Mr. Speaker, we in this House and the younger generation in the Republic are living in exceptional times, times when even our survival as a nation is at stake. We in these benches believe that such times require responsible actions by the Government and equally responsible reactions from the Opposition benches. Wherever possible we, small as we are, will try to find common ground with the Government on matters affecting the security of the Republic. Therefore we will support all reasonable measures in the fields of external defence and the maintenance of internal law and order.

In the field of foreign affairs we hope to be able to support the Government’s policies, but because this is a field in which personal judgment and the assessment of fast changing international affairs are involved, we shall not be altogether uncritical when we believe the Government has erred. We will not oppose measures originating from the Cabinet benches merely because we are sitting here in the Opposition benches. We will support those measures we think should be supported and we shall do so without fearing and without caring what the PFP and the PFP Press have to say about it. [Interjections.] We will strongly oppose all inefficiency and maladministration and any corruption which might exist wherever and whenever we find it. Where we differ from Government policy we will try to put forward constructive alternatives. However, at all times we will encourage the Government to go forward with its own policies in accordance with the repeated mandates that have been given to the Government at election after election and not to drag its feet as, I am afraid, has so often been the case. This is the kind of responsible opposition role that we in these benches, small as we are, shall try to play. It will not be confrontation politics. It will not be either/ or politics. That we leave to the PFP and to their newspapers and to their mentors outside South Africa. [Interjections.] We shall not take part in debates on everything that comes before this House. That, in our opinion, is only a waste of time and expensive to boot. We shall be selective, and, I hope, constructive as long as we sit here in these benches.

*We are a small party and it is true that the role which we can play here is limited. There has to be an Opposition in South Africa and last year—even though it was a small party— the SAP played the role of a responsible Opposition. The SAP is supported by many more people outside the House than its three parliamentary seats reflect. Over and above the role which we can play here, there is also another reason why we must make ourselves heard from the Opposition benches. We must prove that the PFP, the smallest official Opposition in the history of the country, is not representative of the voting public. On the contrary. The PFP was supported by the voters only in so far as its newspapers enjoy the good favour of their bitterly dissatisfied reading public. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, we believe that it is very definitely in the interest of South Africa that the Western countries in particular should realise that the PFP is merely a small, insignificant group, a group which is being kept alive by their Press and by Anglo American, a group which has no potential whatsoever for growth and with which the large majority of Opposition voters want nothing at all to do. In fact, they want nothing to do with any political party which dances to the tune of foreign powers. [Interjections.] There is no place in South Africa for a Western puppet party.

Now I should like to refer to the results of the election. They were a personal triumph for the hon. the Prime Minister, but, not so much a motion of confidence in his Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister received a motion of confidence which was a consequence of the image of his hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs: the image of a man who goes it alone against the rest of the world. In any event, more English-speaking people than ever before voted for the governing party.

One can almost say that at this stage the NP is no longer a party for the Afrikaner alone. It has almost become a sort of South African party now. That is why—philosophically speaking at least—the SAP and the NP have become closer to one another. [Interjections.] Some of my former colleagues confuse national unity with party unity—or so I believe. We do not believe that the existence of one party only is a prerequisite for national unity. After all, then one would be advocating a one-party State and this is something which no one in South Africa would like to have. Party connections have nothing to do with patriotism. The criterion for patriotism is not membership of a specific political party. I think that the real criterion is the love which someone bears for his fatherland, his loyalty towards South Africa and how he demonstrates this. The manner in which we in these benches have chosen to demonstrate this is to serve South Africa from the Opposition benches, even though this may not be the easiest path to follow.

The election resulted in one good thing. It suddenly turned some of the Progressive leaders into great patriots overnight, even though this was only for the duration of the election. One remembers the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville which the newspapers called a “Yankee-go-home” speech. We remember the headlines of the Sunday Times: “Eglin lambastes Carter”. Sir, it was refreshing. Under those circumstances, an election should be held practically every year! [Interjections.]

† One cannot help remembering—indeed, how can anyone in this House ever forget—their adulation of Andy Young and their excuses for Mondale and company. For years the Progs have been Kennedy-struck and the darlings of the United States Embassy set. This image they will not be able to shake off with statements such as that made by the hon. member for Yeoville this morning. Too many of his colleagues want overseas pressure on South Africa to bring about radical change and Black majority rule which, they state themselves, is their very own policy.

*Mr. Speaker, the election is over. The Government has an enormous majority, but what does this solve? Nothing in itself. Some progress has been made in the sphere of inflation, and I think the Minister of Finance is gaining the confidence of the financial world of South Africa, but a bold stand has not yet been taken against inflation and all its dangers. I think that restrictive measures should still be maintained. They should not be abolished too soon, nor should conditions be relaxed too soon, even if the economy has to be stimulated on a broad front.

† The outward and visible signs of inflation are the exorbitant escalation of prices of essential commodities and services such as electricity. We have had steel price increases, and an increase in the price of sugar, in spite of a world surplus. Further increases have taken place in the price of fertilizer and bricks. This last increase was announced only this last week-end. Then, over the years, we have had excessive rail tariff increases, which have had an accumulative effect on increasing the prices of products in all spheres. Price rises in essential commodities and services are unable to be absorbed by the man in the street, who is having a very hard time. As a result, he is demanding higher wages. If these are given to him inflation grows worse, it is said.

Mr. Speaker, there is another cause of inflation. I refer to the question of an overweight State machine. There are hundreds of thousands of people employed in the service of the State—that is to say not in the employ of private enterprise— starting in the local authority sphere, working up through the provincial administrations to Government and semi-Government levels, in Government institutions and authorities. All of them are supposed to be serving the public, but I say without any fear of contradiction that the public is not being sufficiently and efficiently served. All of these people in the State service have votes and that is why politicians treat this topic as if it were a holy cow. Nevertheless, Sir, this overweight Government and semi-Government machine is costing South Africa millions and millions of rand not only in salaries and ever-growing social welfare benefits, but also in pensions and continuing social welfare benefits in future years, and this is out of all proportion to their real value and the public service which they deliver. South Africa cannot afford such a machine now, let alone when things go wrong and get harder, as unquestionably they will. It must be drastically pruned, and many of its members must be diverted and channelled into self-supporting private enterprise. I go so far as to say that we have a cumbersome State machine incapable of handling problems speedily, bogged down by red tape, and having far too many different departments involved in the giving of different permissions, all of which cause appalling delays and add to the burden of inflation.

*Sir, there are too many officials who do nothing. Many others do not work hard enough. I think the shorter working week had a psychologically disrupting, detrimental effect on all. The tendency now is to work less and for shorter hours. This does not affect the Public Service alone, but every section of the community. Public servants should be the servitors of the people, and definitely not their masters. The efficient public servants should receive higher salaries, while the inefficient should be eliminated on all levels.

† The whole public service system must be re-examined by a commission as a matter of urgency and streamlined. What is equally essential is to take the Police Force, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force out of the clutches of the Public Service Commission without any further delay, because their own efficiency is being seriously handicapped by being tied to that body. I ask: Can we afford a loss of manpower and dissatisfaction in our Defence Force and Police Force at this stage? The Government will have to take drastic steps to rectify this situation. It is getting out of hand. Instead of working less, our people must, at all levels, be prepared to take a leaf out of the book of the Germans and work for our survival just as the Germans had to work after the war for their reconstruction.

A very unfair attack on the Civil Service.

There are far too many Whites and non-Whites who are not doing a job of work at all and who are turning to a life of crime. I think we should start with the Coloured youth here in the peninsula, in the western Cape townships, and have a clean-up operation, with compulsory trade training for them and employment in the construction of pavements, road-making, house-building and landscaping in their own townships. This is the time to eliminate the housing backlog, whilst at the same time eliminating some of the unemployment Yet the Government seems to do little to utilize unproductive labourer sources.

*I now want to say something about gold. Gold should not be used for monetary ends alone. There should be a gold conversion industry in South Africa. Our gold products must be marketed as such. Why has such an industry not been established already? We cannot sit and wait for a high gold price forever. In any event, all the evidence indicates that the USA is strongly opposed to this, and in the recent past we have relied too much on a sharp increase in the gold price and we have spent capital which we could not afford. I think the time has come for us to process our own gold.

† What must be established is a gold conversion, gold refining and goldsmith industry in South Africa.

*Let us look for a moment at security, beginning with internal security. We are quite prepared to grant the Government extensive powers provided that they are exercised effectively, fairly and justly. We are prepared to support all steps which will not put South Africa to shame. I am not interceding for Biko this afternoon. I read about the Black Consciousness Movement in the report of the Schelebusch Commission, a movement of which he was apparently a leader.

† If one puts two and two together, one knows who his friends were, and if one puts another two and two together, one knows what he was about.

*However, the way in which his death and detention were handled is a great source of embarrassment for South Africa. In fact, it has come to be not the Biko case, but the Minister Kruger case. I think that the hon. the Minister made incomprehensible statements. Why? He is not incompetent. We know him as a man who works hard and who is prepared to work even harder. One possibility is that he is protecting officials in his own department, which, if it is true, is entirely wrong. Another alternative is the possibility that the hon. the Minister was being led up the garden path by his own officials, and in my opinion, this is the most likely of all. In any event, we are not in a position to judge. The state of affairs as described in the court cannot, however, be tolerated in South Africa under any circumstances. Of course, the whole of South Africa welcomes the announcement that the hon. the Minister made yesterday, viz. that the matter is going to be referred to the Attorney-General. I am sorry to say what I am about to say now. The image of our Security Police is not a good one at the moment. There are a disturbing number of deaths in detention as a result of accidents and suicide. Too many people escape and flee the country.

† Let me deal here with Mr. Woods. I have always believed that we should allow banned exiles to be quoted, and never has there been greater proof of that argument than in the last few days when one could see what this man Woods has said about his country of birth in the United Nations.

Whoever allowed him to escape? Woods was a man who for years exacerbated good relations between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people on the border. He incited hostility and hatred among Blacks for Whites. Which Black man, over the years having read Woods, could feel anything but hatred for the White man in his country? To show what English speakers on the border thought of St. Donald Woods, look at the East Griqualand and East London City election results. If he was to have been prosecuted, why was he not better guarded by the Police Force? Woods escaped to Lesotho. What are we going to do about the extradition of people like Woods from Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland? It seems to me that those countries have become havens of political asylum and oases for people on their way to receive training in terrorist camps, to say nothing of there being bases for subverting the politics of South Africa and of Rhodesia. I ask whether the time has not arrived and whether it is not possible for effective steps to be taken to end this state of affairs.

*What about defence? I think we have a good Minister of Defence, a man who does his duty—and I say this advisedly, because I know many people in the Defence Force. However—and we shall raise this under his Vote again—I think that our Citizen Force could be put to much better use. I also think that a home guard system should be established throughout the country with a view to weekend training of men between 35 and 45 years old. It is felt that the standard of training should also be raised before units are sent to the border, because too many accidents happen on the border, especially amongst short-term border units.

Now I want to say a few words about the Coloured Corps. The S.A. Coloured Corps is a remarkable achievement for everyone; not only for the Defence Force, but for the Coloured people too. This unit has an honourable reputation for loyal service and in recent times in particular there have been exceptional achievements in the military sphere. However, the past year has also proved that the Cape Corps is in fact much more than just a military achievement. The people who serve in that Corps for a year and receive training return to civilian life as better equipped people and are able to make valuable, constructive contributions to the community and the economy. The Minister, the Defence Force and the Coloured people themselves are entitled to be proud of the achievements of the Cape Corps. No one is a better South African, no one has a greater love for his fatherland than those who voluntarily do a year’s military service, and who voluntarily risk their lives on our borders for the sake of this country, all its people and everything which every good South African believes in. As far as the quality of their service and the sincerity of their convictions are concerned, the Coloured people in the Defence Force are second to none. Unfortunately, these excellent voluntary soldiers receive lower salaries, and also receive less danger money when they do border duty. I think that this is entirely unjustifiable. These people deserve more than just a verbal tribute, and they deserve this not tomorrow, but today. Otherwise we shall all be guilty of the most unfair form of discrimination.

As far as our foreign relations are concerned, I think that the image of our country is better at the moment than it was under the predecessor of the present Minister of Foreign Affairs. The present Minister of Foreign Affairs is not so apologetic. In South West Africa, progress has been made towards independence and I hope that an election date is going to be announced soon, otherwise many people in South West Africa are going to begin to lose confidence in their own future. Of course, the stumbling block there is Swapo. I think that the Western countries are mediators for Swapo, and Swapo is nothing but the vehicle of the communist forces. The Government must never forget these words of Mr. Churchill: “One can never negotiate with a communist.” I want to remind the Government today of the fact that the five Western powers are involved in an international game of their own. For every concession which we make, they simply demand another. As long as Carter and Callaghan are in power, and as long as Owen and Young are their lieutenants, South Africa will never be able to satisfy them. All they are interested in is our capitulation and surrender.

I say that we must work out our own salvation and that we must do what only is right. Just as in the case of South West Africa, an internal settlement is also within reach in Rhodesia. There the Patriotic Front is the stumbling block, as well as the uncalled for intervention of Britain and America. We must not believe for one moment that if a settlement is reached in Rhodesia, we shall be left alone. I think that a peaceful settlement must be reached. Therefore I believe that we must tell the world now: We are simply not going to sit back and allow hostile forces to disrupt the existing law and order in Rhodesia. Angola is too fresh in our memories. I have said it before and I repeat it today: The borders of our sphere of influence are the Kunene River and the Zambesi River and definitely not the Orange River and the Limpopo River.

† What happens in Rhodesia and South West Africa has a great psychological effect on all of us, especially the Whites living in the Republic. I do not believe that the Government has conditioned the minds of the people of South Africa enough to the realization that we are fighting for our very survival. Confidence is not high in all spheres. There is an unhealthy uncertainty which is not being allayed by the Government. This unhealthy uncertainty is being stimulated by an un-South African Press with impunity. I think it is high time that the Government required the newspapers of South Africa to publish their circulation figures so that the White people of South Africa can see what the circulation figures are for those newspapers in the Black townships. Then one will see why those newspapers write as they do. We ignore this danger of a Press that is undermining the morale of the White people in South Africa at our peril.

*A larger percentage of English-speaking people voted for the NP as a result of the dangers, both domestic and foreign, which are facing us. However, we do not yet have a true South African nation. National unity is a greater requirement now than at any other time in our history. However, this has not penetrated to all levels of our community.

† I believe that there is no need for pessimism about our future. We are a strong nation even though we are a small one. However, what we need is a spirit of dedication to a cause such as the cause of Israel. We do not have a dedication to the extent that is necessary amongst the White people, let alone amongst the other population groups. However, it can and it must be developed by us and the Government is responsible for it. To date it has not done so but we shall encourage the Government on this road wherever we possibly can. Therefore in a spirit of encouragement, and yet criticism, we move the following further amendment and this is the only amendment for which we will vote in this House—

1. (1) to implement its policy so as to make it a practical reality and to effect the necessary adjustments to create peace, prosperity and stability among all South Africans;
2. (2) to make it possible for all South Africans to participate to a greater extent in the security and defence of the country;
3. (3) to take the necessary steps to make the stability of the economy a priority so as to ensure the welfare of all South Africans”.

Mr. Speaker, we have had the privilege of listening to the leaders of the three Opposition parties in this House after the election and of hearing what their standpoint is regarding the present and the future. It was very interesting to listen to them and I believe that the members of this House and the general public have awaited the debate with exceptional interest to see how things develop with the new dispensation in Opposition ranks.

The last Opposition leader to speak was the hon. member for Simonstown. I listened attentively to his speech and it is perfectly clear to me that he wishes to act responsibly in this House and I believe that he will. It is also clear to me that there are many aspects in which he supports the Government, whilst he is critical of certain other aspects of our policy. I do not wish to refer to his amendment now. It consists of three points and one can reply fully to each of those three points. However, I want to say this. The hon. member will have to decide in the course of the next year or two what carries more weight with him: those aspects in which he supports the Government or those with regard to which he criticizes the Government, because I do not believe he will succeed in the long term to continue running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. At some stage or other, he is going to come a cropper.

I also listened attentively to my good old friend, the hon. member for Durban Point. He had a difficult task, because he had to state and defend the standpoint of a new party. Everyone I met during the election, people from the full political spectrum, was at a loss to understand what had become of his previous party. The hon. member’s speech was interesting and I particularly enjoyed the first part of it, which was full of political sniping. When the hon. member started explaining the philosophy and the policy of his present party, however, he was out of his depth and he experienced some difficulty. I realize that he is a new leader and that he became one suddenly and unexpectedly during this session. One has to make allowances for that and bear in mind that he will have other opportunities to put his case. One thing which, in my opinion, he will have to justify, is the fact that he is sitting here today as the leader of the NRP and not as the leader of the UP. He must tell us how the new party differs from the UP and he must explain to us in which respects the new party is better than the old UP. This he must do in order to defend his own right of existence.

I approach the speech made by the official Leader of the Opposition with a mixed bag of feelings, a feeling of amusement, of disappointment and of indignation … [Interjections.] Yes, one could add frustration and despair to that list. We had thought that the advent of a new official Opposition would produce new sounds and a new constructive contribution to the debates in this House. We expected something original and sparkling. But they simply followed the old recipe once again with qualities which make one sad and anxious. We who love Parliament would like the Opposition to be bold and to speak clearly and unambiguously, so that there may be friction between intellects and between ideas, without which intellectual progress is arduous and slow. We did not get that, however. It was the Press that fought four years ago for the hon. members to be elected on merit. Now they have the opportunity of proving their merit. So far we have been waiting in vain.

Let us take a look at what has happened. The only thing that has struck me in the contributions made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those followers of his who have spoken so far, is the hesitation, the uncertainty and the despair in their minds about their policy and the role they have to play in South Africa. We have had several examples of this.

The hon. member for Barberton referred to the publication of the International Association of Jurists—Political Imprisonment in South Africa—in which South Africa was besmirched, and pointed out that the hon. member for Houghton had already made use of the publication in her speeches. He said (Hansard, 31 January 1978) that she referred to the allegations in this book as “facts”. The hon. member for Houghton replied by way of an interjection: “So they are”. That was an unqualified statement that she made. The hon. member for Barberton proceeded to quote one exaggerated falsehood after another from the book. The hon. member for Houghton remained silent. Later in his speech the hon. member for Barberton quoted allegations from the book which described how the South African Police made wounded prisoners lie on their stomachs and trampled them to death with their heavy boots. The hon. member still remained silent but when the hon. member for Barberton confronted her with these facts once again, she cried out (Hansard, 31 January 1978)—

That may be so. Even an abomination of a publication like this one can accidentally tell the truth here and there.

They can spell “death” correctly.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, perhaps they can spell “death” correctly. It is a pity the hon. member for Houghton is not in the Chamber. I want to address a polite request to her now to be so good as to point out to us where in her discussions of this book she has taken the trouble to indicate that it contains falsehoods and, ugly exaggerations as well, and that it is therefore not completely reliable. Anyone who is not familiar with South Africa and who hears a front-bencher in the South African Parliament say that it is a book—as she did say—the facts of which the Government cannot deny, and who does not have her point out to him that it is not all fact, might be misled into believing that it is a reliable and credible book. The harm done to South Africa would be incalculable. I invite the hon. member for Houghton to tell us outside this House, or, on a suitable occasion inside the House, when she has warned the public that this book also contains mistakes, falsehoods and dirt.

The second thing which struck me, was that the Opposition had been asked what their standpoint was towards those people outside South Africa who wished to harm us through their actions. We did not receive a reply. However, there was a statement in this morning’s newspaper by a member of the party—I do not want to call him a backbencher—the hon. member for Yeoville. It was a bold, good and fine statement Apart from the heading, which was placed at the top of the report by The Cape Times itself, there was no reference to the PFP in the hon. member’s statement. He apparently issued the statement as an individual. If he did not issue it in an individual capacity, why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or a Whip not issue it? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville and I have had sharp differences in the past and we shall continue to differ, but I can attest to one fact: He is a South African patriot. I know from discussions we have had that he is grateful to South Africa for what the country has done for him and his family. I appreciate that. It seems to me that the hon. member now has to play a role in the PFP. Because he is known as a man whose patriotism is above suspicion, he is being used to assure certain elements in the South African population that they can trust the PFP. Meanwhile other members of the PFP, such as the hon. member for Houghton, will continue to use foreign publications which besmirch and tell lies about South Africa as an instrument with which they may harm South Africa and its Government, for the sake of their own political advancement. This is something the public will have to watch because I believe that unless the PFP undergoes a transformation and changes its actions, it holds a real threat to South Africa’s future, security and stability. There is vacillation.

To me, and I think to many of the hon. members, one of the most interesting parts of this debate was the direct dialogue on Monday between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of the policy statements, the policy standpoints, published by The Star during the election campaigns of the five political parties which took part in the election. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition implied that that statement did not reflect the policy of the PFP.

The hon. the Prime Minister said it was my personal statement. [Interjections.]

No. Hon. members called out during the discussion: “Who said that?” The hon. the Prime Minister said in reply that it was the PFP. [Interjections.] What has happened now? I want to put a question to them yet again. The Star stated PFP policy as follows—

Is that their policy? [Interjections.] In all friendliness, I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether or not The Star stated their policy correctly. Does it come from a person of authority in that party? That is not all, however. The hon. the Prime Minister said that if the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was correct, then The Star “to say the least, is guilty not only of gross distortion, but also of gross dishonesty”. Now that is a very serious charge against a newspaper by someone who has the status of Prime Minister of the country. Something struck me last night when I was reading The Argus, a sister-newspaper of The Star. This morning I read The Star carefully and had others read through it as well. Not a word was mentioned about this debate between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Neither a denial nor a vindication was forthcoming from either The Star or the PFP. [Interjections.] I find that strange, because as I know newspapers, it is their honourable practice whenever they are attacked, particularly in Parliament, to publish that attack and to comment on it if they tan. But in this case not only was no comment passed on it, but the facts of the debate were not even reported in The Star or in any of its sister-newspapers. What will become of the journalistic standards in South Africa if such things happen? What is to become of the credibility of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if his own Press is too afraid to correct him where he has erred in Parliament? I say there are vacillation and uncertainty in their ranks.

I must not forget my good, dear friend, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the touch-and-go member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] I believe every party has the right to change its policy as the realities and circumstances of life change. I believe an individual has the right to change his political standpoint. I am defending all the hon. members sitting over there. There is not a single hon. member of the Opposition who has not changed his party. [Interjections.] I do not want to discuss my hon. friend’s past, or his seven changes. But the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned something condemning that he had said about the PFP. When he was participating in the debate, what was his defence? They are a new party with a new policy …

Of course that is true.

Of course it is true. They have undergone a transformation twice in the past four years, the duration of the previous Parliament, and they changed their policy every time. They underwent a transformation twice and changed their policy twice. Every time they have a chance of attracting another two or three supporters, or even one, they change their policy to accommodate them. Where is this process going to end? The Progressive Party had a policy and altered even that policy which related to qualifications and the franchise, etc. Then it became the PRP with a new policy in order to accommodate the hon. member for Yeoville. Then it became the PFP with a new policy to accommodate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Now the question arises: How many more times is it going to change its name, its form and its policy during the next four years?

Never to include you.

When is the process going to end? I ask that question in pursuance of something said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on television, something to which the hon. the Prime Minister also referred. If he came into power what would be the first thing he would do? He said he would telephone Gatsha Buthelezi and Sonny Leon. Why would he telephone them? Would he telephone them to ask them to congratulate him? No. In accordance with his own standpoint, his own philosophy and his own policy, he would telephone them to discuss future policy and plans of action with them, and possibly to come to an agreement with them to reach a settlement with them. Now I ask, and I think the nation is asking: If they come into power and they telephone those people to negotiate with them, what parts of their policy will be negotiable? This is a very serious matter. How can the leader of a party which hopes to govern the country one day—it will not happen; it is ridiculous even to speculate about it—change its policy regularly in order to attract a few followers and announce that if he comes into power the first thing he will do is to negotiate with certain non-White leaders about policy, about standpoints? What is one to think of such a party? Are the people to wait until he comes into power? In that case the people would not know what they were voting for. If the PFP wanted to be honest, they would conduct those negotiations now, they would reach an agreement with Buthelezi, Leon and others now. They should take the people into their confidence and say: If you vote for us, you are voting for this or that. Do not tell the people: “Vote for me first; first give me a position of power in South Africa and then we shall negotiate with the other leaders and you will have to be satisfied with the decisions that are taken.” That gives one cause for grave concern. However, there is something fundamental in the policy of that party which is not negotiable, and I think they will agree. It is that they believe—and this is fundamental—in a single integrated society for the Republic of South Africa.

Economically?

No, I am talking about the political sphere. They talk about a federation which is going to be fair. I cannot talk seriously to them about their federal idea as a solution to the problem of the White man in South Africa as well until they are able to refer me to one magisterial district in South Africa—because, after all, they stand for a geographical federation—in which the Whites are in the majority.

May I ask a question?

No, my time is very limited.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I stood for that. I said in my first speech as a member of the NP why I no longer stood for it. I also said, however, that it contained certain elements which I would always, under certain circumstances, consider valid, because it recognizes peoples, and not geographic units in which the Whites are not in the majority anywhere. That is the difference. I have struggled for more than 20 years to get that into the head of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] Now, however, I want to ask my hon. friends opposite to give me one example of a place in the world where this idea of an integrated community in a multi-national country has been successful. Where in the world has that been the case?

Integrated economy.

In Nigeria? Has the hon. leader never heard of Biafra? Has he never heard of a civil war which lasted three years and cost three million lives? And then he wants to advance Nigeria as an example of the success of his policy! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there you have it! The hon. members of the official Opposition have never really sat and reflected on their own policy. They accept what the English Press writes and what certain magnates dictate to them, but they hesitate to think for themselves and then they make mistakes like these. Here we are dealing with the phenomenon … [Interjections.] I see the hon. member for Musgrave is leaving the House.

Come back!

I know what is happening to him. He has my sympathy! [Interjections.] We are dealing here with a fundamental departure—by the world body, the UN, as well—from one of the noble basic principles of Western philosophy in its approach to nations and States. That is, to be specific, the principle of self-determination, a principle which stems from the philosophy of a Kant, of a Hegel and others, a principle which stems from the French Revolution with the declaration by the national convention in 1795 on the rights of nations. It is a principle which comes from the American revolution with special reference to colonialism, a principle which obtained in South America as well as in Germany and Italy after unification, a principle which obtained after the Pope and Wilson, and even the communists of Russia supported it in 1917. Consequently several million people in Europe were liberated and obtained the right to self-determination during the peace negotiations at Versailles in terms of the otherwise questionable peace treaty of Versailles. It received recognition in the Second World War and appears in the Atlantic Charter. It also appears in chapter 1, paragraph 2, and chapter 53, paragraph 1 of the UN charter—the right to self-determination of nations.

In 1960, however, at the instance of the Third World, the UN accepted a very important amendment in their annual statement of and assent to the right to self-determination. They added the following to it, and I am quoting from the English documents of the UN—

The result was that the arbitrary borders of areas forced by the colonial powers on a continent like Africa were sanctified and could not be changed. That is why the UN was unable to take any action during the troubles in Katanga because they had conceded that the borders laid down by colonial powers—without regard to the ethnic relationship or the nationality or tribal background of the people involved, of course— were unchallengeable and unassailable. That brings me to the matter in regard to which my hon. friend opposite made such a mistake— Biafra. Although Biafra enjoyed the recognition of countries such as Tanzania, Zambia, Haiti and others …

But he never mentioned that!

He mentioned Nigeria.

He did not!

But I heard him say “Nigeria”. [Interjections.] I asked the hon. leader for an example and he mentioned Nigeria. Does he deny it now?

I did not say Nigeria.

But what example did you give when I asked you?

I spoke of economic integration. [Interjections.]

Sir, I cannot doubt the word of the hon. member, but I can only say that every hon. member in my surroundings heard the name “Nigeria”. This is indeed a strange coincidence.

*Nevertheless, we had Katanga, Biafra and Sudan. In the latter case approximately 2 million people died because the Negro Christians wanted separation from the Muslims and wanted their own identity. One of the two groups wanted the right to self-determination. At present we are experiencing this once again in the Horn of Africa with Eritrea and the other problems that are emerging there. This problem is also raising its head in Canada where people who have ethnic bonds such as the English and the French are demanding separate rights for themselves. We find it in Spain as well in the two areas in which people want their own rights. It is also raising its head in Britain where the Scots and the Welsh want their own rights. The policy of the PFP, however, is that such people must be forced together. Blacks and Indians and Coloureds and Whites must simply be forced together.

But you are doing it now in South West.

Their policy is that the accidents, the wilfulness of British colonialism in South Africa, should be made the permanent pattern of the Republic of South Africa and that the injustice done by the British to Transkei and the Zulus, should not be undone. We must keep it as it was. Everyone must be thrown together and the devil take the hindmost. Come what may, South Africa must become a Biafra, a Katanga or a Sudan. Here in South Africa things can simply go the same way as in the Horn of Africa. It is in the interests of the PFP to disregard, in imitation of the Third World, this basic thinking of Western civilization. Why is this so? Do they not give some thought to South Africa now and again? Do they not give some thought now and again to South Africa’s people who are divided into various ethnic groups? After all, every one of those groups has a right to its own identity and to self-realization.

I have listened to the hon. members’ speeches. I was in turn amused, disappointed and indignant because honestly, their actions in this debate and outside this House prove that they are not South Africans. They are not South African orientated and they think on instructions from outside this House and possibly from outside South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the hon. the Minister of Community Development was given an instruction before he got up. The instruction was to do a “chop” job on the official Opposition. He attempted to do this in his usual clownish way. He dealt with the hon. member for Houghton on a book which she had quoted. He spoke of the hon. member for Yeoville in relation to a statement which was issued. He spoke about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on an article which appeared in The Star and about which the hon. leader said he would reply tomorrow. Then he dealt in his usual way with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He also gave his view of PFP policy. He accused the hon. member of changing his principles perhaps once too often. I ask, if the criterion has to be that there have been changes in the Opposition, is it not far more remarkable when a man who has been elected to the Opposition changes his principles in midstream and walks to a Government which he has been elected to oppose?

The hon. the Minister attempted in a very brief time to debate his vision of PFP policy. He did not in any way attempt to debate the motion before the House today. He did not deal with the racial tensions we have experienced, he did not deal with the escalation of violence we have been seeing in this country, nor with the economy or any of the matters raised in the substantive motion. Instead he attempted, not to debate but to destroy, and this from a Minister who has himself played a role in increasing the aggravation of racial tensions in South Africa, this from the arch exponent of the law of the front-end loader.

*This reminds me of an article which I read a few weeks ago. In his address during the first sessional meeting of the Transvaal Provincial Council, the Administrator of the Transvaal stated a number of valid standpoints with regard to the responsibilities and duties of an Opposition in our democratic system. The Administrator said that should an Opposition concentrate on flagrant, destructive and negative criticism, it would lead to the council degenerating into a sterile debating association. The Administrator added that the Opposition should not only guard against the abuse of power by the Government, but that the Opposition should also contribute to sound government by means of constructive suggestions and criticism. He believes that the interests of the province should be put before that of the party. These remarks struck me, in the first place because they came from a man who, over the years, has not been enthusiastic about the role of an Opposition, and in the second place because the same thoughts apply to the activities of this House where matters of national interest are discussed. The duties of an Opposition are important. Destructive, negative criticism will indeed lead to the debate becoming sterile. It is the task of the Opposition to try and prevent the abuse of power and to make positive suggestions. These approaches cannot be faulted. However, what I found significant in the Administrator’s plea, were those aspects which he omitted to mention, i.e. that two participants are necessary to conduct a meaningful debate and that sound government does not depend exclusively on constructive criticism and positive suggestions by the Opposition. Constructive reaction and positive action by the Government is also required. Therefore, while we accept the role of a positive Opposition, it can only become completely meaningful if the Government accepts its part in this process. Disparaging utterances such as those we have just heard from the hon. the Minister, the questioning of the motives of members of the Opposition, will only succeed in distracting the attention from the clear and responsible analysis of our problems. Those who can contribute nothing more to the debate than to make disparaging remarks— we have already heard more than enough remarks of that nature during this debate— should preferably withdraw from the debate.

† Sir, this is not a debate about the policy of the PFP. This is a debate about a motion which has brought into focus the policies of the Government. The Government is answerable to the House and to the country for its actions and its policies, and for the position in which we South Africans find ourselves. I want to say that diversionary tactics such as we have witnessed this afternoon may well cloud the issues and may well blunt in the eyes of an uncritical audience the Opposition’s attack, but the concisely worded and clearly stated condemnation of the policies of the Government remains recorded in the motion. It is very easy to use red herrings in a debate such as this. It is very easy to attack the English-language Press, to have a go at the heads of countries far away and to tell us, as the hon. the Minister of Defence did yesterday, of the threatened communist onslaught in South Africa. I think it is correct that we react to those points. I think that, in so far as the Press is concerned, we find the attacks unconvincing in the extreme. We say that the South African, and particularly the English-speaking Press, is doing as good a job as it can bearing in mind the sword of Damocles hanging over it.

The sooner it falls, the better.

We say that our attitude does not differ all that much from that of the Government with regard to the other nations of the world. We realize and see that many of the Western powers have not of late acted in the best interests of South Africa. We say that our attitude in that regard will in most cases not differ.

As regards the communist onslaught, which was mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Defence, it is there. I believe that all members of the House are aware of the plans of Russia to dominate the entire Southern African tip.

I say that all members of the House will withstand that onslaught, but it is not sufficient that the members of this House withstand that onslaught—what is required is that we bring into reckoning that all South Africans should be part of this struggle against communism. The fact of communist aggression and the plans for the domination of Southern Africa are not in dispute, but we would be making a fatal error if we laid at the door of the communists and the terrorists all the faults and pressures which are to be found in our society. We would be committing national suicide if we allowed the Marxist threat to deviate us from creating the sort of society in which all races, all colours, could feel at home, happy and content. There is much that can be done about it. I know that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for one, will agree with me. A few weeks ago he was interviewed by the SABC. On that occasion he had the following to say—

In quoting these most sensible words, the editor of Rapport on 8 January had this to say—

Of course, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Innesdal, the whole argument revolves around the word “voortbestaan”. In this connection I should like to ask a few questions. Is it necessary for our “voortbestaan” in South Africa that, for instance, restaurants be the preserve of White people only, except in very limited and restricted circumstances? Is this particular attack upon the dignity of all races necessary for this “voortbestaan” of our nation? Is it necessary in order to ensure the “voortbestaan” of South Africa that cinemas, theatres and hotels, except under the most ludicrous conditions, are opened only to White people? Surely these restrictions are today causing more friction than the lack of restrictions ever could. In fact, incidents involving friction on this terrain in recent times are taking place where restrictions exist, not where they have been removed. The time has arrived when the right of admission to privately owned premises should be left to the owners and proprietors.

Mr. Speaker, in the field of sport there has been much progress and I believe that there have been very few incidents which have involved inter-racial friction, as a result of the progress that has been made. I believe that the sportsmen of South Africa have, in fact, reacted extremely responsibly in the progress that has been made. The only incidents that have taken place that I know of, have occurred where restrictions have not been lifted and not where the restrictions have been lifted. Those involve the Liquor Act and matters such as that. Is the time not ripe that we say to the responsible sportsmen of South Africa that the decision as to who should entertain whom after a sports meeting, should be left to the sportsmen and not to a Government regulation? Is it not possible to make the necessary provision this session? As I have said, the incidents that involve racial tension and friction are happening where the restrictions exist and not the other way around. Look at the hurt that has been caused this summer season because of the controversy and the actions of various authorities in regard to the beaches of South Africa.

Who is guilty?

Mr. Speaker, do you think that it is necessary for the “voortbestaan” of South Africa that we have policemen patrolling our beaches to ensure that people of certain race groups are not to be found on the wrong side of a particular line on a beach?

Is it not the duty of the local authority?

The question has been put whether it is not the duty of the local authority to see to this. I say that it is because of the attitude, the laws and the restrictions of this Government that the climate is such that local authorities have to implement these sort of rules and regulations.

Look at Balfour in the Transvaal where the Indian community has for 20 years held an annual picnic for its children at Christmas time. This year permission to hold the picnic was refused. For what reason? We have not yet found out. However, think what has happened to that little community: For the first time in 20 years they could not take their children for this Christmas picnic. We read just this week of another incident caused by the sort of restrictions which are fostered by this Government. I speak of Canon Eksteen who has been in the news because he tried to obtain a temporary permit to live in a house in a White area in Heidelberg, Cape Province, while his own house was being built. I say: Eliminate those restrictions, eliminate those affronts to dignity and one will be doing something palpable towards easing racial tensions.

However, it requires not only a change of law, it also requires a change of attitude. In this connection I would like to congratulate the new hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development on his appointment. I want to say to him that if he does nothing else in his department than to bring a new attitude to his department towards the people with whom he is going to come into contact, he will be doing a lot to ease the racial tensions that exist. One needs a new attitude, for example in a township like Alexandra. Alexandra is a township near my constituency. It is an old township having some 34 000 people living in it and it probably has 50 000 inhabitants if one takes the realities into account In the last five years and longer no money has been spent on roads, pavements, the construction of buildings or the repair of schools. The whole town has been allowed slowly to degenerate into the mess in which it is today. Money has not been spent on these services because we are told that the inhabitants of the town are going to be resettled. Although the resettlement plans were announced many years ago, in 1976 only one person was resettled from Alexandra to Soweto. In that year only 34 people were sent back to the homelands. That was the sum total of resettlement effected in Alexandra in 1976. The date of final resettlement is unknown. It will probably take 10 to 15 years. In the meantime this State-assisted slum is allowed to fester. Crime is rife, and misery is the order of the day. Alexandra, however, has got something. The question may be asked: What is that something? It provides for several thousand people a home in which families live, but even this is now in jeopardy. Bantu Board notices have been served and people are being moved to the City Deep hostel. Some of these people are married, others are single. Short extensions have been allowed. No debate or consultation was conducted with the people concerned. The result is that once again families have been split, uncomfortable new surroundings are the order of the day, they have no lockers, no privacy and no furniture space. These people are far from where they work and they face an additional burden in bus fares. Can we count, in figures, the human suffering that is brought about by this sort of action? Is this sort of action necessary for the “voortbe-staan” of South Africa?

Can’t you simply say “existence”.

Or the existence. Does this sort of action reduce racial tensions? Does this sort of action ensure the loyalty of South Africans whom we wish to make allies in the fight against communism?

I want to ask one more question before I sit down. How does a young man enter into the capitalist system and acquire his first wealth? I think it happens this way: A young man gets married and because he has no money, he goes and lives in a flat. After some years he may try to borrow money for the buying of a home. When children come, he may find that he needs a bigger home. What does he do then? He places his house on the market, sells it, and if the economy is stable, he makes a capital gain and moves to a new home. That man, for the first time, has entered into the capitalist free enterprise system of South Africa. This does not apply, however, to Black people. Progress has been made in this regard. On 10 November 1977 the hon. the Minister of Finance talked about building society loans to Blacks and said that certain progress had been made in order to make building society loans possible and that a further announcement would be made. That announcement has not yet been made. Two and a half years ago it was agreed that not land-ownership, but home-ownership would be given to Black people in urban areas. As far as I am aware this plan is still on the drawing-board except in the case of a very limited number of people. Now is the time to get moving and to take the matter further. The Government is so close to the granting of proper land-ownership that only one principle remains and yet the present schemes, improvements though they might be, are not the same. I want to know: Will it destroy our existence, our “voortbestaan”, if we allow true land-ownership without complications so that loans can be obtained through building societies and so that land can be bought and sold freely, even within their own townships, to keep within Government policy? Will it destroy our “voortbestaan” if we agree to this principle? Surely the time has come to be bold and the time has come to accept the principle which can only ease race tensions and ensure that we are building up people who have a stake in society and in defending the South Africa that we would also like to defend. We as an Opposition can only point these matters out. It is our duty to point them out, but we cannot implement these ideas. On 8 January Rapport said—

This is the Government of which hon. members on that side of the House are members.

Mr. Speaker, in this maiden speech in my new capacity the temptation is particularly great this afternoon for me to boast about the achievements of the NP in the Transvaal in the recent general election in eliminating the NRP’s two remaining seats and reducing the PFP’s 13 seats to nine. One feels a great need to boast about it and to place it on record. I shall however avoid doing so, and shall therefore not talk about it any further. I could also get involved in a full political debate with the official Opposition about their foolish policies, but for this occasion I have decided against that.

This afternoon I would rather use this opportunity, in the brief half-hour at my disposal, to try and lay down certain guidelines and indicate certain trends in connection with how I view my new task and how I intend to undertake it.

Please allow me, Mr. Speaker, before I do that, first to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor. The hon. M. C. Botha was a member of the House for 25 years. He served as Deputy Minister for five and a half years and thereafter for 12 years as Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education. His term of office was distinguished by development in practically every sphere and his hand and his initiative are discernible in many, many undertakings for the benefit of the Black man in South Africa.

I want to mention just a few. He displayed a particular interest in agriculture. As far as research is concerned he established special sections to actualize better planned and practically orientated research in all spheres which affect the well-being of the Black man. In respect of health services he left his normal impress, and it was his idea to establish an independent medical university for the Black nations of Southern Africa. This complex is presently in the process of construction. In the constitutional sphere the hon. M. C. Botha personally established nine Legislative Assemblies. He was undoubtedly the central figure who contributed to and helped with the attainment of independence by Transkei and Bophuthatswana, and today every Black nation has its own form of government in one or other phase of development I notice that in respect of housing, R135 million was spent on housing for Black people in urban areas during his term of office and that in the homelands, 73 towns were established and developed at a cost of R393 million. In the White areas he was responsible for the establishment of Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, and the fact that regulations for the establishment of 16 community councils have since been promulgated, bears witness to the fact that this institution has gained proper acceptance. He also made a contribution to the economic development of the Black man. The establishment of an Economic Development Corporation, the Bantu Mining Corporation, the Bureau of Economic Research into Bantu Development—B.E.R.B.D.—and 10 Economic Development Corporations in the homelands has, from the very nature of things, added great momentum to the economic development of the Black people.

I would have liked to devote more time to him, but unfortunately I cannot do so except to express once again my thanks and pay tribute to a predecessor who was great in his actions, for his work, his devotion, his zeal, his integrity and his unimpeachable patriotism. It gives me pleasure to pay tribute to him on this occasion. In this department he laid solid foundations and built on them soundly. I shall continue that task with a sense of my own shortcomings. In the nature of things, I shall have my own approach and give further shape to the department and its further development according to my own lights, but I gladly pay tribute to a man who deserves tribute from the whole House and gratitude from the entire nation.

Hear, hear!

I fully realize the importance of the position in which I find myself in the present epoch of our history and political development. To the outside world, South Africa consists of Black and White people, and success in the future depends upon whether there is going to be successful liaison and understanding between Black and White people in South Africa.

Before I undertake my new task, I should like to lay down a few guide-lines to indicate how I view my task. When I get time to do so, I like to play tennis. On the tennis court there are boundary lines. Within the limits of those lines, one can play any stroke; it is permissible and it is part of the game. On the other hand, no matter how perfect a stroke one plays, if the ball lands outside those lines, one loses the point. I would therefore like to draw a few guide-lines which I see as the framework within which I shall operate.

The first line which I should like to draw clearly, is that in my new capacity I shall implement the NP’s policy to its fullest consequences.

Hear, hear!

I do not intend implementing the policy of any other party or trying to carry out the directions of any other party. When I say that I am going to implement the policy of the NP, I am going to implement the real policy and not the caricature policy which other people make of the NP’s policy and which some people hold up to us.

Within the policy of the NP the highest ideals of everyone in South Africa can be realized in respect of basic human rights, majority rule and the right of self-determination. It is all possible, indeed self-evident, within the framework of the NP’s policy. That is the first principle which I would like to lay down, viz., that I shall abide by that policy and not implement a mandate which the NP did not receive.

The second line which I should like to draw as a guide-line for this department is that in this department, to a greater extent than in many other departments, it is necessary for special attention to be given to sound human relations and healthy dialogue between people, that we shall listen to one another, talk to one another, take mutual counsel and reason out together about how we may jointly enter the future in this country and live together in peace. I shall therefore devote special attention to that.

I should like to draw two lines whereby I wish to indicate what I shall not be prepared to do. I shall not be disposed—there must be no illusions about this—to do anything which jeopardizes or endangers the political authority over one’s own people. I do not believe in that and I shall have no part in any action in that direction, regardless of pressure from whatever quarter. In the second place I shall not take any action or promote or further any development which will impair or destroy the identity of any population group or nation. To me these matters are not negotiable, because they are fundamental and basic. Let us here in this House and everybody outside, friend and foe, immediately accept quite clearly that there is no arguing this matter with me. I shall persist in maintaining those principles, regardless of the other things which I intend trying to do.

South Africa is a microcosm of the world as a whole. As the outside world consists of different nations each with a different character, culture and different ethnic groupings, so South Africa also consists of a diversity of nations. Just as the international world was, for many years, dominated and ruled over by the White nations of the world and just as they for many years had control over international bodies such as, inter alia, the old League of Nations, so in due course, especially after the Second World War, in the new organizations which then emerged, a change set in and the coloured nations began to an ever increasing extent to insist on their rights and they were no longer content to play a subordinate role. To an ever-increasing extent the Black, Brown and other coloured nations also began to demand their rights, too, in the international forums of the world. How did the world handle those problems? The world handled that situation by recognizing the differences between the different nations, giving realization to them, recognizing their status and right of self-determination and making them members of the international world organizations in order that they might attain full status. Surely that is the only reason why the UN’s 51 members in 1947 have multiplied to the approximately 150 members of today.

If that is the solution which the world envisaged for the question of diversification of a diversity of nations that were no longer prepared to remain in a subordinate position, then why is South Africa being condemned when she, who is a microcosm of that world, a microcosm of diverse nations joined together on this sub-continent, follows the same pattern and strives to achieve exactly the same ideals by also giving recognition to each of her nations and granting them the right to prosper to full maturity? I shall proceed along those lines and help to develop Black governments that already exist, governments in various phases of development, to develop to full and equal self-reliance and self-determination, to a system of “one man, one vote” and to majority rule in their own countries with no ceiling above the heads of the various States, i.e. to full sovereign independence such as any other State in the world has. The term which I should like to use in defining this concept, this development, is “plural democracies”, the concept which I enunciated a few years ago already and which will now be carried out on a broader basis. The concept “plural” has to me the connotation of the diversity which exists in the society of South Africa and the concept “self-determination” or “democracies”, as it stands here, has to me the connotation of the right of every nation to decide its own future according to its own conviction in that part of the country which belongs to it.

Furthermore, voluntary liaison between friendly States in Southern Africa will, in the nature of things, also be my aim. Two Opposition parties talk about a federation or a confederation, or something of that nature. I do not like the concept of “confederation”, for the simple reason that a confederation has an umbrella body at the top which in reality has a say, can exercise control and make decisions which are binding on the constituent members. I do not believe in that. I prefer to believe in the image which our hon. Prime Minister used a few years ago, when he referred to a power block of nations which can develop in Southern Africa, even outside the borders of our present territory, a power block in which each can co-operate with the others on a voluntary basis, confer together and plan together on the basics for Southern Africa—economic, social, military, etc.—but voluntarily, without any authority being exercised over the individual States by that power block or co-operative group. These stated objectives are aims, and the aims are realistic, politically and academically justified. They must now be energetically pursued. To me the gravity of my task lies therein that I believe that the realization of these ideals is now in sight in the next decade. No instant solutions exist anywhere, but hard, dedicated work, day after day, according to the guidance we receive from day to day, will ultimately be the decisive factor.

Minor matters which stand in the way of the realization of this grand ideal must not unnecessarily be elevated to differences in principle and so delay the progress towards pluralism. That which is not relevant, must not stand in the way and impede the striving for a realization of this goal.

I have only been in this department for three days. Nobody can therefore expect me to spell out everything in detail at this early juncture. I shall however exert myself, as my predecessor did, not only for the establishment but also for the extension and further development of the homelands in all fields. The position in regard to territory, consolidation, etc., will have to be looked into. That will receive the necessary attention. I shall of course, as far as is practicable, strive to promote development and growth in all spheres in the homelands. I shall continue along that road and try to lead those people, if it is their choice, to full independence.

I wish to express a few thoughts about the Black man in White areas. This is the crux of the matter and it is the great question mark confronting us all. I wish to state at once that the Black man who is in the White area, is here at the moment to sell his labour and to improve his standard of living. The influx of people from homeland areas will still have to be controlled, in their own interests as well. However, the method of control has already been reconsidered by my predecessor. A committee of three homeland leaders was appointed quite some time ago to go into the whole matter. There were discussions between the Prime Minister, my predecessor and the leaders of the Black nations and consensus was reached in respect of labour measures and influx control. I should like to point out what has been achieved. With much ado the argument was noised abroad that the pass system, the reference book system, the so-called reprehensible system was still in force in South Africa. Yesterday the hon. member for Musgrave referred to that again. The agreement which has been reached and which has been signed by all homeland leaders with one exception, namely that statutory provision will be made, is that the governments of homelands will be empowered to pass legislation on the issuing of travel documents and identity documents to their own citizens. These are powers which they have not had up to now. Furthermore: That homeland citizens who are in possession of travel documents will no longer be required to produce their reference books for labour or influx control purposes, as the particulars will appear in their own travel documents which are provided by their own Governments. Thirdly: That homeland citizens who are in possession of identity documents issued by their own Governments, will not be required to produce reference books for identification purposes either, and that the reference book of a person in possession of both a travel document and an identity document will be withdrawn and will become redundant.

Let me add that, for the sake of maintaining order, people who are not in possession of either one of the abovementioned documents—that is, a travel document or an identity document issued by his own Government—will still need the reference book as was previously the case. It cannot be otherwise. That is what has been achieved by my predecessor and by the hon. Prime Minister, and I believe it is a good springboard in connection with this matter.

There is another matter which I should like to touch on briefly. Today is nomination day for the election of community councils in Soweto. Attempts were made, not only to discredit the community councils, but also to persuade people not to make themselves eligible for election to these councils, and, indeed, not to take part in the elections either. The intention has never been that these councils would be of an advisory nature only. That is one of the objections which are raised. That is one of the things which these people have been made to believe, that the councils will be of an advisory nature only. After consultation these councils will in due course—gradually, as they are able to accept the responsibilities—be able to acquire full control over all their own local government matters. Let me make it quite clear that I am not prepared—there must be no illusions about this and it is unnecessary even to make appeals to me about it—to negotiate with self-nominated, self-appointed leaders in the urban areas. My door will always be open to the elected leaders, however, to delegates designated by their own people to speak on their behalf. With them I shall be pleased to discuss their own living conditions in their residential areas and see if anything can be done about it. In addition I want to make an appeal to everyone in Soweto to take part in the election. It is in their own interests, because those who do not take part will in the nature of things have lost ground to make up in relation to those who were prepared to take part.

Some time ago, after the Soweto riots, my other department, the Department of Information, caused a scientific survey to be made— for our own purposes—of the constraints and vexations among the Black people in that urban area. The survey was conducted by Black people and in a manner which ensured that we would obtain the true facts from the people of Soweto. Among others, 10 important constraints or vexations came to light. In the order of importance, as indicated by the inhabitants of Soweto, there was, firstly, housing. The second was concerned with wages; the third social amenities—the provision of theatres, electricity, etc.—and the fourth education. The fifth was concerned with economic opportunities for the Black man—business undertakings, etc.—while the sixth was concerned with aspects of transport—full trains, buses, etc. The seventh was concerned with the mobility of workers in areas, that is to say, that they should not be restricted to a certain field. The eighth was concerned with having a joint say in the granting of licences—trade licences, transport licences, etc.—and the ninth the rights of local government. The tenth was concerned with having a political say in matters of national interest. That is the order in which we found their objections at the time of the survey.

In my view, nothing will alleviate the political tensions and fever sooner than to attend to these matters at this stage, and in the order of preference indicated. Consequently I intend giving immediate attention to the drafting of a five-year plan for the urban Black man. In that plan I want to set aims which, with the aid of the department, I want to achieve within five years, aims to strive after, aims towards we shall endeavour to move and which we shall endeavour to achieve in order to eliminate the problems outlined here. I know that these matters will cost money, that everything is expensive and that money is of course the determining factor. I wish to state at the outset that one cannot obtain services, all kinds of privileges and pleasant things which makes one’s life more convenient, without paying for them. No-one on earth gets these things for nothing. I have a survey here in connection with the increase in the salaries of Black people during the past few years. Let us not argue about a backlog or what have you; I accept it and understand it. Nevertheless, according to the statistics at my disposal, the earnings of the Whites in the private sector rose by 34% between 1971 and 1974. During the same period the salaries of Black people rose by 67,6%. During the year 1974-’75 the salaries of Whites rose by 14,8% and that of Black people by 30,4%.

In the public sector the salaries of Whites rose by 36,2% from 1971 to 1974 and those of the Blacks by 51,7%. In the year 1974-’75 the increase in the salaries of Whites was 10,8% and that in the salaries of Black people, 28,2%. I want to state, therefore, that in recent times the Black man’s living standard has been raised considerably by rising salaries and it is only fair to everyone to ask the Black man partially to finance the privileges which we are going to try to give him. He will have to make his contribution; nobody gets these things for nothing. That does not happen anywhere in the world. In the light of this I shall talk to the people and negotiate.

In Africa there was a leader, Nkrumah, who said—

It worries me that at the moment there is a political party in Parliament which creates political expectations among the Black people which cannot be fulfilled in South Africa and in the context of South Africa. This party is therefore playing with fire in the political sphere. I think it is necessary that we tell these people that it is going to create problems for them, and not only for them, but also for us and for the security of South Africa if they continue to create political expectations which cannot be fulfilled.

This party has a great deal to say about the concept of “human rights”. Yesterday the hon. member for Pinelands put six questions to me on human rights. I am not going to discuss each one of them now; on a subsequent occasion I shall go into them fully. I wish to say in general about human rights that we are in favour of such rights and that we shall fully exert ourselves for the establishment, the making available of and the realization of human rights for everyone in South Africa. Indeed, our policy is geared to that. The entire concept of “plural democracy” is geared to doing exactly that. The concept of “human rights” is however one which has not been fully defined. What do the hon. members mean when they talk about “human rights”? Human rights as interpreted by the USA or human rights as interpreted by Moscow? Is it perhaps human rights as interpreted by Guinea or Nigeria or the Philippines? All those countries were signatories to the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, but what exactly do they do in connection with human rights? Hence my question: What definition of “human rights” has the hon. member in mind and exactly how does he want to see it applied? I wish to say immediately that in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights there is the clear standpoint of participation in the political system of a country in which one lives. Nigeria is a signatory to that Declaration, but for how many years has there not been a military dictatorship in power in that country? There are no political rights for the ordinary citizen. Nigeria is a signatory to the Charter, but nobody touches her because she does not fulfil these human rights. The hon. member for Sea Point nevertheless referred to Nigeria as an example to us.

I did not.

He did. We all heard it.

I do not wish to reopen the matter, except to say that I clearly heard him refer to Nigeria. One of the human rights referred to in the UN’s Declaration, is the question of the freedom of the Press. Nigeria is a signatory to that Declaration and sits in the foremost benches of the UN as a full-fledged member, but there is no freedom of the Press in Nigeria; the entire Press has been nationalized.

I never made any mention of that.

My question is precisely what human rights are being referred to. Is it the hon. member’s wish that we should be dishonest? Should we sign the Declaration of Human Rights of the UN and thereafter do nothing?

I have only a few minutes at my disposal and there is still something else which I should like to say. At the moment we find ourselves under international pressure.

The key—I have already said this before— is in our own hands. I have often encountered it abroad, that the West says to one that they will reassess our position if we can reach a settlement with the African world. The moderate leaders of the African block clearly gave me to understand that if we could reach an internal settlement with our own Black and Brown people, they would be prepared to reassess our position in Southern Africa. The key to success and to an escape from this international pressure from the outside world is therefore in our own hands. But that is not the determining factor. To me the determining factor is to live in peace with the people whom the Creator placed with us on this continent, and in order to live in peace with them, I am prepared to do many things to make their lives here in our country happy. For the sake of survival I can concede everything tomorrow and remove the pressure immediately but as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, South Africa will then be the most popular corpse in the international world. I also wish to survive, but I am not prepared to surrender my identity in the process of survival, and those who ask that of me, are making a grave mistake.

I am prepared to talk to these people, to liaise with them, and I am prepared to seek and to find solutions. I am open to people’s standpoints and their requests, but I have a few basic principles from which I will not move an inch, regardless of who exerts what pressure on me, and I think hon. members know me well enough to comprehend this standpoint of mine.

In the world we are up against people who clamour for majority rule. Let us now take a quick look at the position in Rhodesia. Majority rule is being demanded. What does majority rule mean, as defined by the world? Is it majority rule based on the votes of Black and White people on a voters’ roll in Rhodesia, as you and I understand that concept? Or is it majority rule by the man who commands the military power? Is this majority rule according to the world’s standards? The clear proof is that while Mr. Smith is peacefully negotiating with the people about the possibility of a peaceful solution along the road of majority votes, America and Britain are negotiating with the extremist leaders who, according to them, have the preponderance of power and armed force in their hands. What does the world mean by majority rule? That is the question. If a national convention were to take place, then that hon. member could call together everybody on earth whom he wants to call together, but unless he includes the ANC and the PAC and gives them the say and control, then the world will no more grant recognition to that than they are at present granting recognition to Rhodesia. And if the hon. member is prepared to do that, then I want to tell him now already, in advance, that he will be issuing the death warrant of South Africa—Black, White, Brown and Yellow.

I want to conclude now. I am undertaking the task which has been assigned to me, in faith. We as different nations of different colours, each with its own character, have been placed here by the Creator to live together in peace. I do not believe it happened purely by coincidence or through fate. As a Christian I do not have that approach. We shall continue to the best of our ability to co-operate with these nations and seek liaison in order that we may live together in peace, and I am optimistic that we shall succeed because we are honest, also because our case is fair and just and, in conclusion, also because we are undertaking this matter in faith. In that spirit any nation is invincible.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to start by congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this important post. He has mentioned quite a few matters which I would like to deal with. He referred briefly to the great victory of the NP. I should like to put that great victory in perspective. The hon. the Minister also set out his objectives. As far as his second objective is concerned, i.e. to realize every nation’s highest ideals, in the best possible way, he will find that even if one were to carry the policy of the NP to its logical conclusion, as he mentioned in his first point, that framework would still be too small. Consequently he comes with his vision of a plural democracy. Today he rejected the idea of confederalism. In the opinion of myself and this party, the pluralism of South Africa can only be politically accommodated in a dispensation based on federal as well as confederal principles. The hon. the Minister also gave us a list of the seven priorities with regard to the urban Bantu. He said that those were the priorities to which he would pay attention. I welcome that. In the course of my speech I shall return to his fourth priority, education, in particular.

† As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for us to look at the big NP parliamentary majority in its true perspective. I accept that hon. members opposite are very pleased about the result. Clearly, their point of view is a party-political one. Let me, however, remind them that a big parliamentary majority does not necessarily guarantee that their party and their position in the politics of South Africa will remain relevant for ever. Let us just look at the situation in South West Africa as it exists at the present time. For decades the NP there held all the seats. In fact, they had no opposition whatsoever in the Legislative Assembly there. However, what is happening to the NP in South West Africa at this very moment in spite of its big majorities? It is disintegrating rapidly and all the signs are there that it is soon to become irrelevant. This is, at least, the attitude one finds today. I am not going to quote from the articles of Dr. Jan Spies in this regard; I am going to quote from Rapport of 22 January.

*When one reads the report concerned, one finds that there is an effort to disown the NP of South West Africa completely and to brush it aside as if the only people still interested in them were the members of the HNP. As this report states—

† Sir, why is this happening? It is happening simply because events caught up with them. The caravan of progress is leaving them behind and their big majorities just did not help.

Let us be realistic in South Africa and see the NP majority in its true perspective. We had an exceptionally big NP parliamentary majority prior to 30 November. In fact, the NP has had a big majority since the late 1950s. The irony is—and this is what both the Opposition and the Government should be worried about—that as the NP majority grew in Parliament, so the general situation in the country became more and more insecure. This is more than just ironical, it is a frightening reality. That is why a motion of censure in the Government is justified at this particular time. One could still have sympathy with a Government struggling to provide security for its people when that Government has only a slender majority, because it would naturally have to watch the ballot box. However, when you have a situation such as we have in South Africa where, election after election, the Government is returned with a bigger majority, the electorate is entitled to far greater security and stability than we are enjoying here at the present time.

For the past 19 months South Africa has, for the first time in its history, faced the situation where the powers that be, regularly and sometimes for prolonged periods, lost effective control over large parts of South Africa. Here I do not refer to “large” in a geographic sense but rather in a demographic sense with reference to the Black townships. However, this was not confined to one particular area. It was simultaneously found that the powers that be lost, sporadically and for shorter periods, control over many different parts and different townships in South Africa. When one encounters a situation such as we experienced during the past 19 months, with thousands of pupils who should be at school roaming the streets and becoming a liability to themselves and to the country, one must be worried. When one finds that a school attendance figure of 50% is regarded as a break-through, there is more reason to be worried. At the moment we also have the situation—and I am quoting Port Elizabeth as an example although that is not the only place it is happening—that although primary schools reopened two weeks ago, the number of Sub A pupils that can be accommodated depends on the results of the 33 000 pupils who have been writing the 1977 examinations since Monday. When this is taken into account there can no longer be any argument about the fact that the powers that be are losing control or that control, from time to time, passes out of their hands. These things are not happening on the borders of South Africa. They are happening within a few kilometres of the very heart of White South Africa, i.e. from our large urban complexes. However, here our Government sits, numerically stronger than ever before.

Where should we be sitting?

In fact, in the townships it is to a degree already irrelevant that the Government has 133 members in this House.

We, on this side of the House, proposed an amendment, and I wish to deal with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to take education as an example and look at the state of education for Blacks in South Africa. I will endeavour to prove why the Government—and we had it again today—who is only operating within the narrow framework of NP policy will never be able to solve the problems that are today hampering Bantu education because it does not meet the essential requirements of pluralism. First of all I want to congratulate the new hon. Minister of Education and Training. He deserves promotion.

He has been dealing with it for a long time.

No, there is a different hon. Minister, different altogether. I am referring to Minister Cruywagen. I know he will do his best; in fact, the only difficulty is that he will find, no matter how we support him from our side—and he can rest assured that we will not criticize him personally or his ability—he will be unable to find solutions for the problems of Black education within the framework of the Government’s policy. I do not now want to enter into a whole debate on Bantu education. I am merely going to say frankly that I accept the fact that if one compares the educational standards of Blacks in South Africa with those in other countries, South Africa Blacks are far ahead. This is a significant state of affairs, especially if one considers that they still do not have free and compulsory education and that the expenditure per pupil is but a miserable fraction of that for Whites. Neither do I deny that up to 18 or 19 months ago there was a consistent improvement all the time. However, once I have allowed for these plus factors, we come to the minus factors, and I must state that they outnumber the plus factors. One of the greatest minus factors today is the fact that education has become such an easy target for exploitation by those who want to create disruption and violence. Why is this the case? As with everything else, the Government is either doing too little too late or, when it does the right thing, it is such a traumatic experience that by the time it finally implements its policies and changes, all the potential advantages have been destroyed in the process. We have lost so much time that in order to restore normality in Black education and in order to stop it being used by those who want to create disruption, mere administrative reforms, such as greater financial support and educational reforms, will not be sufficient.

The tragedy is that we now first also have to find a political answer to the problem of the urban Blacks. I am afraid that when one tries to find a political answer to the problem of the urban Blacks, then the Government’s plans and philosophy do not meet the essential requirements of pluralism. I can remember a time when I and other members of my party pleaded for administrative reforms and for greater financial priority to be granted to Black education; and how we urged the Government to phase in compulsory education in order to obtain parity. Our pleas, however, fell on deaf ears. Today such measures are not going to help to the extent they would have helped five to six years ago. This is the sad state of affairs we have to accept.

Last week the hon. the Prime Minister introduced a change in Black education by appointing a separate Minister of Education and Training and also by dropping the name “Bantu”. It is interesting to note that Dr. Ken Hartshorne, the ex-Director of Planning for the Department of Bantu Education, has described this change as the least that should take place. He said that the department should be given its own Minister, separate from the Department of Bantu Administration, so that he could give his full attention to the Department of Bantu Education. Perhaps it would have been too optimistic to have expected more to have taken place. If the problem had been clearly administrative, the creation of a separate Ministry would have been the answer, but as I have stated already, the problem is no longer administrative. It is now political and as such the new Ministry will have very limited success. Let us consider the political implications of having a Minister of Education and Training who is responsible to the House for the education of the Africans. Because he is responsible to the House, the House will have to continue to vote the money for Black education, despite the community councils which will be dealing with the affairs of the urban Blacks. Whatever reforms are being contemplated, as long as this situation exists, real power over Black education will be vested in the hands of this all-White institution. This is the reality under NP policy. I as a White person am sick and tired of taking responsibility over matters which should entirely have been in the hands of the Black people themselves. Why must I take that responsibility when South Africa is a plural society?

You now want to get away from that, don’t you?

I like what the hon. member has just said, because now we can start arguing about the matter. As long as we in South Africa have the situation that I, as a White man, have to make decisions for Blacks about such an intimate matter as the education of their children, without giving them—this is where the difference comes in—an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, Black education will remain a real threatening political flashpoint. This is what I, as a White man, object to, the fact that I have to make the decisions and that I have to carry the responsibility for something they should have. The choice involves either giving them the power to deal with all those matters or sharing power with them. Hon. members on that side of the House speak glibly about pluralism and the creation—and we have had it again here today—of a plural democracy, but as is stated by the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, in their political philosophy the NP does not provide for the essential requirements of pluralism.

Let us consider education in a plural society. In a plural society education can only effectively be dealt with when proper provision is made for division of power and for devolution of power, and because we live in the same country and are economically active in the same economy, we must have coordination of education as well. One cannot overlook it. Because one has to have that, provision must be made for a system of power sharing. One cannot run away from the fact that if one has a plural society—and we have a plural society—one must also have power sharing.

In an article Prof. Nic Rhoodie refers to these three elements as power deployment, but this is what is to be achieved in a federal/ confederal structure, otherwise you cannot have it.

How?

I am coming to that just now. At least I can see the hon. member is from a very good university.

As far as the homelands are concerned, the Government has taken steps in the direction of division and devolution of power. That is why the homelands can have their own Ministers. They take responsibility for their people’s education. I do not have to take responsibility in this House for, for instance, the homelands which have become totally independent or the homelands which have developed to the stage where it can be transferred.

However, when it comes to the urban Blacks it does not matter how many other different things they have, they as a result of the Government’s policy will remain in a political vacuum. None of these steps can then effectively be implemented. Unless one establish a political body for them one cannot devolve real power to them. If one wishes to allow urban Blacks to control their own education and determine their own educational policy, devolution of power must take place. This means that the urban Blacks must be given real political power outside the homelands. That is the key phrase: “real political power outside the homelands”. They must be accommodated in a federal or confederal political structure. One cannot run away from that fact.

Forget about it.

If we forget about it, there will be no future for us in South Africa. I find it ironical that in this respect the hon. the Minister of Education and Training—who is at the moment like a horse who wants to win the July—will be saddled with a Deputy Minister who will be more of an obstacle and a handicap than anything else in trying to solve the real problems concerning Black education. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training has stated categorically that he is against the granting of even the most elementary power to Blacks outside the homelands.

*Let me rather quote his exact words as they appeared in an article in Beeld of 10 August 1977. Under the subheading “Grafskrif” it states—

What power is he talking about? [Interjections.]

He is talking about elementary political power outside the homelands.

† The hon. the Deputy Minister has stated categorically that he is against the granting of political power outside the homelands.

*However, the hon. the Deputy Minister must realize that if we continue to withhold elementary political power from the Blacks outside the homelands, we shall in fact be writing the epitaph of the whole of South Africa. Is it impossible for the hon. the Deputy Minister to realize that the Black urban communities are a permanent component of our plural society and that they must be politically accommodated?

How?

Everyone always asks us how this can be done. We say that it can be done within a federal, confederal framework. [Interjections.] If the hon. members had been students of politics they would have read our party’s policy and would have seen in our programme of principles that we developed it in consultation with the various groups. [Interjections.]

† The hon. the Deputy Minister should realize that one solution would be to devolve all powers concerning the education of Blacks to a political body which caters for the urban Blacks.

In that case his own post and that of his Minister must become redundant in this House. If he wishes to retain his post, he will have to share power with such a body. No matter what he does, the urban Black can no longer be excluded from the decision-making process.

*The new hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that his department will bring about good human relations and that they would consult people.

† However, they must have a share in the decision-making process. [Interjections.] If one is not prepared to create a federal or confederal concept, one will not be able to share that.

Here in Parliament?

If the hon. member had listened to my entire speech, he would have known what I said.

† Whichever option he wants to choose, elementary and more than elementary political power will have to be granted to the Blacks. Alternatively, there will be a continuation of the present state of insecurity.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is, I think, correct in terms of his party’s narrow political philosophy when he says that the moment they grant real political power to Blacks outside the homelands, they concede that their policy has failed totally.

I also want to say a few words about the official Opposition.

Do not spoil it!

I do not spoil it! I think you spoilt the case of the official Opposition right from the word “go”. We have put forward a straightforward amendment stating that both the Government and the official Opposition deserve censure because they have failed to meet the necessary and essential requirements of pluralism. As far as the debate is concerned, the official Opposition had a disastrous start on Monday. This affects me as a member of the Opposition as well. It affects every other person in the Opposition, because we had a performance by the hon. the Prime Minister which was below average, and he appeared to look good. [Interjections.] I do not direct my remarks so much to the foundation members of the PFP, although it looks as if the hon. member for Musgrave is also becoming an adherent of confederalism. I welcome that as far as he is concerned. I want to direct my remarks to the old “young Turk” reformists of the United Party. I want to tell them that when we were in the old UP as the official Opposition, criticism was always directed at us for not answering questions and for not being bold and fearless. I think the hon. member for Bryanston will know, the moment I use those words, that they come from him. Those words are that one must boldly and fearlessly put one’s case. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the official Opposition that I think that they will have to heed the warning and the advice of the hon. member for Bryanston. If the official Opposition cannot answer questions boldly and fearlessly across the floor, there will be no future for them.

I briefly want to return to our particular amendment. Although the PFP recognize South Africa as a plural society—and they do recognize it; they are not that stupid—they will not accommodate it in a constitutional form. Because they will not accommodate it, they will never really find an answer to a problem such as education. One does in fact have the situation that education is a matter of intimate concern to people. In terms of their philosophy they will deny an ethnic group the opportunity to have sole control because they dare not accept ethnicity in any way. They will deny an ethnic group sole control over education. They also insist on integrated neighbourhood schools. As a result, they have this one thing in common with the NP, and that is that ultimately there will always be compulsion from the top. When you have compulsion from the top, then you have points of friction. They cannot forever try to run away from pluralism. They too will have to accept that you cannot just recognize South Africa as a plural society and not accommodate that.

*In the time I still have at my disposal, I want to say a few words about sovereignity and the sharing of power.

† In this respect I just want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that his new constitutional plan is of course a form of power sharing, no matter how he tries to run away from it. In 1974 a debate took place across the floor on a question and answer basis between the hon. the Prime Minister and the then member for Zululand, Mr. Cadman, and the hon. the Prime Minister categorically stated that he would not share sovereignty. Since that time the hon. the Prime Minister has woken up a little and has come some way. He has taken faltering steps and as far as I am concerned it proves the point again. In order to move a little forward, in order to give us a little hope, he had to go outside the scope of NP philosophy and had in fact to move towards the concept of power sharing or introducing some elements of federalism in this respect. This is what they will find eventually with regard to the urban Blacks as well. I listened to the hon. the Prime Minister when he explained his plans. His constitutional plans for the Coloureds and the Indians will give us no hope, because whilst I listened to him he was justifying his plans. He said they had been criticized because of the numbers they allocated to Coloureds and Indians. He then spoke the following words—

Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a future for you and me, we shall have to work out a future for all of us and we shall have to consult with others. As the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said, one has to set up a framework. Our consultation takes place within a framework of bringing about a federal/confederal political structure. However, a situation will have to be reached where one can say that agreement has been reached as a result of consultation. In this particular case the point at issue is the numbers of the various population groups. It is strange how the NP and its leader follow meekly and mildly in the footsteps of the old UP, even making the same mistakes. There was a time when the old UP also arbitrarily made decisions. For example, they decided that there would be six or eight Whites to represent Blacks. This was something the UP Congress decided. We were also about 10 years behind the times. We also sat down and said: “Ons het besluit en verdeel soos ons gedink het dit is goed en reg.” This the Government is doing today. Whilst an Opposition party could perhaps experiment with certain matters such as those, one expects far more from a Government, especially considering the insecure and unstable situation prevailing in South Africa today.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few aspects on which the hon. member for Durban Central and myself agree. One is his congratulatory message to our new Minister of Education and Training. In this regard I associate myself wholeheartedly with his congratulations to Minister Cruywagen and at the same time I should like to express my pride and satisfaction in being able to assist him in a modest way in his new capacity in a department which already exists.

There is a second point on which I agree with him, viz. that it is a good thing that Bantu Education, as it was known in the past, and which will now be known as the Department of Education and Training, does in fact have its own Ministry, distinct from Bantu Administration and Development. There is a third point on which I agree with him—these are not the three points of a good sermon—and this is his statement that the NP won by an overwhelming majority and that it is a very strong party. Do hon. members on the other side dispute the statement? This is as plain as a pikestaff and every one of us is aware of it. It is an idea which is thoroughly established not only on that side of the House, but on this side of the House as well. If a party has such a large number of members in Parliament and such a piffling Opposition, in addition to the shadow of a shadow Minister in the person of the hon. member for Durban Central, it places a much greater responsibility on the shoulders of the governing party, a responsibility which we shall have to carry and wield with great wisdom.

However, when the hon. member goes further and alleges that uncertainty was on the increase amongst the population of South Africa under an NP Government, I think that this is the most cynical statement which I have heard so far in this debate. In spite of all the prophets of doom, in spite of all the agitators and all the attempts on the other side of the House, the voters repeatedly choose a Government in which they have confidence, in election after election. After all, if they have had the chance to take a good look at the NP during five or six consecutive elections, they could surely by this time have discovered any weak spots which have supposedly generated the feeling of insecurity in the Opposition and in South Africa. Therefore, that statement by the hon. member for Durban Central is one which one should not actually have even mentioned in good company.

The hon. member referred to education, Black education in particular. I just want to mention to the hon. member in passing that I think he should be very careful when he uses the name of a former official of the department, a name which is now being used very liberally by the English Press. I am referring of course to Dr. Hartshorne. If the hon. member is not careful, and if Dr. Hartshorne does not watch out, he may still cause himself trouble and force a reaction from this department, a reaction which will cause him to regret that he is talking so liberally to the outside world now.

It is not a threat, is it?

No, not at all. However, we shall just be forced to …

Of course it is a threat.

I just wish the hon. member for Bryanston would stop opening his mouth as wide as a day old sparrow’s. [Interjections.] We might perhaps just feel obliged to mention certain facts. Dr. Hartshorne is free to speak, but if he uses that freedom to speak as a former official, this department will definitely use its own freedom to draw attention to certain facts. This is just a friendly hint which I am giving the hon. member in this way. [Interjections.]

The hon. member spoke about a federation and a confederation. I think it was Socrates who said on one occasion “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms”, and I think that this is what those hon. members must begin to do. They must begin by first sorting out the terms “federation” and “confederation”—it seems to me as if they use both in the same breath—and to tell us what they understand by them. If I understand the idea of Prof. Kriek of Unisa correctly—as reflected in an article in Politikon—he defined a confederation as the co-operation between sovereign Governments and countries concerning aspects on which they agree, but which does not exclude the possibility of a sovereign country concerned being able to contract out of a confederation of this type. Is this what hon. members advocate? I just want the hon. gentleman to ponder a little on the advice of Socrates: “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” The same holds for pluralism. If we all talk about “pluralism” and the difference in the policy of those discussing pluralism is so great, it has become most urgent for us also to find a more accurate definition of the term “pluralism” and of the further application of that concept. If I have the opportunity, I should like to go into this on another occasion.

You are abusing it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the matter …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Durban Point will give me the opportunity to make my statement— he had his chance—I should like to return to the question of education and training of Black children. Over and over again, in practically all circles and at all meetings which we hold with Black leaders and so on, there is constant discussion of the system of Bantu education, and it is demanded over and over again that Bantu education should disappear. It is even advocated that Bantu education should be incorporated in the Department of National Education. If these people would only understand what they are asking!

The Department of National Education cannot accommodate the education of Black children, the whole Department of Education and Training of Black children. It is not geared for that. Nevertheless each one parrots the next when it comes to the demand for the Department of National Education to take over the education and training of Black children. This simply cannot be done, unless one makes a radical change in the whole setup of the Department of National Education.

Then do it!

It seems to me as if that sparrow is two days old now. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition casually, with a gesture, “chaos” in Bantu education.

Who said so?

I am quoting him. He spoke about the chaos in Bantu education. This is an expression which is used fairly freely. I think it is imperative for us to ask to which forces and factors the chaos in Bantu education must be ascribed. I know that the popular approach is that it is the Government’s fault. However, I want to point out a few things. These are things which emerge from conversations held with Black leaders in the sphere of education. Those hon. members who have always been so concerned about my image amongst the Blacks, may go and read the Daily Dispatch of last Monday and I think that they will get the shakes to read the testimonial which the so-called ver-krampte received from a Black leader with whom I was merely friendly, as is my wont.

Where does this chaos come from? We have evidence from Black people, leaders amongst the Black people from the urban residential areas, which indicate that there is a type of master mind somewhere behind the riots, the intimidation and the violence. They say that master-mind may consist of Blacks and Whites. This is the admission which is made. After all, it is not necessary for me to speculate about this. The people themselves have the impression that there is a master mind somewhere behind it and they ask where it comes from. There is no attempt on the part of those people to lay this factor at the door of the Government.

I come to the second factor which I want to advance as a reason for the so-called chaos. I want to deny that there is general chaos. There is no general chaos in the education and training of Black children. In certain areas there is an attempt to create intensified chaos and to use education for this purpose. Education must not be used to wreck education, but must be used as a sensitive front to strike at the Government and another dispensation must be created in South Africa by means of the fall of the Government—a Black majority government in South Africa. This is the aim of the master-minds.

Intimidation is taking place. There are parents, teachers and principals who are complaining. Even the Black police complain and say they are being intimidated. When Black people ask one please not to allow the Black police to patrol the Black residential areas, because they will be intimidated and their homes will be burnt down, the question arises whether this is aimed at Bantu education. What is really behind it?

Of course, unemployment is another factor. Perhaps Bantu education assisted this under the old dispensation in that we opened the doors of the schools. We did not impose a limitation on the entry of children as in Botswana, Lesotho and Zambia; they could come. We did not impose a limitation on the numbers who could attend secondary schools; everyone could come. We took those children, and perhaps in this way we contributed to the phenomenon that people for whom there is not always enough work, received training. Is it the fault of Bantu education that there are not enough employment opportunities? Can it simply be the Government’s fault if there are not enough employment opportunities?

On the other hand, people complain at the same time about too much Government control in the private sector and the whole country. In this way people’s arguments can catch them out. I maintain further that the hints which have been disseminated in certain circles concerning extra-parliamentary action with which to bring the Government to a fall, also caused the hope to take root to no small degree amongst these people that if they took extra-parliamentary action, there would be White bodies which would be on their side. I now come to a suitable quotation, a quotation which comes from the ranks of the PFP, at that time still the PRP. The Daily Dispatch gave this version of a speech by a former member of the PRP, the former member for Durban North. I quote—

He went on, and with reference to the Coloureds and so on he says—

Who said this?

This is what Mr. Pitman said according to the Daily Dispatch. People talk about chaos in the education of Black children. I think that this is a factor which contributed towards that: it was suggested to them that they may go ahead and act outside a parliamentary context If this Government cannot be removed from office in a constitutional way, they will think of other ways.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

Outside the law or outside Parliament?

If the hon. Whip will give me a chance, he will hear something that his leader said. The Leader of the Opposition did not in fact express himself very clearly—he only mumbled it. I ask him what conclusions people must draw from remarks like the following, and I quote now from Hoofstad of 9.9.76—

He did not say precisely how, but what other methods does he want to use besides the usual democratic methods of ousting a government at the polls?

I shall not quote further, but I just want to say that a certain blue-eyed boy from the ranks of former clergymen, a man who is very regularly quoted by those members, i.e. Dr. Beyers Naudá, said certain things with reference to violence, things which are very dangerous. I do not want to accuse a man here of matters which he cannot answer here, but what he said was in the Press. His standpoint is that he is opposed to violence. Of course everyone is opposed to violence! However, he says that if this government does not change its policy, it will give people the right to make use of violence too. This is more or less his argument. We are talking about the causes of the so-called chaos in education for Black people. These are certain factors which could have contributed towards this.

I also want to refer to something else. The President of Bophuthatswana—at that time he was still Chief Minister Mangope—had the following to say about the Press—

The Press played a very important role. I do not want to digress on this. As a former editor of a newspaper myself, I know how careful one must be with reports. One must ask oneself what the effect will be, what spirit one is going to create and what forces one may unleash by the way in which one presents a report.

Who are the so-called leaders of the pupils? The Black people tell us that these leaders are not the decent pupils. They say the leaders of those pupils are the dropouts, the dropouts from universities. They come to cause trouble. Then there are also the tsotsis. They are the ones who stand in the background and throw stones at buses. Then the others come along, congregate and find it fun, but by the time the police arrive, the real leaders are very far away. What is happening there? Have hon. members opposite asked themselves yet whether these may perhaps be factors? We do not hear this from them.

I want to go further and allege that there are people who want to bring about revolution in South Africa and there are bodies amongst the ranks of the Blacks whose aims correspond to this very closely. After all, that is why the Wits students in Johannesburg marched and said: “Do not start a revolution without us!” What must this awaken in bodies which are up to no good in South Africa? This must necessarily give me the impression that “if we should act outside the parliamentary context, if we should want to start a revolution, then at least there is a powerful fifth column amongst the Whites that will stand with us”. I am very grateful to be able to say that in speaking about these factors, we can say that they do not hold for the vast majority of the Blacks. The vast majority of Blacks are order-loving people and do not want to create chaos. There is only one fly in the ointment which is causing the trouble.

Things have reached the stage when the principals of schools have to be on the lookout to see whether the children of a certain school are advancing so that they can tell their children: “See that you get away!” If the children of a certain school are marching in order to molest the children of another school, the teachers must tell the children: “Go home! See that you get away!”

Was the resignation of some teachers not also calculated to create chaos? Was it not calculated to cause embarrassment and to be the downfall of a so-called system so that a new political dispensation in the country should emanate from it?

Reference is also made to the quality of education and it is said that it is supposedly inferior. There is no problem with the standard of education in Black schools. The standard of that education is determined at the highest level, in consultation with the all education departments in South Africa. However, hon. members will agree with me that the quality of the education in the classroom is determined by the teacher. I take my hat off to the large number of Black teachers who, in spite of minimum qualifications, in spite of the fact that some of them only have a Std. VI certificate and a diploma, have done brilliant work in the interests of their own people. Although many of them do not even have a matric certificate, they enabled 7 500 matriculants to register for the exams at the end of 1976 and no fewer than 13 000 at the end of 1977. Does this look like chaos in education? We must open our eyes and look at the facts. Then we will gain a fresh insight into the state of education and training of Black children.

You have got the figures wrong for a start.

If that hon. member has the figures he is welcome to quote them.

You must do your homework.

I have done mine. Sir, there is talk about the quality of education, but what hon. members must take into consideration, is that 28% of the Black population is of school-going age, while between 21% and 22% of the total population, not of the 28%, is already at school. You will realize, Sir, that this is an enormous number of children who have to be accommodated. That is not all. Not only did very many classrooms have to be constructed, but teachers also had to be obtained for those people and those teachers had to come from somewhere. We do not have enough Whites to teach those people.

Our own people objected a while ago that we do not get people for education—for whatever reason it may be. After all, we do not have 78 000 White teachers to replace Black teachers or whatever the number is. If, as at the end of 1976, 7 500 matriculants enrolled for the exams—we did not say how many passed—how many make themselves available for teaching. We have to go and look for teachers. People must not hurl the reproach at Bantu education, the Department of Education and Training, that there is chaos in education. As I said, we take off our hats to the large number of teachers who, although they are not qualified, do good work. Of the more than 28 000 teachers who fall under the Department of Education and Training alone—that is, the old Department of Bantu Education—there are almost 25 000 who only have a Std. VIII certificate or less; many of them have only a Std. VI certificate; some a Std. VI certificate without any further diploma. This means that about 87% of those teachers are not well qualified. Then hon. members talk about chaos in Bantu education. Do the people not realize what a backlog we have to deal with? We have courses for in-service training, crash courses, etc. However, one cannot produce the people; one must go and ask them and one must train them.

I could mention many other aspects. For instance, I could talk about the so-called objection to the system of Bantu education. The impression which is being created is that there should not be anything like Bantu education. When I handled the Bantu education vote during the budget debate two years ago, I said that if the words “Bantu education” or “Bantu” gave offence, we would welcome hints for replacing these terms because we are not married to them. If the objection is that the word “Bantu” gives offence … Well, the Government has now replaced this word! I think that this will be widely appreciated in our Black community. However, if there is agitation against Bantu education because people are hostile to the principle that every nation and cultural group imposes its own stamp on its education and that they want one big integrated community and mixed schools, I can assure them that that is not the policy of the Government and that this would not be sensible practice. It is not only conservative Nationalists who say so: this is also said by responsible bodies both inside and outside South Africa. During a conversation with Otto Krause, Prof. Kgware said the following—

I am still waiting for members of the official Opposition and the shadow Opposition to say that this system, according to which the education of a nation is adapted to the character, the culture and requirements of that nation, is a sound practice. We are still waiting for them to say so, in spite of the fact that the Black peoples are continuing with this system. The article goes on to say—

It is a Black man speaking here. [Interjections.]

President Mangope of Bophuthatswana says—

It was a homeland leader who spoke in this way, not a man who was out of touch with his people in the Black residential areas!

Another homelander, the Chief Minister of Qwaqwa says—

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central … Where is he now? He is gone; I have talked him right out of his seat.

No, there he is.

Oh, he is still here. I want to invite him to go and ask Chief Minister Mopeli, President Mangope and Chief Minister Sebe what they think of this man who the hon. member denounced across the floor of the House as a discredit to the Department of Education and Training? Or does the hon. member not recall the personal note on which he addressed me across the floor of the House as if I was an embarrassment to Bantu Education and Training? [Interjections.] Is the hon. member so stupid as not to know what he himself said?

Use the words I used in my speech.

Similarly, I can go further afield and quote to hon. members what is being said in Africa as far as education is concerned, for example—

I could digress on this, but I do not think it necessary. I could also take up hon. members’ time by referring to the whole education system as it is at present, but I do not think it necessary. It is sufficient to content myself with telling hon. members that we have central control of the education system for the various types of nations. There is a pedagogical and didactic policy and there is an evaluation of the required funds for education for Black children. Furthermore there are the standards which are laid down for education and training. There is central control of those things.

People simply object mindlessly to the system of Bantu education and say that it should be abolished. There is decentralized implementation of the policy from region to region, and in accordance with the requirements of the various communities, regions, cultures and even peoples. There is also parental involvement. The hon. member for Durban Central can say whether Natal’s White parents are involved in the election of school boards and school committees in his province. This does not occur there, but it is done in the education of Black children. Parents are involved in electing school committees and school boards. But these things, which are good practice, are such a thorn in the flesh of the enemies of the system that they intimidate the parents, the teachers, the school board members and the committee members to resign. This is the reward one gets for that.

I could refer to the differentiation within the education system, but it is unnecessary to elaborate on that. I could refer to the composition of the Joint Matriculation Board in which Bantu Education is involved. Schools can choose whether they want to write the papers of the Matriculation Board or not and the chairman of the Examination Board of Bantu Education is a member of the Joint Matriculation Board. In other words, the standards, syllabuses, indeed everything as far as education for Black children is concerned, is reflected in all bodies and boards connected with Black education. I have already referred to the liaison with the Department of National Education, the representation of other education departments on the Examination Board of Bantu Education. There is no question of anything lacking as far as the system is concerned. This system is as good as it can be. One can almost say that the wisdom contained in all the education departments in South Africa can be channelled so as to be used to the benefit of education for Black children.

I do not want to deal with all the 15 points which I have here concerning the involvement of Black people in their education. I want to conclude by referring to a few matters. I have cleared this with my hon. the Minister and may say it. We do intend taking a few steps. The first is greater involvement of every people in the education of its children; then an orientation from the residential areas towards the homeland governments; the involvement of the homeland government with its people in the urban residential areas, and we hope that as far as placement of people in certain areas is concerned, it will be easier for us to adopt the education of Black children in this way in the interest of their own nations. Further preparations with a view to compulsory education, taking into consideration the progress made in homelands, and bottlenecks, are other factors which we shall have to take into account. We shall also have to give attention to the improvement of the qualifications of teachers; indeed, this matter receives our constant attention. Then, too, there is the improvement of salaries which will accompany this and the drop in the teacher-pupil ratio. The figure is already fewer than 50 pupils per teacher, and if we take the double sessions into account, the number is not more than 40 pupils per teacher. We want to bring this ratio even lower. The elimination of double sessions is another objective. Dialogue must also be continued. We are not beginning this today or tomorrow; we are simply carrying on with it. The dialogue between my department, its officials, the Minister at their head, and all bodies and persons from the ranks of Black nations which are directly involved in the education and training of their children.

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Deputy Minister spoke, I had the intention of talking positively about some aspects of our foreign affairs, about restoring confidence in South Africa and about offering to give some assistance in regard to some of the economic and financial problems that we face. However, having listened to the hon. Deputy Minister, I must say that if one wants to do anything to improve South Africa’s foreign relations, one of the first things one has to do is to get rid of that hon. Deputy Minister, but quick. [Interjections.] The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs has, sitting behind him, a man who stomps the hills of Waterberg and, while doing so, is metaphorically putting a knife into his back as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the efforts he makes for South Africa. There is a publication that is being circulated abroad by the Government in regard to progress in inter-group and race relations in South Africa. This document is anathema to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training, because every time the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs talks about bringing Black and White together in sport, in a restaurant or a hotel, that hon. Deputy Minister stabs him in the back by saying he does not approve of it. That is the truth of it. If you, Sir, in this House hear attacks coming from NP benches that hon. members on this side are alleged to hamper the work of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, you must realize, Sir, that there is no one who hampers it more than the hon. the Deputy Minister who represents Waterberg.

However, the man has even greater audacity. In the department he is supposed to be running as Deputy Minister, he has to admit that Bantu Education has all these problems. Instead of telling us how he is going to solve these problems, how he is bringing the children back to school and restoring confidence in the system, he only says that it is due to agitation, to people outside and to everybody under the sun, but not to me, the Deputy Minister. That is the truth. What the hon. the Deputy Minister forgets is that by that very statement he is admitting his failure; he is admitting that he has to come back to the House with an admission that the education of Black people in South Africa is not in a state in which hon. members of the House would like to see it. On top of that, he starts his speech by making threats against ex officials of his own department, threats which, I think, reflect very badly upon him and which I would expect the new hon. Minister to repudiate at the earliest opportunity. [Interjections.] Sir, those are threats which were made and which he should be ashamed of having made.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to the fact that there is intimidation which cannot be controlled. That in itself is the greatest admission of failure of the Government, because if the Government were doing its job, the Black policemen, Black parents and Black teachers whom he refers to, would not have to fear intimidation. It is this Government which has been unable to give those people the protection to which they are entitled.

Let me come to perhaps more important matters than the hon. the Deputy Minister. We have had an election and the Government has come back with the largest majority this Parliament has ever seen.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear!” I extend my congratulations to them for it. I congratulate the NP on having achieved it. Whether I congratulate South Africa is another matter, because whether the NP success is, in fact, South Africa’s success is entirely another question. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that he was given a mandate and that he wants to carry out that mandate. At the time the hon. the Prime Minister told us that he wanted a mandate, firstly, to object to outside interference. This was a non-issue because every political party that took part in the election objected to it. [Interjections.] Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister wanted a mandate for the new constitution. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training construes that constitution as a perpetuation of “baasskap”, viz. that the White man is going to remain the boss, in which case it is a fraud.

It can also be a sharing of responsibility as we were told in the House, in which case it is a complete departure from the Nationalist ideology that they will never share with any other race group. Who is in fact telling the truth? Is it the hon. the Deputy Minister from the hills of Waterberg or is it the Ministers who tell us what is in fact intended to be behind this? That was not an issue in the true sense of the word in the election, because there were many other issues.

The third thing the hon. the Prime Minister said was that they would now have to give the Opposition a new chance of regrouping. I have never heard of an election called for the purpose of regrouping an Opposition. What, however, was the real mandate which the hon. the Prime Minister obtained? The real reason—and I concede it—why the majority of the White electorate of South Africa voted for the NP, is because they are concerned about their security in South Africa. They believe that the NP will in fact safeguard their security and their future. [Interjections.] I concede that that is why they voted for the NP. However, what they, from the hon. the Prime Minister down, have not told us, is how they are going to safeguard the security of the White man in South Africa. Not one single word has been said about it. They have attacked this party and everybody else left, right and centre. Will the hon. the Prime Minister tell us what the position will be by the time this sixth Parliament comes to an end? Will we have more disorder inside South Africa, more urban terrorism, more disorders on the border, a further deterioration in the economic position in which people become poorer and inflation is rampant? Is that what we are going to experience at the end of this Parliament? I do not want to hear from hon. Ministers attacks on the official Opposition, because the Opposition has no responsibility to govern. That party has the responsibility to govern. It is their obligation to inform us. Will we—and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs can tell us—at the end of this Parliament have greater isolation from the rest of the world, more sanctions and more boycotts? Will the hon. the Minister of Finance tell us that he will find it more difficult to obtain money at the end of this Parliament than he finds it now and that he will have to pay higher rates of interest and have to borrow for shorter periods? Will he tell us all about what is going to happen at the end of this Parliament? It is therefore a pointless exercise to seek to attack the official Opposition. The official Opposition was not elected to govern, but to oppose. The official Opposition has challenged this Government to say what its plans are for this Parliament.

I should like to deal specifically with the issue of the relationship between South Africa and the Western World. South Africa has to take into account that the struggle for political power at this stage is in reality a struggle for a change in relative economic positions and economic ideological application. South Africa finds itself at the vortex of a world power struggle. This is not merely a power struggle, as we are told again and again, between the East and the West, between the protagonists of social democracy and human rights on the one hand and authoritarian communism on the other. In addition to the East/West struggle, we have a struggle between North and South. That struggle is between the industrialized countries of the world and the underdeveloped countries of the world. Those States who have achieved political independence now seek a miraculous instant promotion to material wealth. We are at the vortex of that struggle. In both those struggles we find South Africa at the vortex.

I want to submit that we in South Africa have in the long-term no hope of survival in this struggle if we are to stand alone in the world. In this particular struggle our place is with the West and we should seek to get back to the position of being a respected member of the Western world.

We can talk of being part of Africa; the new hon. Deputy Minister of Education and Training spoke today about the necessity of getting back to Africa and that the key to getting back to Africa lay in our internal relations. I think he is to some extent right. But let us also draw an analogy between what has happened before in South Africa and now. Immediately prior to the Angola episode there was a very real effort on the part of the Government to get on to the right kind of terms with African States and that effort met with a high degree of success. Many of us, publicly and otherwise, supported this effort. But what happened as a result of Angola? I do not want to go into the whole issue of Angola once again, but the moment the United States backed away from South Africa over the Angolan issue, our relations in Africa deteriorated overnight. Whereas on the one hand we had a mass of Black States who were prepared to support action in Angola, which was designed to prevent communist control, once U.S. support disappeared our relationships changed and the whole thing melted away overnight. I believe that an additional key and a real key to our relationship with the Black States is in fact whether we get back into the fold in so far as the Western world is concerned. I must say, and I want to say it with all respect to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that when he says that the United States is a greater enemy of South Africa than is the Soviet Union, I regret that I cannot agree with him, because while we can win the United States back again as a friend, we have no hope of ever having the Soviet Union as our friend. We have no hope of ever doing it.

At what price?

I shall tell you what the price is. It is very little. I am coming to that. Western countries are committed fundamentally to the concept of the basic rights of the individual, to what we have spoken about as being human rights. I do not pretend that the practice of human rights in the Western countries is perfect, but I do think it is better than in most parts of the world. I think there are very few countries outside of the West that can compare with the West in regard to the practice of human rights. Europe, and the United States with it, has a history in respect of this matter. We have had the political philosophers of the past, the struggles, the revolutions, the revolts, all in the name of liberty and in the name of equality. Let me add that Europeans also have a conscience when it comes to discrimination, because Europeans have to acknowledge that in their history there has been discrimination against races, nationalities, social groups and individuals. Slavery and serfdom were practised by Europeans, and whether it was slavery or serfdom, or whether it was genocide against religious groups, the fact is that Western nations find themselves with a conscience. Western nations, therefore, find themselves often in a position where they are sensitive, so sensitive that they can be pressurized into taking economic action, even if it is against their own interests, because of that sensitivity. I think that the West’s approach to us, while it is dominated by this philosophy, can be analysed in the following way. Firstly, I believe that the Western nations wish to ensure that there is political and economic emancipation in Africa. They believe that should take place as part of this whole heritage to which I have referred. Secondly, they do not wish to be embarrassed in what I have referred to as the North/South and East/ West struggle in which they are involved, by overt association with a nation which they consider hampers them in this conflict. I say they consider it; I am not saying that I consider it. Thirdly, foreign policies, I believe, in most of the Western nations are merely an extension of the domestic policies, and those foreign policies are tailored to the demands of influential sections of the electorate. Fourthly, Western powers will defend their own interests. They will act to make life both nationally and internationally easier for them, and that is their first priority. Fifthly, Western nations anticipate, rightly or wrongly, that in South Africa there will be greater internal conflict and increasing danger of external conflict. Sixthly, they do not want, in my view, to change South Africa’s policies by force, but I do believe they want to change them by influence and by pressure.

If one looks at all these premises—and I want to put them in this form—how do we solve the problem? Firstly, I do not believe that the solution of the Rhodesian problem or the South West African problem is going to solve our problem. I do not believe it for one moment.

The Kissinger approach, which put South Africa’s position as one of influence and in which the belief was created that once the Rhodesian and South West African questions were solved we would be left alone, I believe does not apply today. I believe that when the South West African and Rhodesian questions have been solved, all the attention will be concentrated on the Republic of South Africa. We have to look at it in that light. If we bear that in mind, I think there are a number of things that we have to do.

Firstly, I believe we have to project to the Western World the stability of this country. Stability brings about confidence. Confidence is needed not only by local businessmen and by foreign lenders; it also has to be projected as a matter of course. We should project this as a stable and solid country. One of the factors which I think is important to remember is that when we were in the post-Sharpeville era the one thing that put South Africa back on the map was that we projected the stability of South Africa and showed the world that this was a stable country. I must say—and that is where I refer again to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training—that his very speech was an admission of the fact that there is not stability in South Africa. We have to bring about stability in South Africa in order to show to the world that this is what we really can project. I also regret to say to the hon. the Minister of Police that I am disappointed by the fact that, for more than a year now, we have had a situation in which nobody can go overseas and read a newspaper—not for one week— without finding reports of shooting incidents or disorder or something which, in fact, affects this whole image of stability. We have to project this image of stability overseas.

The second thing I want to suggest, which I think is fundamental here, is that South Africa needs to project the fact that we are proceeding at speed along the road of political and economic emancipation, as the West sees it. The word “emancipation” may not be the most appropriate one, but that is how I think the West sees the situation. If we do not accept that human rights, as they are understood in the broad Western sense, are extended to all citizens, we will not only not win the hearts and minds of our own people, but we will also have no chance of winning back the West. I want to say here and now that when we do make changes, we must not be ashamed of those changes. Let me give an example. I was outside South Africa when certain changes were made in regard to job reservation. They were projected in such a way by the hon. the Minister that it seemed as though he was almost ashamed of them. I wanted to use that in order to say to people: “Look what is happening in South Africa; a change is coming about” I want to appeal to hon. Ministers not to be ashamed when they make changes in South Africa, but rather to make dramatic changes and show the world that we are making dramatic changes. They should not care for one moment about what the HNP is thinking or about what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training is thinking. They should think of the rest of the world. They should think of the Black people. Let us have some dramatic change in South Africa, change which will enable the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to go to the United Nations, to go abroad and to say: “This is what my colleagues are doing.”

Let us talk about education again. Why not project to the world that we are doing to have free, equal and compulsory education on the same level for everybody in South Africa? And let us put Piet Koornhof in charge of the whole lot. Let us do it. Let us do it and see what the effect will be. Let us have one book of life for everybody. These are all things which are within the ambit of NP policy. I am not asking them to do anything which is outside NP policy. I am asking them to do things that are inside NP policy.

What about local government for Soweto? Why not announce that it is going to be the same as any White local authority in South Africa? Let us announce it and be proud of it; let us not be ashamed of it and hide it. I say to the Government: Project yourselves to show that you are bringing about changes. Show that you are in fact on the road towards bringing about proper human rights for everyone in South Africa. This is my appeal to the Government.

Now, Sir, let me turn to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think he has another problem. Since 1974 the cost of food has gone up by about 40%. Inflation has been rampant. During the course of the previous Parliament we have all become poorer because we have had a negative growth in per capita gross domestic product. The hon. the Minister could tell us all these things, but what is he telling us is going to happen during this, the sixth Parliament? What is he telling us is going to be done to put South Africa right economically? If we are strong economically, we will be in a better position to solve our political problems. Let me take a simple analogy. If you have a cake which you have to share out in slices, there is competition for those slices by the various sections of the community. If you enlarge the cake you can give everybody a bit more. That is the way to peaceful change. If you make the cake smaller, you will find people competing amongst themselves for bigger slices of the cake. That is the way to revolution. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. the Minister: Your job as Minister of Finance is to make that cake bigger. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that one of the things he has to do immediately is to give his attention to the unemployment situation. We cannot afford to continue with the unemployment which exists at the present moment and which will increase. I say this because the Black work force alone is increasing every year by 3% and the jobs that are required are not being created. Therefore, Sir, we have to stimulate the economy, the private enterprise section of the economy, in order to enable more jobs to be created and so to make the cake bigger. We have no choice but to do this. We have to do it responsibly, I agree. We must not undertake this overnight in a wild fashion, but it is necessary and it has to be done. We need a stimulation of the economy in South Africa and we need it urgently.

I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that his continuing linkage of the rand to the dollar is a mistake. The same mistake was made by his predecessor in this Government in regard to sterling. Let us link the rand to a basket of currencies worked out on the basis of what is in the interests of South Africa. Let us in particular take into account for this purpose the major trading partners that we have, and adjust it from time to time. If we do that, we will be able to deal with the inflation resulting from imported goods, and to strengthen the rand and restore it to its proper place in the world. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying that our major imports now come from the United States. He knows as well as I do that there were particular circumstances which caused this to happen in the immediate past. He knows that if there is a linkage with the dollar, we can still adjust it bearing in mind that the basket will contain the right proportion related to the dollar.

The hon. the Minister has a great responsibility. He must tell us what he is going to do in the next five years to avoid the massive unemployment that is staring us in the face. He must tell us how, with the ever-increasing defence expenditure and other non-productive expenditure, he is going to keep inflation under control. He has got to tell us how that cake can be made larger so that we can avoid the revolution and so that this country can live in peace.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat may perhaps be disappointed at not being followed by one of the senior hon. Ministers, but he is now almost a backbencher and he will have to be content with listening to me. The hon. member this afternoon apparently, according to his own evidence, came here with many good intentions. He wanted to make a contribution towards, as he called it, restoring confidence in the country. But, Sir, where did he begin? He began with an ugly and uncalled for attack on the Deputy Minister. He accused the hon. the Deputy Minister of having threatened an ex-official, which is totally untrue.

The hon. member tells us that this Government is completely uncapable of providing the necessary protection against intimidation, when in point of fact he knows very well the steps that have been taken recently, specifically for the protection of the population, Black and White. But when we do the things we have to do, what do we get from that side? We find them complaining and then they tell the outside world that this country is a police state and has a bad Government. The hon. member here says he wants to congratulate us on the results of the election. But actually he had no choice; he had to do so! But I should like to quote what the hon. member said last year in a similar debate on 26 January (Hansard, Vol. 66, col. 219)—

He went on to say—

Then he said to the hon. the Prime Minister—

[Interjections.] Then the hon. member went on to build up his so-called patriotic image. He did it himself and said—

That hon. member speaks very glibly, and he would like us to get the impression that he is a great patriot. On page 3 of The Cape Times today I read a statement by the hon. member, and the hon. the Minister referred to this. I want to congratulate him on it. In fact, I expected it of him, and we have waited for a long time for this sort of statement. Mr. Buthelezi has already done it, but the hon. members here sit back. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does nothing about it. He waits for one of his back-bench colleagues to make this sort of statement.

He first had to wait for Buthelezi.

I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville could hold out much longer either, because if my idea is the right one, and if what he tells us is true, viz. that he is a patriot, it was high time that he made this statement. He could probably not wait any longer when he saw his Progressive colleagues sitting there doing nothing. So then he talked. But now we expect that hon. member to talk to his fellow Progs in this connection and to tell them that it is bad business first to denigrate the business when you are trying to get somebody to buy something from you. If you want somebody to invest with you, you cannot tell them the management is weak and that there are all kinds of drawbacks. How can you expect people to have confidence in you?

This is exactly what the Progs are doing all the time. They create a bad image of South Africa, and then they expect people to fall over one another investing in the country. I cannot understand how people who are representative of the business sector can be so stupid.

I want to come back to the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville. In his statement which appeared in The Cape Times, he said the following—

I have no fault to find with that. He said further—

I have no fault to find with that either. I think it is quite correct. Then he goes on—

That is right.

I just want to put a question to the hon. member. Where he uses the word “apartheid” here, does he mean the declared policy of the Government, that is, the policy of separate development and of self-determination for nations?

Do you reject the word “apartheid”? Is that not NP policy?

I want to know what the hon. member means by that. He must not answer a question with a counter-question. He said—

Does he mean by that that separate development or the declared policy of the Government will be brought into the picture.

I mean apartheid.

Mr. Speaker, if that is so, I want to tell him here that he must think about this again. In the same connection I want to refer him to the verdict of an academic—not a politician. I refer him to a speech made by Prof. Tusenius at the congress of the S.A. Federation of Labour. I might just add that this professor is not always uncritical of the Government. On that occasion he said—

As the hon. member would himself probably like to be regarded—

Now the hon. member tells us that growth in this country will put pressure on the Government. I want to ask him why he wants growth. Does he want it for South Africa, or does he want it as an extra-parliamentary method to try to break the Government? He must give us an answer to that question.

What has the hon. member for Yeoville said further in the speech he has just made? Despite all the things he said previously to declare himself a patriot, he said that the Opposition had no responsibility in this regard. Is it not part of the South African Parliament? Is the country not governed by this Parliament? Does he not have a strict duty as a member of this House and of this Parliament to accept certain responsibilities? I want to ask his leader, who unfortunately is not here at the moment, if he associates himself with the statements made by the hon. member for Yeoville that members of the Opposition have no responsibility.

He did not say that.

He did say it.

I am not governing the country.

He said—

I want to go further into the statements made by the hon. member that growth must be obtained in this country so that pressure can be brought to bear upon the Government. Because of the consequences of growth, pressure will be brought to bear up on the Government to relinquish its policy. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing gives me cause for suspicion. To some extent, hon. members on this side of the House feel that the group sitting there—and that hon. member is, part of it—is canvassing votes for a greater force. That is a force outside this Parliament and it could even be outside the country.

What force?

The question occurs to me: To what extent does this group, the force that they represent here—let me mention it by name—the great financial force …

Look at the Mercedes cars in the Verwoerd Building.

That hon. member will get his chance to make a speech. But the question occurs to me—to this these people must give us a clear reply …

Order! The hon. member must refer to other hon. members as “hon. members”.

The hon. members must give us a clear answer to this question we pose: To what extent do they see the power vested in the great financial force as a method of bringing about change in this country? One cannot help wondering what connection these hon. members, with the force they represent, have with other great financial forces in the world. I have here in my hand a book written by a certain Gary Allen, and it makes very interesting reading.

Did you get that from Mr. S. E. D. Brown?

The writer asked himself, and this is the question we ask ourselves: How can it be possible that the big financial forces, who are really the personification of free capitalism, are so often leftists? How is it possible that the most capitalistic country in the world, the USA, runs away when it has to choose between communism and the rightists? Countless examples of this can be mentioned. When they had to choose in Angola, they ran away. When they had to choose in the horn of Africa, they ran away. Why is America not prepared to take a stand against communism? What does Senator Clarke say?—

Previously it was American policy to support those powers which opposed the communists. But it is being said now that they cannot do so anymore. In other words, they are well on the road to a compromise with communism, especially regarding communist infiltration in Africa.

Are you talking about the Progs?

It is alleged that the bastion of capitalism, the USA, is controlled and regulated by powerful financial forces. The question is posed for us in South Africa: To what extent is the PFP in the hands and the claws of the big money force in South Africa, and also to what extent do they want to manipulate politics in South Africa through the medium of that financial force? When one reads statements in the Press such as those made by the hon. member for Yeoville, it is quite clear what we have to contend with.

Our South African economy cannot be viewed in isolation. We must see it in the context of the world economy. When we look at the world economy, we find that Western countries, such as West Germany, a country with a strong economy and a country which does not have problems such as South Africa has, is also struggling with its economy. Their growth rate has declined, they have had enormous investment problems, and they are also encountering marketing problems. Unfortunately time does not permit me to quote from various statements by international economists and statesmen of West Germany, Japan and the USA. These statements demonstrate that what we have to contend with here is not just a South African problem but that the world economies are in a state of chaos. We are feeling the consequences of that here and we have to deal with them. The question arises now: What can we do to improve our economy? The hon. member for Yeoville put the same question. The answer is that we have to win the favour of the West and of America. What price shall we have to pay and what is expected of us? We are expected to relinquish our policy and to accept one man, one vote—which the PFP group wants—as our policy. That price is too high for us.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, on behalf of the House, to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Malmesbury for his striking speech. I also want to cross swords with the hon. member for Yeoville. I appreciate the fact that he has remained in this House. I refer to a standpoint which he stated in the Sunday Times on 30 October last year: “How to put South Africa first.” Referring to what he considered a lack of order and discipline, the hon. member said—

I suppose one could have added Houghton as well—

In all fairness, this is a positive request. The hon. member for Yeoville is a member of the PFP and he cannot dissociate himself from that party by making an easy statement in some little morning paper. By means of a very clear pamphlet which the PFP published during the election the hon. member for Yeoville associated himself with that party. A fine assortment of men they are, sitting over there!

United we stand, but they are sitting there! [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the PFP what they have ever done to boost the morale of our police, even if only on a single occasion. Already, on the Question Paper lying on our desks today, there are ten questions addressed to the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. I, too, want to ask a few questions in connection with law and order, as those hon. members are always doing. What have those hon. members done to boost and sustain the morale of the policemen, many of whom are young men who have to serve under difficult circumstances? That is my first question.

Have we not …

The hon. member will have a turn to speak in which he will be able to furnish clear replies. My second question is: Have those hon. members ever expressed any appreciation for the excellent service rendered by our policemen? My next question is: Do any of the members of that party have sons or daughters in the police force? [Interjections.]

Yes.

These questions have to be asked. I want to tell the hon. members of that party today that in that case they are poor fathers and poor mothers if they display such an attitude towards their sons in this public debate. That constitutes disloyalty. Those sons and daughters are ashamed of their parents’ behaviour.

In spite of this, the hon. members ask for the protection of the Police, but the hon. member for Houghton is strongly allergic … [Interjections.] … to a fire-arm, especially in the hands of a policeman.

That is completely untrue!

The hon. member for Houghton actually made vehement objections last year against the pointing of a gun by a policeman at a malefactor who is running away. She objected to this from those benches. When we asked her what objection there could be to this, she made a great fuss and called me a fool. How is the policeman to maintain law and order in a specific residential area if he cannot protect himself? Or do those hon. members believe that the people moving about there are innocent persons? I find these concepts irreconcilable.

How many hon. members of the PFP are the Police Reservists? [Interjections.] The hon. members are not paying attention, but I think the Indians of Standerton are in a better position. They are more loyal, because they put it into practice and it is not only lip service. Some of the Indians at Standerton act as police reservists to maintain law and order in their own residential areas. I think those people set an example to the hon. members of the PFP.

Do you mean us?

The hon. member for Durban Central wants to say something, but I do not know what is bothering him.

You are not asking us.

No, the question is not directed at you. The hon. members of the NRP have a different problem. They say they are very unhappy because their party suffered grievous losses as a result of the election announcement. They address this reproach to the hon. the Prime Minister. However, this is not true. An Opposition is not always essential. It would be silly for the wife of the hon. member for Durban Central to marry another man just to provide him with opposition. [Interjections.] The NRP lost the election because of a lack of depth in its policy.

I want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said in a statement in the Sunday Times of 7 August 1977. The hon. member seems to like making statements to newspapers—

We are concerned here with a different party—

Reference has been made to this conversation today and it has been explained in this House. The hon. member made it clear—

The hon. member then came to a very naïve conclusion—

Arising from the remarks made by an hon. Minister, I too want to ask: What State would then be a White State? We have the right to ask this. We Whites are not beggars in South Africa. We have a say over ourselves just like any other population group in the country. This is our premise and it is not negotiable or debatable. It is quite logical. Further to this I want to say something to that hon. member and his friend Buthelezi with their Inkatha and all those dreams. They too have the distant dream of one day incorporating a part of Standerton into his residential area. He has to pass over Laingsnek at Majuba in order to arrive at the district of Standerton. The hon. member should go and read up what lesson history has to teach him in this connection.

The White man of South Africa has the right to control his own affairs and to strive for the preservation of his own identity. However, those hon. members will not understand this, because they fail to see the greater whole and they stumble over an obstacle in the road. They misinterpret the history of nations in South Africa. It seems to me that the hon. member for Durban Central does not understand it either.

I understand it.

The hon. members of the Opposition do not see the greatness of the Government’s task. Our task is to develop nations to full maturity. We are more deeply aware than those hon. members of the problems we are faced with in the course of this development, because we bear the responsibility. Let us not begrudge those nations the morning star of freedom. What is the greatest yearning and sorrow of the Negro of America today? It is that he does not have a language of his own. The Negro thinks longingly of the roots of his people in the past. He regards himself as a full-fledged American, but he has a shortcoming in the sense that he speaks the language of the conqueror whose slave he was. He does not speak his own language. That is why the world champion boxer, Mohammed Ali, went to fight in Zaire and gave the millions he earned away to the masses. He felt the need to give it back to his people—as a gesture for what he had been deprived of. Do not take this away from a people. I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have just used a very euphemistic little word for the hon. member for Houghton, but she will not be offended. Let us not deprive any people, no matter how small, of that possession. On the news this morning we heard about the South Moluccans and about Britain, where Mrs. Margaret Thatcher made a speech about a certain threat. We must not allow this in our country. However, we must not take fright at the problems with which we are faced.

Give those nations the light of integrity. What is the integrity of a nation? It is not something which is poured out upon it from heaven. It has to grow and develop into it like the individual himself. It must become a part of the individual’s pattern of life and a part of a nation’s pattern of life. I think of the integrity of a population to choose the party which it trusts and which it wants to have in power. I think, too, of the integrity of its leaders and their ability to lead that people with great confidence and decision. That is integrity.

One of those hon. members saw fit to ask where the loyalty of the Black man lay when he had to go to the border. There are Black people who think more deeply than those hon. members, because there are already a deeper need and a deeper significance in the nature and existence of those people. I just want to say to hon. members in that party that when we look at the task of the Government, we see the objective of the Government in respect of the right of the nations and the placing of nations in a constellation and in a task force. But the immediate, avowed objective of this side of the House is to root out that little party. I think this is the first and the best objective. However, the greatness of our task is to find a direction for the nations of this country. If someone says to us that it is just an idea, a dogma, a theme, a dream or an ideal, I say that this is not so, because it is above all a practical reality. Someone who lives in the Zulu territory and who can speak the Zulu language can see by the way in which those children play that they are Zulu children. Surely such people then understand the true language of the people who are growing up. Transkei and Bophuthatswana are part of those realities. If we put the matter to the test, we shall see that there is planning in the course of development. One need only look at the planning which has been done in respect of the Indians and the Coloured people. There is greatness in this matter. There are certain shortcomings and uncertainties which have still to be cleared up. We need the help and the loyalty of those hon. members and not just their lip service. There is a need for a certain style and a climate in which this task can be performed; and there is only one fruitful sphere for this, and that is discipline. If that is lacking, nothing else can exist. Disorder and a lack of discipline have caused great nations to be destroyed in the past, and only their language survives.

I ask whether our young people have any confidence and enthusiasm. We are sitting here today as a large group belonging to one party. People in my constituency have told me frankly that they are not members of the NP, but that they support the great enterprise of the Government in these particular times. That is what we are counting on. There is enthusiasm and there is support. There is coordination of powers, capabilities and the possible establishment of a Presidential Council. I want to refer briefly to this one aspect of the new dispensation. There is a spectrum of talented people outside the parliamentary level which is available to our national administration. I think we should express our confidence in the Government and our hon. Prime Minister with regard to these enterprises.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend and contemporary, the hon. member for Musgrave, said yesterday, I also find it particularly pleasant to address this House again, after an absence of so many years. I want to express my gratitude to hon. members and officials who have helped to make me feel at home again. I readily accept the decision that under these circumstances it is not necessary for me to make another maiden speech. To me, in any case, it is perfectly logical because I do not see how any person can be initiated twice in one lifetime, even after an interval of a quarter of a century.

I suppose it is only natural in these circumstances that one should think back. One looks through the debates in which one participated in this House in the past to see whether there is a theme from those years which is still relevant, which still has meaning and which can still link up with what was said in this debate. I think there is such a theme and I want to refer to it.

However, I first want to remove an obstacle, an obstacle which the hon. the Prime Minister has already referred to in this debate.

Harry Schwarz!

On 10 November 1976—not 1977 as the hon. the Prime Minister said—I read a paper at a conference in Johannesburg on investment prospects for South Africa in 1977. There I was invited to speak on the political factor as it would probably affect investments in 1977. That relatively long paper of mine ended with certain words which were used time and again by the propaganda machine of the NP after the day of my speech. Those words, which were quoted rather incorrectly by the hon. the Prime Minister earlier in the debate, were as follows—

[Interjections.] I immediately have to concede that a man of my age and experience should have known that I should have chosen a—different phrase instead of “if I were”. Those words are often used in English by one who offers or gives another person advice. It was therefore possible to look at those words very superficially and out of context and to interpret them as if I were offering foreign investors advice. The propaganda machine has rumbled on in this way for the past 15 months. If some attention is paid to the facts it does, of course, become clear that this was not the case. In the first place I started that last part of my paper to which exception was taken with these words—

At sight value those words already prove that I was not addressing foreign investors, but that I was telling my fellow South Africans what, in my opinion, foreign investors would do as a result of political factors. [Interjections.] There is further evidence for those who want to approach the matter at all objectively. My friend, the hon. member for Yeoville, was present that day. When I had sat down, he immediately got up, without any prior consultation, and asked me directly whether I meant by my concluding words that I myself had any doubts about South Africa as an investment sphere or whether I was simply telling my audience that I believed foreign investors would have those doubts. And, of course, I immediately made it clear that the latter was the case. In this way any possible misunderstanding was also removed. Lastly I want to ask in all humility in this respect that one should remember who and what I am. [Interjections.] Because I happen to be a director of companies, my personal interests—as I presume those of many other hon. members of this House—have to be declared and made available to the public. Anyone who wants to can have a look and can see that my savings are also invested mainly in South African shares. [Interjections.]

Where are the others?

Lastly: My entire business career depends on the well-being of companies that are also mainly dependent on the investment rate. For me to advocate restricting investment in South Africa would make as much sense, I would say, as a maize farmer praying for drought in the growth season. I have never advocated anything like that. I did warn what, in my opinion, would happen in 1977, as was my duty to do on that occasion. And to my great sorrow I have to admit that it was one of the most accurate prophecies I have ever made in my life. I have the most recent publication of the Bureau of Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch in my hand. I quote a few sentences—

And that was in fact an excellent performance—

The article continues—

In other words the state of the reserves, which is mainly due to the shortage of capital from outside, forces the authorities to implement restraining policy because they have to protect the reserves; they cannot do otherwise. That is what causes the situation where the true standard of living of the average South African is still declining considerably in the presence of inflation. That is one of the prices that has to be paid for apartheid.

What is happening in other countries of the world?

I apologize for taking up the time of the House with that matter, but I really think that it was necessary.

I now want to turn to the subject which I actually want to discuss, and that is economic integration and its political implications. Hon. members who were here 20 years ago, will remember vividly what an important matter it was in our debates of those years. The essential question is: Can separate political institutions work satisfactorily for people who are interdependent in their economic life? In those days there was, even on the Government side, as I remember, a measure of acceptance of the possibility that economic integration might compel a resultant political integration. Consequently attempts were made on the part of the Government in those days to claim that the economic integration which already existed then, would not necessarily be permanent. Consequently there was talk for instance of the year when the curve would begin to drop, when the number of Black people in the urban areas of South Africa would begin to diminish. Incidentally this year is the year which was indicated.

I hope and also believe that this Government has abandoned any such theories, to its credit, and now accepts the fact of the permanence of the urban Black. I believe it is generally accepted in this country that not only the Coloureds and the Indians, but also a large number of the Blacks, unavoidably form part of the same economic community as the Whites. In other words that they are mutually dependent on one another. The question which arises, is whether people who form part of a single economic unity can still realize their political aspirations by means of separate institutions.

† I doubt it very strongly. What are the aspirations of the ordinary man? Why does he want political rights? Very largely, but not entirely, he wants to use his political rights to look after his economic well-being. He wants to obtain what he considers an adequate reward for his labour. If he cannot get this by asking his employer and if he cannot get it through trade union action—if these things do not work—he will seek to put a government in authority which will ensure that he obtains that just reward. And if he is denied that opportunity also, he will sooner or later come into conflict with the authorities and possibly take part in unconstitutional action of some sort. But in any case, the value of political rights to the ordinary man anywhere in the world is very largely to secure his economic position. That is the purpose of having his political rights. Many hon. members will be better aware than I that the science which we today call economics was called, until about 100 years ago, political economy. It was called political economy because these two things were seen as one and the same. It is my central thesis today that we shall have to provide, within a single political framework, for all those South Africans who find themselves within our single economic frame. I suggest that the signs around us indicating that our society is coming under strain are precisely due to the fact that we are endeavouring to make separate political institutions to serve people who are economically interdependent. People who are disappointed in their economic lives lack the means to overcome, by constitutional and political methods, their grievances and this leads to difficulties. In any society there are centrifugal and centripetal forces.

The art of constitution-making is the art of bringing these forces into balance. If one gives too much play to one’s centrifugal forces the state disintegrates and if one gives too much play to one’s centripetal forces one gets over-centralization, despotism and ultimately, very often, revolution. In most countries the strongest centripetal force is the economy, and South Africa is no exception. In most countries the centrifugal forces are provided by historical and cultural diversity, and of this South Africa is a prime example. That is the essence of the problem which we all face, and no matter how much we may entertain one another by ridiculing one another’s solutions, we are all after the solution to this problem. I think there is a general feeling in the country that the time has come for a new constitutional deal. The Opposition asks for it, the Government considers it, the Black people seek it and it is our duty here to set this machinery in motion. Because of the centripetal force there will have to be shared decision-making over those matters which are common interests, and the most important common interest of all is the economy. Because of the centrifugal forces there will have to be appropriate provision to prevent the oppression of any group by others. I believe that all sides of the House know that this is an urgent need. However, I believe we need more time than we appear to have to work it out. Hon. members opposite have made certain tentative suggestions with regard to the Coloured and Indian people. I think they have admitted that these are far from perfect and have said that they want to discuss them further, and that is certainly to their credit. What seems to me to be chiefly wrong with them is that in all matters of common interest, as between White and Brown, there is built-in domination by the NP in the last resort. What matters there are of any importance that are not matters of common interest between White and Brown, I have been unable to discover.

The real essential policy of the Government—and it has been referred to from these benches in this debate—is, of course, the homelands policy. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Musgrave said, we do not simply throw all aspects of this policy out of the window. There may be, there will be, sections of what forms part of the Government’s policy which will be acceptable as part of a wider plan. There may be sections of our population who are content to accept citizenship which cuts them off from the economic heartland of South Africa. To the extent that the economic as well as the political aspirations of groups in South Africa can be satisfied that way, on certain conditions that have been stated here, we are prepared to accept the idea of that sort of regional development. However, this will always be peripheral, because where the economic heart of South Africa beats we shall always be together, Black and Brown and White. Whoever takes the political decisions must satisfy all those groups within reason or the Government will surely break down. There may be a place for homelands, for citizens of all colours who are content not to be part of the economic machine. Who knows, there may be some White people who feel that they would rather stop the world and get off. There may be a homeland solution for them, but the economic reality is that the economy of South Africa is multiracial and the politics of at least that part of South Africa must always reflect the reality.

This is really what the Inter-church Conference of 1949 was after, all those many years ago. Hon. members will remember their report. I quote from it briefly—

That statement was condemned as impractical; probably rightly so. However, it expresses the truth I am putting that unless you can separate a man economically you are going to be in trouble when you seek to separate him politically.

*Mr. Speaker, it will require time and study. A national convention will have to be held sooner or later, under some name or other, for only in this way can the necessary consensus be obtained. Possibly it would be desirable to call it by another name, but it will still be a national convention.

There are many things which cannot be done within a short space of time, and in the few minutes still at my disposal I want to plead for certain steps to be taken immediately, steps which—as the hon. member for Yeoville said, and rightly so— can be taken within what is apparently the broad framework of the Government’s present school of thought. Of course I do not mean that these are long-term or final solutions, but that we might be able to gain time in order to come forward with plans of what is to be done if we want to solve the really big problems. Those things have already been mentioned in this debate and I shall only refer to them again briefly. One of them is the question of freehold for the Blacks in the urban areas. I know the Government is paying attention to this. I know there are many possible forms of this. The test should be that the freehold should be completely negotiable and that it should be acceptable to the building societies for the purposes of loans. If we can do that, it will have a powerful stabilizing influence on our population within our economic heartland. The second matter is that of trade union rights in recognized trade unions. I know that there is at present a commission of inquiry into this matter and I am grateful for that. Therefore I am not going to say much about it. I do, however, understand the anxiety of those who are afraid that trade union rights might be used as a lever for political rights. On the other hand, I want to indicate that any employer who has experience of these matters, can give the assurance that it is always easier to negotiate with an organized trade union than with loose groups of aggrieved workers. It is always safe and I want to recommend that to the Government as another way in which we can gain time.

The third matter is of course the whole issue of education. That has been discussed in detail in this debate. I think enough has already been said on how much education already means to working people. It is the case throughout the world and our Black people are no exception. With regard to the broad principles one can only indicate the direction the future constitution will take, but in the meanwhile I just want to ask that these urgent steps be taken by means of which the temperature in South Africa can be brought down, pressure and tension can be lessened, by means of which—as the hon. member for Yeoville said—a measure of stability can perhaps be regained and by means of which we can gain precious time. Who knows, it might even contribute to the improvement of the climate of investment in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, were it not for the fact that it was so late in the day and that the sun was setting, I should have liked to have reacted at once to the attempt made by the hon. member for Parktown to defend those extremely reprehensible remarks of his concerning investment in South Africa, remarks made by him in a magazine with a world-wide circulation of millions—Business Week. Under the circumstances this will have to stand over until tomorrow. I should now like to move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—