Mr. Chairman, when one participates in a debate on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, one is grateful for the occasion and the privilege to speak on the Vote of such a leader and of such a Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister is no longer the leader of the NP alone. Our hon. Prime Minister has grown in stature and in esteem and it may rightly be said of him today that he is the leader of the whole of South Africa. It is also true that public opinion polls in South Africa confirm this point of view, the point of view that the hon. the Prime Minister may in fact be regarded as the leader of the whole of South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister made the following statement yesterday. I quote the unrevised Hansard version of his speech. He posed the question—

Then followed the immortal interjection of the hon. member for Hillbrow. He then said: “All the people are; the Whites as well!” I want to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. member for Hillbrow …

The professor!

The future professor. I want to thank him for this confirmation that everybody, the Whites as well, are far better off under the present Government than they ever were before. [Interjections.]

He is also better off!

Yes, indeed. The hon. member for Hillbrow is also better off. I must say that it will be of great help to me in my constituency if I can quote such a future professorial source as the hon. member in confirming that all the people are better off; the Whites as well. On behalf of this side of the House I really want to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for that interjection of his. [Interjections.] Soon it will be possible to regard the hon. member for Hillbrow as a political emeritus. In pursuance of the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, and confirmed by the hon. member for Hillbrow—with the addition of “the Whites as well”—I want to point out a few things. I want to point out the achievements of the Government. I want to refer to the achievements of the Government in relation to what it has done for people of colour in South Africa. In 1945 there were 587 000 Black children at school in the then Union of South Africa. At that stage it was 7% of the total population of the Union at that time. Only 7% of the total population was at school in 1945. When we look at the figure for 1974, we see that there were 3,5 million Black children at school. This means that 19,8% of the total Black population of South Africa was at school in 1974. Under the NP Government they progressed from 7% of the total population in 1945 to 19,8% of the total population in 1974.

When we look at the homelands and what has happened there, and when one listens to the criticism of the Government and of the homelands policy expressed by hon. members on that side of the House, it becomes clear that the figures belie the point of view held by the Opposition. The annual growth rate in real income per capita of the homelands in South Africa is higher than that of 45 Africa States. This is a fact. From 1971 to 1975 the national income per capita of the homelands increased by 14,6% per annum as against an increase in the consumer price index for the corresponding period of only 8,4% per annum.

I want to advance further arguments to prove the good intentions and the earnestness of the Government, especially with regard to the socio-economic upliftment of the Black people in this country. In the year 1959-’60 the total budget for all institutions falling under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development amounted to R27 million. In 1976-’77 the total appropriation for the institutions falling under the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and Bantu Education amounted to R753 million. The amount increased from R27 million in 1959 to R753 million in 1976-’77. This means an increase of 2 689% over a period of 15 years.

The income of Black people in South Africa has increased dramatically during the past few years. In 1960-’61 the total income of the Black people in South Africa was R75 per head of the population. By the year 1973-’74 their income had already risen to R201 per head of the population. In this period the income of the Black man per head of the population rose by 168%, in spite of the rapid increase in the number of Black people in South Africa. If I compare the figure of income per head of the population with that of many Africa States, I am not ashamed of it, but I think we should advertise this figure; blaze it abroad. The per capita income of a country like Malawi is R78; that of Botswana R188; that of Swaziland R204—still lower than that of South Africa—that of Lesotho R70; that of Somalia R63; that of Burundi R55; that of Cameroon R175; and that of Niger R71. The figure of R201 per head of the population is considerably higher than the average for Africa

And the Ivory Coast?

It is a figure of which I am proud. I do not know whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North is proud of it, but that is not relevant in any event.

At present the countries of the Third World owe the Western countries R120 000 million. But Transkei became independent without owing the Republic a single rand and Bophuthatswana, too, will become independent without owing the Republic a single rand. The UNO has decided that it is expected of the countries of the Western world to give at least 1% of their GNP to the countries of the Third World as development aid. South Africa spends 1,8% of its GNP on the homelands alone. What do the other Western countries which criticize us, spend on development aid to the Third World? They spend a meagre 0,3% of their GNP on development aid to the countries of the Third World. South Africa on the other hand, spends 1,8% of her GNP on these people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman I should like to return to a subject which we discussed yesterday, a subject which I think is important enough to spend a great deal of time on. Because we are living, as far as the interior of South Africa is concerned, in the most practical of political eras, I want to discuss it on the basis of practical examples and the practical achievements of the Government. For what have we had so far from the Opposition side? All we have had was words, words and more words, wonderful sentiments and promises which were strewn about without the hon. members having ascertained what the practical consequences of their promises are going to be if they can ever be carried out. These are promises which are being made by the members of the Opposition, promises which all of us know they will never carry out in practice even if they were to come into power tomorrow. I want to discuss the question of discrimination, in the negative sense of the word. The hon. members are aware that it can have two meanings. It can have the meaning of differentiation, of drawing a distinction, of parallelism and at times of separation. However, I do not want to dwell on that meaning of the word this afternoon. I want to dwell on the bad meaning of the word “discrimination”.

It is said—as in the leading article of The Argus this afternoon—that one does not eliminate discrimination in the bad sense of the word if one takes one’s stand on the policy of the NP, i.e. the policy of separate development. I want to prove, on the basis of practical examples, that not only can this be done, but that it is in fact being done, that it will be done to an increasing extent and that it can be done without disruption, friction and problems, precisely because we are pursuing a policy of separate development.

In addition it is also said—this standpoint was adopted inter alia by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—that one cannot have development if there is separation. I want to adopt the standpoint that the Coloureds, the Asians and the Bantu would not have been engaged in the business activities they are engaged in today and that thousands of them would not have occupied the positions they are occupying today, if it had not been for the policy of separate development. Today they are occupying positions which were not available to them under the old dispensation. In terms of our policy doors have been opened which would have remained closed if it had not been for this policy, and doors will continue to be opened to an increasing extent I have given my word on that, it is what my party stands for, and it shall be done.

But other doors have been closed.

No, Sir. Surely that is an absurd remark, to say the least of it.

But I want to confine myself in the first place to hon. members opposite who see themselves in this Parliament as the self-appointed spokesmen of the Asians, the Coloureds and the Bantu. The time is past—if there ever was such a time—when hon. members opposite can say that they are speaking on behalf of the Coloureds, the Asians and the Bantu. These population groups have their own leaders. The platforms on which those leaders stand, were created by this Government. The opportunities which those leaders are being afforded to state their standpoint unselfconsciously, were given to them by this Government. I want to make it very clear here this afternoon that in respect of the Coloureds I would much rather listen to what Dr. Bergins has to say than I would listen—with all due respect to my friend opposite—to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to say in this regard. I would much rather listen to Sonny Leon than to Mr. Colin Eglin when it comes to the interests of the Coloureds. I would much rather—with all due respect to my hon. friend for Durban Point, if I have to call in a Natalian in this regard—listen to Mr. Reddy on Indian Affairs than to my hon. friend if he were to discuss this, and last but not least, when it comes to women, I would much rather listen to Mrs. Jansen than to Mrs. Helen Suzman.

As I have said, these people have their own spokesmen who are best able to state the standpoints of their people. Let us now consider the question of discrimination practically and on the basis of the structure of our society in South Africa; let us see to what extent it still exists, to what extent it has already been eliminated and to what extent it can still be eliminated. Let us discuss the things which affect the everyday lives of each individual—whether he is White, Brown or Black—in South Africa. I think that we can have a very fruitful discussion on these matters.

Let us begin at school level. All the population groups in South Africa have schools. It would be discrimination if they did not have them. It is true that for some, compulsory education has not yet been introduced, but although this is true, it is also true that the Government has committed itself to the introduction of compulsory education and it is also true that not only does the Government realize, but that the leaders of the various population groups also realize, that it is a question of money and a question of the availability of teachers which continues to make it impossible for compulsory education to be applied in practice. But what is important is that the discrimination which did in fact exist in the past in respect of compulsory education has been eliminated, because we have committed ourselves in principle to compulsory education and shall implement it in practice as soon as we have an opportunity to do so. Only this afternoon the hon. member for Lydenburg quoted certain statistics in this regard. Let us consider the curricula. When the reproach is made, as it is from time to time, that the syllabus of Black children is not up to standard and that they are being discriminated against, I can only, in this regard, turn to the greatest Black authority on Black education in South Africa, that is Prof. Kgware. We all heard what he had to say on television, and I asked him personally whether the syllabus of Black pupils was inferior. To that his unequivocal reply to me was “no”. In this regard I would rather listen to Prof. Kgware than to the eternal bickering of the PRP.

If you would rather listen to them, why do you not bring them into Parliament?

I shall come to that later. Since the hon. member has now made this interjection, I want to ask him whether he read the article in The Cape Times in which a sub-editor of theirs alleged that the Government would never be overthrown unless one succeeded in dividing Afrikanerdom and bringing the Coloureds into Parliament. I want to level the accusation at the hon. member who made that interjection that in this regard the PRP is not concerned with the welfare of the Coloureds, but with bringing the Coloureds in as voting fodder against the other Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not consider separate schools for Afrikaans—and English-speaking pupils for the Coloureds, Blacks and Asians to be discrimination in the bad sense of the word in any respect, and that is the policy of the Government.

We can move from the school level to the university level. What is the position in this regard in South Africa today? Practically everyone has access to a university. What was the position before separate universities were established. In theory the universities were all as open as they could possibly be. Yet how many Black people, Asians and Coloureds had an opportunity to attend them? How often did they have to hear that the universities were full? When it was Abdurhan’s child the university was full, but when it was Vorster’s child, there was room for him. That was the position under the old dispensation. That was the naked reality in South Africa; no one can deny it. [Interjections.]

Order!

To tell the truth, hon. members are aware that until the thirties the University of the Witwatersrand refused to enrol Black students. It was only after a threat was made to obtain a court order that the first Black student gained admittance to Wits. After that they were admitted in a trickle. Once again I can speak from practical experience. I asked the Indian leaders: If we had not established the Indian university, how many Indian students would have had the opportunity of receiving university training today? The reply was: “Not a fifth of the total at university today.” These are the realities in South Africa. It is one thing to deal with a reality and another to expound a meaningless theory which is simply a bluff and nothing else.

I do not think it is discrimination in a plural society when every nation and every population group has to attend its own university, with exceptions. Surely it is the case that in every plural community—this is a golden thread running all the way through and I shall refer to it again in the course of my speech—there have to be exceptions in respect of these aspects. It is also true in the case of universities that there are exceptions, although separate universities were introduced. As those universities become firmly established, and as we continue, the number of exceptions will increase. They will increase as far as certain categories are concerned, and one expects further movement to take place on this level in future. I do not want to elaborate on the particulars now.

I want to refer again to the question of sport. It is discrimination if one does not, by way of legislation or in practice, allow people of colour to participate in international sport or to compete locally against the Whites in South Africa. We did in fact have this under previous Governments.

And also under your own Government.

Yes, we also had the position under this Government that there was no opportunity for people of colour to participate in international sport. However, we faced up to the problem, and what is the position today? In spite of the fact that we proceed on the standpoint—the correct standpoint—that members of each population group should belong to their own clubs, we have opened up the international world to the Coloured and the Asians. Not only did we make it possible for them to compete internationally; we also made it possible for them to compete internationally in South Africa. What is more: We made it possible for them to compete with Whites in South Africa itself. I readily admit, and surely everyone knows … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

We cannot all speak at the same time. The hon. Chief Whip of the UP will be afforded an opportunity to participate in the debate.

I was saying that there was a time when there was discrimination in sport, but the Government eliminated the discrimination which existed. Just as it is not discrimination if the members of each population group have to belong to their own clubs, it is not discrimination either if the individuals of each population group have to live in their own residential area. That is why this is also the policy of the NP.

Let us consider the Services. Under previous Governments, and until a few years ago under this Government too, there was discrimination as far as the Department of Prisons, the Department of Police and the Defence Force were concerned in this sense that no matter how good a person of colour was, he could not go any further than the rank of sergeant. Officer rank was forbidden to him. He could not, under any circumstances, be promoted to those ranks. We faced up to this situation, and we removed that discrimination against the Asians, the Coloureds and the Blacks. Today one finds Asians, Blacks and Coloureds holding officers’ rank.

Do they all get the same rate of pay?

Let us consider the higher position in South African society. In the past there was discrimination in respect of this matter. Until quite recently …

To this very day!

… there was hardly a position which could be filled by a person of colour in South Africa, and here I am referring inter alia to lecturers’ posts at the university. However, we have opened that avenue for them by eliminating that discrimination. Not only are there lecturers and professors today, but the highest rung in the university structure, i.e. that of principalship, is today open to the Blacks, the Asians and the Coloureds. It is not merely a question of theory. There is Prof. Van der Ross and Prof. Kgware, and in this way they will be appointed, one after another.

I challenge hon. members opposite to say whether this would have been possible if there had not been a policy of separate development, in view of the dispensation in South Africa for the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians. Let us consider clerical posts. There was a time when it was unthinkable in South Africa that a Coloured person would become the deputy commissioner of a Government department. However, it has just been announced that a Coloured has become the deputy commissioner of a Government department. If these people had been confined to clerical posts only, to the lower clerical posts, it would have been discrimination. However, the entire field is opened to them.

There was also discrimination in respect of boards and commissions dealing with the practical realization and implementation of everyday policy, in this sense that boards and commissions were closed to Coloureds and Asians. To serve on them was the exclusive prerogative of the Whites. This Government, however, faced up to the problem and appointed people of colour as well. I cannot mention a better example in that regard, than the Wage Board, apart from all the other appointments which have been made, particulars of which have already been tabled.

Pure tokenism!

There was discrimination, therefore, but that discrimination has been eliminated. I can go further. Let us consider opportunities for the discussion of their own problems. What opportunities did the Coloureds, Asians and the Blacks have to have a forum in which they could discuss their own affairs and, if need be, decide over their own affairs? There was discrimination in this sense that only Whites had actual representation in this Parliament. The Blacks and the Coloureds were represented here by Whites. But they themselves were unable to discuss any matters here. That was the law. This Government with its policy took the necessary …

Why don’t you change the law?

I shall give that hon. member ten minutes of my time if she would only promise to keep quiet.

I shall take it!

Sir, I was saying that we created the necessary forums for them, and although some of those forums, for example those of the Coloureds, have not developed to the full yet, they nevertheless have the potential to develop and will, in the nature of things, develop. The time will come when the Coloureds will have a Parliament and a Cabinet with Ministers at their disposal. This is the logical course which their development will follow. Sir, it is this Government which created those possibilities.

What about their sovereignty?

Let us consider decision-making. It is true—no one can deny it—that under previous Governments and until this Government effected a change, decision-making was the exclusive prerogative of the Whites. Not only did this Government identify the problem, it also did something positive about it. That is why the Government invited the Asians and Coloureds to sit down around a conference table with it in a Cabinet Council. Hon. members opposite may disparage it as much as they like. The fact remains that these people have been given a say on the highest level. They have been afforded the opportunity of joint decision-making on the fundamental problems as far as those problems materially affect each of those groups.

That is simply an embryo federal assembly.

The Government believes that in a plural society—South Africa has a plural society—all the various communities should be given a say. Nor did we simply leave it at a Cabinet Council. We did not leave it at appointments to the various boards and commissions. We also in fact, as recommended by the Theron Commission, appointed a Cabinet Committee to inquire into the extent to which the Westminster system can be adapted to give these population groups enhanced accommodation. That committee is hard at work on its task and, when it has been finalized, it will be discussed with the Coloureds and Asians, and also in this House.

Let us consider the bread and butter issues. Let us consider business premises and the carrying on of business activities in South Africa. It would definitely be discrimination if one did not afford the other population groups the opportunity to do business. What has been done in this regard? They have been given a monopoly in their own areas because they did not have sufficient capital or experience to compete with those people who did. Consequently they were placed in a position where they had a monopoly, which they still have today, and which they will retain. As a result of our talks on the Cabinet Council and with these people, other needs emerged, needs which the Coloureds and Indians stated to us. The hon. member for Houghton said that I keep on saying “no”. These people said that they also wanted to go into the industrialized areas, and asked us to ensure that they were able to do so. My reply was “yes”. Today those areas are open to Coloureds and Asians, whereas before they were not.

That applies to industries.

Yes, that is what I am referring to.

And not business premises.

If the professor would give me a chance for a moment I shall come to that. It is not only a question of industries. It also applies to business premises. They told us that they were interested in being given enhanced rights in business premises. We told them that we would give them enhanced rights in terms of section 19, as the need arose. We shall do so. In other words, we eliminated discrimination in that regard as well and, if the need exists, we shall continue to eliminate it.

There is also the question of travelling and eating facilities. It is discrimination if the various population groups in a plural society are not given adequate travelling and eating facilities. It would be discrimination if there were no facilities of that nature whatsoever. After discussions with the Indians we eliminated the discrimination against them which existed by law in respect of the opportunities they had to travel between provinces. I may point out that it was not we who made those laws; they date from the previous century. We eliminated that discrimination and made it easy for them to travel.

As far as the Free State was concerned as well?

These are all examples which resulted from the discussions we are holding with these people. We are aware that a very great need exists among the travelling public and I am also aware that we have not yet satisfied that need adequately. Here, however, it is not a question of the State having to take action. It is a question of private enterprise having to take the lead. If private enterprise would take the lead, it would be welcomed. In any event, the State is doing everything in its power to persuade private enterprise to do so. The Government is aware—and this was discrimination—that if a person of colour went to Pretoria, Johannesburg or anywhere else for that matter, there was no eating place or place of abode for that person. That is discrimination. However, the State has gone out of its way to eliminate that discrimination. I want to state today that, even so, we have not gone far enough, but there will be further development along those lines. To these people who are now kicking up such a fuss, these people who are now making such pious statements in regard to this matter, I want to tell the story I was told by a person in one of the large Witwatersrand towns. He sent a reliable, well-to-do Black man down the street and told him to walk into various business undertakings and ask for a glass of water. The Black man went into one business undertaking after another and no one wanted to help him. Do hon. members know who eventually did help him? The South African Police! Contrast to this those people with the big mouths, those people who level charges at the Government, those people who make pious protests, but when it comes to practising what they preach, simply do not do so.

It is true that the number of travellers—Coloureds, Asians and Black people—is increasing all the time, and it is true that we shall have to make enhanced provision for them. As far as the Government is concerned, it shall do everything in its power to do this, and it has already done a great deal in this regard. It was discrimination when, in the old days, a Black man—and for that matter an Indian and a Coloured as well—was told that he could only drink certain kinds of liquor; other kinds he was not allowed to drink. We faced up to that problem and eliminated the discrimination in respect of the consumption of liquor.

When we consider cultural matters, it is not discrimination in a plural society if a population group isolates itself if it prefers to do so. In all plural countries of the world, people isolate themselves from time to time, and we may most certainly do so in South Africa as well.

Let us consider the most sensitive matter, viz. the question of wages and salaries. This is a problem which has been with us all these years and did not arise only under this Government.

You are taking a long time to solve it.

It took a long time, but that hon. member never got round to it. That is why he is sitting where he is, and shall continue to do so.

Why not let Natal get on with the job?

I was not aware that the Opposition, when they were still the Government, wanted to do something in this regard. What I am aware of is that representations were made to which they paid no heed. We could go further and say that it is discrimination—and no one can deny it—when equal wages and salaries are not paid for equal work and equal qualifications. Not only did this Government identify the problem, it also faced up to the problem and decided to do something about it. It is an historical problem; every hon. member here knows that. If one had wanted to rectify it overnight, one would find that the tremendous amount of money which would be required was simply not available. Even if the hon. Opposition were to come to power tomorrow, they would not have the money either to eliminate that discrimination immediately. It is something for which time is required. The Government has not only said that it would do so. It did something about it in practice. The gap has in many respects been narrowed already. But I am aware that it is an acute problem. For that reason I am able to inform the House today that the Government has taken a further step. In view of the urgency of the matter, the Government has directed that a system be devised in terms of which categories of officials will be drawn up in order to eliminate the gap according to a fixed pattern. This will take place in one category after another, as the finances of the country allow, until the gap has been eliminated in its entirety. Hon. members may therefore expect that in future steps in this regard will be taken more rapidly than has been the case up to now. [Interjections.]

Order!

My policy follows from the fact that I believe in multinationalism and that I see South Africa as a multi-national country. My policy—it is necessary for me to repeat this for the sake of the record—and the policy of my party is not based on the fact that one race is superior to another. My policy does in fact take into consideration that there are differences between one race and another, between one group and another. My policy does in fact recognize the other side which exists in regard to the various groups, in regard to their views and their way of life, and so on. I repeat that I believe, absolutely, that one will not be able to make progress along this road and that one will not be able to do justice to the various groups unless one accepts this as a fact and unless one makes this one’s point of departure.

When I say this we all know that personal decency and civilized behaviour can eliminate at least 60% of our problems. It is on record that I have talked to my own people about this very frequently, and not only to my own people. I have also spoken to people of colour about this. It does not come from one side only. I told both the Coloured as well as the Black leaders that if they could draw up a list of Whites who had been rude to them, I would perhaps be able to draw up a longer list of Whites who had been erred against by people of colour. Therefore it comes from both sides. If we speak to everyone, to every leader, to everyone in South Africa, and if we educate all our people—Whites as well as non-Whites—we can accomplish a great deal in this respect. But what I want to object to most vehemently of all is the fact that the PRP and its appendages keep on harping on the Whites only in this respect, keep on laying the blame only at the door of the Whites. I take exception to that, particularly after having listened again to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. From his speech it was clearly apparent that only the Whites were being admonished, as if only they were the culprits, the only culprits in this respect.

I am asking only for equilibrium in this regard, nothing more. What I am asking is that all of us—Whites, Coloureds and Blacks—should educate our own people to associate with one another in a civilized and decent way. So much, then, for what the NP has accomplished with the elimination of discrimination.

There are many other things I could mention, but I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily. If it is possible to hold a more detailed discussion on the matter, I think it would be a good thing to do so here. If hon. members then want to attack me on certain practices, they are welcome. Then these things can be brought to my attention specifically and I can defend myself against them.

In the second place I want to come to the questions put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to our present position in the world, and how matters stand with us. In my New Year’s message, and on various occasions in and outside Parliament, I have dealt with South Africa’s position. Time will not permit me to repeat all these things; it is on record for everyone to read. I got the impression that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is charging me with this because I spoke to our people as I did in my New Year’s message. I stand by every word I said. I bear the responsibility, and I do not want to be accused of having misled our people in any respect. I do not want the reproach levelled at me one day that I did not tell our people what I saw on the horizon. However, is South Africa’s position a position of overwhelming crisis, as hon. members on the opposite side are trying to imply? My reply is “no”. The Western World is in a crisis. The crisis of the Western World is of such an extent that every hon. member on the opposite side should join me in feeling concerned about it.

We are part of it.

Yes, we are part of it, and to the extent to which we are part of it, it affects us as well, as I shall demonstrate.

By June of last year, under the direction of the leader of the PRP, the crisis fever in South Africa mounted and became more and more contagious. The hon. the Leader of the PRP had crisis fever to such an extent that he wanted me to speak sooner and resolve the crisis. For reasons which I shall now mention, I did not speak. What happened then? In spite of all his talk about the major crisis which allegedly existed in South Africa, the hon. member for Sea Point went overseas. He did not concern himself about the crisis in South Africa, but went overseas to enjoy himself.

Where was the Minister of Bantu Administration?

I shall give the hon. member for Houghton 15 minutes of my time if she will promise to keep quiet. [Interjections.] What was the position? The position was that we had relatively serious problems at that time, but these were problems which my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, and the Police—to whom I wish to pay tribute here—were able to handle in masterly fashion. I want to compliment them on that. [Interjections.] Let us be honest with one another. Surely these things are past now. We had problems in South Africa last year, but during 90% or more of the time the ordinary citizen in South Africa went about his normal business without even being aware of the events which were taking place in South Africa. Surely that is a fact. If there is anyone who wishes to allege anything to the contrary, let him rise to his feet in this House and make his allegations in this regard.

I happened to be abroad when it happened and I saw the newspaper headlines there. They were out of all proportion to the reality. However, I want to say in all fairness that, although newspaper headlines abroad were out of proportion to the reality in South Africa, they were far more moderate than the headlines in South Africa itself. After all, we are used to this. Hon. members have experienced this, and they will recall that for three days some workers—not all—in Natal went on strike. Some workers did not turn up for work for three days, and there were problems. But the message that was sent into the outside world was that South Africa was nearing its end because of those strikes. It was interesting that those countries in which strikes occur from morning till night, were the countries which had the most to say about the few days in which people did not turn up for work in South Africa.

What was the purpose of the disturbances and unrest which we had in June and afterwards? The object was perfectly clear: To overthrow law and order. However, the police dealt with them. I want to tell hon. members opposite—they will simply have to accept this—that further attempts of that kind will be made. Such attempts have been made since the fifties. After all, the communists have adopted this course and dare not deviate from it now. From time to time they will sow discord and try again. But just as certainly as they have tried in the past, so it will be quelled by the South African Police, to whom this task has been entrusted. I have no doubt about that.

The hon. member asked me: “What about urban terrorism? Urban terrorism is the curse of our time, and it could happen that it rears its ugly head in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. After all, it is occurring in New York, London, Paris and Berlin—in fact, in cities throughout the entire world. We are fortunate, firstly because it has not yet occurred on a large scale in this country and secondly, because we have the vigilance of the South African Police in this regard. Therefore, if the hon. member puts this question to me, I cannot give him the guarantee that it will not occur in South Africa, but I can, believe me, give him the guarantee that if it should occur it will be eradicated root and branch.

The hon. member referred to possible attacks on South Africa. I do not visualize that a direct Russian attack on South Africa will take place. It would be irresponsible of me to say that I visualized anything of this nature happening in the foreseeable future. What I can say, however, is that if it should occur, it goes without saying that South Africa will defend itself, and I am grateful that the Defence Force with its Minister, its officers and its men is there to do this in the best possible way. I do not for a moment want to say that we have all the equipment in the world which is necessary for that task, but what I can say is that with the means at our disposal, South Africa will defend itself against any attack which is made on it, regardless of by whom. However, what we can in fact expect—I am not saying that it is going to happen tomorrow or the day after—is the Angola and Zaïre type of invasion and the kind of thing which is happening in Rhodesia. We shall deal with that as well. The hon. member charged me with having said that we would have to stand alone. Surely we are not the only people who stand alone. When Israel was attacked, apart from weapons from America, it did not receive any assistance from other States which became actively engaged in its struggle. It had to stand alone and fight its war alone. They did receive weapons, but for the rest it was thrown back on its own resources.

That is not true.

The hon. member says “It is not true.” I challenge him to participate in the debate and to prove the contrary. When it comes to this kind of attack, the Defence Force will deal with the attacks, and I want to maintain at this early stage already that I have enough confidence in the Defence Force to know that they will be able to deal with such attacks effectively. It causes one concern—it ought not only to cause me concern but also the hon. members on that side of the House—that it is the grand strategy of the Russians to appropriate the southernmost point of Africa for themselves. Apart from the spheres of influence which they have already acquired, the events which are at present taking place in Zaire give cause for concern. Of Zaïre Mao Tse-tung said: “He who controls Zaïre, controls Africa.” One need only look at the map of Africa to see that Zaïre is situated in such a way that it borders on nine other states and to realize how much truth is in fact contained in that statement. What can happen to Zaïre, can happen to any other African State, and therefore we are all watching with close attention to see whether the Free World or the friends of Zaïre are going to come to its aid or are going to come to its aid to a sufficient extent against the attack which is now being made on Zaïre. South Africa has, taking into account the means at its disposal, taken as many precautions as it possibly can. South Africa has not only taken precautions in respect of the acquisition of weapons—hon. members know the circumstances just as well as I do and therefore I need not discuss them again now—but has also made provision to the best of its ability in regard to the stockpiling of strategic material, and I shall say nothing further about that. We must bear in mind that the Russians have not stationed Solodovnikov in Lusaka for nothing. We note that the President of Zambia who, only a short while ago, was still referring contemptuously to the Bear and its cubs, has fallen into the clutches of the Bear and its cubs. This situation gives rise to concern, and it goes without saying that these events are going to have an effect on South Africa. That is why it is so necessary that we should speak with one accord from this Parliament—Government and Opposition, all who put South Africa’s interests first and who love South Africa.

The nature of the onslaught on South Africa is not only going to be military. It also has a political side. A political onslaught will also be made on South Africa, and let no one sitting in front of me here today have any illusions about that. What is demanded and what will be demanded from South Africa is not concessions in one sphere or another, not the final abolition of discrimination of one kind or another. The demand which will eventually be placed at South Africa’s door is Black majority rule over the whole of South Africa, over that part which belongs to us as well. This is the demand which will be made on us. I know and I am grateful that when that demand is made, it will be rejected not only by this side of the House but also by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition and his followers. I am not doing the hon. the Leader of the PRP an injustice if I tell him candidly that I do not know where he is going to stand when that demand is made on us.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore asks me how matters stand with South Africa, I tell him frankly that the events in Angola, in South West Africa, in Rhodesia and in Zaire have in fact had a prejudicial effect on South Africa. People who do not take the trouble to look at the map or do not know where these places are situated, think these places are in the heart of the Karroo and that the events are therefore taking place right here in the heart of South Africa. Apart from that even people who are in the know are, in the nature of things, concerned. They are concerned about whether there will be stability in Southern Africa when they make investments. They are concerned about whether or not the Russians are going to appropriate Southern Africa for themselves. Surely it is only human that they will be concerned about this. It goes without saying that because this is the case, it will have an effect on the acquisition of investment and loan capital. But to say that our investment and loan capital has dried up, is surely not true. On the contrary. Not only am I holding talks; I am convinced that hon. members opposite, too, hold talks from time to time. Hardly a week goes by in which I do not hold four or five discussions with people who have already invested in South Africa or who intend investing in South Africa.

From those discussions it becomes apparent that they have confidence in South Africa. They have confidence in the people of South Africa. They have confidence in the stability of South Africa. They have confidence in the prospects of South Africa. Our loan and investment capital has not dried up. As the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated, it has diminished in certain respects, but eventually our stability will prove to be the decisive factor in whether we are going to receive loan and investment capital. The man who wants to do business is in the end going to apply only one criterion, i.e. what measure of stability is there in South Africa? Whether hon. members agree with me or not, there is, thank God, political stability in South Africa and there are stable people here, whether they belong to my party or not. [Interjections.]

The events in neighbouring countries will, in the nature of things, have an effect. Angola is a seething cauldron, and will remain one for as far as one can see into the future. This will have its effect.

Then there is the Rhodesian matter. From time to time efforts have been made to solve the problem of Rhodesia, but they have failed. At the moment another initiative in this regard is in progress. I do not, on this occasion, want to state the standpoint of the Government in regard to Rhodesia again—it is on record and it is there for all to read. I merely want to state it as my conviction that the initiative of the British Foreign Secretary has a chance. It is not an initiative which one should write off; it has a chance. That chance will, however, depend on the reasonableness and fairness of people. That chance will depend on whether people really want to reach a settlement in a peaceful way or wish to resort to violence. I know that I am perhaps sticking my neck out a long way now—but I must say this because it is my conviction—when I inform this House and state it as my opinion that as the position exists there at present, the Whites of Rhodesia will not be to blame if this initiative fails. I am saying this on the basis of the knowledge which I have of this matter. Naturally I cannot take the matter any further.

There is also the question of South West Africa. That conference has succeeded. The beginning of that conference resulted from the agreement which I concluded with Mr. Alfred Escher when I brought the population groups together. I am pleased that hon. members are all pleased now that that conference has succeeded. However, I can still remember how they ridiculed it, how sceptical they were of it and how many obstacles they tried to place in its way. At present talks on the Rhodesian problem, as well as in regard to the South West Africa matter and related matters as far as they may affect South Africa, are taking place on a very high level between South Africa and several Western countries. Hon. members will understand that I do not consequently wish to go into details about this, except to say that after the first talks I made South Africa’s standpoint very clear by saying that we were prepared to hold discussions and that we welcomed them.

We also welcome discussions on South West Africa. But I stated it as our standpoint that South West Africa belongs to the people of South West Africa and those who have to take a decision on their future are the people of South West Africa themselves. The standpoint of the Government in this regard has been placed on record very clearly. In respect of all these matters South Africa was not only willing to play a role; South Africa did in fact play a role. What is far more important to me, however, is the recognition throughout the entire world that South Africa has a role to play in this regard and that one cannot discuss the affairs of Southern Africa without taking cognizance of the South African standpoint and without discussing the matter with South Africa. Accuse me of having failed in all respects, accuse me of being worthless and meaningless, but I claim the credit of having achieved this for South Africa in the past few years, and I am very grateful that I have been able to achieve this, with the co-operation of all my colleagues who were involved in these matters. South Africa is in favour of discussions and of sitting down around a conference table to discuss these matters. But I have stated from the outset—and I want to repeat it in this House—that South Africa has certain limits and that it cannot go beyond those limits, whatever demands are made on it. Sir—I must say this as well for the sake of history—hon. members asked me what progress we had made in this regard. We would have made more if there had not been a change of government in the USA. We arrived at certain understandings with the Republican Government of the USA. However, there has now been a change. It goes without saying that, as in the case of America, we must also begin all over again to arrive at an understanding with the Democratic Government. However I have every confidence, in spite of all the things that are being said, that we are in fact able to arrive at an understanding, and I want to give this House the assurance that I will not have been the cause if we do not arrive at an understanding.

It may be asked whether there is still confidence in South Africa at present. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know this. I have already stated that confidence in South Africa has to a certain extent been influenced and prejudiced by the events which have taken place around us. But apart from that, the amount of confidence which there will be in South Africa depends upon ourselves, upon you and me. If we ourselves do not have confidence, how can we expect others to have confidence in us? However, it does not depend upon ourselves only. Unfortunately, as things are in this world, it also depends on the sensational type of reporting on South Africa which occurs in and outside South Africa. I want to express the hope and trust that, considering what is at stake, people will not exploit and hurt South Africa for the sake of sensation.

Sir, if you ask me what my impression is, I want to state unequivocally, once again having regard to the fact that I have during the past few months discussed matters with many industrialists and financiers, that I have gained the impression that there is still confidence in South Africa owing to the fact that South Africa has become known as a country which honours its contracts and pays its debts. You need only talk to financiers and industrialists, Sir. They will tell you that it is a rarity, particularly as far as Africa is concerned, to find a country which honours its contracts in time and pays its debts regularly.

I want to state frankly, on the basis of conversations which I have had and reports I have read, that the confidence in the future of South Africa on the part of existing investors who own industries in South Africa has not been shaken. I have spoken to so many of them who said that not only were they pleased that they had invested here, but had also increased their investments or intended doing so. They did not allow themselves to be deterred.

Why did the Government raid building societies?

Whenever I say something good of South Africa, that kind of interjection is immediately made. My problem with some of the members of the Opposition—thank God, not with all—is that they cannot distinguish between the Government and South Africa. They think that if they speak ill of South Africa, they are harming the Government. They can speak ill of the Government as much as they like, but they must, for heaven’s sake, support their fatherland. Since hon. members are making this type of interjection, I now want to refer to a report which appeared in The Argus today under the headline “Anti-South African loan bid fails.” I quote—

Now I look at the hon. member for Pinelands at once, and I want to say, with David of old: “Who will rid me of this turbulant priest?” I quote further—

This one can read in The Argus today. My colleagues and I can bury hon. members up to their necks in reading matter of this nature. Sir, there is still confidence in South Africa.

I want to go further. My reply is positive because it is a fact that the minerals and the sea route around South Africa are indispensable to the Western World and to the outside world. They must have these minerals and this access. I also base my standpoint on the fact that the nearest and cheapest market for Africa is South Africa and this is all the more the case because transportation is becoming more expensive. Because this is the case, no one can afford to convey goods across long distances anymore and one is therefore compelled, however much one dislikes the people, to buy on the nearest market. For its food and produce South Africa is the cheapest market that Africa has. Industrialists also know that not only is this the case, but also that South Africa is eventually, if it is not already, going to be the gateway to Africa.

In conclusion the hon. member for Sea Point asked me: Is the African initiative of the Government dead? My reply is “no”. It is not dead; that initiative is still in progress. Although it is not always all that visible, and although some bridges have in fact collapsed, the African initiative is still there. What is important is that we have succeeded in making Africa aware of South Africa, of bringing the reality of South Africa, whether they like us or not, to the attention of Africa. That contact is still taking place. Hon. members would be surprised if they knew who visited South Africa from time to time.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore asks me whether I have confidence in the future of South Africa, I say to him: “Yes, not only do I have confidence, but I also truly believe, as I have always done, that we have been called upon by Providence to play a role here in Southern Africa and that, thank God, we have the human material to play that role.”

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister clearly fell into two parts: one part deals with internal affairs, Coloured people and discrimination and the other with external affairs and, shall I say, our security situation. In so far as the first part is concerned, it is quite clear that the fragmentary nature of the debate we have been able to conduct in respect of the Theron Commission shows up very clearly the wisdom of our request for a special debate on that commission’s report. Even when regard is had to the limitations which a debate of this nature involves and the difficulty of following each other, I think it becomes apparent that the attitude of the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of this commission’s report is totally unsatisfactory.

This afternoon we have heard a discourse from the hon. gentleman on discrimination and the extent to which it is being removed. We have seen him somersault on many aspects of NP policy. He has expressed his readiness to break down many of the things which they so painstakingly constructed during the early years of this Government being in power. Having looked at the structure which they have built, found that it is not good, and having decided to dismantle a great part of it, they turn round and beat themselves on their chests and say: “What good boys we are.” You should be praising us. When we criticize the hon. gentleman and when we criticize what this Government has done, we are told we are creating a bad spirit among non-Whites in South Africa, because we point out the mistakes the Government has made.

Stress though he may the importance of the recommendations of the commission’s report and the actions in respect of the removal of discrimination which he has outlined this afternoon, there remains no doubt in my mind that the main thrust of that report has been ignored by the Government and that the political philosophy underlying it has been rejected by the Government. The political philosophy underlying that report is the recommendation for representation for the Coloureds at all levels of Government. I know that the recommendation was adopted by a majority vote: 11 to 7. However, if hon. members will look at the minority report, at the seven, they will see that they too accept that the Coloureds should be represented in all organs of Government. There was disagreement about the machinery to be involved, and about the method of that representation, but there was no doubt that they should have a say at all levels of Government.

What have we heard from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon? We have heard that in time they will have a Parliament, they will have a Cabinet and they will serve on a Joint Cabinet Committee. Will that Parliament be sovereign? Will that Joint Cabinet Committee be one in which the Coloured will have the same rights as the representatives of this Parliament sitting on that committee? Who is going to give effect to the decisions taken by that Cabinet Committee? The hon. the Prime Minister says he is moving in the direction of dismantling discrimination. I accept that he is making some faltering steps in that direction. But, of all the examples that exist, is this not the greatest discrimination against the Coloured people, that they have no say in the Parliament of South Africa, the Parliament which has the power, which takes the decisions, which fixes their destiny and which controls their lives in the future? Once again the Government is not prepared to come to terms with the inevitable. Sooner or later that representation is going to have to be given, just as surely as, sooner or later, the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act are going to have to be repealed. However, while that inevitability is recognized, the Government is still doing untold harm to race relations in South Africa, and doing tremendous harm to our relations outside South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister is taking credit for changes that have been made in the field of sport, in the field of social relations and in the field of public amenities. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has forgotten that I was here at the time when his Government came into power. What were the cornerstones on which they built? They built on the Areas Act. They built on the Population Registration Act. They built on the removal of the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll in South Africa—separate representation. Finally, they took that representation away as well. That happened under this hon. Prime Minister. Finally, they took that away as well.

Although Verwoerd had given the assurance that it would not happen.

What troubles did we get as a result of that discrimination? Has the hon. the Prime Minister forgotten the case of D’Oliveira? Has he forgotten the case of the Japanese jockey? [Interjections.] Have those members forgotten the cases resulting from the speech made by the then Prime Minister at Loskop Dam?

Let us look at some of the examples the hon. the Prime Minister has used here this afternoon. He says they are removing discrimination in respect of salaries and wages. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to deny this afternoon that after his Government came into power the wage gap between Black and White in the provincial medical services and in the teaching services rose as a result of their using a different formula. [Interjections.] It is only now, years afterwards, that they are going back, getting nearer to a formula which they had when they took over from the UP. The hon. the Prime Minister stands here proudly and says he is closing the wage gap.

Can one imagine what damage that has done in South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about the access that will be granted to Coloured and Indian industrialists in the White industrial areas. We welcome that, Mr. Chairman. But what about access in the business areas? The hon. the Prime Minister says he is considering it. Was I right?

I have told you that very clearly. [Interjections.]

What about section 19? Does the hon. the Prime Minister remember the days when they did have that access? That was before the Group Areas Act. Does he remember the little Coloured and Indian shops in parts of Cape Town and in parts of Durban? Who removed them? What is happening now? Now the hon. gentleman is telling us what a wonderful change he is making. He is going to allow them to come back into the White business areas. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister talked about the opening of certain cafés, eating places and hotels for non-Whites. We welcome that, but who is responsible for the position in certain cafés that they can go in and buy bread or a drink but cannot sit down and drink it? I ask you, Mr. Chairman. These hon. gentlemen have a long record. Have they really forgotten the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs they had here who instructed his staff not to shake hands with Bantu when they spoke to them, but to advance and say “molo”? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, do you remember the famous church clause over which we had hours and hours of debate in this House? In terms of that clause the Government refused to allow Black people to gather in garages for church services on Sundays. They took control of the whole situation. When the clause was put on the Statute Book they never had the courage to use it because they realized themselves what damage it would do.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked this afternoon for civilized behaviour towards our non-White people. I support that plea wholeheartedly. I give him the assurance that from this side of the House he will have absolute support in that matter. Nothing could be more important in the interests of racial peace in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave me a very easy task. The task is even easier because on the one hand, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just thanked the hon. the Prime Minister for what the Prime Minister and this side of the House had done over the years, and on the other hand the questions he asked and the ideas he raised were answered in advance by the hon. the Prime Minister. The difference is perhaps just that the Leader of the Opposition grasped at a jockey incident from the post. One can understand why he is referring to a jockey now, because he is looking for a new jockey for his new party. [Interjections.]

There is a concept which is repeatedly being bandied about the House. One hears it from public platforms and in the House. It concerns the idea of change. In reply to a remark made by the hon. member for Pine-lands, I said that the choice was not between change and stagnation. Change takes place in any event, but it is the direction in which one makes a change which is important. One can make changes as the result of blackmail. There were attempts at blackmail last year. This was an aspect of the events which began on 16 June last year. Some people tried to misuse those events in order to blackmail us about certain grievances which they had and certain political dispensations which they wanted to bring about in South Africa. Having said this, I nevertheless want to add that one can have change as a requirement for survival or a requirement for reform. One could mention more reasons why change is essential.

I have said that we are faced with a choice as regards change in South Africa. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to mention four things which I consider to be choices with which we are faced and about which we must make decisions.

I see the first as a choice between mutual hate and distrust among the various communities, and on the other hand contented communities in South Africa—communities which trust one another and are happy with what is theirs and which, at the same time, agree about common enemies from outside. In this regard I associate myself with our new Minister of Foreign Affairs in that he said that we in South Africa must attain to a position where there are contented communities and we can live together in peace with one another so that the outside world cannot justifiably point a finger at things which are wrong in South Africa. Of course there is no country in the world at which no one can point a finger and say that nothing is wrong there.

It is not the prerogative or monopoly of any party on that side of the House to advocate sound domestic relations and that we should achieve detente in South Africa. It is a choice with which we are faced, a choice which we make ourselves. We choose sound relations among the various population groups. In the same breath I want to say that when we speak about contented communities, we certainly do mean the Coloured community, the various Bantu communities and the Asian community, but we also definitely mean a contented White community. One cannot create happiness in South Africa at the cost of the White people in South Africa, any more than one can create it at the cost of the happiness of the Coloured community and the various Black communities. Here I want to associate myself with our hon. Prime Minister, who also referred to this. We must not speak in terms of the happiness, the advantages and rights of the Blacks and Coloureds only. We also have the established rights of an established White community in South Africa. I am the last one to be ashamed of the fact that I also stand for respecting the rights of the White man, in a healthy balance with the interests of other people. This is the first choice with which we are faced.

A second choice with which we are faced, is the serious recognition of the plurality of communities in South Africa on the one hand, and on the other, for all practical purposes, a uniracialism and a kind of “volksbredie”. Now I am quoting the word which N. P. van Wyk Louw used in his book Liberale Nasionalisme. I want to refer to a remark made yesterday by the hon. member for Edenvale. He says that we all recognize the plurality of communities in South Africa. However, in the very last sentence of his speech he denies the identity of the Coloured people. It is not my task to talk about the identity of the Coloureds. It is not my task to outline it for them. But I can indeed make myself heard when the issue is the identity of the White people in South Africa.

I now want to refer to a few speakers. The hon. member says that these people have no identity. He has held conversations with Coloured people himself and I think that he can answer for himself on that point. Amongst others, he spoke to Dr. Van der Ross, who wrote a manuscript as thick as this! I read it for Perskor and recommended that they publish it. Unfortunately it was a little too thick. That whole discourse dealt with “the social and political history of the Cape Coloured people”—people who consider themselves a group, an identifiable group in South Africa.

However, if a man like Dr. David Botha lowers the status of a whole group of people to that of a third class—it is the first time I have seen anyone simply declaring 2 million people to be a class—then a man like Dr. Boesak, student lecturer at the University of the Western Cape, says that he is not an Afrikaner. He prefers to identify with Black consciousness. What, then, possesses Whites in South Africa to propound something in regard to the identity of Coloureds, and the Coloureds repudiate them? I call to mind something said by Dr. George Fortuin a few years ago: “In our own separate schools we have the God-given opportunity to foster our own group consciousness.” And then Mr. Adam Small, too, said that he was not an Afrikaner. By saying this he points out that he distinguishes himself from another specific identity, which he identifies in this case.

We have a third choice, viz. between domination of one group over another—that domination is inherent in the slogan of the sharing of power—and the greatest possible self-determination for every nation and separate freedoms in South Africa. No self-respecting nation is prepared to be subject to any other nation forever, and it is the policy and endeavour of the NP—even though it does not yet have the final answer to every situation—to escape from a situation where one nation dominates another. This is the choice we must make. In all honesty, according to my modest opinion, none of the parties on that side of the House offer a final answer to this choice.

The fourth choice which we must make is between social integration and individual social structures for the various communities. If we maintain that we recognize the plurality of communities in South Africa, we must also recognize the fact of plurality and its implications. Those communities are not suspended in the air; they are not like a figment of the imagination which one sees and does not see. Those communities have specific structures, functions and organizations—call them social structures. Speaking of various cultures, we must bear in mind that man is a builder of culture, and as such he is also a builder of structures. He wants there to be specific structures for the expression of his community life, structures by means of which he can express himself of a community. This afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out very effectively what the various structures are which a community calls its own and which it protects. When one breaks open the social structures of the various communities and make them common property, whether it be his residential area, the community school, the university, his cultural organizations or sports clubs—then surely one handicaps him. Then he is like someone who thinks that he can give up a finger, an arm or a leg and still remain a person. One can perhaps get along without certain things, one can live at a lower level and still remain a person, but one will reach a limit where, if one gives something up, one gives up one’s life. Any community wants to be a full-fledged community in the fullest possible way in most facets of its life. There are limitations, there are exceptions and there are the occasions when it must share with other communities, but basically it is true that a community requires its own social structures in order to be a full-fledged community. If one breaks open those structures and declares them common property, there is no sense in speaking about separate communities, nor is there any sense in the PRP or the UP, let alone the NP introducing separate political structures for the communities.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Prime Minister wants us to attach credibility to his words and to his earnestness to get rid of discrimination in South Africa, I want to suggest to him that this hon. Deputy Minister is the turbulent priest he should get rid of, because that hon. gentleman reflects a philosophy which is entirely the opposite of the philosophy which the hon. the Prime Minister propounded this afternoon. [Interjections.] This is a man who believes in “klein apartheid”. Yet the hon. the Prime Minister is on record, speaking to the outside world, that it has got nothing to do with apartheid. This is the man who believes in “klein apartheid” …

May I ask you a question?

No. The hon. member has plenty of time to speak in the debate. This is the man who says that one cannot have “klein apartheid” without “groot apartheid” and that one cannot have “groot apartheid” without “klein apartheid”. This is the man who says that the Nico Malan theatre is only open temporarily. This is the man who criticizes the concept of “gemengde eredienste”. This is the man who says we cannot have mixed sport, because South Africa is “geen bredie nie.” This is the man who has said the day we have integrated sport in South Africa, his constituency will be without a leader. I believe this man is sabotaging the efforts of the Government to get …

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. the Deputy Minister as an hon. member.

I apologize. I believe that that hon. Deputy Minister is sabotaging the efforts of the Government to get rid of discrimination in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister’s speech consisted of two parts, one dealing primarily with external affairs, and because the main burden of my charge against the hon. the Prime Minister is not in the field of external affairs, I shall leave my comments on that matter to a little later, save to say that he did make a passing reference to our attitude on attempts to dictate to South Africa as to what its internal policy should be. Let there be no misunderstanding: We in these benches are not going to be dictated to or coerced by anybody as to our internal policy in South Africa. We believe this is for South Africans to decide in the ful light of all the facts and the realities which exist at any time. We reject the simplistic concept of Black majority rule. I have said so in this House repeatedly. We believe in shared government in South Africa and we believe that you can get rid of discrimination in the political field without having domination of one race over another in this country. This is our objective. The hon. the Prime Minister may disagree with us on the method, but let there be no doubt about our intentions and the direction in which we are going to go.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech on discrimination was part of the completion of a cycle of events. Here is a Government which got into power largely by exploiting prejudice and discrimination. Here we have a Government which proceeded to create statutory discrimination in South Africa even in fields where there was no statutory discrimination. Here we have a Government which then went on to say that there was no discrimination and to deny the charges which were levelled against them by the hon. member for Houghton over the years that there was discrimination in South Africa. Here we have a Government which brought upon South Africa, and not upon the Government only, the odium of the world and the anger of the Black community in South Africa, because of its institutionalized discrimination. Here we have a Government which has moved, timidly and slowly, towards the removal of certain aspects of discrimination. Yet here we have a Prime Minister claiming credit, instead of also having a degree of humility for the untold damage which his Government has done to South Africa over the years by its development and enforcement of discrimination.

Discrimination has brought about the difficult situation in South Africa.

I believe that the Prime Minister is still doing an unedifying egg-dance in the area of social discrimination, i.e. intergroup and inter-personal relationships. He has still, as the Americans say, not come clean. I believe that he is pandering on the one hand to the verkrampte wing in his party and on the other hand to the more verligte wing in his party. Only yesterday he gave his philosophy on the basis that there should be separate social facilities for the separate communities. He then went on to say (Hansard, 19 April)—

In other words, he is saying that it is not a question of identity and it is not a question of friction; it is a question that if you cannot duplicate the facilities, you must share them. That is pandering to the verkramptes. On the other hand, he has said time and time again that it has nothing to do with apartheid. He said that where separation was not necessary in order to prevent friction, these things would be removed. So, on the one hand, for the verkramptes he says that we will have separation unless money makes this impossible, and on the other hand he says that we can have shared facilities unless friction prevents us from having them. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister must tell us whether it is a question of eliminating friction or whether it is a question of maintaining separation unless money prevents one from doing so.

Let us look at a few of the points which the Prime Minister made in his speech. He said that the Coloured and other people would never have developed as much as they have done and would not have filled certain posts had it not been for the policy of separate development. Mr. Chairman, if there had not been a policy of separate development and of discrimination over the past 29 years, if there had been free compulsory education, if there had been no job reservation, if there had been trade union rights, if there had been equal pay for equal work, if those people had had a positive say in the decision-making processes of South Africa, I believe that Black and Brown South Africans would be further ahead in all walks of life in South Africa than they are today under the NP Government. The hon. the Prime Minister says he would rather listen to Black and Coloured leaders than to White people in this Parliament. I am pleased that this is so, but it is not only a question of listening to what they say; he should heed what they say and respond to what they say. If he believes that they are better ambassadors and better representatives for their communities than anyone in this Chamber, then I believe he should bring them to Parliament. Let Prof. Kgware come here and speak about the needs of the Africans in the field of education. He deals with the universities. Is he prepared to allow the universities themselves—those who want to—to admit people on the grounds of academic criteria alone? Is he prepared to scrap the restrictions placed on the councils of the universities of South Africa?

He deals with the question of sport, and I am pleased to say that there has been progress and that we do have a considerable degree of integrated sport in South Africa. What a pity it is, however, that we first had to incur the odium of the world, that we had to see our sportsmen driven off the international fields because of the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd and that we now have to try to repair the damage.

He deals with a number of other issues. He deals with the fact that Indians can move freely, but he has not told us that they cannot move into northern Natal and he has not mentioned that they cannot move into the Orange Free State. These are aspects he failed to mention. As I said the other day, let us accept amongst ourselves on both sides of the House that there is race discrimination and race prejudice in South Africa, but let it be our combined intention to try to rid this country of both prejudice and discrimination. One of the things we have to do if we want to get rid of prejudice is to get rid of the sharp cutting edge of NP legislation. My charge and that of my party, against the hon. the Prime Minister, is fundamentally that at a time when South Africa is desperately looking for a lead, this Prime Minister has failed to lead South Africa in the field of its internal policy. It is easy enough to sound “kragdadig” and it is easy enough to have fun at the expense of the Opposition. But the people of South Africa are looking for a lead, and other than in the field of external affairs, the hon. the Prime Minister gave the impression that he is a man with a dilemma. He is caught up in a dilemma of his own making. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister to take his courage in his hands and not to look over his shoulder at the right wingers in his party. I believe that the voters of South Africa are prepared to accept a bold, “verligte” lead. Tell them honestly, instead of sitting on the fence as far as Coloured political rights are concerned, that we are working towards full and equal citizenship for Coloured South Africans in a country which they must share with the Whites. I believe that White South Africa will respond. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the PRP made two speeches in this debate, one yesterday and one today. I hope I shall get round to him in the course of my speech but I want to begin by saying that at the present time South Africa is involved in a political and military struggle for survival in which it has become involuntarily engaged—and I want to underline that. We can argue it this way and that, but the fact of the matter is that we are being forced into a struggle we would have preferred not to have. I believe that because we appraise the realities of our position accurately and plan accordingly, and that as long as we continue to do so, we shall win this struggle. Let us look at the most recent events in Africa, and I do not want to dwell on these because the hon. the Prime Minister has outlined the situation admirably for us. If we look at the events in Zaire, Angola, etc., three facts emerge. The first is that there are Black nations in Africa who are waging war against other Black nations for ideological reasons. In other words, the Black nations of Africa are not homogeneous, and that is our reality.

†The hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday referred to Blacks as a conglomerate of people. I think there might be an insulting innuendo in the word “Blacks”, but he did say the “Blacks” of South Africa. As long as they do not comprehend the realities of South Africa, there is no hope for that Opposition.

*The hon. the Prime Minister made that point very clear.

The second reality is that Russia has provoked the conflict with a view to conquering Africa by force of arms. We must take cognizance of the fact that it is an ideology of White origin which people from Europe want to force upon White and Black Africans. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the PRP whether he believes we shall escape Russia’s attention by disarming ourselves or by making ourselves unprepared. I am addressing the question to the hon. the Leader of the PRP because he said disapprovingly yesterday that the strategy of this party was one of “increasing militarization”. I want to ask him what his solution is. Is his solution “to decrease our militarization”? Can I then be blamed if I say he is soft on communism? We cannot disarm ourselves at this stage of our national existence. It is an indictment of the PRP for them even to be toying with those ideas at a time like this.

A third reality is that the USA has given proof in Africa that it is prepared to discuss human rights. The USA has also proved, however, that its sentiments are neither hot nor cold but in fact luke warm in respect of the physical protection of human rights. So one asks oneself whether it is wrong if it is said that “America is childishly naïve” in its actions in Africa.

Having mentioned these three realities, I want to try and give reasons as to why we have to have a strategy for survival here. I want to mention three things we shall have to consider. The first is that we shall have to identify correctly the conflict that is being waged. Secondly, we shall have to identify our enemy and thirdly, we shall have to formulate our objectives very clearly. In talking about the conflict that is being waged, I want to make it clear that there are White Marxists who want to dominate White and Black Africans. I also want to state that there are Black Marxists who want to dominate Black and White Africans. Therefore, the conflict in Africa has nothing to do with colour. It is not a conflict between colour groups. It is not a racial conflict. I want to make it clear that colour does not determine where one stands in this conflict. Therefore, I want to say that any illogical discrimination against the White man—the White man may also be discriminated against—will be counter-productive to the interests of the Brown man or the Black man in this struggle. There must be no discrimination on that basis. What the conflict is really about, is whether or not Russian imperialism is going to conquer us and confound our human rights.

We also have to identify the enemy. The enemy is a political ideology of Marxism which eventually changes into physical domination of a people. The struggle is therefore being waged against the peoples that propagate that policy.

We also have to identify our friends in this struggle. Our friends are those people who are fighting with us against Marxism for the maintenance of human rights. These people who are fighting politically and physically, are our friends.

We have to divide our objectives into facets. We must guarantee a decent existence here for all those who are our friends. We must give every people that takes part in this struggle a territory of its own in which it will be the primary factor. In the second place—I want to dwell on this a little longer—we must ensure peaceful co-existence in this country by way of expansion of separate ethnic development. This is our policy. Our policy is not one of colour, but one of peoples.

It involves two things that I want to clarify. In the first place, it involves the identification of illogical, indefensible prejudices at this juncture. Prejudices against the White must also be identified. In the second place, we must recognize the right of existence of separate peoples, including that of the Whites in this country. Of course, once we have reached this stage in our development programme, we will not have attained the immediate emergence of a Utopia in South Africa. Differentiation will still occur. Even discrimination might occur, but that discrimination and that differentiation will occur on an ethnic basis. It will not be on the basis of colour. Ethnic Discrimination is something that occurs the world over. It is “normal”. We as Whites, however, do not want to be discriminated against on the basis of colour. That is our policy, an ethnic policy leading to the complete freedom of peoples, as far as possible. This is fundamental. Naturally, the further we progress with our policy of separate development, the less discrimination there will be on the basis of race and colour. It therefore incorporates a guarantee that there will be no discrimination. I am convinced that in the interests of our survival in South Africa, we have to bring together those people who belong together through inner conviction. We must give consideration to establishing a military and economic power bloc, an African power bloc. I am convinced that the only solution for us in South Africa is the policy of the NP. I do not believe there is any question of the policy ever having failed or of its being capable of failure. On the contrary. I believe that my future and that of my children is secure only on the path of that policy, which will end in peaceful coexistence in Southern Africa.

In conclusion, I want to give many thanks to the hon. the Prime Minister for personal sacrifice on this path. We appreciate it, particularly in these difficult times. I believe that the fact that we chose the right path will be reflected in the annals of the history of this nation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. He has posed certain questions to my hon. leader and to the hon. member for Sea Point, and they will no doubt deal with that in due course. This afternoon, as I listened to the hon. the Prime Minister, my mind automatically went back to the question why the situation had arisen in South Africa which necessitated the assurances which he gave this afternoon, not only to South Africa, but to the world, of the removal of discriminatory practices and laws. One’s mind went back automatically to 1948, especially when boastful statements were made about what was being done for the non-White people of this country, to the very attack on the then UP relating to the fact that it was spending too much on the Black people and for that reason should no longer govern South Africa. Following that, when the hon. the Prime Minister boasts about Bantu education, has he forgotten the years when his Government reduced the amount to be spent on Bantu education to R13 million per annum?

Hofmeyr pinned it.

Then, after five or six years, in which expenditure was defrayed from Capital Account, it suddenly became apparent that they were not able to keep up that old attitude. However, what is more important and what came back to my mind, is that we are in a position today, regarding race relations, which is made more difficult by the divisive and separationist laws which have been passed by this Government over the years, and which for 30 years have prevented adequate communication between the different race groups in different categories and in different walks of life. The number of laws which have been passed is numerous. It is a long list and it would need too much of my time to read everyone out to the hon. the Prime Minister. But let me remind him about his group areas and his race classification laws. He then dealt with a political aspect, to which my hon. leader has already referred.

Then there came this series: the segregation in the building industry in 1951, the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act (1955), the reservation of separate amenities in 1953, bus apartheid in 1955, the abolition of mixed trade unions in 1956, apartheid in cinemas, tearooms and restaurants by law in 1957, taxi apartheid in 1959, a separate nursing profession in 1957. Then, when it got to 1962, it was going really wild; we then had separation in scientific and industrial organizations. Finally, in 1965, there came the proclamation which provided for separation of the races in civic halls, at agricultural shows, at sporting events and in education. Today the hon. the Prime Minister says what a great deal the Government is doing in eliminating discrimination, while discrimination is of the Government’s own creation.

Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister said that we must be realists. I agree with him entirely. We must be realists and we must have regard to realities in the formulation of policy. We must accept the plurality of communities which constitute the South African nation. However, my difficulty with the hon. the Prime Minister is this: The hon. the Prime Minister will not publicly accept the basic political reality, and that is that the Government’s policy of separate development cannot satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the Coloured, Indian and urban Black people in our plural society. It cannot provide for those personal and political rights to which the communities are entitled; rights which we have and rights which we cannot deny those communities.

The very fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has found it necessary to appoint a Cabinet Committee to busy itself with this constitutional question and to see how policies can be adequately amended and changed, is something which is encouraging.

Nevertheless, I want to return to some aspects of the Theron Commission report. At the outset I want to state that the attitude of the UP was committed to writing, was published in September of last year in this document, “Die Theron-kommissie en die Verenigde Party—’n Samevatting.” If any hon. member opposite should want it, it is available, on application, from the hon. member for Pinetown. [Interjections.] The Government’s reaction to the most vital and urgent recommendations of the commission is one of hesitancy. This reaction is motivated, quite clearly, by adherence to ingrained, institutionalized and legally enforceable apartheid attitudes. What are the recommendations on the Group Areas Act? The commission found that there was widespread and intense opposition to the provisions and to the administration of the Act. No wonder! If I may remind hon. members, as at 31 December 1975, in the Cape Province alone, 47 061 Coloured families—involving 244 718 individuals—were, in the words of the hon. the Minister when replying to a question, moved from their homes in terms of the Group Areas Act proclamations. At that date there were 11 690 Coloured families—involving 60 788 individuals—still to be moved. A year later those figures had been reduced by 1 000 families only.

The commission was, nevertheless, realistic. In its recommendations it accepted the existing residential pattern of areas assigned to particular population groups. It did so subject to three basic qualifications. The first was that compulsory removals from existing established residential areas should be restricted to removals necessary for slum clearance only. Secondly, the pull of growth points which were set aside for Coloured occupation had to be strong enough for Coloureds to want to move there of their own accord. In this respect I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister of the establishment of Athlone in the Cape, which was established as a centre to which Coloured persons moved because there was a desire to move there. The third qualification of the Theron Commission was that in these areas there should be adequate community amenities and services. The commission realistically had regard for Government policy and the laws which are applicable today in the country. In this context they made recommendations that District Six, which is presently proclaimed White, Woodstock, which is presently proclaimed partially Coloured and partially White, and Salt River, which is a controlled area, should be reserved for Coloured occupation and ownership. These areas fall mainly in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. leader. The reaction in the White Paper to this question is both hesitant and totally unacceptable to all the people concerned. In regard to District Six I want to say that the fact that more than R20 million has been spent on this abortive exercise to create a White area in District Six is no reason to deny the legitimate rights and claims of the Coloured people to have that area placed back at their disposal. If that is not done, bearing in mind what has happened already with attempts to try and develop it as a White area, the only alternative would be to declare it a national monument to the Government’s concept of separate development in all its barren waste as it now stands.

In regard to Woodstock and Salt River the Government’s indecisive attitude will perpetuate the uncertainty of ownership and occupation of their homes for some 30 000 families, in addition to the 11 000 families I have indicated to the hon. the Prime Minister already. The Government’s attitude will perpetuate the disruption of family life and stability in the areas of Woodstock and Salt River. It will inhibit expenditure on property maintenance and accelerate urban decay. It will perpetuate the concept of compulsory removal on grounds of colour alone. It ignores the acceptance by people of people in that area within a community irrespective of the arbitrary, statutory race classification in which they might fall. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point began his speech with a statement that separate development, including group areas, has prevented and limited meaningful communication in South Africa. I want to disagree with him very strongly in this respect. Group areas were begun with the very purpose of creating order out of chaos. Group areas were created so that the Coloureds of South Africa could be accommodated meaningfully, so that they could possess land in their own areas, so that community facilities could be created in the areas, so that leadership capacities could be cultivated and could be further developed in that sphere, and so that a growing self-respect, group awareness and mutual trust could arise amongst them. Therefore, group areas were the foundation of the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloureds in South Africa. Now that leaders have been nurtured and the infrastructure for the cultivating of leaders created, a further step could be taken and the necessary constitutional, representative organs of authority could be established. The leaders who have developed can have seats in these bodies and consult about their own affairs. Consequently the Government could create a Cabinet Council where they could hold consultations at the highest level concerning all the matters relating to the future of the country and concerning Coloureds, Whites and Asians. The hon. the Prime Minister said today that that was not the end of the road, but that those people who serve on the Executive Committee of the CRC will also reach Cabinet status. In the same way Coloureds can serve on community councils together with Whites, where they can look after the community interests of their own people.

What about District Six?

The hon. member for Pinelands refers to District Six. There must after all, be meaningful planning for accommodation. The hon. members does not refer to Woodstock and Salt River. These are areas which the Theron Commission did not recommend to be declared non-White. However, what did the Government do? It is also prepared to investigate making these areas available for Coloured use. This testifies to the good faith which is evident from the honest attempts by the Government to make sufficient provision for the justifiable accommodation requirements of the Coloureds. [Interjections.] During this debate, the basic theme of the Opposition, amongst other things, has been the concept of change. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the political system must be changed. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that the policy as regards apartheid measures must be changed. The hon. member for Edenvale said that far-reaching changes must be brought about. Then we have the cry that the Government’s policy of separate development has not succeeded and that we must change. The Government is reproached for the fact that it did not accept the recommendations of the Theron Commission unconditionally and it is said that the White Paper of the Government is an inhuman rejection of the humanitarian democratic principles for the Coloureds in South Africa and that consequently we must change.

Just as the hon. the Prime Minister said here this afternoon that discrimination has a positive and negative meaning, the word “change” has a positive and negative meaning too. South Africa is sick and tired of the word “change”, which is being hurled at the Government by parties which do not have to justify themselves to people for the changes they are requesting. These are parties that are aiming at majority rule. In the process they are reproaching the Government for becoming stagnant in thought and deed and for its behaviour towards the non-White peoples of South Africa being inhuman. These are the statements which are being broadcast and which are harming South Africa’s name abroad. It is statements of this kind which arouse emotional expectations amongst the Coloureds, expectations which are difficult to comply with.

The history of Africa is full of chaos, misery and the remains of political systems which were changed too quickly, accompanied by bloody revolution.

I want to reject with contempt these negative calls for change. This does not mean that one should not make positive changes. Naturally, our whole history is one of change. Since Jan van Riebeeck arrived here, changes had to take place. Changes also had to take place when the Huguenots arrived here. This was the case too when we became a Union, when we became a Republic, with the shift from the urban areas to the cities and the hatred between the British and the Boers which changed the feeling of co-operation between the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people. Changes will always have to be made in this country. That is why the Government will always have to continue to make positive changes, changes which can be brought about in a positive, evolutionary manner, changes which are aimed at bringing about progress and advancement, changes which are necessary for the future, which bring people together and will not result in a disruption of human and colour relations in this country. We in South Africa are engaged in one great change. We are leading separate population groups towards separate sovereignties. That is why it is a pity that the negative requests for change by these irresponsible Opposition parties confuse the people.

Since Opposition parties often adopt the point of departure of integration, there is uncertainty and confusion about the concept “change” amongst Nationalists. That is why a great fear sometimes arises when change is mentioned, because people are afraid that there may be a so-called too-rapid movement in the direction of the improvement of colour relations or, to put it differently, they are supposedly afraid that a positive change may possibly be a concession which will merely result in additional rights being given to the non-Whites and the rights of the Whites being taken away or curtailed as a result. After all, this is not the case; this is the cause and the consequences of the confusion and that is why one can also tell those people with a clear conscience that the Government will have to make changes in future as long as we exist, but that it is also the task of the Government to keep our people together.

That is why we can say that South Africa is not changing its principles, its institutions, its traditions and customs merely at the request of the West and at the request of those who call for majority rule daily. Nor does South Africa change the important principle of maintaining sound colour relations and sound ethnic relations in South Africa. Nor does it change the important concept of maintenance of identity and the right to self-determination of White and Brown separately. South Africa does not make changes in order to satisfy the West, nor does it change because it is afraid of a White, Coloured and Black confrontation. Not at all.

Changes will be made in the country and changes will have to be made in order to create better ethnic relations and to maintain law and order in the process, to maintain people’s freedoms, to guarantee them security and safety and to create contented communities and an improved dispensation between White and Coloured in the process.

I believe that the future of the country demands a long, intensive, comprehensive conference. The basis of this conference is the important element of attitudes. It will be the task of every person in the country, White and Coloured, to develop the attitudes, communicate them and express them in their way of life. Without that we cannot face the future and we shall do so in this spirit, because we will have to continue to exist side by side in South Africa as White and Coloured, because we will have to go forward hand in hand as White and Coloured, because, as White and Coloured, we shall have to realize that we must serve South Africa by being economically productive, by maintaining law and order and by projecting abroad the best attitudes at all times. In conclusion I believe that we must do so in the spirit of a green heritage year or a water year, but with the emphasis on a year of attitudes and, once this year has passed, we shall have to have a year of attitudes once again.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue where I have left off. I have dealt with the effects of the uncertainty in regard to the Woodstock and Salt River areas. In this morning’s Press the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment issues a statement which attempts to alleviate the anxiety of the people there, but I am afraid it does not do so, because he merely says that the Government will investigate. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that what is wanted, is not an investigation. The Government has had the recommendations in its possession for very nearly a year and the Government has looked at the areas of Woodstock and Salt River during the year through the work of the Group Areas Board. What is wanted now, is a quick decision from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what is to happen to those two areas. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he is a realist and I want him to be a realist in this case as well. He cannot add tens of thousands of Coloureds or White people to the list of people already awaiting removal under the Group Areas Act. The hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as we do—we have all accepted it—that the funds are not available to rehouse those people. There are some 30 000 families involved in the Woodstock-Salt River areas. The numbers are very nearly 50:50 in regard to the people who are involved in the uncertainty and who would have to be removed. I want to suggest in all sincerity and in all earnestness to the hon. the Prime Minister—I know these people who are in my constituency—to make up his mind and to leave well alone in those areas and to accept those areas as uncontrolled in so far as the Group Areas Act is concerned. I believe that is the right way to deal with the situation and that it will bring satisfaction and contentment. The hon. the Minister of Community Development must get on with his undertaking of urban renewal and the renewal of those residences in order to prevent the urban decay which is commencing. That cannot be done and the decay will continue until there is certainty for the people concerned as to what is to happen in that particular area.

I should like also to deal with the question of business and industrial areas which, it is recommended by the commission, should be demarcated in town planning schemes. It is recommended that business and industrial areas so demarcated in town planning schemes by a local authority, with the approval of the provincial authority, should be open to Coloureds, Whites and Indians. The White Paper, unfortunately, is confusing on this issue. The hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with this, but I would like him to tell us again whether the heavy industrial areas only are to be open, as was announced in the Press by an official of the Department of Community Development. If that is so, this concession will be of little or no value to the Coloured community. What is needed is a free enterprise approach, and an opening of business and light industrial areas, as well as industrial service areas and commercial and business areas, to Coloured entrepreneurs. Let these areas be subject only to town planning schemes. This action alone will remove the hurt and the feeling of discrimination which Coloured and Indian businessmen have.

The light industries they have in their own townships.

No, they do not; that is the problem. A dormitory town is being established at Mitchell’s Plain and there is not a light industry within miles of the place. I may add that the situation as we find it at Atlantis is fine. There this is being provided for.

But the service industries are in the townships.

No, they are not. Nevertheless, this is the request I wish to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. This is what has been recommended and I believe it is only just and right that the Coloured people and the Indians should have this granted to them, particularly in the Western Cape.

I now come to the recommendations regarding amenities. These recommendations were in essence that a local authority, on application by the owner or person in control of such a facility or amenity, should be empowered to authorize the usage of such amenity or facility. The White Paper now again avoids the issue. The White Paper deals only with amenities which are provided in terms of the Separate Amenities Act, which relates to beaches and resorts. The White Paper has given no attention whatsoever to the question of amenities provided by private enterprise. What the White Paper has done is to give an assurance that restrictions on separate amenities under the Separate Amenities Act will be eased on a selective basis, whatever that may mean. But the amenities provided by private enterprise are hamstrung by the Group Areas Act. I refer to amenities such as theatres, restaurants, nature reserves, hotels and the like. In the case of these amenities permits have to be applied for ad nauseam. There must be an end to these ad hoc decisions. The hon. the Minister of Community Development himself said a year ago that he would investigate the matter and try to have some principles or rules made available to the public at large in regard to access, particularly to theatres. That has not been done. It cannot be done. You cannot have a basis for rules which can apply. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister said, quite rightly, that no one should be forced to open amenities. I say to him that nobody who provides an amenity as a private individual or as a private undertaking should be restrained from serving the clientele he chooses to serve with that amenity. It is the same thing, Sir. That is the attitude which has been adopted by the Theron Commission and I believe it is one which the hon. gentleman should now concede.

Finally, I want to add a word to what my hon. leader has already said in regard to sport. The hon. the Prime Minister became almost lyrical yesterday about the opportunities which were available. But, Sir, I want to ask him to be kind to the hon. the Minister of Sport. The hon. Minister of Sport had first of all to attend a full Cabinet meeting. He then had to attend five party congresses and a meeting of the Federale Raad of the NP in his endeavours to normalize cricket. He then came out and made the profound announcement that in future a Coloured cricketer could bowl a red ball at a White batsman. Surely the time has passed for that sort of attitude towards change in our sports policy. The commission has made a very real and proper recommendation and has adopted an attitude which we on this side of the House have adopted for many, many years and that is for heaven’s sake to leave sport to the sportsmen so that sportsmen can organize their own sporting activities. Only then will meaning be given to the opportunities for non-Whites to participate in all aspects, up to and including international sport. Other matters have been raised by hon. members on this side of the House. The opportunity to act, at least in respect of the Coloureds, is now. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister, with as much force as I can, that the responsibility, the duty and the authority are now in his hands. I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that there still remains a considerable amount of goodwill between Coloureds and Whites in this country. There does, particularly here in the Western Cape. It does exist, but it will be dissipated by delays and indifference to the recommendations of the Theron Commission. What is needed from the hon. the Prime Minister is leadership now, in the interests of South Africa as a whole, and not merely the restrictive policies which he is perhaps asked to apply as far as his own party is concerned, leadership which will give meaning to the undertakings of our ambassador in regard to the removal of discrimination. Only then can we cement the goodwill and provide the loyalty and patriotism, as far as South Africa is concerned, on the part of the Coloureds and the Whites, something which it has been suggested is necessary by the hon. member for Pretoria West. It is a sentiment we all support.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, tried to point a finger at the Government. He wants to suggest that we discriminate against the Coloureds with regard to businesses in the Cape. I was not born a Capetonian, but during the last 13 years or so it has been my privilege to come here to Cape Town and its environs. I have never found that the existing businesses have been taken away from the Coloureds. One can go to the Parade, to Woodstock and also to Salt River. There one still finds the businesses that the Coloureds have always had in the past. As a matter of fact, there are even some of them who have many more businesses today than they have had before.

With a permit.

The hon. member is the last person who dares talk about the Coloureds, because all they know about is the way they took advantage of the Coloureds when they were in power and used the Coloured as a political football in South Africa. That is what they have done. I shall come back to that. I want to refer in particular to the role the hon. member himself played in the undermining of his party. I think it is also important that we look at that. One may ask oneself what has happened to the UP that it should look as it does today. Once upon a time the UP was a powerful party—I actually want to call it the old SAP. In 1943 they had 89 seats. Something must have happened in the meantime to undermine that party, because in 1970 it came to this Parliament with 47 seats and the Progressive Party with one. That was the position in 1970. However, what has happened? In a mere seven years that party has disintegrated further, and today we have opposite us three Opposition parties. The mother party is sitting there with 30 seats, the left wing next to them with 12—they are the liberal elements—and the conservative element with 6. Then one asks oneself why it is like that. What has happened to cause that party to disintegrate to such an extent that the same members—because all of them are ex-UP members—are in this desperate political situation today. Surely there must be a reason for that. There must be a reason why this UP, that was once such a respectable political party in South Africa, has disintegrated to this extent.

Because they have advice for everyone except themselves.

It is as the hon. the Prime Minister rightly said—because they have advice for everyone except themselves. In the first place I want to say why they have disintegrated. The hon. members on the opposite side should please listen very carefully now. Their mouthpiece in the past was mainly the English language Press, and a section of that Press has never been loyal to South Africa. The English Press realized that the UP could never take over the government of the country in a democratic way. Then they heard the voice of the hon. member for Houghton in the House of Assembly. That voice touched off an answering chord in them, because that voice advocated a majority Government. That voice represented a party with different political affiliations, a party with very strange bedfellows and allies. That party is the friend of that section of the English Press to which I have referred. That English Press, specifically The Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail and editors like Joel Mervis and others, saw that they had allies within the UP, elements who felt the same way as they did. What did they do then? They then started dancing to the tune of the Progressive Party. They realized that it was only by way of an alliance with the PP and their bedfellows and allies, that they could try to take over the government of South Africa and bring the NP to its knees. That is what happened.

I have said that especially from 1970, changes took place very rapidly. Why did it happen at that stage? They gave Sir De Villiers Graaff a chance and issued a warning to him. I have the press cutting here with me. I recall very clearly how they warned Sir De Villiers Graaff in 1971 and said to him: “You will have to do something, or else we shall have to get rid of you.” Then the Bureau for State Security was established, as well as the Schlebusch Commission, who received certain instructions to report to Parliament about the affairs of certain organizations in South Africa. They were commissioned to investigate what those people were up to. Hon. members will probably recall those times when there was student unrest as well as strikes in Natal. On that occasion the part of the English language Press to which I have referred came forward and said: “We dare not allow those organizations to be investigated, because they are the allies of the PP.” It was then that all hell broke loose in the UP, if I may put it like that. What did they do then? In the first place they realized that they would get nowhere with the present leader of the UP. Then, on 25 February 1973, there was a report under the heading: “Thirteen reasons why Graaff must go.” In that report they stated frankly that they had supported the UP for long enough through the bad days, and that if it had not been for them, the UP would have disintegrated long ago. In other words, they were the masters of the UP. To get rid of the leader of the UP, they concentrated on certain elements within the UP, elements like Mr. Harry Schwarz, whom they wanted to use for their own purposes. Then a struggle for the leadership started within the UP. Once again the Sunday Times stated very clearly in a report that Marais Steyn would never have lost his leadership had they not given their support to Mr. Schwarz.

In 1973, when the members of the Schlebusch Commission were appointed and that commission began its activities, the English language Press played its role and started with a sifting process within the UP, and that led to the tremendous struggle between the “Old Guard” and the “Young Turks”. What did they do? People like Etienne Malan, Oliver and others had to make place for people like Dalling, Horace van Rensburg and Harry Schwarz because those elements fitted beautifully into their pattern in the PP. We have had that result. Those people came to Parliament. They were hardly here when the struggle continued. And what happened then? Those same members that they used are sitting within that party today. What are they hoping for? They know as well as I do that they have as little chance of taking over the government as I have of reaching up and touching the sky. But with their policy of majority rule, they still believe that the only way they will ever take over the government in the country, is with the aid of the Black man and the Coloured. I therefore want to address a warning to the UP today, particularly to the English-speaking people. They should no longer allow themselves to be led by the nose. They should try once again to be South Africans, to come back to their people and be loyal to South Africa, whether they are English-speaking people or UP. But at least they should, in the first place, be South African again; then there will be a future in this country for them as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the nature of the onslaught on South Africa. He said we should have no illusions. I agree with him 100%. The enemies of South Africa demand of us nothing less than total surrender. I also agree that we are prepared to conduct dialogue, but within certain limits. These limits should not be exceeded.

†It is in this spirit that I wish to address the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. I want to make an appeal to him for more open and frank handling of our foreign affairs, more disclosure of our actual position, so that the people of South Africa can be better informed. I am one of those who believe that we have little to lose by disclosure, since so much of what we do is in any event known to our enemies. I think it is very important that the people of South Africa should know of the dangers which face us. I think that there are too many attempts at secrecy, which have only the effect of protecting those people whose activities should be exposed. By attempts at secrecy we are protecting in effect those who practise double standards and who should be exposed. I am not suggesting that there should be the type of diplomacy that is being practised at the moment by President Carter or by Mr. Young, a sort of diplomacy of unburdening themselves in public. In this respect I came across a good description of Mr. Young the other day, where it was said—

To that I would only add that he is also “young”. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Ministers should make a frank disclosure of our position. Let me give an example. In the case of Angola, we went in initially to protect our installations at Ruacana and Calueque. We became involved in the war, but there was no disclosure to the public, which I believe was a mistake. Some years later it took a British journalist to show that we were absolutely justified in going into Angola, to show the role that the Western countries had played in encouraging us to go into Angola, and to show how they then let us down at the crucial moment.

As regards Mozambique, look at the position which arises as a result of nondisclosure. There are people who are asking what is happening to protect our interests at Cabora Bassa. What is the position as regards railways and harbours in Mozambique? What is the position about payments in gold in respect of miners coming from Mozambique? What are the facts? All that the public knows is that Machel seems to say and do what he likes to us and to Rhodesia. There is rumour and suspicion which is aroused. It does us no good. Look at the case of Botswana. It is reported in the Press that Black South African school-children are in Botswana, are being harboured there, are being paid at a rate of R20 per day by the Botswana Christian Council and by the Council for Refugees. These children are only in transit to terrorist camps where they will be trained by people who seek the downfall of South Africa. They will soon come to attack our people who are fighting on the borders. Is there any extradition arrangement with Botswana? If so, are we making representations for these people, who have escaped from South Africa, to be extradited? Is there any refusal on the part of the Botswana Government?

What is the position with regard to Zambia? Kaunda, it would appear from his public utterances, is playing ducks and drakes with us. There is reason to suppose that he and his Government are receiving substantial economic aid from South Africa. However, his speeches are virulently aggressive towards us. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us what the exact position is as regards our relations with Zambia and with President Kaunda. There is rumour and there is suspicion, and from my own observations, both Rhodesia and South Africa are crawling with informers of the United Kingdom and of the United States. Their missions, their information services, their diplomats and their church representatives here are numerous. Why are there so many of them here in Southern Africa? They seem to present to the outside world—judging from the newspapers that one reads—a wholly distorted picture of the true state of affairs in Southern Africa. Is this because of their ignorance? Is this because of the wrong people in the countries of Rhodesia and South Africa that they meet at their diplomatic cocktail parties? And, may I add here that there are some of our representatives here in Parliament who hang around like bar-flies at diplomatic parties given by foreign countries. [Interjections.] Are they here with evil intent? Are they dealing in double standards and do they have questionable motives about our security in Southern Africa?

Look at the position with regard to South West Africa. There we have an agreement apparently being arrived at by the people of South West Africa. No sooner is it rumoured that an agreement is about to be reached and a referendum to be held, when five ambassadors of five countries, countries which are supposed to be such close friends of ours, are sent to see the hon. the Prime Minister. Their demands, according to Press reports, are that South West Africa should be handed over to the supervision of the United Nations Organization, and, in the event of a referendum being held, that there should be one man one vote, that there should be no basis of agreement on ethnic grounds, that there should ultimately be a hand-over to Swapo, or else there would be Security Council action.

Look at the double standards in the case of Rhodesia. There we have a Kissinger agreement with Premier Smith, whereby Smith was forced by the West to agree to majority rule in two years. We have a farcical Geneva conference, where the Kissinger agreement was completely ignored. Thereafter we have a situation where it seems as if every British diplomat is beholden to five Black people who have become dictators with the power of veto in Africa. That is to say, the five Black Presidents. Two of them are openly Marxist. Two of them are double-dealers who clearly have relations with Russia, and the fifth one is Sir Seretse Khama, who receives medical treatment and hospitality in South Africa, but harbours terrorists in his country and publically insults us as a country.

Mr. Ian Smith accepted a package deal from the West, but that was not good enough. There had thereafter to be another agreement, and thereafter a directed choice of future leaders in order to decide who was to become the Government of Rhodesia. The West seemed to join forces with others in the world who insisted on Nkomo en Mugabe being the ultimate leaders in Rhodesia. We have Ivor Richard coming to South Africa, a man with a record of being a leading Fabian in the British Labour movement, a man whose political record, as regards South Africa, shows that he is utterly hostile to us in this country. We have that followed up by a visit of a man called Owen, a comparatively young man, but a man who, not many years ago, wrote a book advocating a blockade of Southern Africa, including the use of Russian ships against us.

I ask whether the Government can seriously deal with people of this kind, with people with records such as they have. It would seem, after the past record of the dealings of leaders of Southern Africa including ourselves, with Wilson, Barbara Castle and others of that ilk, that we should speak with them with considerable scepticism and suspicion, especially those like—at any rate according to their public announcements and some of their public actions in Britain—show themselves to be hostile to us. There has been a long history of treachery by successive British Governments to White settlers in Kenya and Rhodesia and their relations with us have hardly been of the most honest.

Let me give another example of a double standard. Here one has the first case in recent months of an African country which becomes independent bloodlessly and by its own choice. I am referring to Transkei. Yet, not one of those Western friends of ours see fit to recognize Transkei as an independent nation. What is the position with America? The Prime Minister said that the President of America was the leader of the West and therefore also our leader. That may be so. I hope it is only a figure of speech, because in the light of the actions of President Carter to date it would appear that he also practises double standards. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the tone of the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown. I think his observation that Southern Africa is becoming the arena in which diplomats play their diplomatic games, is correct. I agree with him that as far as the game is concerned, we cannot afford to lapse into isolation. We must match every move. It is brain against brain; it is our best against theirs. The visits of Messrs. Podgorny and Castro were part of an organized diplomatic game and they did not go unnoticed. What is particularly striking, is that they are playing these high trumps in Southern Africa. The question is what remains for them to play. As I see it, the fact that they played these trumps indicates that they are very hasty and that they think time is running out. This links up with an idea the hon. the Prime Minister has expressed before, namely, that the more successful we are—in whatever field—the more rushed and urgent the attack of our opponents,—in this case international communism, Russian imperialism—will become. Therefore, it is a game in which our best is matched against theirs. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the present and former Ministers of Foreign Affairs have proved that they can play the game and master the field as well as, if not better than, our enemies. Allow me to mention some examples and evidence in that regard. Did Dr. Kissinger not come here? Did Dr. Owen not pay a visit here recently?

The hon. member also referred to Angola. I assume the hon. member took this as proof that there ought to be more candour. What happened there? The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—supported by the Minister of Defence and indirectly by the Prime Minister as well—said on 27 January 1976 that we had gone into Angola with a limited diplomatic objective. The Opposition was extremely critical of that diplomatic objective. They treated it with contempt and rejected it. What actually happened? Four months later it became apparent that the diplomatic objective, namely, to awaken the free world to the dangers of Russian intervention, had been realized. Then they started to react at once. That was four months later. Those hon. members did not believe it. This attests to absolute diplomatic maturity.

However, I want to associate myself with the conversation the hon. member for Pretoria West had with the hon. leader of the PRP. Yesterday, the hon. leader of the PRP said here that he thought we were accepting a total military strategy as the only possible strategy. He phrased it as if we were replacing political and socio-economical development and reform by this strategy. I want to tell that hon. member here and now that this is not true. We have decided to arm ourselves militarily as best we can. What are our reasons for doing this? In the first place, we are doing it to deter or resist any aggressor. Secondly, it is a guarantee that it will, in fact, be possible for that very political development to take place in this country in a peaceful and orderly manner. Thirdly, we are doing it so that when we practise diplomacy, our diplomatic negotiations will be backed up by a credible defence force. That was the intention behind this.

If he will listen for just a moment, I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that he ought to have no doubt that this strategy of the Republic of South Africa, namely, to build up a defence force that will afford us the opportunity to develop in an orderly fashion politically, is already bearing fruit. I want to furnish you with proof of this. As far as the Black peoples are concerned, they will not allow the rights they have acquired up to now, to be taken away from them. The hon. member normally argues that the Blacks are not prepared to fight for anything in South Africa and that they are not prepared to range themselves on the side of the Whites. I now challenge the hon. members of the PRP in particular to deny that it will not be possible to take away these political institutions that the Blacks have acquired. This would give rise to most wide-spread and most serious conflict imaginable. It would really give rise to a conflict if the political institutions of the Black people were to be taken away. As I see it, this is proof that we are following not only a military strategy but also one of political development, a strategy that is so acceptable to these people, that it could no longer be taken away from them. Those hon. members know this. The hon. member for Pinelands is listening attentively. I challenge him to stand up and deny it. Whom are we talking about when we say that “these people” will not allow it to be taken away from them? We are talking about the lawfully elected leaders of these people. How many people are we talking about? We are talking about approximately 16 million people who will not allow these rights to be taken away from them, either by way of “majority rule”, or through anything the PRP might have to offer them. I know what the Opposition’s reply to this will be. They will say that there are other people we ought to speak to and negotiate with. Who are those people we ought to talk to? What have we achieved with the strategy of political development.?

What we have achieved is that the militant, supposed leaders without a following have become totally isolated and have lost their followers. This has been proved by recent events. It was when Winnie Mandela tried to win back prestige for her husband from none other than Chief Minister Buthelezi. She tried to win it back from him. What is the other group of people they want us to recognize? They are the communist-inspired and -indoctrinated leaders. I am referring to people such as Oliver Tembu and Mandela. What happened in that regard. They were totally isolated from the other Black people in South Africa. The same thing happened in South West Africa, in that the militant elements in Swapo became isolated from their people and were exposed to the world as leaders without a following. Consequently, my conclusion is that our political strategy—to use the idiom of the hon. member for Sea Point—is succeeding, and that people—to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—will fight tooth and nail to preserve it, to prevent the PRP, the Russians or anyone else taking it away from them.

As for the distress of the hon. member for Sea Point at our adopting a military strategy, I have therefore already proved that this is not the case. I admit, however, that we are arming ourselves as best we can. Why? We are doing so because we want to prove to the outside world that we are a hard nut to crack. Do hon. members know what has happened to Yugoslavia to date? Despite serious ideological differences, they have not been brought to heel like Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Russian approach is not to try to win victories with direct military attacks, but to try to win them in the political or diplomatic fields. However they have proved that by way of their strategy, they can succeed in bringing a far larger group of people under their control than they could by means of a military onslaught. During the Second World War, it cost them millions of rouble and ten million Russian lives to bring 500 000 sq. km of European soil under their control. During the past few years, they have brought almost a million square miles under their control, with far less resources, purely by means of diplomatic, subversive and other methods.

Mr. Chairman, it is becoming more and more of a habit with some speakers on the Government side to disparage the West as a whole as being decadent and as being indifferent towards the dangers threatening it. I want to point out to hon. members that before the Second World War it was a popular habit in some circles to accuse the Western democracies of decadence, until war broke out and the non-democracies found out how wrong they had been. In recent times we have heard from different Government speakers that South Africa used to be “too ready to range itself on the side of the West”. The hon. the Minister of the Interior—virtually the shadow-Minister of Foreign Affairs—was so upset last week that he summarily uttered the threat that if the leaders of the West did not take care, we would begin looking for friends in Mao’s part of the world. [Interjections.] Of course! What else did he mean? He spoke of the East. I wonder whether this kind of technique will be of any assistance or value to us. Even if Mao’s form of revolutionary communism at the moment is, to a greater extent, directed inward and different from the more imperialistic communism of the Soviet Union, it is wishful thinking that there are potential political friends for South Africa in the East who will accept us as we are. If there were such countries, the Government has been failing in its duty by not going to fetch them a long time ago. What we should consider, is why leading Western countries adopt such a severely critical attitude towards us. Is it not perhaps a question not of the West not wanting to stand by us, but of our not fitting in politico philosophically with the Western democracies of today through our own doing? I believe that Western friendship and alliance awaits us; it is there for the taking, and they will be only too pleased to welcome us in their midst. Of course, we shall have to clear up the problems in connection with out internal relations policy in an acceptable manner and not get bogged down by concepts such as “majority rule”. Switzerland, to mention one example, has majority rule. Is there anybody in this House who will tell me that in that excellent constitutional model of a plural, multi-racial community and of cultural co-existence, the 20% French-speaking Swiss and the 4% of the Italian cultural group are dominated in any respect, politically or culturally by the 74% German cultural group? The Turnhalle is heading for a system of majority rule, yet on a basis where the domination of one group by another can be avoided. There is not a single good reason why we in the Republic cannot devise methods which will bring us closer to the modern political values of the Western democracies.

†Mr. Chairman, if political “freedom for all” is a sincere and practical policy, why does the Government not finish the job as a matter of priority and finally draw the lines geographically in such a way as to create politically viable areas of Black majority rule and let them vote and choose if they wish to opt out of South Africa as separate independent states? Let the Government finish the job if that is its policy. If the removal of discrimination based on colour is the meaningful intention of the Government, why does it not have the courage to complete the job urgently and with enthusiasm so that we can start concentrating on positive national goals and on building up a new society?

There is one thing which the hon. the Prime Minister can forget. I see that in his message to Assocom he has mentioned that a point of policy which is not negotiable is what he calls “the right of the Whites to govern and control their own future exclusively.” In a speech in Westdene the new Minister of Foreign Affairs also spoke of—

as though there was only one—

I do not know of any leader group in the Western World who would deny the White group the right to survive and to continue to exist as a people of Africa. This right of existence of the White people as a people of Africa was not only recognized by the Lusaka Manifesto many years ago, but it was even emphasized by the African National Congress in their “Freedom Charter” of 1955. In fact, in an analysis of the “Freedom Charter” presented at a conference in Morogoro in Tanzania in May 1969 emphasis was placed on the fact that South Africa “has a multinational population.” Even before the term “multi-nationalism”—“veelvolkigheid”—or “pluralism” became current in White politics here, the African National Congress had already admitted that we were a multinational country. It was decreed in the “Freedom Charter” that “South Africa belongs to all living there, Black and White.” No reasonable man would even deny any population group the right to govern itself fully and alone where this was a practical political possibility; in other words where the demographic boundaries of “volk” coincide with the geographical boundaries of “land”.

The hon. the Prime Minister had much to say yesterday about the need for political parties to be realistic and to accept the realities of the South African situation and the fact that we are a plural society, but that is exactly what he, together with his party, is not doing. He admits that we are a plural society and everybody admits that—it is a fact—and it will always remain so even after some of the Bantustans have become independent. Surely, he should concede the simple reality that like every multi-national country where more than one people find themselves because of historical reasons within the same political boundaries, we have a choice between only two directions. The one is a policy of “baasskap” of one of the peoples within that political boundary over the others; in other words a form of internal imperialism which will lead to endless conflict and confrontation for us internally and externally; and the other is that we shall have to seek a form of meaningful political participation for all our peoples in the real government of the country, but in such a way that no group has the right of overall domination and that each enjoys the fullest measure of cultural freedom for itself.

*It can be done. Many such models exist in the world. It is the only politics that one can call “the politics of reality” in South Africa, even if this has not yet been brought home to the majority of the voters. It is the only way in which we shall be able to integrate ourselves with the West. In fact, I think a surprise may be awaiting us as far as the West is concerned. We have repeatedly invited the West, virtually pressurized it, to come and play a more active role in Southern Africa. Some Government members even abuse the West because it does not come, because it does not involve itself in Southern Africa. I do believe, however, that they will step in, and as one observer puts it—

That is we in Southern Africa—

I regard the visit of Dr. Owen to Salisbury, the change of policy to be found in that, the active co-operation of the USA in the Rhodesian question and the militant initiative which the USA, Britain, France, West Germany and Canada recently took in connection with South West Africa, as more than just symbolic. I believe the West is on its way to making a joint entry into Southern Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if I had to summarize what the argument advanced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was really all about, I should say that he stated that we had to make ourselves acceptable to the West. He went further and said that in the process, we had to be prepared to sacrifice the White man’s right to govern his own country, that we should have to bring together the population groups and the peoples of South Africa and work out a formula as to how we can govern together. He wants to do this in a way that will still guarantee the cultural identity of each people. I think that is a reasonable summary of what he said. The tremendously important remark he made in this regard was that although he considered it impractical for the White man to govern himself and to continue to do so, in other words, to be exclusively his own master …

Because he is not alone here.

… we had to be satisfied with “the right to exist and survive”. We must forfeit the right to self-determination and be satisfied with the limited right merely to exist and survive. Therefore, he is in the same boat as the hon. member for Sea Point. In his first speech, the hon. member for Sea Point—and we are not going to allow him to get away with it—dissociated himself from the judgments passed by Mr. Andrew Young on illegitimacy and he also dissociated himself from foreign demands relating to majority rule. If we listen to how he dissociated himself from these things, however, we see how very careful he was in his wording. He said—

In his second speech, however, he said the following—

Why did he phrase it like that? He did so because he realized that their policy was directed at, and would logically conclude in, a more intricate form of “Black majority rule,” perhaps, but “Black majority rule” all the same. After all, he knows that the hon. member for Houghton, who is sitting next to him, has conceded this. She did not deny it when the hon. the Minister of Labour and of Mines put it to her in column 91 of the No-confidence Debate. He quoted what she had said in Australia, if I remember correctly—

That is right!

I quote further—

Considering the 14 points and the new party that is to be established, it is inevitable that Black majority rule will be the end product and that, in the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, we will have to be satisfied with “the right to survive and the right to exist”.

It was Pik Botha’s words I quoted.

The hon. member said himself that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had stated that a people had the right to govern itself. The hon. member also said that there was no country in the world to which we would not grant the right “to survive and to exist”.

The PRP, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and a few other members of the UP agree with the outside world that South Africa has to have majority rule and that in the final analysis, we cannot evade the fact that there will be a Black majority government in South Africa. Moreover, they agree with those abroad who demand that we move away from the existing pattern of self-determination of peoples and that we move in the direction of a unitary state. They are advocating a Turnhalle for South Africa. What would be the function of such a Turnhalle? As the PRP defines it in its programme of principles, such a Turnhalle would have to draft a federal constitution to bind us together and establish us as a unitary state.

Those are not the words we use.

If the hon. member wants to argue about it, I shall read it from his programme of principles. They want to hold a national convention with a view to drafting a federal constitution. Does he dispute this? Allow me to quote from his programme of principles—

That is correct.

Oh, please Sir, the hon. member must not play with words. What do they mean by this? At the basis of this approach of creating a unitary state, lies the fact that they say the Government of the Republic of South Africa cannot remain a legitimate Government under the present circumstances. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout virtually stated this expressly. What they are saying, then, is that in its present form, this Government does not have the right to exist, that it has to be replaced by a multiracial Government and that the White group is nothing more than a cultural group and can lay no claim to self-determination in the fullest sense of the word or to self-rule. In essence, the approach of the opposition parties, excepting the group of six sitting next to me, corresponds exactly to what Mr. Andrew Young said when he referred to us firstly as an illegitimate Government, then as a nonrepresentative Government and then again, according to this morning’s news, as a morally illegitimate Government. The hon. members for Sea Point and Bezuidenhout can argue until they are blue in the face but that is what they, too, think about South Africa. What are they, as opposition parties, telling the rest of the world with this attitude of theirs? They are telling the rest of the world, including the militant states in Africa: “You are right. The White man does in fact have a right to be here, but it is a limited right. He does not have the right to govern himself.” They are telling those people that the White man is not entitled to a territory of his own or to sovereignty over himself. They are alleging that unlike those in practically every other state in Africa and throughout the world, the White man in South Africa is not only to be denied the right to determine his own fate, but that he is also to share the power and say over himself with other peoples.

This is the inescapable logical consequence of the policy of those parties. They want to cancel out the right we have already acquired. They want to cancel out our proven constitution and undo the history of South Africa at the conference table. This, after all, is the essential point of difference in South African politics. It is not the “verlig” or “verkramp” that they are trifling with. The essential point of difference is that we on this side and everyone who supports us—and that is why there are so many of us here—believe that the White man will determine his own future and that he is prepared to fight for it—for that right. The number of members in that party is so small because they are prepared to negotiate the White man’s right to decide his own future. Here lies the fundamental dispute. Pursuant to a remark made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we cannot do this in practice, I say that South Africa, excluding those Black areas we are now giving back to Black governments that are becoming independent in an orderly fashion, is legitimate in terms of all four existing constitutional norms, that it is a legitimate independent country and the White nation is here. Now they will ask: What about the Coloureds and the Indians? The reply to that has already been furnished by the hon. the Prime Minister. He stated very clearly in the Other Place that as far as the Coloureds and the Indians were concerned, we would negotiate. He said (Senate Hansard, col. 1249)—

Consequently, there is no flinching from the position regarding the Coloureds and the Indians. We shall find a way because we are going to share the same territory. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the first matter one should deal with is this question which is continually thrown across the floor at these benches, the question of Black majority rule. I want to say, so that there is no misunderstanding whatsoever, that as far as the people who sit in these benches are concerned, this Party does not have as its objective Black majority rule or even majority rule. [Interjections.] It is not our objective; it is not our policy and it is not what we believe in. If there is any doubt as to whether—I am speaking only for myself … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton was reported in The Star of 26 July under the headline—I am quite sure that hon. members at least understand headlines—“Majority rule no answer”. In other words, the party as a whole does not accept it. This is what she said in America. This is what is being quoted against her, that she in fact alleged to have said the contrary. Let me make it quite clear: This is not the objective of this party; it is not the policy of this party. [Interjections.]

Let me deal with what I believe are the real threats to South Africa. The major instrument of foreign policy which this Government should use in order to meet the threats which face us—and nobody can pretend that there are no threats—a major weapon which we should use, is the unity of the people; Black people, Brown people and White people. If that unity of purpose is not achieved one of the major weapons needed in foreign policy today will be lost. That is what we need. I want to say, with respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, that no amount of cosmetic change will bring about the unity of the people in South Africa. It needs a far more fundamental look at South Africa and a far more fundamental approach to this problem. We keep to the foreign policy aspect and we look at what is happening in Africa at the moment. Africa has just had visits from both Mr. Podgorny and Mr. Castro. Why did these two gentlemen come to Africa? They came to Africa—if one can believe what is written at the moment in the Western Press and from what one picks up from the talk of politicians in the West—because they believed there is a war pending in Africa and they have decided that they are going to choose sides in that war. In fact, they have chosen the Black side in that war. That is the reason why those leaders were here. They have come here to the so-called front-line States in order to assure those States of the support of Soviet Russia in the war that they believe is coming. How does the West view this situation? The West does not believe that everyone of the so-called front-line States is a Soviet satellite, even if they follow socialist and communist doctrines. They do not believe that those people want to be satellites of the Soviet Union. But they do believe that those States are prepared to give bases to the organizations that want to move against Southern African, that those States want help to be given to those organizations and that those States themselves want help.

They see in Mr. Podgorny’s visit, and in Fidel Castro’s visit, the offering of help in order to achieve that purpose. What is the answer of the West to this? Here we have had a campaign, a campaign which has been led by virtually every Cabinet Minister, starting with the hon. the Prime Minister, very ably followed by the hon. the Minister of Defence in order to draw attention to the communist menace in Africa and to Soviet imperialism. What is happening at the present moment? If I read the editorials of overseas newspapers correctly, and if I understand what overseas politicians have been saying, that campaign has in fact succeeded. The West has become aware of the fact that Soviet imperialism in Southern Africa is a danger. It is a danger in all sorts of senses; some of the senses the hon. the Prime Minister referred to. They are aware of that. In the light of that situation they have had to decide what to do. It is quite clear that their attitude is that they are not going to become militarily involved in Southern Africa. The memory of Vietnam is still too clear in the United States. If one speaks to the Germans, and to the German politicians, they are quite clear in stating that they are not going to become involved in a war with Russia when they have tanks waiting to roll across their own borders. There is no question of a military intervention in Southern Africa—if I read the signs correctly—on the part of the European community, even though they are fully aware of the menace of Soviet imperialism, even though they are fully aware of the dangers of communism, even though they are fully aware of the strategic value of South Africa. What is happening then? What has happened is that the campaign to highlight this danger in the form in which it is being conducted by this Government, I believe, is showing signs of back-firing. It is back-firing because the West has decided that if they are to meet this menace—and that is how I see it—they are going to compete with Soviet Russia.

They are going to say: “We are not going to support the Whites in Southern Africa against this menace that occurs, but what we are going to do, is to support the so-called ‘liberation movements’ so that we can, in fact, meet this Soviet menace in that way.” That is the biggest danger that there can be for South Africa. That is the biggest danger in foreign policy, and it shows how this thing has backfired. It further shows that we may, in fact, find ourselves in a situation where, far from having allies in the position in which we are, we will have both the West and communism competing to give aid to the so-called “liberation movements” against Southern Africa. That is the danger that we now have to meet.

It is no good the hon. the Minister of Information saying: “If the West does not want me I am going to turn to someone else”. There is nobody else, other than the West, as far as we are concerned. We are of Africa, but our association and our connection are, in fact, with the West. Therefore we have to look to the West for assistance and for aid. That is why we have to take a long, hard look at how we can get Western support once again. Then, we come back to where we started. We have to achieve the unity of the people. We have to avoid making merely cosmetic changes. We have to show the world that there are going to be real changes so that the moderate people in the West will say: “This is in fact something which we can support. This is something we can back.” There is no reason why this should not be done.

I have the editorials here of papers across Europe in which it is being said that what the hon. the Prime Minister has done is to help Soviet Russia in this concept, because he put moderate Blacks and communist Blacks all in the same camp with all the dangers for the West that entails. The hon. the Prime Minister must not shake his head. I have the newspapers here, and he can see them. It is there in black and white. We have to avoid that situation. We have to get South Africa back on the side of the West and we have to get the West back on the side of South Africa. That is what is required. We talk about human rights …

You are like the curate’s egg—good in parts.

Perhaps those who broke the “curate’s egg” must have their attention drawn to what the problem is. The problem is there, and it is sometimes necessary to say the things which are unpopular so that the problems can be solved.

I want to end off by saying something about human rights. I believe in the same way that President Carter talks about human rights for the Blacks, we in South Africa also have human rights as Whites. When he talks about a crusade to protect human rights, our rights must also be protected. Nobody can ask of a people to commit suicide, and the White people cannot be called upon to commit national suicide. We have the right to survive in South Africa … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is pathetic to contemplate the antics of the UP and the PRP. [Interjections.] I will refer later to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. I am disappointed in him in the sense that I did not think that he, because of his so-called great patriotism, would deliver such a panic stricken speech. One must be more calm within oneself and also have faith in South Africa. [Interjections.] There is no sensitivity on the part of the Opposition in South Africa. For what reason does the hon. the Prime Minister enjoy recognition, and not only on the part of the NP? When hon. members travel in their constituencies they will experience the esteem and respect that exists for the hon. the Prime Minister. This esteem exists not only across the language barrier but also our national borders, within Africa and internationally. In a very important foreign country where I had the privilege of talking to leading industrialists and financiers, I found that they regarded the hon. the Prime Minister as a leader of world stature. They would like to have such a leader in their own country. Why does the Opposition not give recognition to a great man? That is the tragedy of the UP. The UP is a sickly, declining party because it does not accept the identity concept in South Africa and the multinationality of South Africa.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what his speech and statement will be at the UP congress on 2 July. I want to predict that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will say that the difference in principle between the UP and PRP should be thrown overboard and that the parties should become reconciled. Then the hon. member will walk out of the UP. He will be the ringleader and will take a band of desperadoes along with him. The hon. member will, however, lead them from a political desert into a political morass.

There is great tension in the PRP. The hon. member for Yeoville today attempted to protect the hon. member for Houghton.

I talk for myself.

Precisely. That hon. member talks for herself and always talks too much. That is her problem. The hon. member for Yeoville is trying to be loyal to his party. I want to tell those gentlemen who will walk over to the PRP that they will be leaving behind a desert and a morass, but will walk into a party where there is tension such as they have never experienced in the UP. The reason for that is that there is a spirit of desperation among a small group in the PRP, and here I am excluding the hon. member for Yeoville. Because of hatred and spite, they are prepared to collaborate with a Black Power to break the NP and destroy South Africa. There must be no doubt about that. The South African nation has already rejected the PRP. Why is the PRP victorious in various constituencies? It is because of the weakness of the UP. UP members are deserting to join the PRP. That is what is happening. The PRP is becoming stronger by taking deserters into their midst. The PRP has reached its ceiling because the South African nation has already seen through it. Every time the hon. member for Houghton opens her mouth in this Assembly, she loses votes. I think the hon. member for Yeoville realizes this because he is clever.

We spoke of recognition of the hon. the Prime Minister. I think we must make an appeal to the South African nation to realize the priorities set by the Government and the fact that this has to be a challenge to the nation. Many things have to he done. We are living in very difficult times. This is a time in which we must remain calm. We must not have reactions such as we have had from the other side. The hon. the Prime Minister said in his speech that the wage gap will be narrowed. Not one of those members said “hear, hear” or smiled. It was a bitter pill for them to swallow.

We spoke of relationships and discrimination. These priorities must be realized. Not one of those hon. members reacted to this. An expression of good will has to come from the side of the Opposition before they will ever be able to restore their image outside. The priorities set by the hon. the Prime Minister are economic and military defensibility and human relations. These relationship adjustments that are being made and that have still to be made have to be made on a responsible basis for the benefit of Black and White. Is it not pathetic, however, that one has to deal with extremists in South Africa? There are extremists to our left and right, extremists such as the PRP who are only interested in integration and nothing else and who are fostering the growth of wrong concepts among other population groups. The responsible Black leaders in South Africa are repudiating that party. They know that the PRP are not acting in the interests of the Black man but regard the Black man as an instrument.

As far as human relations and discrimination are concerned, the greatest and most important instrument in South Africa is the policy of self-determination. That is the instrument which enables the Black man to have a love for his own country and work for it without any discrimination whatever. That is the key and instrument to the future of the Black man. We who are White have our rights in this country.

Not alone.

Not alone. Unfortunately this also includes the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If he will only come to his senses and use his intelligence, he will realize that the Opposition also has a task to perform here. It is interesting to recall that the hon. member joined the UP in 1959 or 1960. When one looks at the graph one sees that that party deteriorated badly from then on. There are those in the hon. member’s own ranks who are hoping that he will join the PRP. I think they already believe that he has been the cause of everything and that, when he leaves the party, they may again perhaps become a party. There is no reaction on the other side. They are not protecting him. [Interjections.]

I believe in the moral fibre of this nation. I believe South Africa has a special future and that my nation …

Nobody is listening to what you are saying.

I do not want a dullard like that hon. member to listen to me. He will not understand what I am saying because he does not feel the same way. The South African people are experiencing difficult times, but these are times which will temper South Africa. We are experiencing times in which we must be able to say, not only in the interests of the Whites—and I am giving priority to the identity of the Whites because it is also my own identity—but also in the interests of the Blacks, the Coloureds and all the other nations in South Africa, that we have a country which does not act in a hypocritical or dishonest manner. When the hon. member for Yeoville refers to the West he must remember that we are not enemies of the West. The West will have to learn that we are carrying out a gigantic task. The idea or concept that we are hostile towards the West does not exist. I do not know where the hon. member gets that from. I believe the West will build up Southern Africa in the future together with South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg was disappointed because there was no reaction to his speech while he was making it and I am sorry that I have to disappoint him once again, for I really do not know how to react to his speech.

†I want to turn again to the question of our foreign relations. When one looks at speeches made by hon. members on that side of the House, by supporters of the Government and the media who support the Government, one has the impression, when they discuss foreign relations, that there is a person looking through a window at the world outside, but that that window is not filled with clear glass; the window is a mirror. What they see is the reflection of their own attitudes and prejudices. They see a mirror of their own hopes and fears. They see a kind of wish fulfilment, a rationalization of their own attitudes. This is obviously no way to look at foreign affairs, because if one blinds oneself to the realities, one does oneself and one’s country no good at all. I am reminded of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior a few days ago when he made intriguing references to the possibility of seeking “toenadering” with Red China. This is a kind of petulant suggestion arising out of his disappointment with the present state of affairs in our relations with the West. This is like playing tennis against a wall. One bounces one’s own ball against the wall, one plays wonderful smash shots against the bounce, one has only shadows as opponents and as partners one has people such as Saunders and Renkin of the SABC.

This is not the conduct of foreign relations. The real conduct of foreign relations in South Africa, as in any other country, must not be based on selectively dramatic pieces of journalism and pieces of propaganda picked out to which we must make angry replies. There are many marginal aspects to the whole question of foreign relations. For example, the irresponsible and loud statements of an Andy Young are not serious material for diplomacy. It is far better to pay attention to the quiet diplomacy of a Cy Vance. He is not a loud or irresponsible man, but he is the man who wields the power in foreign affairs in America. Let us hear less of the Andy Youngs and more of the Cy Vances. Real diplomacy deals with authentic sources, it deals with the sources of power and not with such intriguing, extremely doubtful, extremely costly and abusive remarks as were made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. We surely cannot concede that South Africa, in its present state, can profitably engage in any kind of dialogue of power with Red China while South Africa is in the state in which it is at present. This kind of nonsense destroys the credibility and the serious intent of South Africa in international circles. I believe the hon. the Minister of the Interior should stick to a portfolio which he handles reasonably competently and not meddle in one of which he has very little knowledge.

South Africa’s serious diplomacy is with the West and with our African neighbours, and not with Red China. Our diplomacy and our foreign relations are with our main trading partners, the investors in our growth, as well as with our partners, real or potential, in the security of Southern Africa and the African continent. We read tonight in The Argus further confirmation of the action of the French Government in Zaïre. The President of France, M. Giscard d’Estaing, has in fact said that he proposes to create a task force which will be employed to assist the francophone African States against Soviet expansionism in Africa. This kind of reaction one gets from the West, that “lamlendige” West we have heard so much about. Recently we had Dr. Owen here. Dr. Owen did not come on a mere exploration. He came, he said—and one must believe him—with the backing and the authority of the United States. After his arrival here he also announced the support of the European Community. Sir, the West is not asleep. The West may at times appear to be disenchanted with Southern Africa and to be less alarmed than we are about the threats of communism, but when the crunch comes, the West, I believe, will be there and the West will be our only support when that time comes. We must therefore study the essential conditions of our relationship with the West. I agree very strongly with the hon. the Prime Minister when he says, as he did in his statement to Assocom the other day, that we can only go so far in meeting the West. We cannot concede everything. Diplomacy is essential about a national interest. It is not a kind of charity one conducts to please foreign nations. But, at the same time, one’s own real interests very often coincide with the interest of maintaining close friendships and alliances abroad. These are the things we must study, Sir. Racial privilege and inequality is not a base either for our own security or for strong friendships with countries abroad, nor is a stubborn defence of obsolete and dogmatic policies. These are not essential to us and they are no use at all in the improvement of our relations with countries abroad.

What then, Sir, are the main priorities and problems in our relations with the West? The first, I believe, is clearly South West Africa. I believe it remains that element most immediately within our power in our foreign relations which should receive the most urgent treatment. We must obviously seek a settlement which is acceptable to the inhabitants; and if not now, then soon, on terms which are also acceptable to the West. The settlement of the South West African issue has never really presented a great danger to the internal security of South Africa. It has never presented a really great danger to the internal security of the people of South West Africa. What we have done is to delay this matter and therefore to deny ourselves the benefit of a quicker settlement.

In the brief time available to me, I should like to refer also to Rhodesia. This is a country which is less directly in our own sphere of interest than is South West Africa. I believe, nevertheless, that delay in South West Africa has weakened our potential ability over the years to play a more effective role also in assisting Rhodesia in getting through its difficulties. It has been said to me by numerous people, both here and in Rhodesia and in Europe, that if South Africa had played a more effective and more urgent role in South West Africa, its prestige with the West and its standing in Africa would have been greatly enhanced and would have enabled it in fact to play a more decisive role in a settlement of the Rhodesian dispute, mostly by way of example and not only by precept, because if we had started five or ten years ago when this party advocated it, we could by now have had a viable independent State, a multiracial State, without any fears of domination and majority rule which we hear so often from that side of the House. It is possible to create such a State and we should have set Rhodesia the example.

In South Africa we have had a golden opportunity to show that we can also get rid of those policies which are causing offence to the West, not merely to please the West, but in our own interests as well. Such an opportunity was presented to us by the Theron Commission report. Here we are dealing with a people which is not a majority group in South Africa. They are not a cultural threat to the people of South Africa. They do not form a separate nation which might endanger us. They have no alien political or economic philosophies which threaten us. There is growing acceptance of them by the White people and there is proof of this around us every day, not just sectional approval, but approval in all sections of the White community. The Theron Commission prepared the way for real progress in this field. It justified the Government’s proceeding at a greater pace than it might have contemplated. The rejection by the White Paper, of the principle parts, the main thrust of the report, is a rejection of a great opportunity for South Africa. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should withdraw that paper, have another look at it and come back with a fuller acceptance, both to our own advantage and to the benefit of our relations with the Western countries that we need so much. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the statements made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat to the effect that our relations with the West must be studied and that the question of South West Africa is particularly urgent. I want to dwell mainly on the aspect of our relations with the West. The conflict in Southern Africa and the inter-state relations which flow from it, are characterized in particular by two approaches. There is the radical approach which is aimed at bringing about the necessary changes here at the southern tip of Africa by revolution, and in that way to have Black majority governments ruling here in those States which to a large extent are controlled by White governments. With that revolutionary aim in view, it does not suit the radical group to have White elements in those governments, because that would temper the spirit of the revolution, and the dream of a transition to a Black state, on a basis of one man, one vote, would be limited. And as a result of the presence of White elements in those States, when those Black States come to the borders of the Republic of South Africa, it is difficult for them to launch, or they are impeded from launching, their terrorist attacks.

There is also the moderate element, viz. that element who with the aid or co-operation of Whites who find themselves in those particular areas, e.g. South West Africa and Rhodesia, will arrive at a situation through evolution where moderate and lasting governments will be established, governments in which the White man can also participate.

The radical approach is aimed at and will entail confrontation, because the White people in those areas regard themselves as part of Africa and are of the opinion that they can have a share and should have a share in the governments of those countries. Various speakers have already referred to the fact that in the first place the West, whose friendship we should cultivate with a view to the solution of those problems, does not want confrontation. If a change were to come about as a result of any conflict, the West does not want Soviet-inspired governments to triumph. For instance, the West would like to see the South West African and Rhodesian questions being removed from the agenda of UNO. It follows therefore that it is in the interests of the Western powers that a government should be formed in which the White group should have a significant share. In so far as the interest of the West in what is happening in Southern Africa is concerned, I think that it is a selfish interest. What is of interest to them is the extent to which the happenings in Southern Africa will affect them. That is why their interest is of a selfish nature. We must always take that fact into account in our deliberations. We must always bear in mind that the West’s interest in Southern Africa is motivated by self-interest.

If there is one concrete thing in the position in Southern Africa, it is the fact that nobody can gainsay us when we Whites in South West Africa say that we plan to stay there and participate in the government and the running of that country. That is in fact accepted. Nobody disputes that. I think the same thing applies to Rhodesia. On the other hand, the moderate non-Whites in those areas acknowledge that the Whites must be there to consolidate the governments, and that those areas cannot survive without the help and support of the Whites. We heard this again recently from Dr. Owen. He received confirmation of this.

Against that background the Government of South Africa, through the hon. the Prime Minister, decided that the inhabitants and peoples of South West Africa should decide for themselves which way they wanted to go. In other words, the right has been granted to the people of South West Africa to decide on their own future. As we have heard again this evening, it is important that when the right of self-determination is applied in that territory, acknowledgment of that state will have to come in some way or other. I do not think there is a purer way of determination than self-determination. Self-determination means that the people concerned have themselves to decide what they want. Anybody from outside who wants a say will be overstepping his rights and will exercise an undesirable influence on that right of self-determination.

When we think therefore of the attitude of the West to South Africa and South West Africa, it must be accepted that the West’s right with regard to the self-determination process of South West Africa, should only be concerned with establishing if indeed it is the “self" which will decide in South West Africa. If the West proceeds from the assumption that it must decide what course self-determination will take there, it will be exceeding its function in an unseemly manner. However, there are clear indications that at this stage the West has still not succeeded in properly delineating its own approach to South West Africa, for instance, but that up to now it has always taken into consideration what the Africa States want and has adopted their standpoint in regard to the promotion of self-determination in South West Africa. When for instance the West says that the military and security forces of South Africa have to withdraw South West Africa, they are just echoing the Africa states. When the communist bear came so close to the borders of South West Africa they West did nothing to avert that danger.

So it should be obvious to every reasonable person that those security forces should stay there. In fact, everybody in South West Africa believes that the security forces should stay there until South West is in a position to look after its own interests. This does not detract from the fact that in the meantime South West Africa has reached a stage and situation where there is the possibility of a rosy future for South West Africa. This is borne out by the fact that even at this stage there has been great progress with the setting up of a future political order for South West Africa. The West had the opportunity of testing that dispensation in the eighteen months the conference was in progress but failed to do so. The stage has now been reached where the possibility exists of an interim government for the next eighteen months and the West should investigate to ascertain whether what has been achieved enjoys the general consent and support of the inhabitants—Black, White and Brown—of South West Africa.

The inhabitants of South West Africa say that they regard what the Turnhalle has achieved as a new dispensation which grips the imagination and will compel recognition by the Africa States as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring the debate back to the economic field. I believe that this House will readily understand and appreciate that more than upon the political destiny of the country, the defence of South Africa in the immediate future will depend upon a strong economy. I believe there is a lasting concern outside the confines of this hon. House about the situation in which the economy finds itself today. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated very clearly to the House today the confines within which he sees the political future of this country, the separate development that will take place. I also believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has paid a supreme compliment to the Opposition benches for having detailed in such a fine manner the concessions towards moving away from differentiation that the Nationalist Party has made in recent years and months.

There can be no finer justification of the existence and the responsibility of the Opposition than to point out that every move away from differentiation for which the hon. the Prime Minister now takes credit has been pressed and urged upon this House the Opposition during the years that have gone by.

The hon. the Prime Minister has taken part in several momentous events in the commercial and industrial fields during the past twelve months. I refer particularly to the occasion when he opened the Assocom congress at which, commerce as such for the first time made it abundantly clear that they had realized that it was their responsibility to point out to the Government that when economy clashes with political ideology, it would result in disaster to the economy of this country. The hon. the Prime Minister also took part in a debate on free enterprise on a private member’s motion here, a debate in which, regrettably, more time was spent in dealing with Dr. Andries Wassenaar than with the purport of the debate itself, which was a justification of the free enterprise system. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to this House today to spell out in terms as clear as those in which he has done the rest of the political future of this country, how he sees the economic ideology which governs this country. It has been said and agreed that we adopt the free enterprise system.

I have told you that time and again.

It is because the Prime Minister has told us that that I want to make it quite clear that the matter requires consideration in depth, because no less a person than prof. Robert Tusenius of the faculty of Commerce of the University of Stellenbosch has indicated that he sees this as a complete fallacy. He accuses us of paying credibility to the concept of the free enterprise system, but not carrying it out in practice. The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that we should have regard, not to the testimony we make on behalf of non-White peoples, but that we must have regard to the words of the non-Whites themselves. I therefore want to quote to him the comments of the chairman of the Africa Bank of South Africa upon the situation in which the African finds himself. He says—

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to indicate to this House whether he sees our various economies in this country as being isolated economies, that is to say, a Coloured economy, an Indian economy, a Black economy within the various independent States, and a European economy. He then goes on to say—

This is the situation. We talk about a free enterprise economy for the Whites. Do we extend it to the Blacks? Do we allow them the same opportunity in the free competitive economic system that we allow ourselves? The professor does not think so at all. He goes on to say—

The time we are moving into, a time requiring a total strategy to be applied to our economic system, makes one realize that the future of South Africa is indeed insecure. Unless we can indicate to the Blacks, and to their fellow non-Whites, that the system that has given so much good to the Whites in this country, and to the Whites in any country where a true free enterprise system has been allowed to foster, will benefit them as well, we cannot hope to remove the Blacks from the depressing sphere of either communism or socialism. They themselves see the benefits of free enterprise and they expect at least that we who profess this free enterprise system to be part of our ideologies in this country, should be prepared to share that system with the people themselves.

The professor goes on by saying—

I make no apology for having quoted at such length, because the hon. the Prime Minister himself has indicated that we must listen to the word of the Black man. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to indicate to this House whether he is concerned at the lack of achievement of the goals of his own Economic Advisory Council? This is a council which has been in existence for many years to advise the hon. the Prime Minister on the guidelines which South African industrialists and men of commerce should follow. The guidelines have shown that if we are to create job opportunities for in excess of 105 000 Africans annually, plus the European increment coming on to the market, then we must show a growth rate of between 6,4% and 5,5%.

The tragic result is that we have seen the country’s economy in recent years lapse into a situation where we are showing either no growth or very little growth. Only this morning the Postmaster-General announced that, as he sees it, we are facing an economic crisis. I believe this is entirely true. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to give us an indication of how his Economic Advisory Council sees the future of the country in the next four to five years, because industrialists have been asked to take the recommendations of the Advisory Council as guidelines. This has meant that many international companies have initiated tremendous enterprise in South Africa. I know that the motor trade based its creation of the industry we have today on an estimated growth of some 8%. Other industries have invested millions of rand on the basis of an estimated rate of economic growth of between 5% and 6,4%. The investment today has been entirely lost in many cases. There have been bankruptcies and people are wondering whether the country can maintain any growth rate at all. I think that it is necessary that in the next successive five years we must realize the difference between a growth rate that can be achieved and one that cannot be achieved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, one would say that the problem could be solved easily. But the hon. member does not say how he would solve it. The fact remains that it is a world problem, and today one cannot break the world economy into pieces and keep oneself separate from it. The hon. member’s argument that we are not giving the Bantu the advancement he deserves is not altogether true. In 1965, for example, I made some inquiries among business undertakings. At that time the wage gap between Black and White was very large. But in undertakings which today have the same ratio of Black to White workers, the wage gap is narrowing all the time. In May 1978 the gap will have disappeared altogether. The Opposition does not take these things into account. They are most anxious that the policy of separate development should not succeed, because if it does not succeed it will mean that people can progress in a democratic fashion as the Progrefs are doing. People sail today under the flag of democracy and make pronouncements which are irresponsible. It is one thing to be responsible and it is another thing to be irresponsible. It makes all the difference.

We are discussing the Vote of the Prime Minister this evening. I am not looking for a job, but in the hon. the Prime Minister we have a man the likes of whom the country has never seen before. No predecessor or anyone else has done as much in respect of good relations in South Africa as the present Prime Minister. He has gone out of his way to put relations on as sound a basis as possible, so that everybody can live happily. But when one listens to the Opposition, especially the more liberal members, the Progrefs, one sometimes comes to the conclusion that they are just a “happening”.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was interrupted, I was saying that the Opposition sails under the flag of democracy, and irresponsible things are said. When the Opposition makes all the pronouncements they do, I wonder what the uninformed rest of the world thinks and says. The Opposition tell us that there are many things to be done and that the Government is not moving away from so-called discrimination. When I say “so-called discrimination” I mean that this is completely exaggerated and that people abuse it for their own political purposes. I also said that never before had a Prime Minister done as much to promote good relations as the present Prime Minister.

What has he done? He has done nothing.

I just want to say to that hon. member that just as, in my view, the PRP is a “happening”, so the UP was a “happening.” When demands are made by people and population groups, there must also be obligations, and there can only be demands if there are obligations and a sense of duty. That is what it is all about. It must not just be left to the Whites to make all the overtures and to be always creeping along apologizing for being alive.

Never before in history have so few done so much for so many. We hear the figures daily. Mention has also been made in the Committee today of certain things the Whites are doing to help their neighbours and those around them, together with themselves, to uplift themselves for the benefit of South Africa.

Today the NP is paying heavily for what the NP Government has done viz. the upliftment of people. As they have been uplifted, so demands have been made, and the need has arisen for amenities and essential services. Nobody in the House can get away from that.

When we talk of good relations, I want to say, as far as good relations are concerned, that we must first see to those matters that confront us on the road we take. We must not come along with trifling requests and talk people into asking for things which they do not need. We must establish our priorities. The Opposition has, inter alia, asked the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to do certain things and provide certain services regardless of whether they are essential services and whether the non-Whites really need them and without giving a thought to where we must get the money from, no matter how expensive they may be. There are far more necessary services that have to be provided, especially when we think of good relations. They should take priorities into account when they make these appeals. I want to refer to one example which really has some merit and for which I want to make a plea. The Government has a policy and from that policy certain duties and responsibilities arise. We have a homelands policy which is the only practical policy for South Africa if we want to preserve the democratic system.

I am sorry to have to burden the hon. the Prime Minister with these arguments as well, but I feel obliged to bring this essential service to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. Due to lack of capital, the S.A. Railways had inevitably to delay the completion of a railway line from Mabopane to Belle Ombre in Pretoria. It is a pity that had to happen, and I now want to ask whether the hon. Prime Minister and the Government could not give very serious attention to this matter, because it is in the forefront of the relations issue. The commuters who have to be conveyed daily from the Bophuthatswana homeland to Pretoria get home very late in the evenings, and they have to start early in the mornings to be at work on time. It is nothing out of the ordinary that a country and a government should have to pay for its policy, in this case the only practical policy. Britain subsidizes its railways to the extent of almost R600 million a year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hercules referred, inter alia, to the irresponsibility of the Opposition and related this to the problem of discrimination. In this regard I should like to refer to the irresponsibility of the Government and in respect of precisely the same problem. The hon. the Prime Minister tried to give an exposition this afternoon of what it means when the Government speaks of moving away from discrimination. After I had listened to the hon. the Prime Minister, I could only come to the conclusion that the hon. the Prime Minister was trying to catch us out. [Interjections.]

As a result of the hon. the Prime Minister’s contribution, I have also come to the conclusion that there is a new definition of discrimination in a plural society, namely that discrimination in a plural society means that one group can assume the right to decide what discrimination means. That is precisely what the hon. Prime Minister has done. I should like to see any responsible scientific textbook which the hon. the Prime Minister can produce which supports the conception of discrimination which he has put before the House today.

The point I want to make is that the whole argument of the hon. the Prime Minister and the logic underlying his argument with regard to discrimination is the old “separate but equal philosophy”. That is what it is all about. It means that we will create separate areas and separate opportunities. The hon. the Prime Minister advances this argument at a time when South Africa’s economy is such that it is a financial impossibility to make a reality of that philosophy. It is absolutely impossible. There are Acts on the South African Government’s Statute Book which contradict the philosophy of separate but equal opportunities. In the Separate Amenities Act it is explicitly provided that there is no obligation on the Government to create separate amenities which are equal in quality or standard to those enjoyed by the Whites. There is no connection here with the old philosophy of Prof. Hoërnle in terms of which there is a division where equal opportunities can be created for people in their own areas. One cannot really argue logically about this. What is really at issue in this connection in South Africa, is the specific area, the communal area, in which all the people work and live. It is in that field that the country is waiting for a lead from the hon. the Prime Minister—that he and his Government should tell South Africa and all the population groups what discrimination means. In this connection the Prime Minister said himself—and I quote from Rapport of 21 November 1976—

In regard to this, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister had nothing to say today. What facilities will be shared increasingly in the future? [Interjections.] No, I did listen. What I heard was that most of the arguments were concerned with the logic of separatism; we establish facilities for them and, where there is no option, we shall share. But it is also true that the majority of the South African people do not live in separate areas. As far as the homelands are concerned it is conservatively estimated that a third of the population are outside the homelands in a communal area. Can the hon. the Prime Minister tell us if in the economy of these communal areas Black people can be trained in particular categories of mechanics to compete with Whites for the same work? Discrimination in this respect means that there is a differential access to the same opportunities on the basis of race. That is what discrimination is about. The hon. the Prime Minister said nothing about that.

Let us look at the Industrial Conciliation Act. Black people are excluded in terms of that Act on the grounds of race. If we look at this Parliament’s budget, we see that it is agreed to by a White Parliament and that it creates opportunities for all population groups in South Africa but that they have no participation on grounds of race. That is discrimination. If we look at the political sphere, we find the worst form of discrimination in a plural society. This occurs when an individual or a group in that society is subjected to political decisions and he is not in a position or able to call to account those people who have made those decisions. The best illustration we have had is the White Paper on the Coloureds. Her we have the situation that there are a group of people in our community who are subjected to decisions taken by this Parliament and those people are not in a position to call to account the people who made the decisions. That is quite simply political discrimination.

There is no getting away from it. We cannot say that the solution is consultation or deliberation. [Interjections.] Consultation or deliberation is not the same as communal decisions. You can consult a person, you can ask him what he thinks about something, but eventually the decision which has to be taken as to what will happen to that man is taken by the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not say that consultation or deliberation is bad, but we must not bluff ourselves that it is a substitute for effective participation in political decision-making. The best illustration one can give of this is the question of communal areas. What about Black foreigners? Transkei is now independent. Is there discrimination in regard to these people when they move around in South Africa or not?

The hon. the Prime Minister has said that the NP acknowledges the reality of South Africa and that is that South Africa is a plural society. But in the whole process the hon. the Prime Minister misconstrues the central basic characteristic of a plural society. That is that in a plural society there is always the problem that a certain group in the political or economic sphere will dominate all the other groups. It is this problem we must avoid.

Now the question arises why the hon. the Prime Minister has not given attention to this problem of discrimination in the communal areas. The reason is simple: The hon. the Prime Minister is saddled with a party which is radically and fundamentally divided as to what discrimination means. I have told you, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say about communal facilities. I listened very carefully this afternoon to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. On his fourth point, he even repeated his philosophy in this connection. It is very clear here. In contrast to what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say, he said—

He says we cannot permit it. But what is happening at present? The whole of South Africa has to wait until the inner circles of the NP have decided what moving away from discrimination means. We have to sit and wait while we are confronted with considerable debate in our community; and while we wait we are heading for confrontation in our own community. Why? Because we have to let them fight among themselves first. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister has been hamstrung; that is why he cannot lead and that is why he speaks hesitantly about what discrimination in South Africa really means. What it is has already been said in various quarters—by the Blacks and by the Opposition. He may ignore it, but he cannot pull the wool over South Africa’s eyes as he did with the illustrations he gave this afternoon be cause we all know that those are not the points of dispute. The sore point is discrimination—differential access by various population and race groups to social facilities. If there is one fundamental truth in South Africa it is that we share a common economy and that all effective decisions in this community are not taken by separate political institutions; they are taken by this Parliament. That is the crux of our problem and we have to move away from that problem if we really want to move away from discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch, who has just resumed his seat, advanced the same old arguments to which he has already received the clearest possible answers. It will serve no purpose for me to repeat the answers already given to him. Where he has said one finds the greatest measure of discrimination when one group alone decides what discrimination is, I want to ask him the following question: If he wants to lay out the whole question of human relationships for agreement between White and Black, and such agreement is not possible, what do we do in that event? What about the moral right of the White man to remain here in South Africa? What about the moral right of the White man to govern himself here? What of the moral right of the White man to separate himself from others? Why must we always hear these arguments that only the other side can decide, that only the rights of the other side are important? We, the White people of South Africa, have been here for more than 300 years and we will remain here as a nation which governs itself. Let him and the world know it. [Interjections.] That hon. member belongs to the PRP. However, it is the PRP who are creating a spirit of revolution in South Africa, and I will indicate how this is being done. It may sound innocent, but we know how important it becomes when it forms part of a pattern. I am referring to the hon. member for Houghton who is always inciting hatred of the South African Police. Secondly, we know that that party on the other side, the PRP, tried to obtain the co-operation of Chief Buthelezi’s Inkatha movement. For what purpose, however? Chief Buthelezi says it is for the purpose of bringing about changes. I ask the PRP what changes do they want to bring about in collaboration with Buthelezi that they cannot bring about in this Parliament? What changes do they want to bring about outside of Parliament? In this regard I want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban North said, and he was quoted in the Rand Daily Mail of 15 September 1976—

What does that mean? Surely this indicates unconstitutional action?

What is the Broederbond?

That is not all … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban North also said, and I quote from The Star of 7 December 1976—

This is Chief Buthelezi’s “move”—

The hon. member gives notice that he will ignore the laws of the Republic of South Africa. Can the South African nation tolerate such a party and such people in their midst?

Apart from that, the hon. member for Sea Point, with reference to the internal situation, said in the Assembly yesterday (Hansard, 19 April)—

What does that mean? These words of the hon. member for Sea Point refer to the internal situation in South Africa and mean that the hon. member is telling the world that the Government is preparing itself militarily to take action against its own people in South Africa.

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. What is the hon. member doing in reality? He is telling the Coloured nations of South Africa that the Government is arming itself against the Black people of South Africa.

He is an agitator. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member who said the hon. member for Sea Point is an agitator must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I asked: “Is he an agitator?” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member is paying lip-service to good relations. How can good relations develop in South Africa when a member of the Assembly gets up and says the Government is arming itself against the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa? Moreover, this allegation is in direct conflict with the interests of South Africa. We know that those hon. members welcome the boycotts propagated abroad against South Africa. We also know that those boycotts are based on the allegation that we want weapons to take action internally against our own population. It has never been proved that we want to take action against our own population with weapons bought overseas. Now the words of the hon. member for Sea Point will be quoted in the council chambers of the enemies of the Republic of South Africa to prove that the Government of South Africa needs weapons to arm itself against its own people. That is an unpatriotic action on the part of the hon. member for Sea Point. He has committed an act of disloyalty. Then that hon. member has the temerity to get up in this House and say that the Government has to act in such a manner that it will be assured of the loyalty of all the people of South Africa! I want to tell the hon. member that South Africa regards his actions as shameful.

The hon. member for Rondebosch said in his speech that when one group decides upon the politics of another group it is discrimination par excellence. What does that mean? How can one escape from that dilemma? One can only escape from it if one establishes a majority government in its broad concept in South Africa. One can only escape from it if one applies the principle of “one man, one vote” in South Africa and, as we know, a Black majority government is necessary consequence thereof. In this regard I want to say that a Black majority government in South Africa will solve no problem because it will lead to a power struggle between White and Black; because it will lead to bloodshed between White and Black; and, more important still, between Black and Black. If this happens, it will lead to the lowering of living standards and the quality of life in South Africa.

The world knows, after all, that majority government has not yet been successful in Africa. There is no majority government in Zaire, Zambia, Tanzania, Angola or Mozambique. Nowhere in Africa is there a majority government. It does not work. The integration of different population groups does not work in the democratic set-up. Why must we propagate in South Africa that model which has failed time and time again in Africa? The demand that there has to be a majority government in South Africa within the context of a unitary state is nothing but a demand for the capitulation of the White man. The world must know that we, as a White nation, have the right to be here, to live here and to govern ourselves here. We are prepared to fight and make sacrifices for that right. We are even prepared to sacrifice our lives for it. We have greater national unity centred around the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister in South Africa today—and basically supporting the NP—than we have ever previously had in this country.

Under this Government we shall continue to reaffirm our rights as Whites here. And not only that. We shall continue to give every Black nation a niche in South Africa, the right to full self-determination, the right to govern itself and the right to advance to full maturity in this fine country of ours.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to be the fashion in this House this evening, and indeed this afternoon, for hon. gentlemen on the opposite benches to recant. It began with the hon. the Prime Minister—about which I shall have to say more in a moment—earlier this afternoon. Then I listened to a recantation from the hon. member for Vereeniging—who unfortunately is not here now—and from the hon. member for Pretoria Central who has just spoken. The two hon. gentlemen, the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Pretoria Central, are two of those—dare I say rebels?—within the NP who have recently been kicking over the traces. It would appear so that the whip has been cracked, because we had what amounted to a recantation from the hon. gentleman who has just spoken.

[Inaudible.]

I shall say something about that hon. member in a moment. We had something in the nature of a recantation from the hon. member for Vereeniging. What did he say? The hon. gentleman said in effect that the difference between the governing party and those on the Opposition benches was that whereas the Opposition benches were prepared to “onderhandel” in respect of the future of the White man “met die oog op selfbeskikking” in South Africa, the Government was not prepared to “on-derhandel” in respect of that principle. If that is the case, what has happened in the Turnhalle in South West Africa? Has there been at the Turnhalle a detrimental “onderhandeling”—in the terms which the hon. gentleman used—derogatory of ourselves? Has that taken place at Windhoek, or has it not? If the “onderhandeling” which has taken place at Windhoek is legitimate and is in the interests of the White community in order to preserve their future and the future of others, and I may say in passing to preserve our future here as well, then what is the allegation in respect of the policies adopted by us in these benches?

Let me say a word or two about the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who intervened earlier on. I am not one who is easily irritated. But, if there is one thing in this House which irritates me more than anything else and which makes the gorge rise in my throat, it is to have hon. gentlemen like that impugn my patriotism or my loyalty to this country. There are many of us, and I say this seriously, in this House who have taken the ultimate risk for South Africa, the risk of life. Let me say to that hon. gentleman over there that the only risk that he has ever taken in respect of his life is not in defence of South Africa, but driving home from a club on a Saturday night.

The hon. the Prime Minister, in a different respect, made a speech this afternoon of recantation. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke of schools, universities, sports, residential areas, prison staff, clerical staff and Parliament and he gave a catalogue of occasions in respect of which the Government has moved away from racial discrimination. Let us not forget that there is one band of unity amongst all of us in this House, which is that we all believe in moving in a direction of the removal of racial discrimination—everyone of us. The difference, however, is this, that in respect of the hon. the Prime Minister—and one can go through his whole list—it appears that he is not prepared to move forward with regard to the removal of discrimination. Things seem to be moving back to the situation which we had under a UP Government more than 30 years ago. [Interjections.] Moving back to before 1948 is what the aim of the hon. the Prime Minister is, except in respect of the points he mentioned, points which are involved with the normal development of the country. What the hon. the Prime Minister tried to show was that because the Government had built additional schools and universities and because it had promoted non-Whites to higher ranks in the Civil Service, and the whole variety of situations of that kind, they are to be praised. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

Sit down, Brutus!

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir. I have no time for that. Mr. Chairman, let us be realistic. Any Government that has had control of South Africa for the last 30 years—whether it liked it or not—would have been obliged to advance the various races in this country and to provide amenities for them in that respect. [Interjections.] However, the crunch came when the Prime Minister came to the question of Parliament. I am surprised that the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the matter of Parliament at all, because, as we know, it has not only been under his regime that the political rights of the Coloured people have been advanced. It was under this hon. Prime Minister’s régime that the Coloured representatives were taken away from this House. [Interjections.] What do we get now? We now get a form of government which it is said has a potential to develop. We heard it also from the hon. member for Vereeniging, that there was “onderhandeling” taking place and that there was room for development in this respect. The hon. the Prime Minister, I think, used the phrase, or implied it, that the sky was the limit as far as that development was concerned.

Tell us about the Indian town council in Durban.

What is taking place in this regard? We understand that there is a Cabinet committee sitting in regard to the Westminster system, and from what has emerged from under the heavy veil, this is in order to accommodate the Coloured man in some sort of greater political evolution. This is not a committee of the NP, a committee which meets behind closed doors. It is a Cabinet committee, a public body, which is meeting in order to revise the Westminster system, presumably to accommodate the Coloured people in an advanced stage of development over and above what they have at the present time. What is actually taking place? Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not take this House into his confidence? Who are the members of this committee? What are their terms of reference? They have been sitting for a year, we understand. What progress have they made? What advice has been given to them by the hon. the Prime Minister?

Tell us about the Indians in the Durban town council!

Order!

What direction are they moving in?

Tell us about the Indians in the Durban city council! [Interjections.]

Order!

I will come to the Indians. I do not propose running away from the Indians at all. [Interjections.] I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House what the next step of development is. Is the present Coloured Representative Council the final answer in respect of the Coloured people, or are we to assume that what has been said here this evening indicates that there are examinations going on within the hon. the Prime Minister’s Cabinet committee for a further development in that regard? And if there are, what are they?

You have only two minutes left!

I can be given, if I wish, another ten minutes.… [Interjections.] Now, let me come to the Indians. If I do not finish, I understand I will be given another 10 minutes. What is the position in regard to the Indians? I am very sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister, in a delicate matter of this kind, attempted … [Interjections.] … at the beginning of his speech yesterday, to make petty political capital out of … [Interjections.] … out of, what he imagined, would be a dispute between hon. members on these benches at a time when delicate negotiations are taking place between … [Interjections.] … the Natal Provincial Council and the Indian community on this very point. [Interjections.] Now, what is the situation? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to afford the hon. member for Umhlatuzana an opportunity to complete his speech.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentlemen opposite will be as frank with regard to their attitude to the Coloured people as I am prepared to be in regard to the Indian people. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lydenburg has asked me specifically about the Durban city council. What is the situation in Durban? There is an overwhelming majority in the Greater Durban area, an overwhelming majority of Indian people. That is if it is a question of the counting of heads. However, the rates payable and upon which the Durban city council operates and which provides him with money, is overwhelmingly paid by the Whites. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope you notice this revelry, because in a moment you will notice the silence which follows. How did we approach the problem? The Greater Durban area has two overwhelming conglomerates of Indian people—one in the north and one in the south—and an overwhelming conglomerate of White in the centre. The attitude of the National Provincial Council is to divide that into three municipalities. An Indian one to the south … [Interjections.] … another one in the north and a White municipality in the centre. [Interjections.] I gather that this has universal approval amongst the hon. gentlemen opposite. But the story does not end there. We have already established, and its first formal meeting is likely to take place within the next few weeks, a multiracial metropolitan board representative of all the municipalities from Scottburg in the south to Verulam in the north. [Interjections.] It is a metropolitan board which will be representative of White and non-White municipalities on a basis of equality, except for the municipalities of Durban and Pinetown, which are overwhelmingly bigger than the rest. This has been worked out on the same basis as the Turnhalle in South West Africa by the people concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member for Umhlatuzana an opportunity to proceed with his argument.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. gentleman. When establishing a metropolitan board to deal with matters of common concern between the various municipalities, Black and White up and down the coast of Natal …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has already indicated that he is not prepared to reply to questions.

… in which all municipalities, except the two that I have mentioned, will be represented on a basis of equality. What I want to know from the hon. gentlemen opposite is whether they are going to introduce legislation which is going to prevent the establishment in Natal of a multiracial metropolitan authority. They are quiet! What we are doing in Natal, with the consent of the authorities concerned—all of them—is to establish the federal principle at the local level which this party has always supported. [Interjections.] In respect of the larger municipalities domination can be done away with. However, I immediately have to say that in some of the smaller municipalities that is not possible because one cannot separate the racial groups so that the Indians are in viable local authorities of their own.

What about the Coloureds in Durban?

I am dealing with the Indians. That is what I have been asked to do. In respect of the smaller municipalities, negotiations are taking place between the Natal Provincial Administration at this moment and the Association of Local Affairs Committees, which are the advisory committees of the Indian community at the present time, to meet that problem so that within those municipalities there is adequate representation without domination or discrimination of the communities concerned. It is those negotiations which are delicate. They are taking place at the moment, and I do not wish to say anything more about it at the present time. I have been prepared to give chapter and verse of what the UP has done in respect of the Indians at the level of government, which is within my competence. What I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister, or anybody on that side, is what they are prepared to do in respect of this community at the centre, which is their level of competence. [Interjections.] What are they prepared to do in respect of these people to give them adequate representation legislatively and adequate power executively at that level of government, which controls their very lives? On these benches we have accepted the principle of representation at all levels of Government and I have stood up here in an attempt to show how we are trying to grapple with that problem at our level of competence in Natal. This is not easy, and I must say to the hon. the Prime Minister, in all sincerity that, I do share with him, perhaps differently from others in this House who hold the office of chairman, the responsibility of being chairman of a province where we are in government. I try to approach the problems which face us with that responsibility, and I appreciate the responsibility the hon. the Prime Minister has, because he has it at a far higher level than I have. However, let me say to the hon. gentlemen in all sincerity, that we shall get nowhere until we have a lead given to us by the hon. the Prime Minister as to how he is going to solve this problem in respect of the Coloured and the Indian at the level of this Parliament or at the level of any other legislative authority which may take the place of this Parliament.

It is easy to criticize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the fragmented Opposition parties sitting here now. I am not blind to the fact that the Opposition is fragmented. There was a time, in the ’forties, when hon. gentlemen opposite sat here and were as fragmented as we are. However, that is history—water under the bridge. But what is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition trying to do? The hon. the Prime Minister put it to him specifically when he asked why we are forming a new party unless it is to bring in a new policy. It is not a question of a new policy, but of trying to find comparatively short-term solutions upon which one can get a consensus from a wider group of people. We are in an evolutionary situation. I am the first to concede that racial discrimination cannot be done away with overnight. One aims for the principle and one supports it. However, we are dealing with human beings. It is going to take time to get human beings to adjust to that situation. I make the prediction that we are moving out of the time where we can criticize on petty issues, such as whether one is for a change in this respect or not. Amongst people in all parties here there exists a difference in attitude as to which situations can be thrown open to all races and which cannot. We are going to have to meet that situation. However, on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition there is a genuine attempt to get a consensus on shortterm solutions to make the situation in South Africa easier. It is the one point upon which the Government party, in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians at the centre, seems to have a block. The hon. the Prime Minister has changed things quite a lot. When I left politics in 1966—I was thrown out of my seat, but came back to the Other Place six months later—I left under the late Dr. Verwoerd and I came back under the regime of the hon. the Prime Minister. When I left, no hon. gentleman opposite was allowed to attend a diplomatic function, but when I came back they were all there in their floods. [Interjections.] There have been changes in respect of sport. There is constant change in the Government’s attitude with regard to the removal of racial discrimination. There will be differences of opinion with regard to the pace at which this ought to be advanced, and we shall shortly reach the stage when the extent to which we are removing discrimination will no longer be a matter for debate in this House. However, what will be a matter for debate and what we cannot bring the Government to debate, is not whether there should be representation at the centre for the Coloureds and the Indians, but what form that representation should take. Constantly we are told, with side remarks, snide remarks and inferences, that more is unfolding. But we never reach the threshold of what is to unfold. That is why I have said to the hon. the Prime Minister that I hope the stage will be reached in this debate where he can say to us: Look, I know we are in a pickle in regard to the Coloured people and their political representation and this is the direction in which I am moving. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the hon. member …

First the “kruiwa” and then the Potgieter.

The hon. member who is interrupting me is the one who wanted to collaborate with the devil. After all, the hon. member said that he had an alliance with the devil to save South Africa. At this late hour that hon. member always reminds me of what the poet said about Klaas Geswind and his horse—

[Interjections.]

Before I react to the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I should just like to address a word to the hon. member for Rondebosch first. That hon. member charged the hon. the Prime Minister with being unscientific in his approach in his handling of discrimination. I now challenge the hon. member to tell me when a policy is scientific. I say it is when the policy has a basis, a course of action and immediate and ultimate objectives. I now want to accuse the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Sea Point—the leader of that party—as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, of now denying the objectives of their party and they no longer advocate majority rule in South Africa. What has happened to their scientific spirit now? They have cruelly destroyed the continuity which is essential to prove their scientific spirit. The hon. members are recoiling from the logical consequences of their policy. Do they know why? “You have to deal with a state of mind,” with a certain state of mind of the White man in the country, as well as of the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian. They want to be themselves, but those hon. members do not want to be themselves. The members of the PRP are destroying themselves against this state of mind tonight.

You have struck the biggest blow in the whole debate tonight. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana practically told us his political history here tonight. He started in the time of Dr. Verwoerd, then he disappeared and reappeared again later on. He could have held out a little longer, because after all he lost in Zululand, too. After that he stood in Umhlatuzana where he beat Mr. Gerdener by a mere 30 votes, and nearly having lost, he now gets Mr. Gerdener to work out a policy for establishing a new party. [Interjections.] He could just as well have told the whole history here tonight. Of course I do not want to speak about the Indian problem, because I do not think it would be the right thing to do. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister will react to this. I think that I must do something else tonight. I want to cross swords with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in a very calm, peaceful way.

I cannot believe it.

If the hon. member cannot believe it, there is really something wrong with his faith. I now want to read out the hon. member’s reaction to a few speeches which were made in the House. These were delivered, inter alia, by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and a relation of mine sitting behind me, who used a few naughty words—he learnt them from me because, after all, I am the older brother and I do not hold it against him … [Interjections.] I got hold of the speeches of these hon. members and no attack on English-speaking South Africa was made in them. What does the hon. member for Umhlatuzana do? Look at the assumed ignorance and the physiognomical expressions on his face. [Interjections.] The hon. member said the following (Hansard, 14 April 1977, col. 5197)—

These words follow: “That reference was to the English-speaking people of this country.” He says he is a man who does not irritate others, but I say he is being maliciously wilful, since by making this statement he is damaging the good relations which ought to exist. [Interjections.] As for the hon. member for Umlazi who is interrupting me now, I say that he is a big Prussian with the intelligence of a mouse, and that he must not interrupt me. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that this is not fair. But if the official Opposition had acted like the six members of the IUP, what would our position in South Africa, in Africa and in the world not have been tonight? The hon. member must behave himself; he must not interrupt me; he must give me a chance. I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that what I find most interesting, is that he later continues in as follows. He says that he does not want to protect the hon. member for Johannesburg North, but he compares him and uses these words—

It is correct that both of them were born outside this country, but I want to say the following: When the first gruesome attack was made on the life of that beloved Prime Minister, the caucus sent me, as Chief Whip, to him when he was at Libertas and had already recovered. When I arrived there, he shook my hand and having greeted me, his first words were: “We are going to talk a great deal today, but please just not about Pratt’s attempt at my life, because we still have to establish the Republic this year; we must create the constitutional basis upon which we can achieve White unity between English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in order to solve the great relations question in the country so that we can live. ”

Where does one find that in your party?

I have already told that hon. member that he looks his most intelligent when he is silent. What do I want to achieve by this? I want to bring it home to you that one simply cannot make statements—and I checked the speeches—to throw down before the House. The hon. member is doing something which will harm South Africa. I have a few other notes here. What did Dr. Malan say when we came into power in 1948? The hon. member said that we were tom apart at that time. One of Dr. Malan’s main objectives was to get Afrikanerhood together, not in order to polarize it against English-speaking South Africa, but to get it together so that it could achieve self-respect for the sake of the principle of equal treatment. It was also to create the correct constitutional basis so that we could come together. And then the hon. member still speaks about exclusiveness! The nationalism which we profess in South Africa at this, the White man’s hour of need, is not exclusive, but inclusive. It is a common sentiment for both English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. This is how we approached it. This is how I learnt it under Dr. Malan, under Mr. Strydom, under Dr. Verwoerd and under the present Prime Minister too. I remember the night when we gathered at the amphitheatre. Dr. Malan said at the time that his first objective was Afrikaner unity. The purpose was to bring the Afrikaners together because they were torn apart. Thank the Lord that we did come together. His second objective was—

That won the election at the time—

After all, this is NP policy, is it not, and not to try and score political points off one another as that hon. member tried to do. I have mentioned what Dr. Verwoerd told me personally. I have never before repeated anything which a Prime Minister told me, but I acted on the spur of the moment and hon. members will surely not hold it against me. It is a part of our history. But what about our Prime Minister? The day when he made his political pledge to the people over the radio, he stated three objectives as regards his Government policy. Listen to his words—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with the words quoted at the conclusion of the hon. member for Brits’s speech. That, I think, is particularly the reason why we are sitting in these benches. That hon. member and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana must, however, forgive me if I do not react to the general political discussion that took place between them because I wish to raise a very serious and difficult subject, i.e. the situation which pertains in regard to unemployment in South Africa at the present time, particularly amongst the Black people. We have seen the reports of the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch and we have seen reports in practically every newspaper in the country on this matter, Afrikaans-language and English-language newspapers. It is not necessary to name them specifically. Perhaps the most important announcement on this subject, however, comes from the hon. the Prime Minister himself, and that is the reason why I raise the subject under the hon. gentleman’s Vote. I refer to a report in the Eastern Province Herald on 5 April 1977 under the heading, “Vorster Warns on Unemployment”. The following statement is attributed to the hon. the Prime Minister—

This is a clear indication that there is deep concern about this growing and very serious problem in the highest circles of Government. That fact is very much appreciated. However, if we are to survive in the present world climate, both economic and political, we need something more than concern. We need positive action and meaningful counter-measures similar to those taken in regard to the poor-White problem in the 1930s. [Interjections] It is clear from the statement I have just read that two of the problems the Government has to contend with are (a) the lack of reliable statistics in regard to Black unemployment, a shortcoming that must be overcome as a matter of urgency, and (b) restrictions on the mobility of labour. [Interjections.] Yet we still …

Order! Hon. members are conversing too loudly, so much so that I am unable to follow the hon. member.

Yet we still have legislation being passed by this hon. House which will have the effect of further restricting the use of Black labour in industry, and I refer primarily to the recent amendments to the Environment Planning Act.

It is all very well for us to have a top-class Minister of Foreign Affairs, a top-class Prime Minister and a top-class Minister of Information, but perhaps what is most needed by the Government of South Africa at the present time is a first-class senior Minister of Departmental Co-ordination so that the internal policies of the various departments can be adequately co-ordinated and synchronized with our economic and foreign policies. I do not say this lightly. I believe it to be of vital importance to the future well-being of all our people and certainly to our survival on the continent of Africa that there should be effective co-ordination between all departments. One has only to read the White Paper on Defence to find that this is of vital importance to the defence of South Africa.

In the same article I quoted one finds under the subheading “Liaison on Black housing sought” that again the need for co-ordination is stressed. Let me quote from the article—

I quote further—

Here again one finds that the Government is bound by convention arising from past practices that prevents it from putting the basics of its policy into effect. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the policy of separate development over the last few decades has meant: Separate but equal. Yet there is still resistance to granting the right of freehold to Blacks in their own residential areas, mainly because, it is argued, when this was permitted in the past, slums were created. Sir, why were those slums created?—Simply because the municipalities and local authorities concerned never applied the minimum standards they should have applied in those days. Consequently there were slums in the non-White areas but not in the White areas. If the policy of today is “separate but equal”, nobody can complain if the same minimum standard is applied in Houghton as is applied in Soweto. Even if Soweto is in White South Africa today, nobody by the longest stretch of imagination would call it a White residential area, and there are other townships that fall into the same category. I would suggest that if the home-ownership scheme provided for a 99-year lease or for a freehold system, this would greatly alleviate the cost to the State and to the taxpayer of providing housing. It would also make it possible for the private sector to play a bigger and more positive role in providing housing for Blacks.

Mr. Chairman, we should look at our past history and base our thinking on our experience. In the early 1930’s there was massive White unemployment and a great shortage of housing. As the result of this, both the Labour and Communist Parties had a considerable following amongst the White workers who were driven in this direction out of desperation, frustration and, in many instances, hunger. The Government of the day called on the Carnegie Commission for advice. Massive labour-intensive State schemes were undertaken to provide employment, albeit at very low wages. Those wages were nevertheless living wages then. Among the other schemes that we established in those days there was the SSB which took up many of the unemployed. That regiment today has a proud and honourable history. As a result of those Government actions taken at that time, the poor-White problem was overcome, but the wheel of history has turned to the extent that we are now facing the problem of the poor-Brown and the poor-Black. Similar steps as were taken then, will have to be taken again and, in view of the heavy military load on our White population, I believe that the time is ripe to give serious consideration to the formation of a Brown SSB and a Black SSB in order to take up some of the unemployed in the service of the country of their birth. Such units need not all be of a military nature: Some could be used in the building trade. They could help the Department of Public Works or the Department of Community Development to provide housing. Others could be used by the Department of Water Affairs to help build canals and smaller dams. The essential thing is that the Government must be seen to be acting, because from unemployment comes hunger and from hunger comes desperation which is the breeding ground of anarchy and communism—a cycle which we do not want to see in South Africa.

A final word to Mr. Andrew Young, who so glibly discusses the legitimacy of our Government and the possibility of applying sanctions against this country. I want to say to him that our Government is legitimate and that, if sanctions are applied to this country, the Black people of this country will be the ones to suffer. This will drive the country into the cycle I have just mentioned. They will be driven straight into the arms of Marxism and the communist bloc. If Mr. Andrew Young and the United States want the strategic, economic, mineral and human resources of South Africa to remain on the side of the West, I want to say very pertinently to Mr. Young: “Zip your big mouth, Mr. Young. You are not only making a fool of yourself, but you are alienating the allies of your country.”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany will excuse me for not reacting to his speech. During the course of the debate the hon. the Prime Minister and many other speakers referred to Africa, and I should like to return to this matter once again.

The old Latin idiom ex Africa semper aliquid novis—there is always something new from Africa—has often proved to be true over the centuries. The times which we are experiencing in Africa at the moment are no exception to this. The wellknown speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the Senate on 23 October 1974 also bears this stamp. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister extended the hand of friendship and peace to the countries of Africa. That was the start of the notable success which the hon. the Prime Minister achieved with his détente policy on the African front. I think that it can be stated as a fait accompli today that no leader has done more than the hon. the Prime Minister in normalizing relations in Africa over the past few years.

However, as his détente policy achieved successes in Africa, communist attacks increased accordingly. The normalization of relations in Africa would be disastrous for communist strategy.

Today Africa is in danger of becoming the tragic victim of the strategies of the great world powers. On the one hand there is the West, with its attitude of non-intervention and withdrawal, and on the other hand there is Soviet Russia which is carrying out its brilliant imperialist strategy of world domination step by step with military precision. The obvious stage at which the mighty Russian imperialism could have been halted, was the Angolan war. But America, the leader of the West, yielded and this opportunity was lost. Instead of allying themselves with the West and joining in South Africa’s détente policy, the African leaders therefore had no choice but to seek their salvation in Moscow.

While Russia is further entrenching herself in Africa today, the leader of the West is apparently caught up in its obsession with the question of civil rights in Africa’s “White South”. Moscow thinks in terms of world power. Washington gives South Africa Sunday school lessons on civil rights. In this way the West is making it impossible for the Black leaders of Africa, and for South Africa, to form the alliance which Marxist imperialism can and will stop.

But, true to tradition, the occurrences of the past few days have once again proved that there is always something new from Africa. Russia has made its next strategic move by its invasion of Zaire, and if Mobutu’s régime collapses in the face of this attack, the immense Red belt across Africa will be complete. That circle will the include: Angola, Zaïre, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique. Zambia and Kenya will then become the next key states.

However, in my opinion, the present French-Moroccan intervention in Zaïre has now opened a new perspective in the politics of Africa. There are other countries of Africa too, that do not see their way clear to allowing Zaïre to fall within the Russian sphere of influence without so much as a fight. The Francophone African States, Egypt and the Sudan all share Morocco’s concern about this Russian involvement. There is even mention of the possibility of a general stand by Africa against Soviet imperialism.

I believe that we too have a lesson to learn from these events. I believe that these occurrences can also help us towards a better understanding of our duty and vocation in Africa. It can also help us to transform the mighty attack on us into a far-reaching challenge.

In the first place, however, we shall then have to remain sober and balanced in our judgment of the Russian threat. It is right that we should consider soberly the enormous power of the enemy and our weakness. However, it would be wrong for us to be blinded by the power of the enemy and our own shortcomings. In view of the weakness of the West, it is possible that we may be alone in the struggle against Soviet imperialism. However, we may never forget that a good cause is never alone in the world. Opposition to Russian imperialism in Africa is undeniably a good cause.

In the second place, the events in Zaire show without a doubt that not all Black leaders welcome the possibility of Russian domination and will not simply give up. I believe that South Africa has something very important in common with these Africa leaders, who are basically opposed to Russian domination—and this is also being proved very clearly in Zaire at the moment. We have a common enemy. Consequently I believe that we can conduct very delicate diplomacy with them.

When the hon. the Prime Minister extended a hand of friendship on South Africa’s behalf to the countries of Africa in 1974, he made that offer to all the countries of Africa. When an alliance with countries confronted by Soviet imperialism is at issue, South Africa is prepared to enter into new alliances with new countries. Many of those countries have been in close contact with Red China over the years. Just like South Africa, they are not favourably inclined towards Russia. Consequently I believe that we have something to talk to those countries about.

Thirdly, I believe that the events in Zaire indicate that there are also definite weaknesses in Russian armaments in South Africa. I believe that we should concentrate on those weaknesses. South Africa will be able to do this most effectively if it can succeed in successfully initiating dialogue with its neighbours in Africa once again. If the indefatigable efforts which the hon. the Prime Minister has already made in the course of détente politics can now be taken further, I believe that an alliance of anti-Marxist countries can be brought about, an alliance with a common objective in Africa.

Our duty and vocation here at the southern tip of Africa is to transform this threat of Soviet imperialism into energetic undertakings, challenges and a creative initiative. I believe that it is also our task to make it politically possible for the responsible Black leaders of Africa to form an alliance with South Africa against Russian domination.

That is why we are grateful today that South Africa is blessed with a Prime Minister of the calibre of Mr. B. J. Vorster because he is pre-eminently the leader in Africa today capable of transforming the onslaughts into far-reaching challenges and transform these challenges into successes on South Africa’s path.

Mr. Chairman, it was good to hear the hon. member for Geduld express his wish for South Africa to have closer links with the Black African States. After all, it was not so many years ago that the hon. member for Sea Point and I came in for considerable scorn and abuse from hon. members on the other side of the House for having paid visits to States to the north of us. We were, in fact, castigated for associating with the friends of murderers.

You were poisoning them!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to suggest that another member poisoned other people?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

I do not want to comment further on the speech of the hon. member for Geduld, because I want to take this opportunity of having a cosy little chat with the hon. the Prime Minister. It is, after all, because of his generosity that I am able to speak in this debate at all. [Interjections.] I want to thank him very much indeed for the ten-minute gift which he has given me. I hope he will not take it amiss if I construe it as a sort of Silver Anniversary present because, indeed, this is the 25th session that I have been in this House together with the hon. the Prime Minister. I have known him, so to speak, man and boy.

Is that your claim to fame?

Yes, it is possibly my greatest claim to fame. [Interjections.] It might well be that the hon. the Prime Minister may claim that himself sometimes. I have known the hon. the Prime Minister in many capacities. I knew him as a fellow-backbencher. I remember listening to his maiden speech which, if my memory serves me correctly, was made on the subject of miners’ phthisis pensioners.

Interestingly enough the next speaker, who congratulated the hon. the Prime Minister, then a backbencher, on his maiden speech was none other than Mr. Brian Bunting who, as everybody in the House knows, was a well-known communist. That is just one of the ironies of fate! I have known the hon. the Prime Minister as a Deputy Minister of Education, and of Social Welfare and of Health. I have also known him, probably best of all, as the Minister of Justice, in his toughest role of all when he introduced so many of the security measures in South Africa which set the tone for the whole of the ’sixties. Since 1966 I have, of course, known him as the Prime Minister. However, I want to say that this is the first time in all these years that I have seen the hon. the Prime Minister in the role of a man who yearns to have a liberal image. This is the first time that I have seen this, and I welcome it very much indeed. It seems to me that travel has broadened his mind. However, unfortunately I cannot say that it has improved his logic, because the hon. the Prime Minister came here this afternoon and for over an hour held forth, telling us about the remarkable changes that he and his Government introduced by way of removing discrimination. In this role the hon. the Prime Minister reminds me of a child who has smashed a precious piece of china and then boasts about his efforts in trying to put the pieces together again. The hon. the Prime Minister, however, omitted to remind us how bitterly he and his Government rejected all the arguments which were advanced to try to prevent him and the Government introducing discriminatory measures in South Africa. I refer to measures such as the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, separate universities, Bantu education, job reservation, separate amenities and the removal of the African and Coloured representatives from this House. He forgets to tell us how stubbornly the Government resisted making any changes and that the changes that have been brought in have been the result of new circumstances in Africa. The fact that we have lost the shelter of the buffer States around us, is the main reason why the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have been introducing changes, rather than because there has been a very real and genuine change of heart. He forgets that the changes have been made because they have been forced on South Africa by the precarious position in which we find ourselves: South Africa has been isolated from the Western World, thrown out of the Olympics, thrown out of one international sport after the other, threatened with isolation as far as scientific and academic circles are concerned, driven out of the ILO, and so on. We cannot even buy a decent television film from Britain because of Equity’s barrier against the sale of films to South Africa.

Now the hon. the Prime Minister tells us about changes, many of which, I may say, are cosmetic changes and most of which are token changes. I have to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that these cosmetic and token changes have in fact not bluffed the world at all, and what is perhaps more important, they have not bluffed the Black population of South Africa. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister is not still relying on the survey that was done by the World the year before last, a survey in respect of which about 100 readers out of the whole population of Soweto wrote in and said they thought that he was a good Prime Minister. I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister knows that, shortly after his last meeting with the Bantustan leaders, they rushed off and formed the Black Unity Front. As they told a newspaper, they did so because of their utter frustration over the meeting they had with the hon. the Prime Minister. As I said earlier, if one says “no”, it does not really matter how courteous one is when one says it, because the requests have still in the main been rejected.

The hon. the Prime Minister has told us about the creation of international hotels. I want to tell him that, if one tries presenting that overseas as a sign of real progress towards the removal of race discrimination in South Africa, people simply laugh at one because they do not know about that sort of discrimination as they have never had it. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that during the Cape Festival the open-air restaurant has been multiracial and that that experiment has been such a success, he will not consider throwing open all the restaurants in central Cape Town and the other big cities, leaving it to the restaurateurs to decide whether or not they will admit persons of other races? That is the way to do it; it is not for the hon. the Prime Minister to lay down whether or not a hotel may admit Black guests or whether or not a restaurateur or a cinema may admit Black patrons. Why must it always be the Government that makes the decisions over these factors in our lives?

The hon. the Prime Minister boasted about opening industrial areas to Coloureds and Indians. I wonder if he thinks that will wipe out the bitter memories of the removal of 85 000 Coloured families and 46 000 Indian families from their homes in terms of the Group Areas Act.

The hon. the Prime Minister boasts about providing greater opportunities for Blacks in the Public Service and in the Police Force. Will he tell us whether they get equal pay for equal work in the Public Service and in the Police Force? He told us that there were greater opportunities in the professions for Africans. Will he tell us whether a Black doctor working in a State hospital is able to give an instruction to a White nurse, because I believe that not to be the case. In other words, what I am trying to say, is that all the substance of apartheid, separate development and discrimination has remained, despite the changes and that only the shadows of discrimination are beginning to disappear. I want to say that what shocked me most about the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon, was his dogged insistence, once again, that South Africa had not passed through any sort of crisis. Dealing with the unrest of last year, he referred to, I think, “opstootjies”; little disturbances, as he called them. He also said that 90% of the population of South Africa had not been affected by these disturbances. I can only say that the hon. the Prime Minister moves in very limited circles, because the people that I know, were very disturbed indeed about what happened in South Africa during the unrest. The entire business world is very worried about the unrest that took place in South Africa, because they see the economic affects thereof, and also the entire Black population feels the same about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are now probably entering the final phase of the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. I am pleased that a calm atmosphere prevailed in the debate until the hon. member for Houghton stood up to take part in it. I should like to talk to the hon. member for Houghton a little this evening. I should like to do so in a peaceful atmosphere, the kind of atmosphere in which one prefers to speak to a lady. I just want to remind the hon. member for Houghton that she and I crossed swords about three years ago concerning an aspect which, among other things, she again raised here this evening with regard to the whole question of discrimination. The hon. member will recall that she entered the field of agriculture to discuss the wages of Black agricultural workers. I think the hon. member will readily admit that she came second. This evening I want to talk briefly to the hon. member and her party about their standpoint, inter alia, as it was formulated here today. The hon. member for Yeoville would do well to listen this evening, because I have an idea that there is a dispute within the ranks of that party concerning what is understood by the words “majority rule”. I should like to talk to the hon. member for Houghton about the matter. At one stage the hon. member for Houghton visited Australia, and on 8 September 1975 she gave a television interview there. [Interjections.] I know that this has already been referred to, but I want to discuss the matter a little more fully. What I find interesting is the fact that one of the people questioning the hon. member at that stage was Mr. Neville Curtiss, with whom I am fairly well acquainted, although at a different level. I have the verbatim report of the television interview which the hon. member for Houghton held—and the hon. member for Yeoville would do well to listen to it too. The following question was put to the hon. member for Houghton: “Until the electoral laws which your party favours, how long will it be before there is a majority of Black voters?” Mrs. Suzman replied: “Well, it would be very difficult to estimate, but we recently revised our policy, and certainly it would be parity almost immediately, because 50% of the seats will be elected on a franchise based on literacy only.”

The hon. member went on to say: “The other half would be elected on the proportional representation basis, based on a much higher qualification than literacy, based on the qualification of the compulsory school-leaving age.” The hon. member went on to say: “So it is matter of time before there would be a majority of voters on the Black majority voters’ roll, but we still hope there will be a multiracial Parliament emanating from that.” The questioner put further questions of a similar nature to her. He then asked her—

The answer was as follows—

She also went further and said—

Mr. Chairman, if words have any meaning, the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton at that stage meant, quite simply, just one thing, viz. that she is in favour of a majority Government and a Black majority Government. The hon. members can now do just what they like and it will make no difference what method the hon. member advocates to reach a Black majority Government, but the fact is that we on this side of the House say that the PRP follows a policy which will eventually give rise to Black majority Government in South Africa. Whether the method is evolutionary or revolutionary is not germane to the argument. This is the point we want to bring home and this is the point which the public at large must take cognizance of. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees with that. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees that their party advocates a Black majority Government?

No.

Mr. Chairman, then I think it is time that the two hon. members go and sit in the comer and thrash out this matter a little. I shall see to it that I am nearby so that I can hear what happens. I should like to leave this matter at that. To us it is clear and to me it is crystal clear that the hon. member for Houghton advocates Black majority Government and that it does not matter how. It is stated here in black and white. The hon. member for Yeoville can explain as much as he likes. We have it that this is the case and they had better thrash out the matter.

In the few minutes that are left I should like to make just one remark about the speech by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I do not want to say anything about the political content of his speech. All I want to say is that the remark made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in regard to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is not one which befits that hon. leader of Natal. I think it is necessary for us to have the necessary respect for each other in this House not to make such remarks as that which the hon. member made.

What about your remarks?

I have never made a remark to that hon. member for which I need be ashamed.

Not you, but your colleagues.

Surely it is not my colleagues that are speaking now, it is I. That hon. member should listen sometimes; if he did, he might get some sense into his head.

Since we are reaching the end of the debate, and in these grave times, particularly in view of the fact that a by-election is being fought in Westdene and I, more than anyone else in this House, am aware of the methods adopted by the HNP, I should just like to say a few words about certain concepts. I realize that my time is very limited. I want to say this evening that it does not matter to which political party we in South Africa belong, but we must be clear about certain concepts because this is of vital importance for South Africa. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has just spoken about change, but I want us to consider these few concepts in the context of change. If I were a champion of Black power—the hon. member for Pinelands is not present now, he was present when Black power in South Africa was born—I must realize that it is dangerous because Black power means that I exclude White nationalism. However, if I am a champion of White power then it means that I exclude Black nationalism. Both of these concepts are equally dangerous to South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, tonight happens to be the last night that the hon. member for Beaufort West and my former colleague as Minister of Foreign Affairs, will take his seat in this House. Other hon. members have already had an opportunity to pay tribute and convey their thanks to him. I, too, should like to take this opportunity of doing so. It is with a feeling of real sadness, not only as leader of the NP, but also as a friend and colleague, that I take leave of Dr. Hilgard Muller in this Parliament. It is essential in South Africa, as in any country, that there should be a perfect understanding between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For more than 10½ years I have had the privilege of working with Dr. Muller, and not only did a very close friendship develop between us, but there was also very close co-operation between us at all times. His retirement will be felt as a loss by many people and by this House, but it will be felt by me in particular, because of those ties of co-operation which existed between us over the years. I should like to thank him for this, and above all I thank him for the great services he rendered to South Africa over the past 13 years, and before that as High Commissioner and First Ambassador of South Africa to Britain. I believe it was a good thing that Hilgard Muller came to this House, and I believe that South Africa gained by it. Many people come and many people go, but I am convinced that few, if any, ever leave this House accompanied by such goodwill as the hon. member for Beaufort West, goodwill not only from this side of the House, but from that side as well. It speaks volumes when a member is able to take his leave under these circumstances.

On behalf of my hon. friend on the other side, and of us all, I believe, I should like to wish him and his wife God’s richest blessings on the road ahead. We trust that they will enjoy a well-earned rest in the years that may still be granted to them.

†Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I shall immediately and to the extent that I could hear her, reply to the hon. member for Houghton. I found it very difficult to follow her arguments on account of the high pitch of her voice and on account of my deafness. It all goes to show that we are not on the same wavelength at all, not even the earphones could help me in this regard. But let me say candidly that I am pleased that I am not on the same wavelength as the hon. member. I listened with great interest to the conclusive proof furnished to this House by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I am saying this for the benefit of the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. member who spoke about the “slap tou”. If ever anybody was caught with a “slap tou”, it was that hon. member. The hon. member for Houghton caught him in that fashion.

With “slap pap”.

My hon. friend tells me it was done with “slap pap”. One uses it for catching barbels, so I am told.

†Sir, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has proved conclusively that what the hon. member for Houghton in fact stands for is a Black South Africa.

That is nonsense.

Let us not beat about the bush. The hon. member for Houghton, and some of the other members of the PRP, decided long ago that there was no future at all for the White man in South Africa.

That is also nonsense.

They decided long ago that it was a waste of time for the White man to stand up for his rights in South Africa. They have in fact decided that one must make one’s peace, so-called, in time with the Blacks because ultimately the Blacks are going to swamp South Africa and take over. Not only have they decided that that will be the position; in their inner councils—I do not know whether the hon. member for Yeoville is a member of their inner councils—they have also decided with their allies outside the PRP to hasten the day when Blacks will take over South Africa.

That is also nonsense.

I have no doubt in my mind, although I am no prophet, that in days to come people will see it made manifest that that is what the PRP and some of its allies actually stand for.

That is simply not true.

Sir, I have already posed the question this afternoon: Who will rid me of that turbulent priest from Pinelands?

You will not get any help from this side.

Sir, I do not care what he protests in this regard. Of one thing I am sure, and that is that he is one of the members of that inner council who has that in mind.

Sir, from what I could make out, the hon. member for Houghton spoke about restaurants, cafés, etc., not being open to non-Whites in the centre of Cape Town. I am sure she will recall that restaurants and cafés were originally not included in the legislation which made provision for separate amenities. She will also recall why they were ultimately included. The reason was that, when some owners refused to serve people of colour, the Progs and their henchmen organized sit-ins in those cafes and restaurants.

That is tripe.

It was then …

We should have.

… that the owners came to the Government complaining about what had happened and asking for protection.

Will you open them again?

The hon. member will also remember—that not only goes for this hon. member, but for other hon. members as well—with regard to what I said earlier this afternoon, that my predecessor, the late Dr. Verwoerd, said on many occasions inside the House and outside that as the policy of separate development of the NP is put into effect more and more, the discrimination which existed in South Africa would disappear.

Dr. Verwoerd is on record as having said that. In fact, I can give her ever so many instances of where he said it. That is in fact what is happening in South Africa today. So she need not ask where it comes from and she need not ascribe motives to me in this regard.

*The hon. member for Albany spoke about unemployment. With all due respect to this hon. member I want to say that he had much better discuss that with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour. But I did take cognizance of what he said. He also took note of the fact that the mining industry offered Black people many employment opportunities if they were looking for work. Furthermore, he took cognizance of what was said in The Argus the other night, about a hundred people who were recruited and who were urgently needed here in the Cape Peninsula, how many of them arrived here, how many of them turned up at work and how many were still there the next day. Therefore the hon. member can understand our problem in that connection.

Now I come to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. This hon. member began very heatedly. I do not blame him.

He made a very good speech.

Yes, he made a very good speech, and I am glad the hon. member for Benoni has said so. I hope he will stand by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in time to come. I have said that I do not blame the hon. member. I sympathize with the hon. member because we can speak to each other across the floor of the House as one man to another and because I know to what stresses and strains the hon. member is being subjected at the moment as a politician. The hon. member, and he knows this as well as I do, and his colleague sitting next to him have come to the parting of the ways. He knows this, after all, and he will not call me a liar for saying so across the floor of this House. I know he will not call me that. [Interjections.] I am prepared to take it. He will not even tell me that what I am saying is untrue. He will not even tell me that it is not so. Now I want to say in all seriousness that a tremendous responsibility rests upon that hon. member. The greatest responsibility which rests upon that hon. member is to keep the conservative UP together. There is no other hon. member who can do this, and it is in the interests of South Africa that it should be done. I listened attentively to the hon. member, as I always do, and I am able to agree and to go along with a great deal of what the hon. member said.

The kiss of death!

I listened attentively, for example, to his standpoint in respect of the Indians of the Durban City Council. Surely he knows, and I know, that the reason why the UP adopted that standpoint was that the Whites of Durban were afraid of being swamped by a majority of Indians on the city council.

It is the policy of our party.

Now the hon. member admits it. He says it is the policy of his party, and I agree with him. Then I ask: This being the case, what was the reason for the illogical element in the policy of the UP when we removed the Coloured people from the Cape Town City Council? Why did they fight us on that? For the same reason. The hon. member asked whether I objected to their acting in this way. No, I do not object, for this is the course we have indicated ourselves as the one to be followed in respect of this matter. Why then should I object?

Does that apply also to the metropolitan board?

There must be liaison between the established city councils and those emergent city councils that are not yet able to look after themselves. If, after consultation, the hon. members agree that such a body should be established, I shall have no objections.

And they will have executive and legislative powers?

The way in which those hon. members reach an agreement on this issue is a matter of indifference to me. I am not acquainted with the details. In fact, I did not even know that they were negotiating, although the hon. member alleged that I did. However, I shall look into the matter. As Far as the general principle is concerned, I have no objection. I think it is wise to adopt that course of action.

You are beginning to like our policy! [Interjections.]

Order!

I hope those vociferous hon. members on the other side will also stand by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana when he needs them and that they will be able to rely on his support, too, in that regard. But my experience has been that one should not expect noisy people of that kind to stand by one when the bullets are flying. Therefore the hon. member for Umhlatuzana should make quite sure that those hon. members will in fact stand by him. [Interjections.]

Order!

In a previous speech the hon. member for Umhlatuzana accused me of not leading, but dominating. In particular, he accused me of dominating the English-speaking people in South Africa. I think the hon. member did me an injustice. No one else has ever levelled a reproach like that at me.

†I think the hon. member knows, as far as English-speaking support in this country is concerned, that it is admitted and is taken as a fact by all political commentators in South Africa today, that amongst my supporters I count at least 20% English-speaking people. That number, I can tell the hon. member, is growing by the day. This party will get more and more support from them in future. If that had not been the case, how do they explain the result in the Durbanville by-election? How do they explain the result in the Alberton by-election? Why did the UP not put up a candidate in a constituency in which they held the provincial council seat not so long ago, the constituency in which Mr. Pik Botha is fighting a by-election at this very moment? [Interjections.] And that will be the day after tomorrow. Why then the result in the constituency which is to be vacated by Dr. Jacobs? Why then will that result be what it appears it is going to be?

What will it be?

I leave that to hon. members to decide. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Rondebosch said, in the first place, that I had not made any reference this time to amenities that are to be shared. The hon. member did not listen to my speech yesterday. However, he can find it in Hansard. There he will see that I did in fact refer to this. Therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat it now. I am on record as having said that. However, I want to put it to the hon. member that this standpoint is not mine alone. It is supported by all members of my party, in the House of Assembly as well as outside. What is the problem of the hon. member for Rondebosch? I have been listening to him for a long time in this House. He must please forgive me for asking him this question quite frankly across the floor of the House tonight: Why is he so frustrated? As far as I am concerned, he is consumed with frustration: he is consumed with frustration when he speaks and he is consumed with frustration when he tries to expound the policy of the PRP. Instead of taking me to task, as the hon. member did this evening, I believe the time has come for the hon. member to subject himself to a little self-scrutiny. He is fully qualified to search his own heart and to see exactly what he finds there. This is well-meant advice which I am giving the hon. member because he is a person who may have a future in politics. However, the hon. member must not be angry with me because he is a Prog and because that makes him feel frustrated. That will not work.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens put certain questions to me. He trotted out the old argument about separate economies again. Surely it is obvious that there is the greatest measure of interdependence, not only between the economies of the homelands in South Africa, but even between the economies of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland and the economy of South Africa. Surely the hon. member has some knowledge of economic affairs. This is why he came to Parliament. The hon. member also knows, after all, that there is closer economic cooperation, and has to be, from the nature of the case, between South Africa and the BSL countries than there is in the Common Market countries of Europe. What nonsense is the hon. member talking now by referring to separate economies? The hon. member would make a much better impression if he confined himself to economics and left the political propaganda to more dexterous people.

The hon. member also asked me a question in connection with the Economic Development Programme. He is quite right, for it is true that the Economic Development Programme set a certain target. However, the hon. member also knows that events in Southern Africa, the repeated increase in the price of fuel and other factors have been partly responsible for the fact that the target of this programme cannot be achieved. I readily concede that. In reply to his question I may tell him that a document will be published in this connection shortly in which these factors will be set out, as well as the effect they will have in this regard, for the information of businessmen and of the hon. member as well.

The hon. member for Yeoville made a speech which I found difficult to understand because the hon. member contradicted himself in the same speech. The hon. member remains an absolute anomaly to me. The patriot and the Prog are battling inside him. That is what is wrong with the hon. member. There are times when he is so patriotic that one could not find any fault with his patriotic views, but all of a sudden he performs a complete volte-face. We speak of changes which have to come about in South Africa. Parliament is setting South Africa an example of change. This very session there are going to be changes, and when we meet again next year, we shall not recognize Parliament any more. They tell me that the hon. member for Yeoville is learning High Dutch, not because he wants to emigrate, but because he would like to sing his national anthem: “Ieder woelt hier om verandering.” [Interjections.] Like all hon. members, I, too, am fond of gossip. I, too, listen to gossip in the Lobby, just as all the other hon. members do. I listen to what is being said and I hear that the hon. member is not happy. I do not blame him for not feeling happy where he is. I do not blame the leader of that party, the hon. member for Sea Point, for not feeling happy about that hon. member. He is a difficult member to get along with, and since that hon. member may be on the move at the moment, I am very glad that the Streicher group is sitting between him and my people over there. [Interjections.]

As far as the positive aspects of the hon. member’s speech are concerned, I agree with him wholeheartedly. I do not agree with him when he says that the changes we have made are merely cosmetic. This is the new word that has come into vogue, a word they use in the USA. Still in a lighter vein, I want to say that it reminds me—I thought of this while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was speaking—that there was once a politician in Britain who was known as the Younger Pitt. The day will come when my hon. friend who is sitting over there will be known as the Older Young. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to a matter which is a source of great concern to me as well. This is the apparent support which the so-called liberation movements are receiving, from countries in the West. The hon. member knows the history of this himself. I trust, as he does, that this will come to an end, for that is the kind of thing that may eventually lead to what is happening in Zaire at the moment. That is the kind of thing that will eventually lead to the downfall of countries such as Zambia and others. That is the kind of thing that will cause untold misery in Southern Africa and the eventual repercussions of which will be visited, not on those who can look after themselves, but on women and children.

You have the key to the solution.

Sir, the hon. member is expecting too much of me when he says that I have the key to the solution. The hon. member referred to the philosophies of those countries. In many respects, the philosophies differ basically from those of South Africa and we cannot possibly subscribe to them, because the basic error of reasoning committed by those people as Europeans is that they believe that one can transplant the European system to South Africa, that it can be extolled here in South Africa and that one can then expect it to be implemented. I do not blame the Black people. It is in their nature to form one-party States. One will never get it out of them; it is in their nature. Even in our immediate vicinity we will experience and see this at all times. However, what I do take amiss of the Western world and others is that these people expect nothing more of us … Who was the one who said that? There is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am still coming to him. This hon. member was so naïve as to say (Hansard, 20 April 1977)—

Does the hon. member mean to imply that he believes this? Does the hon. member mean to say for one moment that South Africa should accept what was said by the African National Congress and the “Freedom Charter”? Does the hon. member mean to say for one moment that they really mean that “South Africa belongs to all living there, Black and White”?

I think that reasonable Blacks do believe it.

Reasonable Blacks do believe it, but has the hon. member ever come across any reasonable Blacks in the ANC? Has the hon. member come across any of those people in the communist-led, controlled and inspired ANC? Does the hon. member to say for one moment that if Oliver Tembu, Nelson Mandela and others were to govern South Africa, there would be any standing room left for the Whites a week later?

It is a historic document.

It is a historic document, but what was the hon. member’s purpose in reading it here? It was to commend it. There is a “slap tou” for you if the youthful hon. member for Rondebosch is looking for one. He must give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a wide berth, or he will be caught in it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the NP in a tone of condescension and gave us some advice. I am quite willing to listen to advice, especially to the advice of people who have been successful, and the hon. member must not blame me, politically speaking, for not listening to his advice. The hon. member led his party to its death in the Transvaal. How can he advise me on how I should lead the NP?

Look at the state the country you are leading is in. It is in an absolute mess. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rondebosch must be more careful than ever now of the “slap tou”. I pity my friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, even more now when I think of the problems that await him in this connection. The game played by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in South African politics is so transparent that any political reporter can see through it.

Surely that is my affair … [Interjections.] Why are you so concerned about it?

I know it is the hon. member’s affair, but his affair is of great interest to me. It is of especial interest to me in this respect. Sir, when one enters the ring, one has to fight the bull. One cannot enter the ring and then say that one does not want to fight the bull. Nor is it any use getting angry about it.

The hon. member for Simonstown also spoke and I have great appreciation for part of what he said. The hon. member pointed out the failings of the outside world. I know that the hon. member is very concerned about this, and I share his concern. But unfortunately, under the circumstances, one has to put up with those people. In any event, one has to negotiate with them. One can only hope and trust that in this way one will be able to negotiate the best for one’s country and its people.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to a few aspects. I just want to reply to one or two of them. The hon. member referred to housing and to District Six. I just want to say this to him for the sake of the record: He knows that 5 724 squatters were rehoused in the Greater Peninsula last year. He also knows that we have just signed contracts for another 10 000 houses to be built in Mitchell’s Plain for the inhabitants of that area and that last year a contract for 5 000 houses was signed, in spite of the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. I am told by the department that if we can continue in this way and if nothing unforeseen happens, we should be able to overcome the squatter problem in the Cape Peninsula in three years’ time.

The squatter problem is not relevant to District Six.

Yes. That is a different aspect of the matter and I shall come to it. As far as District Six is concerned, the hon. member created the impression—I shall not say that he said it in so many words; I did not listen to him so carefully—that it had been a coloured area. But in actual fact this is not so. Allow me, for the sake of the record, to give him the figures in that connection again. I refer to the 1976 Hansard, col. 10511. On that occasion the hon. the Minister provided him with the figures and also told him—

I am talking about the occupants. They were not occupants.

Yes, that may be, but surely the hon. member also knows under what shocking conditions they lived in those slums. I am glad that the hon. member is not one of those people, whom I have seen again during the past day or two, who find it wonderful that people should live in those slums, who actually find it idyllic that people should live under those conditions. The hon. member may rest assured that those matters which he mentioned will be looked into.

In conclusion, I just want to mention this aspect. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked me once again what standpoint we adopted towards free enterprise. I have given my standpoint on this repeatedly. But all the same, I should like, just for the sake of the record and for the information of those hon. members who were so enthralled by Dr. Wassenaar’s book, who were so obsessed with his idea that South Africa is moving away from free enterprise, to quote what has been said now, at this specific juncture, by one of the greatest industrialists in South Africa, a man of world stature.

Dr. Rupert!

Yes, Dr. Rupert. What did he say? In a recent article entitled “Free Enterprise and Growth” he wrote as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister has given us a bit of a mixed bag by way of reply and has left fairly large gaps in respect of certain of the questions we put to him. In the field of discrimination he has assured us that it is part and parcel of his policy that as separate development develops, discrimination will be done away with. However, I should like to ask him two questions. The first is this: Was the White Paper on the Theron Commission discussed with the Joint Cabinet Committee which the hon. gentleman formed, and if it was discussed with them …

No, it was not discussed with them.

It was not discussed with them.

Why not?

Because it was addressed to the Cabinet, to the Government, to take a stand on it.

It was addressed to the Cabinet and to the Government, to take a stand on it, the hon. the Prime Minister says. Here is the issue which is probably of most importance to the Cape Coloured people in South Africa, i.e. the Government’s reaction to the Theron Commission’s report. Of what importance can this Joint Cabinet Committee be if this vital issue, which superseded all others, is not discussed with them in the Joint Cabinet Committee? Is that the sort of thing that is going to happen with this Joint Cabinet Committee, that when there is anything of real importance it will not be discussed with them, but be produced by way of a White Paper or a statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, their views not being canvassed in the place where they count most, or should count most, viz. the Joint Cabinet Committee?

That is really cosmetics.

The second question I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister is: In his plans for doing away with discrimination, throwing open employment of various kinds to people and closing the wage gap, has he reached the stage yet where he is prepared to say categorically that he will do away with job reservation as far as the Coloured people are concerned? I think that is something we should know because it is a test of the sincerity of the Government in connection with discrimination and its elimination.

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke at length about certain matters involving the Coloureds and the Indians in the municipal councils in Natal. He asks why the UP opposed the Government when it removed the Coloureds from the municipal councils in the Cape Province. The hon. gentleman knows the answer. It is because he gave them no adequate alternative in that third sphere of government. There is not a Coloured municipality in existence yet. Here the hon. gentleman talks about creating three municipalities in Durban …

You do not know what the position is.

I know only too well what the position is. There is not one Coloured municipality in the Cape Province.

There is.

Name one!

Pacaltsdorp.

When the hon. gentleman spoke about District Six, he did not answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Green Point, viz. what the attitude of the Government is going to be in respect of the areas of Woodstock and Salt River. May I say in regard that when the hon. member for Green Point said that it was his belief that those areas, which are open areas, should be retained as such and should not be proclaimed under the Group Areas Act for any particular race group, I agree with him in so far as that affects my own constituency of which they are a part.

Then the hon. gentleman spoke about foreign affairs and security. I was glad to find that he felt that the patriotism and loyalty to South Africa of those sitting with me in the official Opposition were beyond reproach. Sir, we stand back for nobody in our patriotism and loyalty towards South Africa. If we can discuss things with each other on that basis, perhaps we can make progress.

One of the problems is the Government’s present stance that the West is not interested in what is happening in Africa, or at least not sufficiently interested to intervene. One can understand the attitude of the hon. gentleman in that regard after his experience with Angola. However, there is a lot of evidence that the West is not only interested, but indeed deeply interested in what is happening in Africa and is showing signs of taking a very active part. How else can the recent action of France be explained, viz. that in co-operation with the Moroccans they have moved into Zaire and are making it clear that they have ideas about assisting in the defence of that country? That is not lack of interest. On the contrary. It is evidence of intense interest and of determination to halt further communist aggression in the area. At the same time the hon. the Prime Minister must confess that, while we are extremely worried about Zaire, it is not possible for us to interfere. The reason for that is that our interference will be misunderstood because of our reputation in the outside world. That is the tragic position with which we are faced.

Then there is also the two-day summit meeting, starting today, with 14 other African States. The meeting is to be addressed by the French President. He will talk about the task force which he hopes to create as a force for peace in Africa. That is probably also why France participated with four other Western nations in making representations to South Africa about South West Africa and Rhodesia. We have, incidentally, not had any details of these representations from the hon. the Prime Minister. In any event, everything I have mentioned is evidence of interest and not of disinterest. I think that the evidence of the interest of countries of the West is shown particularly in their interest in South West Africa and in what is happening there. There we have the classic sort of example of where the Government has refused to accept advice, has done too little too late, has had to reverse the policies it was following as a result of trying to implement the findings of the Odendaal Commission, has had to reverse the centralization at Pretoria which was taking place, and now finds itself in the situation where it has to reverse the whole line of policy if it is to get the support of the West and of the people in South West Africa. For how long have we on this side of the House not pleaded with the Government for a rapid solution in respect of South West Africa? And for how long have we not said how different the situation would be if a rapid solution were found? How different our entire Angolan effort would have looked if we had the solution in South West Africa before we went in? How different would our position be as the honest broker in respect of Rhodesia if we could say to them: “Do as we have done, do not do as we say.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to continue with his argument.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister because I want to pose one question to him. Perhaps he could still reply to it tonight. Is he prepared at this stage to make any statement in connection with the school-children who have been kidnapped in Owambo and apparently taken across the border? Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to answer now?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that I have been sitting here all afternoon and all evening. Therefore it has not been possible for me fully to acquaint myself with this matter. In actual fact, this is an aspect which will be reported on in full by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, when his Vote is discussed tomorrow. Of course, I can say that it is a shocking incident, that it is the kind of incident which should serve as yet another warning to the Western world, especially to those who criticize South Africa for its military presence in South West Africa. I can also say that the Chief Minister of Owambo, so I have been told, has issued a full statement on the matter. The matter is in the able hands of the security forces, who are doing all that is required. Two priests and some children have already been brought back by the security forces. Finally, this is another example of how children and clergy are treated under these circumstances by those people, who are called freedom fighters by church leaders and other people.