Mr. Speaker, in their undue haste to try and cause the policy and power of the Government to come to grief, the Opposition has lost sight of one very important aspect of South Africa’s struggle and circumstances. When one reads the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, it strikes one that they are lacking in a very important aspect of the problems with which South Africa is faced at the moment, or with which any Government in South Africa would be faced. I am referring to the fact that South Africa is experiencing unprecedented intervention on the part of superpowers. It is not only South Africa which is experiencing that intervention; that intervention has already resulted in calamity for South Africa’s neighbours. If one loses sight of this, one is committing an injustice in one’s assessment of South Africa’s future path.

The inability of the Western World to develop an overall strategy against Marxism, results in an inconsistent vying for the favour of certain African States on the part of some Western countries and an attempt “to out-Moscow Moscow”. The Republic of South Africa is experiencing the full onslaught of Marxism and it must not be doubted that the Republic of South Africa enjoys a high priority in the onslaught by Moscow. All the authorities on strategy agree on this point However, South Africa is also experiencing double standards on the part of certain Western bodies in their behaviour towards her. They are doing this in an attempt to pay a ransom to the bear whose hunger must be satisfied.

In this regard, and for the sake of the record, I want to quote two authorities who should know what it is all about. The first one comes from the inner circles of NATO. I am referring to a man who has been in positions of authority in NATO and who recently made a speech in Britain, of which I have a copy here. I am only going to read a few sentences from it—

And then—

This authority, this man who comes from the inner circles of NATO and is an educated person, goes on to say—

He then goes on to ask—

The person who made this speech, is Sir Walter Walker, a man who until recently was the chief of the northern NATO forces, a man who is an authority on this situation. When reading this speech one can only come to the conclusion that any Government which wants to uphold Western standards and freedom in South Africa, will have to deal with these onslaughts on the part of Marxism, as well as with the vacillating strategy of certain Western nations. However, I want to take this further. In one of the latest editions of the Institute for Conflict Studies there is a very interesting remark by David Rees, a well-known author on strategy—

I am quoting these two authorities—I could quote several more—in order to say that when a Government in South Africa is judged on its actions, the steps it must take in order to maintain orderly Government and the struggle it must wage in order to maintain Western standards, it may not be judged unless these aspects are taken into consideration as a background. This is the main flaw in the official Opposition’s motion before this House, and it is also lacking in the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. This is my charge against them. They are so unduly hasty and so over-eager to attack the Government that they do not care that their complaints sometimes play into the hands of those powers that are bringing pressure to bear on South Africa.

I made special reference to foreign intervention.

I am talking about what is printed in the motion and in the amendment. I do not have much of a quarrel with the hon. member for Durban Point, because I know where his heart lies. His heart lies with South Africa. He is just rather clumsy in expressing it sometimes.

We must take these dangers into account in assessing the road ahead for South Africa, and in searching for a course for the future. This is not the duty of a Government alone. It is also the duty of an official Opposition. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point said here that the voters of South Africa voted chiefly against intervention in our domestic affairs. I agree with him in so far as he states this as a principle. However, I do not think that it was chiefly for that reason. The voters of South Africa voted for this Government. The ordinary man and woman voted for security and stability. They did this because they know that if we yield to the pressure from outside and if we should accept the prescribed blueprints which are being held up to us, even by the Western World, there would be no security, stability and certainty for the ordinary man and woman in South Africa. This does not only apply to the Whites, but to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians as well.

No one is arguing about that.

Very well. I now come to the second matter upon which the country voted and in respect of which the Government received a commission. The voters also voted against a policy of “one man, one vote”, whether in a unitary state or in a federation. [Interjections.] They had this before them. They have had it before them for years. The country was not uninformed on the so-called standpoint of “one man, one vote” in a unitary state, a standpoint emanating from the ranks of the Opposition. They were not uninformed as to the so-called race federations and other types of federations which were put before them. The voting public was in fact very well informed on this. They were well informed by the English Press in South Africa in particular as to the path which they wanted them to follow. In this election it was a large section of English-speaking South Africa in particular that decided, hand in hand with their fellow South Africans, that they do not want to take that path. In other words, the first complaint in the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, viz. that the Government is responsible for racial discord, fails in this regard. Never before has there been greater unanimity amongst Afrikaans and English-speaking South Africans on the question of interference and the “one man, one vote” system as in the last election. That is why the Opposition looks like it does, and just look what they look like!

It has nothing to do with “one man, one vote”.

Of course it does. I am coming to that in a moment. However, I do not want the hon. member to put his foot in it—I am actually dealing with the official Opposition—but if he is tending in that direction, he must tell me.

I want to ask a question in connection with this matter: Why is a unitary state or a so-called federation, whether it be a geographic federation or a racial federation, the only basis for ensuring the dignity and rights of people? Since when has this been the case? As regards the composition of the population of a country like South Africa, where in Africa or in the world is there an example of a system of “one man, one vote” in a unitary state or in a federation which can be held up to us as a success which we should imitate? Let us hear of it in this debate, because I think that one thing must be settled in this debate, viz. where the Government stands in regard to this very important principle and where the official Opposition stands in regard to it. This is a matter which must be settled. The country must know it.

They are stated in The Star.

Let me put it differently—I shall come to the various standpoints which the official Opposition has adopted in a moment. Let us test the supposedly contemptible South Africa, the South Africa which, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in a state of chaos due to the actions of the Government, on one point only. During the years 1962 to 1972 the UN, in its omnipotence, spent R260 million on impoverished countries. In the same period the NP Government in South Africa spent R486 million on Black nations within our borders. Then people come along and say that the Government has brought South Africa to the edge of an abyss and must be condemned for the position in which it has put our country and for the circumstances which it has created. Nevertheless the actions of the Government towards the Black peoples within our country’s borders is much better than that of the mighty UN towards the poor countries of the world.

As far as political rights are concerned, I want to ask: When has South Africa given her Black people and Brown people more political rights: Before 1948 or after 1948? Before 1948 only a small group of Blacks in the Cape had limited political rights. The rest were not represented. As far as the Coloured is concerned, political representation before 1948 was confined to a certain group in the Cape and a small number in Natal. They enjoyed only limited representation here. [Interjections.] The fact remains that under the NP Government South Africa has given every Black people an instrument with which to rule itself, an instrument with which to make itself heard to a greater extent, with which it may liberate itself and with which two groups of Blacks have already liberated themselves. Now, however, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and says that the Government ought to be censured because it has done nothing about the promotion of good race relations, that it has wreaked havoc instead.

As far as land tenure is concerned, I want to ask: When has there been greater security and clarity on the issue of land tenure in South Africa than under this Government? Which government, in the history of this country, has ever done more not only to assure the Black man and the Brown man of land tenure as such, but also to confirm it in legal terms? Surely that cannot be denied. Does that not have something to do with human rights? Does that not have something to do with human dignity?

As far as educational facilities, too, are concerned, I want to ask: When in the history of South Africa has more been done in respect of university training, technical training and primary and secondary education for the Blacks, than under this Government? Does that not involve human rights?

What do the Blacks say about it?

Most Blacks are very happy except when Boraines whisper something else into their ears. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands, not Boraine.

Is the hon. member’s name not Boraine, then?

Yes, but …

Then I withdraw “Boraine”.

Thank you very much.

When in the history of South Africa have Black people and Brown people enjoyed a higher standard of living than under this Government? Do these things not have anything to do with human dignity and human rights? Now it is being said once again that a national convention must be held. Under which Government in the history of South Africa has there been more consultation with Black and Brown leaders around the table than under this Prime Minister? Surely, then, the Opposition is committing a crime against South Africa …

They are not consistent.

… viewed against the background of what I said at the beginning of my speech. After all, we have to be careful that what we say here and what appears in Hansard does not reach the UN and cannot be used by Russia to increase its pressure on Southern Africa.

Then there is the question of “one man, one vote.” Whether in a unitary state or in a federal state, surely it is not only a White minority in this country which has to be protected when it comes to numbers. After all, there is a Coloured minority and an Indian minority as well. Where in Africa are such minorities protected under the system that is being put to us? I also want to know what guarantees there are to Black minorities in South Africa that they will not suffer the same lot as the Black minorities in Angola, Mozambique and other African States once we have ended up on this political slippery path.

There is nothing in the policy of the Government which prevents proper discussions being held. There is nothing to prevent man-to-man talks on an equal basis. There is nothing to prevent human dignity from being developed to its full potentialities. That is the message that must go out into the world from South Africa, viz. that there is another way of giving people their rights, of uplifting them and of assuring their human dignity. This must not happen on the road that leads to destruction, or on the road of pressure from Moscow or on the zigzag path from the West, but on the path which South Africa must build for herself.

I now come to the Opposition. In my opinion the official Opposition has largely failed in one respect. It was when they had to adopt a standpoint on certain noises which were issued from particular circles in America. I want to refer to a few. Firstly, I refer to the official text of a speech delivered by Mr. Brzezinski before the Trilateral Commission in Bonn. According to a newsletter from the American embassy he said there—

That is the first official standpoint expressed on the issue of “one man, one vote.” There is, however, a second standpoint which appeared in a newsletter of 3 November—

That was the speech made by Mr. Andrew Young. Government circles in America leave no doubt as to what they have prescribed for us in their recipe book. “One man, one vote” is our fate, whether it is introduced gradually or all of a sudden. That is our fate if they are able to have their way after they have interfered here. After all, we are aware of the pressure issuing from those circles in relation to the matter.

On 4 November 1977 the American Broadcasting Company made a transmission and I have a copy of it here. Peter Jennings put questions to a candidate of the PFP. It reads—

The candidate of the official Opposition then replied—

Peter Jennings—

Kowie Marais, the candidate of the party …

He has not made his maiden speech yet!

I am referring to the candidate of the party who spoke in November. May I not quote what a candidate of that party says?

That is shockingly bad taste.

What is even more “shockingly bad taste” is that that hon. member interrupted the hon. the Prime Minister before he had delivered his maiden speech.

I have made it, and you should know it!

The hon. member may make as much noise as he wishes, but I am going to read to him what that candidate said about his party. After Peter Jennings had asked—

The candidate in question replied—

I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate his candidate. [Interjections.] I challenge him and I say right now that he will not do so. He will not do it because there are other, stronger, members of his party who hold the same opinion. There sits the hon. member for Houghton. On 31 August 1977 she said the following—

In other words, what the hon. member for Houghton ultimately wants is “one man, one vote”. [Interjections.] She may wriggle as much as she likes, but that is what is written here. She said it in Australia.

What is more, in their official magazine Deurbraak—which, I assume, has some credibility—the following is written—

I say that can mean only one thing, viz. precisely what Andrew Young, Mr. Brzezinski and Vice-President Mondale are saying. The hon. members of the PRP can wriggle as much as they like but the fact is that when he was still in the Other Place, the hon. Chief Whip of the PRP said that he supported a Black majority Government in South Africa. [Interjections.] He repeated it last year in an interview with The Argus and said he stood by every word he had said in the Other Place. Then he backed down after he had received instructions to play things down a little during the election campaign. I want to conclude since my time has almost expired.

The electorate voted for another principle as well. They voted for a better constitutional dispensation for Coloureds and Indians than they could ever have had in South Africa’s history. The plan was initiated by the NP as an honest attempt to give effect to the principle of self-determination—for those population groups as well—gradually to accord them more rights, more than those two population groups have had up to now, as well as to make consultation and joint responsibility among Whites, Coloureds and Indians possible in that part of South Africa which is not Black and which is not becoming independent. The plan retains the sound conventions in relation to the Cabinet system. It retains the principle of parliamentary debate, the principle of an independent judiciary is not violated and at the same time the plan retains the right of the White man to self-determination in South Africa. These proposals do not embody politics of deceit towards the Coloured and Indian. The NP has been frank with its voters and we are prepared to be just as frank with the Coloured and the Indian.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the Coloureds had rejected the plan. He is mistaken. The Coloured Council rejected it through the casting vote of the chairman. However, the Coloureds themselves are at present debating this matter. I have here in my possession a scientific survey carried out under the supervision of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It is apparent from this official investigation that a large percentage of Coloureds are favourably disposed towards the plan. What is more, it is apparent from this investigation that 51% have not yet adopted a standpoint. After all, we know that thinking Coloureds are coming to the fore in increasing numbers and saying that they must join hands with the Government for the sake of stability, good relations and a future which we must face together in this country.

The official Opposition failed in its first test when it ought to have stood by South Africa and the Government against foreign interference. The official Opposition stands condemned.

Mr. Speaker, as usual we have had much sound and fury from the hon. the Minister of Defence this afternoon. There is nothing I should like better than to engage him in a full-scale argument on the points he has raised, but unfortunately I have very limited time. I have a number of matters I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. However, I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Defence that I am surprised he has spent so much time ranting against the principle of “one man, one vote” when yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister spent a good deal of his time boasting that the NP has given “one man, one vote” to every adult, man and woman, in South Africa. [Interjections.] He was telling us that everybody had the “stemreg”.

I said it just a minute ago.

He said it was a public lie to say that there were disfranchised people in this country. It therefore appears that although the principle of “one man, one vote” is quite all right with the Government, it is only all right as far as Black people are concerned if they have the vote and there is universal franchise for bodies that in fact have no power. However, the minute when it is suggested that they have any franchise in the bodies which actually pass the laws which govern their lives, this of course becomes a terrible spectre. That, of course, is the whole argument we have been listening to from the hon. the Minister of Defence. Then too, I must ask the hon. the Minister of Defence, if so much has been done for human rights in South Africa, why we have to have this huge mass of security legislation on our Statute Books.

I told you at the start of my speech.

The hon. the Minister said it was necessary to maintain law and order. Will he tell me whether Modderdam and Unibell were necessary to maintain law and order? He tells us what the Government has been doing for the Black people since they came into power. I should like the Black people to tell the hon. the Minister of Defence and the House whether they consider the rights they enjoyed, the common roll franchise, however limited, and the voice they therefore had in this House, to be worth more to them than the “one man, one vote” they now have in their separate political institutions. It is not what the hon. the Minister thinks that matters, but the opinion of the Black people of this country which matters as far as the assessment of human rights for them is concerned.

I now want to turn to the hon. the Minister of Justice and I want to discuss one or two other matters. Both sides of the House and even the hon. the Minister—otherwise he would not have been so angry this afternoon—have to admit that it is common cause that we have indeed reached a new low in our international relationships. For the first time South Africa finds itself subjected to a mandatory arms embargo which is going to be very difficult, in fact, almost impossible to revoke if Russia disapproves of such revocation. It is very much on the cards that even more serious punitive measures are about to be exercised against South Africa. I believe this is the direct result of provocative actions of this Government over the last few years, provocative actions which have kept South Africa in the headlines in newspapers throughout the Western World. These are provocative actions such as those which were mentioned by my hon. leader yesterday, namely removals at Unibell and Modderdam, the drastic steps taken on 19 October last year, the bannings, the closing down of newspapers, the detaining of some 45 African men and women who are leaders in their community, the banning of people from the Christian Institute and the banning of a man like Donald Woods.

These are all provocative actions and perhaps the most provocative action of all was the detention and subsequent death in detention of one of the leading young men in the Black community, and I refer of course to the death in detention of Steve Biko. I cannot of course lay the blame for all the other things that I have mentioned at the feet of the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Prisons and of Police. Obviously, all those decisions were taken by the Cabinet and therefore are the joint responsibility of the Cabinet. But when it comes to the Biko case, there I fairly and squarely lay the blame and the responsibility at the feet of the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. Before I go into his extraordinary behaviour over this case, I want to place on record my utter astonishment at the findings at the inquest on the Biko death.

Have you read it all?

Yes, I have read the entire court report from page 1 to the end.

Do you accept the findings as correct?

No, I do not accept those findings. And I do not believe that any reasonable person who has read the court record would accept those findings. Indeed, Sir David Napley, an eminent lawyer who was brought out from England by the Association of Law Societies of South Africa as an independent observer at the Biko inquest, also makes it very clear on page 25 of his report, which I presume the hon. the Minister has read, that he does not accept the findings. He says—

So he is a medical expert as well?

I continue—

I have no doubt about that myself, Sir—

Then he went on to say that if in the first few hours of sustaining the injury, the full and true facts had been given to the doctors and they had been allowed to place Mr. Biko in a provincial hospital, with all the advantages of the excellent and experienced medical services available in South Africa, Mr. Biko might still be alive. I also want to say that I am extremely surprised—and so were many other people—at the fact that the magistrate gave no motivation for his findings and simply, in a matter of minutes, handed down his findings on a matter which had been the subject of a most exhaustive inquiry in his court for two full weeks. But now, whatever the outcome of the inquest and the findings on Steve Biko, one thing is absolutely certain and that is that nobody is under any illusions anymore about the sort of treatment which is meted out to the unfortunate people held in detention and solitary confinement by the Security Police under Section 6 of the dreaded Terrorism Act. [Interjections.]

That is a shocking remark.

What is shocking is the way Steve Biko was treated. [Interjections.] What is shocking is the callous and inhuman treatment that was handed out to a man, helpless, in solitary confinement in the hands of the Security Police. He was kept naked for days on end, he was kept in handcuffs and in leg irons, manacled by one leg to an iron grille in Security headquarters. Later, when tire man was already gravely ill, he was conveyed 750 miles in the back of a van, naked again, and just lying on a mat with a blanket to cover him. I want to know what justification there could be for meting out such treatment to a man even if he was supposedly shamming illness. He shammed so successfully that he was dead in less than 48 hours after he left Port Elizabeth. I want to know what sort of a Minister is in charge of section 6 of the Terrorism Act What sort of condonation comes from the top for all and any kind of conduct of the Security Branch that the colonel in charge of this case had the gall to tell the inquest court when asked specifically to name the statutory authority to keep a man in chains, that his branch of the police do not work under statutes. “Ons werk nie onder statute nie,” he said to the court.

Now, I want to turn to the hon. the Minister himself. I shall have to cut this very short because my time is limited. Let us first come to the famous hunger-strike story about which the hon. the Minister issued an official statement. He was reported by Sapa as saying on 12 September—

He then went on to say—

Then, on 14 September, he made his famous—or should I say notorious—speech to the NP congress in Pretoria in which he made his “hy laat my koud” statement, a statement which, of course, he afterwards translated into something quite different… [Interjections.] … and which, I think, will go down in history much on the basis of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” statement for sheer callousness.

Then, too, he made his tasteless little joke with one of the delegates about it being a democratic right for a man to starve himself. However, on the 16th—two days later—the hon. the Minister changed his entire story because he had then been given some preliminary post mortem findings. I would imagine he had also been given a ticking off by the hon. the Prime Minister for having been so indiscreet at the NP congress two days earlier. The hon. the Minister then denied that he had ever said that Biko had starved himself to death. He said—

Every newspaper in the country, every newspaper abroad, every NP newspaper, constructed the hon. the Minister’s first statement as meaning that Biko had been on a hunger strike and that he had died as a result of that I quote some of the headlines. Die Burger: “Biko dood na eetstaking—wye reaksie.” Beeld: “Biko eet sewe dae nie—sterf.” Beeld: “So is hy dood.” And so on, and so forth. [Interjections.] Every single one of these papers construed that Biko had died as a result of a hunger strike. [Interjections.] However, unlike the Rand Daily Mail, they were not rushed off to the Press Council for publishing misleading headlines. No, not at all.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. He gave a statement to the Sunday Times saying that “heads may roll”, that Security Police heads may roll. He said he was not protecting anybody. Now, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. Why did the police investigation into the Biko death start only about a month after he had died? What steps has the hon. the Minister taken about the police who originally gave him to understand, or to misunderstand, that Biko had died following a hunger strike? Have those heads rolled? I would like to learn that from the hon. the Minister. What has he done about Security Policemen who made a number of inaccurate remarks under oath? What has he done about Security Policemen who clearly, according to the evidence, did not obey their own regulations? The hon. the Minister himself said in an interview with Time magazine: “We have very strict regulations on this sort of thing.” I want to know whether any heads have rolled over the strict regulations which were broken during Biko’s detention. I have no time to detail them all. I mention only one or two. No “occurrence book” was kept, no exercise, no private clothing or buying of food was allowed, yet he was meant to be kept like an awaiting-trial prisoner, apart from the solitary confinement aspect of section 6. Will the hon. the Minister tell us how it is that Security Police can overrule medical instructions about prisoners, and will the hon. the Minister also tell us why the next of kin were not informed when Biko became ill? Was Col. Goosen given the high jump? Were any of the other Security Policemen given the high jump, who think that they are a law unto themselves? And I ask again: How many heads in the Security Branch have rolled as a result of the disgusting revelations at this inquest?

Will the hon. the Minister tell us what has happened to the man called Jones, Peter Jones, who was arrested with Biko on the same day, 18 August? The hon. the Minister said at the NP congress: “The Police were finished with Jones on 5 September.” They finished questioning him four and a half months ago. Where is he? Why has he not been charged, since he is supposed to have confessed? More important, how is he? That is the question to which I should like an answer: How is Mr. Jones?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. He did not answer any of the questions put to him by my hon. leader, so I shall ask him again. Maybe we will get an answer from him on a later occasion. Has he read the report submitted by Sir David Napley, the man invited by the Association of Law Societies of South Africa? That report suggests that the sense of outrage which appears to have been generated by this inquiry could perhaps be assuaged even at this stage if proper and vigorous police inquiries were pursued. Could the hon. the Prime Minister tell us whether any such inquiries are going to be pursued? Then, Sir, I just want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that in 1967 I opposed the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and the Third Reading of the Terrorism Act, more particularly because of section 6. I should remind the dozing member for Durban Point, who is now so against detention without trial, that I was the only member of Parliament to do so.

Tell that to Japie.

Unfortunately, people go along with the decisions of their caucus, but at least some people change their minds ultimately and come to the right side. At the time when I opposed that Act, I pointed out that laws like this lend themselves to the gravest possible abuse and that there were no safeguards against that abuse. There have been repeated allegations of the ill-treatment of detainees under section 6 over the years. There have been repeated requests for independent inquiries, and there have always been bland denials that any ill-treatment has ever taken place.

Finally, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister why the head of the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons has not rolled. I believe that he has made an utter fool of himself and of the Government via every conceivable medium, via the Press, with his statements, via radio and via TV, both local and international. Added to that, I believe he has added to racial tensions in South Africa by making insulting remarks against Blacks, against Greeks, against Jews and against English-speaking South Africans. I must say this for that hon. Minister—he does not discriminate; he makes offensive remarks about every race group. Now, Sir, will the Prime Minister explain to this House why he keeps this insensitive, obviously unsuitable man in the important portfolio of Justice, because I believe that it is in this field that our claim to belong to the civilized nations of the world is judged. I believe that that Minister undermines our standing in this respect. He is a disaster area as far as this is concerned.

Slow down old girl; you are exaggerating now.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has banned the Amnesty International Report on Political Imprisonment in South Africa. It may ban the report, but the facts contained in that report remain. They still exist, whether the Government has banned this booklet in South Africa or not Among the facts contained in this booklet is the very ugly history of South Africa’s abandonment of habeas corpus, of the destruction of the rule of law in South Africa, of South Africa’s joining the bandit nations where people languish in solitary confinement and die in solitary confinement. Among these facts too are the facts that over 700 people were detained without trial as at the end of last year, that prisoners are maltreated, that the numbers of deaths in detention have escalated to roughly one a month, and that some 40 people have died while being detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act.

I want to say finally that unless South Africa reverses the direction of her headlong fall from grace into the morass of authoritarianism, I have no doubt whatsoever—no matter what the hon. the Minister of Defence says about our being a bulwark against communism, about the sea-route around the Cape or about any of those other things—that not one of the great powers will lift a finger to stop South Africa from being sent into total isolation with all the attendant dangers that that total isolation will bring.

Mr. Speaker, it is my unhappy lot on this earth that here in Parliament I must always speak after the hon. member for Houghton or have her speak after me. It is fortunate for me that I have her here in Parliament and not at home. Fortunately I have a completely different type of woman at home.

In the first place I should just like to give my impression of the speech made by the hon. new Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I have always been under the impression that when a new party comes into existence—and it is now being stressed that the PFP is a new party—it is eager to make its policy known far and wide. But yesterday in the House we witnessed the spectacle that when the hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly put questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, amongst others, on his policy, he merely sat there like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland, with a sardonic smile on his face and without saying a word. Instead of telling us what his policy was, he merely sat there grinning all the time. One is surprised to see that in a new leader.

There is a second thing which I should like to say to the new hon. Leader of the Opposition, and that is that I read in the newspaper that he did not wish to participate in petty politics at all, but that he would rather practise serious politics in this House. In his speech he consequently made an appeal to people to discuss major political issues and not to allude to petty political matters. Nevertheless he came here with popular old tittle-tattle about the Jews, the Greeks and goodness knows what But that is one hare which cannot be chased up. Let there be no doubt about me personally. It does not matter to me what the hon. Opposition thinks of me. I am performing a very difficult task to the best of my ability and I strive to do it with humility. There is surely no one in this House who can say that it is a pleasant task! It is definitely not a pleasant task. It is hard work. However, they are quite entitled to criticize me. I do not complain about that. However, I should like to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that my person was dragged into the election. The Sunday Times carried this caption: “The man that this election is all about.” There was also a photograph of me attending the funeral of one of my boys. When I talk about “my boys”, I am referring to policemen, and I take pride in referring to them in that manner. I was attending the funeral of one of my boys when that photograph was taken, and according to the Sunday Times, that was what the election was all about. I quote further—

Sir, here we see the outcome of that election. Just look at them sitting here! I would be the first to concede, quite readily, that it is not thanks to Jimmy Kruger. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister as a person gained this great victory for us. The hon. Opposition was in a great hurry, however, to test me personally, not only on a national level, but also in my constituency. They were entitled to do so. Consequently I welcomed it. I was grateful because, even though the National Party is so strong, the voters could have pronounced judgement against me. They could have said: “The National Party is not going to fall if we censure Mr. Kruger.” They therefore had the opportunity to do so. A Prog candidate as well as an HNP candidate stood against me. As it is an Afrikaans-speaking city, they threw in both sides against me. And what happened?

You won it, Jimmy.

I did not simply win, I took away the others’ deposits. That is what I did.

*I won with a majority of 5 875 votes— Afrikaans- and English-speaking, Jews and Greeks. As against that the Progs got a mere 636 votes. They forfeited their deposit. Let me tell the hon. member why they forfeited their deposit. The reason is that in my constituency I strive to serve my people. I am not like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point. I received a letter from someone who wrote—

I presume under Government policy.

Just a moment. It is now my turn to speak. The hon. member can speak later. She went on to say—

Somebody is having you on.

What is her address?

No, I am not going to give the hon. Leader the address now. He can come and see me privately. I am not going to furnish her address across the floor of this House. He knows quite well that he did not reply to her letter, as, in fact, he does with all the Whites in Sea Point.

Jimmy, do you not think you should talk about your portfolio?

Order!

Not only did the PFP stand against me, but because we are maintaining law and order, the Opposition Press also attacked me personally in a slandering campaign which a member of this House has probably not experienced in a long time. What happened during the past few months? During the past few months I had to complain to the Press Council seven times about reports in various newspapers. Let me add that these were not the only reports I could have complained about. In any case I complained seven times. There is still a case pending to which I shall not refer. In all seven cases a correction had to be made, something had to be withdrawn or an apology had to be made. For example on 7 October 1977 I lodged a complaint against the Rand Daily Mail. They had to withdraw certain things. The report dealt with the so-called “hunger strike”. The Pretoria News stated on 20 September that the Cabinet had reprimanded me. That was an infamous lie and they had to withdraw it. In connection with the Ncube case, The Star published a false report and they had to withdraw it. There was also a complaint against the Sunday Express about an article in connection with Percy Qoboza. On 13 November the allegation in question was withdrawn. There was also a report in The Daily News in connection with the Department of Prisons. This paper also had to withdraw certain statements. A complaint was also lodged against the Rand Daily Mail that they had not published the whole truth in an article under the heading “Why an inquest is not enough”. After that they had to publish a correction under the heading “Inquests and the law”. That appeared on 6 October 1977. A complaint was also lodged about a leading article in The World. On 17 October that newspaper had to publish a correction and make an apology.

Let me refer to something else, too. Let us consider only one of these complaints. I was charged with having harmed South Africa. If I did in fact do so, I express my profoundest regret that any action on my part has in any way harmed this dear fatherland of mine abroad. Let us consider the Ncube article in The Star. The heading was “Two little girls at a bus stop” and there is a touching little caption above: “A pennyweight of love is worth a pound of law.” The report reads—

It is a heart-rending picture which they paint here. The police complained about it, but what was the reaction? The reaction was that letters were written to the Press. One letter read—

Another letter read—

What happened? We asked The Star itself to order an investigation. We ourselves instituted an investigation. Then The Star came forward with the following—

The following then appeared in the newspaper’s leading article—

What The Star forgot to say, however, was that that story had been sent overseas. For the past 30 years already, every negative aspect which could be found in regard to this Government, has been sent abroad. Hon. members need only consider the attacks which are being made on us abroad and it will be observed that articles in the Opposition Press in South Africa are continually being referred to. I really think one should make an appeal to these people not to vilify South Africa like that.

The hon. member for Sea Point has again raised the Buthelezi interview. The Buthelezi interview consists of 70 typed folios. It was a conversation which lasted for two and a half hours and it was a conversation in which I made an honest attempt to prevent this man from continuing along a course which could eventually bring us into conflict with one another. If ever a Minister made an honest attempt to persuade a Black leader to adopt a different point of view, then I did so in that case. We had a lot to say to one another. The transcription of the conversation does not reflect its fast pace. The transcription merely reproduces the cold words. My reference to Greeks, Jews and English, if summarized, only takes up a single page. Let us see what The Star has to say about this. The conversation took place during the morning. That afternoon already, Susan Felgate had typed a transcription of it. How that transcription got lost and ended up in their hands as well, nobody knows. But that was how it was used. One little sentence about the Greeks was removed. It was not the positive aspects of the transcription to which they reacted. The positive aspects were ignored while only certain aspects were singled out to get at me personally. Then for two months absolutely nothing happened. On Wednesday, 23 November, the following report appeared in The Star—

That was when The Star came out with the story that I had allegedly insulted the English-speaking people and the Jews. It was on the same day on which the hon. the Prime Minister made his speech in Pietermaritzburg. They were afraid that the English-speaking people would vote for us on a large scale. So this story came out—

On 22 November, therefore. The same newspaper’s leading article read as follows—

Yet The Star had attacked me on the basis of that transcription on what I was supposed to have said about the Greeks. That had been on 27 September, i.e., two months before this event. How could The Star now state that it had only just obtained the transcription? One would have liked an explanation from the paper, but since that time they have still not breathed a word about it. What was even worse was that Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi alleged that he had never given it to anyone. The newspapers were therefore writing about an unofficial document. I am also an author of that document and am therefore also entitled to be asked for my permission before use is made of that document. The very least the newspapers could have done was to have asked: What did you mean by that and what did you mean by this? The hon. the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday that I had not been the first to speak about the Greeks and the Jews. Mr. Buthelezi referred to them first.

† Right at the outset I would like to say that the Greeks, the Jewish people and generally also the English-speaking people who know me, know that I have the greatest respect for their culture, their language and for them as persons. I challenge anyone in the Opposition to say that they have not found me to be such. I underline 100% what the hon. the Prime Minister said at the 1820 Settlers’ Day celebrations at Grahamstown a few years ago, i.e. that we in South Africa are bound together by a common loyalty to our country.

*What I said to Mr. Buthelezi, should be seen in its context; the conversation should be read as a whole so that it can be seen what I was trying to convey to this man. I was talking to him about Inkatha and trying to bring about peace in South Africa. I referred to the Greeks merely because Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi had referred to them. I might just as well have referred to any other nation. What was the effect of what I said? I said that every alien from abroad entered the country on South Africa’s conditions. An alien must surely subject himself to our laws. I went so far as to say: “Even if we should take the vote away from him”. If he is an alien, he comes here “on sufferance”. When I go to America, then I go there on sufferance. I must study their laws and decide whether I am satisfied with them and willing to obey them. That is what any person in any country in the world ought to do, and my conversation with Mr. Buthelezi in which I was supposed to have insulted the Greeks, was concerned with that topic.

† I am pleased to say, however, that my Greek friends in South Africa immediately rallied around me. They came to me and said: “Jimmy, we do not believe what they say; they can say what they like, but we know you.”

*Their attitude towards me was such that after my wife and I had been invited to the annual ball of the Hellenic community of the Witwatersrand and of Johannesburg on 9 December they did not cancel the invitation. When I offered them the opportunity of cancelling the invitation, they refused and said: “Never. We will never cancel it.” Sir, I have never, at a social function, received an ovation such as I got from my Greek friends. I have a copy of the Buthelezi interview here and I can go further into the references to the Jews and the English, but I should first like to say that the hon. members will find that I did not insult these people there. On that occasion I said of the English exactly what the hon. member for Mooi River has repeatedly said in this House. How many times already has the hon. member for Mooi River not said to me: “I am just as good an Afrikaner as you are”.

That is right.

Of course. There the hon. member is saying it again. If I say it, it is claimed that I am insulting them. The type of hares which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to chase up, will not run.

I come now to the Biko case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged that I said that Biko was on a hunger strike. I did say so. I heard of Mr. Biko’s death on the morning of the twelfth. I immediately summoned the police. I obtain my information from the Commissioner of Police. I am not a policeman; I am the Minister. I therefore called in the police and wanted the available facts from them, because I knew that in this case I would have to make a Press statement. I wrote down the facts in my own handwriting. I sat behind my desk and the Commissioner of Police and two high-ranking officers sat in front of me. I am not going to mention the officers’ names; that is unnecessary. I decided merely to write down the facts.

According to the facts supplied to me Biko had abstained from meals on 5 September 1977 and had threatened a hunger strike. He had regularly been provided with meals and water but had refused to eat. In that statement which I issued to the Press on the same day, I said the following—

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness. A post-mortem examination was to have been carried out by the Chief Government Pathologist. What is the purpose of a post-mortem examination? It is to establish the cause of a deceased person’s death. I could therefore not have said at that stage that he had died as a result of a hunger strike, because in the same breath I had said that the Chief Government Pathologist would carry out a post-mortem examination. The Press could therefore not have drawn that conclusion. That is often my complaint against the Press. They simply run away with something and do not think what they say. They ascribe something to me which they have sucked out of their thumb. Must I be blamed for that?

I asked the police why I had not been informed of the matter sooner. I received a report in this connection—

A few paragraphs further in the report it was stated that—

That was what they felt—correctly or incorrectly. It is an internal matter between me and my department. But I accept their bona fides. They felt that there was no need for the Minister to be informed at that stage. Thereafter, of course they informed me.

Let us look at the question of whether they were justified in thinking that the deceased did not want to eat. I have the original reports here. I do not want to re-open the entire Biko investigation. I am trying to indicate to the House what information was available to us at that stage. When I wrote this report, I did not even have these reports. They were only given to me later. What do these reports say? Firstly the report by the doctor. Dr. Lang’s report reads—

He then examined Biko personally and reported as follows—

Dr. Lang referred the investigation to Dr. Tucker and he reported as follows—

In a part of his report, Dr. Lang says—

I am now being blamed for having said that the deceased had been on a hunger strike. A further report reads—

The findings of the physical examination were—

Here was therefore a complete medical report which gave the police the impression that the deceased was a healthy man. Indeed, a certificate to that effect had been given to Col. Goosen. The police were under the impression … [Interjections.] In the few moments still at my disposal I want to say something, in all fairness to Col. Goosen. I have to do it. The hon. Opposition persists in accusing him of having said that he works outside the statutes. How did the cross-examination go? I quote—

Q. I want to ask you what right you had to keep a man in chains for 48 hours or more?

Thereupon the advocate made a statement; it was not a question—

Whereupon the colonel said—

That is what he said. He said that he was not elevated above the statute.

Let us, just for a moment, accept for the sake of argument that the possibility—and I would not like to put it beyond a mere possibility—exists that the police were bona fide under the impression that Mr. Biko was not really as ill as he was pretending to be; in other words, that there was measure of bluff. If the doctor had indicated to the police that day that they might have a very sick man on their hands, then I cannot believe that the S.A. Police would still have treated the man the way they did treat him. I cannot believe it and it did not appear so from the hearing. If, however, on the grounds of the certificate they really thought that he was a healthy man who did not want to eat and that there was something wrong, then I can understand it … I am not condoning their actions. I am trying to explain it. I have already referred the record of the inquest to the Attorney-General so that he can decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any policeman. I have said before— and I say it again—that my policemen must not expect me to defend them when they contravene the laws. There is not a policeman in the Force who will say that I as the Minister will cover up the case if it should not be covered up. The report is with the Attorney-General, and he will decide whether or not there is someone who must be charged.

† I am on record as saying I will not protect them if they do anything illegal. I am also busy looking at the whole position to see whether we can do anything extra to protect the prisoners.

*But there are many problems. I have considered the possibility of sending a district surgeon every two weeks to examine detainees, but as you will realize, the district surgeons themselves are also under suspicion now. I also do not know whether the Department of Health has so many doctors available to do this work for me. I am considering allowing judges to go and visit the people, but that will mean that if the judge has seen the prisoner and has spoken to him for a lengthy period he will then have to recuse himself from the case later on. Who will then try these cases? I am however attending to the matter and that is all that I can say to the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one subject on which the hon. member for Houghton has waxed very eloquent in the past, it is the rule of law. During years past we have had to listen to many speeches by her about the rule of law. Many times we have been told that the Government does not uphold the principles of the rule of law. Many times she has hurled serious recriminations at the Government in that regard. But what does the rule of law mean in practice? In practice, the rule of law means that when there is a situation about which a judgement has to be made, it will be done by a judicial process; in other words, the courts will not be excluded in such a case.

Today we have to consider the case of Mr. Steve Biko, the death of Mr. Steve Biko. In terms of the Act and as is fitting, an inquest was held. The senior magistrate of Pretoria presided at that inquest. Together with him on the Bench were two assessors, well-known pathologists whose integrity in South Africa is above suspicion. Lawyers representing the Biko family appeared before that magistrate and they had the opportunity to ask questions relating to the evidence that had been submitted. In the words of Sir David Napley, amongst others, who was quoted by the hon. member for Houghton, the following was said—

What do we have here today, however? We now have the hon. member acting in a way which, in my opinion, is tantamount to contempt of court. The hon. member says she rejects the ruling. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, whether he rejects the ruling of the court. [Interjections.] I cannot hear what he is saying.

He is deaf and dumb.

I cannot hear.

I shall reply.

We know the hon. member for Houghton is irresponsible. We know she says certain things which are an embarrassment to the hon. Leader. But put the record straight. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reject or accept the ruling of the court? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he owes this House and South Africa an explanation on this point. He is not the only lawyer we have on that side of the House, however. Could the hon. member for Yeoville tell us whether or not he accepts the ruling of the court in this regard? I should like to give the hon. member for Yeoville an opportunity to explain to South Africa what the opinion of his side of the House is. Is he prepared, in terms of the principles of the rule of law, to accept the ruling of the court in this matter, yes or no? [Interjections.] The hon. member is apparently dumb-struck. The hon. member for Houghton also criticized the magistrate because he did not give any reasons for his ruling in this regard. If we look at the Inquests Act, Act No. 58 of 1959, section 16(2), in terms of which the magistrate was obliged to act, we see that the clause reads as follows—

1. (a) as to the identity of the deceased person;
2. (b) as to the cause or likely cause of death;
3. (c) as to the date of the death;
4. (d) as to whether the death was brought about by any act or omission involving or amounting to an offence on the part of any person.

In other words, not only …

In your legal experience, how many times has it happened that findings of an inquest have been found by a subsequent court to be incorrect? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member’s question is really naïve. The rulings of any court you care to mention, even those of the Supreme Court of South Africa, have been found incorrect by the Appeal Court. However, what we are dealing with here is a final ruling in terms of the rule of law in South Africa, a final ruling which we are obliged to accept if we abide by the principles of the rule of law. Now that I have answered the hon. member for Yeoville’s question, I should like to repeat the question I asked him a few moments ago. Does he accept the magistrate’s ruling as correct?

In a subsequent court… [Interjections.]

You can make your own speech later!

Mr. Speaker, there are certain facts relating to the Biko case which we must take cognizance of. The esteemed Sir David Napley expressed his judgment regarding the evidence and rejected the magistrate’s ruling just as the hon. member for Houghton did. This man, whom the hon. member for Houghton is now quoting in support of her standpoint, said, inter alia, the following in his report—

Mr. Speaker, I should not have thought that this was the correct way for a jurist to keep abreast of what happens in a court. Let us rather consider certain indisputable facts relating to the Biko case. First of all, there was absolute frankness on the part of the Government from the moment the late Mr. Biko died. The hon. the Minister of Justice immediately announced that an inquest would be held. He also announced that pathologists would examine the late Mr. Steve Biko’s corpse and he made it known that an invitation was being extended to pathologists and physicians engaged by relatives of Mr. Biko to attend the inquest in order to be sure about the findings that were reached. In other words, after Mr. Biko died, everything was thrown open. Nothing was kept secret. Absolutely nothing was kept back.

Have you read the court record?

Yes, I have. I have read it and I shall refer to it presently. Mr. Biko’s relatives were privileged in having some of the foremost lawyers in the country to put their case. When the inquest began the State put all the available evidence at the disposal of the court and all the evidence was subjected to the cross-examination of those lawyers. Everyone who had had dealings with the late Mr. Biko at any stage was placed at the court’s disposal and could be cross-examined. First of all there were all the policemen of Walmer police station. Every one of them who was involved in the matter was available for cross-examination by the lawyers. In addition, all the security people and all the doctors involved, were placed at the disposal of the lawyers for cross-examination. All the officials of the prison at Sydenham, as well as all the officials of the prison in Pretoria, were made available for cross-examination.

What happened? It is true that in the final analysis the Biko case harmed South Africa. However, when we say that the Biko case harmed South Africa, we must make a clear distinction between two things—between fact and fiction. Today this House must consider what has done South Africa more harm—the facts or the fiction pertaining to the Biko case. There are certain indisputable facts about which South Africa has been criticized. That is true. The hon. the Minister has referred to them, too, and said that the Government was taking another look at those matters. Certain things have happened from which the Government, too, has learnt something. The harm which the Biko case has done South Africa is, however, more a result of fiction than of fact. Let us look at what happened during the court case itself. Allow me to state clearly and unambiguously that I have no desire whatsoever to argue the merits of the ruling in this House. What happened? The entire action of the Biko family was intended to demolish the real facts which existed and which had been placed before the court, and to say that there were no facts. The aim, therefore, was to create a vacuum and then to put forward a fiction to fill that vacuum. At every stage there was clear evidence as to what had happened to Mr. Biko. Everyone who had had anything to do with Mr. Biko was involved in the case. The evidence was clear and was accepted by the court. The witnesses verified and corroborated each other on every fundamental point and at the end of the case those facts were very clear so that the court was able to find—

In the few minutes at my disposal—I have limited time and not the full half hour—I want to look at the actions of Col. Goosen, because it is true that the main thrust of the attack that was launched on the police was directed at Col. Goosen. It is easy to look back today from an armchair and say that the colonel should have done this or that I want to associate myself with the facts which the hon. the Minister has given this House, known facts which came to light before the court. The colonel’s actions from day to day, actions for which he has been severely criticized, were clearly understandable at that time with the knowledge at his disposal. He was criticized and asked why the late Mr. Biko was still kept shackled after he had failed to speak or after he had refused food for the first time. The reply was that he thought the late Mr. Biko was shamming. Why did he think the late Mr. Biko was shamming? Because the doctors told him so; not only one doctor, but another one as well on the second day. On the third day there was a third doctor, a certain Dr. Horwitz, who told the court that at that stage he had found indications of possible brain damage. According to the evidence furnished by the police themselves and by Col. Bothnia of the prison, the impression was created that the late Mr. Biko really did not have anything wrong with him and that he was not seriously injured. Reading the record, it becomes clear that the man who was worried most, who displayed the most compassion and sympathy by repeatedly referring the late Mr. Biko back to a physician, was Col. Goosen. It was he who wanted to know from the physicians whether there was anything wrong with the late Mr. Biko. The physicians said, however, that there was nothing wrong with him.

If we look at the Biko case in its entirety, we have to come to the regrettable conclusion today that it was the fiction built around the case, more than anything else, which did South Africa a lot of harm.

Are you satisfied with the facts?

The hon. the Minister has already replied to that question. When all is said and done, one expects that when something like this has happened, everyone in South Africa and everyone who loves South Africa will try to repair the damage which has been done. The hon. member for Houghton and the PFP ought to help repair the damage which has been done. What happens, however? Not only will the official Opposition do nothing to repair the damage, but what is more, some matters are still being questioned, including South Africa’s legal system. This can only harm South Africa The patriotism of the hon. members of the Opposition could have been shown in a clear, unambiguous manner.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister complained at the beginning of his speech that the particular cross which he has to bear in this House, is the hon. member for Houghton. I must say that even the strongest man in this House may well blanch and turn pale at the thought I think it will be agreed that my lot is even worse, because this is now the third year that I have had to follow on the Jimmy and Helen show. Every year it seems to get more bitter. It seems to get worse and more personal.

I think that what one can say about the attitude of the hon. the Minister in this case is that he did his bounden duty when he became aware of the facts, that he ordered an investigation and did the sort of things which, as Minister, he ought to have done. I do not think he has failed in his duty as Minister to get the machinery going which would allow a proper investigation to take place. It would have been unforgivable if he had not done his duty, but what is, in my estimation, unforgivable, is the careless manner in which he reacted, the thoughtless manner in which he reacted and the casual remarks he made at a National Party congress, remarks which have resulted in the sort of adverse publicity the hon. member for Pretoria Central was talking about. I think the hon. the Minister would give a great deal to be able to get that moment back again and not to have made that remark at all. In this House and in this country we have had previous experience of the remarks made by Nationalist Cabinet Ministers at congresses. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation carries a cross today because of action taken by Nationalist Party Cabinet Ministers at congresses, where the temptation to be “krag-dadig” and to stand up and play the big heavy was too much for the members of the Cabinet. I think that we should learn something from what has happened. The hon. the Minister’s remark was absolutely unforgivable.

You were not there.

I believe that if there is a case to be made out for the hon. the Minister to resign, it is on the basis of the remarks he made, not on the basis of the action he took. I do, however, want to give some advice to the hon. member for Houghton and the English Press. If they really want to get rid of the hon. the Minister, they are going about it the wrong way. I say this because it is a characteristic of the hon. the Prime Minister that when one of his men is under attack, he will clutch him to his bosom forever. The hon. the Minister of Justice merely has to go on making the kind of remarks that he does to stay in the Cabinet forever. If one wants to get rid of him, one should get off his back. Leave him alone, or praise him if need be. The minute the heat is off him, he will drop like a stone into the pond.

Get ready for the kiss of death.

We have been told that he has taken great exception to the remark that he should be sent to Greece or to Israel. I think, however, that an appropriate place for the hon. the Minister might be Iceland, because that would really leave him cold. I think that would be a very appropriate place for the hon. the Minister.

What we have had in this House has been the usual debate going on between these hon. members, but I want to introduce a slightly more elevated note—as the hon. member for Durban Point did in the debate yesterday—in order to enhance the tone of what appears to be developing into a vulgar brawl here. We have tried to introduce into this debate a new thought, a new concept, a new idea in politics. It is the idea of pluralism which finds both the Government side and the Progressive Party completely off-sides and makes them totally irrelevant in the whole political set-up in South Africa. They are two sides of one coin. The old apartheid and integration ideas are two sides of one coin which is no longer of any currency in South Africa. The growing realization of what is happening in our country makes the rigid apartheid theory of the Nationalist Party of no moment in South Africa any longer, and the integration theory of 1959, which led to the birth of the Progressive Party, is equally of no moment in this country at all because we are becoming part of the growing political debate throughout the world, the new political debate which has resulted from the realization of the breakup of the nation-state concept This is happening to us. We sit in this Parliament as a result of the thinking of Europe with its nation-state, the Westminster Parliament the two-party system and so on, which every single thinking political scientist and commentator realizes is out of date and no longer meets the needs of 1978, the modern world in which we live.

Pluralism is one of the greatest problems facing the United Nations and everyone else in the world today. Look at all the countries in Africa which have been given their freedom and their independence on the basis of the nation state on the European model. All of them are plagued with problems of pluralism which this system is simply not designed to cope with and, in fact, it cannot cope with them. Our problem in South Africa today is precisely that. How do we cope with a plural situation, given the structure of power we have here now in this Parliament? What we must do is realize what the nature of our problem is. What is the essence of pluralism? There are groups of people who are self-consciously distinct. The Indian community in the province of Natal are a classical example. They have been in Natal for 100 years and they are today as distinct in their own minds from the Zulu community as they were on the day on which they landed on the shores of Natal. They are distinct in their own minds. What we must try to do is to take cognizance of the determination in their own minds to maintain their distinction. We shall debate this with the hon. members on the other side, because they believe they have a solution. That is the whole purpose of my speech in this debate, viz. to challenge the members on the other side to justify the solution they have put forward. Let us debate it. Let us see who is right. There are many countries in the world faced with this problem. One need mention only the Lebanon, Cyprus, Nigeria and Canada. One of the most potent factors present in Canada is the determination of the French Canadian to maintain his separate existence. Over 300 years of history have gone by and today one sees emerging stronger than ever that same self-assertion of the French Canadians to maintain their own separate existence. One has also the example of the Afrikaner people here in South Africa. After decades under the British Empire, one sees the strength that movement has attained here in our own country. It stems from a determination on the part of the mass of people to maintain their own separate identity.

Mixing takes place at álite levels. The mass are determined to maintain their separate existence, but mixing takes place at elite levels. We must try to find a system which will accommodate this particular characteristic of people. For that reason one of the attitudes we have adopted is that a local option is something that is of the utmost importance because that allows mixing at elite levels by people who wish to mix on those levels. The local community should be allowed to take part in that kind of activity at their own wish.

I have spoken of the mass who are determined to maintain their own identity. The other point we make is that of the federal/confederal link. That link is absolutely essential to maintain contact between the different groups of people. Without some focus, some nucleus around which the nuclear elements of the South African molecule can move, each in its predetermined pattern as they do in the natural world, without some nucleus around which those can move, a nucleus which binds them together and which provides them with that force of attraction that holds them in their separate stations, there is no way in which this society can continue to exist. We have advanced the theory that there should be this federal/confederal link. The hon. the Minister of Defence today denied that this is necessary. He said that in terms of NP policy there is no such thing as a federation and that they had no intention whatever of linking together the groups of people in this country on that basis. I believe it is important that we should realize that this party has a theory that there should be an inner ring and an outer ring …

And a bull’s eye.

Mr. Speaker, there is a part of the bull that that hon. member resembles much more than a bull’s eye. [Interjections.] There are now so many hon. members on the other side who are all of a sudden aspirant Prime Ministers.

*The hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday that he does not know how long he will remain in this House. The Nationalists in my constituency were speculating openly as to how long he will remain here. They told me that the election had been brought forward because the Prime Minister wishes to retire. He is now giving the new man an opportunity to build himself up for the next election.

Continue with your speech.

I should like to put a question to any hon. member on the other side who would like to be Prime Minister. Hon. members will know that there are quite a few. Before the election I held more than 20 meetings in my constituency, Mooi River. Hon. members can imagine what it is like to hold 20 meetings opposing a member of the PFP. During each meeting an English-speaking person stood up …

Were there Nationalists too?

No Afrikaner would have put such a question. However, an English-speaking person stood up and asked: “Is Pik Botha …” I must apologize for the English pronunciation of the surname “Botha”, but in Natal they still speak that way. He asked: “Is Pik Botha going to be the next Prime Minister?” [Interjections.] While I was standing there, I thought of the whole row of Mullers, Bothas and all the other people sitting in the front benches here. I also thought of the hon. member for Westdene, and then I ploughed with another man’s heifers for the first time in my life. I used someone else’s words, the words of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I had to reply to the question: “Is Pik Botha going to be the next Prime Minister?” and I quoted Hendrik Schoeman’s word: “He hasn’t a snowball’s chance.” I should now like to put a question to any hon. member who wishes to be the next Prime Minister. We have come up against the question of pluralism.

† What do the hon. members on the other side believe about the Black people in Soweto? There are a million and a half people there today. Are they there permanently or are they there temporarily? I do not want the answer that I get from the hon. the Minister of Forestry, who says that they are “tydelik—permanent”. I want to know what the attitude of that party is, as to whether these people are there permanently or whether they are there temporarily. Pluralism applies to a population not only on the basis of colour, but also on the basis of the self-conscious identification of people within the group. One gets pluralism in a country such as Great Britain, where today it is openly discussed. I refer to the pluralism of the working class and the other class. A great deal of very serious literature is being written on this subject. What is the attitude of the NP towards the Black man in South Africa? Is there emerging a plural reality between the Black man in Soweto and the other urban areas of White South Africa and the Black man in the homelands? The answer to that question will determine whether the plural democracies that we hear so much about from the hon. the Minister of Information—and I am sorry that he is not here because he adjures people so faithfully to sell plural democracies overseas—is a real concept of whether it is simply apartheid in another dress, a Red Riding Hood with a hood. I want to know the answer to that in order to see whether there is a realization in the NP of what is happening in South Africa. Is the NP policy real? The old UP has brought the NP to the point where they are prepared to have Parliaments for Whites, for Coloureds and for Indians. I wish my friend, the Minister of Community Development, all the success in the world, because he has achieved something on that side of the House for which he argued for so many years on this side of the House. He has at last got them to the point where they are beginning to see a faint glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. It is not only I who say this. Prof. Nic Rhoodie made a speech the other day at the Institute of Race Relations in which he said that the new dispensation of the Government bears a startling resemblance to the old race federation policy of the UP. One of the hon. members on that side of the House said, when we met during the recess and discussed the new plans being put forward: “Nee, dit is ’n oulike plan, maar ek moet erken dit lyk baie na ’n rassefederasie.” That is the truth of the matter, because the Government have adopted the classic proposals of the old UP.

The problem with the Minister of Community Development is that he is about two or three years out of date. He is not in tune with the latest thinking of the party, i.e. with those of us who are now the heirs of the thinking of the UP. If we can help him, get him forward and moving again and at least get the NP to try and see some kind of reality, we will have achieved—as the hon. member for Durban Point said yesterday—the most this little party can hope to achieve in this situation. At least we will have proposed something which the NP might be able to accept which will help to solve the problems we have here in South Africa. I would like to know from the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke: If the hon. members on that side of the House do not have a plan and if they do not have an answer, are they not on a “dwaalspoor”? Can he foresee the problems that wait for South Africa if they can produce nothing better than the plan they have produced at this moment? The plan as it is at this moment is not adequate. It does not acknowledge the realities of what we are doing and it does not, in any way, answer the need of South Africa today. When one looks at the majority of the NP, one cannot help thinking of the old days, the days when there were enormous monsters and dinosaurs wallowing in the swamps. The NP reminds me of the dinosaur which had a brain at the front end with which to recognize its friends and a brain down the tail-end so that it could wag its tail. We must imagine that the NP, huge as it is, has a brain at the head somewhere …

There is no brain at the back.

Yes, there is no brain at the back. This is what they have been reduced to. The NP lives in the past and has not yet caught up with the plural realities of what is happening here in South Africa today.

Why did you not tell that to the electorate?

Supposing we had taken the Ford motor company and we had given them the mind of South Africa, assuming that that mind was absolutely unaware, unschooled, unlettered, and we had told the Ford motor company to go out for three months and try to sell Ford with the aid of the television service. If another model had appeared on the screen, except ones being towed backwards up the freeway by a breakdown truck or with a horse in front plodding along, how many motorcars would the Ford motor company have sold at the end of three months? That is what we had from the Government, from the television service and from the Prime Minister posturing about: “Let the four corners of the world come in arms and we will shock them”. The Minister of Foreign Affairs simply sat there staring into the distance …

The glamour boy.

Yes, the glamour boy. The girls said: “How sexy he is.” One of the candidates of the party here next to us was asked at a meeting what Pik Botha was staring at and he answered that Pik Botha was staring to see what it looks like in Paraguay, because when the shots go off at the border, the Cabinet are off to Paraguay. It puzzled me that he should have said that when there are already a thousand members of his party leaving the country every month. That is something else for which we did not get an explanation.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and other hon. members a question concerning sovereignty. Where is the sovereignty of this Parliament going to go? I ask this because the NP is going to give away the power of the White man. They are going to give away the power which is resident in this Parliament. They will give it to the Coloured community in the form of a sovereign parliament. They will give it to the Indian community which will get another sovereign parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister has said they will give Soweto more than the Coloured and the Indian communities. What will they give? I want to know where the sovereignty lies in that situation. Where is the guarantee for the security of the White man?

The NP.

The NP has got no answer. They do not know the answer. They want to consult further to try and find the answers. I think they should be given a chance to consult with this Parliament. It is our intention to move a private member’s motion later in the session which will call for a Select Committee of the House to investigate constitutional change. We are going to hand over power to all sorts of people and are consulting with all sorts of people. Why is this Parliament itself, which is going to be involved in that takeover, not consulted? Why are we not given a chance to put the case as we see it? Why are we not given the chance to put the case for pluralism where it matters, in a Select Committee of the House? We shall argue that case on a later occasion.

However, I want to ask the members where the security of the White man is in such a situation? There are going to be four sovereign bodies. When one comes to the inner ring, i.e. this Parliament of the Whites, one finds that its sphere of competence is going to shrink. There will be a Coloured parliament, the sphere of competence of which is going to increase, as well as an Indian parliament still to be created, which will also be sovereign. There will also be a body for the Black people which will have more power than the Coloured parliament. Surely, if there are sovereign bodies which are prepared to delegate certain powers to a federal council, where is the danger to the White, Coloured and Indian communities, in a situation such as that? If one creates a federal council where people may meet who have delegated powers and who cannot act outside those powers, then you have created the sort of situation in which the White man and other minority groups can be safe. I think one must understand that the real key to the security of the White man lies in taxation. If a body like a White, Coloured or Indian parliament can pay for its own services by money raised from its own members, it cannot be dominated by anybody. There is then no body in the country which can dominate or affect it, or in any way force it to come to conclusions which it does not wish to reach. This is something of which we have to take very serious cognizance. I hope the matter will be raised again at a later occasion. The control of taxation in the hands of the sovereign Parliament which controls the affairs of the White man is the only guarantee for the security of the White group, as it will be in the care of the Coloured group, the Indian group and the Black group, which ure part of the emerging inner ring. It is the only way one can guarantee one’s security.

Let me ask a question which was put to me at a meeting at Melmoth: If one has communities, as the NP propose and as we propose, and they are sovereign, where is the nation in South Africa? To whom are people loyal? If the Black people of Soweto are to fight on our borders, to whom are they loyal? To Soweto, or to whom? I think the hon. members on the other side should answer this question. To whom is the Black loyalty in South Africa to be directed if they are themselves now pushing them away from the inner ring which this party of ours proposes? I think they should recognize, as Prof. Rhoodie recognized throughout the whole of the speech he made at the Institute of Race Relations, that there should be a federal and confederal link with the independent homeland areas, an arms-linked relationship, and an inner link between peoples whose interests have grown in far closer community than those of the homelands.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member said it makes people “in between”. There is no such thing as an “in between”.

Your party is in between.

We are very far ahead of that hon. member. He is still battling, and I can see the frown on his face as he is trying to understand what is going on. One of these days he will see the light. The problem, however, is that there has to be a recognition that there has to be a link between all the groups. The Black man may not be pushed out into the nether darkness. He cannot be thrust aside. Somehow he has to be contained in a concept which will lead to loyalty to make him willing to fight for this Southern Africa which has to be protected at all costs.

I believe we only have to look at what has happened in Lebanon. There is a community there which has been together for a couple of thousand years. There are religious communities there who have lived together in peace for more than 1 000 years and which are determined to maintain their own distinction and entity. Under the stress of Palestinian guerrillas coming into their country they are unable to maintain a common loyalty. That is the danger facing South Africa under the policy of this Government, because they do not provide links through which loyalty can be directed. The entire system of government and co-operation in Lebanon flew to bits because there was nothing strong enough to hold those people together. In the civil war in Lebanon more people were killed than in all the wars fought between the Arabs and the Israelis over the last few years. That is the problem we face. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. members on that side of the House what answers they can provide. They have some self-annointed political philosophers. They allege that they can tell us the answers and they can put forward proposals, but they will never get past the fact that pluralism is the new concept in politics. Out of the 149 countries represented at the United Nations only 12 are not in a plural situation. This is the new debate going on throughout the world. How do we find a solution? I have already acknowledged that the hon. members opposite have started on this road. They have included certain people already.

We have already accepted that more than 30 years ago. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister obviously has not been here so I shall repeat it for his sake. The Black community is undergoing a development of pluralism which is similar to that being undergone in Great Britain today. It is openly discussed in Britain that the working class is a different entity of a plural society than the other classes in Great Britain. It is happening among the Black people here in our own country as well. The people who live in the urban areas have “opted White”—if I may use the phrase. They have bent their minds in the direction of what is contained in the White society—to use an overall phrase— which is all around them. There are people in the homelands who do not have the option and have not been able to do so. Unless the NP recognized that aspect of pluralism, they are not in tune with the modern development of politics in this country, and will not be able to offer an answer. They may play about with cosmetics like the three Parliaments we are still going to hear about and debate, but they will not provide the answer this country needs today, in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that we who have been in this House before have listened to the hon. member for Mooi River. I found it interesting to hear him make the silly remark during the course of his speech that the NP was a dinosaur without brains which has apparently lost track of the reality in South Africa and in the world. If I look at the new United Party men, the Natal Republic Party, I wonder which people in this House have really lost track of reality in South Africa. I think the NP did lose track of reality in one respect in that the NP of Natal did not nominate a candidate in Mooi River, for then the NP would have had an extra MP in this House.

Before I return to another argument advanced by the hon. member for Mooi River, with regard to the query which he places against the sovereignty of this Parliament, I should like to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Houghton and to a certain reference she made. She referred to this booklet, Political Imprisonment in South Africa, and during the course of her speech she said that we in this country may decide to ban this book, but that we can never undo the facts stated in this thing. The hon. member for Houghton specifically gave her blessing to all the allegations in this book which are being disseminated overseas against her fatherland. She refers to the allegations in this book as facts.

So they are.

She says: “So they are.” What are some of the facts that we find in this book? I cannot deal with the entire contents. One of the facts stated in this book is—

Is that one of the facts the hon. member for Houghton supports and says we cannot deny? This brochure goes on to allege that virtually all the practising advocates, etc. in this country are White. The booklet does, however, state that there are exceptions and that some of our advocates are willing to act on behalf of people who have committed political offences. It refers to this particular little group of lawyers and advocates who are prepared to act on behalf of these people. It says—

“Imprisoned for life” because he acted on behalf of political prisoners? Is that not the impression given by this book? Is that a fact which the hon. member for Houghton agrees with as she said in this House today to the rest of the world? That is not the only fact stated in this book. On page 99 a gruesome tale is told, and I briefly want to read it out to hon. members. It is a tale of what allegedly took place at the Orlando police station during the Soweto riots. It reads—

Is that one of the facts which the hon. member for Houghton confirms to the world at large as having taken place in her country? But what do these people themselves say to lend a semblance of objectivity to this publication? It is, of course, very neatly done and I should like to read it to you. On page 66 they say—

Amnesty International says that they cannot vouch for the accuracy of these gruesome tales which they describe here, but that it would nevertheless appear that they are true. The hon. member for Houghton says to the world at large from this House this afternoon that it is indeed true.

There are facts there that are absolutely correct. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this new Opposition that South Africa has now acquired—and the hon. the Prime Minister has already referred to it—possibly has an external wing. I referred to them two years ago as the internal wing of the party. Today, alas, South Africa has to deal with an official Opposition which in its hatred for the NP and in its hatred for the Government does not care how it damages the interests of its own country. [Interjections.]

Is that a fact?

That is a fact. [Interjections.] I want to say to the PFP, however, that the electorate of South Africa have weighed them. They had the opportunity to put their case to the electorate.

You were not in Sandton!

And you were not in Barberton. They had the opportunity to put their case to the electorate of South Africa. It was not because it is the NP, but because it is the party which has the interests of all the population groups of South Africa at heart, and because it is the party which has a policy for the future of South Africa, that the voters of South Africa returned the NP to Parliament with such an overwhelming majority. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mooi River put a few disjointed questions and tried to crack a few jokes, but tire proposals the NP made to the people of South Africa during the election with regard to the new proposed constitutional dispensation for the Coloureds and the Indians in this country, were put unequivocally to the voters of South Africa. That is in contrast to the proposals of the PFP and of the other parties. The voters of South Africa had the opportunity of giving their verdict on this. And they did give their verdict. This afternoon I could not help but detect a trace of an attempt on the part of the hon. member for Mooi River to intimidate the Whites of South Africa.

Come now.

Did not the hon. member for Mooi River try this afternoon … [Interjections.] Did the hon. member for Mooi River not say during his speech that the Government was giving away the rights of the Whites?

I was referring to the power of Parliament.

He wanted to know what would become of the sovereignty of this Parliament. That is a valid question. This is the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. This Parliament was the sovereign Parliament of the entire territory of South Africa. In its sovereignty, however, this Parliament ceded its sovereignty over the independent Transkei. That is why this Parliament is no longer the sovereign Parliament of Transkei. That is true. In their wisdom this Parliament and the Government ceded their sovereignty over the territory of Bophuthatswana and are therefore no longer the sovereign authority over the territory of Bophuthatswana. Indeed this Parliament no longer has any authority whatsoever over the territory of Bophuthatswana. With regard to the Coloureds and the Asians, it is true that whereas this Parliament is the sovereign Parliament of all the population groups, it will be the aim to entrench sovereignty over themselves for the Coloureds and the Asiatics in their own Parliament. In the new dispensation this Parliament will still remain the sovereign Parliament of the Whites of South Africa.

Which body will be sovereign over matters of common interest?

The hon. member will be given the opportunity to speak. This Parliament will be the sovereign Parliament which will have the final say on the fortunes of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] An hon. member asked me what the position is with regard to the Blacks. The hon. member for Bryanston said …

Are you going to answer my question?

I am going to reply now as far as the Black man is concerned. The hon. member for Bryanston said the White man had everything to lose and the Black man everything to gain. He has told the Black man in advance that according to his party’s proposed consultation the Black man has everything to gain, while the White man has nothing to gain. I want to say to the hon. member and his party that as far as the Black man is concerned, this party’s policy is final: The Black man will exercise his sovereign political rights in South Africa in the Black homelands.

Does that apply to the urban Blacks as well?

Yes, that applies to all Blacks. The Government’s policy is final that the Blacks will exercise sovereign political rights exclusively in their homelands.

Do the Blacks accept that?

It would not be true if I said that all Blacks accept that.

Do the majority accept that?

Yes.

This party and the Government govern in White South Africa and as long as this party governs, it will decide who governs White South Africa. The Black man to whom we give and grant political rights in his own country, has the choice of offering his labour in White South Africa, according to our conditions, law and system or of returning to his homeland. That is the resolute course the Government is adopting. I also want to say to the official Opposition, as well as the hon. gentleman who asked me the question …

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

Mr. Speaker, my time has nearly expired.

I want to say to the PFP that at this election the voters of South Africa pronounced their verdict on this specific aspect of the NP policy for the umpteenth time. To the hon. members who are so fond of conferring with some Black leaders, to the hon. members who were rejected by the White voters of South Africa, I want to ask the question which I put to them the year before last, but to which they did not reply: Do they tell those Black leaders who, according to them, are not satisfied with the policy and the standpoint of the NP, that the PFP is prepared to make common cause with them against the standpoint of the majority of the Whites in South Africa? I put the same question the year before last, but I did not receive a reply. They know that the White voters of South Africa will never vote them into power.

You do not want to listen.

Therefore they know that there is no possibility of defeating the Government of the day in this Parliament.

But we are the official Opposition!

For ever the official Opposition! They know they have no method of getting rid of this Government. Therefore it would seem that extra-parliamentary methods will be used in order to get rid of this National Party Government [Interjections.] I have to conclude now because my time has expired. We shall have to endure fierce attacks from the official Opposition in future. The official Opposition which accuses us of representing a small minority of the population of South Africa, represents barely a fraction of that small minority.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Barberton has made a number of proposals and has asked a number of questions. Let me say immediately, in answer to his one question, which he says he has not received an answer to, that this party, as a party or as individuals, has never sought to meet with any leaders, Black, White or Brown, in an attempt to work against this Government in an unparliamentary way. That is the first reply, and I hope that hon. member will not ask that question again because we say this quite emphatically.

Secondly, the hon. member was very distressed about certain so-called facts from the book of Amnesty International. I have not read that book and know nothing about it, so I am certainly not going to defend it. All I can say is that if we are going to talk about facts—and the hon. member for Pretoria Central sought to distinguish between fact and fiction concerning Steve Biko—we must ascertain what the facts are. The facts are very few and very clear. Steve Biko is dead and that is a fact, not a fiction. He is dead from brain injuries. Thirdly, he is dead from brain injuries received whilst under the supervision of the security police. Fourthly, the fact is that the injuries were received whilst he was being detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The fifth and final fact, to which I want to refer, is that he is, together with many others, dead in detention. Those are the facts, and no matter how much covering up is done, nothing can stand against those facts. [Interjections.]

I now want to go on to talk about certain other aspects of the climate of violence which is so apparent in South Africa, and not only in South Africa but also in many parts of the world today. This is a frightening and sobering fact. It is a world-wide phenomenon, that is true, but we must address ourselves particularly to this phenomenon as it manifests itself in our own society. The Sunday Express of 15 January listed 1 600 crimes of violence committed against known critics of the Government since 1964 and indicated that since that time, despite the large number of crimes committed, only two men were prosecuted. When the hon. the Minister of Police was asked to comment, he said then what he repeated in the House this afternoon—

I want to remind the hon. the Minister that he is in charge. He is the Minister of Police. So I must ask again. Who else must I ask but the hon. the Minister of Police? What is happening in this country where crime after crime can be committed and no one is ever charged or brought to book?

That is a wicked statement.

Of course it is scandalous! [Interjections.] What is scandalous, however, is not what I have said, but the fact of what has happened. That is what is scandalous.

That vicious insinuation is typical of you.

No, I am not making any insinuations. I am asking a question on the basis of facts. The crimes of violence I refer to are not minor. They include attempted murder, bomb attacks, assaults, arson, the burning of churches and private homes, the destruction of cars, harassment and death threats. The victims include archbishops, priests, ministers, student leaders, journalists, members of Parliament, university lecturers, teachers, lawyers and ordinary citizens.

What is your point?

The point I am making is that violence is endemic to South Africa. Wherever that violence is committed—whether one talks in terms of left wing or right wing, whether one talks in terms of White or Black, whether one talks in terms of institutional violence or not— violence feeds upon violence and if there is one thing this country has to do with a great deal of urgency it is to tackle the whole question of the growth of violence and violent crimes in South Africa. [Interjections.]

And the instigators of violence.

Yes, I agree, the instigators too.

Start with yourself in that case.

Mr. Speaker, I assume then that we are at one on this. I assume we are totally committed to every effort being made to withstand the growth of violence in South Africa. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, when one refers to a serious situation such as this, one hears the kind of comment I have just heard on my left, namely that some of us are responsible for the violence. Mr. Speaker, I reject that with the contempt it deserves.

Just be careful that your little wings don’t melt!

Sir, sitting opposite that hon. Minister, I have to be very, very careful indeed. There was a time when he said he was after my blood. But I am still waiting.

We have known your sort for 300 years.

Yes, I am not scared of you.

Sir, the kinds of crimes I have referred to are now becoming almost a daily occurrence.

Your uncle’s name is Lenin.

One of the worst features of that was the recent deaths, whether of Rick Turner or of Dr. and Mrs. Smit, and the injuries sustained by Mr. Mtshali. Everywhere violence is on the increase in South Africa and unless we address ourselves to this major problem we are going to find ourselves engulfed by it. There are two approaches to this. On the one hand we can say that, in order to withstand the growing violence, what we have to do is to increase our Police Force and the arsenal of weapons and to improve our techniques. It is self-evident that even if we were to be the best in expertise, we cannot quell violence and crimes of violence by that method alone. What we have to do is to ask the hard question: What are some of the root causes of the violence that is taking place in our country right now?

Boraine!

Mr. Speaker, the new hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is on record as having stated certain aims with reference to his new job. I congratulate the hon. the Minister on his new job and wish him well in it. He has a very difficult task. I want to ask him whether he is serious when he says that among his aims are self-determination, human rights and majority rule. This is what I have seen quoted in the newspapers. I simply wish to ask him whether that is right.

Yes, in the context of what I said.

Yes, I understand the context. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about that now, particularly in respect of human rights. I think there is a direct link between those who believe and perceive themselves to be oppressed or to have basic human rights denied them and the temptation to take the law into their own hands.

You speak up for them.

I say that one can then meet force with force; one can meet violence with violence. If I read the statement of the hon. the Minister carefully and correctly, I believe that what he is saying is that one cannot do that, that one is not going to succeed in doing that. What we therefore really have to apply our minds to is to decide whether or not, at this moment in time in South Africa, men and women, Black and White, have access to basic, fundamental human rights. If the answer is “no”, whether in respect of White or Black, we are in dire peril because history makes it abundantly clear that wherever people perceive themselves to be oppressed, whilst they may be held back by repressive measures, in the final analysis the rise of expectations, over which no one has any control, will cause them to use every means at their disposal to throw off what they see as oppression in order to attain the basic and fundamental human rights that I am talking about. Mr. Speaker, it therefore seems to me that if there is one thing that that side of the House and this side of the House should be in agreement on, it is to discover what these basic human rights are and to test whether in this society these human rights are available for all our people. Unless we do that, we can never expect any of our people to be responsible, to accept their duty as citizens and to adhere loyally to the country in which they find themselves and to which they belong.

List them.

I should like to list just a few, Mr. Speaker, and to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with me that these are very basic and fundamental human rights—these are not the possession of all our peoples—and whether or not he will agree with me that we should bend our minds, our wills and our energies to make sure that they are guaranteed. I shall list a few but I do so against the background of the fact that South Africa is not a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It seems to me that one of the best ways in which we can answer the conflict and the problems which we face is to make what I can call a declaration of intent or a human rights manifesto which South Africa can stand on. We could then say both to the outside world and to those who live within the country, and particularly the latter: This is where we stand; now let us get there as soon as possible.

What are these? Obviously this is an enormous area but I focus on only six.

Come to the point.

The first one is for the benefit of the hon. member for Pretoria Central—unfortunately he has not availed himself of this right: Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment and protection against unemployment. We are faced with the spectre of large scale unemployment within our land. I understand that new statistics have become available only today from the Department of Statistics. These indicate that well over 600 000 Blacks are unemployed. I have not checked those figures but the hon. the Minister of Labour should know better than I whether they are correct. Certainly, this indicates that there are hundreds and thousands of people unemployed in South Africa today who are not even registered as unemployed. Therefore we have this enormous problem.

What about Britain?

Whether or not that is the case in Britain, has nothing to do with it That is a stupid question. The fact of the matter is that unemployment is a very real problem and that people should have the right to work and the right to be protected when they are unemployed. There are laws on our Statute Books and it is true that there is a commission looking at some of them now. I want to suggest and propose that wherever laws exist in South Africa that make it difficult to defend this human right, the right to work and to be employed and the right of protection when one is unemployed, those Statutes ought to be repealed without delay. One will therefore have a declaration of intent on the one hand and a movement towards action on the other. Does the hon. the Minister think that unreasonable?

I am listening.

The second basic human right is the following: everyone has the right to minimal housing. This does not mean a luxury penthouse or a grand house with many rooms.

I am talking about minimal standards. A major grievance for decades, among Blacks in this country, has been the denial, over many years, of home ownership. The desire and right to own or rent property, however humble, I submit is a fundamental right. The destruction of squatter camps, the wholesale movement of people and the denial of freehold compound the problem and only throw petrol on smouldering resentment in our major townships.

Everyone has the right to free elementary education which is a third very basic right. At the very heart of the conflict in South Africa, however, we find this incredible dilemma of Blacks who believe they are getting less than what is a basic human right. With the whole search for a new name, perhaps for a new character, there might well be new priorities—I hope there will be—but one of the finest things the Government could do now, with its new Ministers, is to say that education is education and belongs together and that one should group education under one heading instead of trying to look to one group and then to another. Make no mistake, whether they are right or wrong, the young Blacks in our townships today, who form the tinderbox, are going to say that as long as there is a separate department they are being discriminated against. I believe that the hon. Minister and Ministers have a remarkable opportunity to move South Africa forward towards human rights for all by doing just that.

Fourthly, everyone has the right to basic health care. If one looks at what is happening in many of our major centres, some of the health care that has been brought into being in recent years is quite remarkable. When one looks at our rural areas, however, at the people who are not in our homelands—and there are millions of Blacks who are not in homelands or in urban areas—and when one sees the hardship there, one cries out aloud for the basic human right of health care which involves an understanding of the land, a caring for the … [Interjections.] It means helping people in their feeding habits, family planning and building up a health care programme which would be available to all our people. Is there something wrong with that? Surely that is a basic human right?

A fifth basic human right is that all are equal before the law and are entitled, without any discrimination, to the equal protection of the law. I submit that it follows that no one, on that basis, should be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention without trial or banning.

Last of all, everyone has the right to participate in the government of his own country. This point has been made before. The hon. the Prime Minister went to great lengths to say just how this is being made possible for everyone within his own group. Someone suggested that we live in a fairyland, but the harsh reality, whether we like it or not, is that in South Africa we are interdependent. It is not only a case of Whites being dependent on Whites or English-speaking people on Afrikaans-speaking people, but Blacks on Whites as well. The time has come for us to accept that harsh reality and begin to change and move into this real life situation instead of imagining that we can arrange our lives in small compartments forever.

Therefore, in conclusion, the central question is how we are to achieve this basic human right of enabling all people to participate in a government of their own land and in the decisions which affect their own lives and destiny whilst maintaining basic human rights for Black and White alike. The irony is that the Government by withholding certain basic human rights in order to maintain them for the survival of the Whites, is putting in jeopardy the very future of all Whites in South Africa. I do not believe the final question regarding participation which I would like to raise now can be answered in this Parliament alone. If there is any sterility, then it is in continually debating among ourselves as though in this day and age we can make the decisions which affect the destiny and the lives of hundreds of thousands and millions of people outside. That is why our nation calls for a constitutional commission. That is why we have asked for the commission and that is why we stubbornly go on asking for a national convention.

Why should people be so surprised that we call for this? Was it not true that in 1909 when there was enormous anger, bitterness and fear in this country between White and White—the legacy of the Anglo-Boer War— an opportunity arose, through the wisdom of some people at least for people to come together, for divisiveness to be set aside and for unity to emerge? With hindsight we can say that they should have included all the peoples of this land. However, we can learn from that and we can say that unless we do this together and negotiate together, we perish together.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands has today posed as the Nkrumah of South African politics because from beginning to end the theme of his speech was: Seek first the kingdom of politics and all the human rights and other things will be given unto you. In the course of the few words I wish to say I shall endeavour to show that all the hon. member for Pinelands has done has been to try to present to us, in a nice, decent, friendly, soft and civilized manner, a few liberal concepts in the guise of Black Power.

Absolutely disastrous!

In view of the fact that the hon. member says that that is disastrous I just want to tell him that the contributions which hon. members of the PFP, their allies and followers have made outside Parliament to the international library of scandalous lies about South Africa and conditions here, are appalling. That is what has been disastrous and disgraceful. I want to speak seriously today to the members of the PFP because it is not only a question of the survival of those of us on this side of the House but of every White person on this subcontinent of Africa. The hon. member must not think that that is being mobilized in the outside world against South Africa, something to which the hon. the Minister of Defence has referred, as well as the subversive activities of communism in South Africa, is aimed at the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP. I shall in due course return to the question of communism and show its connection with the riots we have had. Those onslaughts are aimed at every White man in South Africa. They are aimed at Brother Kowie, “Brother Superior” of Pinelands and “Mother Superior” of Houghton. [Interjections.] They are aimed at every one of us. The hon. member for Pinelands should ask himself what his contribution has been. What has he contributed today by what he has tried to say? He has tried to show us that there is a direct link, a correlation, between the concept of human rights on the one hand, and the withholding of human rights and the resultant riots we have experienced in South Africa on the other hand. Has the hon. member ever heard of Teebau, a member of the Russian praesidium?

You would know him, I do not.

During October 1976 this Mr. T. A. Teebau, addressing a meeting of communist leaders in Dar es Salaam, said that the riots which erupted in South Africa during July 1976 were not spontaneous but were the result of the well-organized work of the ANC in South Africa. I want to know from the hon. members of the PFP, and pertinently from the hon. member for Pinelands, whether he thinks the communists would like to have a foothold in South Africa? Does the hon. member think the communists would like to take over South Africa?

Yes, naturally!

That is a very important admission on the part of the hon. member. Surely then, somewhere along the line, we should see the hand of the communists? Surely it is ridiculous to accept that the communists want to take over South Africa but that they do not figure anywhere in the picture? I want to know from that hon. member whether, when a man like Teebau says what he did say at Dar es Salaam, it is fair and reasonable for him to attribute what has happened to human rights? During the recess last year I was privileged to travel through America for six weeks and to walk through the Negro residential areas of the big cities. The Americans asked me how on earth I dared to walk around those places. What I saw there and what one reads about the riots which took place in the American ghetto’s in the ’sixties, have thoroughly convinced me that when we discuss these matters we have to be very careful. Perhaps I should tell the hon. member for Pinelands that in the world of today it is possible to lie scientifically by using facts.

What do you mean?

That is absolutely essential. Let me refer for a moment to what the hon. member for Pinelands said. He spoke about human rights, the right to work and the choice of employment I ask him with tears in my eyes to name one place in South Africa where people have not got the right to work? I grant him that at the moment we have a serious and great unemployment problem in South Africa.

He must not be so stupid as to view that problem outside of the economic position obtaining internationally. What is more, he must not be so stupid as to view it against the background of the specifically difficult circumstances obtaining in Africa. He must not insinuate that, in the labour field, among others, we withhold human rights from people, that people are deprived of the right to work and that that has contributed partly to the unrest. He went further and spoke about the right to minimum housing. I want to ask those hon. members pertinently whether one of them has ever in his whole life publicly told the Black and Brown people about the positive and very constructive work which is being done in South Africa in connection with housing. I told them this last year. I said to a member of Congress in America: “If you, with the enormous capacity of your economy, cannot cope with the problems of housing, how on earth can you expect a small country like South Africa to cope with housing immediately?”

Home ownership is what I am talking about.

I am coming to the question of home ownership. As the hon. member knows we are faced with another specific problem, namely, that we in South Africa have to spend an enormous amount of money on defence. Had it not been absolutely essential for us to incur that expenditure, we would have been able to utilize that money in order to make the lives of people more comfortable and easier. In his presidential address the State President said that it was the aim of the Government to make life pleasant for all the people of South Africa.

The hon. member mentioned free, elementary education as being one aspect of human rights which should receive attention in South Africa. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands—I also say this to the other members of his party, because I know they are going to talk about Bantu education and wax vociferous about the Black people lacking opportunity—that their complaints regarding education and the lack of opportunity for the non-Whites and other people in South Africa, are completely untrue and unfounded. That accusation is given the lie to by the reality of the situation because there are millions of Black children at school, and thousands and thousands of Black people, Brown people and Indian people do advance and develop as a result of education. I know, however, what they are doing. We came across that all over America, because it is absolutely incredible what contacts and connections they have throughout the world. They say the basic problem is that the Black man is subsidized only to the tune of R50 as far as the education of his child is concerned as against between R460 and R600 in the case of the White child. I have here an article—I am sorry that time does not permit me to refer to it more fully—by a person who was for years in the employ of the Department of Bantu Education. They know him very well; I refer to Dr. Hartshorne who incidentally is not a supporter of the Government. As a matter of fact, he uses unequivocally the same argument which they have used, namely that so little is spent on the education of the Black child as compared with the huge amount in the case of the White child. Because of this the Blacks will apparently forever be condemned to an inferior position. I notice that in this article of his Dr. Hartshorne uses the same liberal-humanistic argument of equality. I told the Opposition last year that there was no such thing as equality. There are only equal opportunities. Within the framework of the policy of the NP of separate development there exists in every field—the political field, the educational field, the social welfare field—for every person in South Africa—White, Black and Brown—the opportunity to attain complete equality. Having said that Dr. Hartshorne’s approach is from the liberal point of view I want to read an extract from Dr. Hartshorne’s article. He says—

Lest hon. members of the Opposition raise the question of human rights in the educational field again, I want to say, specifically to the hon. member for Pinelands because he is the one who spoke about human rights in the field of education, that in this field the Government has performed a colossal task and that the ridiculous argument about the amount spent on the Black child as against that spent on the White child holds no water. He should first of all consider the qualifications of the teachers. If he considers the cost per unit he will realize that the enormous number of Black children at school as compared with the small number of White children, decreases the cost per unit However, I shall leave it at that.

As the hon. member for Pinelands spoke about the concept of human rights I want to tell him that when one consorts with anarchy, one must not expect the resultant issue to be peace. The Opposition in South Africa must decide for themselves where they stand. The PFP must realize that, considering the position as a whole, they should have had regard to a few facts in South Africa before they moved their motion. We must view matters against the background of the time-bomb of the population explosion. The NP cannot be blamed for that. The Government cannot be held responsible for the fact that South Africa is faced with a terrific population explosion. However, we have to cope with that problem because employment must be found for these people, they must be housed and they must be trained. When the hon. member for Pinelands and the other members on that side of the House talk about human rights for the non-Whites, they must not forget that there is a vast increase in the number of those people. They must remember that these people have a backlog to make up as far as development is concerned and in this connection I want to say something to the hon. member for Rondebosch. It is a scientific fact in this country of ours that in a variety of fields the Black, Brown and Indian people have leeway to make up as far as their development is concerned. I do not say this in any derogatory manner; I say it in the full appreciation of this fact. In the mighty America with her policy of integration there are millions of Negroes who are lagging so far behind that one asks oneself the question—I think this question worries President Carter—whether, in spite of all the means at her disposal, she will ever be able to do right by the millions of less privileged Black people in her cities. The Opposition must also bear in mind that as a result of industrialization we have had an over-concentration of people in places like Johannesburg, and this has given rise to tremendous problems. I found it very interesting last night on television to see what problems South West Africa is experiencing now that influx control has been lifted. These people must realize that when they talk of human rights, they must not see things from a sickly humanistic and liberal angle but they must see them from the viewpoint of the practical realities of South Africa. Before they move a motion like this, they must also bear in mind the economic situation prevailing in South Africa at the moment. They must take note of the fact that the economic sector of South Africa, with its capitally intensive industries and undertakings, is to a large extent co-responsible for the condition of relative unemployment. All of us jointly in South Africa must have regard to these facts, particularly in view of the communist threat on our borders.

I now address myself in particular to the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Bryanston. It is the hon. member for Bryanston who walks across this potential minefield without watching his step. He must realize that race relations in South Africa are a potential minefield, a minefield in which our enemies are laying one landmine after the other. If he goes on in this fashion, he will explode the landmine of racial tension. No matter how we argue, we have here in this very fine country, South Africa, as a result of factors beyond our control, a potential for revolution. The head of the Defence Force spoke of a crisis ceiling. We have the potential for a revolution, the potential for a revolution of the awakening aspirations of the millions of Black people in South Africa, and in particular those in our urban areas. It is the responsibility of us Whites to deal with the aspirations of those people, to deal with that potential for revolution in such a way— within the framework of NP policy—that we can prevent anyone stepping on those landmines. It is a revolution of awakening aspirations which, as I said at the outset, are not concerned with political aims in the first place, but in fact, firstly and basically and primarily are concerned with the striving of people on the primary requirements level, those of food, clothing and housing.

We have to deal with the revolution of burgeoning aspirations, the revolution which means that all these people have awakened as a result of our education policy. That is the contradiction in the arguments of the Opposition. On the one hand they tell us that our education policy is inadequate. On the other hand they say that there are millions of Black people in the country who are educated and developed intellectually and who must be reckoned with. We know that. But it is no easy problem.

When we pay careful attention to the revolution of burgeoning aspirations we realize that it simply means that just as the Whites in every sphere—food, clothing and housing—are always striving for more and for improvement, so do the Black and Brown people. They have exactly the same striving.

We are also faced with another revolution in South Africa. We are confronted with a revolution of cultural conflict. If the hon. member for Pinelands is ever able to get this into his liberalistic skull—if such a thing is possible—he will realize that in South Africa we are dealing with a revolution of conflicting cultures, a revolution of a variety of peoples who are not always ad idem, who do not all think alike, and who do not always have the same reactions. If the hon. member can get that into his head, he will have come a long way towards helping us in this complex South Africa.

South Africa’s greatest asset is not our mineral resources. The greatest asset we have in South Africa is the goodwill, the enormous reservoir of goodwill between White and Black, between White and Coloured and between White and Indian. From these few remarks it is obvious that it is easy to destroy totally that potential of goodwill in South Africa, especially when seen against the background of the potential for revolution and the cultural conflict in South Africa, as well as against the background of the revolution of burgeoning aspirations, aspirations which are mainly not of a political nature. I say to those people that when they want to see everybody everywhere in South Africa being one and the same in all respects, they are ignoring the greatest reality in South Africa. They are seeking to put us in South Africa on the road to integration which was tried in America. There is a great deal of integration in America in many fields, and in many places it seemingly works very well, but what is happening? As quickly as the Negro people develop intellectually in the professional world, so the Negro and Black communities invade the White society, the so-called “main stream” of the American society. That is one of the dilemmas with which they are faced at the moment. People occupying high posts have managed to break away from the ghetto’s and to enter the main stream where they have become integrated. The people in those high offices have now to look after those people who are still living in the circumstances in which they themselves previously lived. If the NP ever wants to tread the path of chaos in South Africa, it should try to apply the recipe for integration to our residential areas, our schools, our living standards and our opinion of circumstances in South Africa. If we ever reach that point—I say this to the hon. member for Pinelands—we shall be pushed to destruction just as surely as the hon. member sits there. The moment one starts sliding, one will be pushed irrevocably by the liberalists in South Africa and the Black people to a stage where a policy stand will have to be taken to state what one is striving for and what one wants to prevent. But we in the NP have said unequivocally that what we are striving for is the extension, the retention and the perpetuation of the diversity of peoples. We have said we are not prepared to destroy that, because therein lies the germ of conflict. The greatest conflict will be unleashed in South Africa if we move along the path of integration in South Africa in any sphere.

Having said that, we say, as we told our people throughout the election campaigns from every platform: We are not inflexible and we are not obdurate. As people from all levels of the population have developed, the NP has opened doors in all spheres of life which were not open previously. In this way we have given opportunities to people from all walks of life and we shall continue to give such opportunities to people. But in the political sphere we cannot and must not have a dispensation which is aimed at creating confrontation, which the hon. member is trying to spell out, which will eventually lead to our total and unavoidable destruction.

We have already spoken, through our hon. Prime Minister and many other Ministers, of a constellation of nations in Southern Africa. The hon. member for Pinelands must bear in mind that the NP’s main task in the years ahead will probably lie in the sphere of communication with the peoples around us. The greatest problem we encounter in communicating with those people is the official Opposition and their party. It just will not work if on the one hand Whites are trying to communicate with and uplift people, as the NP and the Government are trying to do, while on the other hand people such as those on the other side are trying to play the Whites off against one another. I am not over surprised that a man like Buthelezi says that a man like Donald Woods does not speak on his behalf. Other homeland leaders have in their turn said that Buthelezi does not speak on their behalf. The dilemma of the realities of South Africa—this is what the hon. member for Pinelands must realize—is that when human rights are discussed we have to realize that we are dealing with a plural society. I do not think that it is an expression which was first used by the hon. member for Mooi River and his party. But whatever the case may be, we must accommodate people within that plural society.

Where do the people live in Soweto?

The hon. member for Mooi River asks me …

No, answer me.

But what is the hon. member asking? [Interjections.]

Are the people of Soweto a different part of the plural society and not the same part as the people who live in the homelands?

Order! When an hon. member wants to put a question, he must rise. He must not try to conduct a debate while seated.

The hon. member has asked me a question about the people in Soweto. That is a major problem area in South Africa. We do not deny the existence of those people. If he had listened properly he would have heard the newly appointed Minister of Bantu Administration and Development say what he had in mind for the people of Soweto. We do not deny the existence of these people …

What about human rights in so far as those people are concerned.

The hon. member for Pinelands speaks of human rights with reference to those people. In the labour sphere and the sphere of education, health services, housing and so on, it is the policy of the Government to give all the people of Soweto who are there as a reality, the fullest and best possible opportunity to get to the top as people.

Has it ever occurred to the hon. member for Pinelands that here in South Africa we have thousands of Black people whom we have educated to university level, people with opportunities to get to the top in their own communities, and who, in a common economy in South Africa, can attain a very high status in the directorate of, for instance, Anglo American? Has it ever struck the hon. member that Black people in South Africa do not go to America because living conditions are so bad in South Africa that it is easier for them there? In America there are 8 000 Nigerians studying medicine who say they will never go back to Nigeria. Britain is inundated with doctors from Africa who say they will never return to Africa. But here in South Africa we have Black people, who, viewed from the point of view of human rights, have every opportunity within the framework of the NP policy of separate development to improve their position and to prosper. From a political point of view, as the hon. member for Vereeniging so rightly told him, he talks the language of Mr. Andrew Young. One of the American congressmen said to me: “By human rights in the political field we mean one thing and one thing only, and that is equal political participation.” Time does not permit me to elaborate further on this, but I am not surprised to find one quotation after the other of that kind here. The hon. member for Houghton recently said in Britain, “In the long run, inevitably, there will be Black majority rule.”

You might even live to see it.

You said that in the long run, inevitably, the Blacks would be in the majority in South Africa in the political sense.

*I want to say something to the hon. member for Pinelands. In the sphere of human rights in the political field, they can talk along with the Americans and also the Russians, if it comes to that, because that is, after all, their standpoint.

That is a denial of human rights.

Those hon. members can talk along with them, but we have a task to accomplish, and that is the upliftment of the non-Whites in South Africa within the framework of NP policy. Within the framework of the human rights policy of the NP the basis for our survival will be found, and that will be the basis of our survival in this lovely country, South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Innesdal will have to forgive me for not reacting to his speech at once. I find myself in a difficult position regarding my participation in this debate today. [Interjections.] On the one hand, I know that as far as the majority of the members of this House are concerned, I am a new member of this House, and I also know, of course, that there is a good old tradition in terms of which a new member who is making his first speech must keep to uncontentious matters. On the other hand, although 17 years have passed since I last had the privilege of taking part in a debate of this nature, it is a fact that I am not really a new member and that this debate is traditionally a debate which spells out and emphasizes the differences and the points of dispute between the Government and the Opposition. Under these circumstances I shall try not to offend the House or hon. members, nor to violate the traditions of this House. At the same time, however, I want to do my duty as a member of the Opposition and to make quite clear my personal position as a member who is returning after a very long absence.

† The motion before the House represents a far-reaching and comprehensive indictment of Government attitudes and Government policies in relation to the present situation in South Africa. While Government members may disagree with the indictment itself—and we have had a good deal of righteous indignation from various members this afternoon during the course of this debate—I believe that few people will disagree that in its terms it deals with matters that are of broad and general concern to all people in South Africa. I believe all members of the House must be conscious of the fact that there has been an aggravation of race tension in South Africa in recent years. I believe all members of the House must be aware of the fact that there has been an increase, for whatever reason, of authoritarian and repressive measures coming before the House in the years that have gone by. I believe, too, that all of us in the House are conscious of the effects of the economic recession which is with us at the present time, which has been with us for some time and promises to be with us for some time to come. I believe these are matters of general concern. I believe, too, that no one in the House will dispute the fact that there has been a deterioration in our relations with the Free World. It must surely be common cause that the security and stability of our society face very grave threats indeed at the present time. This, then, is the situation that exists and while Government members may find some comfort, as the hon. member for Innesdal and others have done, in trying to shift the responsibility to influences outside their control and while there are undoubtedly influences which will make capital out of the problems with which South Africa is confronted, the fact of the matter is that the root cause for the desperate situation in which South Africa finds itself at the present time must be found in the attitude of the Government and its policies over the years.

Sir, it is my function to endeavour to deal with that portion of the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which deals with the aggravation of race tension. If time permitted, one could deal at length with an impressive and a depressing catalogue of examples of aggravation of race tension as a result of the attitudes of the Government. Looking back even over only the last year, one sees a thoroughly depressing list of such actions. The hon. member for Houghton and others have referred this afternoon to the Biko tragedy and to the bannings, the banishments and the detentions of 19 October. These are matters which must rate very highly on the catalogue or list of actions taken by the Government which have brought about an aggravation of race tensions. Surely, no two events in recent times could have done more harm to South Africa in general and to race relations in South Africa in particular. Then, Sir, one can think of the Government’s persistence with its Bantu education policy, despite the fact that this is a policy which is loathed by the very people for whom it has been designed. They have nevertheless persisted with this policy. Despite the defence by hon. members of the policy, there is no doubt that, when put to the test, the people for whom the policy has been designed have rejected it and have done so out of hand over the years. The fact that the Government has persisted with this policy as a separate aspect of their education policy has been an aggravating factor as well.

Then, we have had the heartless removal of squatters, which shows again a total insensitivity in regard not only to the human beings concerned but also to the delicately balanced race situation in South Africa generally. One can think, too, of the continued operation of the pass laws and influx control and the continued harassment of individuals and groups of individuals in terms of these laws and in terms of the Group Areas Act. So one finds these further examples high on the list of matters which have aggravated race tension in South Africa. What is surprising, is that in a situation which one would think deserves, even in terms of Government policy, some sensitive treatment, time and time again, day in and day out, week in and week out the Government have failed to appreciate that the needs of our time really demand a low-key approach to so many of these matters. Instead of this, there is always a brashness and an arrogance on the part of the Government that seems to defy all reason.

There are these examples which arise time and time again in regard to these matters. One wonders what it is that motivates the Government. One can think of any number of smaller incidents, which are nevertheless important incidents. One can think of an event which took place towards the end of last year when the Government suddenly, out of the blue, decided, looking at a group of professional Black people in Natal, the Black lawyers of Durban, that it would be advisable for these people to move. Because they were operating their professional practices in a White area, they were suddenly faced with the threat that they would have to be removed either to a homeland area or to a township. Fortunately, because of intervention by other agencies, the Law Society and other people, those people are now allowed to remain in their places of practice by way of permits.

Who is allowing them to stay there?

Who was going to move them? I cite this as an example of the unnecessary meddling of the Government in the situation. After the protests came, the Government generously allowed them to remain under permit. However, the harm had been done at the time. One is, admittedly, dealing here with a small group of people, but they are a very influential group of people in the society. The harm had already been done, and in this situation, in this racial climate, one wonders why that sort of step should become necessary in South Africa. I do not want to go on dealing with these examples because one could go on ad infinitum dealing with examples of this sort of action on the part of the Government which leads to the aggravation of race relations.

In the remainder of my time in this debate I want to deal specifically with the Government’s grand plan of separate development, with the homeland policy of the Government. Because this is a new Parliament, it would perhaps be appropriate for me to set out at the outset the general attitude of the official Opposition towards the homelands concept of the Government. I think I must make it clear from the start that on the issue of the development of the homelands as underdeveloped areas of South Africa and related matters such as the acquisition of additional land in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936, and even beyond that if necessary, we on this side of the House are committed in principle to such development and we will reserve to ourselves the right to deal with each proposal of the Government in this regard on its merits as it is put forward. As far as the future development of the so-called homelands is concerned we in the official Opposition have made our position clear. We are on record as having stated that if areas of this kind do come into existence and they are autonomous or semi-autonomous, we believe that they can best be accommodated within a federal or a confederal relationship with the rest of the country, provided … [Interjections.] There is no doubt that this has been the policy of the official Opposition for a very long time. The commitment to federalism has been a commitment of the old Progressive Party since its inception and it still remains a cornerstone of the policy of the PFP and of the official Opposition. We believe that if these areas are autonomous or semi-autonomous they could be accommodated within a federal or confederal system with the rest of the country, provided such areas can be given realistic boundaries without this requiring the compulsory removal of people. We go further and say that if, with the passage of time, any of these areas genuinely prefer to become independent, such a desire will be recognized. We on our part will recognize such a desire subject to certain criteria. I think that one must stipulate these.

In the first instance it must be subject to the provision that it be shown by means of a special referendum that the majority of the inhabitants within any particular area require such independence. Secondly, it must be subject to the fact that the boundaries of such new states or such new areas should be determined to the mutual satisfaction of South Africa and the people in the areas concerned. Thirdly, no South African citizens must be deprived on that account of their South African citizenship without their consent. This will be the broad basis in terms of which one would consider any future development of what is termed the homeland areas at the present time. Having said that, let me state with all the emphasis at my command that the Government’s belief that active fragmentation of South Africa into separate independent states in terms of its homeland policy can be a solution to the race problem, is totally rejected by this side of the House. We do not believe that it can be seen as a solution to the race problem of South Africa. We believe that it is a dangerous myth and we believe that it should be exposed as such. We believe that the Government’s very obsession with the separate development philosophy and with the homelands policy, which is the outward manifestation of that philosophy, is in many ways the root cause of the problems in South Africa at the present time and of the racial tension which exists in this country. I say this because notwithstanding its experience over the 19 years or more since the inception of this policy, the Government commits itself more and more, in its intransigence, to a policy which is manifestly unworkable and the Government stubbornly refuses to acknowledge or consider any alternatives or any variations to that policy. It is this fact, perhaps more than any other, which gives rise to frustration and hopelessness amongst the majority who reject the homelands concept, thus resulting in a continued aggravation of race tensions. I was a member of the House in 1959 when the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, in what was a very memorable speech, enunciated for the first time in the House the philosophy of separate development and advised the House of the homelands policy. There were many at that time who looked at the policy objectively and who said: Perhaps we should give it a chance; perhaps this at least gives some sort of moral basis to the Government’s attitude towards the Black people in South Africa. We were told at the time that it was a policy which would recognize the rights of all to advance within their own community and that groups would be able to move towards full self-determination and full sovereign independence. It was the declared objective of the Government that the homelands concept was the corner-stone of the Government’s policy which would satisfy the political and other aspirations of South Africa’s Black population.

We still adhere to that.

My friend says that is still the objective of the Government’s policy. That was 19 years ago and apparently my friends on that side of the House have learned nothing from the abject failure of this policy in almost every sense as a solution to the problems of South Africa. It is alarming that, despite its experience since then, the Government still maintains pig-headedly and stubbornly that it need do no more than proceed with this policy to satisfy the needs of the Blacks. An hon. member who spoke this afternoon said that the Government had made up its mind, that they were going to move in that direction and that it was the last word. That is the attitude of the Government despite its experience over the last 19 years in trying to apply a policy which cannot be made to work. They maintain this attitude despite the blatant fallacies inherent in the policy itself and despite the fact that even in the two instances of Transkei and Bophuthatswana where independence has been given, there is a legacy of grave imperfections relating both to land apportionment and to rights of citizenship which threaten to be seeds of continued and growing friction as the years go by. The Government maintains the attitude that this is the final solution to the problems of South Africa despite the fact that the majority of Blacks both in the homelands and in the urban areas reject the concept as the ultimate solution to their problem.

Where do you get that from?

I shall tell the hon. gentleman where I get it from if he will be a little more patient. The Government is apparently committed irretrievably to this policy. They have the blinkers on, they are not going to do anything else despite all the warnings and all the misgivings. Their attitude is: This is the policy, take it or leave it That is the attitude of the Government.

I want to refer briefly to a pamphlet issued by the NP during the last election campaign. The pamphlet deals with the Government’s new constitutional plan on a question/answer basis. One of the questions relating to the position of the Coloureds and the Indians was—

The reply was a simple one—

Now follows the key phrase—

That is the attitude of the NP: Take it or leave it. The hon. member for Houghton this afternoon referred to Marie Antoinette who said: If the people have no bread, let them eat cake. Here we have almost the same attitude of arrogance, i.e. we lay the table and those who do not want to sit down, we leave alone and they get nothing. That is the attitude of the Government. The House should note the language used: “We lay the table …” In this case the “we” is the NP. The NP dictates; there need be no consultation on options left open. The NP’s attitude in regard to this matter is: We will tell people what is good for them and if they do not like it they can lump it.

I just want to point out again that history is studded with examples of tragedies and disasters which have overtaken people resulting from the same type of arrogance displayed by this Government in this sort of statement and attitude.

Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental questions that must be asked as a test of the homelands policy. The first question is: How successful is the policy in terms of the Government’s own objectives and philosophy? The second question is: To what extent has the policy brought an improvement in race relations in South Africa? I believe the answers to both these questions would receive a very low rating indeed in any objective test.

One must deal, in the first instance, with the whole question of consolidation of the existing homelands, because without meaningful consolidation the whole plan is stripped of all credibility and must remain a myth. I am aware that there is well over 1 million morgen of quota land still to be acquired under the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 and that the Government has in recent years embarked on the policy of a consolidation plan. However, where does this consolidation end? We have a situation where even after the Government’s consolidation plan we are going to be left with the majority of homelands so badly fragmented as to remain grotesque and thoroughly unrealistic as the basis of independent states. One can think of the various homelands: The homeland of the Southern Ndebele is going to be left in two portions, according to the Government. Then there is the Gazankulu homeland, which consists of three portions, Venda which has two and Lebowa which has six portions. Bophuthatswana is now independent but still consists of six or seven portions stretching from the Transvaal through to the Cape and the Orange Free State. One must look at the situation concerning Bophuthatswana because it is very interesting and illustrates the point I made that within the framework of this concept of the Government lie the seeds of further and continued friction. This situation was created by the NP.

I want to quote from the speech made by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana relating to the question of consolidation on the occasion of the independence celebration. I am going to quote from the source which the hon. the Prime Minister indicated yesterday was an impeccable source, an article in The Star. On that occasion Chief Mangope said—

The Chief Minister goes on in this trend, indicating a total disappointment and also that unless there is this sort of consolidation the independence given to Bophuthatswana will have very little meaning indeed.

Unfortunately my time has expired, but I wanted to deal with the whole situation of KwaZulu, the largest homeland of the lot. The Zulus constitute the largest single ethnic group, for whom the Government appears to have no answer whatsoever. They are left with 10 pieces of a KwaZulu scattered all over Natal and there is little wonder that the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday was so tentative in dealing with the whole KwaZulu situation. However, there will no doubt be further opportunities for me to deal with that situation with the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, one can see that the hon. member for Musgrave has been away from Parliament for a considerable time. In the meantime he has not kept abreast of arguments that have been used in this House about very important matters concerning our country and all its people. I want to deal very briefly with the question of consolidation because I have had quite a lot to do with it. I shall come to that later.

First of all, I find it very interesting that we have a new official Opposition speaking about the arrogance of the Government, because I find it remarkable that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about a national convention which they want to hold and at which all the population groups will come together and be consulted, by which means he wishes to solve the country’s problems. Sir, there are three Opposition parties sitting alongside the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Over the years they have had every opportunity of forming a consolidated Opposition but have failed to do so. They have been unable to reach consensus regarding a policy, yet they hold out this prospect of bringing all the population groups in the country together and then obtaining unanimity. They actually became more divided every time and yet their ideal is that if they were to come into power, they would solve the problems by means of a national convention. They never learn. How is one to deal with such obtuse people who do not learn from their own downfall? I find it tragic that there are some people in this day and age who have gained some first-hand experience but who cannot benefit by it and come forward with any practical ideas. I want to say in all earnest that no one on this side of the House is adopting an arrogant approach to the country’s problems. I want to tell the Opposition parties that we are giving serious thought to solutions to the country’s problems. We are thinking seriously about how all the population groups may develop to their full potential. I want to endorse what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, viz. that people are kicking up a fuss about “one man, one vote”. By means of its policy, the Government has given the people of each population group the right to make decisions about its own affairs and—as the hon. member for Innesdal has just said—to reach its full potential and obtain every opportunity at all levels. The difference between us members of the Government and members of the Opposition is that they want this “one man, one vote” in a single governing body, whilst we feel that it would not work and can prove it. I want to ask the Opposition: Where in the world has the policy of “one man, one vote” worked? Where in Africa has it worked? Surely the hon. members know what is going on in Canada, Ireland, Spain, France, Cyprus and the Middle East? They also know what has happened in Africa. Do I have to spell it out to them time and again whenever they come along with a charming story about “one man, one vote” in a single authoritative body? [Interjections.] That is what those hon. members are talking about. It has already been alleged that those people have sat in this chamber and that they should sit here. In that case, surely it would be a single governing body? If not, then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell the public, and us, exactly what his policy is. It was brought to light yesterday that a newspaper which supports the Opposition and which spurs them on against the Government, which is vitriolic about the Government and arouses emotions, adheres to a policy which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not even know exists.

He does not know what his policy is.

That is the problem. After all, we cannot deal with the country’s problems responsibly in such a manner. I think it is extremely tragic. The hon. member now says that they do not want “one man, one vote” in a single governing body. We should like to know how they intend to deal with these matters. I want to ask the hon. member another question: How are they going to ensure that the language and culture of every minority group—not only the Whites, but the eight Black nations as well— will be guaranteed? How will the interests of the minority groups be guaranteed in the unitary state which they want to create?

The hon. member for Musgrave said that we were fragmenting the country. But we are not fragmenting the country. These population groups were put here by history and by Providence and we encountered them like that. All we are doing is recognizing the established order. We are realistic. Those hon. members say we are coming up with ideologies. It is not we, but they, who are doing so. One has to recognize the established order and help every group to develop and retain what it possesses. However, the hon. members opposite want to give everything to a majority group, whilst no guarantees exist for minority groups. Hon. members opposite are now the official Opposition, an alternative Government. I do not think they expect that to happen, but unfortunately we have such a position in democracy. These people have brought about their own downfall by failing to approach matters realistically and by echoing the outside world. There sits the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is forever quoting to us things that are said abroad. I cannot say whether or not these people do it deliberately, but one gains the impression that they are condoning President Carter and his liberal tendencies here in this country. Everything he says is defended. I want to ask them a few apposite questions. Firstly how are they going to protect the minority groups—the Whites and the other non-White population groups—each of which has its own culture? This whole matter is very important.

The hon. member for Houghton has already said several times—and other hon. members, too, said so during the election campaign—that she would like to see a proportional distribution of wealth. I want to stress that for the Western world, the stimulus lies in the free economy. Those hon. members who speak about a more proportional and fairer distribution of wealth should explain to us how they are going to bring this about. It is very important that clear answers be given to these questions.

You do not understand it.

I understand it very well. The hon. member does not know what other members of his party are saying. He is out of step with the other hon. members in his party. That is his problem.

In that regard, I want to refer to certain statements that have been made against South Africa and which have forced us to doubt those persons, loyalty to South Africa. The actions of those people prompt us to ask whether they do in fact have the welfare of all South Africa’s population groups at heart. Are they truly convinced of this, because we have already come across evidence, particularly in the newspapers which support them, together with the utterances to which I referred, which cause one to doubt their honesty.

I now want to ask them a question relating to the resolution adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations concerning the supply of arms to South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here that the policy of the NP was responsible for that resolution. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he read the precise wording of the resolution. Is he aware of what that resolution entails?

† Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can tell me whether he has read and is in agreement with the wording and the motivation of that resolution.

Did you read my statement at the time?

You must tell us how your statement reads.

*The hon. Leader issues statements which do not state clearly what he means. He criticizes the Government but it was only when he came under pressure during the election and when he saw that he and his party were losing support that he began to criticize the president of the United States for his interference in South African affairs. Today, however, I want him to be explicit in saying whether he rejects that UN Security Council resolution categorically. He said he knew what it entailed. Can he tell me today whether he rejected it, and the motivation behind it, absolutely?

Do you know that I have issued a statement in that regard?

Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reject it in his statement?

Do you know that I have issued a statement in that regard?

I am not so sure that he has. If the hon. Leader has made his standpoint clear on this matter, then surely he need not be afraid to say that he has issued a statement and that he supported or rejected it. Did the hon. the Leader support it or reject it? Surely that is very easy to answer? Can the hon. Leader answer “yes” or “no”?

I rejected it in my statement.

You rejected it?

Two months ago. [Interjections.]

I am pleased to hear it, because this is a very important matter. I do not know why the hon. Leader could not tell me immediately. That party, and particularly the newspapers which support them, tend to conform and to give the Government the blame for the arms embargo. The hon. Leader implied in his speech that the poor domestic relations and the enmity of foreign countries were the fault of the NP.

I think I should quote today from a report of this resolution made by the United States Information Service. The House must take cognizance of it. This pamphlet is dated 7 November. I have read it in public before, but I want to do so here as well. I quote from the third paragraph—

That is their motivation, viz. our so-called aggression against neighbouring States. The pamphlet ends as follows—

I think it is very clear that the motivation for this resolution is based on absolutely flagrant untruths. Is there anyone in this country, anyone belonging to these liberal groups which criticize us so much, who can point a finger and say when South Africa has ever attacked one of her neighbours? And yet that is what they put forward in this pamphlet as one of their reasons.

Can a man like the president of the United States, a man who is forever being portrayed as a churchman and a Christian, endorse this type of blatant untruth and resolution? Can his church in South Africa endorse it? After all, it is very clear what is going on here, viz. that resolutions against South Africa are based on blatant untruths. Throughout South Africa the Press is continually bringing people up to date on the news and has anyone ever read that South Africa has threatened or attacked one of her neighbours?

That is precisely what I said. Why do you not quote it?

The hon. Leader may quote it himself to confirm that we need have no doubts about his loyalty to South Africa. I wanted an answer from him, but he remained silent for 10 minutes as if he was not sure of his case. If in future we can get a clear answer from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we shall all know where we stand and his people will know where they stand as well. Perhaps then he will make progress.

I think we ought to take cognizance of the fact that double standards are being applied to South Africa and that they are also being endorsed by people and institutions in this country. I also think it necessary that we on both sides of this House take cognizance of and attain clarity regarding the problems we have to deal with and that we express ourselves clearly in that regard so that everyone in South Africa may know exactly where we stand.

In that regard I want to quote from a publication of the United States Information Service. This contains Ambassador Young’s statement in the United Nations Security Council.

† This pamphlet is dated 3 November 1977. This Mr. Young, this ambassador, is often quoted and not only quoted. When he comes to South Africa he also visits the leader of the PFP.

Does he not visit your leader too? What nonsense are you talking!

Officially he does come to us, but unofficially he goes to you people.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Unofficially he goes to the PFP.

*He conducted discussions with those people. I want those hon. members to take cognizance of the fact that if he goes to them again unofficially, he also comes as representative and ambassador of the USA at the UN. When he has matters to discuss with us, he will approach the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Prime Minister.

Are you maintaining that we may not speak to him?

I did not meet him. There is no need. Let those hon. members take note of what he had to say. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, is it the hon. the Minister’s attitude that members of this party may not speak with representatives of other countries, not even when they are hostile towards us?

No, that is not the attitude, but the way in which they receive the ambassador and the way in which he is carried shoulder high makes me suspicious. I am not referring to the hon. member for Yeoville; I am referring to the people with whom he associates and with whom he does not feel at home. I quote further—

I want to stress that and the House must take cognizance of it: That is the kind of story spread at the UN by the Ambassador of the USA. He states—

And here sits one group of the “opponents of apartheid”. We have had an election, too, in that time. I want the House to take note of the blatant untruths concerning South Africa that are being disseminated and that form the basis, to a large extent, of the hostility towards South Africa. The people are not even informed, and I want to ask that hon. member, if he should want to consult with Ambassador Young again, first to make very sure that he brings this kind of thing to his attention and informs him in this regard. I should be obliged if that hon. member would avail himself of the opportunity to rise and say on behalf of that party that he dissociates himself from the blatant untruths contained in this kind of statement. He should not simply get up and say that it is the NP’s policy that causes hostility throughout the world. The hostility in the world—and I think we must take cognizance of it—is to a large extent being fanned from this country. There are people in this country who have no loyalty towards this country. It is worth taking a look at this and reading books and reports about South Africa. In July last year I was in the USA and Canada. All reports I encountered in the newspapers there came from South Africa, most of them from reporters attached to liberal newspapers in this country. And in nine out of ten of those reports, the facts were not correct. That is just our problem. Damage is being done to the image of South Africa throughout the world by disloyal people in this country.

I have said in the past that there are reporters in South Africa who are not South African citizens and I think that perhaps we should look at that. It is a difficult matter because we should not like to restrict foreign reporters. However, there are reporters with newspapers in this country who are not South African citizens, who have no loyalty towards South Africa and who sent reports overseas which give rise to and, in fact, serve directly as a basis for, the taking of this kind of decision and the making of this kind of statement by the ambassador of the USA. That is why I ask, and I want to make an appeal to those hon. members, that in dealing with the affairs of South Africa, which are delicate and thorny and are matters of importance to all of us, they should not deal with them lightly and allow this kind of thing. I should like to hear from that side of the House—and I should be obliged if the hon. member for Yeoville would handle this matter—that they themselves do not associate with this type of false reporting which is widespread in the outside world and which is therefore the sole cause of the unfavourable light in which South Africa is seen at present. This is not the policy of the NP; it is an incorrect representation of the policy of the NP. Exaggerated and false reporting—that is just our problem abroad. The hon. members of the PFP asked that the Department of Information be taken away from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who still holds that portfolio. The vast number of things to be rectified by those people cannot all simply be rectified. They cannot set right all the wrong things that are done. They are inspired from here, and why? To cast suspicion on the NP. They think they are fighting against the NP but at the same time South Africa is being harmed. I feel that this is a serious matter for all of us and one which we must look at in all honesty and deal with properly. The world is not simply hostile towards South Africa for no reason at all. Their motivation, as hon. members can see from these two decisions, is hopelessly wrong and rests on false premises. But where do they get it from? After all, they do not pick it up off the street; they get it here in South Africa. At the same time I want to say this: While these things are happening, one can go and see what is happening in the USA itself. Whereas those hon. members maintain that we shall be able to solve our problems in one community and live in peace, we must take a look at the USA. I arrived in New York when arson and riots were taking place. I went to take a look at the misery in Haarlem and the Lower Bronx. The Americans say this need not be so because the people have had every opportunity. But that is just the problem. They do not realize that those people have special needs. They caught almost 4 000 Negroes there. When I asked why they caught only Negroes, the policeman told me: But it is only they who steal. I asked him whether they had caught all of them. To that he replied that they had only caught those who had stolen and set fire to the White people’s property. “We do not catch them if they steal from each other.” This is the blatant discrimination one encounters in the USA, the country which is making such a fuss. In this connection I want to agree with the hon. member for Innesdal. These prejudices among people cannot simply be erased with a wave of the hand. They exist. But we have to respect one another. We have to get away from this hypocrisy, this blatant slandering of South Africa. We must get away from the double standards by which South Africa is measured. Those hon. members are not joining forces in an effort to solve these problems in an objective fashion. All they do is to declare stridently that it is the NP Government that is in power. It is their fault But see how they are faring over there. Now they want South Africa to end up in the same difficult position as that in which they find themselves. After all, they are not going to get anywhere. Can they not decide, once and for all, to be positive and to make a positive contribution? We do not expect that they should agree with everything the Government is doing, but it should surely be possible to perceive, from their criticism and actions, that they have loyalty towards South Africa. I do not perceive this, and that is why I question their motives. I want to state clearly to the hon. member for Yeoville that he is the exception in that party. I wish to make an appeal that these matters be dealt with in a sober, calm and objective fashion and that we should all agree and not merely say that it is the task of the Department of Information or the Department of Foreign Affairs to rectify these matters. Each of us has a duty and a task. We do not want these clever tricks. We do not want this terrible fear. These are the two things that we must get rid of. We want an honest, objective approach.

I now want to dwell for a moment on the issue of the consolidation of land. In my opinion this is a matter which will be quite extensively discussed in the future. Before I conclude, I just want to say that the first priority as far as Black people is concerned is no longer land, but how to use the land. That is the first priority. There is no point in giving a man something which he cannot use properly. The training of these people to enable them to acquire the skill to keep that land productive is the first requirement. I do not want to blame the people; they are making progress and they have a major task before them, but to give them more land at the moment—we can debate the matter further in the future—would be wrong.

How can you give them independence then?

There are various facets of development. That hon. member is so naïve. There is political development and there is economic development. We cannot tell the people: Look, you do not yet know how to use the land; therefore you cannot become independent. That is the argument which that hon. member now wants to advance. That is blatant nonsense and is unfair to the Black people.

I want to let that suffice because it has been indicated to me that I had now better conclude.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some sympathy and with considerable interests to the remarks made by the hon. the Minister about overseas Press reports, false reports which are so often sent overseas from South Africa. However, I also listened with some incredulity, because all these matters were brought to the fore and were given great prominence in the Press Commission’s report which was tabled in this House many, many years ago. I must say it seems to me that nothing has been done about it at all. More recently I personally have raised these matters in Parliament, and I have referred, for example, to reports sent overseas by Stanley Uys in which he purported to have been an eye-witness of an incident here in Cape Town, commonly known as the Cathedral steps incident. Those reports were sent by him while he was in fact touring the Greek islands at the very time the incident occurred here in Cape Town. Well, nothing has been done by the Government about that matter, and therefore it is with some surprise that I have heard the hon. the Minister speak as he has just spoken here.

Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious to you and to hon. members that the three of us in these benches set greater store by quality than by quantity. At any rate, that is in the short term. We feel that we have a role to play here in Parliament, the role we undertook to the electorate we would play if elected, and if you will allow me tomorrow to tell you what that role is to be I will, with your permission, move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—