House of Assembly: Vol66 - FRIDAY 28 JANUARY 1977

FRIDAY, 28 JANUARY 1977 Prayers—14h15. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE *The LEADER OF THE HOUSE:

Mr. Speaker, as regards the business for next week, I want to say that we shall deal with the Second Reading of the Civil Protection Bill. After the Second Reading speech the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. The next order of business will be the Second Reading of the Criminal Procedure Bill, and after the Second Reading speech the debate will be adjourned. After that the House will follow the Order Paper as printed for today.

Then I want to announce that the Easter Recess will commence after the adjournment of the House on 1 April and will continue until 12 April, when the House will reassemble.

The Part Appropriation will be presented on 7 February, the Additional Appropriation on 28 February, the Railway Budget on 9 March, the Post Office Budget on 21 March and the Main Budget on 30 March.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

FIRST READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a First Time—

Defence Amendment Bill. Moratorium Amendment Bill. Indian Industrial Development Corporation Bill. Reservation of Public Amenities Amendment Bill. South African Tourist Corporation Amendment Bill.
RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS ON REGISTRATION OF COPYRIGHT IN CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL (Motion) *The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That in terms of Standing Order No. 72 the proceedings on the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Bill [B. 104—’76] be resumed from the stage reached during the preceding session.

Agreed to.

NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE (resumed) *The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, this debate, which has lasted the whole week, should of course be seen against the background of the outside world and of necessity, too, against the background of events in South Africa itself, especially the recent political events.

When one wants to summarize this debate in a sentence or two against the background of the outside world, it is a fact—and this became apparent from all quarters during the debate—that the grand strategy of the communists is still that of world domination, that they are systematically putting their plans in this respect into operation and are advancing step by step towards that ultimate objective. It is also clear that these actions of theirs are causing concern among all the countries of the Free World, those countries that are in danger of becoming victims of that grand strategy. Nor is it only the politicians who are concerned about this situation. Recently we took cognizance of the fact that NATO and its chiefs are very concerned about this situation, particularly since the Western world is lagging further and further behind worldwide Marxism as far as conventional weapons are concerned.

One should also see it against the background of the difficult economic situation in which the world finds itself, with greater recessions and unemployment than there have been for decades. There were upswings which did raise hopes, but were not realized. Mr. Speaker, one should therefore see it against the background of the pressures being brought to bear on the Free World, and of course South Africa is also part of that world; for that reason it is also experiencing that pressure. In addition to that pressure, however, South Africa is also experiencing pressure from the Free World itself. I dealt with that in full in my New Year message, and I stand by every word I said in that connection. Not only are we subject to that pressure, however, we are also subject to pressure from the Marxist world in particular because our strategic position, from their point of view, makes it essential for them to appropriate the whole of Southern Africa. But apart from the advantage of the strategic position, if they succeed in appropriating Southern Africa, this will give them sole ownership of—I shall mention only a few things for the record—90% of the world’s platinum, 75% of its manganese, 80% of its gold, 80% of its diamonds and 80% of its vanadium. All these things are indispensable to the Western world, and should they fall into the hands of the communists, they will have a monopoly in this regard. Now combine this monopoly of raw materials in the hands of the Marxists with the oil monopoly of the oil states and you will realize the position in which the Western world could then find itself. I have just mentioned this briefly because this is the background against which this debate should be seen.

However, this debate should also be seen against the political background of South Africa itself, because it is a political debate. I believe my friend, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, will concede that I am correct when I say that never since the days when he and I came to Parliament has there been such confusion in the ranks of the entire Opposition as there is at the moment. At this moment there is a search in progress within the Opposition, a search for two things. In the first place there is a search for an alternative policy with which to oust this Government. In the second place there is a search for a leader to make that policy a reality, so much so that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realized this himself and therefore he did not hesitate to put his own position at stake. Therefore we must consider both the policy and the leader for a moment.

In the first place I want to deal with the leader. He has not yet emerged. He must still emerge therefore, and we as politicians are intensely interested to know who he will be. However, we are not the only people who are interested in this. The Press of course is also interested, to such an extent that one newspaper even laid down the specifications to which that leader must comply. To my mind, this is a gem of English-language political journalism. It referred to the problems and to the search and to the leader, and then had this to say:

Finally, a leader must be found to give inspiration and direction and cohesion to the disparate and uncertain forces milling around. It will be a crucial choice.

Then they stated the specifications, and now every hon. member opposite will have to examine himself—

He should have political experience. He should be a new face, untainted by the political battles of the past…

I am afraid my friend Vause is out! And then—

He should preferably be young.
An HON. MEMBER:

McIntosh!

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It is the prerogative of the hon. member for Houghton to include herself here if she wants to. I read further—

It would be ideal if he had an academic background. He should have charisma. He should be acceptable to other race groups. It would be a great advantage if he was an Afrikaner. Is there such a man?

Sir, I do not see any hands going up.

I now face a motion of no confidence in me and my Government which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved. When we came to this session of Parliament, there were those who were full of hope that there would be one Opposition from the start. But instead of one we have three! The leader of the largest Opposition party so far has now moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. I find it interesting to see that this is precisely the thirteenth motion of no confidence in me which the hon. member has moved.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

That is my lucky number.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It happens to be mine as well and I have an idea—I regret having to bring these tidings to the hon. member—that this will be the last motion which he will move. He had every right to move this motion, and I shall still deal with it fully. However, it is interesting to note that the hon. leader of the PRP did not move a substantive motion. He is shaking his head at this side. I do not know whether this is the result of the “broad joint strategy” or the “working arrangement” which was arrived at.

The hon. Leader of the Independent United Party did move an amendment to this motion. I listened to the manner in which hon. members of that party put the way they see their functions to the House. They also outlined their future actions in this House. I have no fault to find with that. In fact I believe that hon. members who act in that way, have a positive function to fulfil in this House. The hon. Leader of the Independent UP addressed a request to me, and I am prepared to grant that request and to treat him as I have at all times treated the hon. Leader of the Opposition himself in this regard.

This motion is of course a motion of no confidence with a difference. The difference lies therein that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of no confidence in the Government in the past, he could always offer an alternative, regardless of whether his policy was good or bad or whether it was acceptable or not. He could say: “Reject that policy and adopt this policy”. This time we are in trouble. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of no confidence, but what is the alternative we now have to adopt? We are confronted by a new dispensation as far as Opposition politics is concerned, but that new dispensation has not reached maturity yet. One cannot even say that that dispensation will reach maturity. It may still die from malnutrition, for that dispensation has to grow out of a committee on which the United Party, the PRP and Mr. Gerdener served.

According to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as recently as December 1975, the principles of the PRP are not only objectionable, not only damnable, but also dangerous to South Africa and to every good South African. That was the standpoint they took up, a standpoint which they stated in very acrimonious terms. Now I believe that it is necessary that this House be given an answer, because the House must know, hon. members must know, the UP members must know and the voters must know whether this dangerous policy of the PRP is in any respect or to any extent acceptable to my friend, the Leader of the principal Opposition and his followers. As far as I know that policy which was described at the time as being dangerous and damnable, is still the policy of the PRP. As far as I know, all of the 11 members of the PRP in Parliament endorse …

*HON. MEMBERS:

Twelve.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Twelve? Have they had offspring? Well, I never! … Do all 12 of them endorse that policy of the PRP, do they stand by it and are they not prepared to deviate from it. Is this interpretation of mine correct?

*Mr. H. H. SCHWARZ:

Make your own speech.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I have reason to believe that none of those 12 members are prepared to throw their policy overboard. As I know the hon. member for Houghton, she is not prepared to throw her policy overboard, not for any one. Am I right?

*Mr. H. H. SCHWARZ:

You are speaking about principles.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The hon. member for Houghton is always so loquacious; why is she so silent now?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

[Inaudible.]

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I am sorry; I cannot hear you. However, we shall return to that. I think it is only fair, especially with regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that the members of the United Party sitting behind him there should take cognizance of what his standpoint was on 2 December 1975, only a short while ago, when he made a speech and said inter alia, the following, according to the Rand Daily Mail of 3 December—

Mr. Basson said that the attempt to destroy the UP was one of the most ill-considered in the history of English politics in South Africa.

I find it strange that the hon. member used the words—and I checked them—“English politics in South Africa”. Then he continued—

The only possible outcome would be to divide the English-speaking vote to the benefit of the National Party. He said that even with Press support, the PRP could never become an effective Opposition because its policy of Black majority rule would never be acceptable to the White voters.
Mr. H. H. SCHWARZ:

That, of course, is not our policy.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

That I also find interesting. The hon. member for Yeoville says that that is not their policy. One of two things emerges from that: Either the hon. member accused the PRP falsely …

*Mr. H. H. SCHWARZ:

It is a misunderstanding.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

… by saying that that was their policy, or, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville spoke too soon. I do not really believe that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout accused them falsely. The hon. Senator, the advocate, stated clearly that that is indeed their policy and if words have any meaning, the hon. member for Houghton also stated that it is their policy. [Interjections.] The Hon. Adv. Bamford made it very clear and the hon. member for Houghton made it as clear. At the time—and we shall have to get an answer to this—it was not the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout only. On 3 December 1975— which happened to be the same date—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself granted an interview in the form of question and answer to The Cape Times. He was asked the following question: “There appears to be substantial evidence in the recent by-elections—Pinelands, Caledon, Middelburg, Bryanston—that the UP is losing support, both to the left and to the right. Could you comment on these setbacks and on how you see your party’s future?” The hon. leader’s reply was as follows: “I think these setbacks are purely temporary because of the confusion caused in the minds of the public, first as to who was leading the UP when Schwarz was with us …” [Interjections.] They could not make out whether the hon. Leader was in charge, or whether the hon. member for Yeoville had taken charge. Whose fault was that? It is surely the hon. Leader’s own fault if he allows subordinates to create the impression and act as if they were the leader of the UP. Now he wants to become friendly again with that very same hon. member who was responsible for the dilemma in which he found himself at the time. However he went on to say: “And secondly, as to what our policies really were, I think the picture is clearing and I believe that support is going to be rallied back to us to a far greater degree than in the past. I believe the UP has had a difficult year in that it was necessary to cleanse out ranks of a number of people who, I do not believe, really belonged with us, and who, in many cases, joined us not with the object of supporting the party, but of trying to hijack the party from within.”

Those same hon. members are sitting there and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to go along with them again. He then said: “Their efforts have failed; the party has purified itself.” He said: “The party has purified itself”, and shortly after having said that, he wants to foul his nest again. [Interjections.] For the life of me I cannot understand it, Mr. Speaker. His followers are also asking these questions. He said: “I believe those who are with us now know where they are going, where they want to go, and as far as they are concerned, public enemy No. 1 remains the NP. Public enemy No. 2, and a long way behind, is the PRP.”

“Public enemy No. 2 …” and the hon. Leader allows his people to serve on a committee with the people of “public enemy No. 2 “in order to work out a new political dispensation in South Africa. [Interjections.] However, he went on to say:

“Public enemy No. 2, and a long way behind, is the PRP, which we think is a luxury South Africa cannot afford at the moment. ”

It seems the hon. member would now like to have the “luxury” back. He went further, however. This question was put to him—

Mr. Vorster and some UP public representatives have stated publicly that the PRP is a party South Africa can well do without. Do you agree with this view, or do you feel that the PRP has a role to play?
Mr. H. H. SCHWARZ:

Will you now read us what the next sentence says?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Listen, and I shall give the answer. The Leader said—

I abhor the idea of Black majority rule at this stage as much as I abhor the idea of White majority rule. I believe that this is a party without any hope of really substantial support. The support that they are getting is only from certain selected areas and some newsmen whose real belief is that there should be Black majority rule at this moment, regardless of the lack of experience that these people have in managing a thing as delicate as a democratic machine.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition now wants to make common cause with those very people. I think, therefore, that he owes the House an explanation. This House offers him the best platform on which to explain to his people why, under the circumstances which he himself sketched, he is prepared not only to serve on the committee but also to establish a new party with those people.

With his motion of no confidence, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition created the impression that the NP did not really have a message or a viewpoint. Last year the head of the Scottish Presbyterian Church, Prof. Tom Torrance, visited South Africa. He conversed with many of us and, inter alia he also spoke to me. He is a person of great integrity and he spent quite some time here because he wanted to ascertain for himself what was happening here. He is not in agreement with the Government. On the contrary. As one can expect, he is very critical of the Government. But what does he say about the joint Opposition?—

Certainly the White Opposition in South Africa seemed to me really to be empty of anything very positive or creative. I was deeply disappointed by their whole outlook. Whilst they are desperately opposed to apartheid, they really have nothing of significance that is genuinely creative or positive to offer for the future.

That is my difficulty with the entire motion, a motion which is teeming with attacks on the Government and its policy. The hon. members’ speeches were full of them but absolutely nothing positive has emerged as an alternative. One can view the motion which was submitted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against the backdrop of the example which the hon. member for Yeoville used, the example of the bus. It was a good example. The hon. member for Yeoville said he did not like the way in which I was driving the bus and that the bus had to be brought to a halt. All the passengers had to get off and board another bus. In that connection a few questions arise. Before we board the other bus—heaven knows, I am very sensitive about this—I want to know who its driver will be. The hon. member for Yeoville failed to tell me who the driver would be. What I do know is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sea Point are holding themselves in readiness with their white coats and driver’s licences. However, I do not know whether the passengers want them. I also know that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is standing next to the bus with a learner’s licence to drive heavy-duty vehicles, but I do not know whether the passengers will allow him to drive the bus. I think that the hon. member ought to tell us this bus story again on another occasion and then tell us who the driver will be. Not only do I want to know who the driver of that new bus is; I also want to know who the ticket examiner, the “clippy” on that bus is going to be. That is also very important because he must, among other things, make sure that there are no “hijackers” on the bus. He must, for example, make sure that the hon. member for Yeoville does not have a “catty” on him when he boards the bus. In addition I at least want to know what the route, the destination, of that bus is. We did not hear that in this debate. But even apart from that, supposing we board the bus, supposing we iron out all these problems, then we are still faced with the greatest difficulty of all—and I think that the hon. member for Yeoville is very mindful of this—and that is that we will have in the bus the worst back-seat driver in the world, namely the hon. member for Houghton. She is not going to keep quiet while someone else is driving the bus.

In spite of all these things which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. Leader of the Opposition have said about their party and about the Progressive Reform Party, the hon. Leader of the Opposition enters this debate and utters these words—

Present party divisions must be broken down and moderate opinion of all parties must be mobilized to consult with, negotiate with, and seek agreement with, moderate Black and Brown opinion, while it still exists.

This was also the theme of the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point— “moderate and centrist”. We know each other as we have been sitting here over the years. Is the hon. member for Durban Point prepared to declare here in all sincerity that the 12 members of the Progressive Reform Party are either “moderate” or “centrists”?

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

I was not talking about parties.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I am talking about individuals now because the hon. member said he was talking about individuals. They are 12 people. Is the hon. member prepared to say that those 12 people are “moderate” and “centrists”?

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

There are some.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

In other words, as I understand the hon. member for Durban Point, some are but others are not. Do I understand him correctly?

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Just as there are differences in your party.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It so happens that we are not dealing with my party now. In any case there are no differences within my party. But I am completely satisfied with the answer given by the hon. member for Durban Point. If they felt so anxious in 1975, how must they feel in that connection now? I should like to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Your people, the dyed-in-the-wool UP supporters and the other UP supporters, do not want to join up with the Progs, the Reformists, the leftists and the liberalists; they do not want to integrate with them. They are, as I have come to know them over the years, people who have strongly opposed me and my party and have stood loyally by the Leader of the Opposition and his party through all the crises in which the UP found itself. They did not plot with others; they were not back-stabbers or ambitious position seekers. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s people want to know from him is why he punishes people who are loyal to him and the UP. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as a politician, must give them an answer to that question. Why is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition punishing them when they have never adopted any other standpoint than the one he taught them and endorse nothing but what he told them to endorse? It is such a Leader of the Opposition who introduces a motion of no confidence in me and in the Government, and then attacks me personally by saying—

We have a Prime Minister who is either too weak or too verkramp.

Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has permitted himself to become personal, I must tell him that he is a dismal failure. The confusion which has arisen today in the ranks of the Opposition is due to his lack of leadership, to the fact that he cannot take up a standpoint, that he has no insight or political acumen. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has lost five consecutive elections. In no other country where the two-party system is in operation would such an opposition leader have continued to function. However, that is not all that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done. I am considering him from the point of view of an objective politician and I am looking at his lack of insight in his actions. How one can exchange Marais Steyn for Harry Schwarz I do not know. How one can exchange Streicher for Basson, Hickman for Eglin and Wiley for Suzman, politics has yet to teach me. [Interjections.] Therefore, in so far as the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a political motion, there is absolutely nothing positive in it. I shall reply in full to the facts and the arguments which he has put forward here.

But before I come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, I must furnish replies to certain hon. members who participated in the debate. Naturally, I cannot reply to everyone. In the first place, I should like to furnish the hon. member for Sea Point with a reply.

†The hon. member for Sea Point made the following statement—

I say we should stop beating around the bush and we should give the Coloured people full citizenship with representation in this House. This is the least that can be done in order to try to remove the conflict situation between us and them.

I then asked him the following—

On what basis should they be given representation in the House?

The hon. member then said—

The hon. the Prime Minister must accept the principle.

I then asked him—

On what basis?

The hon. member then asked—

Will the hon. Prime Minister accept the principle of full citizenship for them? Then we can have them on an equal basis with Whites in this House.

The hon. member knows full well that he did not answer my question and he fully realized what the implication of my question was. It is not only a question of bringing the Coloureds back to this House. Surely he knows. I want to know whether he wants to bring them back on the common roll or whether he wants to bring them back on a separate roll.

Mr. C. W. EGLIN:

Are you prepared to bring them back to this House?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

My reply to the hon. member’s question is “No”, but I shall deal with that later. Having answered the hon. member, he must tell us whether he is going to bring them back on a separate roll or on the ordinary roll. Secondly, he must tell us whether he is going to bring them back with a qualified franchise or whether he is going to bring them back on the same basis on which the Whites are represented in this House, without any qualification at all. The hon. member is not a babe in the woods in politics. He knows that these are burning questions in the political life of South Africa and whereas I put the questions to him, the point is: Why did he not reply, knowing what the implication was? I want to go further, and I trust that the hon. member will give us replies to these questions. Not only the hon. member for Sea Point, but also other members, in this debate as well as in other debates, keep harping on what it Pik Botha said at the United Nations. I wonder how many of the hon. members who so glibly speak about what Pik Botha said at the United Nations have ever read the speech. Therefore, for the record, I think I must quote what Pik Botha said. Before doing so— because naturally I cannot quote the whole speech—I must say that what Pik Botha did was to give the history of matters in South Africa first. He put to the United Nations the foundations on which the policy of the NP, the Government of South Africa, rested. He then went on to say—

But that discrimination must not be equated with racialism. If we have that discrimination it is not because the Whites in South Africa have any herrenvolk complex. We are not better than any Black people. We are not cleverer than they are. What we can achieve, so can they. Those laws and practices are part of the historical evolution of our country. They were introduced to avoid friction and to promote and protect the interests and development of every group, not only those of the Whites. But I want to state here today very clearly and categorically: My Government does not condone discrimination purely on the grounds of race or colour.

That is the Government’s point of view, Sir.

Mr. C. W. EGLIN:

Will you read the illustration he gave about sport and apartheid?

Mr. G. B. D. McINTOSH:

Read the next sentence.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I am going to read everything to you. I am not like you, who dodge questions. He went on—

Discrimination based solely on the colour of a man’s skin cannot be defended and we shall do everything in our power to move away from discrimination based on race or colour. May I refer you to just one example, the field of sport? To use the words of my Minister of Sport a few days ago, he said that if by apartheid in sport is meant discrimination on grounds of colour or race, then apartheid is disappearing and will disappear from sport in South Africa. I would mislead members if I implied that this would happen overnight. There are schools of thought, traditions and practices which cannot be changed overnight, but we are moving in that direction. We shall continue to do so.

*That was what Pik Botha said. There is nothing in that speech which I cannot endorse and which I do not in fact endorse. What hon. members do, however, is to produce their own version of what our policy is. Then they give their own definition of what discrimination is, and on the basis of that they attack us. I shall tell the hon. member what discrimination used to be in the past. In the past, when hon. members on the other side were in power, when they refused to accept responsibility as a State for Bantu education, when they subsidized church denominations to provide education for Black people, that was discrimination. That discrimination continued until the middle fifties, when this Government changed it. [Interjections.] Now the hon. members must not be touchy, least of all the hon. member for Griqualand East. It was discrimination when the hon. members opposite, when they were in power, handled the education of Indians in the way they did at that time. That also continued under this Government, but we subsequently changed it. I shall come back to this question of discrimination at a later stage. I just wanted to make it quite clear what Pik Botha said in that connection and what he did not say.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked me whether I was going to bring the Coloured people back to this Parliament, and I told him that I had no such intention. However, what I also found very interesting was that many hon. members spoke on this matter, including the members from Natal. They had a lot to say about the Coloured people, but I did not hear a single one of them speak about the Indians. I may not have heard it, but it struck me that they did not do so. That hon. member asks me whether I wanted to bring the Coloured people back, and I say “no”. If he asks me then what dispensation this party holds out for the Coloured people, then I say to him in broad outline—and naturally I cannot go into the matter in detail—that I stand by the Cabinet Council I have instituted, a council which has already held two meetings, which will meet again in March and which has done excellent work even during the short period it has been in existence, a council on which Coloured people and Indians have the right to make their views known at the highest level and to express their opinions on policies, on all sorts of things which may affect them.

Mr. C. W. EGLIN:

Are you going to give it statutory authority or is it merely going to continue at the mercy of the hon. the Prime Minister?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

This is a reasonable question which the hon. member is asking, but it so happens that even this parliamentary Cabinet has no statutory power at all. One does not find the word “Cabinet” in any constitution. It is a custom which has developed, and this custom of a Cabinet Council will also develop now. I have already told those hon. members that if it is necessary, if it appears that it is necessary, I shall not have the least objection to giving it statutory authority. That Cabinet Council is doing a very good job. For both the Coloured people and the Indians I foresee a Parliament with a Cabinet entrusted with full responsibility, just as these Ministers are responsible to this Parliament. It will be developed in that direction. I have already appointed several Ministers to the various councils which are to implement the policy for Coloured people and for Indians, and this will be done to an increasing extent and continuously.

Mr. C. W. EGLIN:

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

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, but the hon. member must not abuse the opportunity.

Mr. C. W. EGLIN:

Will the Coloured Parliament which is going to have this authority act under this sovereign Parliament or will it have its own sovereignty?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

But we have discussed this matter in the past. Surely one cannot have two sovereign independent Parliaments in the same State. All this machinery is there precisely in order to free us from that dilemma, after all. The hon. member must not try to be clever now. As far back as 1968, when he had not even returned to this Parliament, I pointed out to him that this was the position. Not only did we devise that system; we also promised to go into the recommendations of the Theron Commission in connection with the Westminster system. The Cabinet has appointed a Cabinet Committee, and that Cabinet Committee has made excellent progress with its work. It has consulted experts and will continue to do so, and when it has concluded its task, it will report to the Cabinet and then the Cabinet will decide on its course of action in the light of that report.

We are not looking only at the political dispensation of the Coloured people and the Indians, but for the sake of the record, because the attention of the whole world is focused on it, we are looking also at the social position of the Coloured people and of the Indians, and, in so far as it is relevant, at that of the Black people as well.

I was surprised recently to see how many people abroad are under the impression, as a result of hostile propaganda emanating from South Africa, that it is a crime for a Coloured person to visit a White person at his home or for a White person to go to the home of a Coloured person, while there has never been any law prohibiting this under any Government in South Africa. Our problem is that this propaganda is made and that some members of the House of Assembly—I shall quote an example in this connection today—lend their co-operation to this propaganda against South Africa.

We have created facilities for Coloured people and Indians over the years, facilities which never existed before, but it is our policy, a policy which we all endorse, that if the State creates facilities for one population group and there is a need for them to be shared by other population groups as well, those facilities may be shared by all population groups. This is the policy of the Government. Depending on the area in which it is situated, this happens either by means of an open permit or by means of an ad hoc permit which is issued at a certain point in time for the sake of order. As far as private facilities are concerned, we have been urged, especially by the PRP, which wants compulsory integration, to force certain bodies to apply integration. I want to make it quite clear that it is the policy of this side of the House never to do this under any circumstances, now or in the future.

As far as the question of accommodation is concerned, I want to say that by means of our hotel and restaurant legislation we have for the most part solved that problem as far as the travelling Coloured public and other members of the Coloured community are concerned. Hon. members are aware of this. We recognize that there is a need for ordinary restaurants in the cities. The Government is giving attention to this, and I want to express the hope that we shall very soon be able to provide the necessary facilities for Coloured people, Indians and others in all urban areas, so that there should be no more problems in that connection either. It is true that as far as the travelling public is concerned, there used to be problems. We have given attention to them and many of those problems have already been solved, with this difference that we are not going to force anyone.

As far as the sport policy is concerned, we have made competition on all levels possible in South Africa itself. We have also made it possible for everyone to compete abroad. We have however, said—I do not think that anyone would argue with me about this—that it is our policy that everyone should belong to his own club. This is the way it should be.

As far as improved conditions of employment are concerned, surely everyone knows that there have been improvements and upgrading in recent times. Hon. members also know that in some cases one is faced with trade unions which stubbornly refuse to make certain concessions. I have never heard any responsible member in this House plead that the trade unions should be forced in that connection. The Government is most certainly not prepared to do so. Nothing prevents the hon. member from going to any Coloured church or Indian mosque if they will allow him to do so.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

And the churches—and on the matter of church schools?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I find it interesting that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should raise the question of the schools, for he will remember that I argued with him before when he adopted the attitude that the schools should not be interfered with. By this time, however, he has come to the point where he does want to interfere with the schools. He has come to the point where he is prepared to swallow the PRP’s standpoint that even our Government schools should be integrated.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Where did he say that?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I say that he is prepared to swallow that standpoint. Hon. members know quite well what our standpoint in that connection is. In any event, there was a statement in this connection a day or two ago. It is not necessary for me to repeat it. What I find interesting, however, is this: What was the attack made by the hon. members and especially by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on this Government in the past? It was an attack on the so-called petty apartheid. I find it striking that for the past nine months or so, I have never heard the words “petty apartheid”, for they have gone out of vogue. Now the attack is no longer aimed at petty apartheid; now the attack is aimed at the foundations of segregation in South Africa. It is no longer concerned with freedom of movement, for they realize that all these things are there. It is no longer concerned with accommodation and things of that nature, for the NP has changed these—as it has changed all other things for the better—and has provided for those needs. The pressure on South Africa today is to accept “one man, one vote”, and I shall refer to this again in the course of my speech. The attacks and the demands made on South Africa do not urge us to do this or that, but to allow “one man, one vote” throughout the whole of South Africa. As I have said, I shall come back to this.

†I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member made her usual speech, but what interested me most was that she did not say a word about the new dispensation. As a matter of fact, she gave me the impression that she was extremely bored with it all.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I am rather bored now.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, and I do not blame you. I do not blame you for one second. What I want to talk to the hon. member about is that I have already spoken about the attitudes of certain hon. members when they go overseas. It so happened that the hon. member for Houghton went to America and that she addressed a certain meeting there where she was introduced by a man by the name of Llewellyn, and this is how he introduced her. Now I know full well that she is not responsible …

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

He was a public relations man.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, I know full well that she is not responsible for the words that the person who introduced her used, but the words were of such a nature that I expected reaction from her, as a good South Africa. Sir, not only as far as South Africa is concerned, but in all fairness to other members of the Opposition she should have reacted to what this particular speaker said. This is how he introduced her—

At this point I would like to introduce the next speaker, Mrs. Helen Suzman. Mrs. Suzman has been here three weeks. She is the recipient of an honorary LL.D. degree at Harvard University, …

and I sincerely congratulate her.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

This is the first time that you have congratulated me on anything.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I quote further—

For many years she was the only outspoken opponent of the apartheid and other policies which are really abhorrent to any decent thinking human being.
Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

He meant in Parliament.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The only outspoken opponent in this Parliament? In other words, when the other members of the Opposition spoke out against apartheid, it meant nothing.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

No, but they often did not.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to co-operate with her?

†He went on to say—

There is no question in my mind that she will be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I bring Mrs. Suzman to you this evening.

[Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, what really surprises me is that an hon. member of this House of Assembly should be introduced in these terms and should not react when the policy of South Africa is referred to in this way. I shall leave the hon. member to her conscience in that connection.

*HON. MEMBERS:

She does not have a conscience!

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I now want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. To say the least of it, it was a very curious speech. What struck me most was the fact that the hon. member twice—actually more than twice—spoke of his frustrations. He said—

Mr. Speaker, the whole problem of the Opposition voter is his frustration. He knows that, in fact, the Government is doing wrong, but he can do nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, that applies to Oppositions all over the world. The Tories do not want the Labourites in Britain to nationalize industry, but there is nothing they can do about it. The NP too was in Opposition in South Africa at al time, and there was nothing we could do about it except work to become the Government. Sir, what is the function of an Opposition? Apparently the hon. member for Yeoville does not realize it. The function of an Opposition is, firstly, to oppose and to criticize, and secondly, to try to become the Government. One only becomes frustrated when one knows that one can never become the Government because one follows policies which are not acceptable to the electorate. [Interjections.] That is the only earthly reason. We were not frustrated when we were in the Opposition because we were winning by-elections and we knew the day would come when we would take over.

Mr. H. H. SCHWARZ:

You joined non-parliamentary organizations, something we have never done! [Interjections.]

*The PRIME MINISTER:

That, of course, is quite right, Sir. But it was not out of frustration. I was a member of the Opposition Party. I sat in this gallery in the days when the NP was the Opposition, and they were not frustrated. In facts they were a happy bunch of fighters, because they had a cause to fight for. [Interjections.] They had a cause to fight for. One is frustrated only when one tries to sell people a pup, and they know it. [Interjections.]

*Before dealing with the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I first wish to address myself to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I wish to congratulate him— and I do so with the best possible intentions—on having almost got what he was looking for. I am not able to say whether he is still going to get it. I see a smile on the hon. member’s face. The hon. member is the only one who derives pleasure from the confusion prevailing at the moment.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I am not at all confused!

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made certain statements to which I must reply. The hon. member said (Hansard, col. 60)—

Not even the hon. the Prime Minister’s categorical assurance to them, in the 1974 election, that their final destiny will be in the hands of the White Legislative Assembly in Windhoek, has any relevance today.

Who told the hon. member that? Does the hon. member not realize that, when the various peoples met, they drew up a Declaration of Intent? Has the hon. member read that Declaration of Intent? Is the hon. member aware that the entire standpoint from which the Turnhalle conference proceeds, is one of consensus? What I said to them in 1974—as far as the Whites were concerned—i.e. that their future would be decided in the Legislative Assembly, is just as valid today as when I said it in 1974. Surely the hon. member knows that I told the various nations at that time already that I was not going to force anyone into a dispensation which he did not want to enter. He must enter it of his own free will and volition. On what ground is the hon. member now trying to scavenge by saying this to those people? The hon. member went further. He said (Hansard col. 58)—

As regards the true Opposition in South Africa, inside and outside Parliament, I do not doubt for a moment that it will achieve unity even during this session, not as a loose coalition of irreconcilable elements, but behind and around clear objectives.

If this is the case, I shall put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again: Why not state the objectives to us? Why do we get nothing but vague words, and why are the objectives not being spelt out to us?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Did you not listen to what I said?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It is precisely because I did listen to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I am saying these things to him. Precisely for that reason. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has all the time in the world after this to reply. I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Does he agree with this standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? He must tell us in his reply. Not only this House, but his people outside as well, want to know whether this is going to be the case; whether a united Opposition consisting of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party and the hon. member for Sea Point and his party will be established in this House before the end of the session. But then there is something I want the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to clarify. He said (Hansard, col. 58)—

If the Government refuses to do this, the new Opposition will simply act as the alternative Government.

The new Opposition, not this one. He continued—

It will call together all the various nations of our multi-national South Africa to create a new federal and confederal constitution for South Africa …

What does the hon. member mean by this, in the first place? In the second place, I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition: Is this—as I understand it—not in conflict with the resolution which he adopted at his own central congress in this regard? For is that not what the Progs wanted to do and what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—with good reason, in my humble opinion—rejected? Then they accuse us—in the words of that hon. member—of dictatorial conduct, while the hon. member has this to say (Hansard, col. 59)—

We shall take very little notice of criticism expressed against the initiative which has been taken by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in order to bring about a new political dispensation.

What kind of grand slam game is this? He went further and with reference—naturally he did so with an ulterior motive—to the Nazi regime and the Fascist regime, he brought South Africa into it and referred to South Africa’s unpopularity in the world.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I was referring to communism.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The hon. member said that those countries had been unpopular because “they were anti-communist because they were in favour of some form of totalitarian government, and for this reason they were not acceptable to the Western world.”

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

There were different reasons for the different countries.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

By insinuation he said that this was also the reason why South Africa was not acceptable. Surely, Sir, that is not true. The dictatorship states of Africa are as acceptable to the West as no other state can conceive of being. The dictatorship states of Africa and of the rest of the world are dictating to the Western World what its standpoints should be.

The hon. member, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, did referred to the Transkei. I wonder if the hon. members have ever taken the trouble to ask themselves what the basic reason for the non-recognition of the Transkei is. It is not true that it is not viable. Nor is it a true argument that they do not recognize it because they do not recognize the policy of apartheid. I shall tell you why the Transkei is not being recognized. I want to tell you, Sir, that this is not a fabrication on my part. One of the African leaders communicated this to me himself. They refuse to recognize the Transkei because if they do recognize it, bang goes their whole argument of “one man, one vote”. If they do that their entire attack on South Africa based on “one man, one vote” is no longer applicable. That is why they refuse to recognize the Transkei and that is why they refuse to recognize any future independent states.

In addition responsible leaders of the Western World have told me—and hon. members must take cognizance of this that they would recognize the Transkei if the African states recognized it. In other words, what is at issue here for the Western World is not whether it was right or wrong that the Transkei was established. It is a question of “if Africa recognizes it, we are also prepared to do so”.

The hon. member accused us of discrimination. I want the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in particular, as leader of the UP in Natal, to listen to this. Hon. members in the Opposition make speeches on discrimination, human dignity, citizenship for Indians and Coloureds, and all these things. However, I just wish to furnish an example of what kind of action is taken in Natal. In the “Sunday Times Extra”, a supplement of the Sunday Times of June last year, an erroneous report appeared. The Government has no intention whatsoever of doing so, but in that newspaper it was reported that the Government wanted to have Indians placed on the municipal voter’s rolls in Natal. The report had hardly appeared when the Executive Committee of Natal immediately took up a standpoint in that regard, without first making inquiries as to whether it was in fact the policy of the Government. I am quoting from a resolution which was addressed to me officially by them—

That a letter be addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister referring to certain reports in the “Sunday Times Extra” of 6 June, expressing the Executive Committee’s concern about the possibility of multi-racial local authorities being created.

[Interjections.]

Mr. R. M. CADMAN:

What is your difficulty with that?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

No, I have no difficulty with that; I want to ask hon. members why they attack the Government for not wanting to do these things.

Mr. R. M. CADMAN:

I never said anything about it.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked us and said (Hansard, col. 23)—

The first is that I believe that the Government still sees South Africa as a country of 4 million people. Drawing on the support of a built-in majority, it makes laws for 26 million people, while in the making of those laws the decisive factor is always the special outlook and interest of its own base of electoral support.

Surely that is not true. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is the policy of this Government, not only, ultimately, to give the Black people—to begin with them now—a full say and legislative power over themselves … Even at this stage which they have already reached we are already giving this to them to an ever increasing extent.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Does that apply to the urban Bantu as well?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I shall still come to the urban Bantu. [Interjections.] If one discusses this matter with the one hon. member, another jumps to his feet on some other point. For the sake of the hon. member for Griqualand East I shall, however, give my attention to this matter at once. As far as the urban Bantu are concerned, it remains the policy of the Government that the urban Bantu will exercise their political rights, as far as parliamentary institutions are concerned, in the homelands, and in the homelands only. I do not know why we are now being attacked because we do not want to change our policy. I find it strange that hon. members on that side of the House do not want to accept municipal franchise for Indians, but want parliamentary franchise for the Black people. I do not know how one reconciles the two. If—as he did in his speech—the hon. member asks me: What about the Black people in the urban areas, I once again find it interesting that none of the hon. members were in the least concerned about the Black people in the rural areas. Nor are they concerned about the Black people in most urban areas, they are concerned only about those in a few urban areas. During the past few years the Government has taken a very good look at these and related matters. Some of the things to which I am going to refer here were already done the year before last, but the Government is given no credit for these things. When reference is nevertheless made to these things, it is said that the Government is doing these things now as a result of the riots which occurred. There was a problem concerning home-ownership. We discussed that problem with the Black leaders and I myself discussed the matter with them several times. The upshot was that Blacks are able to acquire home-ownership in all urban areas—not only in one particular area. They may acquire it to allow it to be inherited, they may acquire it in order to sell it, in order to mortgage it and in order …

Mr. R. M. CADMAN:

Is it leasehold?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It is not freehold, if that is what you want to know. That is in conflict with the policy of the NP, and over the years we have stated it in this way to the Opposition. The hon. member, as a jurist, will know that in practice it makes little difference whether this is or is not the case.

Mr. R. M. CADMAN:

Does it apply in Cape Town?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I cannot tell the hon. member whether it exists here or not, but I am telling him that the general principle is that these people are in fact able to acquire home-ownership, for that is the policy of the Government. Not only does this apply to ownership of their dwellings, but also to ownership of their shops and their business premises. I am also aware that there were problems in respect of the type of goods which these people were able to sell in the past. Once again we decided last year already, as a result of consultations which we had with the Black people, that they would be allowed to sell anything and that they would also be allowed to build supermarkets. There was also the problem that one person was not allowed to own more than one business undertaking, but that regulation, too, has already been rescinded.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Who made those regulations?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Those regulations have been in existence from the time when that hon. member was in power. Therefore they are old regulations and not new ones which we have just made. But there was the problem of the person in the urban area who was unable to obtain a licence if he had a licence in the homeland. That was also done away with. There were the legitimate grievances of the Blacks who were unable to obtain their licences in the same way as any White or Coloured shop owner obtained his licence. We gave them a hearing and we rectified this matter for them as well so that there are no longer any problems. There was a problem on their part in regard to partnerships. We rectified the partnership issue for them so that they are in fact able, now, to form partnerships.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Why were there problems?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

As a result of historic reasons and I now want to tell the hon. member … [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member knows that some of these measures were already current in their time, when they were still governing South Africa. They come out of the old Bantu (Urban Areas) Act, a law which was in force in their day. However, we are reconsidering all these matters, and those things which cause irritation will be eliminated by the Government.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the Government has now removed the requirement that a shopkeeper must take out a citizenship certificate before he can renew his licence?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, as far as my information goes, such a certificate has never been required. However, the hon. member has strange informants in the Black world. I have seen this recently in the newspapers as well. Another grievance among the Blacks is local government, and legislation will still be brought before this House during the present session—and this is not as a result of the riots which are now taking place, but as a result of discussions which lasted a very long time—to give, the Blacks enhanced local government, their own self-government, in the urban areas. That self-government, will receive its evolutionary development and eventually, as I see it, one will have municipal government with certain differences as one has municipal government in any White urban area.

*An HON. MEMBER:

That is not sufficient.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It is not; I concede that. These people have every right to help themselves, by these means, in the local sphere. There is the question of freedom of movement, on which the hon. member attacked me. Surely we established the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards precisely because, under the old dispensation—and this was also the case during the time of the UP régime—a Black person was not able to travel from Brakpan to Springs. Now he is able to do so because these areas fall within the jurisdiction of the same Bantu Affairs Administration Board. We have created far larger areas for them, and we have made it easier for a Bantu person to travel from the East Rand to the West Rand when it is a bona fide case and he is required to go there. In other words, we have done all these things.

In spite of what we have been saying all these years, hon. members still attack us on influx control, influx control which is not only a problem in South Africa, but is a problem throughout the whole of Southern Africa. In this way influx control creates problems for Nairobi and is a source of perplexity for Lusaka. The Blacks in South Africa themselves are asking for the application of influx control. They differ with us only in regard to the methods. Mr. Speaker, I just wish to remind you in passing that we told the Blacks three years ago that they should come forward with alternative methods if they were not satisfied with our methods. We are still waiting for those alternative methods.

Why then attack us in that connection? However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further and said (Hansard, col. 20)

The international dangers we face are not only due to Western irresolution in the face of Russian imperialism. They arise acutely from our domestic policies as well.

†I do not think that is fair, coming as it does from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand such an accusation coming from the PRP, but I can hardly accept it when it comes from the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition states that the Government is responsible for the ill-will, enmity and animosity that exist in the outside world. That there are this ill-will, enmity and animosity I do not deny for one moment. I said in my New Year’s message that in many instances we were an embarrassment to members of the Free World. That is so. Where does that enmity stem from? What is its root cause? What is the fountainhead of it all? Hon. members know that it is not apartheid, because it was already in existence when Gen. Smuts was leading this country. It was there when Gen. Smuts had to come and cry in this Parliament at the reception he had received at the United Nations and elsewhere. It was there when Gen. Smuts stood in this very place where I am standing now and told Parliament that we had no friends in this world and must arm ourselves against the whole world, and if hon. members do not want to believe me, let them go and ask Senator Bill Horak all about it. He can give them a political lesson in this regard. [Interjections.] I can give hon. members the reference if they do not want to believe it. I have already cited it in the past. Hon. members will remember that it was the late Mr. F. C. Erasmus who asked him against whom we must arm ourselves, to which he replied that we should arm ourselves against the whole world, because we have no friends and cannot rely on the Western world. That was long before so-called apartheid was introduced in this country. As I have asked, what is the fountainhead of it all? It stems from the Afro-Asian majority bloc in the United Nations and it is shared, unfortunately, by the Western world, but fortunately by not all of the Black States. This position will remain as long as the militants in the OAU adopt this attitude towards South Africa. However, we can change it in the course of this session, but the question is: Are we prepared to pay the price? Having discussed these matters with many leaders and with many people in high places, I want to tell hon. members what African States want in this regard before they will accept us. Hon. members must then tell me whether they are prepared to pay that price. The Government of South Africa and I myself were told in no uncertain terms that the first thing we must do is to close our borders with Rhodesia and align ourselves with the boycott against that country. That was the attitude adopted by Zambia, Tanzania and other militant countries in Africa.

But they go further. They want me to tell the Smith Government that they must settle on any terms Nkomo and Mugabe might submit to them, and that they must submit to the terms of the front-line Presidents. That is in effect what they want us to do. Are we prepared to pay that price? I, as head of this Government, am certainly not prepared to pay that price. I am sure that hon. members opposite are not prepared to pay that price either. However, let us make no mistake about it: If we are not prepared to pay that price, this attitude against South Africa will continue.

Secondly, they tell us, and they do so in no uncertain terms, that we must hold a conference with Swapo under the auspices of the UNO and that we must hand over South West Africa to Sam Nujoma. That is what the militant Blacks and the OAU want from us. It is true that there are Western countries, including Britain, who say that Nujoma is not the only heir to South West Africa, but that there are others too. However, the official attitude of the OAU and of the UNO is that we must call a conference under the chairmanship of the UNO and that the only participants at that conference must be South Africa and Swapo under the leadership of Sam Nujoma, and that we must meekly hand over South West Africa to them. Are we prepared to pay that price? If we are not prepared to pay that price, they will keep up this enmity against South Africa. They will call together the UNO in March this year and they will pass certain resolutions against South Africa. Hon. members will hear about it later.

There is another thing they want us to do. They do not only want us to scrap separate development, they not only want us, in the terms of the hon. members opposite, to abandon apartheid; they want far more than that, and they have said so to us. We need not guess about it. They want us to introduce Black majority rule in South Africa—nothing more and nothing less. The Blacks in South Africa must be liberated and must be put in charge of what is now the Republic of South Africa. That is what they want us to do. Are hon. members prepared to pay that price? If that is the position, why come and tell us in this House that it is the policies of this Government that are the cause of all this enmity and animosity that exist in the outside world towards South Africa?

I have given the example of Transkei, but I want to give a further example of which hon. members are all very well aware. At the UNO Lesotho made the blunt accusation against South Africa that a certain three border-posts were closed. Those border-posts were not closed for one second. Western Governments know that that was the position. They have representatives in Lesotho, people who, apart from what they knew, could have made certain of the facts if they had wanted to, but they meekly accepted the word of Lesotho that the border-posts were closed and adopted a resolution against South Africa. If in the case of a blatant lie such as that, resolutions are adopted against South Africa, what ghost of a chance do we have in respect of any other matter? Yet hon. members on the other side say it is this Government’s fault that it is so.

In spite of what has happened and in spite of the debates we have had in the past, the hon. member again raised the issue of Transkeian citizenship. I do not wish to discuss the whole matter with him again, but for the purposes of the record I want to give him the reply which Chief George Matanzima, the Minister of Justice of Transkei, gave the other day. This is the reply—

Answering a question about Transkeian citizenship being imposed on Xhosa’s who did not want it, Chief Matanzima said: “I do not think any Bantu person—although I do not like the word—has even been a South African citizen. I do not see how they can say that they have been deprived of South African citizenship. I have never been a citizen of any country until now. I am a citizen of Transkei.”

It is not necessary for me to give any further

Mr. H. H. SCHWARZ:

It is a terrible indictment against you.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Whether it is an indictment or not, that is his reply and I rest with that reply. [Interjections.]

Then, Sir, the hon. member made the following accusation against us. He said (Hansard, col. 24)—

I now come to the seventh answer, i.e. that co-operation, in these and many other matters, can only be expected from those who have some real participation in decision-making. All reasonable people accept that it is the managers and not the office messengers who take the decisions. Consequently the Government cannot fail to understand that one cannot maintain a caste system—in the civil service, for example—whereby only one population group perpetually provides the managers, while the other provides only the messengers.

What sort of reading will this make in the outside world when the Leader of the Opposition says in this Parliament that as far as Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are concerned, they can only become messengers in South Africa, and that they cannot become managers? He knows that that is not true. Knowing that that is not true, why does he make this statement? Why does he besmirch South Africa in this regard, knowing that it will be used against South Africa, knowing that it is not only untrue, but that day by day, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are put in these positions, that there are thousands, ten of thousands, of them who do in fact occupy such positions already, and that they more and more will occupy these positions as they become available? But apparently on the eve of this new dispensation any stick is good enough to beat the Government with.

Finally, the hon. member had this to say (Hansard, Unrevised)—

But as the Government has not got a defined policy for the Coloured people, and has never had a defined policy for the Coloured people, hon. members may well wonder what particular criterion the recommendations had to fit. In this case there could clearly be only one, namely skin colour, pure and simple. There is no homeland, no nationhood, no separate aspiration, no tribal or language identity that fits the framework of Government policy for the other race groups. There is only skin pigment and if that “final White Paper” is going to be final, it had better be unequivocal.

What does the hon. member mean by that? I want him to tell me whether that is the policy of his party and of the new party which will be formed. Is it his policy that Coloureds will come back to this Parliament on the common roll, on the same basis as Whites are elected at the moment? If he is not prepared to say that, then he cannot make this accusation against this Government. If it is only a question of pigment, the hon. member must have the courage of his convictions to tell us today that it is the policy of his party to bring the Coloureds back to his Parliament on the common roll without any qualification whatsoever, but on an adult franchise basis.

An HON. MEMBER:

Nonsense!

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It is not nonsense! Why make this accusation if you are not prepared to do that? If words have any meaning, then that is what the hon. member wants us to do in this regard.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Have you never heard of a federal system for Parliament?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I am prepared to argue that. The hon. member asks whether I have never heard of a federal basis for Parliament. Does the hon. member want to tell me that he wants to go to all the trouble to create a separate Parliament for the Coloureds just for pigment’s sake? If that is not what he is doing, then I cannot understand why he attacks the Government on this basis.

*Mr. Speaker, I should like, on this occasion, to deal with the question of Rhodesia—in fact, I have prepared myself to do so. When this is discussed—because the matter has a long history—the issue has to be dealt with in full. Therefore I should appreciate it if hon. members would afford me the opportunity of discussing this matter— although it will take up extra time—because it will be of the utmost importance to each of us in the future. I have already said that the demand is being made that we should close our borders and that we should participate in boycotts, but that we cannot comply with that demand because it is contrary to the policy of this Government and, I take it, also to the policy of hon. members on the other side of the House.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

By whom has this demand been made?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, such a demand has been made on us repeatedly in recent times. It is made by speakers in the UNO and it has just been made again in certain Senate circles in the USA. It has been urged, amongst other things, that South Africa should bring pressure to bear on the Smith Government. For very good reasons I do not want to mention any names now, but this demand is in fact being made on South Africa. It is known—Mr. Ian Smith has said so himself—that his policy is one of majority government. In order to set the record straight, he said on 24 May 1976 what his policy was. This question was put to him: “Do you rule out any negotiations leading to an eventual transfer of power to the Blacks under the principle of majority control?” To this he replied—

I think our approach to the question of majority rule is clear and consistent. Majority rule remains the ultimate goal of our Constitution. This has been Rhodesia’s constant position since 1923, when we received the right to govern ourselves— self-government—under our first Constitution. But is must be responsible majority rule as opposed to irresponsible majority rule. Our aim is the best possible government irrespective of colour, and we believe in the ideal of change being based on orderly evolutionary progress.

Therefore, the question of majority rule is not at issue in Rhodesia. This has been said by its own leader to be the policy of the Rhodesian Government. Over the years there have been negotiations with various governments in Britain, negotiations which have failed. There have been negotiations with various Black leaders in Rhodesia, negotiations which have also failed, and in April last year the Americans first showed an interest—a close interest—in African Affairs, and the Secretary of State of the USA visited certain African States. During his Press conference on 6 September 1976 at Zurich, the American Secretary of State outlined the position as follows—and this is of basic importance for evaluating the position in future—

Now, to the talks that have been taking place here in the last two days. The purpose of these talks has not been to develop a joint American-South African programme. The evolution of these talks, and what has brought us to this point, is as follows: On my visit to Africa in April, all African leaders urged a solution to the problems of Southern Africa through quiet discussions with the Prime Minister of South, that for many of these problems, the policies of his Government held the key if a peaceful solution was to be achieved. Based on these views we initiated contact with the Government of South Africa. Prior to my meeting with me Prime Minister in Germany in June, we solicited the views of the Black African Governments as to the subjects to be discussed and as to the conditions under which they believe a peaceful solution to the problems of Southern Africa was achievable. We presented their considerations to the South African Prime Minister in June.

†That was in Bonn. I read further—

Those discussions led to a certain amount of progress. After those discussions the United States sent two missions to the Black African States. The United Kingdom, whose role is crucial in all these actions, who has a historic responsibility for Rhodesia and to whose co-operation and wisdom in this matter I should like to pay tribute, also sent two missions to Africa. On the basis of these two American and two British missions, a new set of considerations was developed which formed the basis for my discussions with the South African Prime Minister over the last two days. Those discussions have been fruitful. I believe that progress towards the objectives which have been jointly developed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the States of Black Africa have been made.

I want hon. members to listen carefully to his statement in this regard and to note that, in fact, it was jointly developed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the States of Black Africa. The statement reads further—

It is our view that a basis for further negotiations exists though work still remains to be done. In assessing the prospects, you have to keep in mind that we are dealing with a negotiation of extraordinary complexity in terms of the issues involved and in terms of the parties involved. In attempting mediation, there is first of all the United States and the United Kingdom. We have worked together in close harmony and with no significant differences.

These words are very, very important in view of what happened later. Before going to Bonn, I had a discussion with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. Amongst others, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia requested me to do everything in my power to get him an interview with Dr. Kissinger so that he personally could put Rhodesia’s case to the Secretary of State of the United States. I put these requests, again when we met in Zürich and, for the purposes of the record, it is interesting to note that in Zürich I received the following telegram from the Prime Minister of Rhodesia—

Godspeed and best wishes in your forthcoming talks in Zürich. I am conscious of the heavy responsibilities you bear at a time when severe pressures are being exerted on the Whites of Southern Africa. I hope that you will be able to convince Dr. Kissinger that in regard to the Rhodesian situation, early and direct participation by my Government in his discussions is essential if a peaceful solution is to be found.

In spite of that there are people who say that it was the South African Prime Minister who dragged Mr. Smith in to see Dr. Kissinger, who forced Mr. Smith into these talks.

And then it so happened that Dr. Kissinger came to Pretoria and granted Mr. Smith’s request again on my intervention. He granted his request to see him and they had a discussion which lasted a whole morning. Later that afternoon a document was given to Mr. Smith and it was understood, as between the parties, that Mr. Smith would go back and put the various principles first of all to his Cabinet and secondly to his caucus, and that if his Cabinet and his caucus agreed with him, he would make a certain pronouncement on Friday, 24, September. But when the document was handed to him in Pretoria, there were three things which had not been cleared up at that stage, when he left that Sunday. Firstly, there was the question of a White chairman, secondly, there was the question of White Ministers of Defence and Law and Order, and thirdly there was the question of a two-thirds majority in the Ministerial Council. Those things were not cleared up; they were still hanging in the air when he left. Subsequently a message was sent to Mr. Smith, through South Africa, that he could include these matters in his speech as a basis for settlement discussions.

Mr. C. W. EGLIN:

At what stage was that message given to Mr. Smith?

The PRIME MINISTER:

That message was given before Mr. Smith spoke on that Friday. The five points, as they then stood after this message was received, were the following—

  1. 1. Rhodesia agrees to majority rule within two years.
  2. 2. Representatives of the Rhodesian authorities will meet immediately at a mutually-agreed place with African leaders to organize an interim Government to function until majority rule is implemented.
  3. 3. The interim Government should consist of a Council of State, half of whose members should be African and half should be European, with a European chairman without a special vote.

This was put in not in Pretoria, but subsequently, before that Friday.

The European and African sides should nominate their representatives. Its functions should include (1) legislation; (2) general supervisory responsibilities; and (3) supervision of the process of drafting the Constitution. The interim Government should also have a Council of Ministers with a majority of Africans and an African First Minister, decisions of the Council of Ministers to be taken by a two-thirds majority.

That was put in later.

For the period of the interim Government, the Defence and Law and Order Ministers would be European. Its functions should include delegated legislative authority and executive responsibility.
  1. 4. The United Kingdom will enact enabling legislation for this process to majority rule. Upon enactment of that legislation, Rhodesia will also enact such legislation as may be necessary to the process.
  2. 5. Upon the establishment of the interim Government, sanctions will be lifted and all acts of war, including guerrilla warfare, will cease.

That was the understanding arrived at, and you will recall that Mr. Smith made his speech on that Friday. It was widely reported and widely distributed and brought to the attention of all Governments. Apart from that, on 28 September, four days after Mr. Smith spoke in Salisbury, Dr. Kissinger held a Press conference which was televised. He was asked this question on television by a Mr. Brokaw:

Mr. Secretary, you worked out the details of a two-year transition to Black majority rule in Rhodesia. Mr. Smith stated the conditions in a speech to Rhodesians last Friday. Now the Black Presidents who have been participating in these negotiations are very critical of at least an element of those conditions. What has happened? Secretary Kissinger: The basic proposals that were put forward were for majority rule in two years, a transitional Government to be established immediately, a constitutional conference to work out the constitution at the end of two years, and those points have been accepted.

Then follows this very remarkable statement—

Secondly it is not correct to say that Smith made these proposals. The proposals that Smith put forward were the result of discussions between the United States, Great Britain and the African Presidents prior to my meeting with Smith.

*If words have any meaning, it is not necessary for me to elaborate on what this means. Today an attempt is being made—and this is why I am discussing the matter—to discredit Dr. Kissinger in this regard. I am obliged to inform this House that Dr. Kissinger received me very correctly and very courteously at all times. We discussed all matters honestly and candidly and I want to make it very clear that if Dr. Kisinger says he had the co-operation of certain States, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his word. I am saying this because I consider him to be an honourable person, and in the negotations which I had with him he acted extremely honourably in all respects. If it should subsequently appear that accusations are being made against him as far as these matters are concerned, I want to state now that I reject those accusations.

I did not receive any instructions from Rhodesia to debate or argue their case here, but if stones are being thrown, those people who are doing so should first look to their own glass houses in this regard. Rhodesia is a democracy as far as the whites are concerned. Mr. Smith cannot adopt this standpoint today and another standpoint tomorrow, because he has a Cabinet, a caucus and a party to whom he is answerable. Nkomo, Mugabe and people like them can chop and change as much as they like, for they are not responsible to anyone. I find it a great pity that this position is not appreciated. That is why I was compelled to say in a calm, collected and very diplomatic manner that Mr. Smith should not be condemned out of hand. If one wishes to condemn him, one has to take these facts into consideration. Then one must first investigate the matter to find out what the immediate causes were and why certain agreements had been reached.

I want to make it very clear that I spent many hours, days and even months of my time in the past in an effort to be of assistance in the search for peace in Southern Africa. I want to say with assurance to this House and to the outside world that South Africa will continue to be of assistance in seeking peace, and that South Africa will give its assistance as frequently as may be necessary to try to achieve peace in Southern Africa. I shall go as far out of my way as I am able, and I shall not consider my own comfort for a single moment, but I am not prepared to anything dishonourable. Hon. members do not expect this of me either, and I am very grateful to know that I have the support of hon. members on the opposite side of this House in this regard. I am not prepared to exert pressure and I am saying this now in advance to hon. members that an increasing degree of pressure is being exerted on South Africa to exert pressure on others. I prefer to bear the consequences of rather than give way under that pressure, for it is wrong in principle to make use of that kind of power to force another person to something against his will. Above all it is wrong in view of the facts which I have given to hon. members in this House today.

As far as the Government is concerned, it will continue in future to expand and implement its policy of separate development. The Government will continue to consult with the leaders of each population group on all levels. The Government will continue to investigate measures which are alleged to be purely irritating, injurious and discriminating and, if so found, to eliminate them. The Government will continue to promote the human dignity, the happiness and prosperity of everyone in this country, regardless of race or colour. The Government will continue to maintain law and order under all circumstances. The Government will continue to protect the territory of South Africa. The Government will continue to preserve or to ensure the identity of those who value this. The Government will continue to seek peace here in Africa and in the outside world. The Government will continue to exort our people to be humble, but strong in faith.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells me that we are governing in such a way that professional people are fleeing from South Africa. It is true that there are always people who are going to run away. In future there will be people who will run away, but why does my hon. friend not examine the facts before levelling this accusation at me? The facts are, after all, as follows: Between January and November 1976 1 707 people in professional and allied occupations left the country, but 5 607 entered the country. There has always been this movement, therefore. [Interjections.] Yes, it was 5 607 people in professional and allied occupations.

I said in my New Year message that it was going to be a difficult year. If one thinks of Rhodesia, if one thinks of the new administration of the United States of America and what is being said there, if one thinks of the meetings of the Security Council which are imminent, everything indicates that it will be a difficult year. In this coming year demands will be made on us, demands to which we shall not be able to accede, as I have told hon. members. There have been such times in South Africa before, and other nations have also experienced such times. There will come a time when every man and woman in South Africa, whoever they may be, will have to decide for himself or herself where and how they stand with South Africa. As far as I am concerned, I have already decided. I have no doubt that other people have done the same.

Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, without any grounds, without any justification under the present circumstances, has moved a motion of no confidence in the Government, I move the following as an amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House directs the Government to continue with its policy of affording all its peoples, with due regard to the plural composition of the Republic’s population, full and equal opportunities consistent with human dignity to enable them to develop peacefully and to the full in the social, economic and political spheres without fear of loss of identity or of a voice in their own affairs”.
Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us in the House are indebted to the hon. the Prime Minister for what he has had to say about Rhodesia, and I think he can take it that on the question of boycotts we on this side of the House will give him our full support. Secondly, I think I must make it clear at once, in case I do not have time to deal with the matter later, that we cannot support the amendment put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister. That calls for a further development of policies which have been anathema to us through the years and which we cannot accept under any circumstances, no matter how they are dressed up with pleasant verbiage and things of that sort. Thirdly, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister for likening me to Job on the ash-heap because, if my knowledge of the Bible is correct, when Job finished, he was awarded twice what he had ever had before. Perhaps that may be my lot as well!

*Mr. G. B. D. McINTOSH:

Caught out!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. the Prime Minister has accused me of presenting no alternative to this House. I thought that I had stated very clearly that the new divisions in this House should be the mobilization of all moderate centrist opinion to consult, negotiate and seek agreement with moderate Black and Brown opinion while it still exists, and that the party divisions of the future should be between those who accept that change is necessary and will work to achieve it peacefully and those who do not want to accept that change is necessary and will have it forced upon them, perhaps by violence; between those who believe there can be an equitable and responsible sharing of power and responsibility within a federal or confederal framework, without one group dominating another, and those who do not; between those favouring the dismantling of inequitable statutory and administrative discrimination … [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Shut up you blokes!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

… on the grounds of colour and those too fearful and timid to tackle it; between those prepared to share the fruits of the free-enterprise system with all races, ready to afford equal economic opportunities to all, and those who, while condemning Black socialism, wish selfishly to keep those fruits to themselves; between those who believe all races must participate in decision-making at the national level and those who still believe in domination. Those proposals were made at the end of a speech in which I dealt with certain weaknesses in Government policy which to my mind have not been answered by the hon. the Prime Minister or his Ministers.

Mr. H. A. VAN HOOGSTRATEN:

His Ministers ran away from them.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I outlined seven reasons why I believe the Government has failed. The hon. the Prime Minister, I think, has dealt with two of them. No other Minister dealt with any of those reasons.

The PRIME MINISTER:

I dealt with them all.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I stated that the Government’s basic policies were born in the past and designed for an era that has vanished. I said that, although the Government knows that discrimination must go, it lacks the courage to do what it knows must be done. I think the hon. the Prime Minister admitted that. I said that the Government would not get loyalty to South Africa from people to whom it does not grant full citizenship. I dealt with many other of these considerations, but what did I get? I had a reply from the Government concerning my statement that the Government still sees South Africa as a nation of only 4 million people and acts accordingly. What did the hon. the Prime Minister do? He gave me an account of changes in respect of the urban Blacks, all of which we know about, all of which we have heard before. He never got down to the fundamental question of why these people are given political rights in areas where they are of no use to them. He never got down to the essential point of what the political rights of the Coloured and Indian people were going to be. If he is not governing this country as though it were a country of 4 million people, what is he doing?

What was noteworthy was that, despite the times we have been through, despite the riots and difficulties in this country over the past seven, eight or nine months, we had no explanations from hon. members opposite on a number of matters which I think are of vital importance. Firstly, we had no explanation from the hon. the Prime Minister why, after the rioting started, we had ten weeks of silence from him at a time when the country was crying out for leadership. We have had not explanation of how it came about that he and others on the Government side indicated that one of the objectives of the riots was to embarrass his talks with Dr. Kissinger. That would seem to indicate a complete misunderstanding of the situation. A third matter in respect of which we have had no explanation from the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Police is how it came about that the Government was taken completely by surprise by the developments in the Black and Brown townships in South Africa. We spend millions of rand on security and police services. How is it that the Government had no advance knowledge of what took place?

There is something else we should have been told about but were not. How is it that the homeland leaders tell us that in their discussions with the Prime Minister they have consistently drawn attention to the grievances of the urban Blacks? I mentioned this in my opening speech. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have not told us why so little has been done to cope with those grievances. I think that one of the fundamentals that has been clearly established in this debate is that the events since June 1976 have had very wide implications in the field of race relations, in our foreign relations and in our economy. Quite clearly, little of this was foreseen or understood by the Prime Minister, who left the main responsibility in dealing with this matter to the Minister of Police. In fact, it was a remarkable feature of this debate that of all the Ministers concerned in these matters—the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations and the Minister of Indian Affairs—some took no part in the debate at all and those who did tended to confine themselves mainly to party political polemics and made no attempt to defend their administration of their own portfolios.

There was one exception and that was the hon. the Minister of Police. He made an attempt to justify his actions. This seems to me to be a clear indication that the hon. the Prime Minister saw the unrest as no more than police action and that he wholly failed to understand the wider implications, implications which go to the root of both national and international concern about the future of South Africa. The danger of this is that people will be lulled into a false sense of security. The suggestion now is that the situation has returned to normal. I say that that is an utterly false conclusion. Not a single Black has admitted that the riots have occurred in spite of the excellence of Government policy. All of them, even those regretting the evils of an open confrontation, have stressed the importance of removing underlying grievances and have pointed to the slim chance of ever restoring permanent peace until this is done. The most alarming development is that, in increasing number, the non-Whites are saying that there will be no meaningful change in South Africa except through violence. Once this idea takes root, we face an impossible situation.

An HON. MEMBER:

Why do you spread it then?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The next phase could be urban terrorism which could result in most dangerous consequences. My friend sitting opposite says “why spread it?” The answer is that it is high time the public realized what a mess the Government is making of the situation.

The hon. the Minister of Police waxes quite wrathful in his condemnation of this side of the House for laying the blame for the riots on the policy of apartheid. As did so many of his colleagues in this debate, he tried to emphasize the role of the communist agitator to the exclusion of all other causes. Let me say at once that none of us here, certainly not those in my party, denies the importance and even the crucial role played by agitators and intimidators both in instigating agitation and in keeping it alive. However, his waving communist weapons in this House and showing us cowardly terrorist devices is never going to be accepted by the Opposition as an excuse for doing nothing about damping the embers of Black frustration that are still smouldering terrifyingly under the smoke of Soweto, Langa, Bonteheuwel, Manenberg and many other townships. There can be no talk in this House of restoring peace or confidence in the future until the Government has mapped out a clear course for the road ahead. That road has got to move manifestly, milestone by milestone, towards the elimination of statutory and institutionalized discrimination and the establishing of a sharing of decision-making inside South Africa. This is something that will ensure not only that the Whites, like any other nation, need fear no domination by any other race, but also that they will be free from a Black brand of “baasskap”. No less to us on this side of the House then to the Minister of Police has the behaviour of the vast majority of Blacks in these times of stress been a source of great consolation and comfort. It is these people, this great mass of moderate Black opinion in South Africa, who give substance to our optimism. The confrontation of war is not the inescapable choice. It is these people who yet make it possible for the Afrikaner to fulfil his mission in Africa. It is for them that one should make an heroic effort with the electorate to get the deadweight of this Government’s inflexibility and rigidity off our backs.

The hon. the Minister of Police spoke of these people as the light at the end of the tunnel. I think the metaphor is graphic and heartening, but our grave dilemma is whether that light at the end of the tunnel may not be an optical illusion, a light that reaches the nerve of the eyes of our nationalist friends through one nerve channel and the eyes of the Opposition along another. We on this side of the House see that light as one that will only be reached if we travel that tunnel in company with fellow Black and Brown South Africans. We see no light at the end of the tunnel if it is traversed by Whites alone. One cannot help asking oneself where the hon. the Prime Minister stands in these matters. He has made a comparatively enlightened statement again this afternoon regarding the question of the use of available amenities, which cannot be duplicated for all races. He said that where there are such, they must be shared. One recalls that he said once before—

Maar, waar die owerheid nie kan of wil dupliseer nie, en dit is basiese geriewe of fasiliteite waarop mense aanspraak kan maak, dan moet nie alleen die Afrikaner nie maar alle ander volksgroepe bereid wees om daardie fasiliteite te deel.

Mr. Speaker, we thought that was acceptable, and then we found the hon. gentleman criticized in effect by one of his Deputy Ministers, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education.

Sir, what happened? When eight members of that caucus, eight members of that party, spoke out and criticized the hon. the Deputy Minister, what did we hear from the hon. the Prime Minister?—

Ek is nie bewus daarvan dat dr. Treurnicht enige besluit van die NP-koukus in enige beleidspunt verwerp het of nie ten volle onderskryf nie.

[Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, where do we stand? This country is crying out for leadership. It is crying out for leadership as never before in its history. One cannot help being forced to the opinion that the hon. the Prime Minister does not want to give the enlightened leadership that is necessary to put things right in South Africa. [Interjections.] Do not tell me it cannot be done. Look at what has been happening in South West Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned it. There there was one of the strongest bulkwarks of the NP. They were entrenched there as no other party has been entrenched anywhere else in the world. Now, Mr. Speaker, where do we find ourselves? All their policies are having to be thrown overboard. Everything they stood for in the past is gone. They are now facing a social revolution. Faced by communist threats to the north of them and by terrorist threats within their borders, they are in the process of accepting a Black President, possibly a Black Prime Minister, a multi-racial Cabinet with a majority of Black Ministers, and an integrated Parliament.

This is a question which we raised years ago with this Government. It could have been solved with far greater hopes of success and in a peaceful atmosphere even some years ago. Instead of taking the lead timeously, when the whole process could have been controlled, the Government is now being pressurized. Mr. Speaker, is this not exactly the danger the Government is running in South Africa at the present time? This is exactly the problem we are faced with. Are these hon. gentlemen going to make changes in time or are they going to wait until the pressure is on and then have to make changes in a hurry, changes which may not be so beneficial to the country?

We raised the question of the frustration of the Coloured people. Sir, what have we had in reply from the hon. the Prime Minister? Nothing that we have not heard before. No further indication has been given as to what recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission are going to be accepted. The hon. the Prime Minister says he stands by his Cabinet Council, but what power does that give the Coloureds who sit on that Cabinet Council? They are consulted. They have no executive power to carry out those decisions. If the White Ministers who sit with them on that Cabinet Council disagree with them, there is nothing they can do about it. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us he has a Cabinet Committee investigating the Westminster system and the question of facilities for Coloureds. Does the hon. gentleman not realize that the one thing that interests the Coloured people today is the political rights they feel they are entitled to here in South Africa? That is what interests these people.

The hon. the Prime Minister asks me whether I am prepared to put them into this Parliament on a common roll in the same position as the Whites. I have said through the years that if the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to put Coloureds in this Parliament, I will support him. I have also said that my policy is a much better one, namely that there should be a federal arrangement and that in that federal arrangement there should be provisions which prevent any one race or group dominating another. That is what I stood for.

We have raised the question of the homelands and the position which is developing there. Already we have Prime Minister Matanzima of the newly independent Transkei saying that he stands for a multiracial State and hopes it will be an example to break down apartheid. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the question of citizenship and said that I had complained about these people not being recognized as South African citizens. He wants to make them Transkeian citizens, foreigners. How are we going to treat these 12 million foreigners when the various areas have become independent and they are living inside South Africa? Are they going to get the same treatment as Black men from the United States of America? What are you going to do with these foreigners? Are you going to distinguish between foreigners from our homelands and foreigners from other parts of the world?

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

They are going to send them to Langa!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I was very interested to hear what was said when the question of schools was being discussed. The Administrator said: “There are no Black diplomats in South Africa; there are only diplomats.” Must I assume that there are no Black foreigners in South Africa and that there are only foreigners? Is that going to be the next development? What answers, Sir, have you got from these hon. gentlemen in this Government?

I think we are entitled to say that, in so far as the field of internal race relations is concerned, we have had no satisfactory reply from this Government. Those people who were led to believe “dat John alles sal regmaak wanneer die tyd kom” have been disappointed once again, because he has done absolutely nothing.

We also raised the question of the disaster in the field of economic affairs. I must say that the Minister of Economic Affairs made an effort to reply to the criticisms which had been levelled, but his approach tended to be that there was no crisis in the country, that the Government had committed no error for which it could be called to account and that there was nothing the NP could learn from anybody outside the party’s own closed shop. I wonder if the hon. gentleman remembers the efforts of this Opposition through the years to prevent the Government adopting apartheid measures which were going to interfere with the economy? I wonder if he remembers the battles about job reservation and about recognizing the urban Black and about the position in which he had been put by this Government? Is it not extraordinary that now, because of economic depression, the businessmen of South Africa are beginning to take an interest in politics? The very things that they are asking for from this Government in respect of the urban Blacks are the things we on this side of the House have pleaded for and demanded over the years. The hon. the Minister is aware of the basic things in South Africa which make the economy tick and which threaten to stop the clock on other occasions. I am not going to say that Government policy is responsible for all our economic ills, but what I am going to say, and say again and again, is that our economic problems—problems which the country normally has to contend with—are compounded and distorted by this Government’s race policies.

Not long ago Mr. Abrahamse, one of the most able financiers and economists in this country, read a paper to the Institute of Race Relations on the question of the cost of apartheid. He concluded that it would not be unreasonable to assume that the gross national product per capita would have been some 50% higher, i.e. R1 545 instead of R1 030. The GNP in 1976 would then have been R39 800 million rather than the expected R26 700 million. [Interjections.] We have asked the Government through the years to appoint a commission of inquiry into the cost of apartheid. They will not bite. It is like their unemployment figure for Black men. They deny every figure we give them, but they tell us that it is far too expensive to keep statistics. The information we have is that for a figure of about R25 000 they could have a reliable estimate of the number of Blacks unemployed. I find myself in full agreement with the hon. the Minister’s closing remarks on the economy: “Die prentjie wat ek wil skilder, is ’n somber een.” It could not be otherwise after 29 years of Nationalist Party rule. His “ligpunte”, for example the possibility of increasing our exports, are pathetically wan shadows of hope on a horizon overhung with the dark clouds of the South African economy’s decline and tremendous vulnerability to outside hostility. I cannot help feeling a chord of sympathy for the hon. gentleman when he says: “Ten slotte wil ek sê dat ek dink dat dit nodig is dat ons almal in hierdie land ’n nuwe begrip moet kry van wat hier gebeur het.” Yes, Sir; what has happened? A perfectly healthy economy in a country more richly endowed than almost any other in the world has been virtually wrecked by this Government at a time when South Africa needs money to spend on defence as it has never needed it in its whole history before.

Then, Sir, I raised some matters on the question of international affairs. The hon. the Prime Minister gave us some interesting information this afternoon. The arguments he used were very much in line with his New Year’s message and the gloomy predictions he made. The line is that the West has grown enfeebled and is not prepared to assist South Africa in mounting any meaningful defence strategy against the growing threat of communist intervention in our sub-continent. It is substantiated by examples and quotations of the more extreme kind, such as the Organization of African Unity, the things we are asked to do about Rhodesia and the unreasonable demands made on us in respect of South West Africa. With great respect, I think the hon. gentleman still misses one point. From the moment the Angola conflict started, South Africa became involved in a global conflict between East and West. I do not for one moment believe that the responsible countries of the Western World are prepared to throw South Africa to the wolves if they do not embarrass themselves by assisting her. Why do they embarrass themselves by assisting her? They embarrass themselves by assisting her because of statutory and institutionalized discrimination here in South Africa, statutory and institutionalized discrimination practised and put on the Statute Book by this Government. It is no good telling me that the extreme Black nationalists are asking this, that or the other thing or that the Organization of African Unity is asking this, that or the other thing; of course they are. I am well aware of those things. But equally, Sir, I do believe that with our strategic position and our natural resources the West is prepared to take very reasonable risks to prevent our coming under communist control here in Southern Africa. I do not believe that what has happened …

The PRIME MINISTER:

Have you read the newspapers during the last few days?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Yes, indeed. I do not believe that what has happened is that the West has withdrawn; I believe they are extremely interested in what is happening here in Southern Africa. I believe that what they are going to do is lean on this Government, and put pressure on South Africa to bring about changes which will make us sufficiently respectable for them to be able to assist us in what they would like to do, namely to prevent communist infiltration in this part of the world. We have to face up to the fact that if we want to resist the pressures which are on us, we can only do so if all our people are united together in our efforts to resist those pressures. I do not believe that we shall ever achieve that while that discrimination is practised in this country.

It is because of the growing dangers with which we are beset that I was persuaded and that I have persuaded the overwhelming majority of my party that a new party is necessary in South Africa, that there must be a new political dispensation, a new attempt to draw new lines of demarcation between the various groups of people with political power in South Africa. I believe there are many hon. members on that side of the House who realize that change in South Africa is necessary. There are also many on this side of the House who believe the same. It should be possible to get rid of old party divisions and structures where they are obsolete so that there can come a new dispensation here in South Africa. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not looking for coalitions, mergers or amalgamations. What is essential is a new party which is not bound by the disadvantages of the past.

The PRIME MINISTER:

How are you going to set about it?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. the Prime Minister wants to know how I am going to set about it. First of all, a steering committee was appointed to examine the feasibility of establishing a real alternative Government. They recommended that it was feasible on the basis of 14 points. Some people have critized these points on the grounds of their vagueness, but when I compare them with the principles of the Nationalist Party, I find them very specific in certain respects. What is necessary now is a concerted and vigorous attempt to define anew what it is that should divide us and what should bring us together, and I think that at this time, no person or party should be allowed to stand in the way of such an endeavour. This exercise should involve not only the Opposition, but political life in South Africa in its totality. Once the line of consensus and doctrinal division has been incisively drawn in the Opposition, it will be the task of the new party to define positively its relationship with the Government. It was in that spirit that I launched my initiative. It is an attempt to make a new beginning, to start into life new political impulses not impeded by the accumulated feuds and factions of the past. It is an attempt to constitute a new, incisively defined and dynamic Opposition, demonstrably an alternative Government. What is required now is not just a new Opposition; it is my hope that this new party will become a great national force which will harness efficiently and quickly the creative social and political resources of our people for the immense tasks which lie ahead. We are tragically deluded if we think that our society will be fundamentally improved by any but the most strenuous efforts of all our peoples, Black, White and Brown, in South Africa. It is now an irreducible national requirement that it should be so improved.

The creation of our foreign policy, the creation of our policy in Africa and internationally, requires fundamentally new directions in our domestic policies. I have no doubt whatever that the new party will make a singular contribution to the bringing about of the improvements of which I speak. Members on the other side have disparaged and derided our initiative; they have criticized it and abused it. Let them! Within a few short months they will ignore it only at their peril. The hon. the Prime Minister asked me what I was going to do. We have had a steering committee report and it has indicated that it is feasible on the basis of certain points. What I believe is needed now, is that a secretariat be set up to deal with the planning and policy of a new political party and that all arrangements be completed, I would hope by Easter, so that the holding of a national conference, not a congress, may be facilitated. To this I shall give my immediate attention.

The PRIME MINISTER:

Who will be invited to the conference?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

All those who will accept the 14 points; even the hon. the Prime Minister if he will accept those points. [Interjections.] The functions of this secretariat will comprise, inter alia, the following: Firstly, to draw up a constitution for the new party; secondly, to promote the drafting of a policy for the party within the framework of the Marais Committee’s 14 principles; thirdly, to keep the public and the Press informed of the progress being made; fourthly, to promote the need for the new party amongst all sectors of the South African electorate with a view to eliciting their moral and material support; fifthly, to have on-going consultation with various interested groups who will be vitally affected by the establishment of the new party; sixthly, to utilize as guidelines in the articulation of the new policy my suggestion that it be centrist and pluralist in nature.

As the hon. the Prime Minister knows, certain people have not gone with us in this regard. The hon. the Prime Minister had quite a lot to say about them today. I think that he must understand that the real reason why these gentlemen have not gone with us and are not with us today is that they refused to abide by an overwhelming majority decision of the Central Head Committee of the party. It is as simple as that. There have been suggestions that these 14 principles …

The PRIME MINISTER:

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

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. the Prime Minister has had more than his share of time today and I do want to complete my speech. It has been suggested that in certain respects these principles depart from United Party policy. May I say that there were three fundamentals which we thought were important. One was that it should be recognized that South Africa is a plural society. The second was that group identity should be recognized and protected where desired and that, while we must do away with statutory or institutionalized discrimination, we cannot accept compulsory integration. I may say that when that report is read, it is perfectly clear that those three principles are honoured. Not only is it perfectly clear from the report, but the ex-judge who presided over the committee made it perfectly clear that in his view the report was capable of no other explanation than that those three principles were accepted in the terms of the report. On that basis it has been suggested that this statement of principle will allow for Black domination in a new constitution. May I say that it is one of the principles of this report that there will be no Black domination, there will be no domination by any one group over any other. I believe that on the basis of recommendations of this kind a policy can be worked out. I believe a constitution can be worked out which can give us a far greater chance of racial peace in South Africa at the present time. It is because I believe that that I am so opposed to the policies of this Government and the direction in which it is going, because I believe that while this Government is in power there is no hope for racial peace in South Africa.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—47: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

NOES—122: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Wait, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Discussion during division

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask whether it is permissible for a member who has moved an amendment to vote against that amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER:

To which hon. member is the hon. member referring?

Mr. W. V. RAW:

The hon. member for Newton Park moved an amendment to delete all the words after “That” and to substitute other words. He is now voting for the retention of the words he proposed should be deleted.

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is completely in order.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr. D. M. Streicher put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—47: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddel, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. H. D. Deacon and T. Hickman.

NOES—122: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Hom, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Substitution of the words negatived. Substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister put, Upon which the House divided: AYES—122: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Hom, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé and P. C. Roux.

NOES—47: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Question, as amended accordingly agreed to, viz: That this House directs the Government to continue with its policy of affording all its peoples, with due regard to the plural composition of the Republic’s population, full and equal opportunities consistent with human dignity to enable them to develop peacefully and to the full in the social, economic and political spheres without fear of loss of identity or of a voice in their own affairs.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the House adjourned at 17h50.