the National Party. Hon. members must admit that the presence of certain of the members of the Progressive Party here is probably temporary. History will prove this. Since the election last year, we have had by-elections, too. We are still having by-elections and all indications are that the course pursued by the National Party has become one of White Nationalism for all White people in South Africa. It is now no longer relevant for either the Progressive Party or the United Party to try to score any political points off the National Party in view of the situation in South Africa. I should much rather find myself in the ranks in which I as an Afrikaner will want to move out of the laager, fortified by my stay in the laager, and that the English-speaking South African, too, will want to move out of his laager, fortified by his stay in his laager, and that we as Whites can pursue the course which the National Party has made possible in this country, in pursuance of our Christian duty and calling. If, then, we should make such appeals as the hon. member for Mooi River made, then I want to assure the hon. member that very definite appeals will be made from time to time from this side of the House, too, and from the ranks of the Afrikaners in particular, to our Afrikaans-speaking people in all sectors of the society, to the effect that we should tackle jointly the struggle which lies ahead of us. And having said this to each other, we must admit that there is no laager which has been drawn round the Afrikaner by the National Party and which, as a result of National Party policy, obstructs the Afrikaner’s vision and outlook as regards the future. It is this very National Party policy which has given the vision of the Afrikaner and that which belongs to him, the opportunity to move forward, and not to do so precipitately, but to be able to move forward in a deliberate manner. The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned that the hon. the Deputy Minister and others have said that our time is getting short. However, the National Party is not afraid to follow this path and will choose the time when and the way in which things will be done. However, one vital matter remains. We as Afrikaans and English-speaking people who put South Africa first, want to ensure that White Christian Western civilization will continue to exist here. With this, of course, go all the other things which the National Party advocates, for example, the retention of our identity, etc. If this is our premise, we must ask very seriously today, if we want to act on a joint basis in future, where we stand in regard to these elements whose specific aim is to cause the preservation of this White Christian civilization in South Africa to come to grief. We therefore ask the official Opposition where they stand in regard to elements such as those we have found in Nusas, and what it is they want to flinch from when action is taken. Where do we stand in regard to elements such as these described in the commission’s report on the Christian Institute? I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands where his party stands in regard to those elements whose specific aim is the destruction of the ideas and the spirit of the Whites in South Africa in regard to the preservation of his Christian civilization here on the southern tip of Africa. Where does the hon. member for Pinelands stand, notwithstanding all the statements he has made—he is in a very responsible position—to the effect that he dissociates himself from the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations, that he dissociates himself from certain events mentioned in that report? The hon. member will also have to tell us whether, if there is a church today which states that it supports the Christian Institute, notwithstanding everything that has been found, and if there are people professing the Christian faith who no longer want to adopt the standpoint that the things mentioned in this report are incorrect, he will agree with that or not. We should then ask ourselves whether we are prepared to strengthen each other’s hands as a House of Assembly, that we do not intend to enter the church’s domain, but that we want to ensure the preservation of the Christian Western civilization here in South Africa. If we intend to do this, we must ask the United Party to stop trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Throw out the people who are compelling them to do so. Open the gates of your laager and walk out. In an article in Die Burger the hon. member for Mooi River stated that the Afrikaner should open his laager. He concludes his article with the words: “Come on, boers! ” It was never necessary for the hon. members to call on the boers; they have always been there. However, let us say to the English-speaking people, “Come, you English gentlemen, let us proceed”!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in reaction to the speech by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I am not a member of this party because I am an English-speaking South African. I am a member of this party because I believe in a fundamentally different philosophy from that of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. His philosophy is one that wishes to put fences around problems wherever problems are encountered so that those problems cannot hurt him. He wants to see problems put as far away from him as possible. As a result of his belief in that philosophy, he is a member of a party which has increasingly adopted authoritarian methods. I belong to a party whose philosophy is that there is only one thing to do about problems when one is faced with them, and that is to try to find solutions to those problems and to try to overcome them. That is the fundamental difference between the philosophy of the party to which I belong and that of the party to which the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke belongs.

I would like to comment on the programme which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs gave the House this morning in regard to the Government’s plan for dealing with inflation. When the hon. the Minister replied to the debate on his Vote and produced his collective programme of action to reduce the rate of inflation in South Africa, he was unveiling, I believe, one of the most significant policy statements that has been unveiled by this Nationalist Government in a long time. He unveiled a good programme which should be a very effective one if carried out. To me the programme—as my hon. Leader mentioned earlier in this debate—sounded like a series of excerpts from what we on this side of the House have been saying for quite a number of years about what should be done about inflation. This programme contains many of the real answers to inflation and, if carried through with the urgency, the determination and thoroughness which it deserves, it could in my view be effective in lowering the rate of inflation by a significant amount. If this programme is tackled with thoroughness, determination and urgency, the hon. the Minister and the Government can rely on the full support of this side of the House for the measures they might take. When the hon. the Minister was replying to the debate on his Vote, he indicated that when I had spoken in that debate, I made no constructive suggestions on fighting inflation. I did refer to this programme and said that it contained many of the answers for fighting inflation. I devoted my speech on the hon. the Minister’s Vote to two things. I wanted to stress in the strongest terms the critical nature of inflation and the critical proportions which it had reached. I wanted to spur the hon. the Minister and his Government on to doing something about it.

Impossible!

I hope that the heat of his reply to me was some indication that I may have struck the right chord.

You got under his skin.

I am, however, concerned about the fact that this programme contains measures which collide with Government policy. It contains measures which deviate from established Government practices. If it is not to be carried out to the necessary extent, it will not achieve the necessary results. It is going to need a deviation from Government policy in order to be successful. Mr. Speaker, I have not been impressed in the past with the urgency with which the Government has tackled problems relating to inflation. Over the years there has been an air of inevitability about this problem, an air of resignation, an air which has not inspired any confidence in me that while we have in front of us a programme that contains the right measures that that programme is going to be put into practice effectively. In the light of these reservations that I feel, I would like to deal with some of the recommendations in this collective programme.

The first recommendation is that there should be a general educational and publicity campaign to teach the public what can be done to combat inflation. There are going to be exhortations to the public to be more productive, in other words to work harder; to spend wisely, to save more, to avoid waste, to save fuel and so forth. Sir, I find the concept of a publicity programme of this kind commendable, but it is not going to be easy. It is going to require a massive programme if it is going to be effective. I believe that the Department of Information could well apply a major part of its efforts towards this campaign, and if it is successful it will be doing a good job, but I must warn the hon. the Minister that if this campaign is to be successful the public, who are not gullible people, have got to see that the Government itself is playing the part that it is expected to play in this whole programme. Secondly, and very important, this programme recommends the better use of our manpower —primarily our Black manpower. It goes on to say that the areas which require attention are the education, training and employment of Black workers in more skilled occupations in White areas. Then it goes on to say that steps must be taken to retain the economic security of White workers in White areas while removing the impediments to the more productive use of Black labour in White areas. Sir, these are steps that we have been advocating as long as I have been in Parliament. Now the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council is advocating these steps as areas which require further attention; and how they require further attention, Sir! They are areas that require crash programme attention, and not the pedestrian pace at which the Government has been crawling for the past few years. Sir, you cannot take these measures in isolation. Along with them must go other things that are necessary if you are going to have real productivity from your Black workers—things that we take for granted, such as family life and real home ownership, not 30-year leasehold but real home ownership. These are vital adjuncts to a contented and productive labour force. Work is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. Work is a means to achieving a way of life or a livelihood. If you want people to work productively, you have to hold out the prospect to them that in the end they are going to get the things that they need in life such as family life and the ability to build up a permanent home. The programme also calls for voluntary restraint on the part of workers and trade unions as far as wage demands are concerned and voluntary restraint by businessmen as far as increases in price are concerned. That is a very commendable appeal but we must be realistic about it. Human nature comes into the demands of workers, trade unions and businessmen, and human nature being what it is I find some difficulty in seeing self-restraint being exercised when it conflicts with self-interest. I believe that as far as the putting up of prices by businessmen is concerned, the responsibility of the Government lies far more in ensuring that competitive conditions exist in business because competition will be a far stronger factor in keeping the level of prices down. [Interjections.]

A further very important recommendation made by this collective programme is the appeal to government at all levels, i.e. central government, provincial government and local government, to cut back on expenditure, both current expenditure and capital expenditure which is not related to any increase in the productive part of the infrastructure. This is a first class idea, but where is the Government’s example of doing this and where is its lead, because it requires a lead by the Government if this is going to happen? Year after year this Government has been spending a larger and larger percentage of the national income. In 1948 the Government’s current expenditure as a percentage of private consumption expenditure was 12%. That was when the Government came into power. Last year it was 22%, very nearly double. They are taking very nearly double in 1974 of what they took in 1948.

I presume you are only referring to the expenditure of the Government itself and not to other public sector instances?

Those are the figures of central Government expenditure. Ten years ago the tax of the central Government amounted to 17% of the gross domestic product. Now, 10 years later, it amounts to 21%. So don’t run away with any idea that the greater expenditure by the Government is not a major factor in inflation. Public sector expenditure is unquestionably less productive in its results than private sector expenditure. The Government must not advance the argument in regard to expenditure that it is defence expenditure which makes this increasing expenditure necessary, desirable or inevitable. Of course we need defence expenditure. We do not dispute the magnitude of defence expenditure. We completely support the need to be militarily strong in our defence. However, the question I would like to ask is whether the Government itself should not make sacrifices in regard to other items of public sector expenditure and not rely only on the private sector to make all the sacrifices. It is leaving the private sector with a smaller and smaller part of the national income and it is taking more and more tax from them. I want to say that there is room for Government economy. This was not a year in which civil servants received salary increases and therefore other heads of expenditure have been responsible for the increase in Government expenditure. I find it very sombre to think of what would have happened to expenditure this year and what would have happened to the increase in this expenditure if there had also been an increase in the salaries of civil servants this year.

The programme also recommends that increased attention should be given to the timing and extent of adjustments to administered prices. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Administered prices such as those of the Post Office should not be used as they have been used, viz. to raise capital for the Post Office, to the extent that they have been used. That is a trend that only helps to keep up the charges. I suggest too that the effect of taxes on prices, and the manner in which taxes are collected should also receive the attention of the hon. the Minister’s committee. We have made no bones about the fact that we regard the extra 2 cents per litre on petrol as a very unfortunate tax in that it raises the whole cost level of the economy. The imposition of sales taxes at source, which has a multiplying effect as profit is put on to the tax at each level of distribution, is also something which needs to be considered. We on this side of the House believe that it needs to be changed. The programme recommends further that the increase in money supply should not be excessive in relation to the increase expected in the gross domestic product. That is an absolute must if we want to keep the rate of inflation under control. What do we find in practice? We find that in the three months ended February last, the money supply was running at an annual rate which was 35% higher than for the same period last year. This was also largely due to the prime pumping of the monetary supply by a high level of Government expenditure. That increase compares with a possible increase in the gross domestic product on an annual basis of somewhere in the vicinity of 20% of which something like 15% would be accounted for by inflation itself.

We do not have demand inflation.

The programme then goes on to recommend that additional fiscal and monetary measures should be introduced to encourage savings. Here again we agree, but what do we find in practice? In the budget which we are now discussing we have on the one hand a marginal incentive in respect of increased deductible allowances for contributions to pension funds and retirement annuity funds which is mainly going to affect people in higher income brackets. On the other hand we find that in recent months there has been the repayment of two tax-free bond issues, namely, the Jubilee Bond Issue and the Bonusbond Issue without any conversion issues having been offered in their place. I regard this step as one which will hardly encourage anybody to save.

As I said under the hon. the Minister of Finance’s Vote, we need some imaginative savings schemes. Among those, and to my mind ranking high, is the fact that consideration must be given to index-linked bonds. Then—and this recommendation I regard as being very important indeed— the programme recommends that there should be an examination, in consultation with the private sector, by all Government departments, including provincial and local governments, of all legislative and regulatory measures which have a cost-raising effect and which can be deferred or modified without sacrifice to good government.

Or basic Government policy.

Yes, that is a very unfortunate rider. Had this recommendation appeared in its original form without the rider referred to by the hon. the Minister, in other words simply “should be modified without sacrifice to good government”, the field would have been left wide open because it is primarily Government policy measures that need to be looked at. It is primarily the measures being implemented in order to carry out Government policy that are the cost-raising measures. For a start, I should like to see a stop put to all removals under the Group Areas Act. Those are costly not only to the Government but also to the people and the local authorities who are affected thereby. I should also like to see a stop put to limitations placed on the employment of Blacks under the Physical Planning Act because those limitations are very costly to the businesses which find themselves unable to employ sufficient Black labour. I should like to see the whole gamut of petty apartheid measures dismantled where duplication of facilities is not desired by the people. If, as a start, the three suggestions I have made were heeded, it would give the Government and the country a very fair indication of the enormous price in terms of higher prices and inflation that we are paying for Government ideology.

The last of the points I wish to mention is that the programme recommends that fiscal measures should be introduced to obviate the erosion of capital in times of rising prices. This is something we on this side of the House have been pleading for a long time. We need recognition of inflation accounting and the fact that it costs a lot more money to replace assets than those assets originally cost. We need lower, not higher, taxation of business profits to keep capital intact. What do we get from this budget? We get moderately increased investment allowances and some relief for private companies from the undistributed profits tax, all of which have been more than taken away by the increased loan levy on companies. That is no way in which to obviate the erosion of capital.

In conclusion I should like to say that I have mentioned some of the main points of this blueprint for fighting inflation. I believe these are real and very pertinent points. What is needed now is action, is a Government that is going to do something about good recommendations and do so as a matter of urgency. What we need is a g-o-y-b programme, meaning: “Get off your backside.”

Order! I now interrupt the debate in order to give the hon. the Minister of Defence the opportunity of making an important statement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the hon. members for this opportunity. I wish to inform the House that, following discussions which have been held in Cape Town between the British Ambassador and representatives of the South African Government, the Simonstown Agreements of 1955 have today been formerly terminated by an exchange of letters signed by the Honourable Roy Mason for the British Government and by myself for the South African Government.

Now that these Agreements have been terminated, the two navies will deal with each other on the same basis as either of them would deal with any other navy with which they have no special relationship.

Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Defence is of such a far-reaching nature that one hardly wants to react to it immediately. All that I can say is that after decades of close co-operation, it is certainly not without a feeling of nostalgia that these agreements are now being cancelled. However, I assume that this was certainly not our fault, and therefore, I only want to say that it is with a feeling of nostalgia that we learn that the agreements have been cancelled. However, this does not mean that the Government will not continue to do its duty to the seafaring nations of the world which use the route around the Cape. I am convinced that, under the competent guidance of the hon. the Minister of Defence, our navy will continue to fulfill its task and its duty insofar as the safeguarding of the route around the Cape is concerned.

I want to return to what the hon. member for Constantia had to say, and tell him that we appreciate his accepting and his seeing so much good in the programme which was announced this morning by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. By accepting the programme, the hon. member made evident an approach which differed completely from the language which he used two days ago when he told the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that he wanted to speak plainly to him. The spirit which pervaded the hon. member’s speech this afternoon was totally different from the spirit of the speech which he made on Friday. I want to congratulate him very sincerely on the way his eyes have opened and he has seen the light now. But why must the hon. member express so many reservations? One of these is that the Government must also play its part; the Government must reduce Government expenditure drastically. The hon. members said immediately that as far as defence expenditure is concerned, he has no fault to find, but there is so much other expenditure which the Government must prune. If we look on pages viii and ix of the report on the Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account at the increase in expenditure, we can decide where the hon. Opposition wants us to prune expenditure, although we are constantly receiving requests from that side of the House for increased expenditure. When the Government then incurs increased expenditure, they are the first to say that it is because they asked for that increased expenditure because they advocated that the Government should grant it. The increase in Government expenditure in respect of social welfare and pensions was R22 million more this year that it was last year. The hon. member for Umbilo, who is not here now, constantly advocates increased expenditure under that head. Now that the Government has in fact incurred increased expenditure in this connection, the hon. member for Constantia says that the Government should sweep before its own door and should curtail expenditure. The interest on public debt has increased by R42,9 million. The hon. member for Constantia himself has repeatedly attacked the Government and said that it should not use the surplus on revenue account for capital expenditure, and that it should rather cover its capital expenditures frim borrowed funds. We had this again recently in the case of Sasol 2. If the Government were to listen to what that hon. member is requesting, the expenditure on interest on public debt would have been far greater. There was an increase of R20,7 million in the expenditure for the Department of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. Most of that is being spent on education and social pensions. Where does the hon. member for Constantia want to curtail expenditure here? Should less be paid out in social pensions or should less be spent on Coloured education? The same applies to Bantu Administration and Education, for which there was an increased expenditure of R28 million, which was also chiefly for pensions and education, as well as for grants-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust. So we can consider each of these cases. For National Education as well, i.e. for White education, there is an increased expenditure of R28,6 million. For each of these examples an excellent case can be made out for the increased expenditure. The hon. member for Constantia says, however, that the Government should sweep before its own door and that it should curtail the increased expenditure. I want to make it quite clear that it is extremely important, in the struggle against inflation, that the Government does curtail its expenditure. However, this must take place in a sound and orderly manner and not as the hon. member for Constantia implied here this afternoon. Of course, our problem is that we are sitting here with three opposition parties and at the end of a month-long budget debate one cannot but conclude that the three opposition parties have prolonged our activities considerably. We were constantly forced to witness the spectacle of the three opposition parties trying to outdo one another, instead of continuing with the work of this House. Nor is it any wonder, then, that this emotional subject of inflation has been seized upon once again for the sake of making political capital out of it. With much gesticulation the hon. member for Johannesburg North almost snarled at the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that what the nation and this House wanted was action and not words. The hon. member for Yeoville followed him and also asked for “action and not words”. Fortunately, as I have said, the hon. member for Constantia at least saw the light and preached a completely different story this afternoon and sang a completely different song.

The problem of inflation is, of course, a very serious problem, but we have thrashed it out ad infinitum in the recent budget debates. No one wants to minimize the danger of inflation and its detrimental effect on the man in the street. The effect is particularly hard on the retired people, those who no longer work. The wages and salaries of those who are still working are adjusted as the rate of inflation rises. Therefore, they have much less to complain about. The poor person who no longer works, the retired person, the pensioner and the rentier have to bear the heaviest burden of the serious inflation problem. Therefore, we cannot sufficiently emphasize to the hon. the Minister of Finance that he should look after the interests of the retired people very thoroughly, especially those of the rentier. Ample provision was made in the budget for the social pensioners, but unfortunately no provision was made for the civil pensioners. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to take the interests of the civil pensioners into consideration as well in his next budget. Furthermore, I want to ask that the very difficult situation of the retired rentier be taken into consideration. Although we are admitting, with the increased social pensions now and, hopefully, with further increased civil pensions in future that the value of our money is declining, nothing can, unfortunately, be done in this way to alleviate the lot of the rentier, except, of course, by means of a taxation concession. Here I want to suggest something to the hon. the Minister of Finance. When the hon. the Minister’s predecessor made tax concessions about six years ago in respect of retired persons, he began with persons above 65 years of age. It was only a slight concession. In the course of time, however, the concession has gradually been increased, but then the retiring age was reduced to 60 years. In my opinion this was a mistake. We cannot allow people to retire at the age of 60. We shall simply have to teach our people to work until they are 65 years old.

70 years old!

Better still, but in any case, not to 60 years. Therefore, I want to advocate that further consideration be given to this entire matter, and that the tax concessions to retired persons should become operative at the age of 65 and not 60. The money which is saved in this manner should be used to make far greater concessions to retired people, because the State can do nothing, as I have already indicated, in respect of concessions in the form of increases in their capital and their income as it is doing in the case of social and civil pensioners. Therefore, we should rather raise the age to 65 years, and then make considerably higher tax concessions to those retired people. Once these people have retired, they can do nothing to increase the capital on which they have to live. As long as rates of interest are high, they do of course have a small advantage, because they receive a greater amount of interest on their capital, but their capital can never be supplemented. Therefore, greater tax concessions must be granted to them.

†In conclusion I would like to say something about Sasol 2. There are few people in South Africa, if any, who are not enthusiastic about Sasol 2, although not all for the same reason. I want to focus attention for a moment on the tremendous importance of Sasol 2 as a basis of feedstock for our developing petro-chemical industry. Of course, Sasol 2 will be increasingly valuable as a source of motor fuel, but I am convinced that it will be far more the case in the petro-chemical field. The synthol coal-to-oil process, as applied by Sasol, is in many respects an ideal process, technically speaking, for producing petro-chemical feedstocks from coal. This is because by the very nature of the process many of the sought-after and often high quality feedstocks and chemical intermediates are produced in this process as direct run-of-the-plant products. Costly intermediate petro-chemical plants— for example, crackers, dehydrogenators, etc., and processes are necessary to deliberately produce similarly rich and/or high quality chemical feedstocks from mineral oil or its components. If I may explain, in the case of oil, we must break up oil and bring it back to feedstocks for the petro-chemical industry. In the case of Sasol 2, we will go about it the other way. We will first have these intermediate processes from which we go straight on to the production of feedstocks for our petrochemical industry. At a later stage we get oil. Furthermore, large energy losses are being incurred on the oil feed in doing so. It would therefore not make economic sense for South Africa to have a situation where imported crude oil or components, fairly easily and cheaply convertible into motor fuel are used to produce more petrochemical feedstocks, whilst straightrun synthol products contain a sufficient quantity of the same feedstocks and are channelled into motor fuel. With the commissioning of Sasol 2, a huge new source of feedstock will become available. This new source will be capable of supporting the economic production of a wide range of petro-chemicals, including butadiene, a feedstock for synthetic rubber. This is why I mentioned this fact last Friday to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

The point I wish to make is that the magnitude and diversity of potentially valuable petro-chemical feed streams from Sasol 2 are such that everybody, including Sasol, must be convinced that the opportunity to advantageously centralize a huge chemical complex around it must not be lost or jeopardized by any actions which do not take into account this opportunity. After all, Sasol 2 can earn a great deal more by selling its products at petrochemical feed stream prices than at motor fuel prices. Perhaps I could illustrate. The gasoline used by a medium sized car over 1 000 km can be converted by petrochemicals into finished commodities worth a few thousand rand. For the good of the economy, travelling by motor car should be curtailed long before we start starving our petro-chemical industry for want of hydrocarbon raw materials on the grounds that they are needed as motor fuel. I fully agree that in our present position, since we do not have our own oil wells, it is extremely essential that we should develop Sasol in order to produce oil, but if we do very urgently need motor oil, the beauty of the situation is that we can switch from the production of hydrocarbons for the petro-chemical industry directly over to the production of oil. If, however, as a result of strategic consideration, we want to produce oil, the hydrocarbons normally used for petro-chemicals could be diverted to motor fuel without any physical or technical problems at all.

*I want to make it very clear that we are dealing here with a vast new concept. Not one of us wants to minimize for one moment the dangers with which we are faced in this country when the oil-producing countries turn on the screws. Therefore, it is extremely essential that we should prepare for the day when it will be necessary to produce crude oil and motor fuel from coal. As I have tried to indicate, the fortunate part is that it is possible in the last stage of the conversion of coal into oil to extract these hydrocarbons and to use them for the petro-chemical industry. The day we do need it for the production of petrol, that process can be continued without great sacrifice and difficulty. Therefore, I want to advocate that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs appoint a commission of scientists and technologists to go into the this matter very thoroughly and to see whether Sasol 2 cannot mean infinitely more to us, at this stage, as the source of supply for a very wide-ranging petro-chemical industry, rather than as only a source of supply for the production of petrol from coal. I think it is a case of doing the one and not neglecting the other. When it becomes imperative, the processes can be converted to produce oil, but in the meantime we could initiate and develop a vast new petro-chemical industry from Sasol 2. Our country will gain infinite benefits from this. I should very much like to address this request to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Sir, I should like to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Paarl for concessions in regard to civil pensioners who retired before 1 July 1973 and people living on small amounts of interest. Those people are, in fact, having a very hard time of it, and I really hope and trust that the plea made by the hon. member for Paarl will enjoy favourable consideration.

Sir, for the purposes of this debate I actually want to deal for the most part with the hon. member for Yeoville. On the eve of the wedding with the Progressive Party, the hon. member, the leader of that splinter group, is at present engaged in drawing up the conditions of marriage. We are aware that these people are entertaining wild dreams that they will perhaps become the official Opposition within the foreseeable future, and that is why I want to ask the hon. member to elucidate certain statements he has made here and not merely to leave the matter at fine-sounding phrases and clichés. Sir, I do this with particular reference to the amendment he moved during the Second Reading debate on the Budget Bill. I quote from the second point he stated (Hansard, 1975, column 3681)—

The question immediately occurs as to whether this distribution must only be in respect of new sources of income and wealth.

Can’t you read?

Yes, I can read, and what do I read in the motivation for this given by the hon. member? He states (column 3688)—

Then he goes on—

I quote further from the hon. member’s speech—

And further—

Sir, if words have any meaning, then this distribution is apparently only in regard to new income and new wealth, and if that is the case, it is logical to come to the conclusion that either the existing wealth and income is fairly distributed, or that the existing wealth and income is excluded from this distribution. It is logical to come to such a conclusion. If the latter is the case, in other words, if the existing wealth and income is excluded from the distribution, then surely that signifies extreme discrimination. It means that those people who obtain the new income and wealth, as against those who possess the present wealth and income, will be discriminated against.

The rich will become richer.

There is discrimination against those who will have and there is discrimination against those who have, but there is also discrimination against those who will benefit from this distribution. But if this assumption is correct—and I can come to no other conclusion—then surely the result of this approach will be that no new development will or can take place, because what enterprise will try to obtain new income and new wealth if it is to be distributed equally?

The next question is: How is this distribution to occur, this reasonable and fair distribution? There are countries in the world which are trying to bring about this distribution through nationalization. Is that what the hon. member has in mind? Nothing explicit is stated, nothing but this fine-sounding phrase, fair distribution of wealth. I repeat my question. Does the hon. member want to recommend nationalization, as is being done in other parts of the world, or distribution by way of mutual agreement between labour and capital? Who is to be the arbiter? I have a third question which I should like to put to this hon. member. I refer again to an extract I have already quoted, from column 3688—

I think it is important and necessary for us to know on whose behalf this hon. member speaks when he refers to “they”, meaning “the Whites”. And is he, this hon. member and his fellows, excluded from these “Whites”? We expect a reply to that. I want to maintain that it is irresponsible statements of this kind which give rise to polarization.

I have a fourth question, and I again quote what I have already quoted—

The obvious question is: What does the hon. member mean by “other means”? And, Sir, now that I have quoted these two extracts, can you understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration referred a moment ago to people in this House who create a climate and prepare the ground for people to do irresponsible things?

I am not irresponsible.

I say that frank and clear replies are imperative. This is very important, because these people are framing the policy for a new party, and statements of this kind are dangerous, particularly for people who are not fully acquainted with, the operation of our economic laws. It is a fact that in the past, revolutions have been launched with the slogan, “A fair sharing of wealth”. What are the facts in regard to the so-called distribution of wealth in South Africa, which, the hon. member is making such a fuss about?

The next question is: If a fair and just distribution of wealth and income in the country is lacking, why are thousands of people streaming to the cities to share in the wealth and income created by the knowhow, skill and administrative ability of the Whites? It is strange that people should stream to places where there is not a fair and just distribution. I want to mention another fact. The average income per working individual in the Republic of South Africa rose by 41% between 1964 and 1974 in the case of Whites. For the Coloureds, Bantu and Asians, the average income for a working individual rose by 50% over the same period.

If one earns R1 and one gets R2, then one has an increase of 100%.

After all, there is an equal and just distribution and this will be so to an increasing extent as these people equip themselves better through training, etc. I should like to state the following idea for consideration by the hon. member and his fellows who formed a splinter party with him and who are now going to be wed. In a spirit of priestly piety, they must test the truth of what Dr. J. S. Marais, the president of the S.A. Foundation, said in Hamburg—

I conclude by saying that I think it is sometimes necessary for the people who act so piously here as champions of the interests of the Black people and the Brown people, should find out what the people on whose behalf they are ostensibly acting, think of them. An event of particular importance occurred recently. Two Black people, namely Winston Ntshona and John Kani received the Tony in the United States, the highest award an actor can receive. Two Black people from South Africa were awarded that honour. It is interesting that Alan Field of News Week interviewed them on 12 May of this year while they were in the USA. He put questions to them to which I think the small group on that side of the House should listen very carefully. One question was—

Ntshona’s reply, and hon. members would do well to listen, was the following—

I repeat that this was the reply furnished by this Black man. He states—

That is the liberal—

I conclude with the thought that if this is the verdict of the Black people whose part the hon. member is so fond of taking, they must not expect us on this side of the House, and the United Party, to take them seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to reply to the hon. member for Kimberley North, in so far as the first part of his speech is concerned because that seemed to me to be more in the nature of a personal quarrel with the hon. member for Yeoville who, no doubt, will come back to it. As regards his remarks about liberals who sit on fat seats, if we simply take the criterion of “fat seat”, it would be most interesting to see who would be included in the definition of liberal as I look around this House.

The hon. member for Paarl talked about Sasol and the need for action. He will excuse me if I do not deal with Sasol on this occasion and about the need for action we have already made our position clear.

What I should like to do, is to come to the economic implications of this Government’s policies which have been followed over the last 27 years and in respect of which certain points were repeated monotonously and ad nauseum during this session of Parliament. Whatever words they use—I want to come back to some of the words they have used—they cannot disguise the fact that their policy of separate development or apartheid is in a state of increasing collapse. If one looks at it purely in economic terms, as I hope to do, this is almost indisputable. Yet the interesting thing is that we have heard nothing from the Government about any alternative course of action they intend following.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said in reply to a question earlier on that he thought we would be able to build ten separate viable economies in this country. This is the only justification underlying the policy of separate development or of apartheid, viz. the concept or theory that each homeland can have a separate and viable economy within our country. The question of the cost of the duplication that this is going to involve is never raised. However, I do not think they particularly want to argue that point. What is more, there is no mention made as to how this is to be done. I want to come back in a minute to the figures involved. To begin with, I think it should be set out fairly, what the Government is attempting to do. I want to refer to a book entitled Multi-national Development in South Africa: The Reality. I simply want to make three quotes from this book. The first is:

I am not going to deny that there has not been progress, but I intend to cast a very severe doubt on the word “phenomenal” with which I certainly cannot go along. I quote further:

I do not intend to go into that either other than to say that it seems to me that the creating of “unobstructed avenues for the cultural development of the Black man” seems to be one of the problems of this Government. The last quotation I want to make from this book is the following:

It goes on:

I hope people will remember that because, when the hon. the Minister of Finance says it is possible to create ten separate viable and equal economies in South Africa by the end of the century, I presume that in the light of what the Government says, the hon. the Minister is talking about separate but equal economies. He is saying to all the Black and Brown South Africans: “You have the right to earn for yourself, and to enjoy, the same standard of living as White South Africans and, if it cannot be done in so-called White South Africa, we are going to help to provide the means of creating this in the homelands.” Before I come to the facts and the figures, may I simply say that we on these benches say that even if it could be done—it cannot be done—it would simply be a tragic waste of the resources of the country. To continue to attempt to maintain some credibility in the policy of separate development is simply making all of us in this country pay an extremely high price which we should otherwise not have to pay. There are numerous examples and we do not have to quote them over and over again. There is the question of R637 million needed for about 100 000 jobs that will be coming on to the labour market! I say when one looks at what is and cannot be done and it is interesting to look at the gross domestic products and the budgets of the homelands in discussing the extravagant claims of the Government in this regard. I want to quote the hon. the Prime Minister who on Friday, 18 April this year, said (Hansard, col. 4380)—

That may be a fact, but then, talking about the budgets of the various homelands, he went on to say—

If one adds those figures together, the total amounts to R336 million which constitutes the aggregate budget for 80% of the population of this country. This total should be compared with the gross domestic product of so-called White South Africa which is R22 382 million. It amounts to between 1% and 2% of the figure for White South Africa. There is nothing very grand about that. It should also be borne in mind that the anticipated revenues for those budgets are to a very considerable extent earned in so-called White South Africa. So I think we ought to see these extravagant claims of the Government in relation to what is happening in so-called White South Africa.

There are two other interesting figures which I should like to quote. We have heard over and over again from hon. members on the Government side that the homelands must build themselves up, and must do it themselves. We have had two questions answered during the course of the previous session and this session from which it emerged that the total value of mineral production in the five homelands quoted—presumably the others have no mineral production—was R16,2 million in 1973. I think that was the year for which the figure was given. When we turn to the answer to a question on Friday, 18 October 1974, we discover that the gross value of the crop population for all nine homelands was R40 million and the gross value of pastoral production was R35 million and the gross value of industrial production was of the order of R20 million. That can hardly be described as what I would call an equitable basis for creating ten separate viable economies.

Hon. members say the homelands must build themselves up. The assumption which flows from that is: We have built ourselves up so therefore why cannot others do it? However, there is no justification for looking at it from that point of view. White, Brown and Black South Africans have built this country. The Black and Brown South African have played a part in the development of this country right from the word “go”. They have helped to build up so-called White South Africa. Even in the days when they provided nothing but unskilled labour it was of great importance to the economic development of this country. When we look at this we must also bear in mind the 8 million Black and Brown South Africans who are living in so-called White South Africa. This simply highlights the fact that the day when the Black and Brown South. African was merely regarded as an unskilled worker is indeed past. When we look at this position two simple facts ought to be borne in mind because they are of fundamental importance to the development of this country. The first— we have mentioned it before but it is worth repeating for the benefit of hon. members —is that the income of the average inhabitant of the homelands is R72 per annum while that of the average Black man in the White areas is approximately 2½ times that. When we examine the wage gap we can say that, broadly speaking—I am speaking generally, there will presumably be exceptions—the wage gap is of the order of 14 to 1 in favour of White South Africans in relation to Black South Africans. If one looks at the economic development programme as put forward by this Government and one assumes that the White wage earner will simply increase the rate of his wages in real terms by 1% per annum to the end of this century and that the Black South African will succeed in increasing his wages by 6,4% per annum —that is five and a half times the rate of increase for the White—to the end of this century the gap will have only shrunk to four to one by that time. That is hardly a tenable position when one looks around the modem world in 1975. We would certainly find it hard to sleep easy at night bearing in mind such figures. We know perfectly well that it cannot be done overnight but those fundamental figures must be borne in mind if we are seeking the peaceful and harmonious development of our country. There you are; it is quite clear that 10 separate “houses” cannot be built. They are actually in the process of being demolished through economic integration which simply recognizes the realities and necessities of South Africa in 1975.

What should we do over the 25 years to the end of this century to turn to account our great riches for the sake and benefit of all South Africans? There are four basic things which we repeat ought to be done. One of them is that the amount spent on education, which is pitiful when one looks at the figures for Black and Brown South Africans, must be substantially and radically increased. I am referring to both formal and technical education. We should also have the Government following a very extensive retraining programme for White workers where necessary. We should remove all forms of discrimination in the labour market. This Government should also be spending vastly increased sums on housing, both in the homelands and in the urban areas. At the same time it must initiate a new form of expenditure in respect of social infrastructures so as to give to the people of Soweto, for example, something of which they can be proud. We have all the riches in South Africa. The only and fundamental thing that is holding us back is the shortage of skilled labour. If we can turn that to account, there is more than enough to enable all 25 million people in this country to enjoy an improved standard of living. However, unless we can have and unless this Government will establish or permit the establishment of an economic framework under which every South African has the opportunity to earn for himself—no charity is involved—at least the basic necessities of life; unless the gap or chasm between the Blacks, Browns and Whites can be seen to be closing and blurring at the edges and then throughout the entire spectrum so that it is difficult to make any distinction; unless the Government strides toward instead of inching toward the situation where Black and Brown South Africans can earn a more equitable share of the wealth in the country; unless not only the permanence of the non-White presence in so-called White South Africa but also its fundamental importance to the development of the South African economy is recognized; unless we ensure all these things, we will not be able to look forward with any reasonable degree of permanence to the development of harmonious relationships among all the people in South Africa. To continue to try to break down our economy into a number of parts will simply make us all poorer than we would otherwise be. It is something which we can ill afford. Neither will it to my mind enhance the chances of continued and improved racial harmony in South Africa. The reverse will rather be true. It seems to me that that racial harmony will be impaired. If the racial harmony and a rising standard of living for all people in this country is the objective and if it is desirable—and we say it is—then the Government must turn away from trying to construct a house of separate development, because that house is not a reality. It is a fiction and a fraud. It is like the gentleman in the Bible who was foolish and built his house upon the sand. It must inevitably fall.

Mr. Speaker, if only the hon. member for Johannesburg North had not spoken this afternoon, I should still have had a high opinion of him as a businessman. However, I shall have to reply to him in regard to a few things he said here. The hon. member made the statement that for the past 27 years the National Party had squandered the resources of the country. In my opinion, the only resources which have been squandered have been those in respect of which the hon. member has had a finger in the pie. The hon. member states that the Government must spend millions on the non-Whites over the next 25 years in order to remove discrimination in regard to labour and to provide them with housing and a social structure to enable them to enjoy a standard of living equal to that of the Whites at the end of a period of 25 years. Can the hon. member tell us where the money is to come from? It is really too crazy for words to make a statement that so much should be spent, without saying where it is to come from. If those people are unable to produce it themselves, how are we, as Whites, to do so? The hon. member was quite correct when he said that these people must be uplifted, developed and put in a position to enjoy a higher standard in the future. But this is happening. Over the past 10 years the National Party has spent more to develop the Bantu homelands in South Africa and establish an infrastructure, housing and all the other services, than the entire UNO has spent on the Black States in Africa over the past ten years. What 3 million people have done for South Africa in eight Black States is far more than the entire United Nations has done. Why does the hon. member not criticize those people, too? The hon. member and I have one thing in common, and that is that both of us are in South Africa. The difference is that I am from South Africa whereas he, unfortunately, is not. However, I cannot hold it against him that he was born abroad, and I welcome him here. I am pleased that he is here. I want to tell the hon. member that there is something else we could have in common, namely that he should be for South Africa, just as I am.

Of course, yes.

The hon. member says “Of course, yes”, but since the hon. member for Johannesburg North entered the House, he has not yet uttered one positive word here for White South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

The same goes for the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that we should pay the Bantu more. The first time this issue cropped up, the newspapers investigated and found out that she was paying her Bantu in the hotels a shockingly low wage.

That is not true.

It is true. The hon. member for Houghton now states that it is untrue, but it was true, and the people confirmed that it was in fact true. The hon. members want the National Party to pay the non-Whites more, but, after all, the Government does not employ all the non-Whites. The capital assets of Anglo American Corporation are equal to those of all the building societies in South Africa put together. I have respect for those bodies, and I am glad of the employment opportunities they provide, by means of which they help to develop the country, etc. However, the hon. member for Johannesburg North has a finger in the pie and I now want to ask him: Why does he not pay precisely the same wage, in all his companies, to the Bantu in his employ?

Because of your policy.

All the Progressive members have employees in their service …

We do where we are allowed to.

I want to know whether the National Party must now train Bantu for them to work in the mines so that they can enjoy the benefit? Surely the hon. members also have a function and a duty. I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North in particular why the hon. member does not pay all the Bantu precisely the same salary? During the discussion of the Sport and Recreation Vote, the hon. member for Johannesburg North put a question to me and said that I should only reply by saying “Yes” or “No”. I now want to reply to the hon. member with a counter-question, to which he, too, should only reply by saying “Yes” or “No”. Does the hon. member still peddle dagga so much? Just answer “Yes” or “No”. The hon. member asked me a ridiculous question and he wanted me to reply by saying “Yes” or “No”, and now he cannot answer a question I put to him. Later in my speech I shall come back to what the hon. member said.

The hon. member for Constantia said this afternoon, “The policy of my party is to try to find solutions to the problems.” The hon. member is quite right. All they do is try, without achieving anything. The National Party and the Government not only try, they do, and they solve the problems. That is why South Africa is doing so well. The hon. member also levelled criticism at the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs for having been so tardy in coming forward with the programme to combat inflation which he announced this morning. We must convey our sincere thanks to the Government for the extremely quick action which has been taken. The hon. member himself said that virtually the entire Cabinet serves on that committee, as well as officials and members of the private sector. The hon. member maintains that things are moving at such a snail’s pace, but I want to ask whether it is the task of the Government alone to try to combat inflation. With whom and where does the problem lie? After all, the problem does not lie with this Government alone. I want to ask the hon. member what inflation we have in South Africa. At the moment we do not have a demand inflation and hon. members know it. Surely we have a cost-pressure inflation in this country. Where one has a cost-pressure inflation, wages and labour are the most important factors. One of the reasons for our high rate of inflation in South Africa today is the increased wages and labour requirements. At one stage in recent times, non-White wages rose by an average of 17% as against an average of 10% for White wages, and it is this extra 7% for the non-Whites which is to a very great extent responsible for this inflation, since there has been no corresponding rise in productivity and increased production. But hon. members opposite are still saying that the Government should increase wages. Surely we cannot simply increase wages. I want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that if the Government were to decide this evening to pay equal wages to everyone, it would undoubtedly see inflation in this country and a collapse of our economy such as we have never had before. Surely one cannot argue and talk in this way. The hon. member ought to know better, because after all, he is a businessman. Why, then, does he expound such things in this House? He is not doing himself any kind of favour by doing so.

There is another factor in our economy which promotes inflation, viz. television. For years, hon. members opposite fought with the Government about television. Our standpoint was that it was not practicable, but hon. members opposite continued to fight for it. Now television is coming. A great deal of capital is now being generated to make this possible, and I should like to say something in this regard today. The body which is being hit hardest, is the Post Office. If we in South Africa are unable to maintain our telecommunications system, there will be utter chaos in this country. At this stage I want to avail myself of this opportunity to appeal to our businessmen, particularly the six companies involved in this matter, not to take the Post Office’s technicians from them. I want to appeal, too, to traders and all those concerned with television not to poach the Post Office’s technicians. What good will it do if we can all sit and watch television but are totally unable to telephone anyone in South Africa? In my opinion, it is not the function of the Government alone to ensure that the staff of the Post Office are not meddled with. It is also the function of the Opposition and of every person in South Africa.

I want to quote an English saying: “Charity begins at home.” The State does not have a responsibility and a duty. Its first task is to see to it that its people are happy and prosperous. In the sphere in which I move, it is the Government’s task to see to it that we are strong and prosperous in the economic sphere as well. We know that apart from health, the security of the State, etc., if the Government can make the country very strong economically, then the country will be in a very favourable position. Then the country can afford to spend enough on defence to keep the wolf from our borders. The hon. member for Constantia said today that he could find no fault with the defence expenditure. He maintains that we should conserve in every sphere in regard to expenditures. The hon. member for Paarl replied very effectively to the hon. member for Constantia on that score. However, I want to put a question to the hon. member for Constantia or to other members who will speak after him. He must tell us which items in this Budget should be pruned. Can he show us one such item? Let us take Bantu Affairs as an example. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that we should spend far more money in this regard, but how much are the Whites not spending in this Budget? After all, this is an enormous sum. This hon. Minister and this National Party Government have many people and much machinery at their disposal. It is not only the few Ministers who sit here every day who compile the estimates. After all, we know what goes on behind the scenes. We know how the Ministers, together with the departments, the private sector, many bodies and members of the National Party toil to present the best Budget. We do not come and plead our case in this House in public; we leave that to hon. members opposite. Despite that, however, we are constantly busy. We hold discussions and meetings, etc., to thrash out these matters to the benefit of South Africa and its people, Whites and non-Whites. When I refer to the State’s responsibility and duty, I just want to add that every living being in South Africa also has a responsibility and a duty. I want to ask the Opposition since when they do not also have a responsibility and a duty. In my opinion, it is by advancing constructive criticism that they discharge their responsibility. It is a duty to do so. We appreciate that. However, we must be realistic when we criticize as well. I do not say that there have not been positive proposals this year. Suggestions worth looking at have even been made by the Progressive Party and the Reformists. Our hon. Ministers have said so, too. However, I want to tell those people that they should exercise their responsibility, not only here but outside this House, among their people, too. The other day it was stated here across the floor of the House that the Opposition did not control such a large part of our economy in South Africa. However, it is estimated roughly that their supporters control at least 80% of the economy of this country. The hon. member for Johannesburg North agrees, does he not? Surely, then, these people also have the power to do something positive and put everything into the struggle in South Africa so that we may make progress in the economic sphere.

This brings me back to the statement by the hon. member for Johannesburg North to the effect that the Bantu homelands are not sufficiently viable or strong economically. Where does he get hold of a statement like that? The hon. member referred to the homelands’ mining production of R16 million and to their other production of approximately R40 million, but surely that is not the criterion. I do not want to take up the time of the hon. House now. I hope the hon. member will do his homework and read the 1974 year book of the Department of Information. I hope he has a copy. If he does not have one, I shall lend him mine. In it, the strength of the various homelands is set out very clearly. For example, the homelands have the highest rainfall in South Africa. There are places in the Transkei which get 70 inches of rain per annum. What is there that one cannot do there? In surface area and in population, the homelands are bigger than many of the states in Africa, or even in Europe, and those states stand on their own two feet and are viable. They carry on their own existence. The hon. member wants everything here to be integrated. Now I ask the hon. member why he, with all his companies, which, control such a large part of the economy of South Africa, does not invest money in the Bantu homelands? If they feel that section 3 of the Physical Planning Act makes things difficult for them, and if they find it a hindrance that they are no longer able to employ Bantu in the White area in Johannesburg, why do they not build those factories in one of the homelands? [Interjections.] In the homelands one can make precisely the same profit as with a factory here in the White area. If I have a factory in the Ciskei or the Transkei and my turnover is R100 million and I make R10 million profit, then surely I have made that money and I need not make it in the White area. Since when can one only start a factory in the White area and not in the Black homelands? If that argument were to hold water, there would not be a single factory in the whole of Africa, and the whole of Africa would starve. We are providing the infrastructure in these homelands. The transport and the telecommunications are there, but owing to the actions of these people over the years, these people who themselves consistently refuse to go to the border areas, where so many benefits are provided, nothing is done, and when that is the case, they must not take it amiss of us that more is not being done. Just look at what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has offered them if they establish their factories in the homelands. But no, they boycott them. They are not against the Whites; in this regard they are really against the Black man, because they are refusing to build anything there. Why do they not want to build factories in the homelands or in the border areas? Why do they not want to move? No, they want everything to be simply lumped together in the White area. Well, let us take a brief look at what would happen if the families of all those Bantu who are working in Johannesburg, for example, were to be living with them, as the hon. member for Constantia advocated. If they were all to flock to Johannesburg, where on earth would they stay? Where would they find housing? Just think of the violence that would take place there then. [Interjections.] How can one bring together such a mass of people? The idea throughout the world is to decentralize, and not to have everything together. If the hon. members think that it is not going to be expensive to have everything lumped together, they are making a very big mistake. If everything were to be lumped together, just consider what the cost would be. There would not be land for all the factories and all the other things which go with them. It is not profitable; one simply cannot do it, and the hon. members ought to know that, at least.

I do not want to dwell much longer on the hon. member for Johannesburg North, but I want to add that as far as inflation is concerned, and bearing in mind that the hon. the Minister announced this plan this afternoon, all of us in South Africa have one task which we must set as our objective, namely to make an end of this psychosis which prevails in South Africa today. We all think now that the money is going to waste and that it is dwindling in value. I think that all of us should realize that we should not let this psychosis get out of hand. Each of us must do his duty and make people understand that it depends on them and on them alone what they do with their money. Whatever the Government may do, and whatever the National Party may announce from the platforms, the Opposition is just as capable of doing. Every businessman in the country and every housewife, teacher and schoolchild, whoever they may be, must do their share. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. the Minister has now come up with this scheme, with this commission, to advertise throughout South Africa in order to guide people in that regard. If we were more all productive, we should be able to combat inflation. Now the hon. Opposition is levelling the charge against us that we in this country are not sufficiently productive. Let me tell the hon. members that this does not apply to one person only. It would be pointless for me to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North to be more productive. It is the task of his companies and their boards of directors to ensure that their people are more productive. Give them incentive wages, or anything; even dismiss half of them and pay the other half more, and force them in this way to produce more. We should also tell our people that they should buy more judiciously in South Africa. After all, I can see what happens. I come back to the housewives. They simply phone and say that the shop should send something. They do not know what the price is nor do they ascertain it. They send the servant to the shop with a basket and she simply packs the goods in the basket and returns home with the groceries. The people—myself, for example—simply enter a shop and see something they like and buy it without further ado. Where are the days when we still asked what the price of a thing was and told the salesman that we wanted 5% or 10% off for cash? We should undoubtedly do that kind of thing in our country. If we were to do that, then we, too, would be playing our part to assist in combating inflation, because it then is not the duty of the Government only. It is the duty of every one of us to prevent exploitation in this country. When I come across a person who is engaged in exploitation, I ought to do my duty and take steps against such a person. If all of us were to do this, this would be a far better country. There are many things we could do, but something else which we can do is to save more. It is true that there is cost-pressure inflation, but we must prevent demand inflation. Let us buy judiciously. We could put an end to inflation overnight by creating a depression, but who wants that? Through the years, this Government has ensured that there is sufficient work for everyone in this country. There are employment opportunities in South Africa as in no other country in the world. Of all the Western countries, there is not one which is in so favourable a position as we are. There is no unemployment among the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians have work and there is virtually a shortage of Bantu workers. This is as a result of all the employment opportunities created by this Government. Once we have done what I am advocating, then I think that we will also have done our duty towards the State and its people.

I want to come to another minor matter, and in doing so I come back to the matter which I discussed the other day. The Opposition is always demanding that we should finance our State expenditure from loans. However, if we were to consistently finance from loans, where would we end up? I want to quote another international source, namely the International Bank for Development. I think that of all bodies in the world, this is surely the one which can speak authoritatively, if our economists and our Government supposedly cannot speak with authority. Their statement is that in the developed countries, the internal funds of the public utility companies should be responsible for the financing of between 40% and 50% of new capital expenditure. They say, therefore, that all new expenditure should be financed from their own finances to the extent of 40% or 50% and not from loans. This is what we, too, have done in regard to the Post Office, and it is a policy which this Government has carried out consistently. I want to ask the Opposition rather to fall in with this this evening than to continue harping on this matter. If not, they should rather come up with other and better proposals. The percentage given by this bank for the developed countries is that they should use their own finances to finance between 30% and 40% of their capital works.

Unfortunately my time has expired and I have to conclude. Since the Opposition has been unable either to say a word against this budget we have had now, or to indicate where we could have cut down on these expenditures, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to continue as in the past. Since he is to go overseas again shortly to plead for gold at the IMF, we want to wish him all of the very best on behalf of the whole House—because I think the Opposition will agree with that. We trust that he will be successful in this task and that he will strike a resounding blow for South Africa, because so far, things have gone very well for us since the latest meeting in London.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this session I should like to ask this question: What has emerged during this session of Parliament? What have we been witnessing here? We have witnessed the further humiliation of the official Opposition. We have witnessed the unusual and unpleasant sight of a formerly great party being attacked by its own spawn, full of hate and venom, and we have seen them try to stab it in the back time and time again. It must be very unpleasant indeed for a party to be stabbed in the back by its own offspring in public. It is pathetic to see the children in a race with an old and sickly father who is stumbling along on his last political legs. It is heart-rending, but it is sometimes amusing as well to see the leaders of the splinter factions, “the bits and pieces” they are called by the hon. member for Durban Point, and the old mother party fight one another. The hon. member for Green Point calls these “bits and pieces” a flock of “political vultures”. We have indeed witnessed a spectacle here. If this official Opposition, however, should now fall apart—and there are rumours of another ruption—what would then happen in South Africa? When the United Party sinks to its knees, its offspring will be ready to take over as the official Opposition. The splinter groups of the United Party have adopted the banner of “ver-ligtes”, because that makes a favourable impression on the voters. I should like to tell hon. members, however, that wolf’s paws are already showing underneath that pretty banner. Who are these so-called “verligtes” who are creating such great expectations of a new “verligte” opposition in this country? They are none other than liberalists, but because the word “libera-list” has become an abusive word, it is very deeply buried for the sake of convenience. These people are the successors of the greatest liberalist in our political life, the late Minister Jan Hofmeyr, of whom Dr. D. F. Malan said (translation)—

That is what Dr. Malan said about Mr. Hofmeyr. Dr. Verwoerd saw the wolf’s paws showing as far back as 1960, when he said (translation)—

That is what Dr. Verwoerd said about them and how right he was! The direction which these groups are taking, the Progressives and the Reformists, bodes ill for South Africa. They are friendly and charming people as they sit there, but if they should become the official Opposition in this country today, it would be an evil day for South Africa. The road they wish to follow is a dangerous one; it is a road which will be catastrophic for any country, but for South Africa it is a road which will be even more catastrophic. The road they wish to follow is headed straight for integration and Black government in this country; it is headed straight for conflict, confrontation and the downfall of the Whites in this country. There is a lot of talk of “ver-ligtheid” these days. South Africa should be warned against this siren song. It is enlightenment which brings no light. A stable, enlightened direction for the Progressives/Reformists means a straight road to full so-called partnership with the Coloured and Black people and that within a unitary state. So then, Black and White and Coloured all form one nation in a democratic system which will inevitably result in a Black majority government. What will happen to the Whites? They will have to hold their own in some way, but these hon. members do not tell us how the Whites are to hold their own in this unitary state of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. It must be clear to every layman in this country that the Whites will be unable to hold their own. It may seem as if there are differences of accent between the Progressive Party and the Reformists, but soon, after a forced marriage, they will get in under the same blanket; they will get in under the blanket of the leftist liberalists in this country. The hon. member for Houghton has already told the Reformists: “We have no intention of budging from our basic principles.”

What are the aims of the devotees of liberalism in South Africa? The devotees of liberalism in South Africa certainly do not aim at preserving the White race and its indentity. It is all the same to them whether the Whites as a race or a cultural group survives or vanishes in South Africa. They really want a non-racial community to come into being here, because they deny the existence of any natural differences between human beings. If their ideas should be applied in South Africa, it would mean that the relatively small White population group in this country would be submerged by a Black sea. The Progressive Party and the Reformists are nothing but a revival and continuation of the dangerous Hofmeyr policy of the forties. They are an extension and the political arm of the liberalists in this country. What does Mr. Kenneth R. Heard, who was a member of the Molteno commission of the Progressive Party—that commission which inquired into and was to advise the Progressive Party on a policy—write in his book, General Elections in South Africa? He says—

Sir, do you see what the aims of these people are? Their aim is political integration which will eventually lead to Black government in this country. In reply to questions which have been put to the hon. member for Houghton in this House, she has admitted that if the Progressive Party could have their way, Black members would be able to sit in this Parliament and that Black members would also be able to sit in the Cabinet. Those hon. members have become nothing but the Bantu representatives we used to have in this House. When they rise to speak, the tone and content of their speeches are the same as that of the Ballingers. One rarely hears a word from them in the interest of the Whites. They only plead for the non-Whites as if the Whites did not exist. All we hear from them is how the White man is failing to fulfil his obligations towards the non-Whites. All we hear is what the White man should do or what he has not yet done for the other races in this country. We hear very little from them about what the White man has done for the other races in the country. Why do we never hear from them that the White man also has rights in this country?

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I was asking the Progressive Party what their White policy was.

They have all left now.

The hon. the leader of the Progressive Party is not here now, but I ask anybody else on that side to tell us and the voters how they see the future of the White man in this country. Sir, in all their pleas during the past month in this House, in all their speeches, they totally disregarded the White man as if he did not exist. They just keep telling us morning, noon and night how the non-Whites in this country are being wronged. One sometimes wonders, Sir, why they plead so much for the non-Whites. Are they really so concerned about the fate of the non-White, or do they perhaps wish to ride on the backs of the Coloured and Black people of this country to come into power one day? Sir, during a Parliamentary tour in Mozambique a year or so ago, we attended a reception which was held by the Governor of Mozambique. At that reception it struck me that there were only two Black people amongst the hundreds of people present. In reply to the question why only two Black people were present in a country where there was full integration, the official reply was that the other people did not yet have the merit to attend the reception. Sir, the Progressive Party wishes to do precisely the same with the non-Whites in this country. The doors will be thrown open to the non-Whites under a Progressive régime in this country, but non-Whites will be unable to get into the exclusive prestige suburbs, for one can buy one’s apartheid there. The non-Whites will not be able to get there because they do not have enough money and because they do not have enough merit. Sir, the non-Whites will find that under a Progressive régime in this country they will be cheated out of those things which they are now being handed on a platter. Sir, we are a small White nation, but if we take a look at what our contribution has been towards the uplifting of the non-Whites in this country under a National Government, in financial and other terms, I cannot believe that there is another White nation on this earth which has done more for the non-White than we have done here. Sir, we have no feeling of guilt towards the non-Whites, unlike the Progressive Party. Our intentions are honest and we give these people a fair deal. Sir, probably the most unpleasant characteristic of the liberalist, is the feeling of guilt he always professes to have towards the Black man. He carries that feeling of guilt on his sleeve and not in his heart. No White man needs to have a feeling of guilt about his presence in Southern Africa. Sir, woe betide the day, woe betide South Africa, when these leftist liberalists, these people who like to call themselves “verligtes” now, become the Opposition in this country. The siren song seems attractive to some people, but their policy is a dangerous policy of the imagination which mostly proceeds from false premises. The liberalist is a destroyer, just like the communist. He undermines a community from within; he undermines a nation from within because he tries to destroy the national character of a nation and to turn the people into displaced cosmopolitans.

Whom are you quoting there?

I am speaking about the liberalists. The hon. member for Durban Point should just keep quiet, for what I am saying here is to his advantage. The liberalists are the ones who undermined the United Party to such an extent from within that there is only an empty shell left. Liberal ideas have always disturbed the good order and bedevilled relationships everywhere in the world where they have held sway. There are many examples of that, here in our own country as well. The Progressive Party is engaged in dangerous activities in this country. They are arousing false expectations among the Coloured people in this country. They are fanning fires which they will be unable to extinguish. They should take care that they do not become a bomb shelter for the extreme leftists in this country.

Sir, I do not always agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I should like to agree with what he said on the Transvaal congress of his party in 1972. On that occasion he warned that danger lurked in the activities of the Progressive Party, and that the Progressive Party attracted undisciplined, homeless liberalists to it, who could easily take over and blow it up. Those were the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The deceased liberal party of the years 1950 to 1960 was mortally injured by the strange friends who sought a home and political shelter in that party. When they opened their eyes, they had been infiltrated by dangerous people who were certainly not sticklers for purely constitutional fighting methods. As I said, the Progressive Party and its satellites are moving on dangerous ground. They sometimes say things which make one’s hair stand on end. It is not language which will calm racial feeling in this country when the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party says the following—

It brings grist to the mill of the subversive leftist element in this country when the leader of the Progressive Party asks for all banning orders to be lifted and for all laws which give the Government the arbitrary right to restrict the freedom of citizens to be repealed. The hon. member for Houghton, too, does not hesitate to fan the fires still further. She once said: “Change will come from outside Parliament.” The language of the hon. member for Rondebosch is just as explosive in our racial set-up, when he says, “Share or face violence.” Sir, they want the banned Communist Party with all its unholy influences back in South Africa. The hon. member for Parktown said during an interview with the Sunday Express that he did not think that the Communist Party ought to be banned under a Progressive government. Other members of that party agree with him. What rather amuses one is the fact that the hon. member for Rondebosch does object to the idea of allowing the Communist Party in South Africa again. He showed amazing courage when he said the following during an interview with the Byvoegsel (translation)—

Sir, we wish him every success. We truly hope that he will come out of this unscathed.

So you see, Sir, that these so-called “verligtes”, this so-called emergent opposition, have very dangerous ideas. South Africa cannot afford to let them become a power in our politics. Nor will the voters of South Africa allow it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has been very much a prophet of doom in all that he has said, but I would have valued it more if he had dealt with certain constructive possibilities in regard to the solution of the problems which face us in South Africa. I think it is quite clear at the present moment in South Africa that the White people are concerned primarily with two aspects of policy in their future. The first is a deep concern for continued peace and security in the country, for their economic and their personal safety, and the second is a deep concern particularly among the middle and lower income groups of the White population about the ever-increasing burden of the cost of living. At the same time we have the non-White people in this country asking for their entitlement. They ask for the recognition of their identity and their individualism, of their entitlement to participate in all that we regard as good in our way of life in South Africa, and their entitlement to have some say in the Government of the country of which they are citizens. These demands are matters which I believe need our urgent attention in this House. They need it because it has been eloquently stated not only today but throughout this session, and forcibly stated, that time is running out for finding solutions in those spheres. Last Wednesday the hon. member for Yeoville—I am sorry that he is not in the House this evening …

Where are they? [Interjections.]

At a Press party.

The hon. member for Yeoville posed this question in the House: Is there a possibility of common ground between all political parties in this House in so far as the security of the State is concerned? This is an interesting question to be posed by the hon. member for Yeoville because I believe there is that possibility provided three prerequisites are recognized. The first is that we should be prepared to face up to facts which are disclosed to us of situations, movements and activities of individuals in this country. The second is that we must be prepared to take firm action against those who act in any way detrimentally to the safety and the maintenance of law and order in this country. The third is that we must ensure that there are safeguards against any miscarriage of justice in so far as that action is concerned. The hon. member for Sea Point is reported in the Rand Daily Mail as having made a very significant statement as well. He, unfortunately, is not here either.

Is he also having a social party with the Reformists?

The hon. member for Sea Point is reported to have said that a complete polarization of Black and White would mean the end of all hope of communication in South Africa. I think we and everyone who served on the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission would agree with him wholeheartedly. A polarization between Black and White would be the end of communication in South Africa. However, then I ask myself, why the attitude of the Progressive Party in regard to the reports which have been placed before this House by the commission?

Do you really want …

Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton would keep quiet for now.

No, I shall not.

She can talk later if she wishes to. When an early report of the commission found it necessary to report to this House words used by student leaders such as: “Students must align themselves against the White polarity and with Black polarity and seek to assist the Blacks and hinder the Whites”; when the commission also reported to the House that a leading student from the organization of Nusas said: “Students must adopt the attitude that the ballot-box has long been discounted as an effective means of social change in South Africa,” we were vociferously attacked by the hon. member for Houghton in this House who said that this was just the inconsequential nonsense of students.

Correct.

The hon. member’s leader, the hon. member for Sea Point, made the statement he did obviously to impress the audience that he was addressing in Johannesburg at the time that he made the statement. The disclosures of the wild conduct which took place under the UCM at Wilgerspruit are whitewashed to the greatest possible extent by the people on my left.

Pornography.

The hon. member for Houghton says that it is pornography. If it is regarded as pornography to repeat that the University Christian Movement was directed at destroying the norms of relationship between parent and child, between State and citizen and between the university staff and the students, … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central is too enthusiastic with his interjections.

If that is the case, then the hon. member is on a wavelength which is unacceptable to normal people in South Africa. When members of the United Party examine and report upon these activities which we believe are against the security of the State, then the hon. member for Yeoville suddenly finds it necessary to depart from the approach that there should be an understanding in matters of State security and accuses us of building political bridges to the Nationalist Party over which people are trying to get across to the Nationalist Party. When spelt out in great detail in the fourth report our attitude towards the safeguards against miscarriages of justice—none of those safeguards has been criticized or commented on in this House by the hon. members to my left—the hon. member for Bryanston got up in this House the other evening and spoke hysterically for 10 minutes about the rule of law. I looked at his Hansard and I found that within that period of 10 minutes he mentioned the phrase “the rule of law” 21 times, without once saying what he meant by it at all. [Interjections.] When a most inflammatory article was published in a publication of the UCM, One For The Road, the hon. member for Pinelands, a representative of a church in the UCM, found it necessary to congratulate the editor on the first edition of his paper. This is the attitude with which we are faced. When attempts to sabotage the immigration policy of our country, a policy which we on this side of the House support, were made by the Christian Institute in a publication, this was not regarded by hon. members as indulging in politics. I want to mention another matter of quite some interest. At the time that the report on the Christian Institute was signed we attached an annexture A which contained a pamphlet issued in 1974 by the Institute in which it dealt with White immigration to South Africa. Quite accidentally and in the course of looking through papers in our parliamentary library, I found a document called Objective Justice dated 3 February. This document was issued by the United Nations Activity Against Apartheid Committee. It was interesting to find that in this particular document that had just reached our library there was also an article against White immigration to South Africa. When I read through it I found it most interesting that the phraseology used in a motion introduced by the OAU at a conference at Oslo in April 1973 was the identical phraseology used by the Christian Institute in their pamphlet. [Interjections.]

So you are going to fight for South Africa?

This report which we have … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi must exercise some restraint.

The report speaks for itself but I think that we should place on record what appears in that publication of the Anti-apartheid Committee of the United Nations. This was a motion which proposed that—

In the Christian Institute’s document we read—

A second quotation from the OAU publication is the following—

This was also referred to in the Christian Institute’s document—

The Christian Institute’s document states—

Those are the types of documents which appear and which are regarded as of purely superficial interest and of no concern to South Africa.

You are having a very bad time over the Schlebusch Commission.

There has been a lot of talk this afternoon about relationships between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people and the part played by the English-speaking people of South Africa.

Well done, Lionel!

Yes, “well done, Lionel”.

I want to say to the members of the Progressive and the Reform parties that actions such as these where they claim that polarization is dangerous but do not condemn anybody who advocates it, and where they claim that we must find a basis on which to deal with State security and then accuse us of wanting to cross to the Nationalist Party because we find such a basis, are the actions of people who are hampering and impeding English-speaking South, Africans from taking part in the political life of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

[Inaudible.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Houghton not think it is very illiberal to obstruct with these continual interjections?

I am encouraging him.

In case there is any idea that that bridge has any significance to me whatsoever, I want to say that I believe that the Government is failing lamentably in dealing with problems that are of significance and importance in South Africa at the present time. One of them is the question of race relations. I hope that during the course of the debate some hon. member on the other side will get up and tell us and the country where the end of the road is of the political life of the Black people. Assuming they accept their independence, do hon. members opposite suggest that there are going to be eight independent States divorced from South Africa?

You cannot assume that.

Let me put the question, and I hope somebody will answer it: What is the end of the road for those Black States if they accept independence? That is my first question. Secondly, what is the end of the road in so far as their political rights are concerned for the Bantu persons who are outside of those Black States? Where do we go as regards the Coloured and Indian people of South Africa? If hon. members opposite will spell out how these people are to enjoy these rights—we on this side believe that it must be through a federal form of government—we shall be pleased to hear it. Let us hear it so that we can carry on an intelligent debate about how we are going to solve this problem. There is not a single member on the other side who does not realize that political rights must be given to the Coloureds and the Indians to participate in the government of this country.

In their own areas.

What areas?

I do not want to cross swords with the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] I realize that he, as Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, is talking about the Black homelands, but the Coloureds and the Indians are in a different position. I also want to say that we cannot solve our problems as long as this Government continues with its harsh implementation of group areas and the rigid division of population classification when all we need is registration, not classification in its present form; when it continues with its divisive laws which are applicable to professional organizations, scientific societies, social contact, sport etc.; and with its hesitant approach to the removal of discrimination in the whole area of human relationships. I want to say to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North who referred to Mozambique, that we must realize that there are in this country hundreds of thousands of Black and Coloured people who on merit are entitled to participate in our Western way of life with full opportunities for economic advancement. This can only benefit the country. That is what we must realize.

I want to raise just one other matter, namely the attitude in regard to executive action in connection with visas, passports, etc. We have pleaded over the years that there should be some review tribunal to deal with these matters. Looking through my papers, I was quite interested to see that the Rev. Davidson, whose visa was withdrawn and who is referred to in the UCM report, was the subject of quite a “bohaai” in the Press as a result of his visa being withdrawn. This happened in 1971. Having sat on this commission and having reported on it I can now see what his views were, but how much easier would it have not have been if the Government, at that time, had said what this man was advocating and that it did not believe that he was a desirable citizen for South Africa. The case could then have been referred to a tribunal, and if this was so, his visa could have been cancelled by them. He would then have gone and there would have been no repercussions about the affair. We have repeatedly asked this Government to appoint such a tribunal.

Finally, I want to refer to the neglect of the heavy cost of living burden, particularly in regard to pensioners and old people. We have asked over the years—I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to be active in this matter—for the establishment of a national contributory pension scheme and for a state-aided medical scheme so that people in South Africa need not grow old with a fear of how they are going to live and where they are going to get the money from to be able to live when they are old and the terrible fear which exists in the mind of every old person in this country, namely the cost of illness. Nothing is done about these things. I shall not say more lest I overrun my time. However, I want to make it patently clear to all those who may wish to mispresent the facts that I regard this Government as failing in so many aspects of government and that it represents policies with which I could certainly never identify myself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point devoted the first part of his speech to the differences of opinion in the ranks of the Opposition with regard to the report of the Le Grange Commission. He dealt with the question of common ground, the safety and protection of the Republic of South Africa. Ft is very interesting that what the hon. member said tonight indicates that there has been considerable progress on the Opposition side with regard to this matter, but unfortunately only on the part of a section of the Opposition. We have been dealing with various parties on that side, but what the hon. member said tonight really applies only to a section of the United Party as well. As emphasized by the hon. members who subscribed to the report of the Le Grange Commission, they are aware of the dangers which are threatening South Africa and also of the fact that there is indeed some common ground between us. But not all hon. members on the United Party side subscribe to this. This has been said quite clearly, after all. Therefore it was necessary to silence certain people on that side, so that they could not speak. However, this is a matter for the Opposition and I shall leave it at that. At least this emphasizes the fact that a considerable number of people are sitting in the Opposition benches who endorse, as we do, the cardinal principle that is involved in South Africa, namely the interests of South Africa first. This was quite apparent from what the hon. member said, and it has appeared from the behaviour of a considerable number of Opposition members. However, it has also appeared from the behaviour of some of them that people are sitting in their ranks who do not take this view of the matter and are therefore unable to endorse the report of the commission. They refuse to see that danger which is undermining South Africa in a subtle way. With regard to the other opposition parties, we know, of course, that they make common cause with powers which are intent on harming South Africa. I am not suggesting that they do this deliberately, but their point of view, approach and behaviour, with regard to this matter as well, confirm this. After this hon. member for Green Point reverted to his old subject, the point of dispute which still exists today between the official Opposition and hon. members on this side, namely that, like many other people in his party, he simply ascribes certain evils and problems which we have to contend with to the ideological standpoint and policy of the Government. He then refers to legislation which, as he put it, makes provision for hard and stringent measures to divide a population into the various groups and which has brought about certain artificial separations. That is really nothing new to us, because it is generally known, after all, that this is their standpoint. The hon. member for Hillbrow illustrated these things in a very interesting way in his speech this afternoon. He said—

I must say that the hon. member for Hillbrow said this in a rather swaggering and self-assured way. I am sorry he is not here now. His speech reminded me of what sometimes happened to us in our childhood. We often had to learn a recitation off by heart without knowing what the words meant. The hon. member’s speech sometimes gives me that impression. The previous hon. Minister of Finance used the expression “oratorical ado”. In this case it was more or less the same. The hon. member for Hillbrow made his statement with great self-assurance as a basic premise of the United Party: “We are against compulsory separation and we are against compulsory integration.” The hon. member and hon. members of the Opposition are still exactly where they were before 1948. This means that they are refusing to do anything with regard to the most burning problems of South Africa. But this is precisely the reason why the electorate of South Africa rejected the United Party in the election in 1948. However, people insisted that we create order in our national economy, that we create order in our social life, that some way be found out of the terrible situation of confusion which had developed in our large urban areas with regard to the settlement of Bantu and Coloured population groups with the slum conditions caused by this. If the words of the hon. member for Hillbrow that “we are against compulsory separation and we are against compulsory integration” represent the view of the United Party in the year 1975, then they are still where they were before 1948. Then they are still aloof and they are still scared, because in that time Gen. Smuts said: “It is impossible to classify the unclassifiable.” That was how he saw the situation. The United Party is still saying in 1975: We are doing nothing. A long time has passed since then and the development of South Africa has advanced. Fortunately South Africa has been spared one thing, namely the results of those words as the official policy in South Africa. What chaos would there not have been in our large urban areas in South Africa if group areas had not been created? Where would the 600 000 or 700 000 Coloureds have been settled in the Cape Peninsula? Where would they have lived today?

In the bush.

What type of housing would they have had? That is why South Africa rejected the official opposition at that time. Since then South Africa has kept saying in one election after another: “No, you must offer a policy which is acceptable and which takes account of the problems of South Africa.” We do not deny that we have enormous problems in South Africa, that we have problems in South Africa which are nearly too much for our abilities and manpower. Yet it is no use shrugging our shoulders and saying that we cannot tackle the matter. The National Party Government said: “We shall begin by doing what seems to us to need doing and what we are capable of doing.” For that reason a new pattern has been created in South Africa through the years, a completely new pattern. We admit—and I am referring to the group areas to which the hon. the member for Green Point referred—that the things that have been brought about have not created ideal conditions. If, for instance, one goes to look at the new townships which have been created, especially for the Coloured population, and one looks at the thousands of houses standing row on row, houses which are very much alike and which are built in a sub-economic style, then we admit that this is definitely not an ideal. Any Government—and this applies to this Government as well—which is faced with such a problem has to start somewhere and has to try, with the means available to it—this is of vital importance, after all, in any budget for any national economy of any Minister of Finances—to do what it is capable of doing. Is this not a fact? Is it not a hard reality which has con fronted the hon. the Minister of Finance and his predecessors and, last but not least, the Government, to do what can be done? After all, they cannot make exorbitant demands on the population which carries the tax load in order to do certain things. They would not be able to do anything the following year or they will not be able to do what they had planned during that particular year. However, a tremendous amount has been done. We have prevented uncontrollable conditions of chaos from arising in our urban areas. I recall that when I saw Johannesburg and the Bantu townships around Johannesburg for the first time, I wondered what was to become of South Africa, what was to become of that city. Since then, however, many things have been done by the Government, and with every budget progress has been made step by step. I definitely deny that where a start was made and progress was made through the years with the establishment of group areas and the unravelling of a situation which was undesirable, a situation in which the non-White groups suffered tremendously, these were such hard measures. Many non-Whites have been removed; I do not deny this. However, very few have been removed from good housing to inferior housing, while thousands and thousands have been taken out of shanties and placed under better circumstances. This is what is important. One need only look at the situation which has been prevailing for many years and at our budgets. If we look at housing projects then we notice that tenders are still being asked for sub-economic housing. However, the percentage of economic housing for Coloureds is rising at a terrific pace. Without fear of contradiction I can say that this is an ideal which we will strive for in future, namely to provide an economic home for every Coloured in South Africa who is at all able to afford it. We have many problems with regard to this matter. We should very much like the Coloured population to become much more motivated, to make a larger contribution themselves with regard to housing and to work harder themselves. They can make an important contribution, and these are things which should come about in time. They should come about by way of education and by way of better economic conditions and by way of the improvement of various contributory factors. Since the hon. member for Green Point, for whom I have great respect, is so serious in his criticism of the Government in this regard, I want to say to him that he should take account of the fact that the capitalist system, as we have it in South Africa as well, does not provide for the under-developed and poor people in the communities concerned, because those people and we have involved hundreds of thousands of Coloured people, some Indians and millions of Bantu in the establishment of our factories and the development of our industry—who simply cannot make the grade if they have to buy a plot somewhere where they have to build houses for themselves. What is more, the capitalist entrepreneur makes provision for the man who can pay the best price. In other words, he provides houses for the group which can pay. What will happen now? According to the hon. member for Hillbrow, your policy is that you are not doing anything in either direction. This will mean that a small percentage of Coloureds will be absorbed into White community. They will live in Sea Point, Durbanville, Milnerton, Rondebosch, even in Bishopscourt, and I suppose there will be a few living in Houghton as well. Where will the other 90% live? Nobody is providing for them and nobody is buying thousands and thousands of hectares of land to develop an urban area for them. The private entrepreneur will not do this, because he wants a dividend on his investment. In other words, we would be letting those people down completely if we were simply to abandon them to the workers of the free economy in our capitalist system. Nothing else would be left for them, because they would have no choice owing to their poor bargaining position, their dependence and low income. This is what the National Party and the Government have been doing through the years; they have been creating a dispensation in which we can acknowledge to the Bantu who works in our midst, to the Coloured and the Indian population, that they also have the right to have a home somewhere, that they also have the right to have at least a reasonable roof over their heads— even if it is a simple house—and, if they happen to be civilized people, to live like civilized people. We find every day that Coloureds say to us that they have been saving money, that they have saved up a considerable amount of money, but then they want to know where they can get a plot. This remains a serious need. If this point of view and the standpoint of the hon. member for Green Point had been the policy for many years, where would these people have been now? At least we can tell them to keep heart, because we are developing Dassenberg, where thousands and thousands of plots will be available within reach of the city. We can also say that we have Mitchell’s Plain on the Cape Flats where thousands of them can live. Where would the hon. member put them? Where would the hon. member go with these people?

With regard to the political position of the non-White population in South Africa, the position is virtually the same. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a responsible man and his party is fairly conservative in its thinking. If they consider the question of whether they should give the Coloured population equal representation in Parliament, do hon. members know what they have in mind? If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to be honest with himself on the matter, then he should say to himself: “But then I am no longer the Leader of the Opposition, then Sonny Leon is the leader of the Opposition”, because he represents two million people who, on the grounds of their feeling of solidarity or their Coloured identity, if I may call it this, vote for him and make him leader of the opposition. He has already said that he regards himself as the leader of the opposition. Therefore, Sir, in the policy advocated by the official Opposition as well, they are careful about the political rights of the Coloured population. They are not over-generous in their approach, because they think their position will be threatened if they give too large a representation to the Coloureds; that the Coloureds will get too large a say in the politics of South Africa. As far as the Progressive Party members and the Reformists are concerned—one does not quite know what they will agree on and what their official policy will be eventually— they are just as cautious; they only do this in a different way. They keep a franchise qualification somewhere in their back pocket, and they will take this out and use it as they need it, as it suits them, as they want to gain political support. They can argue and say: “We shall set this as the franchise qualification for the present, and later we shall change it slightly.” Sir, although the policy of those hon. members is directed at satisfying the outside world, the non-Whites of South Africa will derive little benefit from this. Therefore we are not ashamed to say that we on this side take account of the reality of the ethnic variety of South Africa. I do not want to debate the question whether the Coloured population is a people or a people in embryo. If hon. members on that side say they are not, then I am prepared to agree with them at this stage, but I want to tell them that there is no doubt that the Coloured people are in fact a population group with an identity of its own. How do they talk? They talk of “We Brown people”, of “Coloureds”. In a situation where the Coloureds are threatened by the Bantu with their numerical superiority, I have heard a responsible Coloured person say “Protect our Coloured identity.” This was a responsible Coloured person.

Who said this?

I am not saying that everybody said this, but one hears it said by responsible Coloureds who say: “Look, we are Coloureds; we are a population group of South Africa. In spite of the heterogeneity of this group, we do after all have certain common interests.” They ask, as this person asked, for some protection of their identity. Sir, I should like to emphasize that the Government and the National Party take this variety of national or group identity into consideration. The hon. member for Green Point rose here and said: “Let someone on that side rise and tell us where the end of the road under the National Party policy is.” I think this is a stupid question, and my reason is this: In the constitutional development of a developing nation, one cannot see the end of the road. In fact, in all history, in the whole constitutional development of the Western world, no nation has reached the end of the road. Just look at the constitutional changes which have taken place in countries such as Germany and France in the era in which we are living. I think that even a country such as Great Britain is on the eve of important constitutional changes, which will become necessary when their economy collapses, and that moment seems to be very close at times.

Can you see the end of the road for the Whites?

I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that he should not be so concerned about the end of the road. Like us, he should be concerned about the beginning of the road. Let us begin somewhere at least, and this is exactly where we are standing today; we are standing at the beginning of the road at the constitutional development of the Coloureds. They are within the framework of our South Africa. They enjoy the protection of a White Government. As a minority group in South Africa—take note, Sir, a minority group—they have even gained the right already, in principle, to govern themselves. What nation in the world, with a heterogeneous composition, with different national or group identities, has laid down this principle that every nation or every population group which has a particular identity can govern itself? What is wrong with this? Will the hon. member for Green Point rise and tell me what fault he finds with this? He can ask me how this is going to work. It is difficult; we admit this, but that possibility can be developed step by step, and it will be developed step by step. The hon. Prime Minister pointed out last year at the Coloured Representative Council, with regard to the Coloureds, that there are particular responsibilities which the Coloureds are able to assume even now and with regard to which they are able to govern themselves even now. There are other common areas as well where they can express an opinion and where they can govern South Africa together with the White Government and in consultation with the White Government, or where they can make a contribution. Even this can develop For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist with regard to the future of South Africa, with regard to the relations between the populations in South Africa as well as with regard to the Coloured population of South Africa.

But what are the characteristics of a nation?

If the hon. member for Durban Point would read the speech of the hon. member for Edenvale, he would find five characteristics in that. Sir, I am afraid I must conclude, and the hon. member will pardon me if I do not go into these questions. As I said, we have not reached the end of the road with regard to these population groups. Nor are we concerned about the end of the road. We are standing at the beginning of a road which promises well. We recognize the national or ethnic identity of the various population groups and we recognize the principle of self-government for peace and prosperity.

Sir, I must conclude. In 1938 Rev. MacMillan, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Synod at the time, said the following as an English-speaking person on the occasion of the Voortrekker centenary: “Let us help the Afrikaners to achieve a sense of national destiny.” Some people listened to his advice. He spoke to his fellow English-speaking people. Other people did not listen to his advice. Sir, what happened to the hon. members on the other side? They were carried along with the Afrikaners into the Republic of South Africa against their will. Today they are not even sorry about this any more. We took them with us on that road of “achieving a national destiny”. Looking at hon. members on the other side, I think they are reasonably happy. Mr. Speaker, we must continue along these lines with regard to our Bantu nations and our Coloured nations as well. They can only contribute their best with relation to South Africa, with relation to the prosperity of South Africa and with relation to the peace of South Africa if we enable them to achieve that “sense of national destiny”, that pride in their own identity, that realization of a national striving of their own.

Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in accepting the sincerity of the hon. member who has just sat down in respect of the way in which he set out his views. However unacceptable the views of the Nationalists sometimes happen to be, and however repugnant they sometimes become, I have no difficulty in accepting the sincerity of a large number of the members on the other side. I would be pleased if hon. members on the other side would accept the sincerity of the speakers on this side of the House when we put forward our ideas and our policies and when we criticize the actions and the statements of members opposite. Mr. Speaker, so many speakers on the other side of the House said that we were against the Whites in South Africa, that we were against the interests of the Whites and that we stood only for the Black and the other coloured race groups in South Africa. That is not true. Of course we are concerned about the interests of the other race groups in South Africa. If we were not concerned, who would be? [Interjections.] But when we object to the injustices perpetrated by the Nationalist Party via their policies on the other race groups of South Africa, we are primarily thinking about the interests of the Whites. We are primarily thinking about the security and the safety of the Whites. We are primarily thinking about the future of this country and all its people. We do not see South Africa as a country of Whites only, with only White interests and only a White future; we see South Africa and all its people. All our thinking and all our statements and all our policies are sincerely and honestly, whether hon. members agree with them or not, aimed at achieving a safe, secure and happy future for all the people in South Africa, irrespective of their colour. Let me say to all those people who say that we are a danger to the Whites in South Africa that we are not. We are a danger to the Nationalist Party and its policies … [Interjections.] … and a bigger danger to this crowd on my right hand side. I am very pleased that this is the reaction of the official Opposition, because they are proving to South Africa that they are not interested in the interests of all the people in South Africa and they have proved to South Africa beyond a shadow of doubt that they are not interested in the rule of law … [Interjections.] Today in this House the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will stand up now and say that he did not mean the words that he used, because if he did mean those words, then it is the most deplorable and irresponsible statement that a Leader of an Opposition has yet made in this House. We expect it from certain people in this country, but I say that if that is the level to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has sunk, it is a bad day for South Africa. I believe he has reached the lowest level of desperation.

What words? [Interjections.]

Order!

The words were—

I say that statement is irresponsible, deplorable and disgusting. I should like to know whether all the hon. members in that party agree with that statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

A lot of what was said in this House today indicates that we all accept that there is a big change, a radical change, coming in South Africa. That was clear from the speakers throughout the day. An era is being ushered in which the apparatus of apartheid, the policy of discrimination and domination, is going to be dismantled one way or another. That is clear. We, the Whites cannot avoid apartheid and discrimination and domination being dismantled and done away with; we cannot stop it. However, what we can do is to influence the process by which it is dismantled and we can influence the outcome.

Will you allow the Communist Party in South Africa?

I should like to say that there are many other people who in terms of their statements obviously accept that this change is coming and they also accept that a new political and constitutional era is coming for South Africa. Pik Botha said at the United Nations that we will move away from discrimination. The hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke in this House about non-Black South Africans in which he included the Indians and the Coloured people. It is an extremely interesting concept, and he certainly moved away from the old concepts of the Nationalist Party. Then we had the hon. member for Bellville saying that the urban Blacks would have to be accepted. The gist of his words was that the Nationalist Party policy had failed. Just a few days ago a senior civil servant, who is in the position to interpret Nationalist thinking, said in Germany that all in South Africa accepted shared power. Let me make it clear, that it is the process of change that is important in moving from a discriminatory society, which exists today, to a non-discriminatory society and to a society where there will be sharing of responsibility, authority and opportunity between all the people of South Africa irrespective of colour. The process by which we can achieve that is very important and the outcome at the end of that process is even more important. The most important criterion and the most important objective test applies to the outcome of that process. Let me just tell hon. members what the criterion is which one must meet if one wants to have success. [Interjections.] Surely success in political change is to avoid revolution, to avoid blood-shed, to avoid disruption and to achieve a stable, happy and safe society for all our people. The outcome of the policy must be a completely non-discriminatory society where racialism has been reduced to the absolute minimum, a society where authority and responsibility are truly shared and a society where equality of opportunity is available to all people. It must rest on a stable constitutional structure. [Interjections.] This society must be free, as far as possible, from prejudice, from hatred and from envy and the constitution must be respected and accepted by all. It must be a society in which law and order and the rule of law are things which will maintain that constitution. [Interjections.] I want to say that neither the Nationalist Party nor the United Party has any chance of achieving either the process which I have outlined or the outcome via their policies. In the case of the Nationalist Party this is so for obvious reasons. There was no initial consultation and no consensus was achieved between all the race groups in South Africa. No common machinery was developed in order to carry this consensus in practice and there is no fair and equitable sharing of authority, responsibility and opportunity in South Africa. There is no non-discriminatory society as a final aim and there is no equality of opportunity. The United Party will fail as dismally as the Nationalist Party because with them there was no initial consultation whatsoever with the other race groups; it was entirely their idea which they foisted on the other race groups of South Africa. It is a policy of racialism, unashamed racialism, which is emphasized in every aspect of their policy and is institutionalized throughout the structure of South Africa.

Why did you support it for so many years?

Racialism will be perpetuated by every aspect of U.P. policy. This racial structure at all levels will bring about instability … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could the hon. member be allowed to make a speech so that we can hear?

Order! Hon. members must please refrain from making so many interjections.

This racialist structure …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask whether it is the practice in this House to sit with one’s back to the Chair perpetually? Is that the conduct to be expected from an hon. member such as the hon. member for Albany? [Interjections.]

Order!

The United Party policy will fail dismally and completely because it will set up a racialist structure at all levels in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! I appealed to members to refrain from making so many interjections.

Why do you not get back to where you belong, Deacon? [Interjections.]

Such a policy will bring about an unstable society perpetuating prejudices and the hatred between the different races in South Africa. It will inevitably have the result that when the federal government of South Africa comes under majority rule in terms of their policy, that majority will use their power to overthrow the unacceptable discriminatory and unstable society which the United Party policy has built up over the years.

Mr. Speaker, this session is now approaching its end and the spectacle we witnessed here this evening was characteristic of the conduct we have had on the part of the Opposition throughout this session. The Opposition is divided to such an extent that, on two occasions this evening, they tackled one another mercilessly. On the one occasion the hon. Sarge of Umlazi almost grabbed the hon. member for Houghton as a good policeman would, and on the other occasion the hon. member for Bryanston scolded the official Opposition in the manner we witnessed here tonight. For that reason we can say in all honesty that it is pleasant to be a Nationalist. During no other session was it more pleasant to be a Nationalist than during this one. It is pleasant to be able to be a Nationalist, because the National Party is a party that knows where it is going, because the National Party is a dynamic party which is leading this country, probably under one of the most competent leaders, Prime Ministers and Statesmen this country has had throughout its history, with the utmost responsibility and care under very difficult circumstances. Hon. members opposite said that the people outside are asking questions, that what they are asking for is security. As far as this is concerned, this session showed one thing, i.e. that the people will try in vain to get that security with any of the Opposition parties sitting in this House. This places an even greater responsibility on this side of the House. It is also a fact that the National Party Government, in these difficult times of the history of our people, became the symbol of power of Southern Africa and is acting and governing with strength and fairness in South Africa. Let the Opposition parties quarrel among one another if they want to—we do not mind if they do—but they should not harm South Africa and its people in the process, because that would be unforgiveable. When one listens to them in this debate, one finds, particularly in the Reformist Party and in the Progressive Party, members whom I honestly believe are trying—I do not say they are doing it deliberately—to harm South Africa. I want to make this request to them tonight in all friendliness, and sound this warning at the same time: Let us practise our politics in this country—it is everyone’s right to do so—but let us do so in a democratic manner and within the framework of Parliament and let it be the joint endeavour of all of us, Whites and non-Whites in this country, to support this country against the background of the history of South Africa at a time when all of us are being asked to do so.

Against this background, the policy of the National Party is plain and clear, and one can understand it quite well. As far as the National Party is concerned, there are particularly three basic aspects at issue. The first is that we, as a White nation in South Africa, want to maintain our identity. We say this is fair and just. This desire of ours to maintain our identity, we also grant to every other people within the borders of South Africa and to every other country or people in the world. What could be fairer than this? If all the Opposition Party members can appreciate this, it is not necessary, as I shall show in a moment, to create so much misunderstanding about the basic things in this country, particularly not at a time when it is one of the most important tasks of all of us, Whites and non-Whites, in South Africa to convince Africa of the honesty and sincerity of our intentions in South Africa. That is what it is all about. If we want to co-exist with Africa in peace, development and progress, and if we want to make a contribution in Africa, we, as a country at the southern tip of Africa, should appreciate that we have to convince the leaders of Africa of our honest intentions.

We agree with that.

But then we have to do it. I am not accusing the hon. member of that now, but I am definitely accusing the Progressive Party and the Reformist Party that they are not doing this, as has been proved again in this House today. I want to ask them to take notice of this, because it is essential in the interests of the Blacks and Whites in South Africa, but also in the interests of the people of Africa, that Africa will know that we in South Africa are honest and sincere in our intentions. To my mind this is one of the major problems we have to cope with at present. No man in this country deserves greater tribute, appreciation and love than our hon. the Prime Minister—and I take my hat off to him—for the honest and dedicated manner in which he is doing this. We are not asking hon. members to agree with this; they have the right to differ. But they really do not have the right to undermine what is being done in an unfair and dishonest manner. That is what we are seriously taking exception to.

Furthermore, as far as the National Party is concerned, there is also another, equally basic aspect at issue, and also this was revealed in a very striking manner during this session, just as this question of the maintenance of identity. What we are concerned with, is that we want to keep the government over White South Africa in the hands of the Whites. We, as the National Party Government, say that we want to keep the government over White South Africa in the hands of the Whites, and we grant every other nation in South Africa the right to govern themselves.

It is all very well for hon. members to differ, but then they should not doubt our sound motives as they did again in this debate today.

In the third place, what we are concerned with, is a basic principle in respect of which there should be no difference on the part of any responsible member in this House, i.e. the elimination of levels of friction between Whites and non-Whites, and the positive development of sound relations between Whites and non-Whites. How does one develop sound relations? After all, this cannot be done in a short time. It is a long process which can only be based on honesty, fairness and justice. Hon. members should not doubt that all these things are present in abundance among the National Party and all its leaders. What is at issue as far as the National Party is concerned? What is at issue, as far as the National Party is concerned, is to offer chances and opportunities to the non-Whites in South Africa and to the other nations of South Africa, not pseudochances and opportunities, not imaginary opportunities, but real chances and opportunities. Have we not seen in other parts of the world that no nation allows itself to be exploited and deceived? Since the earliest times, this National Government appreciated that truth and, through the years—this is what attracts one to the National Party—it has been making an honest attempt to create real chances and opportunities for all people and inhabitants of South Africa. No one should doubt this. What are hon. members doing if they doubt this? How could we convince our Africa leaders of our honesty when we declare in every debate that we are actively creating chances and opportunities, while this is being doubted by the Opposition and propagated in the outside world? Surely, we cannot succeed when this is the case. It is in the interests of hon. members, their children and also in the interests of the non-Whites. Allow me to quote just one or two examples.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member can ask me a question in a moment.

As I say, they should not have any doubt about these things. Take politics as it has developed in South Africa during the past 25 years and more and of which this concept of real chances and opportunities formed an inseparable part. Under the policy of those Opposition parties, how many Prime Ministers or Chief Ministers would this country have had? Surely, only one. Under the policy of any of the Opposition parties, who would it have been but a White Prime Minister or a White Chief Minister? Hon. members opposite should tell me now. Under the regime of the National Party and with the development of its policy, how many Chief Ministers does this country have tonight? It has only one Prime Minister, Adv. Vorster, and he has eight Chief Ministers of Bantu peoples, each Chief Minister with his benefits, status, salary and all the things that go with it. Every person of those particular nations can strive to occupy that high and prominent position among his people. Who is offering real chances and opportunities? Not imaginary chances and imaginary opportunities, but real chances? An hon. member quoted so effectively tonight from what a Black man had to say about the way liberalists are doing things. They are sitting there so smugly, and for that reason the Black man does not believe in them. I do not want to digress too much, but when I was doing field work in Zulu-land in 1950, I had to stay in a tent in a Zulu kraal for nine months. I often conversed with them around a pot of beer. The people who attacked the Zulus in the most unsavoury manner—at that time I was only an ordinary student—were the liberalists of South Africa. They told me that the liberalists are the people they cannot believe or trust. Why? Because the liberalists do not really offer them chances and opportunities.

Let us consider Ministers. How many non-White Ministers would we have had under any other policy except the National Party policy? We have 18 White Ministers, and how many Black Ministers do we have in South Africa tonight? The hon. Minister Botha will be able to tell us that there are approximately 60 of them. Nevertheless, opportunities have been created for these people to which they can strive and to which they are, indeed, striving. That is really why they do not discuss matters with the United Party in a meaningful way. [Interjections.] Let us take the matter a little further. Let us consider the following level. How many non-Whites would really be in a position to become members of Parliament under the federal policy of the United Party? How many Blacks would be in a position to become members of Parliament under the policy of the Progressive Party? We are sitting here in a House of approximately 172 members this evening. However, how many Black members of Parliament are there in South Africa—a few hundred.

Where?

They are in the Coloured and Bantu and Indian assemblies with all their customs, status, salary and everything that goes with it. Surely, this testifies to real opportunities. We have 40 departments in South Africa. How many of those departments would have been manned by non-Whites under any other policy? Do hon. members know how many departments there are in South Africa this evening, thanks to the excellent implementation of the policy of multi-national development under the competent leadership of Minister M. C. Botha? There are far more than 100 Government departments in the Bantu, Coloured and Indian assemblies.

How many Opposition leaders are there?

Yes, that is another question one might well ask. How many Opposition leaders would there have been under any other policy in South Africa? How many are there this evening? Let us now consider the last level. [Interjections.] *

Order! Hon. members are going too far now.

I think they are being hurt.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Allow me just to complete my argument. [Interjections.] The hon. member can put his question in due course. How many Public Servants in this country would have been non-White under any other policy? At the moment there are more than 200 000 non-White Public Servants in the service of the various governments of South Africa. Those hon. members and the outside world should appreciate this. In South Africa, with all its faults, disadvantages and deficiencies, we have, under the National Party government, undoubtedly succeeded in providing these people with real chances and opportunities to live their lives to the full, unimpaired and without obstacles, with open channels to the highest level, to that of Prime Minister or Chief Minister. The same applies to education. Just consider how many school-going Black children there are today. Just consider how many Black teachers there are today. Sir, hon. members opposite may cluck and croak and howl as much as they like, but they cannot get away from these facts. The reason why we have peace in South Africa, is that these people are really being given the opportunity to realize their aspirations. The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party said here this afternoon: “The Government is moving away from discrimination, but they have failed to provide the political framework within which it can take place and therefore the result is confusion and uncertainty”.

That is the biggest nonsense on earth.

Sir, there is a second point I want to deal with. I have been active in the National Party for the past 25 or 30 years and I say with great emphasis tonight that, in my time, I have never seen the National Party more united than it was during the past number of years. There is no need for hon. members on that side to believe this but I ask them to accept our bona fides. There is no need for them to accept what I have said here about the chances and opportunities for the non-Whites; they may cluck and croak to their hearts’ content, but what they should not do in this process, is to harm their country, South Africa. I now want to deal with a statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party that we are unable to move away from discrimination “because we have not provided the political framework for it”. Sir, those hon. members are harming our country by doubting our bona fides. It is the task of all of us, it is the task of us on this side of the House and of hon. members on that side, to try to convince the leaders of Africa of the honesty of the people of South Africa, because we have to live with them for all time.

May I ask a question?

Sir, I shall afford the hon. member the opportunity to ask a question later on, not now. I know this kind of question. I am speaking in all seriousness now.

On this point.

The hon. member may put a question to me on this point after I have finished stating my points. I know this kind of question and I do not like making jokes now.

It is an important question.

If I want to make jokes, I can say to the hon. member that the person who devised the emblem of the United Party, i.e. an orange tree, was a prophet, because he knew that an orange tree dies at some stage or other. The United Party started this session with 41 oranges. Now they have 37. Four of the bad oranges are sitting in the Progressive Party benches now. You see. Sir, I can also make jokes if I want to.

When one speaks to the United Party one has to make jokes. It is no use speaking seriously to them. Make jokes with them. *

Sir, I should very much like to state this point about the question of moving away from discrimination because I think it is in the interests of all the people in South Africa that we should have clarity on this matter. I want to quote to you from Hansard of 1961, column 4617, in which Dr. Verwoerd had the following to say—

Sir, at that time I was still a young man. I am still a young man even now, but at that time it made an indelible impression on me as a young man, because as a young man I realized that we had a party and a leader that offer possibilities to our young people; that offer the possibility that we will be able to live in peace with the Blacks and the Coloureds of South Africa at the southern tip of Africa. But now the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party comes along and says: “You cannot move away from discrimination because you have not got the political base.” Sir, what utter nonsense! That was the declared policy of the National Party Government since 1961 and even before then. I quote further from column 4618, in which Dr. Verwoerd had the following to say in 1961—

That is why I say that our moral basis is that we are trying to grant full rights to every population group in respect of its own people. Sir, if the Black leaders of Africa believed these words as expressed by Dr. Verwoerd in 1961 and which were given further shape to on various occasions during the past 12 months through our leader, the Prime Minister. Adv. Vorster, do you think they would have been opposed to South Africa as much as many of them still are tonight? Is it too much to ask the official Opposition and the Progressive Party and the Reformist Party not to tell the outside world that we are being dishonest? Let them differ from us if they want to, but what we ask them, is not to tell the outside world and the Africa leaders that the National Party does not mean what it says. Surely, this is being unfair. If hon. members on that side of the House do not harm South Africa by doubting our word, I do not know what one must do to harm one’s country. Our own leader, Adv. Vorster, had the following to say last year, 1974 (Hansard, column 421)—

Sir, how can a leader express himself more strongly? I can refer hon. members opposite to Prof. Hoernlé, who was, after all, a great liberalist. In 1945 Prof. Hoernlé wrote an interesting book in which he dealt with these aspects and said that if the National Party Government is honest with its policy and were to carry out this policy in an honest and logical and fearless manner, it would probably entail the possibility of peaceful co-existence in South Africa. He was a prominent Progressive, as is still being testified today by the Hoernlé Memorial Lecture at the Institute of Race Relations. Sir, I do not expect hon. members on that side to believe me, but I say that our policy has a moral basis. What were the first words of our Prime Minister when he was chosen as leader. He said (translation): “My policy is one of live and let live.” We are a Christian party. We say we are Christian-Nationalists; this is what we are. I am a Christian Nationalist. I shall never seek my salvation with any party which is based on different principles. I am happy in the National Party. It is pleasant to be a Nationalist. We have a moral basis for our policy which we, with all respect, are able to defend before God and mankind. Sir, people may differ from our policy, but the honesty of our policy should never be doubted, and it is because this honesty is being doubted by certain people that the Black leaders and the people of Africa do not accept it. Recently our leader, Adv. Vorster, had the following to say at Ceres (translation)—

Sir, let hon. members on that side differ from us, but let us differ in such a manner that we promote South Africa in Africa at the same time, because we have a major role to play in Africa if we in South Africa, Whites and non-Whites, make an honest attempt to live with one another in harmony; if we would make an honest to goodness stand together and try in all honesty to convince Africa of South Africa’s good intentions.

There are a few facts about Africa which are completely selfevident. One simply has to notice them. The first I want to mention, is that we shall be an inseparable part of Africa for all lime. After all, there are no mountains or insuperable seas which divide us from Africa. There are only wire fences, and often not even that. We and our children must know this. This is a factual statement and the truth. We are an inseparable part of Africa for all time. It is not a co-incidence that the first Afrikaners who settled in Africa many, many years ago, called themselves Afrikaners, people from Africa. Hon. members may not appreciate this, but this is being appreciated by the Black leaders of Africa. Under National Party regime, we in Africa are the most anti-colonial and most anti-neo-colonial country in the world. Why do we not say this to the Black leaders of Africa so that they can know it? Why do the Progressive Party and the Reform Party not do this? Why do hon. members of the official Opposition not do it? We are the first people in Africa to have made war against the colonialists in 1899 to 1902, and this is an important fact. And in that sense we have deep roots in Africa for a long time, and this the Blacks are beginning to appreciate to an increasing extent. In the 1950s when I was doing the research under the personal staff of Dr. Verwoerd, one of the things that impressed me most was his prophetic insight in the approaching revolution of Africa, that he experienced this revolution himself to a certain extent later on and the perfect answer, at least in theory, he had to the revolution in Africa. This is not a joke; this is what our people have to live with today and this is what holds possibilities for the future, a future that could be prosperous and peaceful for our children and for Africa, also for the children of those hon. members on the opposite side of the House. This, therefore, is the first fact, i.e. that we are part of Africa.

The second fact which is as easy to recognize as a cow, is that there is a revolution in progress in Africa. [Interjections.] The second truth which is as easy to recognize as a cow … [Interjections.]

An Afrikander cow?

The hon. member reminds me of the candidate called Lammie Louw. During the nomination contest someone wanted to know at a meeting whether he could put a question before Mr. Lammie Louw started speaking. The chairman, however, said that he was not allowed to put his question at that moment. When it was Mr. Lammie Louw’s turn to speak, the person got up again and wanted to know whether he could put a question to Mr. Lammie Louw before he started speaking. He said he just wanted to ask Mr. Lammie Louw whether his mother had foreseen what a sheep he would grow up to be when she called him “Lammie”. [Interjections.]

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not devise a better method of convincing the rest of Africa of the seriousness of the Government than to let the non-White leaders of South Africa say with one voice: “The Government is serious; we are happy and content in South Africa.”

That is a very good method. I thought the hon. member wanted to put a jocular question, but I see now that he wanted to ask a serious question. It is a fact that this is one way of doing it. Of course, it would help if the Black leaders of Southern Africa would adopt that attitude. However, what are the facts of the matter?

Why do you not make this possible?

Those leaders do, in fact, adopt that attitude in a very fine spirit behind the scenes. We are aware of it, and we appreciate it greatly.

I conclude by saying that we in South Africa, Whites and non-Whites, have to find ways and means to co-exist in this country in harmony. Those ways and means will only be found in justice and in strength. No one is able to do so from a position of weakness, only form a position of strength. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is always very interesting to listen to the hon. the Minister who has just sat down. It was particularly interesting this evening to see him not in his usual role as one who speaks on mines and on sport. Nonetheless, Sir, he seemed to have a very sporting time in shooting down as many of us as possible in his speech. It is very interesting to hear the hon. the Minister making the point and I want to say that I agree with him—that one of the tragedies of this House and of our political scene is the fact of the division in the Opposition and the weakness of the Opposition. I refer to all sections of the Opposition; I am not speaking about any particular section. He pointed out, too, that what the Government deserves more than anything else is a healthy, strong and determined Opposition. That has certainly not been forthcoming during this session, and therefore I agree with him. I think that one of the best things that could happen in South Africa is that such an Opposition should emerge.

The hon. the Minister also made the point that whilst he accepted that we were at liberty to disagree with the policy of the Nationalist Government and that we did not really have to accept everything that he said, he nevertheless felt that our manner and our spirit was not one which helped South Africa but which harmed South Africa.

Sometimes.

I am glad to hear it is only sometimes. I got the impression that we could do no good at all. It does seem to me that it is very difficult, when speaking against a policy, whether it is the policy of that side of the House or of this side of the House, to do so without giving a very direct impression that one is attacking not only the policy but also the motivation behind it. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not also point to some people on his side, who very often, no matter what one says or does on this side of the House, call into question the honesty and the motivation of those who stand for it. We saw it again this afternoon, and a little later on I should like to quote a Deputy Minister who spoke very seriously in this House today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point referred back to the recent debate and his own links with the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission, particularly as regards the Christian Institute. I must confess that I feel a little sorry for the hon. member for Green Point, because he has been hoist with his own petard. As one who is perhaps most experienced in smear technique …

Order!

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, as one who has suffered under the hands of the hon. member for Green Point in this House, I was a little surprised that he should be so shaken that some of the Press and some of the people in South Africa should imagine that he is going to move across to the Nationalist Party. He made it very clear tonight and in statements that he has no desire whatsoever to make that step. He directed certain basic criticisms against the Progressive Party, in particular because of our attitude towards the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission and its report on the Christian Institute.

Tell us about the UCM.

I am coming to that; give me a chance. Surely, Mr. Speaker, to be consistent the hon. member should have directed his remarks also against those members within his own party who are on record, not in this House, unfortunately, but in the Press, certainly, as being against the report of that commission. They refused to accept the findings of that commission, and therefore, to be consistent, I think one should speak not only about the Progressive Party in this instance, but also about those members of his own party who have made it very clear where they stand. As I have said, they unfortunately did not do so in this House. Reference has also been made to the report on the UCM, the University Christian Movement, and a great number of items have been reported in the Press. I think my own statements have been clearly revealed in the Press as well. I want to make it very clear again tonight that I did belong to the University Christian Movement, that I was sent by my church as a representative to the University Christian Movement, that I did move a motion congratulating the editor of the Magazine called One for the Road and, as I tried to explain and say in the Press, as I say again tonight, without any apology …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Algoa makes too many interjections.

If one speaks in favour of a particular magazine or periodical, it does not follow that one agrees with every single word or the way it is written or even with every article. Whether this House or certain hon. members in this House …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the hon. member subscribe to a certain leading article written in One for the Road?

That is exactly the point I am trying to come to. Whether this House accepts what I am about to say now, does not really worry me, because I know that in the final analysis I have to live with myself. [Interjections.] I made it very clear at that conference and in subsequent debates that I could not go along with the sentiments expressed in that article and with the whole spirit which developed in that organization. The very fact that one resigned from the organization, the very fact that the major churches pulled out of the organization well before it died, suggests to me at least that the seeds of death of that organization were there almost from the very beginning and long before any report was brought out. Indeed, it is three years since that organization came into being.

I want to try to get on to make what I hope will be a positive contribution to this debate and I should also like to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

May I put a question?

I only have seven minutes left and I would rather not reply to a question now. I should like to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and his speech. The launching in 1948 of apartheid or separate development or whatever name it goes under now was a very significant moment in the history of this country. As one looks back over this session, I think one also needs to look even further back to see what has happened since that time and what is happening now. As I look back, I remember as a very young man the Nationalist Party coming into power. I remember vividly reading the newspaper on a train in a Cape Town suburb and seeing the big, bold headlines, the photographs, the lot. When I look back on that, I want to say that as I understood it then— I have no reason to change my mind—that policy was born out of fear that the White man would be overrun and overthrown. One still sees evidence of this now in this debate on both sides. I suggest that the frail craft which was the Nationalist Party then, was built on the foundation of prejudice and of a misunderstanding of superiority and a kind of divine destiny. These are the words that still come up again in this House on that side and to my right. However, there was also a genuine attempt to solve the problems which faced South Africa in 1948 and which face South Africa much more acutely now.

Did you vote for the United Party in 1948?

I did not have a vote then. In the 1960’s a much larger and much more powerful party, with the Opposition as I have said—I agree with the hon. the Minister who spoke before me—in disarray—that a frail craft had become very powerful—in order to steer its course through difficult waters, decided that it was going to jettison a lot of things which I believe were very precious. I also believe that this was a very wrong thing for it to have done. I refer especially to its moving away from civil rights and—let me use the words with which hon. members will be satisfied —the rule of law. In these days, in this year and in this session one sees a new concern in the light of developments in Portugal and immediately on our own borders with Mozambique, Angola, Rhodesia and South West Africa.

The Nationalist ship has changed its name many times. Many people described it as “apartheid”, but that of course was changed to “separate nationalism” and “multi-nationalism”. Though the changes are in my judgment somewhat imperceptible, nevertheless the foreign policy of this Government as I read it has been very definitely a movement away. Hon. members on the other side will say to me that this does not suggest for a moment a change in policy; it is the “ontplooiing” of the policy. We in these benches see it as a definite shift in policy and we welcome it. We welcome the changes made in the foreign policy. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation said loudly tonight—it was also said by the hon. member for Johannesburg West during the last session—that one thing we must remember is that we are part of Africa. We are delighted that at long last —or rather it seems to us to be at long last—there has been a dominant note of recognition that one of the realities we face in South Africa is that we are part of Africa and that more and more people are realizing that. I think that is a very healthy thing. The flag of détente flies very proudly on that ship right now and we are glad about it and we hope that every attempt at détente will be successful.

The new incentives within South Africa are not nearly, in our judgment, as decisive and as far-reaching as our incentives are in the foreign field. Initiatives on the home front have been extremely timid and there seems to be an unawareness of just how serious the situation is. It is almost like those people who were on the Titanic who were quite prepared to think that they were invincible and indestructible. We all know the fateful consequences that overtook those people. Talking about the dangers which lie before us, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. You will recall that I raised a point of order and called into question some of the language he was using. I am quite sure that he was speaking without notes and therefore the fact that he denied what I suggested that he had said …

He did not deny it.

Let me come to it. I am not suggesting for one moment that this was a lie or anything like that. I am just saying that the words were so far-reaching that I just could not believe that he would say them. I just want to read what they are. I quote from the unrevised copy of his Hansard:

That is this party—

In all conscience, these are very strong words. It is very ironic to hear the hon. the Minister for Sport and Recreation asking us to be responsible and concerned in South Africa when that is the kind of thing we have to sit and listen to—and we have heard it before—in this House. I agree that we are living in dangerous times and I am suggesting that the timid approach towards initiatives for change within South Africa contributes to the danger rather than relieves it. So we urge this Government to change direction and to move away from the intolerable tension there is within the Government’s policy. This intolerable tension can be summed up in one sentence and that is that on the one hand this Government rightly stresses the need for economic growth and wants to incorporate as many skilled people as possible into the economy—whether they be Black or White —with the result that we have a development of economic integration that we have never before seen in South Africa. This we welcome.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am terribly sorry, but I have half a minute left I just want to finish this point and if there is any time left I shall be glad to try to answer a question. The point I was trying to make is that if there is on the one hand a tremendous stress on separatism, one must simply accept confrontation as a possibility. That is why we say this is dangerous and why we say they must change the direction before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses the word “confrontation”, as was also done by other hon. members. In that regard I should like to ask him whether he, on behalf of his party and on behalf of his semi-party, will dissociate himself completely from all actions of the World Council of Churches and the S.A. Council of Churches who want to advocate terrorism in South Africa.

Yes or no.

I shall answer his question the way I think I should and not the way hon. members think I should. The S.A. Council of Churches has never advocated assistance to terrorism and has consistently stated its opposition to it. I have been on record over the years fighting the World Council of Churches in Geneva and in Johannesburg.

I am asking you to speak on behalf of your party.

I cannot speak for my party in terms of that. All I want to say is that we are against terrorism wherever it is found.

Who is “we”?

This party.

Mr. Speaker, I can almost say to the hon. member for Pinelands tonight, “You are back, prodigal son”, but the only thing I still do not know is where he has come from. However, I am quite sure of where he is going, young as he is and although he is not an unattractive man.

† “Father” one calls him, but not because of his age.

*However, let me say that he has realized that he was on the wrong road with the Christian Institute.

No, no.

He realized that these things would land him in trouble.

I am still a member of the Christian institute.

Yes, I would surely not expect the hon. member to resign immediately. Nobody can expect that.

†It will come in time.

*Actually the hon. member virtually had me in tears tonight when he told here of how he had sat reading about the National Party. Can you now see what a wonderful thing it is to be well-endowed in the country in which you find yourself and to have enough sense to tackle those points immediately? If the hon. member had had the will to believe in and to understand what he read in that newspaper about the National Party, perhaps he would have been sitting in one of the back benches on this side of the House today.

In one of the front benches.

The hon. member says he thinks he would have been sitting in the front benches already; that might have been the case. The hon. member must remember that it is and remains a fact that the Progressive Party is a part of the old United Party.

Long ago.

Yes, all right, long ago.

†I am one of those people who can be proud of my past.

I was young and silly.

The Progressive Party arose from the United Party and is actually an outgrowth of the latter. However, I do not want to try the hon. member for Pinelands any further tonight, because it seems to me that he is confessing his sin.

†Let us forget about Pinelands and its fences. The hon. member is quite sincere. A Bantu will be able to walk through Pinelands in the future and I am not going to say anything further about it. I shall not even say anything about swimming-baths. The hon. member said we must be sincere. I am sincere when I say to him: “You are back on the road; you have a chance now to prove yourself; you must get away from the Council of Churches.”

*The hon. member must get away from that small group in Holland in particular.

Order! For us to speak one sentence or half a sentence in English and then one sentence or half a sentence in Afrikaans, is not in the spirit of the concession which was made, i.e. that both languages may be used in the same speech. Henceforth hon. members must please be more meticulous in this regard.

Very well, Sir. When we go back to our constituencies, we must report back and tell the constituents what happened during this session in Parliament. Then one must ask oneself what the Opposition was. Did the Opposition have a policy and did the Opposition parties launch an organized attack on the Government on any of the legislation by the Government? When one does these things, one gains the impression that the United Party failed dismally and that the Progressive Party and the Reformists each attacked the National Party or some of the legislation in their own way as individualists. But there was definitely no such thing as an overall Opposition attack. The Opposition in this House, and specifically the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, like a “reclining Buddha”—there are no Afrikaans words for that … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must not try to pass my ruling off with a joke.

I am not trying to do so, Mr. Speaker, but in Thailand, there is one of the largest statues in the world, viz. that of a Buddha in a reclining position. It is given this name and true to that name, the hon. the Leader of the United Party in form. But the spirit is no longer in him; the spirit has left that outward form. That is what the Opposition is today in this House. There are a few of them who should like to be leader. There is, for example, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Hillbrow.

You are talking absolute nonsense, man.

If the hon. member for Hillbrow does not want to become the United Party leader, he must not fight me about it; he must just say so. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has shown us recently that although he is a man who has made many tracks in politics, he is in the political desert at the moment. He is back in the Namib and at the moment he is eating the bitter fruits of politics. I want to make the statement that that hon. member and certain hon. members on that side are very much closer to the Progressive Party and the Reformists at the moment than to the United Party.

Who is that? Nic Olivier?

No, we have not yet come to the hon. member for Edenvale. The hon. member for Hillbrow says that I should not say that he wants to become the leader. However, he has given all the signs of wanting to become the leader of the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot still want to be the leader of the United Party in five years from now. That is an impossibility. A man does not lose for 30 years. He can definitely not be leader for another term. If we are to choose a leader for the United Party from the people who are sitting on that side, whom should we choose?

What about the hon. member for Wynberg?

Yes, that is quite a possibility. But the hon. member for Hillbrow is at least “Jakobs” for the Afrikaners, “Jakes” for the English and “Jacobs” for those who do not agree with Harry. That is really something one should bear in mind. Therefore, the hon. member should be able to be a good leader. I think the United Party will have to carry on in this way. However, the danger no longer lies in this Opposition. If I speak of a danger, then I think, for example, of the piece of the earthworm which broke off and which is now sitting in the Reform Party. Lateron we shall come to see which end of the earthworm grows the most, the head or the tail. That is what is going on here with the Reform and the Progressive Parties. The Progressive Party and the Reformists have not yet fused completely as one party. However, all the signs indicate that there is uniformity. It is clear that leadership is the only issue at the moment and that principles are no longer at issue. I do not know why the hon. member for Yeoville should always have the problem that people do not want to accept him as leader, while his intelligence is far above that of the others. He is much more intelligent than any of the other Opposition leaders here, but why do they not accept him? Here he is once again involved in a struggle with the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Sea Point has problems; one can see that. He projects it every day. Other Progressives croak like bullfrogs …

Horace will even be Prime Minister.

… but not one of them can draw the plough when it is necessary. I believe that the hon. the leader of the Reformists will take the reins in the Progressive Party and will bring them back to the importance of putting South Africa first. I think it will be an improvement. It does not matter what one says of the hon. member; he always tries at least to put South Africa first.

Now I want to go over to a matter which is important, to my mind, in South Africa and the whole world. I am referring to the solution to the world’s energy problem. If the countries of the West each try to solve the energy crisis on its own, not one of them will succeed. The Western countries are succumbing economically one by one, if we can call it that, because there is not a uniform policy. We find, for example, that America, a great country which has the ability to remain the great country of the West, has a tremendous shortage of capital at the moment. America has tried through the years to save the world with Marshall aid and many other forms of aid, as it saw fit. Many of the countries which it tried to help have become millstones around its neck, and has brought the strong America to the recession which is prevailing today. The only country except America which can be of help in the solution of this crisis, is South Africa. The crisis in America is a shortage of capital and they were scared, for some reason or other, to increase the price of gold. They believed that there was a hidden stockpiling of gold in Russia and in its satellites. Over the years, the sale of gold from the communist countries has shown that they selectively sell more or less 200 to 400 tons per annum. This indicates that these communist nations do not really have a very large stock pile of gold. What is necessary today, is that a politically strong country such as America and a country such as South Africa, which can produce gold and produces about 70% of the world’s gold at the moment, should move closer together so that consultations may take place as to how the price of gold can be fixed at, say, $225 per fine ounce.

When it happens that the price is fixed at $225 per fine ounce, for example, and the official price of gold is then revalued at its private value, then it will mean that gold will make up about 50% of the country’s foreign exchange. At the ordinary official price, it will be 20%, but at the revalued price, 50% will lie in its gold reserves. We have seen that the Arab countries are no longer satisfied with the dollar and with the Euro-dollar. The Arab countries have said that they want to make use of drawing rights. I would think that this can cause a greater problem for the world. If the dollar becomes convertible into gold, it will mean a great deal to America and to the dollar.

We must have a country in the world which is not only politically strong, but which also has backbone in the economic sphere. The other Western countries which have the economic commodities to support that country should be brought closer together and a better understanding should be created. We have the position today that the value of the production of gold bought by the Arabs alone stands at R7 milliard. They collected R35 milliard by means of accumulated surpluses from oil production and they decided to invest 20% of that in gold. Therefore, that removed 1 700 tons of gold from the market at this moment. It is important to think of that and we hope that America will see this point, that its salvation also lies in gold.

Mr. Sneaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte will forgive me if I do not follow on his somewhat light interlude this evening. There are other important matters to attend to. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Bryanston. I listened to him with interest and with some discomfort, because I always feel uncomfortable when I hear a man repudiating and deriding the very policy upon which he stood when he got into this House but a year ago. I should like to put to him and to the Leader of the Reform Party, sitting next to him, a question. It is well known from the speech of the hon. member for Houghton that the Progressive Party believes that the Communist Party should be free to operate in South Africa. I wonder whether the Reform Party agrees with that point of view? It is somewhat easy to answer, I would have thought, Sir.

Dead silence.

You notice, Mr. Speaker, that there is dead silence on that issue. I have no doubt that we will have a continuation of that silence throughout this debate.

Listening to the speech made earlier by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it occurred to me to try to summarize the philosophy behind it and the contents of that speech in a short phrase. I believe one can legitimately describe what he was trying to convey, as “South Africanism”. I do not believe you can find a better description of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said than “pure South Africanism”.

That term in my view implies a number of things which I believe no other political party espouses but the United Party. It suggests a philosophy which is firstly indigenous to this country. Secondly, it embraces the interests of all who live in South Africa. It is mindful of, and outspokenly upholds, the standards of morality and behaviour commonly accepted by the ordinary people of this country. One might say it upholds the standards of morality and behaviour commonly accepted by the man on the Pinelands omnibus. Fourthly, Sir, it embodies a philosophy which is openly hostile, and outspokenly hostile, to the methods and forces of violence and subversion which are loose in many parts of Southern Africa.

I have said that no other political party in South Africa is able to claim title rightfully to that term “South Africanism”. I say that in respect of the governing party opposite because they fall down on the second of the prerequisites which I have named. Their philosophy does not embrace all those who live permanently in South Africa. Their policy, so far as the Black people are concerned, is one of rejection. In terms of their policy, the Black man is not a South African. To emphasize the point, the millions of urban Bantu permanently settled in White South Africa are, in terms of the Government’s philosophy, not South Africans. They therefore do not fall within that category or that description which I have outlined. The members of the Progressive Party fall down in respect of two aspects of my definition, the third and the fourth. That is to say, Sir, they do not outspokenly uphold the standards of morality and behaviour commonly accepted by the man on the Pinelands omnibus and, secondly, they are not openly hostile to the forces and methods of violence and subversion which are loose in many parts of Southern Africa.

I hope to show, in the course of the few minutes that are available to me, the correctness of my criticism of the Progressive Party in this respect. I have taken the trouble, over the last few days, to read with some care the debates in this House which have taken place as a result of the reports of the Schlebusch Commission on Nusas, Wilgespruit and the University Christian Movement. In doing so, I paid particular attention not to the opinions of the commission, but to the documents emanating from those various bodies, which were laid before it, and the direct evidence which was given by persons who were present at their functions. From those sources a number of things emerged. Firstly, the money and the motivation for these organizations came from abroad. Secondly, they were all clearly involved in the political field. Thirdly, they rejected all White political parties in South Africa and they also rejected what we have always known traditionally as “the liberal point of view”. In many instances they rejected the ballot box as a solution to our problems. In the fourth instance they sought instead to encourage radicalism and a form of polarization between Black and White with a view to conflict between Black and White. Fifthly, they rejected to a large extent the capitalist free enterprise economic system and sought to replace it with a form of Marxist Socialism. In the final instance, they tolerated and in many instances encouraged, standards of morality and behaviour which I believe can validly be described as disgusting and obscene.

It is interesting to look at the record of the Progressive Party in relation to these events over a period of years. Nowhere in the Hansards relating to the debates in regard to these events have I been able to find in any instance a clear condemnation from the Progressive Party of what has been taking place. In almost every debate we find that the spokesman was the hon. member for Houghton, and she has avoided a clear condemnation of these events, however shocking they may be. One finds, from her, phrases of a nebulous kind such as the following: “All this naïve stuff”, “they were rather lax” and “another boring instalment”. If one looks at the debate which is reflected in Vol. 42 of Hansard, one will find in col. 1595 that when the hon. member for Green Point asked the hon. member for Houghton pertinently whether she subscribed to the views in regard to polarity, whether she subscribed to the views in regard to Black power and the rejection of the ballot box as an effective means to put right the order in South Africa, she refused to answer. Let us take the debate on Wilgespruit in particular. Hon. members will recall that that dealt with sensitivity training in which the University Christian Movement was involved. The points to be remembered about the Wilgespruit episode were first that this purported to be the activities of a Christian movement training the future leaders and young people of South Africa in a Christian faith. The “church services”—I use this term in inverted commas—took the form of certain so-called liturgies which were specifically written for the occasion by a certain Rev. Mr. Basil Moore, another ordained clergyman. What were those liturgies? They are referred to on page 75 of the Report on the University Christian Movement and if I am challenged, I shall read them in all their vulgarity to this House. What were they? They were blatantly sexual, being centred largely around the male and female sexual organs by name and they were spoken in language of the coarsest possible kind. I want to remind the House that these purported to be Christian worship—liturgies in a Christian service taking place in a house of God. In short, I believe it can validly be said that these liturgies were in ordinary language— the language of the man on the Pinelands omnibus—disgusting, blasphemous and obscene. I do not believe that I am overstating it when I use those words. What makes it worse it that they were not spontaneous, arising out of the heat of the moment. They were planned in the sense that someone sat down deliberately and wrote them. They were put forward on that occasion by actors who had to learn the words and were coached to present them. The stuff was then presented, as I have said, in a place of worship by ordained clergymen to young Christians. A more shocking and disgraceful series of events is difficult to conceive of. At least, it is difficult for me to conceive of. These facts are undisputed, because they are not opinions, but are stated there in all their nakedness. What would the reaction of the ordinary man on the Pinelands omnibus be to this series of events? He would say quite simply: This is a disgraceful state of affairs and I roundly condemn it. This is what the United Party has said in this regard over and over again. But what was the reaction of the Progressive Party? One will find it in Hansard, Vol. 43, col. 5006 of 25 April 1973, when these specific things were debated in this House. What did the hon. member for Houghton, on behalf of the Progressive Party, have to say? She did not condemn it. At no time during that debate were these events condemned by the Progressive Party. She evaded the issue and these were her words: “a half-baked analysis of a lot of pseudo-psychological nonsense—nothing but that.” She went further: “It is a whole lot of nonsense about all these sensitivity experiments which have been conducted at Wilgespruit and elsewhere.” During that same speech the hon. member for Durban Point, by way of interjections, put questions pertinently to her. He questioned her, while she was on her feet, and asked her: “Do you condemn it?” The hon. member for Houghton evaded the question. He then asked: “You would not object to it continuing?” The revealing answer of the hon. member for Houghton was “People have their own tastes.” Therefore, the Progressive Party, when confronted with one of the most obscene and disgraceful events that I have ever read of, does not repudiate it, given two chances to do so, but merely says that people have their own tastes. The hon. member for Houghton then continued: “we are beating about the Schlebush’ again.” …—a play on words—… “it is not worth the time of this House … sheer bosh …”—another play on words, and … “there are a few four-lettered words in this report admittedly, but none of us is a child any more.” The point is that when the House is dealing with events, which to the mind of ordinary decent people, the man in the street, are, I repeat, blasphemous, disgusting and obscene, the Progressive Party is found wanting.

There is another aspect of this matter which I think needs explanation. I listened with great interest tonight to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands. I had thought, and I still think, that there are some who have not read the report of the commission on the University Christian Movement. I would have thought that the leader of the Progressive Party and the editor of the Cape Times were two of those. I think something needs to be said. The UCM was founded in 1967. In June 1968 it published an official journal, One for the Road. A strange name, I would have thought, for a journal of a Christian body. The editorial, not just an article as is suggested by the hon. member for Pinelands …

It was not written by the editor.

… and which in any other journal in the world would express the official policy of the organ sponsoring the journal, openly advocated revolution in South Africa and suggested that the students should take over from the tired proletariat in that regard.

They blamed me for mentioning it.

I do not have time to read the extracts …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister should give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

However, these extracts will be found in this report on page 33. The interesting thing is that whilst the Progressive Party finds apparently nothing wrong with this in the sense that there has been no condemnation of it, clergymen in the organization itself did find a lot wrong. I have here an extract from an article written in the subsequent edition of this journal by a certain Father Roy Snyman, a clergyman. He condemned the language because, he said, it seemed to suggest that subversion, revolution and implied violence was required by the new Christians, and he ended up by saying—

Far from taking that view, the hon. member for Pinelands, at the meeting in 1967, moved a resolution of commendation congratulating the editor for the publication of this journal. After that the Concept of Black power as a political strategy was developed by the University Christian Movement and, by early 1969, after these events I have referred to, the UCM was already the subject of some criticism amongst the various churches that had initially espoused it. Indeed, from their own correspondence it was becoming an embarrassment to the church leaders. It had been avoided by all the old-established students’ Christian associations, both English and Afrikaans. And then, in 1969, a second conference was held on a remote beach on the Natal coast, which was described by some of the witnesses there as being a pretty disgraceful experience with the majority of the non-White delegates drunk. However, on that occasion—and this is the second one—the hon. member for Pinelands proposed another resolution. He proposed a resolution of commendation to the UCM of the United States of America. That body had provided the money for the local institution, it promoted Black theology, it attacked South Africa and it called for aid to the terrorist movements active in South Africa. Nevertheless the link between the UCM and the movement in the United States was commended by the hon. member for Pinelands. The body had been running for two years and its course was now obvious. The motivation was clearly anti-South African and its conferences, judging by the evidence, were widely unchristian and disorderly. Its “services”, in inverted commas, were leading to what I have described—that particular service had not yet taken place. Yet, what did the hon. member for Pinelands do at the next conference? Knowing all this, he did not resign, as he suggested, but he took office on the executive; he was elected to the executive of this organization and became the director of Theological Concerns and a member of the executive.

That was in 1969. Have another look at the report.

The hon. member says that that is a lie.

I did not say it is a lie; I said it was in 1969 and not in 1970.

That is precisely what I said, viz. 1969.

You said 1970.

I have not yet got to 1970. The hon. member is reported as having said to Die Transvaler on Wednesday, 11 June—

Is that wrong?

It is wrong.

Right. I am glad to hear it is wrong. I did not intend saying that it was right, because if one reads the report of the commission one finds that the conference I am referring to was held in 1969, and that was in fact what I said. [Interjections.] Knowing the background of this organization, far from what the hon. member indicated to us here this evening, viz. that he pulled out when he saw things were going wrong, the hon. member took office.

Did I resign or not?

He took office …

Boots and all.

The hon. member was elected to office when these things took place.

Did I resign?

The hon. gentleman did resign, yes, but at a much later stage.

He must have had a good time. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, …