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

I am assuming that the hon. the Minister who is to reply to this debate will be the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. I must say that I am amazed that he did not approach me before this debate, because I would have thought that the Government would have been the first to agree that this legislation should be repealed. If the hon. the Minister were to indicate across the floor of the House that he is going to accept my suggestion, I am sure it would make the whole debate a lot more fruitful. Would the hon. the Minister please give me an answer.

You are so predictable.

The hon. the Minister suggests that I am predictable. I want to predict that the hon. the Minister will not accept the motion before the House because he is so predictable in the way he responds. [Interjections.]

I think it is important that we have some brief historical framework before I move on to why I think this legislation should actually be repealed today. In 1966 a Bill—

was introduced in Parliament. At that time the Bill went to a Select Committee before Second Reading. The committee could not complete its work and was therefore converted into a commission. Not surprisingly, at the conclusion of that commission’s deliberations, the majority report supported separate political institutions. I use the term “not surprisingly” because obviously the majority of the people on that commission were from the Government party, and so the decision was very much in tune with their policy in those days. [Interjections.] The Government implemented these recommendations, one of which related to the Prohibition of Political or Improper Interference Bill. The Bill became law on 5 June 1968. Its most immediate effect was the prohibition of mixed political party membership. This placed two non-racial parties, namely the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party, on the horns of a great dilemma. The Liberal Party decided to disband rather than change its constitution, whilst the Progressive Party, after consultation with its Black membership, decided to continue. It is very interesting to look back to those days and to see that there were at least two political parties in South Africa whose ranks were open to people of all races. The reason for that was to be found in an attempt to develop or build bridges in South Africa, bridges which were so badly needed at that time, and which—I submit— are even more necessary today. The Progressive Party, acting on the advice of its own Black membership, decided to continue and made a pledge, at that time, that the moment this law was repealed, those who were then members would automatically be recognized as members of the party again, should that be their wish. Obviously we would have to take their own views and ideas into consideration. There can be no doubt whatsoever that in bringing such a law into being in South Africa, this Government set the tone for greater militancy in both the Coloured and the Indian communities. Denied access to this Parliament, the Coloureds used other platforms and then broke those platforms when the Government proved to be unable, unwilling, or both, to meet their political demands.

In the Second Reading debate at that time, all those years ago, the member for Houghton opposed the Bill on behalf of the then Progressive Party. In describing the Bill as and I quote her words—“profoundly undemocratic”, she made the point that the real reason for the introduction of the Bill was to prevent Progressive Party representatives from being elected by Coloured voters. That was the real reason which sparked off this Bill and indeed led to this Act.

Our view is that people should be allowed to speak for themselves, that they do not need other people to represent them, that they should be present in the highest courts of the land in order to speak for themselves; but so long as that was prevented, it was the right, at least at that time, of Coloured voters in the Cape to elect representatives. We believe that the choice should be left to them.

Turning to the difference between proper and improper interference, the member for Houghton pointed out that the Government was guilty of doing precisely what it was then attempting to prevent Opposition parties from doing. The only difference was that the Government imposed its interference whilst the Opposition parties sought to allow groups to exercise their few remaining rights. Finally, the member for Houghton warned of the dangers of denying moderate people of colour the opportunity to participate peacefully in the established political systems of the country. How right her warning was, how much further off we now are from establishing any kind of relationships across colour lines in South Africa.

The direct consequence, I submit, of this Act was to encourage greater radicalism and more confrontationist policies amongst Coloured politicians.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Mossel Bay in his customary way misunderstands. One appreciates that one must help him as much as one can. Let me therefore repeat that this Act, introduced deliberately by the Government, encouraged greater radicalism and more confrontationist policies amongst Coloured politicians. That has been the effect of this Government’s policies time and time again.

You surely like that.

Stop shouting. Just relax. As a result of that work, we are now shouting at one another from the vantage of various race points rather than finding common solutions for a common South Africa.

The same mood is increasingly evident amongst Indian South Africans as well. Although they did not have an elected body until 1981, in that election the anti-S.A. Indian Council movement was sufficiently strong to produce a percentage poll of just over 10% country-wide. This was how strong the feeling was only two years ago. The effect of the Act, therefore, is to encourage polarization and conflict, and we believe that it is an unnecessary and undesirable luxury South Africa simply cannot afford. That is one of the major reasons why we are calling for the repeal of this Act. If the Government is sincere in its attempts to resolve conflict, I believe it must show it by its actions today, i.e. by supporting the repeal of this Act.

The subsequent history of political processes concerning other population groups is characterized ironically, by constant interference by the Government. For example—and I have time to give only one short example— in 1969 the Government appointed 20 Federal Party supporters to the CPRC notwithstanding the election defeat of that party at the polls. In recent times the Government has taken to publishing a newspaper—I assume through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, which is quite good at publishing pamphlets and newspapers— entitled Die Karet, aimed at Coloured readership and in which NP policy is given prominence. I submit that in this very act the Government is breaking its own law. It is constantly seeking to influence opinion to the betterment and the promotion of NP policy and the NP as a whole.

With taxpayers’ money.

On a more sinister note, the Government has not been slow— and this is part of its interference—to detain opponents of its or its surrogates’ views of the Coloured and Indian communities. In the past, leading members of the anti-SAIC campaign have been detained; and very recently four people, and I am going to mention their names because no one knows what their situation is, have been detained. They are Miss Daphne Williams, Miss Zelda Holtzmann, Mr. Hedley King and Mr. Michael Coetzee, whose detentions are described as being “linked closely to local community opposition to the Government’s constitutional proposals”. I have no hesitation at all in saying that the Government will act and use all the fearsome laws at its disposal in seeking to silence its opponents. By making political interaction between race groups illegal, the Government has in fact promoted a myth of its own making. And what is that myth? It has encouraged the myth in South Africa that Black and White political interests are irreconcilable. The now rather infamous Professor De Crespigny, who served on the President’s Council and has taken up other residence recently, is on record as saying that if one tries to have a constitution for South Africa which includes Black and White, it is impossible to have a democracy.

How on earth one can have a democracy by excluding them, I shall never know.

Can you just define “interaction”?

All right. First of all I am going to give specific examples of how it has become impossible in terms of the Act for the political parties to interact. This myth has been energetically promoted, not only in the White community—and this is what the Government cannot understand. But by its example of saying that Whites must sort out their own situation and that there is another solution for Blacks, they must realize that that is going to boomerang. They must realize that there are more and more Blacks in South Africa who are now saying that there is no place for Whites in the future constitution of South Africa. And it is this Government that is driving them to this position. They are now taking a leaf out of their book and are saying: If that is how you see it, then we shall become Black conscious as well and there is no room in South Africa for Whites in their plans for the future. And that is dangerous, just as dangerous as it is for Whites to adopt the attitude which this Government has adopted. The result is that political leaders of the various groups are highly suspicious of one another, not only Black and White, but Black and Brown, Brown and Brown and Black and Black, because everywhere separation is what this Government has aspired to. The hallmark of this Government’s actions and policies is separateness and this has led it to promote division. At a time when South Africa desparately needs to be united, economically, socially and politically, it is weakened by internal divisions of the Government’s own making. Wherever we look in South Africa there is polarization. In its determination to divide and rule, the Government has only succeeded in making South Africa weak where it should be strong. There is a yawning chasm between Black and White which should have never been allowed to develop. Instead of encouraging the meeting of people across race barriers this Government has created one ghetto after another, which has brought in its wake, not trust and mutual commitment but suspicion and distrust rather than a common search for a just, a peaceful and a secure nation.

I submit to this House today that it is an absolute tragedy that this Government has deliberately prevented South Africans from joining together in political parties free from racial exclusivity. Wien will they realize that there are other factors that can unite the people? Even yesterday a former Prime Minister of South Africa is on record as saying again that at all costs separate development must be maintained otherwise the White man is going to go down. [Interjections.] If separate development is maintained the White has no future in South Africa … [Interjections.] because he persists in holding people up. One of the things with which we in this House, as well as people outside, will have to come to terms is that Black and White are here in this country together for ever. We have to find a way of living together instead of forcing people apart.

I want to list four reasons why this House should support the abolition of this Act. The first one is the development of cross-cutting loyalties. Instead of fostering racial exclusivity the Government should be following a policy which will encourage inter-group loyalties wherever possible. We are constantly being warned by hon. members on the Government side that we are faced with an external threat of gigantic proportions. The will of this nation, however, is being sapped by internal divisions, and one of the key contributory factors to breaking down racial hostilities and suspicions must be the development of a political culture which cuts across racial categories. So long as we keep thinking in racial terms so long there can be no common loyalty, and there can also certainly be no genuine South African patriotism. That is the first reason, I believe, why it is important, not to inhibit, but actually to promote cross-cutting loyalties.

Secondly there is the principle of voluntary association. Political parties are only one variety of the myriad human associations which make up what we call society. For society to be of really true value, however, it should be based on the voluntary act on the part of the individual. For any government to legislate that only some types of association are permissible whilst others are expressly forbidden by law inclines that Government towards totalitarianism. This is a further hallmark of this government, and regrettably in recent days it seems that the shift is even more in that direction. The Prohibition of Political Interference Act is a flagrant violation of the principle of voluntary association.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower has in recent days been able to convince and persuade his colleagues in the NP benches that after so many years the principle of voluntary association must be and is being adopted in the labour field. However, it is just as important, if not more important, in the political field. If we do not want one group to dominate another we must deliberately encourage a system which will enable people to rid themselves of the blinkers of race and colour and to seek a commitment based on a political programme, on political ideals, rather than on a commitment to pigmentation.

This Government is terrified of Black majority rule. It constantly returns to this theme, saying again and again they will never allow it; we must work against it.

Are you against it?

Yes, of course, I am against it. I am against any kind of majority rule in which minorities suffer. There must be built-in safeguards for all minorities. [Interjections.] I must put it to this Government that there is a sure way in which that very Black majority rule can come about. That is by perpetuating this type of legislation. They are actually preparing the way for that to happen.

In the third instance, I want to look at the constitutional considerations against the background of the Government’s new guidelines. I want first of all to call into question the role of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He has been extremely active in seeking to promote what? He has been seeking to promote NP policy. There is no Bill before the House. There is still no law in regard to a new constitution as yet. All we have to go on are the hon. the Prime Minister’s guidelines and, armed with these, he and some of his hon. colleagues have gone from braaivleis to tea-party to lunch to meetings persuading the Coloured and Indian leadership in South Africa to accept those proposals. [Interjections.] I concede he has not been very successful but I believe that he has done this in contravention of the provisions of this Act. That hon. Minister does not seem to care about the laws of this land. I think that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order should take him to task most definitely.

There would therefore seem to be three considerations which from a constitutional point of view affect the operation of this Act. Firstly, the proposals make provision for three chambers in one Parliament. If this Act, the repeal of which I am calling for today, remains on the Statute Book, South Africa will have the only political system in the world where parties are forbidden by law to be represented in the various houses of the same parliament. I should like to hear the comments of the hon. the Minister on that point. Secondly, the constitutional proposals make provision for standing committees of the three chambers to promote consensus in regard to matters of common concern. I am assuming—I am sorry the relevant hon. Minister is not here although I presume he has the support of his colleague; perhaps I should not really make that presumption—that these standing committees will represent both majority and minority parties of each of the three houses in the new parliament. However, in terms of the Act, it will be illegal for either a Coloured MP or an Indian MP to address such a standing committee. [Interjections.] I should like to quote the relevant provision of the Act to the hon. the Minister just to refresh his memory. The Act prohibits any person—

The Labour Party is on record as saying that it wants to scrap the Group Areas Act. What is going to happen when they come together in those committees on a 4:2:1 basis, because let us make no mistake, the NP Whites will be in the majority on every one of those committees; that is quite clear. [Interjections.] Of course it is going to happen. They would not take any risks in this regard at all. So what is going to happen? In that committee a Coloured MP gets up and he tries to influence—I suppose he will realize that it is going to be very difficult—hon. members on that side. He tries the impossible and he tries to talk some sense into hon. members on that side. He is breaking the law. [Interjections.] Of course he is breaking the law. Let me put it another way. Let me ask the hon. the Minister this question. What will happen if the constitutional proposals become law? We will then have the three-chambered Parliament. Let us assume then that the leader of the majority party in the Coloured group approaches the the Leader of the Opposition and says: We would like to have a joint caucus so that we can caucus a number of issues. What will happen then? Is that illegal? Is that hon. Minister going to talk to his hon. colleague and send say Mr. Allan Hendrickse and the Leader of the Opposition to gaol?

As long as the Act stands.

The hon. member is right. As long as the Act stands they are going to go to gaol. I know that hon. member would welcome that state of affairs, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister: Can he really be serious?

Thirdly, this provision of the Act will affect the position of Cabinet Ministers in the new dispensation. How is it going to be possible for a Coloured Cabinet Minister to come to this House and to address this House as he will have to do if he has certain responsibilities? It will be impossible unless the Government is going to restrict it to a segmental approach. What will happen if a White Cabinet Minister from this Chamber goes to the second or third chamber to address it on the basis of NP policy? That is against the law. Therefore, the whole thing is a can of worms.

It is also customary for Cabinet Ministers to be present at the congresses of the NP. There are the Natal congress, the Transvaal congress, the Free State congress and the Cape congress. Are they going to have a Coloured Cabinet Minister or Deputy Minister going to the NP congresses to speak about his responsibility? They will either have to say the law does not allow it, or they will have to say: We agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that we have to repeal this law because it just cannot work now that we have come to our senses and we begin to understand that there are other people too who live in South Africa.

A final reason is that this Act has been flouted at every turn. So what on earth is the good of having it on the Statute Book at all? This Act is a part of deliberate neglect and rejection of political rights for Coloureds and Indians in South Africa, and it has played a major role in contributing to the shameful and shabby record of the Government.

It is time, however, to move away from past mistakes and failures, even more it is virtually necessary and long overdue for South Africans of all races to talk frankly and openly with one another, and inevitably such conversation will have to be political and will involve political parties as well. I warn the Government that if they do not accept the repeal of this legislation today and if they do not move in this direction, the only alternative to not talking one another, is fight one another, and every barrier placed in the way of regular and direct interaction on a political basis is a further stepping-stone to ultimate and direct confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. member for Pinelands made the most ridiculous speech that I have listened to for a long time. When he started off he said that the hon. the Minister should have accepted this motion with acclamation. I want to say that if the hon. member really wants to be ridiculous, he must advance such stupid arguments. He further said that the Government has put in motion, since 1966, the process of militancy in South Africa. What utter rubbish! [Interjections.] Naturally one can understand why those hon. members are upset because since the Government has brought order into politics in South Africa they are no longer the self-appointed spokesmen for the other peoples in South Africa. He also made the statement that the Government uses fearsome measures to minimize opposition. There has been a time in the history of this country when there have been people who have deliberately abused the rights of the non-White peoples for their own political purposes. The hon. member mentioned a few people who had been detained, but I can tell him that the record of the few people detained in South Africa is definitely not the record of people who stand for democracy in this country. In fact, most of them are committed to Black majority rule in this country.

André, what court’s finding was that?

The relations between White, Coloured and Black in this country have never been better since the Government has taken power in this country. This type of radical leftist remark coming from that side will make no impression on them whatsoever.

I want to end off my remarks to the hon. member by saying that the diversity of peoples in South Africa is a fact. It is not the making of the Government, but a fact which the Government had to look at when it started governing this country.

*Let us have a look at the hon. member’s motion. This motion amounts to a blatant repeal of this measure. Please note, not merely the repeal of certain sections of the Act, but the repeal of the whole Act as it stands.

The preamble to this Act says the following—

This Act then deals with the following aspects. In the first place, it places a prohibition on the direct party political interference of one population group in the party politics of another population group. It deals inter alia with party membership, with direct involvement in elections and, finally, with the furthering of the candidature or the political party of other population groups. Hon. members can read the Act. The hon. member for Pinelands read out one section and I should like to repeat it, because it seems to me he does not understand what it says. Section 2 reads—

This relates only to the fighting of elections in South Africa. That is all which this Act tells us. However, the hon. member did not refer to section 3. The hon. member did not say a word about the fact that political parties should receive financial assistance from abroad. Hon. members of that party must now tell us—they will probably allow another member to talk—whether they are also going to lift that ban and whether this is also part of their motion, because they did not specify this and for that reason we assume that when they come to power, they will allow political parties in South Africa to receive financial assistance from abroad.

We will not do it.

The hon. member says that they will not do it, but why do they not talk to each other in the caucus? I know that the hon. member for Bryanston is a verkrampte Prog and that the hon. member for Pinelands is a radical Prog, but it does seem to me that as though they spoke to each other about this. Why did the hon. member not say a word about it? Let us say this to each other today. I want to concede at once to the PFP that if their policy were applied and if they wanted to introduce their philosophy in South Africa, this legislation would be unnecessary. We accept it and we give them that. We do not want to argue with them about it and there need not be any illusions about it because if those people should govern South Africa it will surely be one mixed-up mess without any order that will lead to chaos. The whole standpoint of the PFP is that “political rights must be granted on a colour line basis”. This will mean, and the hon. member affirms it, mixed political parties. This will mean open membership of political parties in South Africa. This will mean interference at elections of one population group in the elections of another population group and this will mean that they will allow financial assistance from abroad for the political parties in South Africa. It will be very interesting to hear where the NRP stands with relation to these questions. The hon. member for Durban Point, the leader of that party, referred during the no-confidence debate last year to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and claimed that it would be a crime to become involved in—these were the words he used— inter-racial politics. He says we consult, we conduct a dialogue and this is inter-racial politics. Then he says that the Act makes it unlawful and a crime. I think that the hon. member for Durban Point confuses two concepts.

You confuse everything.

I think that hon. member should stick to heart transplants. He knows nothing about politics.

The hon. member for Durban Point confuses two concepts. For me it deals in the first instance with interference in the party-political activities of other population groups. Secondly, as far as I am concerned, it deals with dialogue across the dividing line between population groups. I shall come back to this later. However, I want to say immediately that there is no prohibition in any Act in South Africa which prevents dialogue and discussions over the future political dispensation in South Africa across the dividing line between population groups. There is not a single Act which prevents this. We can conduct a dialogue with anyone, and this happens daily in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did this openly in his dialogue with the Coloureds. I should like to know what the standpoint of the official Opposition was when they conducted a dialogue with the Coloureds on the question of whether they should take part in the new dispensation or not. They say that they adopted a neutral standpoint, but I wonder what they said around the corner and in the little dark corners.

Let me repeat the points for the hon. member for Durban Point. I ask the hon. member whether he will allow mixed political parties. Is he in favour of open membership of political parties? Is he going to allow interference to take place across the dividing line between population groups? This is one of the reasons why I could no longer remain with those hon. members in a party. That is why I came over to the NP.

You were never a member of the NRP.

Thank heavens, never in my life. They only pay lip service to ethnicity, but when it comes to the regulation, the orderly arrangement of political participation in South Africa, they are conspicuous by their absence. After all, do they not have a Nat day one day and a Prog day the next? I want to predict that today it will be their Prog day in the House, because they are committed to this Act being repealed. The hon. member for Durban Point must reconsider his standpoint, because he confuses two things, viz. dialogue on which there is no prohibition, and blatant interference in the party politics of other nations, on which there is. Fortunately, however, the NP governs South Africa. One asks oneself why this measure is necessary. Why did the hon. the Minister not run to the hon. member for Pinelands and thank him with acclamation for the opportunity created by him to get out of the corner? On behalf of this side of the House, I now wish to move the following amendment—

1. (1) it is desirable that normal party-political actions and election processes be carried out within a group context in order to afford the various peoples and population groups the opportunity of each developing along its own lines to the full realization of its potential, as well as for the sake of good order and the elimination of group domination; and
2. (2) foreign interference in the South African democratic processes conflicts with the object of placing South Africa first and is aimed at promoting foreign interests.”.

When I move an amendment such as this, I trust that responsible people, like the hon. members of the NRP, will find it possible to support the amendment whole-heartedly and that they will reflect very seriously on this matter. I say this, because on the road ahead they will be tested on this standpoint. What is the NP’s point of departure? The NP’s point of departure is basically summed up in the amendment which I have just moved. The NP stands for a policy of nations in South Africa, the recognition of a diversity of nations and the recognition of a diversity of population groups. Secondly, the NP stands for the meaningful ordering of political participation by this diversity, self-determination over matters of domestic importance and joint responsibility over matters of common concern. That is why I should like to quote …

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

No, I have too little time. [Interjections.] I should like to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said at Pietersburg on 29 April last year—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister also said—

The first principle he emphasized then, was that there will be no common voter’s role for Whites and other population groups. Then the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

I now want to emphasize one point. One can expect the hon. members of the CP to conjure up so many spectres today that they will scare themselves. [Interjections.] Because of that, I quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said on that occasion—

Do not outspook them.

What was being referred to? Parliamentary institutions, voters’ rolls and party political structures of one’s own. Those are and remain the points of departure of the NP. For the sake of law and order, for the sake of the constitutional standpoint of this side of the House, it is therefore to be preferred that the various population groups realize their political separateness. Furthermore, we want to emphasize that this measure does not contain any discrimination. On the contrary, it gives protection and prevents members, like those hon. members on the Opposition side, from interfering with other population groups and trying to influence, manipulate and dominate them.

I now want to make one last remark. [Interjections.] I should like to extend a warning. Unfortunately there is a tendency developing in South Africa today, and it is the tendency of blatant intimidation, blatant threats by one population group against another population group. [Interjections.] I am talking about blatant discrimination and threats … [Interjections.] … such as we heard when Chief Gatsha Buthelezi spoke at Eshowe and levelled veiled threats at the Coloureds when they had to reach a decision about their own future. [Interjections.] Perhaps history will prove that Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi did the Coloured community a favour, because for the first time the Coloureds adopted a standpoint of their own and made decisions of their own on a rational basis.

All we ask, is that there should be order in South Africa, that there should be political peace. That is why we cannot allow a motion such as that of the hon. member for Pinelands to be accepted.

Mr. Speaker, from the nature of the case it is an extremely important subject which we are discussing this morning. I obviously endorse the motion of the hon. colleague and his basic motivation for our belief that this Act should be removed from the Statute Book. I want to say that I have always regarded a private motion as an opportunity afforded us in this House to discuss matters in a calm atmosphere. This is because the spirit in which such a debate is conducted is somewhat different from the ordinary kind of party political heat which is sometimes generated by debates.

However, I find it a little difficult to react to the hon. member for Turffontein, because his delivery and language, on this occasion at least, make it difficult for us to discuss this matter calmly. I regret having to say this.

All of us have probably changed our minds about certain things over the years. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Turffontein—I do not blame him, because he has the right to change his mind …

You have done it yourself.

I think that at the time when this legislation came before this House, he joined his party in rejecting it. [Interjections.]

I was not here.

That was the position as far as I can remember. I am not aware of the hon. member for Turffontein having dissociated himself from the standpoint adopted by his party at that stage. I am speaking under correction, but that was the position as far as I can remember.

I could not quite understand certain things which the hon. member for Turffontein said and which are contained in his amendment. I shall come back later to the question of section 3 of the Act. The hon. member said in his amendment that this House declares its conviction that people should develop along their own lines within a group context and that group domination should be prevented. The third leg was the one concerning foreign interference. I can understand that the hon. member for Turffontein believed he had to make a speech which could be used in Soutpansberg and Waterberg, but then we really must try to be consistent and to be honest with ourselves. Let us consider once again a point which has often been raised in this House, namely the question of people developing “along their own lines”. I want to ask again: What are these lines as far as the Coloured group is concerned? They do not exist. We cannot say that the Coloured group should develop along its own lines. For that reason, for example, I cannot accept the constitutional proposals of the Government. Even within the framework of those constitutional proposals, a distinction is drawn, in any event, between matters of segmental interest to the respective groups and matters of common interest. Now the hon. the Minister of Internal affairs and NP members opposite will concede that when we examine the realities of the matter, and when we examine the recommendations of the President’s Council, we see, in fact, that the areas in which the principles of segmental autonomy will be applied are extremely small compared with the matters which will be regarded as being of common concern.

But they are extremely important.

I am not saying that they are not important; I am saying that compared with matters of common concern, they actually cover a very small area. The hon. the Minister cannot deny it. If it is true that most matters between us and the Coloureds are in fact matters of common concern, how can hon. members opposite talk about the Coloured group developing along its own lines? I cannot understand it.

That is not true.

The second leg of the hon. member’s motion concerns the question of group domination. Here I have a problem, because the new guidelines mention a ratio of 4:2:1 in all the important decision-making organisms in the proposed constitutional dispensation. I am thinking here of the electoral college, the composition of the Standing Committee and the composition of the President’s Council and its new function. I do not wish to discuss the merits of these, whether they are desirable and justified. But what it amounts to is that those proposals are structured in such a way as to guarantee and ensure the perpetuation of White supremacy at all those levels. Therefore I cannot understand what the hon. member for Turffontein means when he talks about preventing group domination at all costs. Surely that is not reflected in the actions of the Government. I shall come to the hon. member’s reference to foreign interference in a little while. With that, I hope, I have dealt with the hon. member for Turffontein.

What is at issue here? In the first place, we must not allow ourselves to be misled. The decision to pass this Act was a unilateral one, taken by this Parliament on the basis of the majority recommendation of a commission of inquiry. In other words, the Coloured population, the Indian population and the Black population, who are all affected by this measure, were not even consulted when this measure was passed. It was a unilateral decision. Surely we cannot get away from that. One might say that there was no institution which could be consulted, or whatever, but that it was a unilateral decision is quite clear. In this connection I do want to say that the problem we are always being faced with is our misinterpretation of what other groups want. The hon. member for Turffontein made the, to me, surprising statement that the relations between various population groups in South Africa have never been as good as they are now. If this is true, I shall be one of the happiest people in this country. However, it is not true, and I cannot simply accept the categorical statement made by the hon. member for Turffontein in this connection.

We cannot accept yours either.

That is a different matter. One cannot make statements of such an important nature, statements which determine the future of this country, without having some proof at least. I have said that the problem is that we so often misinterpret other people. The best example of such misinterpretation is to be found in the difference between the majority and minority reports of that commission. In his majority report, the commission says on page 17—

They say that this body will develop into a dynamic body and things to that effect. From the facts, however, it appeared that this was wishful thinking, that things did not really work out like this. But the majority report goes on to say, in paragraph 14—

The whole course of the history of the CRC proved that no effect was given to this either. I quote further from the findings in the majority report, as follows—

This is what is said about this matter in the majority report.

Were you not one of those before that commission?

I did give evidence before that commission. The hon. the Prime Minister would do well to go and read my evidence again.

What was your evidence?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister is interrupting my speech, of course. However, I may tell him that acting according to my rights at the time, I recommended in my evidence that group representation should be granted to the Coloureds on the same basis as that of the Whites, and that the Coloureds should therefore take their seats in this House as a group and be represented here on the same basis as the Whites. In saying that it had to be done on the same basis, I was referring, of course, to qualifications, constituencies and representation. I am sure that if the Government had accepted that proposal of mine at the time, many of the conflicts which subsequently arose in South Africa would probably have been prevented. [Interjections.]

When we read the minority report, however, it appears that the minority group came to a completely different conclusion. Time and again we are faced with the dilemma that we misinterpret the feelings of other people because we actually believe what we want to believe. It is because we only believe what we want to believe and because we do not base our conclusions on facts.

The hon. member for Pinelands also spoke about the question of interference. There is one thing, of course, which I can never quite understand. When we examine the record of this Government, we find that that record contains numerous examples of interference in the political life of the Coloured people. Allow me to mention just a few of these. Just think of the whole tragic history of the ’fifties. I do not wish to recount that now; in fact, we all know it. That was unilateral interference with the rights of the Coloured people. Furthermore, of course, that legislation was passed without taking into consideration the feelings of the Coloured people. In the third place—and this was also mentioned by the hon. member for Pinelands—I want to ask what the Government did at the time of the very first election of members to the CRC. The Government placed the Federal Party in control of matters, in spite of the fact that the Federal Party had suffered a hopeless defeat in the election which had been held. I am referring now to the 1969 election.

The fact is, of course, that the Government extended the membership of those Coloured representatives in order to make an election impossible, obviously because it was feared that Progressive Party candidates would be elected. When the executive council of the CRC refused to act, the chairman was summarily dismissed and someone else was appointed in his place.

But you know what the reasons for that were.

Yes, but that does not matter. I just want to point out that when we are talking about interference, the pot cannot call the kettle black. After all, the worst form of political interference has come from the Government.

I do not have time to reply to all the points, but I just want to say something in connection with section 3 of the Act with regard to obtaining funds from outside for promoting the interests of a political party. In this connection I want to state unequivocally that as far as this party is concerned, that is not relevant here. We are not calling for the repeal of that provision, therefore. The hon. member for Pinelands made our standpoint quite clear.

Why does the hon. member not move an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands?

No, that is not necessary, because the hon. member for Pinelands covered the matter fully in his motion. If the hon. the Minister would be prepared to accept the motion, I should also be prepared to say that we should exclude section 3 of the Act. [Interjections.]

We must ask ourselves the question: Was this measure necessary or not? If it was necessary, have circumstances changed so that we may repeal it at this stage? Even if the hon. members and I were to differ about this question of whether it was necessary at that stage, I also want to say that in the light of the factors mentioned by the hon. member for Pinelands, present-day circumstances are such that there is in fact no justification for keeping it on the Statute Book any longer. Let me quickly mention a few factors in this connection. In the first place, we are entering a new political dispensation. Let us then abolish all the old things pertaining to the old political dispensation, because they only serve to hinder the creation of a new spirit of mutual trust and goodwill. In the second place, this Government has frequently advocated the abolition of unnecessary discrimination. It is no use the hon. member for Turffontein saying that this is not a form of discrimination, because it is. If we are really serious about abolishing unnecessary discrimination, we shall have to start with this. In the third place, we are continually being told that the Government is engaged in a process of reform. The hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism said it again the other day. This is the language we hear all the time. I repeat that I am waiting for the concrete evidence of reform. I repeat that if we are serious about this, let us begin with measures of this nature. In the fourth place I want to say, in the light of the new political dispensation, which is based on the recognition—belated, I should say—of the political maturity of the other groups in South Africa, and more specifically of the Coloureds and the Indians, that if we do not recognize that political maturity, it means that there is no justification for this new constitutional dispensation. If it is true, then, that we are dealing here with the political maturity of these people, we need no longer be afraid, as we may have been in 1966, that they could then be exploited by anyone. In leaving this measure on the Statute Book, we are accepting that the Government still believes that those people are politically immature, and for that reason alone it is high time this measure was removed from the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commence by telling the hon. member for Pinelands that we are grateful that he moved this motion in this House today. There are three reasons for my saying this. Firstly, it affords each of the political parties present here an opportunity of once again stating its standpoint in respect of this legislation. Secondly, I think it affords each of the parties the opportunity to gain historical insight into the politics of relations between peoples in South Africa; and thirdly it also affords each of the political parties the opportunity to discuss the politics of the future from its own standpoint.

As far as the first point is concerned, the CP, in terms of the rules of this House does not, in fact, have a great deal of time to speak about this, and therefore I shall not be able to cover certain of the points in detail. However, we should like to move an amendment which will state our standpoint. I therefore move as a further amendment—

In reality, the background to this Act was the fact that the then Progressive Party could not persuade the White voters at that stage to vote more members of that party into Parliament.

We have made a great deal of progress in the meantime, have we not?

The impression was created at that time—in fact, this is what happened—that the PFP were trying to use their representatives in Parliament, as well as in the Cape Provincial Council, to express the standpoints of the PFP. This Act was initiated in the time of Dr. Verwoerd, and after Dr. Verwoerd’s death, Mr. Vorster and his Cabinet continued to deal with it. I see the hon. member Prof. Olivier is shaking his head.

I am not sure that it was in Dr. Verwoerd’s time.

I said that the Act was initiated in Dr. Verwoerd’s time. I may be wrong, but that is the impression I have. However, that is not all that relevant as far as this argument is concerned.

The first reading was taken on 19 September 1966 and after Mr. Vorster had talked to the then leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, about it, the Bill was referred to a commission of inquiry after the first reading, but before the second reading, after both parties had very clearly stated their standpoints in respect of the principle of the Bill. The members of the commission were: Messrs. S. L. Muller, Abe Bloomberg, John Connan, W. W. B. Havemann, T. G. Hughes, S. F. Kotzé, Dr. C. P. Mulder, Messrs. S. J. M. Steyn, J. W. van Staden and M. J. de la Rey Venter. It is interesting to note that on the NP side, four members from the Cape Province served on the commission.

The commission reported on 20 November 1967. There was a majority report signed by Messrs. S. L. Muller, W. W. B. Havemann, S. F. Kotzé, Dr. C. P. Mulder, Messrs. J. W. van Staden and M. J. de la Rey Venter and a minority report signed by Messrs. S. J. M. Steyn, T. G. Hughes and A. Bloomberg. If I remember correctly, Mr. John Connan was ill for the entire period during which the commission sat, but he associated himself with the standpoint expressed in the minority report.

I wish to point out that one may note on page xxxi of the report Mr. S. F. Kotzé moved an amendment that was accepted by the majority—

At that time, the hon. member for Houghton was the sole member of the PFP in this House and she adopted the same standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Pinelands today. Therefore the PFP, in their approach to the principle in respect of this matter, have adhered to their fundamental standpoint.

Of course.

I have always appreciated that in the PFP.

I do just wish to say that we in the CP are often accused of being yesterday’s men and the day before yesterday’s men. I think that the principles on which the CP stands, are the ancient principle of a conservative approach in respect of the population situation in South Africa, and the PFP stands on the old principles of many centuries ago in respect of the attitude to race and peoples, etc. At least as far as principles are concerned, we are all the day before yesterday’s men and the day before the day before yesterday’s.

And fossils.

And fossils. One could call it that. At least as far as that is concerned, these are the two parties which have stood by the two fundamental standpoints which have applied since the settlement of the Whites in South Africa and in terms of which solutions were dealt with. In time, other political parties will come back to one of these two sets of principles, either to the principles of the PFP or to the principles of the CP. In the political debate which has been in progress in South Africa over the years, it is clear to me that the voice of the hon. member for Houghton is to be heard ever more clearly in the voice of the present Government. When one listens to the hon. member Prof. Olivier, and when one reads his evidence in this report, I can say to that hon. member that he, too, does not stand, and he did not stand then, exactly where the PFP stands today, but that then, at that juncture, he was in transit, on his way to the standpoint of the PFP. The standpoint of the NP today is much closer to that expressed by Prof. Olivier at the time. I also wish to say to the hon. member Prof. Olivier that I should very much like to know where he stands today and how he sees matters now, since this was the first point in his memorandum at that time. It stated the following—

The first factor he referred to, was—

I do not know whether the hon. member still stands by that, but in any case, that is not relevant now either. However, it is a fact that this is a term which the NP often uses today, but that was the hon. member’s terminology with which he, the liberal of that time, moved away from the NP in his transitional process from Afrikanerdom and his change-over to a different set of principles.

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

Unfortunately, I do not have time to reply to questions; the hon. member is aware of this. Through the hon. member for Houghton, the PFP remained consistently true to those principles and they have maintained them to this day. As far as the CP is concerned, we also stand by the principles laid down in the past.

I should like to quote a number of things. After this report appeared at that time, a debate was conducted, and I should like to quote what the hon. member, Mr. van Staden, had to say at that time. I refer to Hansard, 28 February 1968, col. 1324—

I do not know whether the hon. member still stands by that.

Yes.

I also wish to quote what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said at the time. He was also a member of the commission and at the end of his speech he said the following (Hansard, 29 February 1968, col. 1340)—

I am familiar with his book which appeared at that time, viz. Die Opkoms van ons Derde Stand, and the criticism levelled at it—

Mr. Speaker. I should like to read what the hon. member for Klip River had to say. I quote (Hansard, 29 February 1968, Vol. 22, col. 1380)—

The hon. member Mr. D. M. Streicher— they were members of two different parties—thereupon put the following question to the hon. member—

This is a question which has been repeatedly put to us on this side of the House over the past year. The then hon. member for Umhlatuzana replied as follows—

I should also like to quote another hon. member, Mr. P. S. Marais, who is at present a member of the President’s Council. At that time he was the member for Moorreesburg. I quote (Hansard, 1 March 1968, Vol. 22, col. 1419)—

Then I should just like to quote a concluding remark by the then hon. member for Moorreesburg—

There are other statements which I could quote. [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs told me the other day that whenever I or my party spoke about these matters … [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister said this to me by way of an interjection. The idea of geographical separation in South Africa, with its diversity of peoples, is not only Oswald Pirow’s idea. It existed before that time. When I was a student, and after that, it was general knowledge that we were wrestling with that particular problem, and in wrestling with that problem or the acceptance of that principle, there was never any hatred or rejection of other people inherent in this policy of separation. [Interjections.] I see that the hon. the Prime Minister is present today. I think that the best people in this party who would have been able to engage in an argument with him, were the hon. members of this party, if we had had the opportunity, within the NP, of obtaining clarity on this matter. The hon. the Minister may dismiss this with a gesture, but today we stand outside that party. [Interjections.] In future it will be seen that there are only two directions in which we may move, either the direction of the PFP, or the direction of the CP. [Interjections.]

And our direction is the only correct one.

The principles of this legislation will allow us to build in a particular direction in future, and when every people in South Africa has its own territory, the other principle may become an issue, viz. non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other peoples. We stand for the selfdetermination of peoples, and there are three truths associated with this: The recognition of specific peoples, the recognition of group-specific territories and the recognition of group-specific sovereignty. If one has these, and one’s attitude is right, one can associate with any people or race in the world, because one knows that one is not being threatened and they know that you are not a threat to them. Only then can peaceful co-existence exist in Southern Africa and the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, this debate, has been so peaceful and calm and I feel that if I were to begin scolding that hon. member I would only be disturbing the peace. I see they are being so nice and friendly. I suppose they are going to have an enjoyable weekend up in the mountains. I do riot begrudge them an enjoyable little task. [Interjections.]

However, the hon. member for Rissik said a few things that I found interesting. He said that as he saw things, in the future we would be sitting on that side. As far as I can ascertain, that meant that a whole lot of their people are going to be here, that they are going to be much stronger than they are today.

No, you misunderstood.

Oh! [Interjections.] Well, then I misunderstood the hon. member and he did not mean we were going to be sitting on that side and they on this side. Probably another Opposition party was involved. [Interjections.] However, I leave the matter at that.

You are in transit.

The hon. member for Rissik told me—in fact, he told many of us—that nowadays, when he hears the voice of the hon. member for Houghton, he is actually hearing us. Now I find that very interesting. Those people are playing a game here, while knowing that it cannot work. I now want to react to a few points raised by the hon. member for Rissik. Does he accept that change is part of the political reality in which we live?

Of course.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg says that is correct. I am now going to use an example that I have used in the constituency of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, and that I now wish to repeat. Our people can understand these things. After all, they are not that complex. I said there was a time when the farmers used irrigation furrows to get water to their lands, and then started using plastic pipes. After that they began using those large moving sprinklers. I said people could accept this because they saw it as progress— it was necessary, it was an improvement, and it was a good thing. However, when it comes to politics there are people in the outside world who feel that one may not change.

But you are changing in the direction of integration.

The NP must get credit from our people, and that is why we shall remain sitting here and why those hon. members will disappear. We shall remain sitting here because we change, because anyone outside who looks at the realities can see that we must change.

In my opinion, one of the most sensational statements ever made in this country’s history—and I take my hat off to the person who made this statement—was the statement the hon. the Prime Minister made in Upington, namely “adapt or die”. The hon. the Prime Minister did not say to the people “adapt to die”. That is the trouble with the hon. members opposite: They think if one changes, then one will die. However, the entire concept is that one in fact changes with the very aim of holding one’s own politically as a nation. This is the essence of what is involved.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member for Lichtenburg is a good man. I have visited him on that beautiful farm of his. I suppose he will not invite me again, but I should like to go and visit there again. However, I am quite sure that the hon. member for Lichtenburg and I shall converse again in the future, because the first day we came back from the caucus I stated in this House that to the right of the NP there was only political darkness. I am profoundly convinced of this.

You are in any case not to the right of the NP; you are to the left of it.

We kept moving forward while the hon. member of Lichtenburg was a member of the party. Let us give Mr. Vorster and this hon. Prime Minister the honour due to them: They saw the realities facing them and were never afraid to tell the nation that we had to change.

Today we have before us a motion dealing with the question whether there should be political interference or not. I want to make the statement that we have reached a point in South African politics where it is absolutely essential for politicians to communicate with one another, across the colour bar as well. To achieve what? We must do this so that we can instil in everyone those values in which we all believe. Let me ask the hon. member for Barberton: If I hold discussions with Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and even with his Inkatha movement and with all the other radicals and I tell why I believe that the free market system is the system we must maintain in South Africa, what am I doing to my people? Am I not assisting my people? After all, I am then trying to get the majority, the masses, on the side of the system in which my people and I believe.

You would be breaking the law.

If I tell people across the colour bar that we must establish democracy, in contrast to communism, which would lead to a dictatorial system in Africa, in the Black States so that those people can also share in a democracy, so that we can discuss matters and can reject the ideas of a dictatorship and “one man, one vote”, am I not doing my people a service? I say “Yes”. We must take that sort of step increasingly.

In my opinion—and in this regard I cannot, unfortunately, speak to the CP—we cannot allow the PFP, the official Opposition, to keep making use of opportunities— because they know that this Act does not prohibit them from doing so—not to try to impress upon other people these basic things that are important to South Africa but instead to bring the NP Government into discredit and to cause tremendous tension in the process. If we consider Coloured politics in South Africa, I want to state categorically that tremendous tension was generated between the political leaders of the Coloureds and the political groupings among the Coloureds as a result of the links the PFP had with those people. If it is the intention of the hon. member for Pinelands to serve South Africa, then, when he talks to those people, he must be frank with them. He must say publicly what he tells those people. If he tells them that we have to develop Southern Africa as an area in which every community, every people and every group are to participate in a free market system, then we say this is a positive thing in the interests of South Africa. If he tells them that churches, church activities and church leaders may not be used to make antagonistic remarks against their country and to advocate boycotts against their country, as Bishop Tutu has done, and that they must not allow money from the S.A. Council of Churches to be used in their country for all manner of purposes other than church purposes …

He tells them what to say.

… if he tells them that the message they must preach is a Christian message of co-existence, then he is doing his duty and will be of use to South Africa.

In this regard I also want to refer to our labour people and the trade unions. I now want to be forthright with the hon. member for Pinelands. He must forgive me for doing this, but I do it in a calm spirit, although perhaps I have not always done so in such a spirit in the past. In the past I told the hon. member for Pinelands that he was the “White smile of Black power in South Africa”. I hope I am wrong. If I am right, there is still something the matter deep down inside the hon. member who introduced this motion. Then I have reason to believe that what is important to all of us in this House is of no account to him. Then I also have reason to believe that he tells people outside that they must forget the free market system we are all to be partners in. He tells them that he is more in favour of a kind of system in terms of which he can assist them and they can assist him so that they can come into power and so that they can share out the prosperity. I have a notion in the back of my mind that he has more than a touch of the socialist tar-brush.

Our country is maligned throughout the world, but we are getting used to it. The NP watchdog is maligned throughout the world as a polecat. Here in our country where this party is the watchdog that guards the values of life we want to uphold, we are attacked left, right and centre while we to try put matters right in the face of practical problems. We cannot put everything right simultaneously. We cannot even get everything done that we believe must be done within the next two decades. It is simply not humanly or physically possible. What is, however, possible and necessary is that we must have the right climate. The hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member Prof. Olivier and most of the hon. members in this House have travelled abroad extensively. There we had the privilege of seeing in every city in the world, the conflict among people, ethnic conflicts and racial conflicts. There have been riots in Birmingham, and in the United States there is tension in one State after the other. In Europe at the moment there is a tremendous struggle revolving around guest labourers. There are influx control measures to prevent their entering countries unrestricted. In the United States there are stringent restrictive measures and there is a great deal of aggression against Mexicans streaming into the United States. There is also a tremendous problem in France caused by Moroccans entering the country. The French Government is at its wits’ end. For that reason I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands today that when we consider all these matters, it is surely true that the apartheid dogs are barking loudly in every country in the world. Surely the hon. member knows that. In every country in the world the apartheid dogs are barking loudly, and the louder those dogs bark, the more those people find it necessary to hit, kick, boycott, negate and humiliate this litttle mongrel here, we who are trying to put everything right. The PFP is part of the history of South Africa, as is the CP and all of us here. Along the way—I have no illusions about this—we have said and done many silly things. For example, in the Transvaal there is still a law that says no Black may walk on a pavement. That law has never been repealed. But we know that change has come. To the CP I want to say: In the elections you are going to contest, tell the people frankly and openly that under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister and this dynamic Cabinet, dramatic socio-economic upliftment has been brought about among the Coloureds in the Western Cape area. People who have eyes to see—Horace, surely I am right—and who walk down the street here …

Horace’s eyes are not yet open.

… can surely see that here we have a group of people who have uplifted themselves. We do not want the credit for that. They did it themselves. We are merely saying that the right climate was created.

With your open eyes and my blue book we can conquer the world.

I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that I shall keep my blue card and he can keep his blue book. If he is willing to speak in the interests of South Africa, I have no quarrel with him. Perhaps the hon. member has not noticed it yet, but they have an interesting streak of racism in their party. I call it paternalistic racism, the kind of racism one does not admit to frankly, but in everything one thinks and does, everyone can see that one is actually acting in an imperious way.

The hon. member for Pinelands—and I cannot quote this here, because I believe one should not bring a man’s family into these debates—will surely remember that the year before last, I think, there was a certain Mr. Boraine who sustained a beating from Inkatha’s people in The Cape Times for three days and three nights. What, essentially, did Inkatha tell him? What they actually told him was: “Keep your liberal nose out of our affairs. We are in no mood for your paternalistic nonsense.” I believe that the basic psychological motivation for this proposal today by the hon. member for Pinelands is to be found in his personal paternalistic attitude, namely that he—I am tempted to call him “boss Boraine”, is the man who must eventually get all the people on his side so that he can tell them what is good for them. If that is not his intention, then any case he wants them to hear how good he is, and wants them to see that he can in any case play the power game in their interest. [Interjections.]

We in South Africa are facing a tremendous challenge. And I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that they will not be able to steal “conservatism” from us. Quite simply, one is what one is, and we on this side of the House are essentially conservatives. I want to repeat this to the hon. member for Rissik for the third time during the course of this session. Why do I say this? It is because we want to safeguard what belongs to us. However, the hon. member for Rissik makes one mistake—and he must also speak nicely to the hon. member for Sunnyside about this—and that is that he and the hon. member for Sunnyside confuse two matters a little. They are a little confused about the concepts conservatism and racism. One cannot speak of conservatism while one is preaching racism. I want to put it to the hon. member for Rissik that as surely as two times two equals four, hon. members of the CP who honestly believe that they are not racists, that they are not against either Black or Coloureds, will move away from the path of the HNP in the future. They will simply have to get away from the path of the HNP, because no person who calls himself conservative, no person who prides himself on having respect for his fellow man, can ever associate himself with statements of that kind.

The hon. member for Langlaagte who, by the way, is my neighbour, is not present in the House at the moment. Never in my life do I want to attack any of the hon. members of the CP personally. That is not how I practise politics. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Langlaagte said to me, Mr. Speaker. There is, however, one thing I can say—in any case the hon. member knows it himself. I do not believe that as far as Coloured politics are concerned, the hon. member for Langlaagte and I differ totally. In saying this I do realize, of course, that there are other hon. members who also feel that we are quite correct as far as other aspects of NP policy are concerned. But what do we do now? Here are the White children of Black Africa trampling and humiliating one another on a continent where we have to command respect; on a continent where we have to sell a message. I think this is a great pity, because I believe that the White children of Black Africa have a great message for a continent that is disintegrating into chaos. I also know that in the years ahead we shall bring home that message well and effectively here in Southern Africa, to the Black people around us with whom we come into contact every day.

Mr. Speaker, I always find a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Innesdal. He is a person who expresses his convictions openly and courageously. Today, too, he began his speech by saying that we must change and that we must communicate with one another. Indeed, this is of course the entire subject of this debate—the question of communication; the question of communication among the various race groups in the politics of South Africa.

Just as the hon. member for Innesdal himself has changed over the years …

That is right. I have changed.

Yes, while the hon. member was speaking a moment ago, I was sitting thinking about his tutor, Mr. M. C. Botha, and wondering what he would have thought of the speeches which the hon. member for Innesdal and other hon. members of the NP have been making here today.

M. C. Botha was a very good tutor.

Yes, he was indeed a very good tutor. Nevertheless he thought along different lines to those the hon. member for Innesdal revealed here today. Unfortunately I do not have the time to reply individually to all the arguments of all hon. members. Unfortunately I only have 10 minutes at my disposal and I now wish to deal with the motion itself.

† The first point I want to make for the edification of the hon. member for Turffontein is that this party deals with the merits of the issue before the House and not of its origin or proposer. When the Government comes forward with a matter which has merit, we support it. When the official Opposition comes to light with a matter with which we agree, we support that also. However, it is indeed a strange closed mind, a totally closed mind that one finds in the hon. member for Turffontein. He sees himself as and acts as nothing more than a rubber stamp for his own caucus and his own party. He is unable to evaluate any proposition on its merits. The hon. member was quite correct. I called for the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act last year because in the new constitutional dispensation into which we are moving the communication that the hon. member for Innesdal talked about becomes crucial and vital element of the whole process of reform. Therefore, for entirely opposite reasons, I agree with the basic content of the hon. member’s motion. I do so because I think that the use to which the repeal of this legislation would be put by the hon. member for Pinelands and the use to which I would put its repeal, would be different. That is why I mentioned the different reasons. I say that we support this motion on its merits because we believe that it is correct that there should be communication on political matters among the various race groups in South Africa. I not only believe that there should be this communication but I also want to prophesy today that I will still be here and that it will not be very long before the hon. the Minister or whoever is in his seat is going to do exactly what this motion asks for. We know the motion will be rejected today because the Government does not assess issues of this nature on their merit. I repeat that I prophesy that this measure will be repealed or so radically amended as to be unrecognizable, and I say that this has to happen if the new constitutional dispensation is to work at all. One cannot have a new constitutional dispensation while this Act stands on the Statute Book. Whatever hon. members opposite may say now, they know in their heart of hearts that this legislation will have to be repealed, and the sooner, the better.

Let me say at once that there are two principles in this Act, No. 51 of 1968, and the second principle deals with the question of foreign finance in relation to the political activities of South Africa. I want to say that this party agrees—and the hon. member Prof. Olivier agreed that the PFP also believes—that that provision should not be removed. It is with this purpose in mind that I wish to move the following further amendment—

Therefore, the prohibition on the use of money from foreign countries in party-political activities should continue.

I accept that.

I thank the hon. member for Pinelands for his acceptance.

Mr. Speaker, before the suspension of business I had dealt with the question of foreign finance and moved an amendment. Now I want to deal with the kernel of the legislation which is proposed to be repealed.

I want to admit immediately that in fact in terms of this legislation, I am a criminal; I have committed a criminal offence because I have addressed a meeting the total body of which belonged to another group. In terms of section 2 of the Act I would have addressed a “meeting, gathering or assembly of persons” which falls directly within this Prohibition. I addressed one not so long ago with the purpose of persuading another race group to participate in the process of reform. This meant that I was directly assisting the interests of a Coloured political party which is in favour of reform and I was directly opposing the interests of a Coloured political party which sought not to participate. The hon. member for Umlazi was with me on the platform where he did exactly what I did; he committed the same offence. The hon. member for Durban Central was on othe same platform and he was pleading and trying to influence that gathering not to accept the proposals of the Government and not to participate in reform. He was also trying to influence the course of party politics of another race group. I have for years been breaking the law by having dialogue with groups of people of colour in order to influence political decision making for or against the views of one or other political party. I should like to see the philosophy of the NRP supported by persons from the Coloured, the Indian and the Black communities, and I have sought to convince them that what this party stands for is in their interest as well. To answer the hon. member for Turffontein I say that I should like to see an NRP in the Indian Chamber and the Coloured Chamber of a new Parliament. I should like to see them linked with us in a federal structure as one party with one basic philosophy.

This party believes that each race group or community should itself control its own intimate affairs, those affairs particularly affecting that group. Therefore we believe in separate voters’ rolls for the different communities. We believe that the election of their own representatives to control their own affairs should be part of that authority, a matter intimate to themselves. Therefore I mentioned the difference between the hon. member for Pinelands and myself. He would like to see repeal of this measure lead to a common voters’ roll; we believe it should lead to separate voters’ rolls for the communities. We should like to influence them in the field of broader politics, but we do not believe we should dominate or influence them in the handling of their own intimate affairs or elections.

I admit that there have been people—agitators and revolutionaries—who have tried to misuse other race groups, who have agitated and who have incited them. Is that not all the more reason that the moderates of South Africa should seek dialogue across the Colour line and should put the views of moderates to those other communities? This law does not stop the agitator and the revolutionary.

On the contrary.

This does not stop people inciting; they do so through the newspapers anyway. They go along and they put their views. This impedes the person who believes in law and order. This prevents the person who does not want to commit a crime, this prevents a person who believes in obeying the law. We should therefore repeal this Act so that the voice of moderation, the voice of people who support South Africa and its laws, can be heard in the other communities.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he should not slam the door on this motion because he will have to eat his words before long if he does so. The new dispensation cannot work unless the broad philosophy of the moderate parties of South Africa is transmitted to the Coloured, Indian and Black people of South Africa, and this Act should not stand in the way of transmitting that message. Therefore we believe this law should be repealed and the financial provisions translated to electoral legislation, according to the amendment which I have moved. There should not be domination by other groups but co-operation on the basis of their own rights and control of their own affairs on the basis I have outlined.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to thank the hon. member for Durban Point for his support of the very significant motion of the hon. member for Pinelands.

The question one should really ask when discussing this kind of legislation, and a great deal of other legislation based on the apartheid system, is whether there really is identification with groups in the country. Do Coloureds in this country want to be Coloureds, do Zulus want to be Zulus and do Indians want to be Indians? Perhaps the hon. member for Turffontein can tell us. Does he believe that that is so, or is it not so? [Interjections.] The hon. member states that it is so. One then asks oneself what is the purpose of this kind of legislation, if those people in any event want to form part of, or be members of, those groups.

I was amazed at the unyielding standpoint adopted by hon. members of the NP in regard to this motion. It sounded as if they were committed to this legislation for as long as they were in politics. One would think that with the new dispensation in the offing, hon. members on that side of the House would be somewhat more circumspect at this stage as regards this type of legislation. Perhaps this is really a reflection of the extent to which they are prepared to enter into compromises in order to introduce their new dispensation. It also reflects their lack of serious purpose as regards real co-operation with other ethnic groups in the country.

This Act has clearly achieved its original purpose, viz. to prevent the old Liberal Party and the Progressive Party from becoming a political force with the support of people of other races in this country at that stage. But nowadays the legislation is useless. To many nationalists, even to hon. members in this House, this Act has become an embarrassment. By retaining this Act on the Statute Book a monopoly is being maintained for the National Party, for the Government, to interfere in the affairs of other races. The Act merely creates a monopoly enabling the Government and the National Party themselves to interfere, whereas other parties and groups are prevented from interfering. Whereas other parties are prohibited from having a Coloured or Indian member, or from taking part in their elections, the Government has never scrupled to interfere even in the most drastic possible way. In the first instance, they have compelled Coloureds and Indians to make use of useless and meaningless political structures. They have appointed people in those structures against the will of those groups. There have been allegations of interference in elections and there have also been allegations of intimidation etc. The hon. member for Pinelands referred here to detention of persons of other races who were involved in their own political activities. To that the hon. member for Turffontein said with great conviction that people who were or are being detained in South Africa in terms of security legislation were not adherents of democracy, did not support democracy. That, then, is the record of this Government. However, I just wish to remind the hon. member that the Rev. Hendrickse was detained by this Government in August 1976 in terms of the Internal Security Act.

What now?

Now the hon. member must please tell us whether he believes that the Rev. Hendrickse does not support democracy. Does he believe that that man is not a democrat? I repeat: Does he believe that?

Make your speech.

Apparently the hon. member does not stand by what he said. [Interjections.] If that hon. member believes his own story—if he takes himself at all seriously—he must accept one of two things; either he was talking rubbish when he said that the Government only locks up people who have turned their backs on democracy, or else he must have the courage of his convictions and resign when the Rev. Hendrickse is appointed to the Cabinet as a Deputy Minister by his chamber, because that could happen. [Interjections.] He knows that as well as I do, of course. [Interjections.] The hon. member should give matters a little more thought before he makes that kind of statement. [Interjections.] As I said before, that hon. member adopted a very strong standpoint. There was no suggestion of a compromise. When one reads his amendment, it is clear that he believes that this Act in its present form presents no problems. I now just wish to put a further question to that hon. member. Does he not think that in their new dispensation an alliance of political parties could arise, for example between Whites and Coloureds, or between Coloureds and Indians? Does the hon. member not believe that? Once again the hon. member does not wish to reply to my question. However, it is very clear—if one is to take the hon. member seriously—that he does not believe that that is possible.

It was the hon. member for Randburg—I do not see him in this House at the moment—who said at the University of the Orange Free State in April last year that in the new dispensation it would be quite possible that alliances could develop—he called them “bondgenootskappe”—among political parties of various races, and to make that possible, he said, they would have to amend this legislation we are discussing at the moment. [Interjections.] It does not seem to me as if the hon. member for Turffontein is entirely at one with the hon. member for Randburg as far as this matter is concerned. I hope that at some stage—even if not in this debate—he will be able to give us his answer in this regard.

Over the years many objections have been raised or complaints made about the fact that although there have not been official negotiations among political parties of various race groups, there has nevertheless been a degree of interference and, on a small scale, instances of support for Coloured parties by White groups and so on. I am not in a position to confirm or deny these things, but now and again one does encouter the odd incident which is interesting and may point to something of that nature. For example, I have here a placard we found somewhere in the Cape some time ago. This is a placard that appeals for votes for a Mr. Moses, and Mr. Moses stood for the Freedom Party. That hon. member will recall that the Freedom Party was a Coloured Party in the election. If the hon. member looks very carefully he will see that on the back of this placard— after today’s sitting we can perhaps remove some of the paint and so on—there is a picture of another person, the image of a person with the name of P. W. Botha. [Interjections.] To the best of my knowledge Mr. P. W. Botha has never been a candidate in a Coloured election.

What does he know about freedom anyway? [Interjections.]

What placard is that?

I can say with the utmost conviction that Mr. P. W. Botha has never stood as a candidate in a Coloured election. Even the words: “Vote National” appear here. [Interjections.] Moreover, in view of the provisions of this Act the NP has never been a party that has taken part in Coloured elections either.

On what rubbish heap have you been scratching now?

The hon. Prime Minister must not talk about rubbish heaps. This was a neat placard when it was first used. I know what becomes of a placard after it has been on a pole in the Peninsula for two weeks. This placard is still in a good condition. It is true that it was lavishly painted over, etc. but one can see that it is a placard that was passed on from one party to another. [Interjections.] It is also interesting that the words: “Give him an opportunity” appear at the top of this placard. This is a placard that was used in the by-election in Swellendam. I recall that the supporters of the old United Party in Swellendam translated that as: “Give him a lift”. [Interjections.] With the benefit of hindsight we know that the voters of Swellendam gave the hon. the Prime Minister a lift, and we really are pleased that out of heartfelt gratitude he gave Mr. Moses a lift too.

He met his Moses all right.

It is very clear that this is only one of many such events that took place. No one should think that this placard was simply picked up on a rubbish heap, because that is simply untrue. It is interesting to see what kind of co-operation did take place.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether that placard was one of the placards that they removed illegally from poles in Swellendam?

The hon. member is wasting my time. If he had had a case, then surely he would have laid a charge. The hon. member will recall that some of his workers at the time were in quite a lot of trouble.

† If we look at his kind of thing in these days of power-sharing, I suppose it can be seen as an instance of poster-sharing. I would say that one aspect of it is the sharing of party-political material.

Moses never got to the promised land.

The Act we are discussing now is an instrument of apartheid. Let us make no mistake about it. Any hon. member or hon. Minister on that side of the House who believes that in fact apartheid is dead must look again. This is an instrument of apartheid, because it forces apart people who would otherwise politically wish to work together. The Government knows that today it has its hands full to try to bring together those elements of our population which they have forced apart in the past. The more the pressure builds up in this country between the Government and redicalized Black people, the more this Government will regret the day it decided to force an artifical division between people of different races but who share the same political beliefs and ideals.

This Government has not been particularly consistent in its views as embodied in the Act. My hon. colleague has already indicated how the Government and the NP have ignored the provisions of this Act. In addition, this Government carries a certain responsibility for the territory of South West Africa. I want to tell hon. members that the only good political thing that has come about in the territory of South West Africa in the last ten years is that there was a new development in the form of an alliance of political parties across colour lines. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is going to reply to this debate, and all his colleagues in the House know that the only movement or political organization which would have any chance at all of matching Swapo would be an organization which ignored the provisions of this Act completely. We know it is not applicable there. But surely if a Government implies and insists that an Act such as this is necessary in South Africa, one would expect to see some kind of evidence of that feeling and belief in another territory where they have a responsibility. There is no such evidence whatsoever. In fact they would be incredibly foolish if they should apply this kind of legislation or this kind of philosophy in South West Africa. I have no doubt that the provisions of this Act have become an embarrassment, and it is clear, as I have indicated before, that not all hon. members on that side of the House, certainly the more thinking or intelligent hon. members, are all the certain that this Act should be retained. Therefore I can only hope that this motion will lead those hon. members to reconsider their position.

I have pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point, who has just resumed his speech, reminded me of some advice I received when I first came to this House of Assembly, and that is that when you have nothing to say, it is better not to say it.

The hon. member made one statement to which I want to reply unequivocally right at the outset. No one in this country is detained, no steps are taken against anyone in terms of security legislation because they do not agree with the Government and because they oppose the Government. The laws of this country lay down the circumstances under which a person may be detained in terms of security legislation. It has nothing to do with political opinions. It has nothing to do with participation …

Prove that in a court.

The hon. member had better go and take a mixed sauna so that I can carry on. [Interjections.] Detentions in terms of security legislation have nothing to do with participation by anyone in democratic processes or with the exercise of anyone’s right of freedom of speech within the framework of the laws made by this Parliament. I think that by postulating a connection between security legislation and this Act, the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Pinelands did the country a grave disservice and that they should apologise, because these two matters should be kept strictly separate. The purpose of this Act which we are discussing today is to enable every people and every population group to conceive and formulate its political objectives and to carry out and participate in its political processes without any outside interference.

The entire debate fell into two main categories. The one was concerned with the provisions of the Act itself, as interpreted by some hon. members, and the other was concerned with politics in general and with constitutional development as such. I should also like to deal with this matter in that order. Let us first talk about what this Act actually provides. The hon. member for Pine-lands and the hon. member for Durban Point are totally mistaken in their interpretation of what this Act prohibits and what it allows.

You tell us then.

I shall. In a nutshell, the Act prohibits manipulation, while those hon. members suggest that it prohibits communication. [Interjections.] I shall explain it to the hon. member. I listened very carefully to the hon. member and I promise him that I shall try to deal with every point he made. Let us examine what the Act itself provides, and I should like to quote from it, because it seems to me that not all the hon. members who have taken part in the debate have read it. In the first place, it provides that no person who belongs to one population group may be a member of any political party which any person who belongs to any other population group is a member. In other words, it means that every people, every population group, should have its own political parties.

Why?

May I ask the hon. member whether, if we repealed the Act, he would open the membership of the NRP to Blacks, Coloureds and Asians?

I would try to put the NRP’s standpoint to them.

Would he open it to Blacks, Coloureds and Asians? [Interjections.] In other words, the hon. member says that he would want a Coloured party with the same philosophy as the NRP.

In a federal dispensation.

And he would want an Indian party with the same philosophy and he would want Black parties—and, I take it, separate Black parties for the various Black peoples—with the same philosophy. But the hon. member would not open the membership of the NRP to other race groups. That is all he is prohibited from doing by this Act. All this Act does not allow the hon. member to do is to open the membership of the NRP to members of other colour groups, something he will not do in any event. Therefore I do not know why he wants this Act to be repealed. [Interjections.]

Secondly, this Act provides in section 2 that—

1. (a) be a member of any political group of which any person who belongs to any other population group, is a member;
2. (b) render assistance as agent, or be a member of an election committee, of a political party of which any person who belongs to any other population group, is a member, or of any person who belongs to any other population group and who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for an election in terms of …
3. (c) address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to any other population group or groups, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for an election referred to in paragraph (b).

I state categorically that it would not constitute a contravention of any law if the hon. member for Durban Point were to address a congress arranged by the Coloureds or a group of Coloureds, or a group of Asians or Blacks, in order to explain to them the views of the NRP. This is not prohibited in terms of this Act. This Act is concerned with the holding of elections, with politics within the framework of a political party, with the nomination of candidates and election meetings. That is what the Act is concerned with. My predecessor also spelt it out when he explained the matter in this House on 28 April last year. He came to the conclusion on that occasion that in the interests of law and order and of the constitutional standpoint of the Government, it was desirable that the various population groups should practise their politics separately. That is what this measure is concerned with, i.e. that they should practise their politics separately. It is concerned, for example, with the election of leaders, how to formulate a majority view and define a standpoint internally, with the group, without manipulation or pressure or intimidation from outside.

Anyone who interprets this Act as a measure which prohibits political interaction is being either stupid or wilful.

What about section 2(c)?

Here again I want to endorse what my predecessor said. He said that this Act did not prevent the hon. member for Durban Point or any other political leader from having talks, exchanging opinions or negotiating with political leaders of other groups. The Act in its present form does allow this.

The basic argument advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Durban Point is that the Act prohibits interaction between the groups in the political sphere. Let us examine a few examples. This Parliament established a council in which political discussion between the members of various population groups is structured. I am referring to the President’s Council. The Government said: There is not enough interaction yet; let us structure it. But then hon. members opposite did not want to participate in that interaction. Now they say we are preventing interaction. When we afforded them the opportunity of participating in an orderly manner, in a body which had been created specifically in order to achieve interaction, they boycotted that body. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to another example. Surely it was this Government that arranged a conference between the leaders of the four independent Black States which had been made independent by us. We did this publicly. Is this not interaction? After all, we did not have Chief Buthelezi detained when he addressed the Labour Party congress. Nor did we have him detained when he addressed the PFP congress.

Why not?

We did not try to prevent in any way whatsoever the political interaction which took place within the Buthelezi commission against the standpoint of the Government. Who can say that we have ever hindered political discussion between members of the various population groups in South Africa? No, we have not done that. [Interjections.] What is important, however, is that every population group should be allowed to decide, without any interference, who its leaders should be, and that every population group should be allowed to decide, without any intereference, what the political philosophy is which is supported by the majority of that particular group and which the majority intends, in fact, to put forward in the political discussions between peoples and population groups.

That is correct.

I want to make it quite clear that if ever emphasis was placed on the need for political communication between the people of the various population groups, it has been done by this Government. Since the hon. the Prime Minister assumed the premiership, even more than in the past— although this was already happening under his predecessors—the political interaction has acquired a new meaning, and profound discussions are taking place between the members of the various population groups. It seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask me a question.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. If he says that every population group should be allowed to choose its own political leaders and to confirm its own political participation without any interference, should this particular Act not be repealed?

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not really been listening to me. This Act prohibits the manipulation of one group by any other group. It prevents the hon. member for Pinelands from saying on a political platform why Candidate A or B should be elected by the Coloured electorate, and why candidate A is a better candidate than candidate B for those particular Coloured voters.

[Inaudible.]

No, but surely there is nothing to prevent the hon. member for Pinelands from telling the Labour Party or any other party why he thinks the Government is wrong and the PFP is right. There is nothing in the Act concerned to prevent that.

They are doing that in any case; only they are doing it on the sly.

The Act concerned only prohibits manipulation, and there is nothing in this Act to prohibit communication.

We find ourselves on the eve of a new dispensation. The guidelines of the Government will come before this House in the form of a Bill, and the final form of the institutions to be created will be determined by this House. That is what we can now fruitfully debate. The fact is that if the Government’s guidelines were enacted, the provisions of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act—as I have just explained them; not the distortion of those principles presented in this debate—would not only be reconcilable with the new dispensation, but would be completely in line with it.

If certain adjustments were to be proposed, therefore, with regard to the details—unconnected with matters of principle such as the right of every group to take its own decisions, to conduct its own elections and to have its own power base—the proper time for that would be when we know exactly what form the new dispensation is going to take; in other words—as my hon. predecessor also said—it should not be done in a vacuum. Now I wish to discuss a few specific matters.

† Let us for a moment analyse the effect which the repeal of this legislation will have on, for instance, a party like the PFP and a constituency like Waterkloof. I should like to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether the following deductions which I am now going to make from his motion and his speech, would be reasonable deductions. The first deduction is that the PFP will, without qualification of any kind, open the membership of its party to all, if allowed to do so, and to become a fully integrated and multiracial party.

Yes.

The hon. member says “Yes”. Secondly, flowing from that, I want to make the following statement: It is not the aim of the PFP within the framework of its own concept of voluntary association on a group basis to remain a political party catering for the group interests of its existing White members.

Not only for them.

Oh, no. [Interjections.] If the PFP becomes a fully multiracial party then it must obviously say that it can no longer represent only a part of its members as a particular group.

We put South Africa first. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to complete his speech.

Therefore the logical deduction is that their plea rests on the premise that their White members do not need any voice for themselves and that they will not act as the representative of group interests in any way whatsoever.

The third deduction I have made is the following: The PFP should, if it is logical in its appraoch today, seek a merger with Black political movements such as Inkatha which has the same basic political philosophy as that in which they believe. Is that a correct deduction?

Why does the NP not merge with the HNP and the AWB? [Interjections.]

Am I then to deduce, when one envisages the possibility of this Act being repealed, that even though the PFP says it wants to become a fully multiracial party, it will not seek full co-operation with and the inclusion of all people believing in federalism, believing in one man, one vote in a federal State? If that is so, is that not what Inkatha stands for?

No, not necessarily.

Why does the NP not merge with the HNP and the AWB?

Mr. Speaker, the problem of the hon. member for Yeoville is that he does not agree that the PFP should be open to all.

Don’t tell me what I stand for. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville must not fight with me. He must fight with the hon. member for Pinelands.

I ask you again: Why do you not merge with the AWB? Come on, tell us. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, based on the replies that I have received I shall tell the voters of Waterkloof that they should not heed their party leaders when they say: We represent White interests and we are completely opposed to Black majority rule. [Interjections.] The PFP must stop telling the voters of Waterkloof that they actually stand for an effective system of maintaining group interests. They must also stop telling the voters of Waterkloof that nothing much will change under a PFP Government.

Whoever said that?

If a party opens its membership unconditionally to all then it will also have to open unconditionally all townships and all schools … [Interjections.] … put everybody on one common voters’ roll and accept one common society in which the winner will take all. [Interjections.] Oh, yes.

*Then we come to the hon. member for Rissik. In his argument the hon. member toyed with concepts such as “separate development”, “segregation” and “apartheid”, and then he quoted from the old 1968 debates. He quoted statements made at that time by hon. members sitting on this side, to the effect that a Coloured homeland could become an acceptable policy in future. I should like to ask the hon. member something in this connection. Quite a number of years have passed since then—13 or 14 years—and his leader came to the conclusion with us in 1981 that a Coloured homeland was not practical politics, and he signed it. Does the hon. member for Rissik agree with his leader, or does he still agree with the opinion expressed in 1968 by the people he quoted?

Do I have to reply?

The hon. member has only to say yes or no. Does he agree with his leader or not?

Our policy should not …

I want to ask the hon. member a further question. Was the 1977 policy, which the hon. members sitting over there supported for 5 years, incompatible with separate development or was it not?

The policy which I accepted was not. [Interjections.]

Let us put it to the test. Those proposals included a mixed electoral college which could even elect a Coloured person or an Indian as President. Surely that is true.

That is your new interpretation of it.

No, Mr. Vorster said in Parliament that the State President could be a Coloured person.

He added that.

Very well, he added that, but of course it is a mixed electoral college in terms of the 1977 proposals. That mixed electoral college was to have chosen a State President, and then there was to have been a mixed Council of Cabinets with a fixed ratio which would have been able to initiate legislation concerning matters of common interest. [Interjections.] I am talking about the way it was explained in 1977. Subsequently Mr. Vorster qualified it further in 1978. The point is that that Council of Cabinets was to have initiated legislation. That legislation was to have been discussed by all three Parliaments envisaged at the time, and if it was supported by all three and signed by the State President who had been chosen by the mixed electoral college, would such a law have been a law made by all three groups, and therefore the result of joint decision-making, or would it have been a law of the White Parliament only? Surely such a law would have been the result of joint decision-making.

I do not quarrel with the hon. member’s statement that the 1977 proposals did not endanger White security. They did not undermine White self-determination. My problem with him is that in his misinterpretation of the present guidelines, he reads new things into them which are not there. I want to give the assurance that we on this side know that White self-determination and separate development are no more undermined and disrupted by the new guidelines that they were by the 1977 plan.

Then what do we disagree about?

Just don’t come back, please! [Interjections.]

Order!

I come now to general matters. This debate has highlighted once again the differences which exist between the Government and the various Opposition parties. The CP focused our attention on an important truth of the South African situation, a truth on which the National Party is built. That is that we are living in a multinational country, and the differences between the various peoples and population groups are important. The nationalism of each particular group is important. Identity is important. We cannot amalgamate this diversity into one common society. On this point the hon. member knows that he agrees with us; this is the basic standpoint of this side of the House.

The PFP, in its warped fashion, focused our attention on another truth of the South African situation. In spite of this diversity, it is necessary, if we are to be successful, if we are to have good relations and to create a secure future in the country, that there should be co-operation between the various groups and peoples. We shall have to agree not to jostle and fight one another, but to structure our co-operation in such a way as to enable us to pursue common objectives, things which are worth while, such as the preservation of a Christian view of life, the maintenance of prosperity for all and the creation of opportunities and prospects for all. It is most unwise to suggest that one has to choose between these two truths, by opting either for multi-nationalism or for co-operation. The fact is that co-operation can only be built on the preservation of diversity and on the recognition of multi-nationalism. When one considers all these things which the NP has built up over the years, such as separate institutions and power bases for every people, surely those separate power bases and separate institutions cannot operate in watertight compartments, blindfolded and totally isolated from one another. Surely there are a multitude of common interests which necessitate intermediate structures within which co-operation can be structured in such a way that the security of each group is not destroyed, undermined or endangered.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the motion spotlights the Government’s positive role in promoting development in Southern Africa. South Africa has three points of departure with regard to its policy for the Southern African continent. In the first place, South Africa derives no pleasure from the destabilization, poverty and misery of other countries on our subcontinent. The hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and other hon. members of the Government, have stated on various occasions that South Africa’s interests can best be served by a subcontinent which is politically stable, economically developed and socially peaceful.

In the second place, while the previous Prime Minister, Mr. John Vorster, was in office, as well as under the present hon. Prime Minister, South Africa has stated categorically that it is prepared to enter into nonaggression pacts with other countries on the subcontinent. In a recent interview published in the New York Times the hon. the Prime Minister is reported to have said the following—

In the third place, South Africa does not base its policy in respect of its neighbours and other countries in Southern Africa on financial alms or so-called soft loans, but by developing sound business relations. South Africa’s policy towards countries that gained their independence from it, is, however, more accommodating and supportive than its policy towards other countries on the subcontinent.

In my speech I intend to emphasize our links with other States on the subcontinent. I hope to indicate that South Africa’s important role in the Southern African context is based on the fact that our country is a good, strong and reliable business partner that is prepared to assist other less developed countries on a business basis. South Africa’s relationship with other countries on the subcontinent is of such a nature that other countries can in fact retain their self-respect while building up their relations with South Africa.

*Countries in the Western World and South Africa are justifiably disturbed by the misery of Africa.

† More than 50% of the population of Africa live in absolute poverty or below the so-called basic human needs line. This picture of human deprivation brings joy to no one. The future of our subcontinent depends largely on South Africa’s role and influence, and South Africa’s position must therefore be referred to.

South Africa is the economic giant of the region. South Africa’s 1980 per capita income of approximately R2 500 was about eight times greater than that of Mozambique, four times greater than that of Zambia and 3,6 times as high as that of Zimbabwe. Compared with the region as a whole, South Africa accounts, inter alia, for 70% of the total GNP—that was in 1980— 77% of the electricity generated, 84% of the telephones installed, 97% of the coal mined, 98% of the iron ore mined, 82% of the chrome mined and 80% of the sheep-farming. So it is only natural that the influence radiating from this economic power-house should be felt throughout Southern Africa. South Africa is indeed the most prominent stabilizing factor on the subcontinent of Africa, and I propose to deal with this aspect in more detail.

A measure of instability in Southern Africa is, unfortunately, a fact, and the instability experienced at present is being caused by two different groups of factors. Firstly there are what I would refer to as certain built-in destabilizing factors operating in Southern Africa and, secondly, there are other externally imposed influences with a strong destabilizing effect on neighbouring countries. Here I should like to list the—what I would call—man-made or built-in destabilizing factors in Southern Africa.

Firstly I should like to refer to the rate of population increase of 2,7% per annum, a rate which would double the population on the subcontinent in 26 years. This would contribute greatly to the destabilization of the region. This increase causes an imbalance in the populaces’ demand for education, health services, housing, employment and the strained and limited resources of the various States. This is turn—the second factor—contributes to the political instability of various countries in the region. Ethnic diversity and divisions have also very often fuelled power struggles and instability. Thirdly, traditional systems such as the communal land tenure system, coupled with the determination of some Black leaders in the regions to pursue socialist theory, have become serious obstacles to economic progress. Fourthly, I am of the opinion that those neighbouring States maintaining an attitude of political hostility towards South Africa can attribute part of their poor performance to this attitude.

Apart from the above-mentioned built-in destabilizing factors, operative in Southern Africa and the Southern African context, let me mention three further externally imposed factors. Firstly there is Soviet expansionism and imperialism, but time will not allow me to elaborate further on this issue today. Secondly, there are the armed conflicts within the region, between Black peoples of different ethnic origins, which are causes of tension and instability. Terrorist movements like the ANC and Swapo have an effective destabilizing influence on the countries in which they are based. If countries provide facilities for armed terrorists acting against neighbouring States, it is not surprising if their own internal opponents think that the use of violence for political ends is being condoned. Thirdly there are, in contributing to instability, what I would refer to as Western attitudes. Western attitudes have not always been helpful in stabilizing the subcontinent. Whilst anxiously demonstrating to Black States that they are on their side in fighting to so-called apartheid and injustice in South Africa, the Western powers have done little to promote closer economic ties between Black States in the region and South Africa, something which would have done more to promote economic progress than financial aid hand-outs. It is important to realize that the single most important stabilizing factor in Southern Africa has always been, and will continue to be, the Republic of South Africa.

I make this statement for ten different reasons. The first concerns food. Africa is the only continent in which the per capita food production has declined in the past two decades and the only region where the number of hungry people will increase sharply in the next 20 years. Africa has changed its position from a net exporter of cereals to an importer of more than 12 million tons of grain per year. Gen. Constand Viljoen, Head of the SADF, stated in August 1982: “Hunger is a great destabilizing factor.” Against this background, it must be noted that South Africa became a substantial exporter of food to Africa at reasonable prices. According to the 1980 edition of the magazine African Business, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland were until then South Africa’s sole African outlets for food exports. However, the magazine goes on to state the following—

Secondly I should like to refer to transport. South Africa is linked by air, road and rail to all neighbouring States. About 70% of Zambia’s rail cargo moves through South Africa, half of this being mineral exports. At least 60% of Malawi’s exports go through South Africa, much of it by road. Zaire imports petroleum products and exports copper through South African harbours. The decision by the SATS to help the Mozambique Railway Administration with the doubling of the track capacity between Komatipoort and Maputo is a good example of growing transport co-operation.

Thirdly I should like to refer to labour. It is true that interterritorial contract labour agreements represent the oldest form of co-operation in Southern Africa. Today the South African economy directly employs 301 700 foreign Blacks from neighbouring countries. The amount sent back to their countries of origin may be in the region of R330 million for 1980. The advantage to foreign workers employed in South Africa is of a twofold nature: Firstly, income earned is freely transferable to their countries of origin; and, secondly, skills are acquired during their stay in South Africa which in turn can be put to good use when returning home.

Fourthly I want to refer to health. Annually millions of doses of vaccine against 42 different diseases are sent by the Onderstepoort Veterinary Research Institute to Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Many countries also send specimens for diagnosis by the institute. South Africa is a prominent member of the Interterritorial Foot and Mouth Advisory Committee and has been active, together with other States in the region, in combating foot and mouth epidemics in African States.

In the fifth instance the S.A. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the CSIR, and the S.A. Bureau of Standards, the SABS, provide advisory services to other Southern African States. The CSIR’s major contribution is in the field of personnel research, adaptability and intelligence tests, mechanical engineering for the mines, and in water research.

In the sixth place co-operation exists between South Africa and its neighbours concerning water and power supplies. The most spectacular of these projects is the R450 million Cabora Bassa project on the Zambezi River in Mozambique as well as the Ruacana and Calueque projects on the Kunene River bordering Angola and South West Africa-Namibia. Regional conflict and tensions prevent the proper usage of these projects, to the detriment of a great part of the subcontinent. Because water is a scarce resource in Southern Africa, the Republic of South Africa has regular contact with neighbouring States with a view to the best utilization of common rivers and to ensure that these rivers are not polluted.

In the seventh place I should like to refer to trade. One of the most important stabilizing contributions South Africa makes to Southern Africa is in the sphere of trade. Statistics of trade are available only if African States publish them. It is, however, well-known that at least 50 of the mainland and island independent African States trade with South Africa. Apart from the export of R1 000 million within the S.A. Customs Union to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland in 1980, South Africa exported goods worth more than R1 200 million to the rest of Africa. This figure excludes indirect exports, of which there are also a substantial amount. It is also well-known that South Africa has recently had negotiations with Zimbabwe about the retention of a preferential trade agreement beneficial to Zimbabwe.

In the eighth place it is important to refer to the S.A. Customs Union. Special mention must be made of this. This Customs Union— besides the Republic of South Africa—encompasses Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. The S.A. Customs Union is a good example of the integral structure that is at present in operation, notwithstanding the political differences among its members. Despite its success—possibly because of it—the Customs Union is relatively unknown. The joint income of the BLS countries, in terms of this agreement, rose from R56 million in 1975-’76 to R220 million in 1979-’80, contributing a considerable part of their total current revenue.

In the ninth place I should like to refer to the rand monetary area. Except for Botswana, the States of the Customs Union also formed a rand monetary area reflecting close economic integration. There are no payment restrictions between these countries and the residents of the two smaller partners, though not the governments. The residents have unimpeded access to the financial services that are available in the Republic of South Africa. The South African rand remains, therefore, the central reserve currency of the participating countries.

In the tenth place South Africa enjoys one of the most reliable and sophisticated postal and telecommunications systems in the world, and the rest of Southern Africa has for years enjoyed the full use of these services. The hon. member for Umlazi will refer in more detail to this aspect and I shall therefore not elaborate any further.

*From the above it should be clear that South Africa plays an extremely positive and indispensable role in stabilizing Southern Africa. If South Africa’s participation were to cease, Southern Africa would develop even more slowly and more painfully, if at all. Let us imagine for ourselves what would happen if the so-called South African revolution—to which reference is frequently made—were to take place. Due to the magnitude of such a conflict the entire subcontinent would become one of the impoverished regions in the world, and ethnically dominated wars of famine would be the order of the day.

† I should also like to refer to a very important development in the African context which should have an important influence on South Africa’s role in Southern Africa and indeed the whole of Africa. I want to refer to the discord and strife amongst the members of the Organization of African Unity. There is clearly a process under way in which attitudes are changing. The confrontation in Africa is no longer one based on colour or White versus Black, as so many well-meaning people in America and Europe would like us to believe. The confrontation in Africa is rapidly developing along ideological lines, viz. the moderates versus the radicals. In the African context we now find Black and White moderates as well as Black and White radicals. We are moving to a conjuncture where common interests, and not colour, will be of paramount importance, in fact the deciding factor. In this regard we can point to the recent discussion held between the hon. the Prime Minister and President Kaunda as well as to other discussions between the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and Mozambique and Angola. South Africa has over the years taken a very strong anti-Soviet ideological line. An interesting perspective for the rest of the 80’s is that the validity of this attitude will be recognized to a much greater extent, and this will contribute further to political stability in this subcontinent.

I should also like to refer to attempts to destabilize South Africa. We must pay attention to the determined efforts by the Soviet bloc, by certain Third World countries and by their shortsighted Western sympathizers to destabihze South Africa. South Africa’s enemies endeavours to destabilize her in four different ways. In the first place they try to destabilize her on the political level by continually alleging that South Africa is oppressing its own Black citizens and refuses to move away from racism. In the second place there are efforts to destabilize South Africa on the economic level by propagating disinvestments and mandatory sanctions and there are efforts to destabilize South Africa in the third place on the security level by supporting terrorist movements operating against South Africa and movements which have already committed several serious acts of terrorism within South Africa. In the fourth place there are efforts to destabilize South Africa on the psychological level by continually broadcasting anti-South African propaganda from Harare, Dar es Salaam, Lusaka and Maputo.

Let me make some observations on these attempts at destabilization. Because of the determined efforts of the South African Government to remove racial discrimination, to raise the standard of living and the quality of life of all the Black peoples of South Africa, to train its Black labour force, to remove labour restrictions of the past and to establish a confederation of States in South Africa in which all the peoples of South Africa will participate, these attempts at destabilizing South Africa have been and in all probability will continue to be unsuccessful.

A discussion of this subject will be incomplete if we do not deal with the economic development of the region, more particularly the constellation of Southern African States and the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference. In November 1979, at the Carlton conference, the hon. the Prime Minister expressed his vision of a constellation of Southern African States. This idea was soon rejected by neighbouring Black States. They regarded it as a strategy for economic dominance by South Africa while retaining its internal policy of separate development. The neighbouring States then formed the SADCC. It was initiated by the so-called frontline States: Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi. The policy target for the constellation of States set by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1979 was to promote peace and progress in the Southern African region. Promising fields of co-operation identified by the hon. the Prime Minister were food, transport, telecommunications and tourism. Although it is too late to speculate on the membership, structure and functions of the proposed constellation, it is widely believed that initially only the Republic of South Africa and its self-governing and independent Black States would be involved. Yet I believe that economic realities will force important changes in this regard.

The neighbouring countries, in establishing the SADCC, made it clear that they were not seeking confrontation with South Africa. Their aims were to lessen their economic dependence upon South Africa and this must be recognized as a legitimate attempt to safeguard their economic freedoms in the shadow of a prominent power, i.e. South Africa. South Africa should welcome the effort of the SADCC and within reasonable bounds even support it.

*There are so many uncertainties with regard to Southern Africa that it is impossible to predict the future of this subcontinent with certainty. However there can be no doubt that South Africa presents a challenge to the West and to Southern Africa to participate in the development of an undeveloped area by maintaining good relations and through economic co-operation. In this way a strong counter can be found for Soviet expansionism.

Accepting South Africa as a challenge will ensure that all the people in this region will enjoy a higher standard of living, a higher quality of life and peace as well. It will also ensure that Western interests will continue to be protected in an important and strategic part of the world.

Mr. Speaker, there is much in what the hon. member for Pretoria Central has said with which we can agree. We in these benches were particularly fortunate because we had received copies of Southern African Perspectives of the Eighties, by Mr. Louis Nel—an address given in November 1982. While it does not add to or detract from what he said—in the main what he said in this paper is what he has just said in the House—we have had an opportunity of analysing his speech in advance.

I am delighted to hear that you have at least read it.

When I say there are areas with which we can agree—and with which, I think, most people will agree—I am referring, for instance, to his stressing of aspects of positive development that has taken place, I shall touch on some of them as well. When he says there are certain principles relating to development, he is expressing our principles: “Geen vreugde in destabilisasse in ons buurlande nie; die bereidwilligheid om nie-aanvalsverdrae met ander lande te sluit; ons wil nie aan hulle finansiële aal-moese aanbied nie, maar gesonde sakever-houdinge met huile handhaaf.”

Well, we have no objection to this kind of statement. What we have to do in the course of his discussion, of course, is analyse whether these statements are indeed being put into effect in terms of Government policy.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central went on to give us a catalogue of problems in Southern Africa. Everyone of these problems, however, was a problem beyond the realm of the South African Government; problems beyond our borders; problems over which we appeared to have no control. I will concede that there are many problems beyond our borders of which the South African Government has no control. On the other hand, we will also contend that many of this Government’s actions and many of this Government’s policies are the direct cause of the lack of co-operation and the lack of development in Southern Africa. We want to give a balance, not by arguing that there are no problems on the other side of the fence, but by stating that we in this House, the Parliament of South Africa, should at least look inward and examine some of the problems over which we have control and which we must put right if we want to give effect to the development in Southern Africa.

In order to get the balance right I move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that we in these benches believe that South Africa has a critically important role to play in the development of the Southern African region. We believe it has this critically important role to play. Let us look for a moment at what constitutes Southern Africa. It consists of what I call original South Africa. This comprises heartland South Africa, homeland South Africa and independent States South Africa. The latter is the TBVC countries. That is one entity which we have to look at.

In the second instance it consists of certain neighbours, which have never been part of the sovereign territory of South Africa but which, as a result of the course of history, stand in a special relationship towards South Africa. Here I refer to the former British Protectorates, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and to the former mandate territory of South West Africa. The third element in the Southern African region consists of certain other neighbours such as Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, countries which only recently gained full independence after years of bloody warfare, and which today are ideologically at loggerheads with South Africa. We have the original South Africa. We have those States with a special relationship towards South Africa, and we have those other States which have recently become independent and which are ideologically at loggerheads with South Africa. I believe that in one way or another the South Africa to which we belong and over which we have control has a critically important role to play in the development of the whole of this region. I believe that South Africa is equipped to play this developmental role. It has the resources, it has the infrastructure and it has the know-how. As far as the people of South Africa—and I am talking here about all the people of South Africa including the people of the homelands and the independent States—are concerned. South Africa not only has the ability to assist with development but also an implacable moral responsibility to do so. Neither the existence of homelands and separate Government entities nor the creation of any number of independent States can in any way dilute South Africa’s moral responsibility for the upliftment and development of all of the people in all of the territories that were once part of South Africa. We have not lost our moral responsibility towards Transkei, whether it be inside Transkei or in relation to the squatters here at KTC, simply because we have given it sovereign independence. I believe that the moral responsibility of South Africa for the development of the whole of South Africa is one which we cannot wish away and one which we have to fulfil.

Does Britain have that same responsibility for her colonies?

Secondly, as far as our other neighbours, the BLS countries, South West Africa, Angola, Mozambique and and Zimbabwe are concerned, good sense as well as the peace and stability of this region should make it clear that it is in South Africa’s own interests to do what it can to assist the development of these regional neighbours.

In spite of the good words of the hon. member for Pretoria Central it is quite clear that there are some people in South Africa who would like to see our neighbours weak, who would like to see our neighbours divided, who would like to see them living in awe of the power of South Africa. We in the PFP say that we do not see Southern Africa in that context. We believe that as long as the situation of strong and weak, of powerful and impotent exists in this region, so long will the States to the north of us tend to turn to the Soviets and to other countries hostile to South Africa for either economic or military aid. Therefore we in the PFP have a very different view of the pattern of development that there should be in the Southern African region. We believe that it is in the interests of this region—and when I talk about the interests of this region I include the interests of South Africa—to have States that are strong, stable and prosperous. I believe that that is critical to this region. We want to see all of these States in Southern Africa economically interdependent but we want none of them to be in a cap-in-hand dependence position in respect of any other. I say this because once there is a cap-in-and dependence situation between neighbouring States there is also tension. We realize that even if there was strength and prosperity and stability, this would not necessarily eliminate the political differences that exist. However, it would reduce the level of outside intervention in Southern Africa and, in spite of political differences, it would make possible peaceful co-existence among the various elements of this sub-continent. Because we deplore these factors from whichever side they come, because we deplore anything that makes it more difficult to have co-operation, we also deplore, firstly, the negative and provocative rhetoric that rolls across the borders in Southern Africa. The hon. the Minister will know that very often there is this negative and hostile rhetoric rolling across the borders in Southern Africa. We deplore that kind of rhetoric from whatever source it may come. We deplore every act of destabilization. We deplore the fact that conflicting ideologies are hampering regional co-operation in the field of development in Southern Africa. We cannot dictate to or control the ideologies that obtain in other countries. It is for the people and the Governments of those countries to do that. However, we can do something about the ideologies and the policies that operate inside South Africa. It is to that point that I think we must turn our attention. Let us make no mistake about it, from a historical and a current point of view it has been the policies of apartheid and legally enforced racial discrimination which have a direct bearing—not a total bearing but a direct bearing—on the lack of co-operation and the pattern of development which exists between South Africa and its neighbours, and on the pattern of development that exists within the various elements comprising South Africa. Would the hon. the Minister, when he was our Ambassador to UNO, have made a pledge there that South Africa will do whatever it can to get rid of racial discrimination if he was not aware that the existence of legally enforced racial discrimination in South Africa was a factor which mitigated against co-operation between South Africa and its neighbours together with the rest of the world?

The Government, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central said, can point to areas of co-operation which exist, and we certainly do not want to deny this. There is trade around Southern Africa. We can refer to Cabora Bassa power, to the Maputo harbour, to the customs union with the BLS countries. There is co-operation in the fields of agriculture, health and transportation. We do not want to deny those things because we think they are positive, worthwhile and good. Those, however, are the pluses, but then one also has to look at the minuses.

The fact remains that South Africa today is not playing the role which it could play in helping to develop the Southern African region as one of the potentially most prosperous regions in the world. As the hon. member pointed out, we find ourselves in the unhappy position, in spite of our pronouncing that we want to help with co-operation and with development, that nine of the States in Southern Africa, six of which are neighbours of South Africa, three years ago formed themselves into the SADCC organization with the declared objective of reducing their economic dependence upon South Africa. Theirs was partially an economically motivated objective, but they also clearly stated a political objective because, namely that they wanted to free themselves from the contact with and the dependence on apartheid South Africa. Do not let us delude ourselves that there has been and there is still today a great minus in Government policy when it comes to co-operation and development in Southern Africa.

As I have said, there have been tremendous achievements, and many of these achievements overshadow and even outpace developments in the rest of Africa. We are aware of this. If nowhere else in Africa we can find development such as has taken place in South Africa, then I want to make bold to say that nowhere else in Africa can one find the contrasts in wealth and poverty that one finds right here in South Africa.

You do not know Africa.

If nowhere else one can find the development in Africa, then I say that nowhere else in Africa will one find the contrast in developed and undeveloped which one finds right here in South Africa. Amid the tremendous wealth which we know exists in our South Africa, we also know there is abject poverty. We also know that amid the tremendous areas of development within our South Africa, there are also big areas of stagnation, depression and deterioration.

I do not believe that development can be judged statistically in terms of aggregates or even in terms of averages; development cannot be judged just in the total amount of development that takes place. It has to be judged in terms of how that development is distributed amongst the groups and the individuals in the regions. When one looks at the development of South Africa—I am talking of our original Southern African region—then one will find that the development has been lopsided, patchy and discriminatory and that it has resulted in a dangerous gap between the haves and the have nots whether measured on a group or a regional basis.

There is no need for me to stress the disparity that exists within our old South Africa of development on an individual or group basis. However I want to point out that that disparity, that differential between development and underdevelopment becomes even greater when one looks at South Africa on a regional basis. While “White South Africa” is one of the richest and the most powerful States in Africa, based on the money-earning and the wealth-generation inside their territories, the homelands and the TBVC countries for which we have moral responsibility are amongst the poorest countries in Africa. That is the contrast. We can compare “White South Africa”, if we want to, with Togo and Cameroon and Chad; but for a moment we should compare “White South Africa” with the homelands of South Africa and the independent States which this Parliament has formed. We shall see that the contrast is even greater. The average income of people living and earning in “White South Africa”—I include Blacks and Browns who live in “White South Africa”—is something like 13 times the average income of that earned by individuals within the homelands and the independent States in South Africa. The hon. member just now referred to our income as being ten times that of Mozambique, four times that of Zimbabwe and six times that of Zambia. The fact is that earned income in “White South Africa” is, per capita, 13 times the earned income in the homelands and independent States of South Africa. One has to ask oneself how it is possible that such an imbalance of wealth, earnings and development could possibly have taken place in a country which is as wealthy as South Africa. How could it possibly have taken place? There are a number of reasons for this. [Interjection.] I think the hon. member will agree with some of them.

If one looks at South Africa as it is today, one sees that there was a pattern of conquest, a pattern of settlement and a pattern of decolonization. All of that had its imprint on the South Africa of today. There is a differential in the cultural and educational background of the people of South Africa. That is a factor which is current today.

There have also been the policies, since the time of Union, of successive White Governments which have seen the homelands of South Africa as dormitory reservoirs of labour for “White South Africa”. That was the traditional pattern of looking at the homelands of South Africa.

I now want to come to our friends in the CP. They will remember Dr. Verwoerd who, ever since 1956, deliberately starved the homelands of White entrepreneurial skill and White capital as an act of deliberate Government policy. For 25 years these States were kept in a state of impoverishment … [Interjections.]

The White man has nothing to be ashamed of.

Within our territories, whether on a regional basis or within South Africa, the policy of successive Nationalist Governments has been one of discriminating against them in the allocation of revenues and services. This has been the pattern that has existed in South Africa for the last 73 years, and in an aggravated form ever since 1948.

Ever since 1976—and I blame this Government—successive Nationalist Governments have pushed the policy of political apartheid at the expense of economic and social development. We can also talk of these independent States we have created, but we know that we have destroyed the social and economic infrastructure in these States. It is, because the NP has concentrated on political development of its kind, that it has destroyed the economic fibre of those communities.

The hon. member cited figures. Let me say that in spite of the wealth of South Africa, in spite of the Republic being one of the wealthiest countries of Africa, our homelands and independent States rank in poverty, not with the wealthy States of Africa, but with States such as Upper Volta, Burundi, Chad, Somalia, Ethiopia and Mali. [Interjections.] That is true. The only way those people can get any income is to come into the rest of South Africa to work. These are figures taken from the latest statistics in the United Nations Yearbook and also statistics from Benso. I do not know why we want to argue with this. Go to the Ciskei and just see the wealth of that country! Go and see those factories, go and see those burgeoning farms, go and see the industries which are growing there! Of course, the fact that the Government has been promoting political apartheid has been one of the key reasons why it has destroyed economic development in these regions.

The Government seems to be re-examining its situation. The Government seems to have realized that there is an imbalance and that it is dangerous for South Africa. What steps is it taking? The Government provides annual ex gratia payments to each of these States. These ex gratia payments, although they are considerable, are only enough to keep the Governments and the services in those countries ticking over. They do not contribute towards any further development. Secondly, the Government, not on any fixed basis, makes additional sums available in the form of development project aid. Let us be realistic—especially as it is no longer under South Africa’s control but under the control of somebody else—about the fact that development aid at this stage merely scratches the surface of developmental requirements and in no way compensates for the fact that the people of these States are cut off from the economic mainstream of South Africa. No amount of developmental aid in Transkei is going to compensate for the fact that tens of thousands of Blacks who live in the Peninsula are without homes or that tens of thousands of these people are rooted out and their shacks destroyed. No amount of developmental aid in Transkei is going to compensate for the fact that these people, from the moment of independence, lost their right to be part of the mainstream economy of South Africa.

Thirdly the Government has announced a Southern African Development Bank which is going to be brought into being later this year. This is fine. If a development bank can assist in the development of Southern Africa, well and good, but the success of the development bank does not depend on the intentions of the Government. The success of the development bank will depend on whether its capital resources are going to come from the Government only or from the private sector. If all that the development bank is, in fact, going to be is an agency for channelling Government money towards development projects, then the Government will be doing no more than rearranging the chairs on the deck while the Titanic is going down.

Would you encourage that?

The Government has also started to implement what it calls its decentralization and deconcentration programme. Since 1 April last year there has been some movement in this direction. Let me say quite clearly that it appears that the Government, at vast capital cost, at vast cost to the taxpayer, is trying to create more jobs outside the existing metropolitan areas. Let me indicate what we in these benches say about this programme. To the extent that this new programme is economically viable and to the extent that this new programme brings advantages in the socio-economic field, we will support it. We say equally, however, that we do not want to see the people of our cities—because these are people who are going to have to pay the price—penalized, punished and impoverished to support some crackpot scheme for political apartheid. [Interjections.]

In any event, even when the Government has gone through all the contortions of a development bank and a decentralization scheme, when it has gone through all its development programmes, the socio-economic development in the region of South Africa is not going to work effectively until the Government abandons its policy of political apartheid and recognizes, not only the economic oneness, but also the political oneness, of the people of the territories of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point, as one can expect from such an Opposition as the PFP in this House … [Interjections.] … did not choose South Africa’s side in this situation, but preferred to single out the interests of the Black people and tried to bring South Africa’s name into disrepute by minimizing the efforts of the Government to uplift the Black people in Southern Africa and to allow them to develop. He tried to make out that the Whites were suppressing the Blacks at the southernmost point of Africa and begrudging them their rights.

The hon. member for Sea Point also stated here that the homelands, the national Black States that have already become independent, were among the poorest states in Africa. I can talk about my neighbouring State, Bophuthatswana, which has one of the highest economic growth rates in Africa. It is an African State which exports food and which, at this stage, is producing more maize than it consumes. This is a State which became independent in terms of the policy of separate development, a State in which the Tswana people are fortunately able to govern themselves today and are able to share in the prosperity of their own fatherland.

The hon. member said that apartheid was the cause of unrest in Africa. I want to ask him this question: What about Rhodesia where separate development, or apartheid, is not being applied, and where Black people are shooting and massacring one another today? I also want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point this question: If the Black people in South Africa are so badly off, why do we find that Black people from neigbouring States are coming to South Africa in their thousands today?

The hon. member for Pretoria Central moved a motion in which he expressed his appreciation and support for the positive role played by the Government in promoting development in Southern Africa. I do not wish to support the hon. member in the appreciation which he expressed. However, he singled out a very important matter which we do wish to emphasize, viz. the presence of the Whites in Southern Africa and the benefits and prosperity they also bring about for the development of Southern Africa. Therefore I move as a further amendment—

Since the hon. member for Pretoria Central has expressed his appreciation, I want to ask him whether the events centring around Venda and Swaziland could be regarded as positive contributions to the development of Southern Africa. In respect of the Swaziland fiasco, the Government became involved in three court cases which it lost and of which the total costs are not even known yet. The enormous prejudice to sound relations between our country and kwaZulu, on the one hand, and Swaziland on the other, cannot be calculated in material terms. We trust that the Rumpff Commission, under the chairmanship of the retired judge, Mr. Justice Rumpff, one of South Africa’s ablest jurists, will restore calm to these troubled waters for which this Government was responsible. We trust that the inquiry will bring sound relations and result in continued development in this region as well in future.

Let us examine the events in centring around the final consolidation of Venda. The former MP for Soutpansberg, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, announced on 7 July 1982 that Venda’s consolidation plan had been finalized, but on 10 July President Mphephu issued a statement in which he expressed dismay and stated that the Republic of Venda and South Africa had not reached any final agreement on consolidation. In Beeid of Saturday, 10 July 1982, one read further that—

But surely you do not believe in power-sharing.

President Mphephu said—

The Minister of Manpower therefore paid the President a visit in his office and then made announcements without discussing matters relating to that country with him. President Mphephu also said—

When Fanie is not shooting a line, he is shooting buffaloes. [Interjections.]

Shortly afterwards the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs issued the statement that the consolidation of Venda had not been finalized. It is not necessary to elaborate any further on this aspect. It was debated fully in this House yesterday. Having regard to what I have just said, particularly in the context of States within the immediate sphere of influence of the Republic of South Africa, one shudders to think how effectively the Government will be able to handle matters in the wider context of Southern Africa. To play a positive role in the development of Southern Africa, to promote South Africa’s interests, surely it goes without saying that the goodwill and friendly disposition of those countries should be gained and retained. Take as an example the repercussions which the events centring around Swaziland caused. King Sibhusa sent his ambassador entraordinary, Dr. Nxumalo, to various African countries to provide them with information on this matter. Misgivings on this matter were even raised in the Government Press. It was said that the actions of the Government created the impression of contradiction, brashness, over-hastiness, unwillingness to provide public information, paternalism and even arbitrary actions.

I should now like to quote from bulletin No. 15 of the Africa Institute of 1982, which stated—

The Government definitely cannot receive appreciation for the role which it played in this development of Southern Africa.

The CP recognizes the independence of our neighbouring States. On behalf of the Republic of South Africa, this party is prepared, in co-operation with other Southern African States, to promote peace, stability and progress for everyone.

Just as long as they do not want consuls in your towns.

I should like to quote further from the policy of the CP, which states—

This is not as the hon. member for Sea Point wants it, viz. that the Whites must take responsibility for all development. No. We say that every State should assume responsibility for its own development. It should be able to determine its own policy, prepare its own budgets and finance them. This party believes that such separate economic development can only become a practical reality if the preponderance of future economic growth takes place in the national States as far as this is strategically possible. This party also states—

Development is essential in Southern Africa. Demographers predict that by the year 2000 19 cities as large as Soweto will have to be built. The CP does not recoil from this development, but those 19 cities must not be established in the heartland of the Whites in South Africa either. Those 19 Sowetos must be in the heartlands, in the national States, of the Black nations themselves. Development must be decentralized to the national States or to neighbouring States.

Now I wish to quote once again from the constitution of the CP. However, it seems that time does not allow me to do so. [Interjections.]

We believe that industrial decentralization, in connection with which the Government announced certain plans and certain initiatives, will receive the support of this party. We shall support the Government when it brings about development in our neighbouring States. We shall do everthing in our power to strengthen the hand of the Government when it causes development to take place within the national States, so that the Black people can acquire employment opportunities, accommodation and development within the borders of their own fatherlands. Moreover, we also wish to make it clear that we shall oppose the Government every time development takes place in White South Africa which will lead to Black people being enticed away from the national States and neighbouring States to such development points within the Republic of South Africa. When we take note of numbers of Southern Africa, the development of the non-independent States and of the independent States are among our highest priorities in this country. Talking about numbers, I now wish to refer to the programme offered in the form of a course at the Hartbees youth area of the NP. In this programme the discussion method of the NP is set out, by means of which members of other parties are to be persuaded to adopt the views of the NP. We think it seems more like the NP’s plan to persuade voters to abdicate. [Interjections.]

They say in this programme …

Who are the “they” now?

These are the recruiting agents of the NP. When they are working on a member of another party, they must explain to him the realities of South Africa, and persuade him to agree with the problems as stated. After that the Black claims must be stated to that person—things such as claims in connection with discrimination, joint rights of ownership, in connection with participation, urban Blacks, as well as the claims which the Coloureds and the Asians are making. The recruiting agent must then get his opponent to concede that these demands cannot be ignored. He must be brought so far as to concede that homeland solutions are not the only solutions. [Interjections.] Then the recruiting agent must concentrate on the question of numbers, he must quote the present statistics and mention future projections that have been made. In this way the recruiting agent of the NP must make the person he is talking to disheartened, disheartened at the numerical preponderance of the Black and the Brown people in Southern Africa. He must be persuaded to concede that the rise of the Black and Brown people is unstoppable. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell hon. members of the NP that when the CP has finished with them, they will be disheartened. [Interjections.] We believe that the presence of the Whites was responsible for the development of Africa, and particularly of Southern Africa. White capital and initiative created opportunities in Southern Africa, opportunities which served to benefit the people of Africa, and particularly of Southern Africa. Those who provided employment, saw to it that there was accommodation, food, education and health services. The Whites also ensured that the message of Christ was borne into Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend dragging party politics into the debate and making party politics part of the foreign circumstances and of the conversation being conducted about our country at the present time.

† We are living in a continent which has had until now 54 coups d’etat since 1958, a continent in which the leaders are far more interested in power and in the fruits of power than in the welfare of their people, a continent in which mismanagement and corruption are the order of the day rather than the exception. What is interesting to me is this. Where there is instability in Africa due to some of the factors I have mentioned, and where it is way beyond the control of South Africa such as in Uganda or in the Sahal region or in Central Africa, then there is no problem. All sorts of neat arguments are found—historical, economic and structural arguments—as to why that unhappy situation is taking place. However, as soon as that sort of thing happens in our part of the world, and often for the same reasons, as soon as there is instability in our part of the world, the finger is pointed at South Africa and South Africa suddenly stands accused of creating that instability. I want to say as a matter of fact that the reverse can easily be proved. If one had the time one could construct an argument that would prove that because of the stabilizing influence radiating from South Africa, there has been no coup d’etat in Southern Africa since independence: It also remains a fact that some of the most stable countries in Africa are in fact those closest to South Africa. In so far as it is true that there is a differential which the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned between the rate of development in South Africa and that of our neighbours, we can hardly be blamed for the benign neglect of the departed colonial powers and for what they left behind in our part of the world. It is well known that in the vacuum left by the departed colonial powers, what is increasingly being seen is the ugly face of Soviet imperialism which is bent in this part of the world upon seeking to achieve its geostrategic and international ambitions. In our case they are attempting to destabilize the region. It is interesting to note that when this is done in Israel, they blame Israel for destabilizing the Middle East and yet they back the PLO. We see the same position in Central America at the moment. They blame the USA for destabilizing Central America when they are backing the Sandanistas through their proxies, the Cubans, and any other terrorist group that may be useful to them. They do the same thing in Africa whilst indeed their proxies in Cuban and every other military form are everywhere in evidence on this subcontinent. We also know beyond question that they support and train Swapo and the ANC. This is not only our opinion. I should like to refer the House to the report of Senator Jeremiah Denton, the Chairman of the US Senate subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. In his report which accompanied the detailed evidence and findings of his committee forwarded to the Committee of the Judiciary in November 1982, he said the following—

Recent disclosures in the Middle East, as also by students of international terrorism, have shown that there is a direct link between the KGB, the PLO, the Red Brigade, the ETA Movement, the Irish Provos, the Tupamaros, the ANC and so on. Clare Stelling in her book The terror network recently pointed that out very graphically. Thus, Sir, when into this vacuum these forces are sucked in Southern Africa and when we, having to retaliate in order to protect law-abiding and innocent people, with highly researched surgical precision strike against such targets, we stand accused of destabilization. It is absolutely preposterous. The fact is simply that if we do not condemn terrorism everywhere then we can condemn it nowhere.

That brings me to the official Opposition. It is a sad thing to my mind that well-meaning people often give credibility to the false accusations being made against us by repeating and amplifying the kind of thing that is reported in foreign newspapers. Some of our neighbours also play along and accuse South Africa as yet another means of gaining a little short-term advantage for a few extra dollars of taxpayers’ money in foreign aid.

Let us examine, just for a moment, the reality of the region. Were we to wish to promote instability in Mozambique, would we continue to use the power from Cabora Bassa and then aid and abet, as has been alleged, terrorists to blow up the pylons that feed that electricity to the Transvaal grid? Would we continue to employ the labour, Mozambique’s principal source of foreign exchange, would we help double her rail link between Maputo and the Transvaal frontier and would we use Maputo as a major entrepôt port and last year have exported, through that port, more than 960 000 tons of coal? If we wanted to destabilize Lesotho, would we employ 141 000-odd labourers out of a total Lesotho work-force of 180 000? It does not make sense. If we wanted to destabilize the countries around us, would there be, in reality some 7 000 SATS railway trucks on foreign neighbouring railway lines any day of the week and 1 500 foreign railway cars on our railway lines any day of the week? The hon. member for Pretoria Central spelt out the position as it affects labour. If we were such ogres, why is it that the homeless, the refugees and the jobless always run towards us and not away from us?

Despite the fact that you are ogres. It is because of the wealth of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Those are the achievements of South Africa, of which I am proud, but I am afraid the hon. member is not.

It is well that we look past the propaganda and view carefully the structural, geophysical and political realities of the subcontinent so as to allow us to work and to plan towards greater peace and progress and greater co-operation than that which already exists on the subcontinent and which again was explained so well by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. There is, in fact, an imperative for a regional approach when one is evaluating and planning for stability on the subcontinent, and I should like to quote US Ambassador, Mr. Herman Nickel, who in speaking to the American Chamber of Commerce on 16 February this year said—

Why is this a reality? The reasons are structural and have to do with geography and economies of scale which compel and impel the countries of the region to move towards co-opertion and interdependence.

Africa has half the world’s land-locked countries and nine of these are in our subcontinent. Historically their economies drain into the fine and superb choice of South African roads, rail links, airfields and harbours. For as long as a greater degree of independence and self-reliance is absent from the countries of the region, individually and collectively, the region will be subject to an unhealthy degree of foreign influence, including ideological and geo-strategic power-play with its concomitant destabilizing effect. Without long-term stability there can be no meaningful long-term investment in and development of the vital infrastructure and resources of this region. Just as we see the imperatives for regionalism in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the Caribbean and other parts of the world—and as we have seen, Pan-Africanism has in fact failed in Africa—we see that the imperative for subcontinental regionalism has emerged and is part of the Government’s forward planning and thinking. This is because of the situation of our neighbours, five of which are micro-States with populations of under one million, three with populations of under 3 million and five with populations of between 5 million and 10 million. There is, with their home markets, no way in which they can ever develop any kind of infrastructure or any kind of industrial or commercial activity, but if they have access—and they already have many of the benefits of co-operative agreement—to the 65 million-strong subcontinental market, then a whole new horizon opens for those countries as well. However, there can be no meaningful co-operation unless Southern Africa develops a greater overarching loyalty and sense of responsibility to the whole region. We cannot allow the retrogressive yoke of Soviet fraternization to replace the recently shed yoke of colonialization. Having expelled the colonial powers from the front door of Africa, we cannot allow the fraternal Bear in the back door of Southern Africa. We are willing to help and we are able to help. We have the acclimatized technology and we have the intermediate technology necessary in Africa. We also have a strong infrastructure and a strong economy. We have the capital and managerial expertise. The subcontinent has all the ingredients for rapid development and long-term growth and stability.

Our hon. Prime Minister, only the other day, again offered the hand of friendship to any and every country on the subcontinent by offering the benefit of a non-aggression pact. If we want peace in Southern Africa, we will have to find the over-arching loyalty of which I spoke. If we are going to declare war, then we will have to declare war on poverty, pestilence and disease.

I want to return now to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Sea Point in the course of his speech. I have very little time left, but the hon. member spoke about SADCC and said that that organization was inspired politically and economically. He also implied that SADCC was formed because of the internal policies of South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that he must take a longer view of this African continent of ours. In the time of Rhodes, the imperialist power of the time built a railway around the Transvaal Republic in order to form a new counter-balance to the Boer Republic expansion to the territory which later became Rhodesia. We saw that at the time of federation there was an attempt to provide an economic and political counter-balance to South Africa in Central Africa, but that failed miserably. It failed miserably because it ignored the structural and geophysical realities of Southern Africa. If that hon. member were to say to me that countries which are hostile or who have different economic and political philosophies cannot get on as neighbours, I would tell him that that is not true. In fact, there are many examples of countries with similar philosophies that cannot get on and of those with totally opposite ideological and even economic philosophies that do, in fact, have very good economic and political ties.

Lastly, the hon. member also spoke of the contrast which exists in the so-called States of South Africa and the rest of White South Africa. He said it was a terrible thing that there was this contrast. He cannot say that and then, in every debate in this House, allow his party to attempt to frustrate the efforts of this Government towards deconcentration and a regional economic approach. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot try to skim off the labour to the metropolitan areas of South Africa, so that they can come and work here, leaving the old, the infirm and the children in the Black areas, and then expect them also to have rates of development which are worthwhile. Unless we get industries back to these areas in a meaningful way, unless we bring development back to these areas in a meaningful way so that the people who work there also live there and spend their money there, where it can develop a viable subregional economy, we will achieve nothing.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who introduced the motion before the House, have in their addresses clearly demonstrated that South Africa enjoys a tremendous measure of stability and prosperity when compared to other States in Africa. With that point I have no argument. The question that does arise, however, is whether the Government of this country creates the sort of political climate that will engender growth, stability and development in the region in which we all live. That is, I believe, the question that should be uppermost in all our minds. We may think that we do, but I sincerely believe that this is not the case. For that reason I wish to move as a further amendment—

The legacy of "Uhuru", for the majority of the inhabitants of Southern Africa, has indeed not been a happy one, because I think it can be said without doubt that today there is more hunger, more instability and less freedom than ever before. It is ironic that the very last region as yet not “liberated” is, by comparison, a bastion of economic propserity and social and political stability. If this tells us anything, it tells us that majority rule based on a one man, one vote, common voters’ roll, with whatever guarantees one might wish to have, has been a disaster in Africa. A Bill of Rights is meaningless in Africa. A Bill of Rights is written into the constitution of Soviet Russia, where it is meaningless, and it can never mean anything on the continent of Africa either. There is one overriding reason for this, and that is that majority rule has failed to meet the needs and aspirations of minorities. It has merely served to heighten tensions and exacerbate existing problems. It has also served to chase away those very people whose skills and abilities could have contributed most to development. I want to sound a sincere warning to those concerned with the South West African issue. I believe that if that country does not get a constitution based on the sound principles of pluralism, including that vital element of self-determination for self-identified groups, it will suffer the same experience that other African States have suffered. A Swapo victory, with its overwhelming Owambo base—and that is something we simply have to face—will sow the seeds of a potential civil war in South West Africa, just as Robert Mugabe’s Government is facing the same prospect for the very same reasons. Twenty years ago people went to Rhodesia to see the Zimbabwe ruins. Today people go to Zimbabwe to see the Rhodesian ruins. [Interjections.] One increasingly detects a note of desperation in statements by leaders like Mugabe and Machel. For them the spoils of victory by force have become rotten and meaningless. There is no shadow of doubt that the prospect of continuing instability in Southern Africa holds out no joy for us, none at all. It impedes the massive potential for development in this subregion, something which could bring about a significant improvement in the quality of life for all our peoples and for all other peoples in the region.

The question is: What can South Africa do about it? What can we do about it? I believe that the last thing we ought to consider is intervention in the domestic affairs of our neighbouring States or of any other State in this region, and here I must add my voice of condemnation to that of my leader at the statement by the hon. the Minister of Defence that South Africa might consider granting assistance to rebel organizations fighting against legitimate Governments. It must stand on record that we believe that this establishes a dangerous and most undesirable precedent, and we reject it, because we can fight our own battles. This we can do by ourselves and for ourselves.

We might be tempted to preach to our neighbours about coming to terms with ethnicity and looking to plural solutions, but I dare say that would not fall on receptive ears, particularly whilst South Africa’s internal policy is seen by the world as one of naked racism. I am not saying that it is so. I am saying that that is how it is seen by the outside world. Similar equally distasteful descriptions are also used. I believe that what we should be doing, and can do, is to lead by example in order to show that pluralism can be successful. We should be doing the things that can demonstrate to the world, and not only to this region, that pluralism is something real, something tangible and something that can work. Where we should most be showing that right now is in the establishment of a confederation as the twin pillar in constitutional reform with a federal-type plan embracing Coloureds and Indians. Confederation is the one mechanism for reconciliation that has a proven track record. The examples of Switzerland, Holland and other countries show that through this constitutional mechanism sufficient trust and sufficient unity of purpose can be achieved for people to grow together and to develop a single national identity, whilst still maintaining their group character. This is because it is able to bridge the chasm of different perceptions between groups by removing the threat of domination.

We have heard much from this Government of constellations and confederations. However, when are we going to see some action in this direction? I think that the most significant thing that has happened recently has been the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister himself has now at last admitted to the prospects of confederal citizenship. This comes from the hon. the Prime Minister himself in an article that appeared in The Star as recently as 17 February, from which I want to quote as follows—

That is printed as a direct quote from the Prime Minister of South Africa.

Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, Mr. Van der Walt, was repudiated by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development for saying the same thing when he was taxed with this by my leader, the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. the Prime Minister knows what a burning issue citizenship is with our Black leaders. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is aware of it too. So I ask both these gentlemen: Why not announce it boldly as a specific objective of the Government? Why not say that there is indeed a specific objective in view, viz. confederal citizenship within what it is that those gentleman see for the future of this region? Why do they not tell these people—and all people—that the ultimate goal for this area is a United States of South Africa? I submit, Sir, that this could do wonders for the attitudes in this country, as well as for the attitudes towards this country. I believe that this, in turn, could lead our country into a new era of prosperity and development, and I believe that this would also have a positive rub-off on our neighbouring States and would do much to promote that which we seek and that which we all want to work for, namely the development of peace and prosperity in what Sir De Villiers Graaff once called Capricorn Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman referred to two aspects which I want to deal with quickly. First of all he referred to the wealth of Bophuthatswana compared to that of other African States. What is interesting to me, is that whenever mention is made of a successful Black homeland which has gained its independence, this one example is always quoted whereas the others, viz. Ciskei, Transkei and Venda, are completely disregarded.

I was referring to my neighbouring state.

I assume that the hon. member referred to his neighbouring homeland only. I believe, however, that the House should take notice of the fact that we are bluffing ourselves by forever referring only to this one which is economically the most prosperous while we conveniently disregard the others completely.

Then there is another aspect of the hon. member’s speech which I should like to refer to and that is the hon. member’s obsession with colour, with the White man. There is not a single business in South Africa today, there is not a single building being erected today where Black and White are not working closely together to ensure its success.

On whose initiative?

It does not matter on whose initiative it is. Sometimes, in fact, in most cases, it is on the initiative of the White entrepreneur, but at the same time it is also common knowledge that as the other colour groups are allowed into the business world they take the lead to an increasing extent. As a matter of fact as far as certain aspects of the business world are concerned, the clothing industry in the Western Cape, for example, they have been playing a prominent and leading role, and that role will grow in time to come.

I now want to turn to what the hon. member for Maitland said.

† Contrary to what the hon. member said, the PFP has never put the blame for economic disorder in our neighbouring States on the policy of separate development. We have never done that. What we do say, is that any area of deprivation and despair, whether it is inside South Africa or in our neighbouring States, attracts Marxism and makes it easy for that philosophy to sink its roots deep into the soil of that country and then to exploit the community. That is why our point of view is that South Africa must always do everything within its means to prevent the creation of such an environment, whether it is inside or outside South Africa. [Interjections.] I am saying that it is the PFP’s view that everything possible must be done inside and outside South Africa to prevent the creation of a fertile ground for Marxism. Of all the Southern African States, South Africa is by far the most developed. It has the greatest number of skilled workers; it is the most industrialized and it is far more urbanized than any of its neighbours. Yet, when all this is taken into consideration, we find that South Africa has not yet established itself as the economic trend-setter leading Southern Africa into the 20th century. For some reason we have not been able to do so. On the contrary, South Africa today lives in a state of near conflict with its neighbours while the potential for internal insurrection grows year by year. I believe it is against this background that support of the motion before us must be measured—the motion that deals with the development of Southern Africa. I believe that for development to take place it must also be understood that there is a very close interaction between the internal situation on the one hand and the relationships with our neighbours on the other hand. Sustained growth and development cannot take place if the external relationships are not absolutely healthy, and if they are plagued by disorder. In such an atmosphere we cannot, and to date have not, played our full role in developing and helping to develop Southern Africa. I believe that the Government of the day, in this respect, carries a substantial degree of responsibility.

This Government is presently, through its own actions, in some ways contributing to the conflict, and is not leading the region to economic stability and growth. It is contributing towards poor development and poverty, and certainly the policy within our own country has dramatically contributed to poverty in some of the areas, and anybody who disagrees with me on this point can only go and look in order to see for themselves.

But what about the poverty in States such as Uganda, Nigeria, etc.?

You see, Mr. Speaker, whenever one talks about problems in the subcontinent of Africa and in our own country, hon. members on the Government side begin to refer to far-off countries. In the beginning of my speech I made it very clear that we were not blaming the policy of separate development for economic problems beyond our borders. We are only talking about our own country now, and also about our own neighbours. That is why we have to deal with them. Everybody will agree with me that a chronically impoverished region not only becomes a fertile medium for Marxism, and in the process also creates even further potential for disorder, but that it also simply does not make business sense. A flourishing trade, economic independence and a constant exchange of goods and technology will not only benefit the region but is also the most potent antipode to instability.

This surely should be our goal, and our actions regarding our neighbours should always be measured against this background. In this aspect, however, I believe the NP has fallen far short. That is why the PFP favours the outstretched helping hand of friendly co-operation rather than the clenched fist which the NP so often thrusts under our neighbours’ noses. [Interjections.] This is why I find the statement by the hon. the Minister of Defence during the no-confidence debate both incredible and indefensible. Perhaps I should refer to that statement again so that we can ascertain that what I now say the hon. the Minister of Defence said is indeed correct.

On Tuesday, 1 February 1983, the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement here in the House, during the no-confidence debate. In that statement he said inter alia the following—and I found that quite acceptable; it was certainly acceptable to all of us on this side of the House. He said (Hansard, 1 February 1983, col. 137)—

Is that the fist under the nose you are talking about?

No. When I spoke about the clenched fist I said that I would make a quotation in that regard. To my mind, what the hon. the Prime Minister said in regard to the situation in which Southern Africa finds itself is perfectly acceptable. However, when we go further and read what the hon. the Minister of Defence had to say only two days later, then I say that is the clenched fist which does South Africa no good at all. What did the hon. the Minister of Defence say? I quote from Hansard, 3 February 1983, column 319, where the hon. the Minister said—

After the hon. the Prime Minister had made his offer, I find this statement, made by the hon. the Minister of Defence, an absolute repudiation of his own leader’s words two days previously. That sort of statement does not help South Africa. In fact, it is dangerous to South Africa. As I have said, it was an absolute contradiction of what the hon. the Prime Minister had said only two days before. What is going on here? Here we have an absolute repudiation of the hon. the Prime Minister by his Defence Minister. What is even worse, we cannot threaten our neighbours with violence by offering support and giving bases to terrorist groups such as the MNR who are using methods against their Governments and their people which are as bad, as brutal and as reprehensible as those used by Frelimo and the military wing of Swapo. We cannot do this and then expect peace and development and prosperity in South Africa. We cannot offer bases and help to those who are doing exactly what we say terrorist groups are attempting to do against our own territory and our own people, and still expect to be respected for it. Similarly, we cannot conduct incursions into neighbouring States and then refuse to be answerable to Parliament.

Last week I asked the hon. the Minister of Law and Order for the names of the persons who had been killed in the Maseru attack. I asked the hon. the Minister whether these people had been trained and, if so, where they had been trained. I put this question in the highest authoritative body in this country. There has been much criticism, inside and outside of South Africa, of the Maseru attack, and a clear answer to my question could have shown that we do not indiscriminately strike across our borders. I believe that the refusal of the hon. the Minister to answer my question has created the impression that the Government does not know who was killed or how many were killed. It has created the impression that the Government does not know who was trained and where they were trained. Furthermore, doubt is cast upon the validity of the information given to the Press by the Chief of the Security Police. I say that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, by refusing to answer to Parliament, has created a vast credibility gap between the public and a senior public servant, as well as between the public and the Government itself. My reaction to the Maseru pre-emptive strike is well-known. I must tell the House that the way in which the information I asked for is being deliberately withheld from Parliament does cast grave doubts over the internationally accepted principle of pre-emptive strike in terms of which I made the statement the morning after that strike had taken place.

And now you are being punished for having made that statement.

I am not being punished for it.

I expect the Government to assume the responsibility and let Parliament have the information required to determine whether it performed its duties in terms of the internationally accepted principle. That is all that is involved. It is an internationally accepted principle. [Interjections.] If hon. members do not know that, they did not listen to the debate.

† The refusal creates the impression that the NP is again concealing facts from the public and that once again we are dealing with a Government which is politically dishonest and which is trying to cover up.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should be thankful that we have the PFP in this House because I think in a way they act as some sort of compass to us. One can introduce any issue one wishes into a debate in this Chamber and like the needle of a compass they will swing around to the position of Whites and Blacks. Even when one enters into a debate on our foreign relations, they see fit to come back to the internal situation in South Africa. What is more, the position in South Africa according to their view really determines their argument.

The hon. member for Sea Point for instance referred to stark contrasts in South Africa. He referred to a ration of 13:1 in the incomes of Whites vis-à-vis those of Blacks. He spoke in terms of abject poverty, of deprivation—these are the terms he used—but the facts belie his claims that Blacks in South Africa are so badly off. Were it possible to look at the average income of the PFP supporters in the country vis-à-vis the income of Black people in the homelands, I wonder whether that ratio would also be 13:1. Obviously in this case it could not be blamed on Government neglect.

The hon. member for Sea Point was guilty of vague generalizations when comparing our national Black States with the more impoverished States in Africa, with countries like Chad and other poor countries on the continent. The fact of the matter is that the Black South African’s earnings average about 120 American dollars per month whereas the figure in the case of the average Zambian is 48 American dollars per month; in the case of the Ethiopian, 18 American dollars per month; in the case of the Tanzanian—in that country socialism is said to be practised—32 American dollars per month; and in the case of the Egyptian, a meagre 12 American dollars per month.

The inference on the part of both the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Wynberg was that the Government is not doing enough to assist in the development of our national Black States. The fact of the matter is that over the 10-year period between 1962 and 1972 alone we spent some 538 million American dollars on aid to our national Black States whereas the USA spent altogether 298 million American dollars on foreign aid. The hon. member also referred to average incomes of Blacks in South Africa vis-à-vis Whites.

I did not refer to that.

There again the facts simply do not correspond.

The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to the so-called Maseru attack. I think one can ask him whether he still adheres to his attitude, displayed in the statement the day after the attack, or whether he has been brought around to his leader’s way of thinking since then. [Interjections.] This motion— as has been said before—is being debated against the background of allegations—we heard the same allegations here—that South Africa plays a destabilizing role through its military action in Southern Africa. Let me say quite clearly that we respect the right of any country to defend its interests, and we believe we have the same right. The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to imagined assistance to resistance movements among our neighbouring countries. I want to tell him that one could agree with him if he were as forthright in his condemnation of neighbouring countries not only allowing bases to our so-called resistance organizations, the ANC and Swapo, as in his denunciation of South African action. If our defensive role is seen in its proper perspective, we have as little destabilizing effect in Southern Africa as Americans have in their efforts to counter communist penetration in Latin America. In fact, when the United States was faced with the prospects of a Russian missile presence on the soil of a neighbour, it actually invaded Cuba. Their action led to the dismantling of the missiles, but it certainly did not destabilize Cuba, which remains as firmly communist as ever before.

I think it is clear that the complaint so frequently heard that military action by South Africa represents an attempt to destabilize its neighbours is a superficial one. It is no more than a Russian-inspired attempt to create discord in the region. The real test of whether a country is a stabilizing or destabilizing influence on its neighbours must, after all, lie in whether it assists or hinders its neighbours in the maintenance of an infrastructure upon which they can develop a sound, political, social and economic future. As the hon. member who moved the motion said, if one measures South Africa against this yardstick, far from being a destabilizing influence, this country emerges as a most important stabilizing factor in the entire subcontinent.

Time does not permit me to list all the fields in which South Africa plays a decisive role in this respect. Most of them have been canvassed by the hon. member who moved the motion. Let me, however, add one more. In this modem age a fast and reliable postal and most up to date telecommunications service have become enormously important for development. Without it trade could not thrive, news would become stale and effective international relations would be non-existent. Indeed, primitive communications have, in this modern day and age, become the hall-mark of truly backward communities. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has made mention of the fact that we have a reliable and sophisticated post and telecommunications system and that we have been happy to place this at the disposal of our neighbours. This form of development assistance is largely unsung and is quite often forgotten.

Let me list just a few facts about this assistance which is given, by this country, to all its neighbours in Southern Africa. The independent countries which grew out of our midst, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, are of course wholly dependent on us for postal and telecommunication links, for automatic exchanges and, to a lesser degree, for highly trained staff. We also place at their disposal training facilites for the training of technicians. I want to refer, more particularly however, to those of our neighbours who do not have the same historical ties with us and who, in some cases, are not particularly sympathetic towards us. The bulk of the postal traffic from Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and even Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe passes, in transit, through South Africa. One wonders, when some of these countries record their votes against South Africa at the United Nations, whether they realize that their lengthy instructions have passed through our postal services.

Similarly, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe depend on South Africa for all their telecommunication links. For example, we maintain no fewer than 10 circuits linking up with Harare and we have extended, direct circuits linking Zimbabwe, via South Africa, to Australia, Canada, Greece, Italy, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and West Germany. It must be a sobering thought for an Harare banker that his dealings with the Bank of Switzerland are carried via South African circuits, or for a Bulawayo newspaperman that his news report—perhaps condemning this country— can only reach its Washington destination through the good offices of our telex services.

Even those countries not wholly dependent on South Africa for their telecommunications links, must nevertheless use our service for inter-regional contact. Indeed, successive conferences aimed at reducing the reliance of Southern Africa on South Africa, such as SADCC could never have been convened without the South African telecommunications facilities. We have in operation an impressive list of telephone, telex and telegraph circuits in Southern Africa, and I shall mention just a few. To Botswana we have 106 telephone circuits and 40 telex and telegraph circuits, to Lesotho 146 and 30, with Malawi 24 and 23, with Mozambique 35 and 26, with Swaziland 197 and 46, with Zambia 19 and 23 and with Zimbabwe 282 and 69. This gives us a total—if one includes the 595 telephone and 72 telex and telegraph circuits linking us to South West Africa—of 1 402 telephone circuits and 329 telex and telegraph circuits.

I have cited, in one limited field only, examples of South Africa’s vital role in the stabilization of the subcontinent. This is, however, also a field which is crucial to the politico-economic well-being of any country. Indeed, these links are seen as so important that they are protected by international agreements. South Africa scrupulously continues to observe its commitments under these agreements.

Destabilization is not, and never has been, our objective. South Africa is not the villain it is so frequently portrayed as being. On the other hand, this country is not a sort of international Santa Claus handing out largesse at random. It is more a case of our realizing that our role of economic and industrial leader of the subcontinent imposes certain obligations upon us, because our own economic prosperity and national security are inextricably interwoven with the prosperity and stability of our neighbours.

I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot associate myself in any way with the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria Central this afternoon, for we saw in this House today how the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs abused an opportunity to bedevil relations and development in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is well aware that this is a sensitive matter, but the hon. the Minister made public in this House a part of my comment which I assumed would be treated confidentially …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to make the allegation that another hon. member abused an opportunity? Is that not a reflection on the Chair?

Order! The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

The hon. the Minister did not disclose the rest of the contents of my letter in which I did, in fact, advance valid reasons as to why it was completely unnecessary and unacceptable to open such a consulate at Pietersburg, for example, the fact that there were only 738 Vendas who were employed in the vicinity of Pietersburg. With respect, Sir, that reply of the hon. the Minister was no reply to my question. It was a political speech. Then after his lengthy tirade, he made a pious appeal to hon. members of this House not to try and make political capital out of such a situation. Who was trying to make political capital out of the situation? It was not I. I did not make a single word of my letter known to the public. However, just listen to what the hon. the Minister says in his reply. He took one reason which offended him and said that it was based on an untruth. I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that I stand by every word. Of course I expressed it in strong terms; that is how my people in the Northern Transvaal feel. I wish to state unequivocably and clearly to the ruling party opposite: There is a total disregard and lack of respect on the part of the ruling party for the community life of the inhabitants of Pietersburg, and of the Northern Transvaal in general.

And of the Whites in general.

The voters in the Northern Transvaal have had more than enough of a situation of integration which is being forced upon them. Go and see what the situation on the station is like. There is no place for the inhabitants of Pietersburg in the reservation office. Go and see what the situation in the Post Office is like. Meaningful segregation measures existed in all these places. That was not discrimination, but they were removed by that party.

Where were you then?

The hon. members of the NP must tell the voters in the North that they will continue to destroy separate development completely, in the new constitution as well.

Yes, because they are afraid of the outside world.

Let them go and say these things there, and not utter conservative platitudes in the rural areas of the Transvaal.

Resign your seat.

Those hon. members will have their reply in Waterberg and Soutpansberg on 10 May. Then the voters will give them a clear reply. Therefore I should very much like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman that the Government has failed to stablize the presence of the Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, since I have to comment on the speakers who participated in the debate, I may as well begin with the last speaker. His statement in his letter that there had been a complete disregard of the community life of Pieterburg, he made with reference to the fact that the Chief of Protocol in my department approached him for his comment on the opening of a consulate general for Venda in Pietersburg. He knows it is the truth that he told the Pietersburg newspaper, Revue, last week already that he had tried to find out what was going on from the Department of Foreign Affairs, but had received this answer and that answer. Then an atmosphere was created in Pietersburg. Then, quite innocently of course, he placed a question on the Question Paper of this House. According to him, in fact, the purpose of his question was to improve relations. That is what he has been implying here. I now invite him to release his letter. I did not read out the rest of it in the House this morning because if it had been read out, relations with Venda may have been jeopardized even further. I can almost say that it was to protect him that I did not read out the rest of his letter. Instead of being grateful, he complained that the entire document had not been read out. He stated in his letter that Venda may not open a consulte general in Pietersburg because there were only 738 Vendas there. With all due respect, Sir, does he then wish to argue that the diplomatic intercourse of the world should be based on how many citizens of a country are living in a certain district? Diplomatic intercourse is not based on that. In a certain sense it has something to do with that, yes, in the sense of a need to have a consular office in a region where quite a number of your citizens are living and working, but it is not of decisive importance to the choice of the place. If the British were to ask us to open a consulate general in Port Elizabeth or Kimberley, it is not a requirement that I establish how many British citizens there are in Port Elizabeth or Kimberley. If the Japanese Government were to ask me to open a consulate general in Clocolan, I do not ascertain how many Japanese there are in Clocolan. That just proves to one how confused the hon. member’s thinking is. Surely the fact of the matter is that diplomatic intercourse is not built on that foundation and on that foundation alone. It stems from a need of a country with whom one has diplomatic relations, inter alia, to look after the interests of its citizens, although not exclusively. There are economic interests and any number of other interests which also have to be promoted and which will influence the choice of the place.

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

No, I have already spent too much time on the hon. member. Besides, he has already done enough harm to our relations with our neighbouring states. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria Central very sincerely for the motion which he moved in this House today and motivated in such an excellent way. If only we did not receive so many complaints, I should like to see my department issue the hon. member’s speech in a special pamphlet. [Interjections.] Fortunately it is being printed in Hansard and there is a reasonably good distribution of Hansard. Consequently I should like to urge my colleagues to obtain as many copies as possible.

I also thank the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Umlazi for their positive contributions. They were based on research and demostrated to us in practical and factual terms how the onslaught on us was mounting, but also how the Republic could play a positive role in Southern Africa, not only in averting the onslaught, but also in converting it into a process of co-operation between the Republic and all its neighbouring States in so many important spheres of life.

I wish to come next to the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point. He began by saying that his party went along with positive development, which he did concede rather halfheartedly was taking place here and there.

He then went on to say that he also agreed that non-aggression pacts should be concluded. He said it was not a problem between the parties. However, he then came forward with an amendment—one could almost say a motion of his own—which amounted to our having to remove the limiting factors that were retarding co-operation. At a later stage of his argument the hon. member indicated what he considered to be limiting factors. What he said, however, was nothing new.

† It was the usual rhetoric—if I may use the hon. member’s own word—the usual pontification of the moral monopolist that we have heard in this House today. He does not tell the country, however, that there are really only two important limiting factors at present as far as development is concerned. Those two limiting factors he cannot change. He cannot change them, nor can anyone else in this House. If they do say they can change it they should tell me now. The first of those limiting factors is the lack of available funds, and the second one is the lack of sufficient manpower—trained manpower. How can they change that overnight? How will they divide the income of this State? Where will they take away in order to give?

*If we consider certain countries today—I do not wish to mention them by name, but we need not seek far to find them—where inflation rates have soared to such an extent that the economies of those countries have been dealt serious blows—and this of course includes certain Western countries as well— then we find that the problem really lies between distribution of welfare and production. Governments that came into power and became obsessed with distribution, Governments that merely wanted to distribute welfare, without taking production into account, wrecked their countries economically. A delicate balance, a planned balance, must always be maintained between the distribution of income on the one hand, and production on the other. Just try to disturb it—forget about ideologies; forget about political policy—and just see what happens then. One simply becomes insolvent.

That is precisely what this Government, not only at present but for many years now, has been trying to prevent, and it has done so with a great measure of success. We must really take serious cognizance—and then of course not as precipitately as the hon. member for Sea Point does—of the very important strategy for regional development which the South African Government announced in conjunction with Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei on 1 April 1982. I should now like to make an appeal to hon. members please to study the documents which are available on that matter because it is an extremely important one. At least the hon. member for Sea Point did say that they will go along with it if it amounts to the creation of more employment opportunities outside the metropolitan areas. After that, of course, he made another disparaging remark, to which I shall return later if there is enough time. At least the hon. member more or less conceded that there could possibly be some good in it.

Hon. members will observe what we have achieved in this way. These five governments collectively divided up their territories into eight development regions. In the process we proceeded from the standpoint that the most important principles for development within those regions should be the following. In the first place, it should as far as possible be according to a system of free enterprise, although of course not absolutely because in some of those regions the available infrastructure is still too small. Consequently infrastructure must be created. Besides, the private sector is not always willing to create infrastructure. To tell the truth, the private sector is seldom willing to do that. Of course, I do not necessarily blame them for not wanting to. They do not function on that basis. After all, without harbours, without pipelines, without water and electricity supply, without roads, without clinics, without hospitals, without police stations, without stability and without the preservation of law and order, one has no development. It is no use having illusions about these things. This may perhaps sound elementary; however, we sometimes speak at cross purposes and omit to mention the elementary things. This is why we do not always understand one another.

Within each of those eight regions we must, therefore, involve the private sector as much as possible. To be able to do this, the Government placed a unique and very attractive package of incentives at the disposal of the private sector. It is gratifying and encouraging to know that we received three times as many applications from the private sector in terms of the incentives for the decentralization of industries as we actually budgeted or planned for initially.

In this way this idea of decentralization and regional development, this entire strategy, has taken root in our private sector, and I am certain that all hon. members of this House will be delighted about this, and that they will also help us and take trouble to involve the private sector in this matter to an even greater extent.

Another very important norm which we applied in our approach to regional development—and this is not only the norm of the Republic of South Africa, but of five separate governments—was the creation of as many employment opportunities as possible in the regions in which unemployment and poverty were most prevalent. Consequently an important norm in the determination of the incentives was how the unemployment situation and standards of living of the one region compared with those of another. Of course one will give greater incentives to that region which has fewer employment opportunities, which is poorer and has a far greater need for development. Otherwise one will not get that development, not even if the NP was governing that country. Then those who are, in fact, governing will also have to bring about development there. This is the way in which it has to be done. Thirdly, this strategy made a frame of reference available for the first time within which we as Government can structure our processes in order to formulate, to plan and to implement this comprehensive development strategy for the whole of Southern Africa. I think this is a very great achievement that has been accomplished. At the summit meeting of these five Governments last year on 11 November in Pretoria, further attention was also given to the creation of structures and processes in order to include the other elements of development as well. Industrial development is only one element of a comprehensive co-prosperity strategy. There are other elements as well, such as mining, manpower matters and manpower training. Then, too, there is agriculture, which is an extremely important sector in Southern Africa. There is also commerce and tourism and all the other facets and elements of development which will now receive attention. To accept overall responsibility for this co-prosperity strategy, development co-operation and regional development, the Government decided, together with the other governments—those which I mentioned—to establish a multilateral Council of Ministers. This body will accept overall responsibility for putting processes into operation by means of which the other facets of development which I mentioned will also receive attention. It was also agreed among the governments that multilateral technical committees of the various countries would be established. In the meantime the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information form the interim secretariat for these multilateral structures which I have just mentioned, in order to arrange meetings at which it will now be possible to adopt further resolutions.

All this does not mean to say that we are now of the opinion that something new is going to strike Southern Africa like a magic wand. Things do not happen that easily. Things cannot happen so easily, and in any event have not happened anywhere in Africa. When we refer to the deterioration of our continent in the economic sphere, the political-social sphere, and in other spheres, we derive no pleasure from doing so, but as one of the Black leaders said at the summit meeting, he has learned from the traps into which other African countries have fallen, and, together with us, he wants to prevent the countries of Southern Africa from falling into the same traps. These were the words of wisdom from a president of one of the TBVC countries. Nevertheless, we have already achieved a great deal in the sphere of development, and that is why this phase of development co-operation, which now has to create structures for these countries to enable a more comprehensive strategy to be pursued, is so essential. Development co-operation is a comprehensive concept in terms of which the rendering of assistance takes place. However, it goes further than the rendering of assistance. It binds the States together. It binds their officials together. It binds their private sectors together to enable planning to take place within a region and across political dividing lines. Just think of the possibilities which this opens up for development throughout the whole of Southern Africa; not only in those countries which have become independent in our midst, but also the BLS countries—if they so wish it—and for the others. In the meantime we are going ahead. We need not wait. I can give hon. members the assurance that ideology as such does not at present stand in the way of development. What does stand in the way of development is the availibility of money and trained manpower. No country in Africa has enough of these two items. We need only consider the position of the USA and how it had to cut back on its aid to Africa. In spite of the economic recession, however, we have in this period announced these incentives for industrialists, and we received a reaction which indicates a high level of investment in areas which had little development and which can now look foward to the hope of increased development and employment so that people can also live and work close to their homes, close to their families and, in the less developed parts of Southern Africa, can act in a productive way for the benefit of all of us.

As far as project aid is concerned we have already taken 89 projects requiring a total capital amount of R565 million, past the planning stage and into the implementation stage. When one comes to project aid, seen from an international point of view, one is speaking of the project cycle—that is the new word—which means that one determines projects according to certain priorities which (a) will provide employment, (b) generate capital and (c) will raise people’s standard of living. After one has made this identification, one plans, and after one has done one’s planning, one has to look at financial arrangements. After one has made the financial arrangements, an agreement must be concluded on a permanent basis with a certain rate of interest and repayment terms, based on the same systems as those adopted internationally by the IMF and other organizations of this nature. Then comes the implementation and after the implementation the monitoring of the projects, and subsequent to that the evaluation to establish whether the project which has been launched, complies with the goals that have been set. 89 of these are in the implementation stage and approximately 70 are in the process of planning and assessment. I am not saying that all 70 will be implemented, because the committees that have to assess them have to be satisfied as far as the viability and priority of these projects are concerned. It also has to be established whether they will satisfy the objectives. Frequently there is disappointment on the part of Governments who are our neighbours and who would of course like to make more rapid progress for the sake of their citizens. Once again I say, however, that there is a shortage of money everywhere.

It is easy to talk, to say, let us do this, let us do more, but where is the money to come from? One finds it astounding that we do not for a change conduct a debate in this House simply from this point of view: Where will the PFP take money away for what it wants to do? It is no use simply telling me it is going to do so; it must also indicate where it is going to take money away, because we are stretched to breaking point. The Government is stretched to breaking point to render drought assistance on the one hand and to maintain our education systems—it is not in the interests of anyone that these should be dismantled. In this way funds have to be spread in every important sphere of life. As far as housing is concerned, our resources are stretched to the utmost. Hon. members saw for themselves what the position was with the budget of the SATS. In fact our country—the entire world does—does not have to exports which normally, say 2 or 3 years ago, accompanied the economic upswing. What will they do? Will they prevent the droughts? Will they prevent the recession in the world economy? Will they be able to display more economic power than the President of the USA, a country which is itself going through a recession and which has more than 10 million unemployed? These questions are never answered; all that happens is that they rise and utter idyllic dreams, sermons and moralistic desires and spread this abroad as propaganda, which makes one’s task in South Africa more difficult.

I see my time is running out. I should very much have liked to have discussed quite a number of other matters with the hon. member for Sea Point, but I cannot leave my good friend the hon. member for Kuruman entirely in the dark. He moved an amendment, but on what he based his amendment I still do not know because nothing he said had anything to do with his amendment. What his amendment amounts to is that the Government is not utilizing the Whites sufficiently. I want to ask him what the figure for White unemployment in South Africa is.

White unemployment has nothing to do with this.

But the hon. member’s amendment reads that we are not utilizing the Whites; now I am asking what the White unemployment figure is.

The amendment has nothing to do with White unemployment.

It has a great deal to do with the hon. member’s amendment. I shall enlighten the hon. member on this score. The White unemployment figure is not only the lowest in the world …

You do not understand it.

The White unemployment figure indicates how we are utilizing the Whites. In fact it indicates that as far as Whites are concerned, there is an over-employment, an over-utilization. Here we now have the statistics and we no longer believe the foolish things the hon. member has to say. He is now dealing with statistics. One cannot argue with statistics. There is over-employment of Whites in every sector in the country. There is no country in the world with such an employment figure as that among the White population of South Africa. The hon. member should rather be grateful for this. He should rather thank the Government for the fact that the Government has through its moderate and well-balanced policy prevented the country from finding itself in troubled waters internationally and at the same time has internally prevented so much emotion and frustration from arising that it could unleash revolution. The hon. member should instead thank us for being in a position to look after our farmers, despite a severe drought and an economic recession. The hon. member ought to be grateful and ought to tell the farmers the truth instead, viz. that they would not be able to export a single maize kernel if the CP had been governing. Thanks to this Government, however, we can withstand and survive the droughts, we enjoy industrial peace, we export and have a strong economy, and because we have a strong economy, we have a strong defence force and a strong defence force enables us to curtail the onslaughts on us from outside.

Now quite suddenly, this afternoon, the hon. member discovered President Mphephu. Now I do not understand them at all. The hon. member for Pietersburg will have nothing to do with the President’s diplomats, but the hon. member for Kuruman quotes him very approvingly against me. It is almost incomprehensible. What the hon. member does not understand is that there is no contradiction in what the hon. the Minister of Manpower said initially and what he said afterwards. The hon. the Minister made a Government announcement, and it was the final Government decision, but when it was conveyed to Venda, they were not satisfied with it. That is the truth. Representations were then made to the Government. What more were we to have said than that? Surely we cannot think up things which never happened.

The only other aspect of the contribution made by the hon. member for Kuruman was concerned with Ingwavuma and Swaziland. I should very much like to refer the hon. the discussion of my Vote on 6 May 1982. In my Hansard the entire history of this matter is on record in column after column. I revealed everything and stated what our problem and dilemma was. I stated the standpoints of all sides and all parties. But it is clear that those hon. members do not read Hansard. They do not take notice of what goes on in this House. That is their big problem. [Interjections.] What is very interesting, is that when I reached the end of my explanation in regard to Swaziland last year, I said the following (Hansard, 6/5/82, col. 6259)—

Who then said “We support you”?—my good friend the hon. member for Waterkloof, Mr. Langley!

Unfortunately my time is limited. In Southern Africa we do have the raw materials and, I think, the human material as well to live in prosperity and peace. I think that we can provide the necessary training. All things considered, we have already made a great deal of progress in the medical and technological spheres. Our hospitals are as good as the best in the world. Our roads are just as good. Our railways are better and just as good as those in other Western countries and provide just as good a service. Our teachers and farmers compare as favourably. Our farmers are still able, under extemely difficult drought conditions, to produce food for the country. What an achievement! Our teachers and advocates—I shall not express a final opinion on our politicians today—are also among the best. Consequently we have the manpower and the raw materials. Added to that we have the climate and I believe we have the will to utilize our raw materials and people in such a way that we will be able, with faith in this Southern Land to bring a constellation of States into being in which States will supplement one another, will live in peace with one another, will not be able to suppress or dominate one another, and where the one will not be able to insult the other in regard to the colour of its people’s skin. I believe that all these things are awaiting South Africa, but on one condition, namely that we should have a little more confidence and should re-discover ourselves. We should follow only one guideline, which is this: Do not do unto others which you do not want done unto you.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.