Order! As Chairman, I present a Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on the printing of amending Bills and amending Acts which will be available tomorrow.

*Unless notice of objection to the report is given at the commencement of the sitting on Friday, the report will be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

be discharged and the Bills withdrawn.

Agreed to.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Chairman, at the end of this session and at the end of our discussion of the Appropriation Bill, all of us probably have a heart-felt need to express, first and foremost—bearing the past week and the past few days in mind—our sincere gratitude here in the House, not only to the hon. the Minister of Justice, but also to the South African Police and others who assisted in seeing to it that things went so calmly in our Black and Coloured townships whilst the whole world was actually waiting for things to go wrong. I think we owe thanks to the Police, and I think we as the House should take note—in fact, serious note—of the fact that this happy state of affairs was only made possible by responsible Black and Coloured leaders, by responsible reporting in the newspapers and also because of proper guidance from the various departments concerned, thus obviating an infinite amount of damage being done to South Africa. Therefore, if I think back to last year, to the fears with which we approached 16 June of this year and the expectation with which the outside world waited for racial conflict in South Africa, I believe that we as a nation and as a country have reason to be grateful and to thank the persons and bodies concerned. But if it were to have ended there, the lessons of the past months and years would actually have been in vain because the bloodshed that took place would not have taught us the lesson we ought to have learnt.

I want to claim that since 1974, especially the second half of the year, we have had one shock after another in South Africa, one event after another over which we had no control and which actually took our breath away because of the speed with which they followed on each other. I have in mind, for instance, of the collapse of the Portuguese Empire, the events in Angola and our involvement in those events, and all the other factors that eventually led to the riots in our very midst. After that confusion and uncertainty for our country, I believe we can look back today on a year which can only be of advantage to us.

I should like to ask the House at this juncture, even if it does seem ridiculous to talk about it, whether we should not again take proper stock of what we are busy with and what we envisage for the future. We should, firstly, take stock of the means we have at our disposal if we, as South Africans, want to survive and co-operate in a happy South Africa. I am reminded of all the great events that have taken place in the world and of the simple things that happen around us and to us every day, things we very often forget. Furthermore let me draw attention to the actual position of South Africa, as the world sees it, and ask hon. members: What is South Africa in the eyes of the world? If people in Europe talk about South Africa, what do they have in mind? They think of a remote piece of territory. Some of them would perhaps be able to define it more closely, others not. To the world South Africa is actually insignificant, and anyone who has travelled overseas can bear witness to that. There are so many people who can hardly point out on a map even vaguely where South Africa is situated, and there are millions who do not know where our borders lie. They cannot tell you of our political set-up, our country’s geographical composition of the composition of its population. How many people have not returned from travels overseas and told us that people overseas see us here in South Africa as a bunch of savages living together. In a world in which we are either unknown or to which we have not endeared ourselves we shall have to indicate the path of our development so that a safer future can be created for all the people of South Africa.

That task is primarily entrusted to this Parliament and to this Government. It is entrusted to those of us who are the elected representatives of the nation. We must accept it as a fact—whether we agree with it or not—that it is the Whites who govern this country. We must, however, realize that we in this Parliament are not only responsible for the present generation, for those who have elected us to represent them in this Parliament. We are also responsible to future generations, for the White people who will be living in this country in the year 2000. What is more—and perhaps this is an even more difficult task—we are also responsible for the generations of Black people, Coloureds and Asians who will grow up in South Africa, as we know it. That is the extent of the task, and that is what makes some people panic-stricken. Such matters lead some people to say that we are living in an era of crisis. This is no era of crisis, but it is a dangerous era, and anyone who ignores or denies it, is denying a truth, and this can only lead to our downfall. There are challenges on the road ahead, and it is necessary for us to take stock of those challenges so that we can tackle them and conquer them.

I do not want to generalize; that is honestly not my intention to do so. Even I have become confused in recent times with the many “isms” that are expounded. Apart from communism, there are other “isms” which are expounded as ideologies. That confuses the voters and can even confuse members of Parliament. That results in our political parties playing word games with one another and trying to score debating points on relation to specific words which are used. In my opinion our primary task lies in facing up to the basic facts and realizing that each one of us has a task or—in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—a calling we must pursue fearlessly and with conviction.

Secondly, the Republic of South Africa, which this Parliament governs, is a geographical unit. The rest of the world does not know this and we also frequently lose sight of that fact when we are talking about South Africa. South Africa, which this Parliament governs, is not only a country where Whites live. Even though there are homelands which have already become independent, the fact remains that this Parliament is still responsible for the fate of those people living in KwaZulu, in Bophuthatswana which is on the point of gaining its freedom, and also in the other homelands which we want to lead to independence. It is irrefutably true, for anyone who wishes to face up to the world and the prevailing circumstances, that there will continue to be an interdependence here which no one will be able to destroy by way of idealism or cynicism. We shall not be able to destroy that, but we shall have to find one other as separate peoples and separate geographical units—even if they are totally independent—and we shall have to co-operate. That was realized by the countries in the European Common Market, was realized by the early British Commonwealth of Nations and is also realized by many other organizations in the world. In the final analysis it is also the reason why the UNO came into being, i.e. because relationships exist between peoples.

Who amongst us still recalls that there was a time when the late Dr. D. F. Malan advocated the inclusion of the erstwhile protectorates within the boundaries of the then Union of South Africa? He struggled fiercely for that. I myself was present at meetings where he did so. Events took a different turn, however, and now we have independent homelands. Dr. Malan’s vision, like a golden thread has, however, remained unbroken because he encouraged nationalism amongst people. He was never afraid to say so, as all subsequent leaders of the NP have not been afraid to say so. We will remain dependent upon one another, and in South Africa there are other issues today we must face up to at the end of this session. That part of South Africa, which is known to us as White South Africa, I regard as the property of White South Africa. It was obtained by lawful means and I shall fight for the right to go on having a say over it. We on this side of the House want to put it clearly. At the centenary celebrations in Winburg in 1937 Dr. Malan said that people would have to face up to the fact that with the growth in the population—the population explosion, as somebody termed it here yesterday—there will increasingly be contact between the Black people, the Brown people and the Whites of this country. If I could realize the ideal with one wave of my hand tomorrow, I would like to see all Blacks concentrated in one consolidated homeland, each a nation on its own. Perhaps there will be people who will hold it against me for saying this here frankly. I am not saying it, however, to provoke a discussion or a dispute about it. I also tried to say it four years ago. Statistics indicate that there are job opportunities for half a million Black people in Pretoria, that large city with its infrastructure. I should like to see everyone in Soweto being transferred back for the sake of the happiness of the Blacks—if it is found to be the case—and the safety of the Whites. Soweto has a million people, but Pretoria only provides job opportunities for half a million Blacks.

Just think of the enormous task of building cities like that, but it is not, in fact, impossible. The impossible exists only in the minds of cowards. Can one, however, contemplate it happening tomorrow or the day after, or within a generation or two? I cannot share in the wishful thinking that it will be possible to sweep South Africa clean of all her colours except Whites. I am not saying this with Soweto in mind. I am also talking about the rural areas. I should like to put this question to the farming community. However much I should like to see us getting by without Black labour, for the sake of racial peace and harmony, would I be able to propose to the farmers of South Africa tomorrow that they should remove all their Black labour from the farms? Do hon. members think I would have the support of the farmers of South Africa for such a measure—the support of all the farmers? Do hon. members think that everyone would be satisfied, or must we accept that a modus vivendi will have to be found for the Black people on the farms to look after themselves and to help build up the country’s economy? What can I do to find an acceptable modus vivendi rather than giving myself over to wishful thinking and to thoughts of sweeping those farms clean of Black people by the year 2000?

Perhaps I do not know the Cape as well as I, as a politician, should know it, but certain things have become clear to me. The Government has repeatedly made statements about the presence of the Coloureds within the borders of White South Africa. Langenhoven and our Nationalist leaders have said that nationalism is not something one can suppress. As an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner I say that all the force in the world would not be able to suppress nationalism—and an Afrikaner would be the first to know that. The growing nationalism developing in develping embryonic peoples needs only to be guided correctly. At times I cannot agree with the utterances of Chief Buthelezi and others, their militant pronouncements. I wish to state clearly, however, that at times I can understand it when they say this. I have no sympathy with the militancy of their utterances, but I do have some understanding of the fact that when people are driven they make demands that are even unreasonable. At the same time, however, I want to state very clearly that the Government cannot accede to foreign demands, unreasonable demands by certain people, demands made for their own sake, because that would lead to chaos, confusion and complete anarchism. That we have a task to lead this along the correct canals, is an irrefutable fact to my way of thinking.

What will my task as a Member of Parliament be—what will our task be—when we leave here? Last night I listened to a speech here and nearly fell on my back because I thought there was something wrong with my hearing. I have the notes of the hon. member for Bryanston here, notes written in his own handwriting. He is a member of the PRP. I do not know whether all the members in that party agree with him, but in any case I do not want to make politics this afternoon of something which is dear to my heart. In the handwriting of the hon. member for Bryanston, a member of the PRP, there is an item here about one of the three fundamental points that he said must be accepted. I am referring to the “aanvaarding dat die Witman se reg op ’n onbelemmerde voortbestaan nie verhandelbaar is nie”. Sir, that is in his own handwriting. The hon. member need only confirm that by nodding his head. That is what he said and that is what he wrote. “Onverhandelbaar”—that sounded strange coming from the PRP. In the past, when this side of the House talked about the right of the White man to decide his own future and said there can be no sharing of power, there was the fiercest possible opposition from that side. Are we not leading ourselves into a confusion of tongues when we talk about the sharing of power and a qualified franchise? If the hon. member for Houghton could possibly keep quiet for just a few minutes, I should like to ask whether they really think that the policy of the PRP will ever satisfy countries abroad. Are they convinced that if they were to say abroad, as was said here by the hon. member for Bryanston, that this is an unnegotiable right, it would be accepted? Is there anyone who is so naïve as to think that countries abroad would accept that? We can make the highest possible bid, but even the highest bidder would not be able to sell his policy abroad.

We shall first have to sell our policy and our work to our own people. South Africa also owes it to all its Black people and its Brown people to create a future for them here. I just want to mention a few basic things. I am not the only one who says this; in 1961 Dr. Verwoerd also said it when there was some speculation about many different things. In 1961 he gave the following warning, a warning I want to repeat today—

We have been warned by the Minister of Finance and by other Ministers of the possibility of unemployment. Unemployment, our Prime Minister has said, can create dangers. There are opportunities for the entrepreneurs of South Africa who want to develop the homelands, who want to develop other territories; there are opportunities for them to provide job opportunities, happiness and food to our Black people, the basic necessities of life. As was said during this session, there are opportunities for them to provide proper housing. The Government has announced measures for that purpose. Consequently, however, there are still people who shout to high heaven that that is not enough, that that is not the ideal. Let us concede that everything is not ideal, that this is not the final solution. People who want to reach the distant horizon, however, without looking down at the stones lying on the road ahead or at any precipices there might be, will never reach the horizon but will tumble into the precipice.

My task has its origins here in my small circle today. Every member of society is free to make his contribution to the creation of harmonious relationships. What is the use of our hon. Prime Minister and his Government trying to win the sympathy of the world, the great statesmen of the world—and we pay tribute to what he is doing—if we in South Africa do not play our part in winning the respect, the esteem and, what is more, all the possible affection and goodwill of all our people in a geographical South Africa?

There are even further implications. The Government announced that the various population groups will have a say in the Cabinet Council and, for example, that a Coloured and an Indian have been appointed to the Group Areas Council so that the people can be trained to share in the responsibilities of government. When, however—as advocated by some hon. members on the other side of the House—we begin to find merit in the mere fact that a man has a black skin, we do not buy the respect of people to whom we owe it to win their respect; we merely buy their disrespect. We cannot win their respect by being paternalistic, merely by handouts, by spending ever greater sums of money just to prove to the world that we spent so much more on education and housing. We have to do it out there on our farms and in our houses. There we have to try and win the respect and esteem of the people who have less than we have, but whom we can train, in one way or another, to share with us in having even more of a say.

To the Black people and the Coloured leaders I just want to say that Rome was not built in a day. There are leaders of the Coloureds who want to force us to have them appointed to councils purely on the grounds of colour. But surely there is merit to consider. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has made tremendous breakthroughs. Teams on merit became for some people, however, teams in which a Black man had to be included even though he did not belong there on merit. That is not merit. Merit consists of giving the people the schools and the opportunities to develop themselves in the sphere of sport, because they deserve to be given that by South Africa.

If we concern ourselves with those practical issues, I do not believe there is any reason for panic, nor any reason to talk of crises. Then it is also unnecessary to try to find a blue-print for all our problems before having got down to the everyday issues that deserve our attention.

In conclusion I want to quote the words of Peter Drucker, that well-known economist. During the recess certain things may be said which will embarrass the Government, at a time when words should be chosen carefully so as not to complicate the task of the Government and of the hon. the Prime Minister even more with ambitious ideas and blue-prints for what we want to achieve. Peter Drucker said—

†Perhaps I should add to that: It is better to say a few things and do a few things practically in the creation of happier race relations than to do and preach with the greatest of eloquence of those things which cannot be achieved. We cannot give the vote to the Black people in White South Africa. I am not using the word “never”, but at this stage of time and for many years to come I cannot see it happening in the case of the Coloureds. That is the policy of the Government. However, what we can do today we can do within the framework of the policy of the Government and within the framework of what history teaches us and within the framework of what every South African thinks, and that is to be self-sufficient and to be in a position where one can provide for other people who need one’s help.

I trust that in this six months to come we shall have the co-operation of all South Africans in creating happier relations between all the people of this country of ours.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister always talks seriously and with faith when he addresses the House, and today he did so once again. Strangely enough, he did almost exactly what I had intended to do, i.e. to take stock of this session. Incidentally, he also attacked one of his colleagues, which amazed me.

No, I did not.

Yes, he launched a serious attack on one of his colleagues. He said that the outside world knew nothing about South Africa. He said that they thought that we were a lot of barbarians and in fact they knew nothing about us. Surely by that he implies that the Minister of Information does not do his job. However, I shall leave it at that. It is not all that bad.

In the course of my speech I want to return to the very important point of view relating to principle which the hon. the Deputy Minister has adopted, that the non-Whites, the Blacks and the Coloureds in South Africa will form a permanent part of the so-called White areas of South Africa.

Who disagrees with that?

No one, but I think it is important that we bear that background in mind when we discuss our problems and that we do not, like many of the hon. the Minister’s colleagues, live in the dreamworld the hon. the Minister mentioned, i.e. that one can eventually get rid of the people of colour and have a pure White area.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister took stock of a session which, like so many other sessions—most in fact—pass unmarked and unmourned. A few make an impact. Last year, for instance, we had the Angola issue and its aftermath and we had the arson, the flames, the violence and the bloodshed of Soweto. This year we have seen the dangers from outside escalating to the extent that we have had to more than double the national service demands on the young men of South Africa. A country does not lightly increase by more than 100% the demands made on its youth. It means the threats are still there. We have seen the ugly tip of the iceberg of urban terrorism in recent weeks. With the hon. the Deputy Minister, I should like to pay tribute to what the police have done—I had already made a note of my intention to pay tribute to them. What is important is the results of the new approach followed by the police and of the new methods used by them. I may point out that my hon. colleague for Umlazi suggested last year that these methods should be applied, but that his suggestions were pooh-poohed by the hon. the Minister concerned. I refer to such things as protective shields, various non-lethal methods of controlling crowds, etc. I think South Africa is justly grateful for what was done to prevent large scale violence.

However, what the hon. the Deputy Minister did not say in his stock-taking was that the tensions remain. The violence was prevented. We did not have outbreaks of violence on the scale we experienced last year, although there were still sporadic minor outbreaks. The tensions, however, have not gone. The danger is still there.

What evidence have you got?

The very fact that the hon. the Minister had to give thanks on behalf of South Africa that we were spared a bloodbath last week and the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself had to pay tribute to the police for preventing it, is evidence of that. Why does one pay tribute to the police and give thanks for being saved if there is no tension to be saved from? One only gives thanks for being saved when there is something that one has been saved from. The tensions remain and this is where the hon. the Minister failed in his stocktaking.

What else has this session brought? It brought the launching of a new state, Bophuthatswana, a launching which is already threatened with abortion by Bophuthatswana itself. These are the visible things of the session.

When I take stock of the session I find no cause for thanks. I find cause for mourning by South Africa, because this session has seen our problems crystallize. It has seen the racial and economic problems coming to a point. It has seen lessons which are there to be learnt. It has seen all the peoples of South Africa waiting for a lead; willing to be led and willing to respond to leadership.

Are you referring to the Opposition now?

It has been a session of challenge and opportunity, an open invitation to the Government to give South Africa a lead. When I say that the Government has failed to give that lead, I understate the obvious. We have had no new thinking, no new hope, no response to the challenge and no response to and, apparently, no understanding of the urgency of the need for leadership.

The session ends with a Government which is fundamentally divided and held together by kite-flying “canton” speeches like the one made by the hon. the Minister of Sport—I see the hon. the Minister is speaking to the hon. the Minister of Information and of the Interior. He is probably busy trying to pacify his colleague and saying to him: Do not worry about not being able to sell South Africa—the hon. the Minister of Sport has been the kite-flyer. He and the hon. the Minister of Defence have been busy with kite-flying with their “canton” speeches. Then, too, there are those who pin their fading hopes on a Cabinet Committee which is going to give some answer to the Westminster system.

Vause, you are so mixed-up …

I shall come to the Opposition.

†Unfortunately the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare is not here as he had to go to a meeting, but there are others like him, e.g. the hon. the Minister of Sport and a number of others, who know in their heart of hearts that what they are hoping for is a vain hope. They know that they are hoping against hope. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about one of the problems, that of urban Blacks, Blacks in the non-homeland areas. But all hope of a real solution was shattered by one interjection by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hopes for the Coloureds, the hopes of the Piet Marais, the Dawie de Villiers’s and others, were shattered by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, Deputy Minister Treurnicht. I want to make the forecast that he will not be repudiated by the hon. the Prime Minister or anyone else.

I forecast that his Durban speech will stand unchallenged by the authority, the leadership of the NP. His speech will stand unchallenged, because he in fact speaks for the NP, for the spirit of the NP, for the spirit of the old Waterberg of 1948 and for those who fear to move forward into 1977. To those who listen to kite flying and to those who hope there will still be answers, I want to say: You have had your answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, an answer that will not be repudiated. The hon. the Prime Minister relies on the old cement of Afrikaner unity and on the fruits of power, the jobs for the conformists, for those who toe the straight and narrow line. Occasionally he tosses a bone to those people who are looking for something more. During this session he again tossed such a bone. He tossed a Pik Botha bone, this darling of the English Press, this more than a ray of hope, this whole sunbeam of hope, this man who was going to bring enlightment in a blaze of verligte colour. We have followed that sunbeam to the end and we have found that the pot of gold is nothing but the old mess of potage. It is nothing but the gilt of NP policy, of empty and tarnished promises. There were those who thought that the sunbeam was going to lead them somewhere, i.e. the Rand Daily Mail, the Sunday Times and all the rest. They set out to find the pot of gold which the PRP supporters and our supporters should vote for. But it took this saviour of “verligtheid” only two weeks to be tamed. It took him two weeks to tell the House that his pot of gold was really separate development and that it stayed within the old structure of apartheid. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side of the House can keep on hoping, they can keep on satisfying their consciences with superficial concessions, but the Mr. Jansons, the Dr. Piets and the canton speakers and all those who look for something more, cannot beat the old magic which brought the NP Government to power.

The Black magic.

Yes, it is that Black magic which has brought them there and has kept them there.

That is a poor funeral oration you are delivering.

What joy is there for the ordinary people of South Africa from this session of which the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke so highly? In this budget we are debating there is not even a flicker of joy. We have had enough statistics and indices to fill books. I am not interested in statistics and indices. I have an argument with my wife almost every time she comes home after doing shopping. What hon. member of this House does not say to his wife: “But where does the money go?” However, when one goes to do the shopping with her, or even worse, when one does the shopping on one’s own, because one usually does not know where to find the bargains, one understands where the money is going. The hon. the Minister of Finance produces an index, a statistic and says that we are better off than Bongo Bongo or Mahlabaland or somewhere. The Government can stick their cost of living indices on the doors of all the supermarkets but when the housewife comes out of that supermarket, she will tell the Government what to do with their cost of living indices. Show me the ordinary person who is not finding it difficult to manage. We are supposed to be rich parliamentarians, but I have not been to a single show this year. I took my wife out alone for her birthday and my daughter for her birthday and those were the only two occasions that I have been out to a restaurant the whole year. We are supposed to be well off, the overpaid parliamentarians, but I could tell hon. members what has become of my private income. It has almost disappeared. What are the people, who do not have these privileges, going to do to survive? The unemployed, when his 26 weeks of unemployment benefits end, what is he going to do? What about the people living in rented houses and in flats? What about 1 200 people whose rents have been increased by up to 264%—an average of 21% in Durban alone? How are those people going to pay those rents? Their salaries are pegged; every Public Servant has had his salary pegged since July last year. How do they have to manage? Rents go up; the price of food goes up. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning and the Environment says this has been a session for which we ought to be thankful.

There sits the hon. the Minister of Transport. He has increased tariffs. He has pushed up the cost of living. He does not have the capital to carry out urgent projects—urgent rail links at Mobapani and Mitchell’s Plain, on which the daily commuting of thousands of people depend.

What about the thousands of victims of the land developers who have gone bust? The Government was supposed to introduce an estate agents’ fidelity fund on 1 January this year. The voluntary one duly closed on 31 December 1976. The new one has not opened yet, and yet hundreds and hundreds of people have been caught in the interim by the collapse of estate agents and developers during a period in which they should have been covered by the Government. The Government was not even interested. It just let the thing drift on. As a result there is a six months hiatus with no coverage for the victims of estate agents and developers that have collapsed. So one can go on. I do not have the time to do so.

The hon. the Minister of Defence asked what about the Opposition. He said I was delivering a “begrafnisrede”. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the UP is doing. The UP has looked around and it has seen the divisions, the disillusion—the disillusion of the electorate of South Africa with the present political situation. It has seen the NP actually comprising three separate parties— three factions—the ox-wagon faction, the “ja baas” faction, and the canton pipedreamers, the looking to the future faction … [Interjections.] It has seen the PRP with its weeping liberals and its moderate realists. It has even seen the little Streicher party divided into two groups—the Nationalist Government “bywoners” and those who are trying to be Opposition. We ourselves have not been immune to this disease. [Interjections.] What the UP is doing is to bring all these parties, across the lines of political prejudice, of habit and of tradition, the people who believe …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, even the hon. the Minister of Defence and all those hon. members who are scoffing. They will be welcome when they come to us. [Interjections.] They will be welcome; there will be only one condition. There will be only one test, and that is whether they accept what we are working for: The bringing together of a broad centre of South African political opinion to create a new Government which, unlike this Government, will not have seizures of paralysed fear resulting in a session in which no lead has been given to the country in a time of crisis. [Interjections.]

I can tell hon. members that there is one other condition. I have listened to all those interjections. We do not want any mavericks in the new party. We want people who will work in a team, as a team, for a team. We do not want mavericks. We can do without them—the perpetual dissenters. We want the ordinary people of South Africa, people who see a future based on realities, not on the dreams of the hon. the Minister of Defence, not on the fears of his followers, but based on what South Africa needs.

And who is your leader, Vause?

I can tell the hon. the Minister that it is not for him to worry. I worry far less than some of my friends on that side of the House about the future of this party because I know where we are going and I know what it is going to do to them.

I conclude with this thought. The Government may hold its people together on a “yes man” basis, and others can stay in limbo— the “nowherers”. They are the petrified pessimists who sit on that side. They are the people who cannot think for themselves and just do what they are told, but this party has had the courage to grasp the nettle. It has had the courage to realize that the present political dispensation is unreal and sterile. In the process we have had casualties and we have paid a price, but that price is not too high a price to pay if we can lay the base, if we can establish the foundation on which people of goodwill, from all political parties, can find a new political home through which to serve South Africa in patriotism, with confidence and with dedication. That is all we ask of those whom we invite to go with us next week into a future South Africa, which will offer to all the peoples of South Africa a new deal, a new hope and a real new vision.

Mr. Speaker, if you have never seen a political harlequin before, you have seen one now. I thought the hon. member was delivering a funeral oration, but I soon realized that the hon. member was going through the final conclusions. He gave us a sample of what I want to call “gallows humour”.

What are you going to do next year? You will be lost.

The hon. member talks about tension—tension in the country and tension in the party. For many years now we have been hearing the story about division in our party from the other side. Of course one judges others by oneself. Have hon. members never heard of a house being divided against itself and not falling?

Do you stand by Worrall or by Treurnicht?

In spite of the accusations which are made about division, this party is as solid as a rock, and in spite of the prophets of doom over the years, this party goes from strength to strength. On the other side we have the result of tensions, of splintering and of frustrations.

Today the hon. member for Durban Point was nearly as rowdy as the hon. member for Yeoville was yesterday, but I want to grant him this: He did it in a better spirit than the hon. member for Yeoville did. I think that the hon. member for Yeoville—I am sorry that he is not in the House now—is ashamed of his conduct yesterday after having had the opportunity of thinking about his speech and having slept on it; if he was in fact able to sleep. I believe that if he considered his behaviour objectively and is not ashamed of it, there is something seriously wrong with his background and education. He must be very naïve if he thinks that he can impress this House with a subjective explosion like yesterday’s.

He tried to place under suspicion the integrity of the Select Committee which was charged with the investigation of an allegation made by an hon. member. In doing so he not only put the committee, but this House, too, in a very bad light. He lost his self-control completely. He could not hide his political frustration any longer. He was like a man who kicks the cat because he is angry with his guests.

Looking back, it is almost as if the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North agreed beforehand to get at the hon. the Minister of Finance and to hammer him. This is the impression one gets. The hon. member for Johannesburg North entered the budget debate in question in a spirit of prejudice towards the Minister, as the hon. member for Walmer correctly pointed out yesterday. The hon. member for Yeoville participated in the activities of the committee in a spirit of prejudice. He did not act as an impartial commissioner, but as the advocate of his friend. From the very start he tried to make things difficult for the chairman—an excellent chairman. He made things difficult for him by over-emphasizing technical points and he took up the time of the committee unnecessarily. These two friends, the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Yeoville, tried to go far beyond the terms of reference of the committee by submitting a mass of evidence which was totally irrelevant to the terms of reference of the committee.

In all fairness towards the chairman I must say that he was very long-suffering and allowed this behaviour. He was very fair. Looking back, he was perhaps too fair because he did not get any recognition yesterday from the hon. member for Yeoville for the fairness which he showed. He was so fair that he postponed a very important decision, which he could have taken earlier on and which could have shortened the activities of the Committee, so that it could be taken at the termination of the activities of the committee.

The question before the committee was whether the speeches by the hon. the Minister of Finance made on 7 and 14 February should be read together. The committee did not take that decision at the very beginning. If it had been taken at the beginning, the committee could have disposed its business far sooner, because that point was of cardinal importance in the terms of reference of the committee. However, we let it stand over and only took it at the end.

The behaviour of the hon. member for East London City yesterday also surprised me somewhat—unfortunately he is not here this morning either. That hon. member and the hon. member for Wynberg were very quiet members of the committee—I am tempted to say that they were uncommunicative. The behaviour of the hon. member for East London City yesterday, however, does not tally with this at all. I ask myself whether the hon. member does not want to keep his options open in view of what is going to happen next Wednesday. Is his behaviour yesterday not a type of courting of the PRP? If the hon. member does not have a political home any more after next Wednesday, he at least wants to be free to approach the PRP, and that is why he behaved as he did yesterday.

One asks oneself what motivates the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Yeoville to act as they are doing at the moment. Are they acting in this way on the instructions of their big boss? I ask them whether it is their objective to use financial power to break political power in South Africa. I want to tell them—they can take note of this—that idea is already very much in the minds of the voting public in South Africa. It is a stigma which attaches to the PRP, together with other stigmas. Is it not true that they have committed themselves—I am referring to the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the group to which he is attached—to break the entire system of marketing through cooperatives and control boards, by means of take-overs and the building up of mighty financial empires? They snatch at anything in order to embarrass the Government and the hon. the Minister. However, I want to warn them, especially the hon. member for Johannesburg North, with a quotation “Many a bent piece of wood, inviting to be thrown, has proved to be a boomerang”. The will of the Afrikaner nation to survive—I almost want to say the fanatic will—must not be underestimated. They can go ahead and use their financial power, but they will not succeed in breaking this nation. One would be justified in asking: Where do that hon. member and his company invest their funds today? I want to quote here form the statement of the chairman of Anglo American Corporation of South Africa. I quote what he said about the international activities of the company—

This is what is happening to Anglo-American’s investments abroad due to excessive taxation. As the chairman said, they eventually had to sell this company. However, these are the people who are now telling us that our tax structure in this country is of such a nature that they cannot make progress. What happens to their investments abroad, however? The chairman says that they will have to look for a new sphere of investment. I therefore want to put a question to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Are they considering investing these additional funds, which they have at their disposal, here in South Africa, or are they still going abroad with them? They are now making a great deal of fuss about the flow of capital to South Africa, but after all, they are in a position to channel their capital to South Africa. I therefore ask him, in all fairness, whether they are going to do so. Are they going to bring this surplus capital, which they invested abroad, back to South Africa? Against what background must one look at the economy of South Africa today? I want to say that in the first instance, one must see the South African economy against the background that the balance of power in the world is shifting in favour of Moscow. I now want to quote from Die Welt of 2 June in order to support this statement that the balance of power is shifting in favour of Moscow. I quote—

The article goes on to say—

Then they go on and say what is happening on Nato’s northern flank and on Nato’s southern flank. Then they say what is happening in central Europe. I quote—

The last part of that statement, namely, “which threatens Atlantic supply routes”, very intensely affects us here at the southern tip of Africa. We are dealing with an unwillingness or inability of the West to understand our problems and theirs in connection with Soviet domination of the Cape sea route. It seems as if the West does not want to wake up in spite of warnings which are repeatedly addressed to it. Taking this into consideration, it is no wonder that businessmen, militarists and politicians throughout the world are concerned about southern Africa today and that we are often asked: Will you Whites at the southern tip of Africa be able to remain in control? Will you be able to maintain the necessary stability and peace? It is only logical that businessmen throughout the world should ask us that question. Our attempts to solve our problems—this is another background against which we must see our economy—are often not accepted or understood, because we are dealing with aggressive propaganda, both here and abroad, against Government policy. I am afraid to say that certain politicians in this country do not care how they harm South Africa as long as they can deal a blow to the Government.

As far as countries abroad are concerned, we have seen the situation develop over the years in which, due to propaganda emanating from this country, countries abroad adopt an unreasonable standpoint against South Africa. One also notes with shock that the Dutch Government once again promised material assistance to Swapo yesterday.

It is against this background that we must see the economy. We must also see it against the background of Russian penetration in Africa. Moscow’s successes in Africa, the creation of economic and political chaos, makes it impossible for the countries of Africa to trade with the country which is potentially their best friend, South Africa. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture is sitting here in front of me. I want to say that we could easily get rid of all our agricultural surplus if Africa had the money to buy them from us. They need these products. Africa is hungry, but they do not have the money to buy them. They are disrupted countries, disrupted due to Soviet imperialism. Furthermore, our economy must be seen against the background of the world economy. There is a drop in demand for metals and natural resources. Unemployment abroad is still increasing. There is a dwindling buying power and world surpluses of agricultural products. The world is saddled with surpluses which cannot be marketed due to poor conditions of distribution as a result of the fact that money is not available to buy them. The world has a population growth rate which it cannot handle and is faced with the aspirations of the Third World which it cannot handle either.

Fortunately, there are also rays of light for us in South Africa against this sombre background. We have a stable Government and a competent Minister of Finance who is not afraid to apply financial discipline and who has achieved successes in the past year. Unfortunately I do not have the time to refer to them now.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by answering the hon. member for Malmesbury. He is presumably capable of taking in the fact that the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company is 62% owned by non-South Africans and that it is not possible for the South African interests to behave in a unilateral way simply because they own 38%. The second point I should like to make to the hon. member for Malmesbury is that if he cared to look at the annual report of the Anglo American Corporation of South Africa Limited, he would find that that corporation and that group has nearly 90% of its investments here in South Africa, that it has always been a South African group and that it has always stated that it intends to remain South African.

The hon. member for Malmesbury also referred to the Select Committee. The Select Committee has been discussed at considerable length both this morning and more particularly in this debate yesterday. I simply want to say that I have given my evidence and that I stand by it. The facts have been published and the evidence of the report of the Select Committee is there for all to read. These facts will become clearer as time passes. Therefore I have nothing to add. I should like to leave the final judgment to the general public of this country and to the financial and business community in particular.

This morning I want to talk about what I should like to call the “Nationalist connection”, because I do not think anyone could say that the position in which we find ourselves in this country today can be divorced from the decisions taken both by this Government and by its predecessors drawn from that party. Any Government has the opportunity—and indeed it is its objective—of creating a framework founded on its policies within which the governed, i.e. the other people of the country, have to live. That is as true for the economic framework as it is for any other aspect. This Government cannot plead that it has not had enough time, because in fact it has had nearly 30 years.

A majority of all South Africans—if one were to take all South Africans—might say that that was 30 years too long. It can therefore be taken as read that our present economic plight and the outlook for our future are a direct consequence of the Nationalist connection. More and more of the general public are beginning to tumble to that fact, viz. that there is a connection between the very bad times they are at present experiencing and the policies of the National Party. They are, in short, beginning to put it all together and to realize that the overriding obstacle, which has in the past precluded and continues to prevent the creation of the wealth—not just the material wealth we could otherwise have in this country—is the Nationalist connection. They know that our land is so richly endowed with resources, both human and material, as to be a source of envy to many other countries. At the same time they are finding it increasingly difficult to equate both with the circumstances in which they at present find themselves and with their likely future as they see it.

Let us first look at the present. We have severe and rising unemployment. This affects all the races in our land directly, as the figures show, but most particularly the Blacks. That in turn swings back on to the Whites as a major cause for concern. We have inflation and an increased cost of living or lower living standards. As we pointed out earlier in the session, the one benefit people could reasonably look for or anticipate—by “people” I mean the general public—from the present fiscal and monetary policies of the Government would have been a reduction in the rate of inflation. However, this has as yet failed to materialize. The cost has already been enormous and, even if that which was anticipated does appear in the future, the general public are beginning to question the price which they have had to pay and whether it was actually necessary. They can hardly be blamed for their resentment over the price increases approved by the Government. Their number is now legion and many of them are in respect of what might be called the necessities of life. The latest in the long line are those approved for butter and cheese, which come on top of the removal of subsidies on food. We have already had massive increases on defence expenditure and are likely to have more. We have always supported the expenditure necessary to defend our borders, but it is becoming clearer to the general public that the sums now appropriated for that purpose and the time people are called upon to make available exceeds on a significant scale what would otherwise be described as normal and that a substantial proportion simply represents the cost of the defence of apartheid.

Fourthly, our net reserves, to put it mildly, are a far cry from where they should be and are the overriding constraint on the resumption of growth. That cannot endure, but let us be quite clear about the fact that until those reserves have been rebuilt, it will be a gamble on the value of the rand. Fifthly, the spectre of unrest continues to stalk the land in all the urban areas like Soweto around the country. Of course we are relieved that last week was not worse than it was, but the general public are asking where it will all end and what action has been taken by the Government to lessen the chances of its recurrence in future. That, then, is the present portrait of the Nationalist connection.

What of the future? In this regard I should like to quote twice from the preface by the economic adviser to the Prime Minister to the Economic Development Programme for 1976 to 1981. He says—

Then he goes on to say the following—

That is simply to say that unemployment is going to rise and will probably be considerably more than the 564 000 anticipated for 1981 by this document itself, of which 552 000 would be Black South Africans. There you have it. The Nationalist connection can therefore be summed up quite simply as: No jam today, no jam tomorrow. The question that needs to be raised is “Why?”. The answer is that the Nationalist connection can be translated into one word: “Colour”. It is the Government’s obsession with separation, not to mention discrimination simply on the basis of colour, which provides the explanation. It is this Government which on the basis of the colour of a man’s skin in for example Soweto places a Black businessman under, to put it mildly, a severe comparative disadvantage as opposed to his White counterpart in that he cannot choose the type of business in which he wants to be, he cannot obtain satisfactory tenure either on the land or on any building and, more particularly, he is restricted to one business on one specific site. Can the Government and can the hon. Ministers of the Interior and of Sport and Recreation, who are present at the moment, understand that it serves no purpose to extol the benefits of the private enterprise system if those benefits are restricted only to Whites?

Then not only will the system not survive, but our Black and Brown countrymen will by definition become socialist at the least. It is this Government, and more particularly the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, which is responsible for the day to day regulation of the lives of the million people who live in Soweto, and that department has expressed its concern by the fact that only one of the Ministers responsible, as far as we have been told, has been in Soweto since 16 June 1976. I hope, if that situation has shown any change, that they will tell us. It is that department and this Government that appears to be dragging its feet over the provision of electricity in Soweto. Of course investigations should be carried out, but time is slipping by and costs continue to increase and we are given absolutely no impression of urgency on the part of the Government. It is this Government and this department that has decreed that the Bantu Administration Boards should be self-financed, but denies them the possibility of ever achieving it. Where is the revenue to come from in Soweto? Where do the inhabitants of Soweto have the opportunity of creating wealth? In the vast majority of cases the short answer to that is: “Nowhere.” These are the realities to which we all, those who sit on those benches and we who sit on these benches, are going to bow sooner or later, because there is no escape from it. If the Nationalist connection remains in force, then it will be the Herstigte view and that of the hon. member for Simonstown that will prevail for a time, but in the end it will not last. Has this Government learnt nothing from the lessons of Rhodesia? There is no land to the south of us and no country can go it alone. Let us be clear. Pressures from overseas are going to increase and sooner or later, if the Nationalist connection remains in place, action will be taken. Let us also be clear, it will also be taken by countries whom we have traditionally regarded as our friends and trading partners.

It is very late, but it is not yet too late to move away from the Nationalist connection. I would like to sum up the price that we pay for it by quoting—

The person I have quoted is the hon. the Minister of Finance in 1960, and it is as true now as when he said it. It is the Nationalist connection, the policy of the Government, which is the deterrent to an adequate foreign capita] inflow on reasonable terms and for reasonable periods.

Every one of us, and more particularly the White people of the country, should realize that unless the Nationalist connection is changed it is going to take us down a self-defeating and self-destroying road. The journey is going to be highly unpleasant for no ultimate purpose. I doubt very much if that is what the majority of the White people want, either for themselves or for their children, because that is what their potential legacy from the Nationalist connection will be.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I should like to dwell briefly on the speech made by my good friend the hon. member for Maraisburg, in the debate on the Community Development Vote. Church Square—a subject which the hon. member raised in his speech—remains a tragic subject for all of us, but especially for us Pretorians. The Africanization of Church Square is a process which has been taking place over the years and has increased. This tendency towards Africanization is laid at the door of the NP in the first place, but furthermore it is also laid at the door of the Pretoria city council. However, it is not the fault of the NP or of the city council of Pretoria. It is the fault of myself and other Whites of Pretoria that this tendency has developed. Only when we accept this, can we begin to think and plan.

In the centre of Pretoria, bordered by Vermeulen, Prinsloo, Schoeman and Bosman Streets, there were 170 000 registered Bantu workers in 1975. These streets form the boundaries of four blocks. This fact alone is the cause of the Africanization of Church Square. We accepted in the past that the Blacks must be available for their services, but at lunch time, when they have to eat and use their facilities, they should simply disappear like mist before the sun.

I want to refer briefly to attempts which the Pretoria city council has made to try to deal with this problem. Church Square was allocated to Pretoria city council with a specific condition which reads as follows: “Dat dit vir die gebruik en genot van die inwoners van die munisipaliteit van Pretoria moet wees.”

Due to the above-mentioned facts, the Blacks have started using Church Square as a resting place and a hang-out over the years. This is happening to an increasing extent. Because the city council began to become aware of this problem, they purchased erf No. 360 in 1974, which is also situated in the centre of the city, and tried to develop it for eating and other facilities for non-Whites.

However, after certain considerations it was decided that this would not be a suitable place. The city council did not sit still, however; they then decided to develop a certain area in Schoeman Street for this purpose. Tenders were asked for the building of a parkade and office accommodation on condition that the roof of the building should be made available as a place for Black workers to eat and to relax. Other facilities should also be available there. Two lifts which served the roof of the building only, are also included in the complex. Considerable progress has already been made with the construction of the building. When the building has been completed, the facilities will necessarily bring relief to Church Square.

However, the city council has set another example by creating an eating place for its Black workers. The city council also requested the private and public sector to institute similar facilities. This is working very successfully. Architects planning large buildings in the city, take this fact into consideration. At the request of the Central Transvaal Bantu Administration Board, the HSRI is at present investigating the movement of Bantu in Pretoria in order to make future planning possible and easier. I have mentioned these facts in order to eliminate any misunderstanding which may arise in this regard to the effect that the Pretoria city council has done nothing to rectify the Africanization of Church Square.

If the political scene at the end of this Parliamentary session is taken into consideration and one looks back at the past session, some occurrences are perhaps more apparent, some to a greater and some to a lesser extent, in comparison with the normal course of affairs on the political scene.

What we expected happened with the official Opposition. The “Save South Africa” attempt led to the destruction of the UP. I am not going to argue with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about the rescue attempt. The future with or without the UP in its present form is not going to make any difference to the political dispensation in South Africa. The once mighty UP has lost its effectiveness as an Opposition. Therefore, whether the party is going to continue to exist in future, or whether it is going to disappear and something new is going to be born out of that party, will make no difference to the political set-up in South Africa. However, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can succeed in forcing members of his party into the arms of the PRP, he is not saving South Africa, but is blatantly selling South Africa out; he is engaged in political sabotage and political murder. However, I shall say more about this later on.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member to say that the Leader of the Opposition is busy with political sabotage?

Order! The hon. member qualified it. I listened to him very carefully. The hon. member for Gezina may proceed.

I also listened to him very carefully.

One positive thing at least has emerged from this heap of ashes which the hon. the Leader has created for his party, i.e. the birth of the SAP. Let us give the hon. the leader credit for being honest enough to realize that he and his party can no longer be effective, and that he created the opportunity for the few responsible members of his party to leave and go their own way. This is as far as he got and ever will get with his “Save South Africa” attempt. I think that the way in which the new party is acting as an Opposition, is responsible, and at this specific juncture, to be appreciated too.

They are more worthwhile as an Opposition than the dying UP and the irresponsible PRP put together. I also believe that the new South African Party members were even clever enough as to give themselves the name of the new party which is going to be formed.

With the collapse of the UP the PRP fell on the dying party like political vultures and scavenged whatever they could. I want to predict that they are going to emerge with bulging craws. They were also able to succeed in luring Kowie Marais away. I think he has found a safe home and that he should stay there.

However, the PRP not only scavenged. They also made an attack on the Afrikaner in a despicable, flagrant way They tried to hurt the Afrikaner, even to destroy him, in order to get at the NP in this way. That is why they use people like Beyers Naude and Dreyer Kruger to do that task for them.

I am going to quote one single attack like this. A report on it appeared in the so-called official publication of the PRP, Deurbraak, of April 1977. It appears under the headline “Nasionale Party bedreig die Afrikaner se voortbestaan”. In this article Prof. Dreyer Kruger writes—

Mr. Speaker, it is an Afrikaner who is trying to get at the Afrikaner in this way. I want to tell Prof. Dreyer Kruger and those who think as he does that no matter where they try to rear their heads, they may as well realize that the Afrikaner does not allow himself to be hurt; on the contrary, the more one tries to hurt the Afrikaner, the stronger he becomes. Do not force the Afrikaner to form a laager. It may be those who are responsible for something like this, who will be hurt.

The third attack on the Government was an economic attack. In difficult circumstances, the hon. the Minister of Finance came up with a brilliant budget. His budget was so successful that even the official newspaper of the PRP, the Sunday Times, announced it under the headline “Tough but sound”. Further on the same newspaper states—

But what did the PRP do with the hon. member for Johannesburg North acting as its mouthpiece? There has already been a great deal of argument in the House about this. He falsely accused the hon. the Minister of having misled the country. Why did he make this accusation? What did they hope would happen and what not? They hoped to bring the Government into discredit amongst the voters on grounds of the budget. They even wanted to go further. South Africa had to be in disfavour abroad as well. Make misrepresentations, announce untruths and South Africa will be economically hurt and then the NP will be hurt too. The NP is not hurt in this way. Let those who want to try and hurt the NP in this way, realize that they may be hurt themselves.

The highlight of this session was undoubtedly the untiring attempts of the hon. the Prime Minister to bring about peace in Southern Africa. Without considering himself and his health, he tirelessly continued to put South Africa’s case in his characteristic way. The future will show how successful and purposeful his attempts were. We know that he did more than his share. May our country be protected from the enemies of South Africa, both within and outside the country, causing these attempts to fail as a result of reckless, irresponsible action. They will stand condemned and damned in the eyes of South Africa.

A nation which will fight for its continued existence will bring them to book. We on this side of the House pray for courage from above for our hon. Prime Minister. We pray for strength for him and we want him to know that the NP is right behind him. He must also know that more than 90% of the inhabitants of South Africa support his attempts to bring about peace in Southern Africa and in South Africa.

The National Party has committed itself irrevocably to a policy of separate development. The foundation of the NP is in fact found in that policy. The policy of separate development remains and will remain the policy in future. We must guard against seeing the policy of separate development as something of the past. Those people who are supposedly from the ranks of the NP, certain academics in particular, who allege that separate development is obsolete, are no longer on the path of the NP. On the contrary, separate development is only now gaining proper momentum. The Transkei already has sovereign independence. Bophuthatswana also becomes independent this year. These are monuments along the road of the NP, and grateful nations will look back later on and see from the history of this country that the only, logical policy is to accommodate multinationalism in South Africa. The NP will continue along this road.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand under the circumstances that I cannot react directly to what he has said, but I intend nevertheless to do so indirectly.

I well remember arriving here 11 years ago for the first time with many other hon. members on both sides of the House, and how we were asked to render our first contribution and how we were shaking in our boots. For that occasion I chose as a subject, the question of change and the challenges that accompany it. I tried to indicate that the characteristic of the times in which we were living, is change—dramatic and accelerating change. I also tried to indicate how it all depended on how one adjusts to this changing situation. Those who can anticipate it and absorb it, will have a future. But there will be no place in the future for those who oppose change, who follow it reluctantly and who walk like a man with borrowed shoes. As this is the last opportunity I will have to make a contribution in this hon. House, I should like to return once again to where I was 11 years ago and talk once again about change and more specifically look at South Africa and see how the changes will probably affect us.

It is easy to make projections with regard to most of these matters and therefore one can do so with a reasonable amount of confidence. One can, for instance, easily predict how many people there are going to be in South Africa, where they are going to live and what their income will be. If one has this type of basic data, one can reach certain conclusions with a great deal of certainty. There is, of course, one precondition one is entitled to set, and that is that change should come about in a peaceful manner. If it happens on a revolutionary basis, no one can predict what is going to happen, because then even the basic structure that exists can be broken down. However, since we all advocate peaceful change, I accept that that is the way it is going to be.

I should like to make a second statement. Once an economic process is established, when it is in operation, the politicians can only influence matters to a limited extent, within marginal boundaries. In fact, according to the authorities, politicians have only between 5% and 10% influence on this. Because that is a strong statement to make, hon. members must allow me to illustrate it. I have already said on a previous occasion that when a country industrializes, one of the things that invariably follows is urbanization. In fact, industrialization without urbanization is unimaginable. When a country becomes an industrial country, people flow to the towns in exactly the same way that water tends to flow to low-lying areas. One can build dams and one can even try to change the course of rivers, but generally water tends to flow to the low-lying areas. Exactly the same happens to people when a country becomes an industrial country. Over the years there have been politicians who have not understood this process and who wanted to check the stream. I think the first person in history who acted in this manner, was King Charles I. He ruled in the 13th century. Even in those days he said that London was getting too big, although at that stage the population of London was the same as the population of Bellville today. He said that London had to be kept small, but we know what history has taught us; he failed. Closer home there have also been politicians who have said that they were going to check the stream and even reverse it. Hon. members will remember that the wonderful year 1978 is almost upon us. At this stage the stream was to have been checked and large numbers of people would have flowed away from the cities once again. Of course, we know that this has not happened, that it was wishful thinking. It is a pity that in those days there was no idea of the economic processes at work in our society, because then we would not have made this futile effort and we would probably have been much stronger today than we are at the moment.

†In looking at South Africa, at our situation here and at the future, I believe it is important to try to demarcate certain predictable developments because these would constitute the parameters within which we will have to function in the future. I can today refer to only a few of them. One can begin with our population growth. I know we can— demographers do it every day—predict with a considerable degree of reliability what our population growth will be. Let me project it for just 20 years ahead, to the turn of the century. Twenty years is just beyond the horizon; it is virtually upon us. Our own Department of Census and Statistics tell us that within twenty years there will be about 6 million Whites in our country, about 5 million Coloureds, 1¼ million Indians and 35 million Blacks. At that point in time—twenty years from now—the Whites in this country will constitute about one-eighth of South Africa’s total population. There are other experts who give ratios that are even less favourable, but for the purpose of my argument this does not make any difference. Where will these people live? The vast majority of them will be urbanized. Projectiòns indicate that 93% of the Whites will be in the urban areas whilst 86% of the Coloureds and 92% of the Asians will be urbanized. Where will they live, however? They are not going to live in some distant land. The Coloureds, Indians and Asians are going to live where they live at the present moment in time, and that is in the vast, mixed conurbations such as Johannesburg and Cape Town, and in the others we shall create for this purpose.

The same is going to apply to the Black people of this country. It is true that a certain percentage of them will live in the homelands, but the homelands will never constitute a major magnet as far as the Black people are concerned. We missed the boat on this issue; we missed the boat when there was no immediate implementation of the full recommendations of the Tomlinson commission, and we also missed the boat when we came forward with economic absurdities such as industrialization on an agency basis. For that reason I can find no expert in South Africa who is prepared to say that the homelands will accommodate more than about 33% to 40% of the Black people that we shall have in the years to come. That means that some 25 million Black people will also be here in so-called White South Africa. They will also live here and will also have to be housed here. This will mean many more Sowetos. It is also true that the Group Areas Act will continue and that there will be a certain persistence in that direction.

It is true too that economic and other cultural factors will tend to give a clustering effect so that many of these Black people will tend to live in their own townships near the White towns. If we can read the signs that are before us, we should begin to prepare, even now, for more open or mixed areas as well. There will be strong economic and other forces that will force us irrevocably in this direction.

In this sense the living areas assigned to the various groups will also have to be dramatically changed. Let us look at an area like greater Johannesburg at the present time, an area consisting of some 5 000 square kilometers. We find that the Whites own and occupy some 80% of it, the Coloureds and the Asians some 7% and the Blacks 13%. This is obviously not a situation that we can sustain in the future. It is generally understood that during the next 20 years we shall have to build, in South Africa, as many houses as exist at the present time. As far as that is concerned, the thrust will be more and more in the direction of the non-Whites. More and more homes will have to be built for them. If one views this against the background of the financial capacity of the non-Whites—a matter I shall elaborate on in a minute—and their need for equitable amenities, I must say again that the strong impetus in the future will be towards mixed and open areas. South Africa is going to be Black, much of it is going to be White, but there will be more and more in future that will be grey. If we are wise we must begin to plan for this even now.

I want to refer briefly to education because I believe that massive changes are going to occur in the field of education. It is estimated that in 20 years’ time a substantially bigger proportion of non-White people will have passed Std. VIII than the number of Whites. Education is going to bring about dramatic changes in this country. It is generally understood that education is one of the great equalizers in society. It facilitates much greater social mobility. Education also tends to blur the divisions that exist between people. It was Disraeli, referring to the aristocracy and commoners in Britain, who said that they were two groups like “dwellers from different planets who had nothing in common with one another and whose differences could never be reconciled”. Education, however, reconciled those differences and blurred the edges completely, and it will do exactly the same in this country, even though our differences are not necessarily class differences but, in fact, colour differences.

In the field of technical education there will also be vast and dramatic changes. In 20 years’ time we will require, in South Africa, six million people who can occupy the higher skilled posts in our society. Only a fraction of them will come from the White community. The total White population will be 6 million, and only 38% of them will be economically active. In 20 years’ time 85% of the blue-collar jobs in this country will have to be carried out by non-Whites. And where you have a situation where 85% of your workers are non-White then the restrictions on the use of labour, such as job reservation, will be seen as a bad joke from the past.

As a result of education and as a result of all these new jobs we will find a complete redistribution in purchasing power. It is accepted at the moment that the purchasing power of the Whites, even though they constitute only 17% of our total population, is 66% of the total. The Coloureds represent 7%; the Asians 4% and the Blacks, 23%. The portion of the South African economic cake that the Whites have at the present time will dwindle. It will get smaller. It is estimated right at this point in time that the White share of the economic cake in South Africa is declining at the rate of 1½% per year. In 20 years’ time you will have, as far as goods and services are concerned, a market which will be essentially non-White consumer-orientated. And where you have a consumer market which is so vast and so completely non-White orientated, then it must bring about vast changes in many other fields as well.

The labour field, too, will change out of all recognition. Where in the past we have tended to look at workers as workers and often neglected their aspirations, where we tried to do change on a piecemeal basis and dealt with items in isolation, a completely new commitment will be necessary, a completely new approach to the labour task, because interwoven are all sorts of other elements. How can you, for example, spend a massive amount of money on the education and training of non-White people and then impose impediments as far as job advancement is concerned? All these barriers will have to be removed. How can you deal with productivity—and this will be one of our main tasks in the future—if you have measures which impede the mobility of workers? All these measures will also have to go.

If people have more and more money, if the non-Whites earn more and more money, they will have to be given opportunities to spend this money. How do people spend surplus finance? In buying homes, in going to holiday resorts, in having posh hotels and restaurants. All these will have to be created. There will have to be a completely different ethos, because how can you have a White man and a Coloured and a Black man who work together in the same factory, earning the same rates of pay—which they will do—and then comes 5 o’clock, the whistle blows and the White man gets into his car and goes to a lovely suburban home in Parktown and the Black man must scramble for a train in order to get to faceless dreariness of Soweto. That situation we also will not be able to sustain.

We will have to learn in this country that industrial peace does not stem merely from equal economic opportunities. We probably will have to learn it the hard way that industrial peace also follows from equality in social and political opportunities.

What is not understood in SA are the vast economic forces which will be at work here. The purchasing power of the non-White people at this point in time is estimated at about R1 000 million per year. But if South Africa is to grow at all, the purchasing power of the non-White people in 20 years’ time, expressed even in constant money terms, will be some R30 million per day. Where you have a group of people with that economic strength, with that kind of buying power, then their demands for better housing, their demands for a bigger role in the political field, cannot be overlooked by any Government. I know of no Government in the world that can resist demands that are made against that background. The same thing will happen here.

As regards the economic field—with which I cannot deal at length now—I want to say that economic growth is essential for our survival, because to do the things that we have to do—and I have only mentioned some of them—a strong economy will be required. We have all the resources, but vast change is in state here, too. For years we rode in on the back of gold, but the value and the role of gold is going to dwindle. In the future however great benefits are going to accrue to those nations who can export energy. And South Africa sits with vast deposits of coal and uranium. That is where our future wealth will come from. We can be in the vanguard of this new advance if we use our resources properly.

However, there are three reservations. If you look at the economic countries in the world and pick out the fast growers, you will find that they all have three factors in common. The first is that they have an excellent education system, the benefits of which are extended to all the people in the country.

The second requirement for rapid economic growth is that one must have the free enterprise system. Government interference must be at a minimum. The Government’s slice of the economic cake must also be cut down to a minimum. That is the difference between Britain and Japan. Both of them have excellent education systems and no basic resources, but Japan grows while Britain does not, because Britain has a system of State capitalism where the Government takes the major slice of the economic cake. The third thing that is necessary for us to have sustained growth in this country, is that we must get foreign capital, not just loan capital, which is essentially what we are getting now. What we need is risk capital, basic investment capital. Without that we cannot do any of the things we should. In order to get that kind of capital a dramatic change in our political structure will be necessary.

Against this background, the economic forces—this is a lesson we can learn from the world—are going to force upon South Africa a period of great political liberalization. The economic forces are going to force us irresistibly in the opposite direction from the one we have been following. Economic forces will also be reinforced by pressures from the outside world. What will happen is that we shall see here in South Africa vast new changes. What the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is doing in the field of sport, is only the tip of the iceberg. All he is doing, and much more, will have to be done in the political field as well. I shall not even attempt to spell this out, but perhaps I can give a few pointers.

As I see it, the Bantustans concept will probably run out of steam. In any event, I do not think it is going to meet any of the real requirements it has been designed to meet. The border areas scheme should be dropped, and the sooner the better, because under this scheme one syphons off from the homeland the cream of their manpower and all the taxes which are paid by the companies accrue to the White Exchequer. Instead of making the Bantu homelands more viable under that scheme, one merely impoverishes them further. The present concept we have and about which we hear so much, namely that in South Africa we should have “political independence and economic interdependence”, has been shown to be completely untenable by Prof. Leistner, Myrdal and dozens of others. It is untenable for two reasons. If those areas are completely integrated in the existing White economic system, they cannot take decisions of their own. Their decision-making is thus impaired. Full sovereignty then suffers. However, by the same token one will have small economic systems trying to develop in collaboration with or next to the vast White South African one. But the whole world has taught us that unless they are part of the same political system, they will get none of the real benefits which will stem from it. Hence they will tend to get poorer whilst the rest of South Africa will get richer. This will become a source of growing conflict and confrontation.

We are also going to learn that the race problem in South Africa has never been the homeland’s problem. The problem lies here where we are, in the non-homeland areas. All economic forces will drive us deliberately and irresistibly in the direction of decentralization of power. There is only one political system which can accommodate this and that is a federal or a confederal system.

There will be a great degree of posturing, because this will not be accepted by the politicians. There will be talk of Swiss canton systems and all sorts of things, but the irresistible direction in which we shall be driven is that of decentralization of power on the basis of a federal system. We have an example of this right before us, namely the Turnhalle. There we had all the different race groups sitting around a table trying, under the spotlight of the world, to evolve a political system for themselves. What did they come forward with? Not independent Bantustans. There was no one who supported the Odendaal plan. Nor did they come forward with a common society with common voters’ rolls where the winner takes all. They came forward with a system of community government whereby each group will look after his own affairs, but with synthesis at the top on measures that concern everybody. If that means anything, it means a federation of communities.

We shall be forced in this direction because the avenue of separatism is closed and will be closed more and more by economic forces. The direction in which South Africa must move is back to Smuts’ holistic concept where from the amalgam of diversity which is our country today we must try and create a totality bigger and stronger than the sum of its parts. This is the supreme test we shall be faced with. We have consistently moved in a certain direction, but economic and world forces are going to push us in a completely opposite direction where from the unique situation we have here in South Africa we must try and seek to achieve a synthesis, a political symbiosis, of all the forces and groups that constitute South Africa. It is in this direction that the major thrust will have to be made. One can see the signposts—they are so clear—that is why our whole national endeavour, our national genius, which is immense, should be used to take us in that particular direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having given me the opportunity at various times over eleven years to try to make a contribution. I thank you again for having given me this opportunity today to point to this interesting road which lies ahead and which will pose many challenges for all of us. May I finally wish all my colleagues, who will quite soon become my ex-colleagues, the very best of success on this road ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it is my task to speak after the hon. member for Hillbrow who has perhaps delivered his last speech since he became a member of Parliament 11 years ago. He and I came here together. As the hon. member intimated in his speech, in these 11 years he has developed into somebody who likes to make projections, or to put it like this, into a sort of futurist, somebody who tries to look into the future. It is probably just as well because they say that politics is the science of the possible. I mean this very well. The hon. member is known to this side of the House as Madam Rose. This is a good description of how he has developed in the past years. When he and I began here together as backbenchers, it was already clear that the hon. member had a particularly analytical brain. We soon saw that he would progress to be one of the frontbenchers of the UP, which was in fact what happened.

I have been placed in a difficult position that I do not want to act in a hostile manner towards the hon. member today. Nevertheless I have to react in some way or another to some of the predictions which he made. The hon. member based what he said on the premise that we in South Africa are moving in the direction where we will have to create open communities because we have a shared economy. In this open community, so I infer, it will be necessary to accord greater recognition to the Black man in the sphere of industry and labour. We shall have to create greater opportunities for them in respect of their training, etc. I want to tell the hon. member immediately that in the 11 years which he has spent in the House, he has perhaps seen what possibilities the NP has already created for the training of the Black man in the sphere of industry.

Let me give an example. I can support my arguments by means of things which are happening in practice. I am not a futurist who only thinks of the possibilities. I look at the realities. As an example I want to mention that one of the greatest industrial developments at the moment is taking place in South Africa in the eastern Highveld of the Transvaal with the development of Sasol 2. We do not have enough skilled and semi-skilled labour to get this capital intensive industry off the ground.

Therefore we are forced to make use of Black labour in order to get this great project off the ground for the sake of South Africa and its people. One of the measures which is being made, concerns semi-skilled workers, like valve operators, at the moment valve operating work is done at Sasol 1 by Whites, but because there are not enough of these workers available, non-Whites are being trained in co-operation with the Whites and the trade unions to do valve operating work at Sasol 2. If one looks at the Sasol projects, one will see that the work of a valve operator is a very important job at a project like this. Furthermore, one of the most modern Bantu residential areas in South Africa is going to be created for these people. They will be able to live there happily and have the home-ownership rights.

Therefore we are creating opportunities, but the difference between us and that hon. member lies in the fact that whereas our economy is difficult to divide, it does not mean that we want to break down existing identity structures in that process. We want people to maintain their social and political identity in the process. We believe that the separate population groups and races in South Africa can work together as a shared economy for the sake of the whole of South Africa.

I do not want to argue with the hon. member any further. We hear that the hon. member is going to enter the academic world once again in his direction, industrial psychology. I want to conclude in this regard by wishing him everything of the best from this side of the House and to express the hope that he will be happier there than he is in his present position.

I should like to bring another aspect to the fore, I want to use the opportunity today to talk to the consumer in South Africa. I think it is extremely important for us to talk to the consumer, because he is being dragged along by propaganda and sensational Press reports. I think that the Opposition is playing along in certain respects to see whether they cannot make a little political capital from this affair. A specific, classic example of how the consumer in South Africa is being dragged around, is the dairy débâcle which began in November last year. The South African consumer is extremely sensitive to price increases at the moment. One cannot hold this against him. Since he is sensitive to price increases, the Press and certain bodies and persons exploit this situation to their advantage.

When produce such as that of the dairy industry is placed under control in terms of the Marketing Act, the basic objective is to bring about stability. They are trying to create stability for the consumer in the first place and for the producer in the second place. What does the consumer want in a system like this? Firstly, he wants foodstuffs to be continually available. In the second place he is looking for quality and in the third place the consumer wants as few fluctuations as possible in prices in the short term. This is what the consumer needs. The producer is looking for basically two aspects in stability, i.e. a reasonable return on his capital investment and, secondly, a guaranteed market for his produce. This is basically what stability means in these two important sectors.

Therefore, the producer and the consumer are the two most important partners in such a set-up. Then one has the manufacturer, the distributors, the chain stores, etc. Taken together, these bodies and persons form the most important element in the whole industry. In other words, the dairy industry or any other food industry in South Africa does not only belong to a specific sector of that industry, especially not when one analyses the industry and places it under the Marketing Act. Then an industry like this belongs to the whole nation and to South Africa, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said on one occasion. He pointed out that the dairy industry is the property of the nation and of the people and that it does not belong only to the consumer or the producer.

Therefore, a partnership must be developed between the various bodies or persons, otherwise the most basic objectives of stability can never be achieved. If the position of the consumer is therefore seen in isolation from the rest of the industry, it is definitely not in the interest of the consumer or in the interest of the industry as a whole. In this regard one must also look at the industry as a whole.

The second fundamental aspect which I think one should look at, is that South Africa is a country of shortages and surpluses. This is the case with the dairy industry in particular, because the dairy industry is seasonally orientated. In other words, one has surpluses and shortages in the same year. I have evidence that we exported dairy products in one year and had to import dairy products in the same year. In other words, we have the situation that the production graph does not necessarily follow the demand graph. This causes the gap between the two and it is therefore necessary to be able to bridge that gap. Therefore, to bring about stability under these circumstances, is a very difficult, involved process.

The recognized methods for establishing such stabilizing measures are the following: A surplus removing scheme must be introduced in an industry like this, removing the surplus by, for example, initiating export and domestic distribution at subeconomic prices.

Furthermore, a price encouragement mechanism can be created, for example, and certain products can be imported when a shortage arises. However, to get the stabilizing mechanism working, a strong stabilization fund must be built up, otherwise one cannot do this. The usual practice is for levies to be collected from all members of the industry, even contributions from the Government. The method of removing the surplus by means of contributions from all sectors of a specific industry, is as old as the Marketing Act itself and is nothing new. It has always been an accepted method over the years, not only for the dairy industry, but also for many of our other important industries.

The question therefore arises: Why must the surplus be removed? Firstly, we are faced with stocks which have to be stored at high cost. Therefore one is faced with an accumulating cost and one cannot store the goods in cold storage indefinitely, because it costs too much. At the moment, the prospects of finding a market abroad are very poor and one would have to sell one’s product at a loss. In other words, one would have to use the stabilization fund to cushion the losses. Even if the old butter price of 70c per 500 grammes is maintained there is evidence that the domestic consumption is not sufficient to absorb the surplus of butter. The quickest way of getting rid of these accumulated costs, is to realize the supply and to dispose of it as quickly as possible, for otherwise the costs increase more even further. The total cost of this method of getting rid of surpluses—this was what it cost the Dairy Board some time ago—was R24 million. Then the Dairy Board had to find ways and means of financing this cost of the removal of surpluses. True to the tradition of the Marketing Act, an Act which is already 40 years old, the Dairy Board taxed the various bodies and persons, the various sectors, the various partners in the industry. This was tax in the form of a levy. It had to be done because the surplus funds of the Dairy Board, its stabilization fund, were exhausted. The Dairy Board imposed a levy of 12% on industrial milk, and a levy of 31% on butter-fat. In this way, an amount of R14 million would be obtained from the producers. If I have it correctly, an additional levy of a few cents was placed on the shoulders of the consumer. This would mean that the consumer would finance a much smaller percentage of the abovementioned amount, between R6 and R8 million.

In other words, all the various elements in this branch of the industry are taxed in order to defray the costs of removing a surplus. Of course, certain levies were also imposed on factories. However, the situation developed where, when the traditional method was put into operation, the devil was let loose. That was when people started making a fuss.

I just want to point out a few of the press reports which appeared at that time. “Wives sign on for butter battle.” This was one of the headlines in a daily newspaper.

Of course, the supermarkets did not want to play second fiddle. One of the proofs of this is found in a newspaper headline such as this one: “Supermarkets join in the butter boycott”—

And so they went on, and everyone was up in arms. Shortly afterwards, after long consultations, when the hon. the Minister told the people that he was prepared to offer them an opportunity of consuming the mountain of butter, they found that the butter supply was not disappearing but that it was, on the contrary, becoming greater. Of course, some chain stores bought a great deal of this butter supply. Then we find a report like the following in Pretoria News:—“New butter prices.” I quote from the report—

What is the date of that report?

The date of this report is 29 November 1976. After that The Argus wrote the following on 1 December 1976, under the headline: “Butter surplus likely to stay”—

Now the question arises as to what all this fuss was about. At that time, when this problem developed, as befits a good Minister, the hon. the Minister considered the situation and said the following. I quote from the Oosterlig of 9 November 1976—

He said this after he had addressed the Milk Distributors’ Association in Johannesburg. He went on to say—

The hon. the Minister was right. Since we are dealing with surpluses and shortages, and since the farmer has been hit by a high levy, his return is no longer worthwhile for him. Therefore, he is slowly moving away from the production of dairy products. We have already reached the stage where the supply can no longer meet the demand. In other words, the weekly consumption of dairy products is more than the weekly production at the moment.

The surplus will be used up by September. Tell that to the people.

I can present the figures of the National Marketing Board. These are figures made available by the Dairy Board in the form of its weekly statistics. At the moment the production of butter is 340 tons per week and the consumption 450 tons. As far as cheese is concerned, the consumption at the moment is 700 tons per week, while the production at the moment is a little over 500 tons per week. In other words, we have already reached that position. Now I ask the people who made such a fuss: When must the hon. the Minister try to stimulate production once again before we are going to be faced with the position of tremendous shortages?

The situation in connection with agricultural production in South Africa is that we have been struggling for six successive years to get the agricultural sector back to milk production. This meant price changes because there were other sectors in the agricultural industry which were more lucrative for the farmer. There was a period—I can quote figures to prove to hon. members—where dairy farmers used dairy cattle to produce meat, because it was not lucrative for them to produce milk. The dilemma of this situation is that once the position has been reached that the dairy producer has moved away from dairy production, it takes a long while and is a slow process to get him back to this production process. That is why it is essential, as the hon. the Minister said, for him to make provision now. The hon. the Minister saw this coming and addressed a warning in November last year already. I wonder what these people who were so loud-mouthed about the “butter prices” in South Africa are saying now. The hon. the Minister was right. The action of the hon. the Minister was particularly responsible in connection with this whole dairy debacle which took place.

It is the Government who caused us to end up in that situation.

At one stage the hon. member moved a motion in which he even demanded the resignation of the hon. the Minister. What sense is there in asking the hon. the Minister to resign? What sense is there in asking the Dairy Board to resign, while the figures now indicate that the hon. the Minister was correct in his prediction when he said that the housewives are going to queue? We have the greatest confidence in the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member is simply looking for political gain to try and improve his image amongst the consumers. He also wants to criticize the farmer in order to succeed in his purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethal will excuse me if I do not react to what he said. In this particular time of crisis in the history of Opposition politics in South Africa, it is necessary for one to take a closer look at the Opposition parties. I think that the political historians will describe the time in which we are living, 1977, as an ebb in the political history of Opposition parties in South Africa.

To begin with I want to ask what the function of an Opposition party is. This is the essential question which must be answered in order to understand the problems of Opposition parties in South Africa. The two largest Opposition parties, the UP and the PRP, are taking an amazing, strange and unscientific attitude towards the role and function of Opposition politics in South Africa. They make strange statements which are difficult to understand, and I quote only three short statements. Firstly, the hon. member for Hillbrow declared the following (Hansard, 26 January 1977, col. 240)—

What can one conclude from a statement like this other than that the hon. member has thrown in the towel?

I shall read another quotation. The hon. member for Rondebosch said the following (Hansard, 27 January 1977, col. 353)—

What can one say about this? Does that hon. member not have a party in this House, or why does he want to act outside the House? Does he not have any faith in his party’s policy and direction?

Then I come to the hon. member for Mooi River. He said the following (Hansard, 25 February 1977, col. 2269)—

Does the hon. member want to draw a line through everything? Why is he so pessimistic then? Does he not have any confidence in himself?

It is a recognized fact that a political party is indispensable in any present-day democracy or constitutional state. One finds evidence for this in the various handbooks on the State and political science. What is the function of an Opposition party? The hon. the Prime Minister once put it as follows (Hansard, 28 January 1977, col. 384)—

That is where the fault lies with our Opposition politics. Any political party has a programme of principles, a political credo. It is a policy in which it believes and which it will follow if it comes into power one day. That is why every political party must attempt to come into power. I think that the Opposition parties are making a basic error of reasoning here and they are proceeding from the wrong premise. They are only trying to become the official Opposition. Therefore their purpose is limited and shortsighted. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, with his sharp insight, however, saw this on one occasion and formulated it as follows (Hansard, 17 February 1977, col. 1712)—

This is not what I say, but what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana says.

Opposition parties must strive to come into power. However, our Opposition parties do not do this. Their goal is limited, and that is why they involve themselves in petty politics.

How does a party come into power? It must sell a responsible policy to the voters. They must believe that policy and advocate it day and night. The NP is an example of this. Just think of the years from 1934 to 1948. At the time of the election in Transvaal in 1938, the UP had 57 seats, the Labour party two and the NP just one. This one Nationalist, the late Advocate J. G. Strijdom, helped the NP to come into power in 1948.

What is wrong with the Opposition parties in South Africa? Why have they failed? Why have they lost their grip? The Opposition parties have failed because they have not been able sell their policy to the electorate of South Africa. They themselves are chiefly to blame for this. They themselves damaged their image in the eyes of the public. There were the in-fighting, their lack of policy, the fact that they fell between two stools, their negative behaviour, their lack of patriotism, their fragmentation and the radical policy of the PRP. One of the leaders in the ranks of the Opposition, possibly the future leader of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, says the following about the PRP in clear, straightforward language (Hansard, 17 February 1977, col. 1709)—

The proof of the lack of policy, fragmentation and retrogression of the Opposition politics is to be found in our political history since 1948. What is their record? In 1953, three parties broke away from the UP, the Union Federal Party of Senator Nicholls in Natal, the Liberal Party and the National Conservative Party of Bailey Bekker and others. In 1959, 12 members broke away and founded the PP in 1959. In 1972 there was another split with the establishment of a new party, the Reform Party. In 1975 there was the coalition between the two Opposition parties, the Reform Party and the PP. In 1977 the Independent Party, the SAP, was formed, and now there is the Basson group as well. Their policy is too involved and difficult to understand, and ambiguous as well. Think of the new federal policy of the UP of 1972.

How many difficulties did that policy not cause in that party? Think of the policy of the PRP. Think how difficult it is to understand their franchise policy. One cannot understand it. Then there are the 14 points of the Marais committee. I am not even going to mention one of them because they are all just words which mean nothing.

Another reason for the crisis situation in the ranks of the Opposition is that the Opposition parties have failed to act positively in great, decisive moments in the history of South Africa. Proof of their failure as Opposition parties can be found in the political history of South Africa. The proof of their failure has already been recorded. It has become history. Let us analyse it more closely. In this regard I now want to quote from Dr. Verwoerd’s last public speech during the Republic Festival in Pretoria in 1966. He said—

If one analyses our political history from 1910 to 1977, one finds two opposing movements. On the one hand there is the republican school of thought, which was opposed to British imperialism. This has meant the rise, the development and even the end of certain political parties in South Africa. Then we have a second movement, the policy of multinationalism or whatever we may call it, as against a policy of multiracialism, integration in a mixed State. These four movements and these two opposing political schools of thought have had a considerable influence on the rise and development of political parties, as is still happening today.

One could simplify it even further by saying that the advocates of the republican movement in South Africa have also been the advocates of ethnic diversity, and that the advocates of the imperial movement have always been advocates of the integration movement in its various forms.

The republican school of thought is the road to fulfilment and this is the road of the NP. Since its establishment in 1914 it has propagated and professed this policy. Even when it was in Opposition, from 1914 to 1924 and from 1934 to 1948, it kept this flame of republicanism burning through people like the late Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, Advocate Strijdom and others. The NP was always on the road to fulfilment and in this way it grew and became stronger.

In contrast to this, British imperialism has been in a cul-de-sac since 1910. We find that a whole lot of parties have fallen along this road. There was the South African Party, the Union National Party of 1953, the United Party which said “no” to the Republic in 1961, as well as the Dominion Party in the thirties.

The questions remains which has divided political parties in South Africa from 1961 until the present day. It is this opposing political stream, namely the policy of integration in a mixed State in various forms, which is set against the NP policy of ethnic diversity. The one is a cul-de-sac, the other is the road to fulfilment.

Since 1914, the NP has written into its programme of principles that it is for segregation and against integration. It has developed that policy in a logical way. When it was in Opposition from 1914 to 1924, it propagated this idea, and between 1924 and 1934, when the NP came into power under General Hertzog, apartheid measures were placed on the Statute Book. After 1948 in particular we went from strength to strength. I mention to you the independence of Transkei in 1976 and that of Bophuthatswana this year. This is the road of fulfilment, of the ethnic policy of the NP.

As against this, finally, there is the other stream, i.e. the policy of integration in its various forms. This has been followed by various parties since 1910, for instance the Unionist Party which was founded in 1919 and merged with the South African Party in 1920. After 1920 the South African Party also pursued the politics of integration, as did the Liberal Party in 1953 and the PRP after that. Today we may ask what type of integration politics is being pursued. We can take PRP as an example, since it is a consistent adherent of integration politics. Its policy is heading for Black majority rule, even though they deny it in the House of Assembly. Nevertheless it cannot fool the electorate. There is the classic quotation of Senator Bamford in the Other Place last year. Three questions were put to him by a Nationalist at a party congress in Durban, as follows—

There you have it. This was said in Durban North.

He also says the following in volume II of the Senate Debates, 1976, in col. 2177—

The hon. member for Bryanston cried out in a moment of anger this year in the House of Assembly on 11 February 1977 (Hansard, col. 1318)—

This is the dead-end street of the integration movement.

Business interrupted at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East will excuse me if I do not follow him in his arguments as I want to speak on a particular subject for a short while.

During this session Government speakers and especially the hon. the Minister of Justice have consistently argued that Black power is “the greatest danger facing South Africa”. I cannot recall anyone attempting to define Black power specifically, but it is, I think, generally regarded as that philosophy which seeks to overcome the present regime to set up an alternative system where Blacks are fundamentally in control. Firstly, associated with Black power is Black consciousness. Organizations usually referred to in this connection include Saso, BPC and, according to the hon. the Minister of Justice, the Christian Institute and the S.A. Council of Churches, together with related organizations. According to the hon. the Minister I too am directly involved in this, and indeed the PRP are seeking to unite with Blacks against Whites. This is a very serious allegation. I want to refer to Hansard, col. 9453. Here the hon. the Minister says—

Here he is referring to this party in these benches—

I also want to quote col. 9457, where the hon. the Minister says—

I want to say straightaway that I am not an affiliate of the Christian Institute. I want to go further and state categorically that I deny allegations made by the hon. the Minister concerning my party and myself, if with his allegations he means that either I as an individual or we as a party are seeking to plot to overthrow this present Government by using extra-parliamentary means.

I do not want to waste the time of the House by concentrating merely on the personal aspects. I am on record as having countered in previous debates in the House these charges which have been made over the years and as having referred without any apology to my involvement in the University Christian Movement, the S.A. Council of Churches and the Christian Institute. What I think is much more valuable, is the recognition that Black consciousness does exist in South Africa and that Black power is a growing phenomenon. I therefore want to raise the question of the origins of Black consciousness, the resulting Black power and what our response ought to be in this House and in this country. Again I want to state categorically that the development of Black consciousness, which in some instances has resulted in Black power, is a direct result of the existence of White power which has abused its privileges and which has pursued its own interests often at the expense of the Blacks.

This can be documented not from 1948, but from way back in our own history, and it certainly took on a new significance in the convention of 1909 which led to the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910. If I had more time at my disposal, I would be able to quote many, many examples to prove the allegation I am now making in that they would illustrate the growing resentment amongst Blacks at the treatment they received at the hands of the Whites when South Africa became a Union and subsequent to that date. The important thing to note is that in those early days, even when the few rights they had were being taken away, the stress was on peaceful means of achieving their aspirations in the country of their birth. Let me quote from an editorial in a Black newspaper of that time, dated 31 August 1909—

With the advent of the South African Native Congress, we had a continuous call for co-operation between the races, largely based upon the Christian religion they practised. Matters such as the franchise, the land question and pass laws all occupied their minds—this was a long, long time ago—but I repeat, all the protests were based on lawful methods. Unfortunately, history records that, despite the patience and the lawfulness of the Blacks, their major requests and demands were turned aside by the White minority in power.

In his presidential address at the South African Native Congress on 6 May 1919, S. M. Makgato, referring to labour problems, made the point that—

The discrimination against Black workers has a very long and sordid history. Throughout the 20s and 30s the Blacks called for “equal rights to all civilized men south of the Zambezi”, quoting, of course, Cecil John Rhodes.

Whom are you quoting?

I am now quoting Blacks who affirm the statements I made earlier. Of Cecil Rhodes’ formula, a Black writer, Prof. Jabavu, said that it was—

When they got nowhere, they stated that, if the White Government and the White people as a whole called for segregation, it should be—

That is taken from an article by a man called Thema which was published in September 1922. The same author went on to say—

That is what was said in 1922. The author continued—

Then he continued—

Who wrote that?

I am still quoting what Thema said in 1922, when writing to the Guardian. I quote further—

How true that prophecy has come since 1922. [Interjections.] This is the major point that I want to make. It does not start in 1948, the 1960s or the early ’70s. This is the conflict which is inherent in the South African situation and with which we have to come to terms if we are going to have any kind of development in the future at all. White power results in Black power. This we have seen in the rising of ANC, PAC, Saso and BPC. It is a long, long story.

Prof. Jabavu in 1936 quoted the then Prime Minister as stating—

Commenting on this basic contradiction of the very heart of the Christian faith, Prof. Jabavu says—

The only point that I am making here is that the seeds of Black consciousness and eventually Black power, are to be found in the history of our land, and were planted at a prodigal rate by the wielders of White power. This Government, in the 30 years in which it has been in power, has built on this foundation and must take a large share of the blame for the emergence of Black consciousness and Black power in its present forms.

The NP Government in its obsession with separatism has actively encouraged what it calls “pride of identity” and it is significant that in many of the Saso and BPC documents, this need to have an identity and pride in one’s language, culture and race is prominently featured. What I am saying is that the Government has actually encouraged the emergence of Black consciousness and should not be surprised when finally it is actually thwarted in its expression that it leads to something worse. The thesis is White power, the antithesis is Black power, and what we have to struggle together for in this country is a synthesis, which will resolve the basic conflict between White and Black power.

The Snyman report, referring to Black consciousness, reminds us that—

However, the most devastating comment of all in the Snyman report is stated in paragraph 7.5.15, when, referring to Black students, the commission stated—

The worst features of Black power, in terms of violence and arson, can be and must be met in part by a strict adherence to law and order, and here the police have a most difficult and unenviable task. However, let it be stated clearly that if we are to get to the root of the matter, we must deal not only with the manifestations of Black power referred to, but also the direct cause of Black power, viz. the selfishness and greed of White power, which has sought to protect the White man at the expense of the Black man.

There must be in this country amongst every one of us a change of heart which will issue forth in a change of legislation and practices which will ensure a movement towards justice and security for Black and White in South Africa. Let there be no mistake: Unless there can be a desirable future for any of us, there can be no future for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to an interesting speech by the hon. member for Pinelands. If ever there was a speech which tried to camouflage the true motives, the true objectives and the background of movements, it was the speech made by the hon. member. Once again this afternoon the hon. member posed—this is the way he keeps on behaving and this is the behaviour of many of this spiritual associates as well—as someone who is trying to bring peace between the various races and who wants to change the direction taken by this “terrible” Government. The hon. member has not yet explained in what direction he wants it to move and he has not told us what the White Power is that he is talking about. His party represents exactly the same kind of voter as the NP does. The hon. the leader of the PRP has said that he does not stand for one man, one vote. This means that they do not want the Whites to lose power in Parliament on a numerical basis. I find those words very strange.

Before reacting any further to the hon. member, I want to express my sincere thanks, as head of the Department of Police, to all the officials of my department, the officers and the men for their high morale, their loyalty, dedication, discipline and their conduct in times of unrest and trouble in South Africa. It is the task of the Police, together with the soldiers who fall under the hon. the Minister of Defence, to secure South Africa against its enemies. This means that the responsibility for maintaining peace and order and the security of South Africa is in the hands of our young people. I make bold to say that our young people have strong, responsible and good hands and if the public gives them the necessary support, South Africa will remain safe.

I want to outline very briefly the reasons for the success which the S.A. Police have had over the past few days. Hon. members will understand that it is due to a combination of reasons, but I shall indicate only the most important ones. In my opinion, the most important reason—I should like the hon. member for Pinelands to pay careful attention to this—is the fact that the Black people of Soweto and other Black townships are literally sick and tired of the intimidation by young militant Black activists, people who are presented in this House in the guise of Black consciousness, people who are frustrated, and so forth. There is a desire for peace and for law and order in the Black residential areas. It is almost incredible how many Black people have told me: “This has now gone far enough.” Sir, we are going to ensure that there is peace, law and order in the Black areas concerned.

The other reason is that the S.A. Police have been building up a climate of trust and friendship—this goes against the work of the PRP—between the Black public and the S.A. Police. This has been done under the able leadership of Gen. Kriel and especially of Brig. Jan Visser, the immediate chief in Soweto, and his officers. We want to thank them sincerely for the work they have done in this connection. Another reason is the co-operation which has been established in this way between the S.A. Police and members of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, people who are also continually being denigrated by the PRP. These people contributed to the planning and the co-ordination of action.

Another reason is the fact that we arrested the young leaders at a very early stage. In this way, too, the prohibition of inflammatory meetings which were to have been held by White people was a contributing factor.

In this connection I am referring to a meeting which was to have been held in the St. Mary’s Cathedral, where a so-called vigil was to have been held in the cathedral. I phoned the bishop and told him that I had nothing against the fact that he wanted to hold a service; that he could hold as many services as he liked, for this is a free country and we believe in religious freedom, but that I could not allow them to make political speeches there. The political speeches which were to have been made there were indicated on the programme. The vigil would have lasted from 6.30 in the morning until 6.30 the next day. It would have been opened by the Bishop of Johannesburg. There would have been a prayer—a mass—and then they would have proceeded to private prayers. All the time the private praying was going on, there would have been speeches and prayers which would have been led by people such as Helen Joseph, Beyers Naudé, Sally Mondlane, Sheila Duncan, Albertus Pop, Dr. Salojee, Tetha Bhoolia and Drake Tsenkeng. I venture to say that the very reading of these names ought to be enough for hon. members to realize that that occasion would not have been devoted so much to praying for peace, but that under the pretext of those prayers, they would have proceeded to incite those people and to strengthen them in their resolve to continue the struggle which they had begun, by burning down their own schools, burning down the offices of the Bantu Administraition Boards, attacking the hospital and so forth. In a Christian church one would expect—I have nothing against other people and their religion—that the music would be provided by a very sincere Christian. Soft music should have been played, after all. The musician was one Simon Weinberg. The names of the deceased, as well as the names of the detainees, were to have been displayed in the cathedral.

I must give the cathedral credit for having realized, it seems that I would have had no other choice than to silence the agitators on 16 June. So they did what was proper and prohibited the people from making speeches there. They could attend the church service, but they could not make any speeches.

The other meeting which I banned was a meeting which had been planned at the University of the Witwatersrand.

How silly you were!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I was silly in doing that. As far as the hon. member, a responsible member of this House, is concerned, and as far as Dr. Bozzoli is concerned, I consider their allowing that meeting to be held the most irresponsible thing I have ever heard of in the circumstances.

I would have made exactly the same speech I made on Monday. [Interjections.] I made exactly the same speech on Monday!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says she made exactly the same speech on Monday. This is what she said on Monday—

Is it not true?

I find it strange that the hon. member’s meeting was planned for 16 June in the first place. This was the anniversary of the riots in Soweto. The second thing that was strange was that crosses had been planted on the campus and burnt down again. This was the meeting she was going to address. [Interjections.] The third strange thing is that the hon. member would allegedly have held such a peaceful meeting together with Helen Joseph of all people. However, what is very strange is that the pamphlet advertising the meeting had made it very clear: “To commemorate the day of the rioting in Soweto and to show solidarity with the students that took part in the rioting.”

[Inaudible.]

Then, however, the hon. member for Houghton put on a pious face because she realized that there was suddenly a need for the PRP to show a different face to South Africa. Then she suddenly made a tame speech at the University of the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.]

It wasn’t so “tame”.

However, if I had allowed her to go there and to make one of her usual speeches, I am sure that I would still have been struggling to make people calm down in Soweto.

That is nonsense.

This was one of the reasons, therefore …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton cannot keep up a running commentary while the hon. the Minister is speaking.

Another reason for the success achieved by the Police was of course the fact that the Police had been experimenting with new things all year. Under the circumstances, therefore, they were fully prepared. Now I would just like to ask …

You refused to get riot equipment last year.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton may not keep on making interjections all the time.

I should just like to ask what the reason for the riots was. I want to say at once that the problems caused by the policy of separate development were not the true reason for the riots.

Are you anticipating the decision of the Cillié Commission?

I am speaking of these riots, not the riots which the commission is investigating. It is true that there are grievances and some dissatisfaction with certain aspects of our policy. That may be so. In what country are there no grievances? In what country is there no dissatisfaction? But that it was the basic factor, as those hon. members alleged, as the hon. member for Pinelands wants to imply, which gave rise to arson, to murder, as happened in the case of Dr. Edelstein, and to the loss of life, I cannot accept. This was not the true cause. No party in this country would have been free of such riots. Not a single party. Even if they had been in power, there would still have been riots. What was the true and main cause? The commission of inquiry is investigating all the reasons at the moment. I think I am entitled to give one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to do so. It is my own opinion which I am expressing. I say the true reason is the Black Power ideology which forms the focal point of the polarization between White and Black and which is being brought about by the Black consciousness movements and supported by the activist, communist-orientated ANC. This is the real reason. This is one of the basic reasons for the riots that took place. These things were caused by polarization which White people brought about between Black and White, in which the hon. member for Pinelands played no small part.

I should like to mention just a few examples of his part in the development of the Black consciousness organizations and a Black Power ideology. The hon. member attended a conference of the Pseudo Gospel in Church and Society in Johannesburg on 1 and 2 May, 1968, for example. It has been ascertained that this group of people, most of whom are members of the Christian Institute of South Africa and of the Christian Council of South Africa, is going to try, in co-operation with the University Christian Movement—a movement which, I may say, has nothing to do with universities, nor is it Christian—and the Citizens’ Action Committee, to disregard or attack all apartheid laws by bringing pressure to bear on the English churches. That was the purpose of that meeting. That was what they said there, in the presence of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Between 8 and 15 July 1968 he attended a congress of the University Christian Movement, the father of polarization between White and Black. It was their avowed aim. They said that. The hon. member must not argue with me. The University Christian Movement said that they had achieved what they had set out to achieve, i.e. to make the Black man aware of himself as a Black man, so that he might know that the White man stood over there and that he stood on this side. The hon. member attended that congress held on that date, a congress at Forest Sanctuary near Stutterheim. A mockery was made of religion at that congress. A great fuss was made there—the hon. member will remember if he thinks back a little—of the Black Power Movement. Multi-racial parties were held. The hon. member has only to shake his head if he does not agree with me, but he knows that this is the truth. Drunkenness and immorality were the order of the day. In between, freedom songs were sung. Every facet of Government policy was attacked and those who were not quite convinced were indoctrinated to accept the leftist views of the leaders. Proposals were made and resolutions were adopted in connection with “task forces”—which the hon. member for Pinelands knows a great deal about—and also in connection with organizing people into cells. The hon. member took part there in the formation of cells of the “task forces”. He cannot deny that. A visitor from America, Mary McNally, who was the guest of the hon. member for Pinelands in Natal, openly propagated the communist ideology there. The hon. member is aware of that.

On 21 August 1969, he made a speech as the theological adviser to the University Christian Movement at the theological seminary of Alice. His speech was aimed at encouraging the students actively to promote the objectives of the UCM, “irrespective if the cost might be harmful”. He attended the UCM executive committee meeting at Wilgespruit on 13 and 14 September 1969. When I told the hon. member during a previous debate that he had most probably been to Wilgespruit, he denied that very emphatically. He said he had never had anything to do with Wilgespruit. But he attended the UCM executive committee meeting at Wilgespruit. Well-known figures who were present included Dave de Beer, who was later banned, and Colin Collins, the general secretary of the University Christian Movement.

In 1969 he attended the annual congress of the Methodist Church in East London. There he was attacked by people in his own church—he must tell us if this is not true— because of his association with the University Christian Movement, the distribution of certain literature at the latest conference of the UCM which had been held in Natal, as well as the appointment of Justice Moloto and Chris Mokoditoa, both of them Black Power supporters who are not even in the Republic at the moment. They belonged to the church at that time. Both of them were expelled from the Fort Hare University because of their subversive activities.

On 25 November 1969, the hon. member attended a meeting of the Christian Institute at the home of R. Falkenberg, the secretary of the Theological Institute of Southern Africa. All the well-known leftists were present.

The Special Branch was probably there as well.

Yes, the Special Branch was there too, luckily for South Africa. I want the hon. member to remember that the detectives will be there. On 24 February 1970 it was learned that the hon. member had been nominated as a member of the International Advisory Committee for the Ecumenical Programme to Combat Racism at a meeting of the executive of the World Council of Churches.

In May 1970, he was in contact with Richard Usher, who was then a reporter of The Daily News and who devoted himself mainly to the Christian Institute, adopting an extremely militant attitude. He told him that he was going to Geneva, where he would serve on the International Committee to Combat Racialism. He had been invited in his personal capacity and not as a representative of the Church. While he was there, he would also contact the Youth Department and the Christian Education Department of the World Council of Churches in order to discuss places where they could meet in the future. He would address the audience on “leadership training”. This is a method of brain-washing, and the hon. member denied this when I last questioned him about it. On 1 July 1970 he held a meeting of the Committee for the Combating of Racialism with Dr. Schollema as director. He attended this meeting at Geneva. Now the hon. member must listen carefully. The possibility of violence as a means of ending racism was discussed. At least two-thirds of the committee were in favour of violence and in favour of funds being made available to “liberation movements”.

Who was against it?

The hon. member did not leave. Such a recommendation was going to be submitted to the World Council of Churches and that recommendation was expected to be approved.

During July of the same year, film shows for the Multiracial Youth Training Centre, of which he is head, was held in the Methodist Church at Greyville. On that occasion there were posters inside the church bearing the words “Black Power” and “Black Africa”. That hon. member cannot deny this if he is really a Christian. These were displayed inside the church hall at a meeting organized by him. He also told the group there that he was modernizing the Bible. [Interjections.] I should like to know whether the hon. member was writing a Black theology for them. During July 1970 it became known that the Multiracial Youth Training, which was led by him, was known as a welfare organization, but was actually an organization which indoctrinated young people with leftist thinking and alien moral values. A large part of this training was nothing but sensitivity training. It consisted of the forming of groups with a group leader in which the individual was taught to think like the group. [Interjections.] This is true. More importance is attached to politics than to the Bible. People attending the course are always being made aware of the fact that the non-Whites are being oppressed and that something must be done about it. When passages are read from the Bible, they are always directly related to politics. I shall furnish an example—

On 31 March 1971, it was learnt that during his visit to the USA, the hon. member had contacted a certain Anne Tobias—we need not even say who she is; she is a well-known South African leftist—and together they devised plans for obtaining a temporary residence permit for one Sally Timmel. This Sally Timmel has been described as follows, and this is not our description—

This is the kind of person he wanted to bring to South Africa. At the beginning of 1973 he was employed by Anglo-American as an employment adviser. In this capacity he was supposed to care for the well-being of employees of the organization. His attitude and approach to his work are reflected in the following words which that hon. member used towards Black employees—

Now the hon. member comes along here today and he wants to talk again! That day he addressed them on Black consciousness and Black Power. I quote further—

That is what he wanted. He wanted those people to enter the labour field so that pressure could be brought to bear in favour of Black consciousness and Black Power.

On 10 January 1974 he got in touch with Baldwin Schollema in the Netherlands and implied that he would make arrangements to attend a committee meeting in the Netherlands from 26 April to 3 May. Schollema is head of the special committee for combating racism of the World Council of Churches. This committee is responsible for the financial donations made by the World Council of Churches to the terrorist movements. This is the man to whom the hon. member for Pinelands paid a visit. I want to say to the churches and to the hon. member—because these people are involved with the churches—that they must be careful not to allow subverters, not only of this Government, but of South Africa, of our children and our grandchildren and of the future of South Africa, to enter the church and to work for the downfall of South Africa under the pretext of working for Christ. I want to warn the hon. member for Pinelands that if he wants, he can deliberately pursue this direction which he has chosen for himself, and that he can take the PRP along with him. He is a member of that party and he represents that party in this Parliament. The cloak he has around his own shoulders is the cloak that hangs around the shoulders of the leader of his party. That party cannot dissociate itself from the hon. member for Pinelands. He cannot do things in his personal capacity. I want to say to the hon. member that this Black Power business in South Africa is the most dangerous movement which has ever come to this country from America.

It is as dangerous as your White Power.

He says it is “as dangerous as your White Power”. My White Power or your White Power? Which White Power? Are you a White man or a Black man?

I am a White man.

Well, say no more to us, my friend. We know where you stand. We know where they stand. I just want to say this to the hon. members: The Black people are tired of Black Power. Black Power was brought about by Black White people who polarized the Black people. I want to ask them: For heaven’s sake, stop doing that. You are going to harm South Africa. I want to say to the hon. members that they can differ with us as much as they like in the political sphere, that it is their right.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I am not going to answer questions. I have no time for that. They can differ with us as much as they like; that is their right. However, we must accept one another’s goodwill and sincerity. My party’s attitude towards the Black people is as positive as that of anyone in South Africa, if not much more positive. I feel—and I have said so to many Black people and they agree with me—that we must forget about the political differences. It is in the interests of South Africa that we should look again at the things that really require attention. The hon. members of the other side, such as the hon. member for Pinelands, should not always, with pious faces, stab us in the back in the dark. Let him tell us honestly and frankly what we can do together as White, Black and Brown in South Africa to strengthen one another in order to protect our fatherland. That is what we should like to do in South Africa.

We do that day after day, but you are not prepared to listen to it.

Yes, but not according to those brain-washing methods which take place there, nor by means of inciting little Black children to do the dirty work of the communists. That is not what must be done. We must plan together so that we may serve the interests of South Africa, so that we may remain true to the young South African policemen and soldiers who have to protect South Africa and so that we as adults may provide a basis on which we can build in South Africa so that the country may have a future instead of being undermined, as is happening with the emergence of this Black Power. I say again that the hon. member for Pinelands supported Black Power, for he gave birth to it. I want to tell him that he must leave it alone, as must the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister commenced his speech by expressing his gratitude to the police. He made special mention of the police in Soweto and of their actions during the past week or so. We in the SAP say that the police have commanded our admiration during the past week not only by the way they have taken action, but I can give the hon. the Minister and this House the assurance that they have also commanded our admiration for the way in which they have always endeavoured to maintain law and order in South Africa. It is not only inciting politicians amongst the Blacks that these people have to contend with from time to time. Normally they have to contend with an element that takes over once the inciting politicians have done what they can and then cannot or will not do any more to control the situation. However, what did we find in Soweto, Cape Town and elsewhere last year? After the marches had taken place, one normally found that it was the tsotsi element and the skolly element that took over. In other words, in the final analysis, it is actually those people who cause murder, manslaughter, arson and plundering and who cause innocent people to be injured. In our opinion, the time has not yet arrived in South Africa for innocent school-children, whether they be White or Black, to take part in marches, even if they are in their own areas. It is not usually the march of the school-children that has the wrong effect, but the actions of that lawless and unrestrained element which exploits the situation. Then one normally finds that the political set-up in South Africa gets the blame for this.

We listened to the hon. member for Pinelands here today. He told us that the fact that we have a form of separation in South Africa was really at the root of all our problems. I want to remind him of the fact that from the earliest times, South Africa has had a form of separation. If he wants to blame separation for the problems we have in this country, then he must draw the line right through from the beginning of the settlement in this country. If that is his objection to it, then he should not lay the blame for that at the door of the present generation only. The fact is that separation in the normal manner is not a form of oppression. Separation of every group in its own area has nothing to do with a particular Government that has been in power during the past 100 or 50 years in South Africa. It is part of the convention and tradition of South Africa. What the hon. member for Pinelands is in fact attacking, are the conventions and customs South Africa has always believed in, because whether by a legal or natural process we have always maintained a form of separation in South Africa.

Another thing which I find so strange is the fact that the hon. member for Pinelands made his attack on the so-called “White Power”. He said, “Because White Power wants to protect itself against the Black man at the expense of the Black man.” I want to admit that the hon. member was right with regard to one thing. There was a time when the White man in South Africa did things at the expense of other groups in this country. That is true. However, it is also true that a transformation has taken place in this country. Everyone of us in this country who has political power in his hands, and who is guiding the other groups to a form of political freedom, is in fact removing that sting from the so-called White power which we had in this country.

There is a world of difference, however, between that White Power and the Black Power we have in South Africa today, because the Black Power we have is not aimed at making the Black man aware of himself; it is not aimed at making himself aware of his own traditions and of the slogan “Black is beautiful”. The aim is not to tell him that he too has something for which he has to wage a struggle. The Black Power we have in South Africa today, has only one objective, and that is Black majority rule in South Africa and, what is more, for the White man no longer to have any control even over his own affairs in South Africa. These are the facts of the matter. This Black Power does not want to find accommodation with the Whites.

It wants to take over.

Exactly. It has only one objective and that is not only to take over in South Africa, but to leave the whole of Southern Africa in the hands of the Black man, and, what is more, not to leave it in the hands of the moderate Black, but in the hands of the militant Black man, Marxist and the communist. Therefore, there is a world of difference, and the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members must realize that, because that is what we have to contend with.

However, if there is a consciousness amongst the Black people to do things for themselves, if the Black man does not want his dignity and his honour to be injured, and if he has ambitions and aspirations in life; if these things constitute Black consciousness, then I do not believe that any one of us in this House could have any objection to it. For the Black man to be proud of what is his own, of what belongs to him and of what he would like to achieve for his people, is a healthy form of consciousness. It is healthy for the Black man to want to look after his own people and promote his own affairs.

I think it is unfortunate that the word “Black Power” ever took root in South Africa. As I read history, it is very clear that it blew over to South Africa as a result of events in America in the early fifties and thereafter. What the Black Power apologists in South Africa must realize is that initially, as far as I can remember, the apologists of Black Power, even in America, always ensured that their actions were responsible. They did not raze as much as one school in America; never did they choose to resort to violence. In fact, Martin Luther King was one of those people who was proud of the fact that he had always warned his people not to employ violence. Therefore, that ought to be a lesson to the apologists of Black Power in South Africa not to do what they have been doing recently.

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity in this debate to review this year’s session. There is one thing that is very clear as far as I am concerned, and that is that at this stage the reins still are very firmly in the hands of the Government.

We began this session with the idea that an alternative Government would be created in South Africa. At this stage that alternative Government, as I said in the no-confidence debate earlier this year, has not been created. Therefore, I want to say that the responsibility of the Government as regards the administration of the country has not yet been reduced in any way. Therefore, when it comes to creating confidence in South Africa’s future in the economic sphere, as well as the solution of the unemployment and the inflation problems we are experiencing, the responsibility of the Government has by no means diminished in recent times. In fact, I am prepared to say that in the absence of an alternative Government, the responsibility of the Government has actually increased in this respect.

It has not yet been possible to create the alternative Government because of the fact that it was thought that it could be done on the basis of the Kowie Marais principles. It had to fail, because people who are philosophically irreconcilable, cannot be in one party. It is not possible for the electorate of South Africa to have confidence in a political dispensation of that kind. As one hon. member sitting not too far away from me, said in the past week or so—

Those, in the words of the hon. member, were the only differences. However, if the differences were so minimal, then as the hon. member for Durban Point put it, a very broadly based Opposition ought to have been created by this time.

A political party which is continually rewriting, revising, changing and even rejecting its principles, does not deserve the confidence of the South African people either. When a political party is forever changing its principles, when it is always prepared to listen to others and is prepared even to rewrite its principles, then it will find that the voter will also be forever looking at those principles through a magnifying glass.

We in this party believe that there is no policy adjustment that cannot be effected within the framework of our present party principles. It is only when one wants to change one’s policy radically that one will be prepared to change one’s principles radically.

South Africa’s national politics have undoubtedly changed drastically in the past few decades, but I believe the South African nation has already made a choice between a few things: Firstly, that every group is prepared to preserve its own identity and that it would like to preserve it. Secondly, that a maximum amount of say will be accorded to every race group in respect of its own administration and its own affairs.

To me, there is no longer any doubt or argument about that. It seems to me the only political prty in South Africa that believes one should share political pwer at every level, is made up of the hon. members on my immediate right. However, the vast majority of South Africans have made the irrevocable decision that they believe in a system of communal government and, naturally, that they also support the decentralization of power and responsibility that goes with it.

The hon. member for Hillbrow made a very interesting speech this afternoon. Most of us have heard certain parts of that speech from the hon. member before. What was the hon. member’s message? His message was that South Africa could not remain as it was because there was going to be a tremendous increase amongst the Blacks in our urban areas. The population was going to increase tremendously and their expectations from life were going to become much higher. If all the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Hillbrow are correct—I agree with many of his arguments—one has no option but to ensure that the South Africa of the future will permit government to come as close as possible to the people. The easiest way to allow the government to come as close as possible to the people, is to do it on a group basis in South Africa.

Therefore, the point of view of the hon. member for Hillbrow is entirely correct, and I think that although hon. members on that side of the House have based their policy on the various ethnic groups in the country, there can surely be no conflict between their point of view and that of the hon. member for Hillbrow. It is definitely not in conflict with my point of view. After all, enough examples have been mentioned in this House of dozens of countries in the world where federations, group governments and communist governments exist, founded on the basis of ethnicity.

Therefore, I believe that every race group will want to participate in the prosperity of South Africa, because nobody wants to remain behind in the process. In that regard, too, the hon. member for Hillbrow is entirely correct, because as South Africa develops, more and more South Africans and more and more members of the other race groups will want to share in the welfare and prosperity of this country. I do not think there is any doubt about that and there ought not to be any points of difference on that score.

I will not believe for a single moment that to regard South Africa as a unitary state is the heart-felt wish of everyone in the country. I believe that the South African nation has already rejected the creation of a unitary state and that every group is attempting to preserve its distinctive character. In my opinion, therefore, a wish to share power and responsibility at every level is rash, injudicious and does not have regard to the fact that we have irrevocably become a plural society.

On the one hand there are Opposition members who believe that we in South Africa are in a plural society and that every group has the right to look after its own affairs, while others believe that one can and must share power at every level in South Africa. With people holding such points of view, an alternative Government for South Africa is out of the question.

An alternative government can only be created in South Africa from people who all believe, firstly, that we are in fact a plural society, or who believe, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration does, that we are a plurality of communities. I do not think there is much difference between the two concepts. If the people believe that we are a plural society and that every group should see to its own interests, then one can in fact create an alternative Government in South Africa from such people. The SAP wants to help build upon this approach to give every group its own institutions, to give every group the maximum say—which is in accordance with good government. I think that the present Government in South Africa is only on the eve of the development of communal government for each group in this country. The Government has not yet reached the end of the road. It will be a long time yet before it reaches the end of that road. That is why we in this party—and we make no secret of it—want to be of assistance in developing the plural society in South Africa, and we want to help in the creation of communal governments in this country. I do not care who accuses me and my party of thinking like the NP. If we think like the NP then it happens to be because it is in the interests of South Africa to think in this way.

Hear, hear!

I hope there will be time for me to point out certain differences between the SAP and the NP, to point out certain aspects where, in our opinion, the NP ought to make further progress. I want to repeat, however, that we want to be of assistance in developing the communal governments in this country.

We also believe that there is minimal difference in South Africa on this score. We believe it can offer the largest number of opportunities and chances to every population group in South Africa. It will also remove any suggestions of paternalism. Moreover, it can mean that it is possible to create equal citizenship for every group in South Africa. No one in his right mind would allege that everything is coming to pass on an equal basis in South Africa at this stage. Of course, we in the SAP do not have a guilty conscience about that either. We know what the small group of Whites has done for the millions of non-Whites in Southern Africa and South Africa, and it ought to be the pride of the whole of South Africa. The standard of living we enjoy in this country is apparent from the striking example outside this House and amongst all race groups.

We no longer have eminent Whites who do not accord the other population groups the largest measure of freedom. The Whites want to give the highest form of political freedom to the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian. Where a problem does exist, however, is as to how this is to be done after the highest form of communal government has been given to every group—the highest form of self-administration and of self-realization. How this is to be done, and whether we should do this in line with opinions from outside South Africa, is another question we shall have to answer.

As far as the SAP and I are concerned, I want to say that we are not going to do things the outside world expects of us. We cannot do what they expect us to do. I do not want to make quotations, although I could do so, but it is very clear what the outside world expects us to do. Whether it is the East or the West, does not make any difference. Everyone has exactly the same objective, viz. for us to have Black majority rule in South Africa eventually. We are not prepared to do that. However, what we do want in South Africa is first of all the largest measure of freedom, but that freedom must not be so much that it interferes with the freedom of others, so that eventually no one will have any freedom in South Africa.

We shall be able to resist pressure from outside. If that pressure is exerted from the East, or as it has recently been exerted from the Commonwealth Conference which has just been concluded, and if it is asked that arms be given to freedom fighters, we shall be able to resist the pressure in one way only. Wherever we are unable to divide our political power and authority in such a way that everyone can enjoy separate freedoms to the full, we in South Africa will have to create a body by means of which we can give a say to those various race groups in the spheres of our national life which we have been unable to hand over to every group.

Although we expected the Government to spell out its policy to us more clearly—we envisaged that right at the beginning of the session—and to tell us more about its policy for the urban Black man, the Coloured and the Indian, I am sorry to say that in this regard, there is still a tremendous vacuum. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and others, will have to tell us a great deal more. We shall keep a close watch over what they do in the recess which begins sometime next week. When this House reassembles next year, we shall at least have to have some clear guidelines as to how, as far as the Coloured, the Indian and the urban Black man are concerned, they are in fact to be given their say. If we can cut this Gordian knot, we shall be able to resist any pressure from outside. Moreover, we shall be in a position to show the outside world that we are not only giving each race group its full say, but that real joint planning for the future of South Africa is taking place here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Newton Park. He struck a positive note and I think his speech at least furnishes proof of the fact that part of the Opposition has already opened its eyes to the realities of our South African situation. I do not want to follow up on his argument, but what I say will link up with what he said in more than one respect.

The budget, and the discussion of the budget, has brought certain problems and needs to the fore. On this occasion I should like to underline a few of the most important. In the first place, the budget emphasized the need for national security. That is the one sphere in which we found the greatest measure of unanimity between the parties and which enjoys the most widespread support among our people and our electorate. However, I do not want to discuss that on this occasion.

Another very important need which was emphasized by the hon. the Minister and which he brought up in his budget speech, and which has been discussed throughout, is the need for capital supply. This is decidedly a very important requirement for any country striving to develop its resources and improve the general standard of living of its people. During the past year there has been special emphasis on the needs of our Brown people, our Indian population and our Black population as well as the raising of their standard of living. The astronomical amounts being spent on the provision of adequate housing alone, give a good indication of this. Apart from that, the planned development of our country’s natural resources is taking place with a view to obtaining foreign capital, balancing our imports and exports and the long-term provision of goods vital to our survival and development. Many of these undertakings demand not only the skill of foreign experts, but also considerable amounts of foreign capital. And it is just here that the problem has arisen, viz. in the provision of capital. It became apparent from the Minister’s budget speech that due to the prolonged recession in the Western world, the availability of loan capital and investment capital has diminished.

However, another important factor has entered the picture, viz. that as a result of the riots of 1976, a certain amount of uncertainty has crept in amongst foreign investors, particularly as a result of the hostile propaganda which is continuously being aimed at South Africa to make the world, and the investors in particular, believe that we have lapsed into a situation of instability and that consequently, our future is uncertain. Hon. members must take not that there is a specific connection between the provision of capital for the requirements of the Republic of South Africa and the maintenance of essential peace in South Africa. There is a negative relationship between capital requirements and the provision of capital on the one hand and unrest and violence on the other, because whenever violence comes onto the foreground and gets out of hand in South Africa, the influx of capital to South Africa dwindles. On the other hand, we know that if we can succeed in keeping domestic relations in check and in maintaining law and order, the confidence of investors increases. We may take it for granted that to the degree that a recovery takes place in the Western World, capital will also be more freely available. This faces us with the challenge of continually guarding against the active underminers of the Republic of South Africa. We simply cannot afford to weaken, particularly not if we note that there are some people—no matter how well meaning they may be—who are moving away from the realities with excessive emphasis on so-called human rights and who are for ever telling our under-developed population groups that they are being wronged and oppressed. It is an unfortunate fact that a stream of propaganda from abroad is being directed at us in this regard. This faces us with the challenge of always creating the maximum number of employment opportunities for our industrious, peace-loving and orderly people. We must bear in mind that they, i.e. the peace-loving, the order-loving and the willing workers of South Africa, make up the vast majority of the population. These are the people who are really prepared to co-operate peacefully, despite the plurality of our population, and to help build the future of South Africa. If I read the signs of the time aright, then it is clear to me that our greatest task in the immediate future is not primarily to provide higher wages and salaries for workers, but rather to create employment opportunities. Today there are some well-known economists who say that during the past few years we have increased the wages and salaries of our people, particularly those of our unskilled workers, too quickly. If I remember correctly, Dr. Frans Cronjé said yesterday or the day before that wage increases had amounted to 97% during the past few years as against an increase in productivity of only 7%. That emphasizes a danger to us, because it necessarily entails the employer having to choose between intensive utilization of labour and mechanization. Actually, under the pressure of economic conditions, it is dangerous for us to move in this direction too quickly. Maximal provision of employment is a very important challenge to us in South Africa and a very urgent necessity.

We must always take account of that. It is not the sole responsibility of the Government. It is also the responsibility of the private sector, of every entrepreneur, whether it be the farmer on the farm or the industrialist or anyone else. However, it is also the responsibility of our Bantu authorities, whether they be the authorities of independent Transkei, or the authorities of the emergent Bophuthatswana or the authorities of other Bantu homelands. It is also the responsibility of those authorities together with the White authorities and developers and industrialists to try to provide as many people as possible with employment and hence a decent standard of living. I think a man like Dr. Banda in Malawi is having outstanding success in that regard. Without excessive mechanization, people are being mobilized to build up their country, and a relatively poor country such as Malawi is showing us that year after year it has a stable growth rate and that there is law, order, peace and progress.

With a view to this necessity for maximum employment opportunities, we have to remember that we are an African country. The vast majority of our people are Africans. The provision of employment in South Africa must take account of that as well. We must not try to compare our labour pattern to that of West Germany, America or even Australia. We must take account of the fact that we have a large percentage of people who are still unskilled or at most, semi-skilled. That is why we have to be wary of a too rapid process of mechanization and automation. We must continually concentrate on maintaining maximum employment of the available people in every possible way. From that point we must then proceed with sustained training so as to get as many as possible into the semi-skilled and skilled spheres of labour. We even have the opportunity of saving foreign exchange in that way because we often import modern equipment on a large scale, at a tremendously high cost. I do not want to say that this is not necessary, but perhaps we should ask ourselves more often whether this is in the interests of the labour situation in South Africa and of the needs of people who need work. Therefore, I want to stress the idea that we should continually strive to maintain a good balance. Although we are all striving for progress and modernization, we must guard against leaving too many people unemployed in the process. It is these unemployed persons who become frustrated. This is very important.

That brings me to the third point I should like to stress, and that is that we shall have to guard at all times against the irresponsible people and the active underminers of the existing order, because those people not only affect the Whites, or the developed or prosperous people in South Africa, they also materially affect the lives of the simple and the uneducated. We often hear about change. That has been mentioned here once again today. The hon. member for Hillbrow has strongly emphasized it once again. It is very, very important that we remember that change cannot come about through revolution, because that way, no one stands to gain; not through disorder, and not through arson. That is very simple to appreciate.

Last year’s riots were a demonstration of this, even to the extent to which they occurred at some places this year. Wherever schools were burned down, wherever destruction took place, whether of vehicles or buildings, capital was destroyed. Things that had been built up over the years through the toils of hardworking, peace-loving people, were destroyed by irresponsible, lazy and disorderly people. That is the danger threatening us. That is why we must be very firm in our actions against these elements. Those are the people who are destroying our capital assets and our prosperity. I personally, and we on this side of the House, are grateful that although hon. members opposite differ with us, they cannot say that this side of the House is not geared to bringing about change, but responsible change; change by way of organization; change by way of training and education, the provision of adequate housing; change by way of the provision of recreation facilities for all the population groups; change by way of high productivity; change by way of tolerance of all population groups, tolerance of one for the other and the showing of love for one’s fellow men; change, too, in the field of political rights for the various population groups. Transkei, which exists as an independent State today, is living proof of this.

Mr. Speaker, the forces of revolution are lying in wait on our doorstep and are being spurred on by many well-meaning people who do not realize how foolish they are. There are always people at the disposal of those forces. It is striking that if one consults the police reports—one need only read the newspaper reports—one is struck by the fact that it was only a certain type of person who lent himself to the 1976 riots. In the first place they were not scholars; they were so-called scholars who were 18, 19 and 20 years old and who were still sitting on the school benches, but who were not really scholars.

Even 25 years old.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says 25 years old. These are really the idle persons in society who have never accepted the responsibility of work and who eat the meat and porridge of their parents. Those are the agitators who are undermining the foundations of law and order. Those are the people who are living on the earnings of the hardworking people and of the peace-loving people. It is said that there are certain groups here in the Cape Peninsula, in certain residential areas on the Cape Flats, who act as so-called protection groups for the Coloured community and who collect “protection money”. They collect certain moneys from certain people every week and if those people do not pay, they are no longer safe. Then they no longer enjoy protection. The suspicion is that it is those people who assault or rob them. It is this type of person, this lazy, idle person who lends himself to all kinds of ideas so as to get what he does not want to work for by way of revolution, the easy way. In this regard, I want to refer to a recommendation of the report of the Theron Commission. I found it quite striking that the hon. Opposition had not really taken any notice of it. Recommendations Nos. 32 and 34 deal in particular with the employment of the workshy amongst the Coloured population. The recommendations read as follows—

In the White Paper we read on page 24—

I want to state that we have a national problem in this regard. We have a growing urban population. The conditions are different to those in the rural areas where a child is taught to do something himself. But here we have to contend with the phenomenon of people growing up without learning to work. These are the people who create the problems and who, as I have already said, eventually fall prey to agitators and inciters.

Therefore, I want to express the hope that some very serious attention will be paid to these recommendations and that if possible, work will be done on an interdepartmental basis towards establishing certain amenities, institutions and projects to employ those people who do not, or who do not wish to, learn to work. Perhaps it is necessary for us to begin to give some serious attention to a broadly based system of national service. Today our White boys and a small number of Coloureds are obliged to give up two years of their life in the form of what one could almost call cheap labour in the defence of our country. I think we ought to establish a very broadly based system of national service which would not necessarily be military service. It should be a broadly based system of national service in terms of which the young people of every population group would be enlisted to render essential, urgent national service.

I am thinking, for example, of the major issue of housing for the various population groups: the Coloured, the Indians and the Bantu. I think the time has come for us to work out that type of project and to tell the contractor that instead of having to provide every conceivable type of labour, he should provide only the artisans and that we will provide the unskilled labour. Then, if necessary, we could build a camp there and take the people there so that they could do that work during their term of national service. The Coloureds could work on Coloured housing, the Bantu on Bantu housing and the Indian on Indian housing. There is a tremendous need in this regard. Why should a Bantu come from the Transkei to build houses and to do unskilled work for Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula? To me, this is a serious question, because it is estimated that literally tens of thousands of Coloured youths are idle in the Peninsula’s Coloured residential areas.

In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister is experiencing a problem with capital, I find it very important that we should generate the maximum amount of capital ourselves by way of labour and the efforts of our own people. It is no novelty for me to state that this is one of the ways in which capital can and must be generated, a way which is within our reach. Moreover, let us remember that labour is still the power which ennobles. Labour is creative. It not only creates capital, it is also creative in respect of the spirit and self-respect of people. Labour is the contribution which every citizen can make if he is mobilized to do so. That is why I want to express the hope that in future we shall work hard in this way to prevent people from sitting idle, to prevent people from becoming agitators and to prevent people from being unable to find themselves. I want to express the hope that we shall do this by way of a broadly based system of national service.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to deal with some of the remarks which were made by the hon. the Minister of Justice when he spoke a little while ago in this House. It is quite obvious that the Special Branch of the S.A. Police have been watching the hon. member for Pinelands for a period in excess of ten years. It is also clear that they have a file on him which is most detailed. Let me say that, if in that file, drawn up over the last 10 to 15 years, there has been any matter concerning the hon. member for Pinelands which is criminal or in any way points to his having broken the law, I believe it was the duty of the hon. the Minister of Justice to have charged the hon. member at the time. That is the first point I want to make. The second point is that, if there is anything in that file which derogates from the character of the hon. member, who is a public figure and has so been for a long time, I believe it was the duty of the hon. the Minister of Justice to say that, outside of the privilege of this House.

The hon. member for Pinelands has asked me not to deal in detail with the allegations made against him, because he is going to deal with them himself at an early occasion. However, I can deal with some of the matters raised as far as our party is concerned. We, and that includes the hon. member for Pinelands, are opposed to Black Power, and the hon. the Minister knows it. The PRP, including the hon. member for Pinelands, are opposed to change other than by constitutional means, and the hon. the Minister knows it. As far as the attack made on my hon. colleague this afternoon is concerned, I want to say it was an infamous and a nasty attack. You may ask me, Sir, why I say that. Let me tell you. The reason is that secret files have been brought into this House, files to which this hon. member has no access and which no other hon. members can examine so that there is no right of rebuttal, and from these files there has been selective quoting in this House which has brought forth half-truths. This is Schlebusch Commission material of the worst kind. The attack was infamous for another reason as well. The hon. the Minister lay in wait for the hon. member for Pinelands to speak, knowing that the hon. member had no right to reply after the hon. the Minister had spoken. To make matters worse, the hon. the Minister would not even answer a question when the hon. member wanted to put one to him. Sir, the task of the hon. the Minister of Justice is to seek the truth in the interests of South Africa, but instead the hon. the Minister attempted to commit political assassination under the privilege of this House rather than to deal with the arguments, and the very merit of the arguments, which that hon. member has put to the House on many occasions.

Sir, I should like to deal with another matter. I want to put a question to the House, a question which has arisen throughout the debates in the current session: Are we all that different from the rest of Africa? Will the methods, the pitfalls, the disillusion and the developments unfolding elsewhere on this continent and grounded mainly in violence bear no relevance to us here, or will South Africa perhaps a few years later in the time scale follow the same path of violence, confrontation, terror and international interference that is being found to the north of us? Government speakers throughout this session and even in this debate have been at pains to stress that our situation in South Africa is vastly different from any other situation to be found in Africa. They said, for instance, that a solution satisfactory to other territories like South West Africa could not possibly be applied here. Of course, there are vast differences. In the Republic we are far more urbanized and we have a more industrialized society. It is a society with a far greater infra-structure. We have greater resources and a far wider spread of technical expertise. The Whites here are more established than anywhere else in Africa and, in fact, have nowhere else to go. This country is also more heavily armed than any other State in Africa. And yet, I believe that this is not enough to separate us from involvement in the turbulence of this continent. We are in Africa and not in Europe. We represent a White minority Government of less than 20% of the population. The forces of Black nationalism, as exploited by international ideologies, are as potent here as anywhere else around us. The real difference between us and the rest of Africa, if we were to be honest with ourselves, is that in South Africa is to be found a bigger, a stronger, a more viable White minority, in fact a harder White nut to crack than anywhere else in Africa. That is the difference between us and the rest of Africa. [Interjections.] I want to say, however, that the choices before us in the Republic of South Africa are the same as they are in the rest of Africa. What are those choices? The choices are:“Negotiate or confront”. Both of these scenarios, negotiation or confrontation, could lead to an overall lasting solution. However, one thing is certain and that is that if this Government remains bound to its self-conceived policies and continues to agree to consult but never to negotiate, then South Africa will slowly slip into a way of life which is violent on our borders, which is destructive in our urban areas and which is catastrophic for our economy. In such a situation the end result will emerge from conflict and not from consensus.

Democracy will play no part in such an end result. If the modern African pattern is to be followed, the demand of the non-Whites will be that of Black socialism which will lead to a form of Government probably desired by none of us here today. For us, the Whites in South Africa, who above all wish a future for ourselves and our children in South Africa, I believe there is no choice, no alternative.

We say the Government should create the machinery for negotiation now, before the spilling of blood makes negotiation impossible.

Negotiation on what?

Negotiation on the future society for South Africa and the future political structure for South Africa. We have to do it soon because I believe, despite all the high minded policies and even the progress made here in South Africa, Rhodesia today with all its teroror and hate will be South Africa tomorrow. [Interjections.] I believe we doubt this at our peril. If, through realism and through the very force of this argument the Government takes steps which can lead to a positive and meaningful negotiation, then there are several aspects, not very palatable aspects, of which cognizance must be taken. The first thing that we must take cognizance of is that it is not for us, the Whites, to choose with whom we are going to negotiate. The Black, Coloured and Indian people will choose their own representatives. We must understand that Black negotiators will not necessarily be drawn from the institutions of separate development as set up by the Government. We shall have to talk not only to those people who have emerged as leaders through the institutions set up by the Government. If the negotiation is to be meaningful, we will have to talk to people who can deliver. Existing machinery cannot hope to give birth to a true negotiation, and I believe that new machinery is required.

I also believe that in a decisive negotiation there are realistically only two immutable prerequisites. I would like to state those two prerequisites as I see them. The first prerequisite is that the future society of South Africa will be free of racial discrimination and must be based on non-racialism. I believe this is a prerequisite to a negotiation with people of colour. I do not believe that any Black leader of any consequence would participate in any discussion, unless this concept was non-negotiable from their side. I believe there is only one other non-negotiable aspect, i.e. the fact that the Whites will not entertain any deal or any negotiation unless they—that is us—are offered a political framework in which their collective existence, their culture and their values are secure. I believe there can be no discussions from the White side unless that basis is agreed upon before the negotiations start.

That means confrontation.

Not at all. If we accept that, and I believe we must accept it, we must surely realize that the details of policy, perhaps even the broad thrust of the intent of the political parties in the House, whether they are announced or whether they are yet to be announced, are becoming less relevant every day. Let us look at Rhodesia and at the policies of the Rhodesian Front. What has happened to those policies today in the heat of an attempted and a very belated negotiation? What has happened to the A roll, the B roll and the 20-year gradualism of the Smith Government? It is gone and it means nothing today in the heat of the negotiation, supplanted by the confrontation.

Exactly, that is the point.

Correct. Let us take the matter further and ask another question: What has happened to the policy of this Government in regard to South West Africa over the years? What has happened to the policy as set out by Mr. Odendaal, a previous Transvaal Administrator who recommended Bantustans in South West Africa? In the heat of the discussions at the Turnhalle, subsequent events and the negotiations, that policy is as nothing today. Where are those policies today? Those policies are ship-wrecked on the rocks of political realism, they are forgotten, unsung and unmourned.

We must accept that one of the victims of this new era of negotiation will be, to my mind, the all-White South African Parliament. This Parliament is already a victim. Who will deny that it has been playing a smaller and smaller role over the last few years in determining our joint future? Who will deny that the majority of vital issues are being decided outside of this House? In many cases Parliament is no longer the final arbiter of events at all. There are many examples of this. If I quote the examples, I believe they will be trite as to the hon. members’ views themselves. Let me quote a few. For instance, at the Turnhalle this Parliament has no jurisdiction at all. There are also the vital decisions that are being taken by the hon. the Prime Minister and the heads of the five powers.

Another example is the Cabinet Council in which some of the Coloureds and Indians have met with the hon. the Prime Minister and with the Cabinet where they have taken certain decisions which were not under parliamentary control. The direct meetings which have led to changes in the urban Black society were taken between the Government and the urban Black leaders and again it was not directly under the control of this Parliament, except for the debating of a Minister’s Vote at a given time. The meetings between the Government and the joint homeland leaders, meetings which take place from time to time, again is another example of decisions taken outside of Parliament. I can also refer to the decisions taken by the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Mondale and others, outside of Parliament. In these facts lie the recognition that the power rests not only with the Whites in South Africa, not now nor will it rest there in the future; the power also rests with other people, other groups and other States who are not represented here. Furthermore, power even rests partially with the West and with its leadership. I have no quarrel with this and I do not wish to criticize it; I am merely stating it as a fact and as I see it. The PRP and its predecessor components have long sought contact across the colour line and we have long sought contact across the borders of the Republic of South Africa in the interests of dialogue. The hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Houghton have all initiated these sort of contacts, at a time when those contacts were not broadly appreciated and at a time when the action was not popular. Yet it was and it continues to be in the interests of our country that these contacts should be maintained and expanded.

That brings me to the oft repeated Government attitude and slogan. The slogan is this. The opposition to the Government is democratic and to be tolerated as long as it remains bound within the parameter set by the Government. In other words, as long as it remains bound within the parliamentary scene, the Whites’ debating chamber. That is what we are. This cannot continue, I believe, much longer. I believe that it is not in the interests of South Africa that it continue much longer. I believe the Government cannot continue to hold that it alone can make its moves as a result of extra-parliamentary negotiations, consultations, discussions and debates, while, at the same time, attempting to lock in the rest of South Africa into a sterile parliamentary debate, denegrating and even threatening those who seek to break those fetters in search of an overall settlement of our constitutional questions.

The Government must realize that ad hoc changes—the sort of changes that we have seen—bowing to pressure from time to time when that pressure is built up, can never meet the demands of any group. Refusal to meet demands on an ad hoc basis is seen as granitelike intransigence and evokes opposition, and sometimes violence. Changes brought about as a result of random demands will be seen as weakness, and will provoke further pressure—legitimate pressure and pressure of another sort, which is not legitimate. I believe that in the fullness of time only an agreed overall constitutional plan, worked out by recognized leaders between whom goodwill still exists—while there is still time—and backed by the Western powers, can hope to withstand the inevitable onslaught from those we cannot and will not meet. It is my contention that the NP cannot do this alone. It will be the task of all of us. It has been the task of all of us. We have already seen a start … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, hon. members scoff at this, but we have already seen a start being made in the province of Natal, as has been stated to us by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

I believe it will be the duty of all of us, the PRP included, to move increasingly outside of Parliament in making contact with those who have no voice here, in making a valuable contribution towards the urgent task of putting together an overall, negotiated plan for presentation to South Africa and to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the speech by the hon. member for Sandton. Its contents were the same as we have heard throughout the year, perhaps just in different words. However, if there is one thing which is more confusing to me than the policy of the PRP, it is its party discipline. The hon. member says that we cannot negotiate with the present elected leaders of the other nations, and that we shall have to negotiate with the other leaders. Are these not exactly the same words which Serfontein used and which the hon. the leader of the PRP repudiated only the other day? It is exactly the same thing, after all. The hon. the leader of the PRP repudiated it after the hon. the Prime. Minister put questions to him on it. We have also become accustomed to hon. members of that party having to try their best to step into the breach for the other members. One gets the impression that they are now becoming afraid that the session is drawing to a close and that they will have to return to their voters in their constituencies. As far as the other matters are concerned, I shall return to what the hon. member for Pinelands had to say during the course of my speech.

This morning we listened to the swan-song of the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is leaving a sinking ship. One cannot but think that he has acquired a suitable nickname, because a man with such foresight, who could already arrange at the beginning of the year to leave at this juncture, is a man whom we appreciate. That is why I wish him everything of the best in his future career.

He is not the only one we are taking leave of at this stage. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the Secretary for Finance, Mr. Gerald Browne, is also retiring in October. He is a financial genius, an unimpeachable man, who is not only well known and well thought of here in Parliament and in the financial circles abroad, but whose name has also become a household word in our whole fatherland. I believe that his departure will create a void in his department, but that the foundations which he laid there, will be clearly seen in the financial structures of the future.

Just like other countries, South Africa could not avoid the economic recession of the past four years. That is why we all agree that in his budget speech, in column 4649, the hon. the Minister also said that South Africa still has to deal with serious economic problems. Other than many other countries, South Africa has certain factors in its favour in order to combat this problem. In the first place, we have a strong, stable Government with a consistent leader. In the second place we have a Minister of Finance who has the ability to deal with this difficult matter in a competent way. He laid down clear alternatives when he presented his budget to this House. In the first case there was the possibility of stimulating growth, which would maintain a higher standard of living and would perhaps be a popular budget, but which would at the same time be short-sighted. In the second place he could prune expenditure, keep the inflation rate within limits, improve the trade balance and maintain a healthy balance of payments. He chose the less popular course, but it was the course which would gain us the renewed confidence of the outside world in South Africa’s financial dealings.

Thirdly, we had the advantage of a disciplined, dedicated labour force. In spite of all the problems, we experienced labour peace. Where it was justified to ask for higher wage demands, this force refrained from doing so and in this way kept the inflation rate within limits. Their productivity improved, because export figures are evidence of this. If reference is made to our statistics—and these have been quoted here, too—one finds that our productivity figure is very low. However, if one takes into consideration the fact that we have a low turnover for our means of production, it is to be understood that the statistics cannot show such a high figure as the production which these people really provide, and I think we should give credit for this.

In the fourth place, South Africa has the raw materials as well as the land and the ability to produce food. We were also fortunate in having four favourable agricultural years.

On the other hand, however, there are a few factors which made it very much more difficult for South Africa to combat the position than is the case in other countries. In the first place we form part of a continent which has become the focus of world politics since the ’fifties. In the second place, together with Rhodesia, we had to serve as a lightning-conductor in the struggle to combat world domination by communist imperialism. The cost attached to building up and maintaining of a Defence Force as a result of occurrences on our borders, is one of the great demands which have been made on us. Moreoever we are experiencing a crumbling of Western influence in Africa, in our neighbouring States in particular, and this resulted in the collapse of Angola and Mozambique. In the fourth place there is a lack of a domestic market for our manufactured goods. Unlike other countries, we do not have a market for disposing locally of the goods which we manufacture in South Africa. For instance, Japan consumes most of its manufactured goods domestically. Britain exports 46% of its manufactured goods; America 14%; West Germany, 42%; and South Africa 53%. In the fifth place we have the problem of the unpatriotic conduct of many of our people.

In 1932 already, B. F. Winkelman said the following about Wall Street in America—

People in South Africa on whose education thousands of rands is being spent in order to qualify them for the labour market, as the hon. the Minister of Justice said, are burning down their own schools led and incited by Whites. Whites at the University of the Witwatersrand tried to stir up riots like the ones we had last year. The hon. member for Houghton tried to elevate those people who were caught and punished for their political offences, to the stature of sacred cows by inquiring about everyone of them in this House. If these people really want to determine how these prisoners are being treated, there are other channels besides the publicity which they are seeking by putting questions in this House.

On the other hand we have people who are smuggling money out of the country. These are people who are trying to sabotage us in the economic sphere and the many court cases we have had are evidence of this. The other means which are being used also testify to this. The hon. the Minister of Finance pointed out that a great deal of money is leaving the country as a result of over and under invoicing. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent this evil has already been combated. Recently I had the opportunity of travelling by plane with an exporter. He pointed out to me that there are still a great deal of offences in the sphere of exports. As an example he mentioned the case where fish is exported and a free-on-board price of 20 cents is furnished, while in reality it is 50 cents. I hope that we have already found a way of combating this problem. Then we have people who harm our country by using foreign pressure and not the usual channels.

I should like to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands. The other day the hon. the Prime Minister asked Mr. Oppenheimer to say what he is doing. Here I have a report which appeared in The Citizen on 1 June 1977. It is so often said that people must make use of these channels. I quote—

Now the share which that hon. member had in this whole event comes into the picture. I quote—

It goes on to say—

These are the people who make such a fuss about everyone having a say in this Parliament. That hon. member, however, has a say in this Parliament. I could understand it if a Black man had to go to England and say: Help us to form trade unions in South Africa, because Anglo American does not give us the necessary machinery for negotiations. Why, however, is it necessary for a member of this Parliament to go to England and to see whether pressure cannot be exerted in connection with matters which this Parliament must decide on? I believe that if we continue in this way, the pious words which we had to listen to from those benches this afternoon, will be absolutely useless.

Another problem with which we are faced, is the particular composition of our population. We have incurred tremendous costs over the past decade or two in order to find a permanent solution for all the nations in South Africa. Nowhere else has such a great deal been accomplished in such a short while. It has been said this afternoon—and it is true—that this problem is not only the problem of today. It has been with us over the years, as long as there has been a White nation in South Africa. We know, however, that up to and until the establishment of our own Republic we differed politically as Afrikaans and English-speaking people. Those who are fond of saying that it is easy to integrate on population group with another, especially when political rights are at issue, must take note of the fact that we struggle for one and a half centuries as two White groups before we ultimately grasped one another’s hands with a view to the future of South Africa. We shall have to find a solution to this problem soon. It is correct to say that we do not yet know all the full consequences of the road ahead. As the hon. member for Newton Park said, however: We know where we want to go, and not us alone, but all the other nations as well, also know where they want to go. The Blacks are no more prepared to share their power with us than we are prepared to share our power with them.

If we look back at the budget, we must ask ourselves how successful the hon. the Minister of Finance was with his objectives. In the very first instance, I think that he succeeded very well in keeping the inflation rate in check, and, as things look at the moment, to stabilize it. As far as the trade balance is concerned, there was a surplus of R92 million in April. Exports in April amounted to the record amount of R492 million. The shortfall on the balance of payments was only R150 million. I believe that the hon. the Minister will be able to find the capital funds for this from foreign capital inflow. If we want to be honest, we must say that in the short period of this session, the hon. the Minister has achieved the goal which he set himself for the whole year. I think that on our behalf, and on behalf of South Africa, he deserves thanks for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Losberg must excuse me if I do not react fully to his speech. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of his speech which I should like to associate myself with. During the present parliamentary session, particularly recently, a great deal has been said and written inside and outside the House about expressions and concepts like “pluralism”, “consensus”, “canton system”, “the Coloureds’and Indians’ road ahead”, “sharing of power”, “nation” and “people”, etc. I want to use the word or the concept “South African” as the theme of my speech today. I want to refer to specific South Africans in other words a specific person or two and also to groups of South Africans and people as well as to some of their characteristics.

I want to begin with the South African, the No. 1 South African, the example and model of what a South African is and can be. I want to begin with the hon. the Prime Minister, Adv. B. J. Vorster. The hon. House would agree with me that our Father in heaven was good to South Africa, that he blessed all South Africans of every creed and colour with a man of the calibre, intelligence and leadership ability of the hon. John Vorster. Over the past decade or more he has given stability, confidence and trust to this country, for which we are very grateful to him. I think it is fitting that we should pay tribute to him and thank him at this stage of the parliamentary session. His conduct and leadership, here in this country as well as in other countries of the continent and other continents and countries are well known. I want to make the statement today that not only is he the greatest leader in Africa and in the West, but that he is the greatest leader living in the whole world.

The well-known historian, Dr. A. P. J. van Rensburg, has recently published a book entitled The Tangled Web—Leadership and Change in Southern Africa. In Die Burger of 18 June 1977 this book is quoted as follows—

This high praise comes from the book. I quote further—

Further on I quote as follows—

Then a final quotation as follows—

It is therefore to be understood that all South Africans—Nationalists, United Party supporters, Black and White—lean heavily on the hon. the Prime Minister. One can talk to people at church, at school, at the Rotarians, the Chamber of Commerce and the Handelsinstituut and everyone will tell you that they trust that man and lean heavily on him.

I think that all South Africans must ask themselves whether we are all doing our share to assist him. Is it not sometimes the case that since we know that John Vorster is there and that he is doing the work for us, we are inclined to become a little slapdash and not do our share? It is a good thing that the hon. the Prime Minister stands his ground and fulfils his duty in Pretoria, Tel Aviv, Geneva and Vienna. That level is not our level. Are we assisting him sufficiently at our level, in our community, in our constituency and at working in these difficult times, and are we helping him to improve human relations and to strengthen the economy?

I have already looked at the hon. the Prime Minister as a person several times. I have seen him at Zeerust and on another occasion at Lichtenburg where the man was literally physically tired. I have been told that before he addressed the Young Presidents’ Association in Vienna, he was also literally physically tired, a man of flesh and blood like ourselves. What is very important to me, however, is that when he rises to talk with, about or for his nation and country, his mind is clear, no matter how tired he may be. Then his blood flows hot through his veins and he displays true will-power and enthusiasm. Then he fights and works for his country and his people. Then it happens that even the Young Presidents’ Association gives him a standing ovation.

If I as a South African talk about the expression “South African” and say I think that the best example to begin with is our hon. Prime Minister, I ask myself why he, as a man of flesh and blood and muscle and bone, like us, is such a great man and why his stature is steadily increasing. For me, the answer lies in the quality of the human material, in the quality of the physical material and above all in the spiritual quality. It is the spiritual quality which is the driving force for the brain, the muscles and also the heart of the true South African. I think it is very good for the world to know that those characteristics which are so noticeably centred in our hon. Prime Minister, also figure strongly in the South African nation.

The hon. the Prime Minister symbolizes everything which makes up the South African. The South Africans are a people with willpower. They are a people who want to live and survive. They are a people with an internal power, a people that is looking for peace together with the hon. the Prime Minister, but that will fight to the very last man if necessary. I shall come back to this later.

At the end of my speech, if time permits, I also want to refer to the sense of religion of the South African people and also to the role which the PRP plays as far as religion is concerned. Since the hon. the Minister of Justice has dealt with this most effectively, I shall leave it at that for the moment.

I just want to refer briefly to two specific groups of South Africans, viz. the Indian population group and the Coloured population group. I also want to refer specifically to their constitutional development. While the UP has had all sorts of different colour policies over the years, we have accused them, quite correctly, too, of not providing in their colour policy for the full and complete independence of the Black people. We do not advocate baasskap and paternalism, but we hold out the prospect of full independence for the Black people. What is more, we have applied this policy in this way. The Transkei is evidence of this. It is therefore only logical and self-evident that we should adopt precisely the same standpoint as far as the Indians and Coloureds are concerned, and we do indeed do so, i.e. to stand for complete independence for the Coloured and Indian population groups. In other words, those population groups must ultimately be just as complete independent as the White population group. If they cannot get that degree of independence in their own homelands—for practical, obvious reasons they cannot become independent on that basis—they must live with us in one and the same homeland. They are South Africans like we are and, like us, they love one and the same fatherland. They must and will fight with us for one and the same fatherland against one and the same enemy. In a previous speech I referred to what Mr. Joe Carrim, a member of the Indian Council, had to say. Allow me just to quote him again—

If they do not want to do this, we could in fact accuse them of treason because they are South Africans like we are and share one and the same country with us.

What we have to do now and what we are in fact doing, is, therefore, to work out the modus operandi together, the path to that total independence for all three population groups concerned in this common homeland. We are on that path. On one occasion the hon. the Prime Minister used words which amounted to a statement that our children would see the end of that path. At the moment the end is not in full view, but the objective is very clear. When we walk that road together with the Indian and the Coloured, we must be practical and realistic. Practical realism is an absolute prerequisite. It is merely a practical reality that the masses of these three population groups have not achieved the same degree of sophistication, the same level of education, economic level, etc. That is why I want to allege that if we have these three groups in this House on the basis of “one man, one vote”, it will result in chaos. The Indians and the Coloureds agree. Mr. Carrim said—

Mr. Jack Rabie of the CRC asks for representation of Coloureds in this House, but he also says very clearly that it cannot be on the basis of “one man, one vote”. Therefore what I want to say, is that our policy of not sharing power in one and the same Parliament is the correct policy at this stage. Another practical reality is that we are governing at the moment in the year 1977 and not 30 years ago in 1948. Nor are we governing 50 years ahead in, for example, the year 2050. We are governing today, and our policy is right for this time. As I said, we are on the road to full, equal independence for these three groups. Even if the end is not quite clear, our road and objective is clear. While we are on that road, we do not elbow one another aside, but we stand together and draw closer to each other for the sake of our country.

I want to repeat—and with this I shall conclude—that the world must know that the South African nation is a nation which is strong internally, which has willpower and which wants to live and will survive. Like other countries, we have our problems, but we shall solve our problems ourselves. I think it is as well for us to repeat that if the world wants to force us to undermine our own continued existence, we shall fight if necessary. We South Africans will stand together and fight together. Half or more than half of Africa will go up in flames and ashes before the South African nation, a nation which consists of various groups and various colours, will die.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken will forgive me if I refer to what he has said in the course of my remarks. I shall do that because what he has said is relevant to what I shall develop in the course of my speech, i.e. the dialogue which is taking place in Government ranks on the issue of the Coloureds and the Indians and their political accommodation.

Since we are nearing the end of the session, I think it is convenient that we have regard to the situation of the Government and the Opposition as represented in this House. It is the time to take stock of the situation and to look ahead. To begin with the Government: The NP sit here in this House with a large majority. They are led by a Prime Minister who it would be idle to suggest is not respected as a Prime Minister, but in respect of whom one can equally say, I believe with truth, is respected more for his departures from Verwoerdian separate development than for his adherence to it. He is a Prime Minister presiding with apparent comfort over a party having apparent cohesion. I use the word “apparent” deliberately and, I believe, with reason. I would like to examine for a moment how close and real is that “apparent cohesion” within Government ranks.

I believe there is in reality a division on fundamental principles in the NP; I believe we are seeing signs of that emerging into the light of day.

You must be careful, because usually when you say that it happens on your side. [Interjections.]

I will deal with that issue as well. I also believe there is a greater spectrum in the ranks of the NP today than there is on the entire Opposition benches. What is that division and what is it about? It can be stated in the form of this question: Is separate development in its present form an end in itself or is it merely a stepping-stone to joint decision-making? It is around that concept that the dialogue within the NP is circling. There is no doubt about it that joint decision-making is the issue, because one has only got to look at the editorial in last Sunday’s Rapport in connection with the speech in Durban by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. All these speeches seem to be made in Durban. Presumably it is the furthest place from Cape Town where hon. Ministers can go to make their speeches. I will, however, say more about that in a moment. Referring to the hon. the Deputy Minister the editorial states—

Of course, I do not have to remind the House that the hon. the Deputy Minister was taken to task, not only by a well-known Nationalist-supporting newspaper, but also by prominent members of the NP, including Senator Worrall, who apparently speaks with the hon. the Prime Minister’s authority.

As I have indicated, the hon. the Deputy Minister represents the former view which, I repeat, is that separate development in its present form is an end in itself. It comes out clearly when one hears his utterances. As the newspaper I have just mentioned says, he does not always speak with clarity of words, but his intention is always clear. It amounted to this: Land occupied by Indians and by Coloureds should become their homelands over which they should ultimately get sovereign independence. A variation on that theme was played by the hon. member who has just spoken. The refrain goes that the ideal is sovereignty and independence for the Coloureds and for the Indians, but that although that is not practical politics, they will nevertheless do their best to go along that road as far as they can. That is the one point of view, and it goes along with the point of view that there can, in other words, be no shared power or shared decision making in any central legislative institution in South Africa; if there is, the White man, in time, will automatically be ploughed under. This was the sentiment offered by the hon. the Minister of National Education earlier this afternoon. We cannot share power where there is a situation of numerical majority and numerical minority of various races without the White man being ploughed under. That is the sentiment and the point of view. Concomitant with that, in the eyes of the hon. the Deputy Minister, is the point of view that all petty rigidities of Verwoerdian separate development are an essential part of the whole. They are not trifles or pettinesses that can be discarded, they are as important in the scheme of things as the grand design. So we get from gentlemen such as the hon. the Deputy Minister the whole apartheid apparatus of race classification, the Prohibition of Mixed Marraiges Act, the Immorality Act, separate hotels, separate theatres, separate restaurants and separate entrances. This whole discredited edifice is to them an essential part of the whole.

The hon. the Deputy Minister emphasizes that every time he makes a speech, and the hon. the Prime Minister, every time the hon. the Deputy Minister makes a speech, says in fact that he thinks the same way as the hon. the Deputy Minister. The curious thing about this, is that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration never says this, but that the hon. the Prime Minister always has to say it for him.

Why do you not ask him now? [Interjections.]

Against that we have another point of view which was developed by the hon. the Minister of National Education, a gentleman who sits in the front Treasury bench, a senior Minister and one who, judging by the stories in the bazaar, has aspirations to the leadership of the NP. On an occasion, he delivered a prepared speech to an international scientific body, i.e. the International Conference on Group Accommodation in Plural Societies. One only has to go so far as the heading, namely Plural Societies, to come across the difference between the point of view of the hon. the Prime Minister who says that we are a plural society, the hon. the Minister of National Education, who agrees with him, and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, who says that we are not a plural society, but that we consist of a number of societies which are distinct and separate. Let us take a look at the speech which the hon. the Minister of National Education made in the light of the point of view which is widely held in that party and which has been widely expressed in this debate by a number of speakers, i.e. that one cannot have “magsdeling”, joint decision making in the South African situation. What did the hon. the Minister of National Education say? He said—

Nothing puts it more graphically, and I shall use the term “grey areas” throughout my speech, because it is inherent in the thinking of this party and it has always been, that there are White, Black and grey areas. This has been the traditional difference between the thinking of this side of the House and the NP. The hon. the Minister defined cultural pluralism as “a state of equal co-existence in a mutually supportive relationship within the boundaries or framework of one nation”. There we find the next reference to one nation of people of diverse cultures.

Then he went on to say that his colleagues should be woven into this concept whether they liked it or not. The first one to be woven in was the hon. the Minister for Information, who promptly denied it on the first occasion on which he could make a public speech— again at a coastal resort of Natal. However, the hon. the Minister of National Education said this—

This was seen as a swing in the winds of change. He goes on to describe—that is the hon. the Minister of National Education—how these are to be formed on territorial or other bases, and that the model, the Swiss model which he posed as the ideally typical model—and which is a typical federation by any standard—was a coalition of autonomous, and mainly territorially based units, co-operating within a political system, providing for consensual decision-making at both group and national level. One could not think of words more typical of the federal institution, one which the NP, throughout the time I have been in this House, has described and categorized as fatal to the interests of the White man in South Africa.

It is a concept which is totally rejected by people like the hon. the Deputy Minister to whom I have already referred. He does not only stop there and refer to his federal concept, as being made up of the White, the Coloured and the Indian groups, but he does not exclude—deliberately, in so many words—the possibility of the urban Black being included in that concept of a federal unit as well. As if to put the cherry on the top, and as if the picture were not sufficiently clear, he said—

Mark that! Political institutions; something beyond a mere Cabinet council—a political institution—

And he describes that, as well as the second level, and I quote the hon. the Minister again—

A better description of an assembly at the centre of a federal unit … [Interjections.] I do not mind whether he calls it federal or confederal, because it is a rose by any other name, as described in this speech. It makes no difference what we call it. It is central decision-making, and it is an area of jurisdiction at the centre in an institution at which all races are represented, at which binding decisions are taken in a formalized manner. If that is not the direct antithesis of the view expressed in every recent speech that I have read of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, if it is not the antithesis of what we have heard from hon. members debating here today, this very afternoon, then I am unable to understand language. The speech goes on, but again and again we get a repetition of the pluralism. Let me quote a further extract from that speech—

Then the hon. gentleman goes on to incorporate phraseology of the hon. the Prime Minister himself as though to give his support for the idea. He states, and I quote—

This he has outlined in words of one syllable as a federal structure. If that does not constitute the clearest evidence of totally divergent points of view, I do not know what does. We know that there is a Cabinet Committee sitting. We are told by a prominent Nationalist newspaper that its object is to bring about a framework within which there can be joint decision-making in South Africa. That being so, it is hardly surprising that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not a member of that committee. It is equally hardly surprising that that committee and its workings have been shrouded in the deepest mystery ever since the day it was appointed. It is equally not surprising that we are not going to hear much about the recommendations of that Cabinet Committee until after, I would suggest, the next election. How is such a situation going to be dealt with by the hon. the Prime Minister? I believe it will be dealt with by making use of the settlements in South West Africa and in Rhodesia which are likely to come about within the next 12 months. Those settlements will be welcomed by everybody and I believe the hon. the Prime Minister will use them to mask the divisions within his own party, by calling an election. Elections are convenient mechanisms in a situation such as the NP finds itself in at the present time, because the nomination machinery can be used to get rid of unwelcome members and one can also reshuffle the Cabinet. Although both those settlements are likely to take place on a basis which is the antithesis of what the NP is prepared to implement in South Africa, they will nevertheless be seen as giving status and a sense of victory to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I believe he will use these in an effort to bring about greater success for his party at an election.

There will be popular support for the fact that settlement has been achieved and I think we would be foolish if we did not accept that. In the present circumstances of a divided Opposition an election in 12 months’ time is likely to bring about further gains for the Nationalist Government. [Interjections.] Yes, it is a matter of simple arithmetic that that is likely to be so. It will mean further gains for a Government which is divided against itself internally, … [Interjections.] … a Government whose policies are almost wholly responsible for the situation in which South Africa finds itself at the present moment. That situation embodies a country which is economically depressed, that is internationally isolated, that is internally tense, that is racially divided—bitterly so—and with its people beginning to lack confidence in the future of this country, largely as a result of the policies of the Government. I repeat that in the circumstances in which that election is likely to take place, there could well be gains for a Government which, while having apparent success in settling two international issues, thorny ones, South West Africa and Rhodesia, will bring with its policies ever greater racial tension, economic stagnation and foreign hostility to South Africa itself. Let us be quite clear that when Rhodesia and South West Africa have been settled, the whole spotlight of world opinion and hostility will be focused on this Republic. The pressures favouring punitive action against us will be enormous, and they will grow because they will not have divergences which will take them elsewhere. The Government will become increasingly divided on the issue which I have attempted to analyse this afternoon. No Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister or anybody else, will be able to evade that issue because it will become more pressing.

What a dismal prospect for the people of this country. Small wonder that they tend to cold-shoulder Opposition politicians as small-minded and self-seeking because of their inability to prevent the fragmentation that is taking place. Small wonder that there are those, too—and I am one of them—who fear for the whole cause of Opposition philosophy in South Africa. What is it that the people crave for in this country? I believe all people and the majority of all races—and particularly Opposition supporters—are craving for a negotiated settlement that achieves agreement amongst the races, with consequent safety for them, freedom from violence and security for their property. That is what people seek. They want a fair deal by negotiation. How is that to be achieved? It is going to be achieved and can only be achieved, in my view, by inter-group negotiations. There is no other way, because the known leaders, the seen and visible leaders of all the people in the present time are the heads of their respective groups, whether we like it or not. The politics for the next decade is largely going to take place by way of inter-group negotiation. It stands to reason that if one is going to negotiate, one cannot dictate in advance what the end results of those negotiations are going to be. The Turnhalle showed that in South West and we would be blind to the facts if we pretended otherwise. I believe that a negotiating party in that situation can indicate the point from which he starts out and one can give a general direction. However, once can give little else, and again Turnhalle showed just that.

What should the standpoint of those negotiating on the part of the Whites be? Firstly, there should be no domination of any one racial group over any other. In practical terms this means that all minorities will require a political power base that is inviolable, save with their consent. That is their demand, and in my view it is the right of all minorities. Secondly, the object of negotiation can only be to increase participation by the non-White groups in the affairs of South Africa in all spheres. By that I mean politically, socially, economically and militarily. Joint decision-making can only mean what I have said now, except that it is said much more quietly over there.

In other words, the people of South Africa, negotiating as groups, Black, Brown and White, from their power bases, will bring into being—to use the phraseology of the hon. the Minister of National Education—grey areas in South Africa. If we are honest with ourselves, those grey areas will expand by negotiation, at the expense of those spheres which are purely Black and purely White. That will take place at an increasing pace if one has any regard to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said today. Joint decision-making is not going to get less; it is going to grow. Unilateral decision-making will shrink accordingly and there should be, I believe, a clear thrust away from discrimination and towards participation. Leadership will be expected to give a clear lead in this regard, away from discrimination and towards participation, indeed towards an open society. By that I mean a society in which there is equality of opportunity. In Natal we have perhaps, because we are the provincial Government there, a clearer insight into the practical realities of such negotiations, and we have this for the reason I have just given and because we have, in being there, a multiracial advisory council from the non-White governmental levels. There is the settlement of the question of the Indian community and their participation in local government, for example, which is a thorny problem, and none exists at the present time except in four instances. To do this the province has to negotiate with the Natal Municipal Association which is a White body and the Association of Local Affairs which is an Indian body, and any such agreement might well involve a structure which has some ethnic content. I ask the question: Is one to run the risk of the whole settlement collapsing, and so excluding any participation by the Indians, at that level, by an academic insistence in advance upon the total exclusion of any ethnic content in any agreed settlement? I believe there is a ground-swell of public opinion longing for the moment when a broad-based Opposition can arise, an Opposition which actually threatens the Government sitting on those benches … [Interjections.] … threatens it at its electoral base, because it cannot be threatened any other way, an Opposition whose leadership is vigorously enlightened, confident of its destination yet an Opposition which argues from a position of electoral strength.

Where will you find that?

Dare we allow these great hopes which exist in the breasts of many to be dashed by refusing to allow less privileged White communities, and other minorities like the Indians, freedom of choice in neighbourhood affairs, more particularly when we all know that we are involved in an evolving situation which can never be static? If this Government ever cracks, I believe that it will crack on the issue of joint decision-making, which is an issue that it cannot postpone or avoid. Surely the task of Opposition is to mobilize opinion to exploit and aim at that target and not to allow itself to flounder on abstract questions having the importance only of doctrinal purity.

I believe that to take that road would be wrong and would not be forgiven by those wishing us well in the electorate. I believe that we are on the threshold of great events. The Cabinet Committee, shrouded as I have said in secrecy, is presumably at some stage to make its recommendations. Its object is clearly to bring in a structure which will permit of joint decision-making, a concept which, when once it is implemented, will throw overboard the 30 years of political discussion, philosophy and debate that I have heard from the NP. I say again that that is the rock upon which, as I see it, the governing party could crack. If those who sit on Opposition benches cannot find it within themselves to rise to the occasion, an occasion which in my view cries out to be taken advantage of, and will increasingly do so, they deserve that fate which the next election, in my view, has in store for many of them.

This afternoon we are experiencing a little of everything it seems, here at the end of the session. What we have just listened to was a “maiden speech in advance”, a “claim to leadership” which, so it seems to me, is not far from being realized. If we exercise a little patience, we are going to hear the “swan song” of another leader of the United Party in a moment. This brings me to the actual point at which I wish to begin my speech.

What do we see, if we look back on this session? We see that the Opposition has shattered into four pieces and that, on the other hand, the National Party has consolidated its position as far as the standing of the Prime Minister in South Africa and abroad is concerned, and also as far as the NP in South Africa is concerned. If anyone doubts this, I shall simply refer him to Westdene, one of the most brilliant election results this party has ever achieved in its entire history. But now this hon. member comes here and tries to prove that there is division within the ranks of the NP. We know that story by now, after 30 years we know it extremely well. But every time the Opposition speaks about a division in the NP in the newspapers, the Opposition splits even further. This occasion has been no exception either. If one analyses the position very carefully, one sees that the NP has a course and that everyone on this side is moving along that course.

What is that course?

This party is a party with a consistent course because it rests on firm principles, and I shall have more to say about this in a moment. Within the NP there is also a healthy exchange of ideas. After all, with the Opposition shattering into smaller pieces all the time, the responsibility of the National Party Government in respect of South Africa in our particular circumstances is becoming greater and greater. The country should therefore be grateful that one does have this sound exchange of ideas within the ranks of the NP because it is not only in the interests of the NP, but also in the interests of the future of the Republic of South Africa. I am exceptionally proud to be a member of such a dynamic party as the NP, in which this healthy exchange of ideas is possible. We are all moving along the same course. Why? We all proceed from the same basic point of departure, as the hon. leader of the South African Party indicated here this afternoon. We all proceed from basically the same point of departure, namely that South Africa is a plural community. That party, the PRP, however, proceeds from an entirely different point of departure, namely that South Africa is a unitary State. That is where we come to the parting of the ways.

I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who spoke so eloquently about the speech which I made on plural communities, whether he will now, now that he has studied it so well and drawn his conclusions from it, support my policy. Will he support my policy? I got the impression that he agreed with me. I want to tell that hon. member that they had 30 years’ time to see what this party is doing, and if they had observed carefully, they would have learnt one basic lesson, namely that “success is determined by the size of the individual’s or the party’s or the nation’s thinking.” This party has, for all these years, been the living example of a thinking party which was trying to solve South Africa’s problems to the best of its ability.

Our party rests on firm principles. On what principles does the party rest? I made it very clear in that speech which I made. Before I come to that, allow me just to say that I am, in every word which I said previously and which I am going to say this afternoon, humbly trying to strengthen the hands of my chief leader, our Prime Minister, for whom I have the highest respect and appreciation and who is, in the extremely difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves, achieving such a tremendous success, and I am trying to support him as far as it is possible. Secondly I feel the humble need to help my party. Thirdly, I feel the urgent need to help my country, the Republic of South Africa. There should be no doubt whatsoever that my motives in this regard are therefore sincere. The Opposition has shattered itself against the consistent policy, a policy based on firm principles, of this party. What are those principles? They are perfectly simple, yet extremely important. They are universally accepted principles, accepted by the UNO and by the entire world. For centuries they have been endorsed in scientific writings. In the first place they entail multinationalism. This is accepted in Africa, by the UNO, in fact by the entire world. Multinationalism is the policy of my party.

To eliminate any misunderstanding, I want to say at once that “cultural pluralism” means precisely the same thing as multinationalism. That is why I am asking the hon. member whether he will now support my policy. I want to quote the following passage to him—

On this principle of multinationalism … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umhlatuzana was accorded a good hearing. I request the same for the hon. the Minister.

This principle of multinationalism or “cultural pluralism” as I call it, or “plural democracy” as my hon. friend, Dr. Connie Mulder, on this side of the House called it, is one and the same concept which one can apply to express this basic principle, which is accepted as such throughout the entire world.

There is also a second principle of which this party adopts as its standpoint, namely the principle of self-determination. This is a principle which is accepted by the UNO, by African States, in fact by the entire world. There is no doubt at all in my mind that this is the foundation on which we stand. This is our political point of departure and the only principle which can succeed in South Africa as a plural structure. To this end we ask the co-operation of all the people in South Africa; it is very essential.

What is involved here, therefore, is not merely recognition of the diversity within the population of South Africa, but also distinctive political and constitutional structures for the various nations. And here I associate myself very closely with the hon. the leader of the SAP who spelt it out very well, very neatly and clearly here this afternoon.

On the other hand we cannot range ourselves with the PRP because they approach the matter from an entirely different point of departure. I do not want to go into details now. We cannot endorse the idea of a unitary state at all, because this must inevitably lead—and I shall return to this later—to the sharing of authority, in my humble opinion, to “one man, one vote”, a principle which I think— and I have made a comprehensive study of this matter and have written a thesis about it— must inevitably lead to tremendous chaotic conditions—this has been scientifically and politically proved—in the plural set-up with which we are dealing here in this country. South Africa’s population consists of a multiplicity of nations, and each one of these lays claim to a political dispensation of its own. If there is any doubt about this, I want to state candidly that none of us endorse the abdication of the White man. Surely we are not as childishly naïve as that. The whole objective of our policy is in fact aimed at ensuring that the White population group, and every other population group, has the right to a peaceful existence in our plural structure. Precisely because our policy is based on the fundamental concepts of multinationalism and self-determination, we are seeking a dispensation which can produce solutions in our plural set-up to the difficult human relations problems with which we are struggling. That is why we should not question one another’s motives, one another’s good faith, sincere intentions and integrity, for it is damaging and hurtful.

I think we have reached a stage in South Africa where we can tell one another honestly that we need not doubt one another’s motives.

I have the faith, the hope and also the confidence that during the next few months and during the next year great things can happen here in South Africa in the interests of all the peoples of South Africa. To that end we are requesting the co-operation of everyone, and it is not necessary to question one another’s motives. No one in his sound senses will deny that we are struggling with difficult questions, some of the most difficult in the entire world, and that under the present circumstances there are certain dilemmas which we dare not evade. The NP is not evading those dilemmas. On the contrary. The NP is facing up to those dilemmas and we are also asking the co-operation of others in this regard. It is of no avail ignoring these dilemmas, which I shall now point out, and trying to dodge them. Not only is it wrong to do so; it is also irresponsible and, I believe, dangerous. A nation which wants to live, does not do this kind of thing. A nation which wants to live, acts as the NP is doing and as N. P. van Wyk Louw expressed it so wonderfully by doing empirical thinking—“dink kopbeen”. We on this side of the House are giving thought to and are discussing our problems, and if others interpret this as a division in our ranks, I want to say that I take my weaker brethren’s hand and help him, as others in turn take my hand and help me. So we help one another and we go forward together. So we are building a unity here in South Africa which is based on sound foundations. This is what a nation does that wants to live.

One of our dilemmas is that now more than ever before we have to work according to a time-table and do essential things. All the Opposition parties must see this and the general public must also understand that we now have to do important things according to a time-table. That is why we must take one another’s hands and help one another.

With this there is another very difficult and very important dilemma, and the Government is facing up to it squarely. Hence these sound discussions and exchange of ideas within our ranks. The dilemma I am referring to is in connection with the moderates among the non-Whites and the Blacks. While in our eyes they are radicals, they are within their own structure and within their own ranks so moderate that they are losing confidence in the process. This is a tremendous dilemma. It is not only my dilemma; it is the dilemma of all of us. The party which is facing this dilemma squarely and is trying to deal with it from a basis of strength, is the NP. The Opposition parties have the right to get rid of the NP and to establish an alternative Government, but if they want to do this, they should not destroy the foundation of the power base from which this kind of dilemma has to be solved according to a timetable, for then they are destroying South Africa, and not only the NP. In the times in which we are living, things are developing very rapidly, whether we like it or not. I have thought deeply about this matter, and I have arrived at the conclusion that the NP is at present the only party in South Africa which can solve this dilemma for South Africa. In that sense, therefore, we deserve support and not backbiting.

What is our goal under these circumstances and in view of the timetable according to which we have to work? What should we aim at and strive to achieve in this complex situation? We should like to maintain ourselves as a White nation in justice—this is a beautiful word; it is far more than just fairness—before God and before men in this country, and we grant that same right to every other nation or population group in our country with its plural structure. What should our goal then be? I believe that the goal should be the preservation of spiritual and cultural civilized values. Surely there need be no difference of opinion over such a goal. Implicit in this goal is the maintenance of the distinctive identity of each population group, its right to retain a political say over its own affairs, to gain and keep the goodwill of other population groups in eliminating points of friction.

Surely it is the task of each one of us, regardless of what political party we belong to, to promote and cultivate good relations on all levels between the various population groups and races in South Africa. No one can differ on this score. The question is, however: Who is promoting it and who is bedevilling it? From this session we must learn this lesson, that if we do not further goodwill, we are acting to the detriment not of a political party, but to the detriment of South Africa and our children who come after us, particularly in view of the timetable according to which we have to work and live in South Africa.

It is therefore very important that we acquire and keep this goodwill, but it is also important that each national group should have the right to refuse to assimilate or to integrate. This was one of the important points which I raised in my speech on cultural pluralism. This is in fact one of the great advances which have been made in the science of pluralism during the past 30 years. When I was a student at the University of Oxford, the right to refuse to assimilate or to integrate was not one of the aspects in any definitions of cultural pluralism. It was only subsequently that it came into promimence in the world, together with the concept of ethnicity. Who says that my friend, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and I differ fundamentally on this matter? Fundamentally we are in absolute agreement on this cardinal matter. [Interjections.]

Our leaders have declared repeatedly that we do not advocate second-class citizenship for the Coloureds or any other population group in South Africa. This matter is at present in the oven, and when a matter is in the oven, one does not open the oven door. The Westminster Committee is investigating these matters. [Interjections.]

In respect, therefore, of the matter which the hon. member raised in regard to Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and their collective responsibility for matters of common interest, I think the course, as I shall now indicate by means of quotations, is very clear. We are not doing away with retaining authority over our own people in every respect. We want to retain our authority over our own people in all respects, and we want to accord other peoples and population groups the same right. We grant it to them, but then the question of the sharing of authority emerges.

I do not think that the sharing of authority takes place when, in a plural unitary state, where the principle of “one man, one vote” applies, authority is shared in one and the same sovereign Parliament. There is no doubt at all that everyone in the Republic of South Africa opposes this. The Opposition parties, with the exception of the PRP, also oppose this. Very few people in South Africa are prepared to share authority in terms of that definition, and I think that if we understand one another on this point, we shall be able to remove the question of the sharing of authority from the political arena in South Africa. The sooner we do that, the better.

How do you want to divide authority?

I am coming to that. The hon. member also mentioned the fact that I had referred to the concept of “a nation”. Let there be no lack of clarity on this matter. What is the definition of “nation”? It is all the inhabitants of a State. That is the constitutional law concept of a nation and I used it in that sense. In other words, the inhabitants who are entitled to a passport and citizenship, are members of a nation. Today there are many people, inter alia, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in addition to Whites, who in that sense have South African citizenship. A nation may include various population groups and also peoples. Surely it does not cancel out group identity or ethnicity. The population groups retain their right not to assimilate or not to integrate. My time is limited, but in this context I read a wonderful article to which I want to refer—

Let me say at once that I am such an Afrikaner and such a South African. I am very proud that I can be part of a dispensation which is working out a system in South Africa from which the world will learn in future.

The interpretation of these concepts have imposed certain obligations on the Afrikaner and on the South African, obligations which are now culminating in the dispensation of multinationalism, to which I have referred as “cultural pluralism” with certain other attendant concepts. Surely it is clear that a nation cannot arise out of each ethnic group in South Africa. We do not differ on that score.

Our hon. the Prime Minister left no uncertainty as to the question of a say in decision-making or the acceptance of co-responsibility in matters of a general nature. Nor did the hon. the Prime Minister leave any doubt about the fact that we are a plural community. I can refer hon. members to column 405 of this year’s Hansard, in which the following words occur—

… an opportunity to work out a dispensation for all the peoples in this country. On 28 January 1977 the hon. the Prime Minister said in the House of Assembly (Hansard, col. 378)—

I am referring now to the Cabinet Council on which Coloureds, Whites and Indians are serving. What is this if it is not a say in decision-making? I am trying to be clever or semantical, but to my mind it means something different than the sharing of power, and in this regard, too, we do not differ. Hon. members would do well to go back and think about this. If I had had the time at my disposal, I could have explained the entire matter clearly, because there is an important accentual difference between these two aspects. On 20 April 1977, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following (Hansard, col. 5637)—

He is now referring to the Coloureds and the Indians—

Time permitting, I would have gone into this further. Therefore we need not quarrel over these matters, for in my opinion these are matters which have already been thrashed out reasonably well. Since the earliest times the NP have been making provision in its policy—I endorse this wholeheartedly; it is very positive and splendid—for State nationalism and patriotism; in other words a love for and loyalty towards South Africa which ensures at the same time the existence of multi-nationalism or cultural pluralism in South Africa. In all humility I should like to convey a message in this regard, a message in which I very firmly believe and which is a matter of deep concern to me, i.e. I am advocating, within the framework of the NP policy, a national patriotism which does not plough under the survival of worthy ethnic traditions. They are not in competition with one another, they are in fact complementary and supplementary. The Progs, with their unitary state and “one man, one vote” idea, are in fact making it competitive. In my opinion that is wrong and dangerous. In South Africa it is essential that we should understand that the NP policy has always been one of “South Africa first”. We must guard against elevating means into principles. We have to obtain the loyalty of all the people of South Africa, of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. It is particularly among our Coloured and Black peoples that we should obtain a spontaneous loyalty to South Africa so that we and they can all stand together against South Africa’s enemies. That is what we should bring about. The hon. the Minister of Defence expressed it splendidly when he said on 27 May 1977 that there was no reason why Afrikanerdom should disappear to make way for a joint South Africanship. The NP policy has, since the inception of the NP, been the following: “South Africa first”. This policy has to be put into practice during these times, and we should not try to make things difficult or try to cause it to miscarry. We are all manning the trenches together, Whites, Blacks and Coloureds, against Russian imperialism and Russian colonialism; we are all fighting for South Africa. That is why we all say, why our common creed is: “South Africa first.” The vision of Gen. Hertzog and the NP was correct when they proclaimed: “South Africa first”. Why, then, should it no longer be correct today, or no longer be necessary? If we really succeed in putting South Africa first, viz. the retention of the identity of the various population groups, as well as their values, their cultures, their traditions, and so on, I am certain that South Africa will be a victorious country, and not a losing country, a victorious country in which each nation of ours retains its identity voluntarily, and with pride. And that is in fact the policy of the NP. The NP wishes to make this country a victorious country for all its inhabitants … [Interjections.]… but not for that hon. UP member who is now distracting me by asking a question.

Can you please explain to us what you meant by the canton system when you spoke about it? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I only made a single reference to it. I spoke of a “variant of the Swiss system”. I said that South Africa’s population structure was such that we should, naturally, create a distinctive South African system. I have three very important principles in mind, three principles which are being applied in the Swiss system and from which we can learn a great deal. In fact, we have to learn from it and we have learnt from it in any case. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude … [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to conclude with a story about a certain Black man. I think that, if we conclude on this note and conclude this Third Reading debate in this good spirit of goodwill, it would give me great pleasure. The Black man’s name was Gufumalo. At Nafkor he was addressing a predominantly English-speaking audience in Afrikaans. He told the story of how, many years ago, there were five persons. One of them was a Britisher. He was asked what he would most like to have for his nation. He said that he would like to have his nation rule the world. His wish came true. The second man was a Chinese. His desire was that the Chinese nation should become the largest in the world. That request was also granted. The third person was a Jew. His heartfelt desire for his nation was that they should do well in business. That request was also granted.

Then there were only two left, the Boer and the Black man—the Afrikaner and the Black man. The Afrikaner was then asked what he wanted most. His reply was: “I should simply like to live with my Black friend here in South Africa. I should like to help him, because we understand one another.” Then the Black man was asked what he wanted. His reply was: “I should prefer to live with the Oubaas’ here in South Africa.” [Interjections.] I think that if we co-exist in that spirit, South Africa will be a victorious country and the NP a victorious party. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the story which the hon. the Minister told right at the end, the story of the Black man and the Boer—“dat die Swartman maar liewer saam met die oubaas wil voortgaan”—is in fact a practical illustration of what the hon. the Minister means by joint decision-making. [Interjections.] No doubt, one cannot fault this hon. Minister for one thing, and that is for his enthusiasm. Enthusiasm he has. The words bubble out. On this occasion it was the enthusiasm of a man who came to do penance. He had to do penance for flying a kite the other day. He did it once before. He flew the kite with the NP caucus when it came to sport.

I did not fly a kite.

He managed to take the gap. However, this time he sold a dummy, and his party has not bought it. So we have this hon. Minister this afternoon being caught up once again doing penance to explain as he did in sport—that mixed multi-racial sport, right down to club level, is actually the basis of multi-nationalism. In exactly the same way he explained that joint decision-making— Coloureds, Indians and Whites together—is basically what multinationalism was all about.

The words, the hon. the Minister uses are the antithesis of those used by the hon. the Deputy Minister. They both use words with excitement and enthusiasm; the words they use sound the same, but have subtle differences. The hon. the Minister talks about “ons plurale gemeenskap”. The hon. the Deputy Minister rejects that idea. He speaks of “die pluralisme van ons gemeenskappe”. There is a fundamental difference between the pluralism of communities and a plural community. There is one point on which I want to agree with the hon. the Minister, although I must say it comes very strange from a member of the NP, and that is where he says that we are working against a timetable, that there is a time factor. This is what worries us. It worries us because, a year and three days after the Soweto uprising, what have we actually done to re-shape South Africa? What are the lessons that we have learnt? What are the improvements and what are the changes we have made as a result of that? It was almost three and a half years ago that our ambassador to the United Nations said that we were going to get rid of discrimination. What have we done in the three and a half years? It was on 8 November 1974 that the hon. the Prime Minister said to the CRC that he had identified the dilemma as far as the political position of the Coloured people was concerned and that there was a committee going into the matter. He has said that we were going to depart from the Westminster system. Yet we are still waiting for concrete, positive action from the Government.

We are now coming towards the end of a long debate, at the end of a very long session of Parliament. I do not want to follow the general trend of a number of members in this debate. Part of the debate has been devoted to the traditional end-of-session Prog-bashing. So it is alleged that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is partly responsible for the lack of foreign investment in this country; the hon. member for Houghton is partly responsible for student activists; the hon. member for Pinelands is partly responsible for Black Power and Black consciousness in South Africa. But let us forget all of that. We are aware that the harder we are attacked on a personal level—I am leaving out policies—the more we realize that the NP and the Government are hiding away both its policies and its inadequacies of its administration.

Let us just look at the situation for one moment. Let us take stock; let us, towards the end of the session, ask ourselves whether we as members of Parliament in South Africa can with confidence say that Parliament during this session has taken South Africa significantly closer to a solution of the major problems confronting us. Have we during this session taken South Africa significantly closer to a solution of our major problems? Undoubtedly a number of Bills have endeavoured to improve the lot of the ordinary South African citizen in the socio-economic field, but we are also aware that at the same time the price rises authorized by this Government and Government departments have more than off-set the advantage which is going to accrue because of increased pensions, etc. Other Bills, particularly in the field of defence, justice, economic affairs, censorship and finance, have certainly increased Government statutory authority over the South African people and the South African society. In a sense, seen from the Government’s point of view, these Bills together have perhaps increased the preparedness of South Africa to withstand, at least in the short term, the increased pressures from inside and outside. This has been a short-term situation, by increasing the Government’s control of statutory authority over the whole of the South African society. But what measures have we passed this session which have taken South Africa any step further towards a solution of our fundamental problems? I put it to the hon. member for Brits: What steps have we taken during this session? The Status of Bophuthatswana Bill, which in the end showed that it is going to deprive Tswana citizens of their South African citizenship even against the wishes of the Bophuthatswana Government? We hope at least that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is going to tell this House before it rises at the end of this month as to whether he has resolved the problem between the Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana on the issue of citizenship for the people of Bophuthatswana. There is still the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill, which entrenches the political segregation of the Indians against the wishes of the Indians themselves. It is amidst all the party-political cut and thrust that I ask: How often have we actually come to grips and tried to define the fundamental issues facing us in South Africa today?

I believe some speeches today went some way towards this. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow gave an analysis of what was happening in the South African society, irrespective of the formal policies of the Government. This indicates that on the one hand, at the top level of the political structure the South African society is moving in a direction of separate development, while the whole of the rest of the South African society is moving away from the separate development towards a more open and a more shared social, economic, educational and cultural society. The hon. member for Newton Park defined the objects of his policy. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana did the same for his party, and no doubt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will take it still further. I believe that this is an occasion, the end of the session, when we should face up to the fact that some fundamental problems are building up in and against South Africa, problems which, I believe, confront the South African nation with the biggest challenge in its political history. That is how I see the situation in which we all find ourselves.

When we look beyond party politics and we try to define and assess the trends that are developing in South Africa in 1977, and try to place them in some kind of historical perspective, what do we find? First of all, whether we like it or not, there is a massive build-up of international pressure on almost every front. Pressure is being exerted not just by the communists or by the Afro-Asians but by the West as well. Secondly, we find increasing polarization between Black and White within South Africa, especially amongst the young Blacks who are going to be the leaders of the Black community of tomorrow. In our economy we have an increasingly sensitive relationship developing between capital, labour, management and markets. Within this economy it is becoming more difficult to provide real economic growth for a growing South African population. We have had an adverse GDP of approximately 1,5% for the last two years.

Mr. De Vries of the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch stated only this week that the average real income of Whites over the last two years has dropped by no less than 10%. Then, we have had the ugly spectre of the first signs of urban terrorism. This is something which we believe the South African community should root out with all the power that it has at its disposal.

Various ancillary reasons will be advanced by the Government for the trends that are developing. When one talks of the international situation, it will be said that the strategic location of South Africa in the East-West power struggle is a factor. When one talks of polarization, it will be said that it is the result of the efforts of those people who want to provoke a Black-White conflict situation for their own ends. When one thinks of the failure of the Government to provide economic growth, one can, as the hon. member for Carletonville did, point to the high population growth rate in South Africa, a growth rate of just under 3% per annum which is sapping away some of the economic growth which our society would have.

That is a very important problem.

Yes, I agree with the hon. member; it is an important ancillary problem. These are all important contributory factors, but we all know, as we sit here today, that these are not the key factors. These are not the basic issues underlying the trends that are developing in South Africa. We know that at the root of these dangerous trends in our international, internal and economic situation, lies our race relations, lies in fact, as we believe, the racial policy of the Government. Even if the Government rejects that, we say that at the root of this lies the Government’s failure to find, over a period of 30 years, a solution to the co-existence problem in South Africa. While on the one hand the verligte hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation has normalized sport in South Africa and has integrated sport at all levels, we nevertheless find that the Government clings stubbornly to that which Dr. Verwoerd gave them as the basis for the solution of the South African problem. The basis is that we are a number of separate nations. The hon. the Minister conceded that as regards nations there is firstly a nation in the constitutional sense in which all the people who are citizens and carry passports are members of a nation. The other concept is that of a “volk” which is a nation in an emotional sense. What the Government is trying to do is to convert the emotional concept of a “volk” into a territorial and constitutional concept. In spite of everything they cling to the concept of the nation as the very essence, the very basis, of their whole policy in South Africa although they know that, when it is translated into geo-political terms, it has already come crashing down: It has come crashing down as far as the non-homeland Blacks are concerned; it has come crashing down as far as the Coloureds are concerned; it has come crashing down as far as the Indians are concerned. Hon. members know that, if one has an integrated economy, if one has a sharing of economic power in an integrated, shared economy, one cannot separate the nations on a constitutional basis. It has come crashing down in relation to those homeland Blacks who refused to renounce their membership of the South African community and who claim to be a part of the South Africa in which they were born. It is true—and the hon. the the Minister’s address the other day was an illustration of it—that the Government under the pressure of logic and under the pressure of the march of events has to an extent moved away from this absolutist dogma of Dr. Verwoerd.

There are signs of rethinking. The hon. the Minister says there are healthy discussions within his party. I believe that healthy discussions are necessary, but not when it reaches such a conflict stage that no leadership can be given to the people of South Africa. Yet that is what is happening at the moment. So the Coloureds are no longer a separate nation. Formerly, they were a “volk-in-wording”, “’n volk wat nog sy siel moet vind”. Now, however, we find that the Coloureds are no longer a separate nation. They are merely a group within the South African nation of which the Whites and the Indians are also a part. That is the new philosophy, a distinct departure from the Verwoerdian concept.

Secondly, it has been accepted that there can be a sharing of decision-making, between Coloureds and Indians and Whites, on matters of common concern, however much the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education may reject this concept, and he rejected it most specifically in his statement to Sabra the other day. Nevertheless, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, as far as the Cabinet Council is concerned there is a commitment to joint decision-making. I need only quote from the memorandum which the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations referred to in the House in the course of the last two debates. I quote—

He went on to say—

In other words, there is a very clear commitment, as far as the Coloureds, Indians and Whites are concerned, to the concept of joint decision-making. While this has not yet reached the point of formal acceptance as far as the urban Blacks are concerned, I have no doubt, judging by the speeches of Nationalist academicians, the political analysts, the Minister of Sport and Recreation and the request of the hon. member for Moorreesburg for a commission to look into the question of the urban Blacks, that the concept of the urban Blacks having to be recognized as part of the area of joint decision-making is going to take root within the ranks of the NP. This then is their confusion. The pure, pristine philosophy of Dr. Verwoerd’s separate nations is being contaminated by the joint decision-making concept which has had to be brought in as the result of the realities of the South African situation. Contrasted with this is the attitude of those of us in these benches.

Perhaps, because one has heard so much about the “eenheidstaat”, I should refer briefly to this attitude. Firstly, we in these benches accept the basic oneness of South Africa, the wholeness of South Africa, its people, its territory and its economy. We see it as an entity.

The one-nation concept.

One nation is exactly the sense referred to by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. Everyone who has a South African passport and claims citizenship is a citizen and a national is a part of the South African nation. Secondly, by oneness we do not mean a unitary system of government or a society without diversity. Indeed, it is the diversity of our people, in the fields of race, enicity, language, culture, religion and economic status, which provides both the dangers and the challenges for South Africa. We believe that one must find a system that allows people freely, without coercion either way by the State, to express their differences of culture and those other differences they themselves hold dear. We believe that one has to move away from discrimination, and this involves moving away from discrimination in the political field as well. It means moving towards a situation of full participation of all citizens in the government of their country. We believe, however, that this must be done, not within a unitary State, but by way of the decentralization of power and through a system which will protect both the rights of individuals and minorities from domination. I must leave that aspect now because my time is limited.

I want to conclude, however, with this thought. While we here, in this sovereign White Parliament, argue and debate with one another, our isolation grows, polarization increases and our economy contracts. The situation cannot be remedied by this Government in spite of its electoral strength, and it cannot be remedied by this Parliament on its own, in spite of its formal authority. I think the time has come for this Government to reach out beyond its own members and supporters for opinions and advice. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and said he must say where he stands. I want to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister: How many times over the past 11 years, while he has been Prime Minister, has he sought the advice of, or sat down for discussions with, a person like Mr. Harry Oppenheimer? The Government must reach out beyond Parliament to the leaders of the Black community not represented in this House. Once again, what a difference it would make if a gentleman like Dr. Manus Buthelezi had been consulted at the start of the unrest in Soweto last year! The stage has been reached in the evolutionary development of South Africa where decisions of a fundamental nature affecting the future of our country can no longer be taken by Whites on their own. No solution, no matter how appropriate it may be, will be acceptable internally and externally unless it is designed and agreed to by Blacks and Whites alike. I hope that this Government would in this recess will be setting up the machinery for negotiation between Black, White and Brown, setting up machinery for joint decision-making. It is only on the basis of joint decision-making that we can find agreement amongst our peoples who constitute one nation. It is only by joint decision-making that we shall be able to earn our way back to the respect of the Western World.

Mr. Speaker, every time I listen to the hon. member for Sea Point, I think of a circus. My experience—and I think it is everyone’s experience—is that if one has seen one circus, one has seen them all. Likewise, if one has heard one speech by the hon. member, one has heard them all. Each time one merely has a repetition of the same empty slogans. The hon. member reminds me of a train with failing brakes running downhill. At the rate he is going at the moment, he is going to be derailed at some stage.

The hon. member made a few interesting statements here today. He said the Government had said, “There is a number of nations in South Africa” and he referred to that as an “emotional concept of the Government”. “A number of nations,” he says, is an “emotional concept of the Government”. I cannot understand it. Does the hon. member for Sea Point want to suggest that he denies the existence of different nations in South Africa? Does he deny the existence of a Xhosa nation in the Transkei? Does he see the fact that the Transkei has come into existence, that there is a body politic and a Government, as an “emotional concept of the Government”? Now he is evidently denying the existence of a Xhosa nation in the Transkei and the existence of an independent State, the Transkei. He says it is an “emotional concept”. Does he realize how he is insulting those people? Does he want to tell me that there is no such thing as a Zulu nation in South Africa? Sir, all these nations are an act of creation of God. It seems to me he does not see that. He is completely foolish; he does not know what he is talking about anymore. His brakes have failed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of “diversities”. He also speaks of “oneness”. It is all very well for the hon. member to speak of “diversity” but his policy makes no provision for “diversity”. Let me take this point further. His policy is one of enforced integration in schools. Where is the “diversity”? Where is the “right to choose”? Where is the “diversity” with regard to his education policy?

At the moment he is conveniently deaf.

I say he is being politically dishonest when he speaks of diversity, and he cannot deny it because he believes in enforced integration in schools. The hon. member for Yeoville sits immediately behind the hon. member and he disagrees with him on that score. He is not in favour of enforced integration in schools. Or is he hon. member for Yeoville—if he wants to honour me with an answer—in favour of enforced integration in schools?

You know what my attitude is.

That changes the matter quite drastically. I want to quote from The Cape Times of 22 November 1976, from a speech made by the hon. member made at a congress in Johannesburg:“Mr. Schwarz said he was accustomed to swimming against the stream.” Well, we know that. “He rejected coercion as much as he rejected enforced apartheid and enforced integration.” Mr. Speaker, here we have the answer on a platter. The hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Yeoville differ radically. The hon. member for Sea Point believes in enforced integration in schools. I challenge him to deny that. The hon. member for Yeoville says that he sticks to his standpoint and that he is against enforced integration in schools. Now he should tell me whether I am right.

The Minister of Finance …

I am not talking about the hon. the Minister of Finance at the moment, but about the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to get it on record, because I should like to be able to tell the people who inquire from me what the policy of the PRP is. Is the hon. member for Yeoville in favour of enforced integration in schools or is he not?

You know what I am in favour of.

In other words, I accept and I place it on record that the hon. member for Yeoville is opposed to the matter of enforced integration in schools which the hon. member for Sea Point and Houghton forced through at that congress.

I want to warn the hon. member for Sea Point today that the hon. member for Yeoville is not going to leave the matter at that. I shall tell him why the hon. member for Yeoville is not going to leave the matter at that. The hon. member for Yeoville is someone who knows something about politics. He wrote an article in the Sunday Times the other day in which he said that any political party in South Africa wishing to be relevant, would have to obtain a power base amongst the White voters. He knows that the PRP will be rejected to an increasing extent at the next election if it continues with the idea of enforced integration in schools.

That is why we won so many seats in the Johannesburg council.

I know it hurts the hon. member for Houghton, because she is rather sensitive. The hon. member for Yeoville realizes that they have to obtain support amongst the White voters. With people like the hon. member for Houghton and a leader like the hon. member for Sea Point in one’s party, one does not need enemies. Furthermore, I want to place on record that I have a great deal of contact with people in business circles and with English-speaking people in Johannesburg. I want to give the hon. members of the PRP good advice. I feel sorry for the hon. member for Yeoville, because we have been in politics together for a long time. It seems to me that we are not going to be together for much longer if matters continue in this way. There are many English-speaking people in our country who tell me that they are considering the policy of the PRP and that they feel when they listen to the hon. member for Yeoville that there may be a place for them in the PRP. They tell me categorically, however, that they do not see their way clear to joining a party with a leader like Colin Eglin and a member like Helen Suzman, with their leftist liberal ideas.

People also say—I am speaking of prominent English-speaking industrialists and business people, personal friends who would not try to mislead me—that the hon. member for Sea Point creates the impression of being stupid. [Interjections.] I do not want to argue with them about that. I have not tested the hon. member’s IQ, but I shall not get involved in an argument with them about that.

The hon. member for Sea Point went on to speak of discrimination. He says, “We believe that discrimination must be removed and this means that we must move towards full participation of all citizens in the decision-making process of their country.” Have I quoted the hon. member correctly? Evidently I have.

The “full participation” is a new concept or idea in our politics. I have never heard the expression before. Only the other day, as it happens I went through the official report of the Press conference held by Vice-President Mondale. I saw that the following question was put to him towards the end of the conference—

I do not know whether the hon. member got the concept of “full participation” from that; I do not want to accuse him of that—

To that Mr. Mondale replied—

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point this: When he speaks of “full participation of all citizens”, is he speaking of the same thing Mr. Mondale was speaking of?

We are not speaking of his system.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to corner the hon. member with my questions. I simply want to get the record straight. When the hon. member for Sea Point speaks of “full participation” …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is not necessary for the hon. member for Yeoville to try and defend his inept leader. I shall not deal with him too harshly. I simply want to know whether Mr. Mondale’s connotation, interpretation, definition of “full participation” and the “full participation” of the hon. member for Sea Point are the same thing.

Come on, Colin!

I am not a person who will ever accuse an hon. member of political cowardice, but the hon. member for Sea Point is going to force me into it one day. I am asking him whether his definition of “full participation” is the same thing as Mr. Mondale’s “full participation”.

I was not present at Mr. Mondale’s meeting.

As the hon. member was not there, I shall repeat Mr. Mondale’s definition. He said it meant “one man, one vote”.

From where did the hon. member for Sea Point get those words? [Interjections.]

We got them from you.

The hon. member for Sea Point is trying to imply that it is something of which he has no knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether he happened to pick it up at this morning’s breakfast table. Sir, I should like to know from the hon. member whether “full participation” also means “one man, one vote” to him?

I have stated our policy on several occasions.

At the moment I am not interested in the hon. member’s philosophies and things. At the moment I simply want to know whether “full participation” means “one man, one vote” to him. If the hon. member for Sea Point does not have the courage to tell me whether it means “one man, one vote”, the hon. member for Yeoville can tell me [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville says “no”; therefore it does not mean “one man, one vote”. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point again whether his “full participation” means “one man, one vote”—yes or no.

It means our system that we recommend.

I do not want to know about the hon. member’s system. His system seems politically rather poisoned to me, in any event. I only want to know …

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

If it is an intelligent question, with pleasure.

I want to ask the hon. member whether his policy, the policy of the Government, means a vote for everybody; that is to say “one man, one vote”?

Of course! Is the hon. member that ignorant? The Government enfranchised millions of people in South Africa. Every Indian, Coloured, Black and White can vote. Even those people opposite can vote. Our system is the system of “one man, one vote”, one of full self-determination for every nation. I do not know how the hon. member can ask such a stupid and absurd question. That is probably why he is a member of the PRP. We have a system of “one man, one vote” witin the context of the right to self-determination of every nation in this country. We can have that system because we deny that South Africa is that “oneness” of which that hon. member speaks. Now I want to come back to my point and ask the hon. member for Sea Point once again whether “full participation” means “one man, one vote” in “an undivided South Africa”.

Read my policy statement.

Just say “yes” or “no”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refuses to answer me. The hon. member for Yeoville said that it did not mean “one man, one vote”. Now I know where I stand with him. However, it seems to me that the hon. member for Sea Point is not as much of a man as the hon. member for Yeoville, because he does not want to answer me. Now I can ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the hon. member for Yeoville [Interjections.] I shall make it easier for the hon. member by putting it differently: Does he disagree with the hon. member for Yeoville? [Interjections.] We must have an answer to this cardinal, basic question because it affects our foreign relations. One of these days the hon. member for Yeoville is going to visit America and then he has to tell the people there what his leader means by “full participation”, because he is on record here. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees with the hon. member for Sea Point [Interjections.]

I am now going to turn to the old campaigner. I do not like getting involved in disputes with old ladies, but I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: What does that “full participation” mean? Does it mean “one man, one vote”?

I am not on speaking terms with you at all!

If she cannot talk to me, I want to ask her whether she agrees with the hon. member for Yeoville.

We all agree that you are stupid.

I see a caucus meeting is taking place over there at the moment. I think I shall leave the matter at that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education or with the hon. the Minister of National Education?

I stand between them and our arms are linked and we hold each other by the hand and we walk forward together in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member may ask me another question if he likes; he should just stop interrupting me.

I should like to have it placed on record that the hon. leader of the PRP does not want to answer my question whether “full participation” means “one man, one vote”. That poses a problem to me, because I do not know whether or not his party is able to accommodate this American demand in respect of South Africa. Moreover, I also want to have it placed on record that there obviously is a sharp difference in interpretation between the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Sea Point with regard to this question of “one man, one vote” and of “full participation”.

I want more information from that party and perhaps a new arrival like the hon. member for Durban North can help me. There was a committee of the PRP under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Rondebosch which investigated the question of voting qualifications.

It was a committee of the Progressive Party.

I see. Does that mean that the PRP has agreed on what voting qualifications mean? I should like to know what those voting qualifications are.

Deliver your speech! What is the matter with you? [Interjections.]

I merely want to put a serious question to the hon. member for Durban North. I saw a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 15 September 1976 in which Chief Buthelezi appealed to White parliamentarians on Opposition side to resign from Parliament. With reference to what was said by the hon. member for Durban North, the report reads—

Then the hon. member said the following, and I find his reply very significant—

Now I should like to know from the hon. member as well as from you, Sir: Have all hon. members of this House not made an oath of loyalty to the Republic of South Africa to practise their politics within the framework of the Constitution? Before I take that point any further, I first want to quote something else which the hon. member said. With reference to a call by Chief Buthelezi, the following report appeared in The Star of 7 December 1976—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to learn from you at some stage whether it is in order for an hon. member of this Parliament who is bound by an oath of loyalty to the Republic of South Africa and who in fact has to obey the laws of the Republic, to continue taking his place in this House if he states “I shall take no notice of it whatsoever”. Does that not constitute a denial and flagrant contempt of the sovereignty of Parliament and of the authority of the State?

How do you know it is an offence?

The hon. member said:“And if the Improper Interference Act stands in the way, I will take no notice of it whatsoever” and he cannot get away from that. It is on record that the hon. member said that if a law of the country stood in his way, “I shall take no notice of it whatsoever”. He is challenging the authority of the country and the sovereignty of Parliament. It disgraces the country, and the hon. member should reconsider the oath he made, because I do not believe one can live with that oath if one says such things. Somebody is making a mistake somewhere.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I shall give the hon. member the opportunity of putting his question presently. I do not see how one can take the oath of loyalty to the Republic of South Africa, can be a member of this Parliament and can still say that one will take no notice whatsoever of the laws of the country.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper for an hon. member to allege that the conduct of a member of this House infringes upon the oath of loyalty that he has taken in this House? [Interjections.]

I have been listening attentively to the hon. member and I have not gained the impression that he is laying a direct charge against the hon. member; otherwise I would have pointed out to him that something of this kind has to be done by means of a substantive motion. The hon. member was merely discussing a matter in those terms. The hon. member may proceed.

Does the hon. member make that allegation against the hon. member for Durban North?

Sit down!

The hon. member for Yeoville has all the qualities to be a good politician, he lacks only the temperament. He is just a little too sensitive, because he has become extremely vexed and he may do himself an injury. The hon. member should learn to remain calm in politics.

Answer my question. Do not run away.

In all fairness I now want to give the hon. member for Durban North the opportunity to put his question to me. [Interjections.]

If there were a law which said that one was not allowed to speak to any Black person about the political situation in South Africa, would the hon. member accept the law himself?

Of course I accept the laws of South Africa. I am a law-abiding citizen and I have taken an oath of loyalty to this country and to its laws. If there were to be such a law, I would obey it. However, who would make such a law in this country? The very thing we are doing is to speak to the Blacks. After all there is no legislation prohibiting that. It is an absurd question the hon. member for Durban North put to me, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member’s problem is, however, that he is on record as having said in public that he would take no notice of the laws of this country. Now he is trying to wriggle out of it. I repeat that that, in my opinion, constitutes a defiance of the authorities in this country.

They are a licentious party! [Interjections.]

I prefer to leave the hon. member for Durban North at that. I only hope that he will learn his lesson in politics soon enough.

Now I should like to address myself briefly to the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to do the hon. member for Pinelands an injustice, but if I understood the hon. the Minister of Justice correctly here today—and now I am being very serious …

You understand nothing!

… then the hon. member for Pinelands made common cause, had interviews, and evidently had negotiations and formed a friendship …

With traitors!

… with that man of the World Council of Churches who distributes money to terrorists. That is the man who provides money to terrorists who murder our young men on our borders. If I understood the hon. the Minister of Justice correctly, that the hon. member for Pinelands had contact with that man who distributes the money …

They had discussions!

… which buys the weapons with which our children and the children of the fathers of this country, as well as the Black Ovambos living on that border, are murdered, I want to state very clearly that I will not—as the hon. member for Pinelands probably did—touch the hand of such a man. I will not do so, because I am afraid that the blood on that man’s hands, could stain mine.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands should ask himself… [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands should ask himself the question whether he does not perhaps have blood on his hands. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper for an hon. member to allege that he will not take the hand of another member … [Interjections.]

Order!

Do hon. members mind if I put the point of order and not the whole of the NP? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has alleged that he will not take the hand of another hon. member because that hand is stained by the blood of innocent people who have been killed by terrorists. [Interjections.]

Order! In my opinion it is not unparliamentary for an hon. member to say that he will not touch the hand of another hon. member. Does the hon. member for Lydenburg specifically mean that the hands of the hon. member for Pinelands are stained by blood? If that is what the hon. member is alleging, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, what I mean is that the hand that distributes the money to the terrorists for buying weapons … [Interjections.] … is stained by blood. [Interjections.] Those hon. members opposite …

Then the hon. member has not expressed himself quite clearly. I understood him to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands.

No, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member gives the assurance that that is not what he meant, I accept it like that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat it. If there is any ambiguity, you can read my speech in Hansard. That hand which distributes the money to the terrorists which is used for buying the weapons used to murder the sons of South Africa on our borders, is a hand covered in blood. It is a hand that is stained by blood. It is that hand which the hon. member for Pinelands gripped in Holland. [Interjections.] Now I only want to know from him whether some of that blood did not rub off on his hands as well. Is there not perhaps blood on his hands too, blood which rubbed off on them? [Interjections.] Is there not Afrikaner blood and English blood and Ovambo blood on his hands too? Did it not perhaps rub off on his hands? Could the blood on that hand which he gripped, not possibly have stained his hands? There are many mothers in this country who pray every night for the safety of their children on the borders of South Africa. There are also children in South Africa who pray for the safety of their fathers on the border. I want to state categorically that I refuse to touch the filthy hand of that Dutchman who distributes the money which is used for buying the weapons with which our children are murdered on our borders.

Hear, hear!

I shall not do a similar deed of disloyalty towards South Africa by touching that Dutchman’s hand. I despise people who touch the hand of such a man. [Interjections.] I am telling the hon. member for Pinelands that I think he should not touch that hand, because that hand is covered in blood and that blood rubs off. That hand is covered in the blood of South Africans. It is the blood of our people. The nation, the public, the voters of this country will deal with the type of person who makes common cause with the people who distribute money to murder our children on our borders. I think it disgraces South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow or to become involved in the argument between the hon. member for Lydenburg and the hon. members of the PRP, although it did seem to me that he was carrying things a little far when he said that his party stood for “one man, one vote”. However, as the arguments I want to advance are of a somewhat connected nature, I understand it has been agreed between the Whips that I should at this stage move the adjournment of the debate. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.