Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members I should just like to announce that the Part Appropriation will be presented on Monday, 13 February. The Railway Budget will be presented on Wednesday, 1 March, and the Post Office Budget on Monday, 13 March. The main budget speech will be delivered on 29 March. The budget debate will commence a few days later.

† Parliament will adjourn for the Easter recess on Friday, 17 March, and will reconvene on Tuesday, 28 March.

*The business of the House for tomorrow and for the next few sitting days will proceed more or less according to the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring to certain aspects of a speech which had just been made in this House by the hon. member for Parktown. It concerned certain remarks of his in which he advised foreigners not to invest money in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister made the following statement (Hansard, 30 January 1978)—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister quoted what the hon. member for Parktown had allegedly said, i.e.—

To this the hon. member for Parktown replied yesterday, and I quote (Hansard, 1 February 1978)—

Immediately afterwards the hon. member said—

Then he referred to Venezuela and Mexico and Thailand, etc., and eventually got round to those same words. What the hon. the Prime Minister obviously had in mind and what he was obviously referring to was the 14 February 1977 edition of Business Week. Business Week is a magazine which is distributed all over the world and which is read by millions of people. The quotation in Business Week reads as follows—

This is word for word the same as the quotation made by the hon. the Prime Minister. These are the words which were made public by this magazine. Who knew where the hon. member had spoken?

By the way, it is interesting to note that this is a speech dealing with a specific matter, i.e. the possibilities of investment in South Africa I would have thought that the hon. member for Parktown would at least have made that speech available to one or more Government bodies. As Minister of Finance, I receive speeches from abroad—speeches which are not so important as this one—from people whom I often do not know at all. However, the hon. member did not see fit to bring the speech to my notice. If he had done that, we would have reacted at once. In any case, the hon. the Prime Minister was referring to Business Week and his quotation corresponds exactly to what was printed in Business Week. What is more, it was last year and not 1976. Why then does the hon. member allege that the hon. the Prime Minister was incorrect in the statement he made? He quoted it quite correctly.

However, the matter goes a little further than this. The hon. member for Parktown said that this was an obstacle which he had to remove. When he said there was an obstacle, an hon. member asked by way of interjection whether that was Harry Schwarz. However, this is only by the way. Then the hon. member for Parktown quoted what he supposedly said in his speech. According to him he said the following (Hansard, 1 February 1978)—

Why do we have to be grouped or classified with Venezuela or Mexico or Thailand? Why not with Canada or Australia or Spain or Portugal or Brazil or many other countries? Why does it have to be with Mexico or Thailand? That is strange. I do not understand it at all. Then the hon. member said that he had also said the following in his speech—

I can only say that I am always meeting some of the most senior Swiss bankers, German industrialists and British merchants and other businessmen and that I have never heard anyone of them say that South Africa is a country in which people should not invest. Why then does he say that? It is exactly the opposite. These are people who have invested and are still investing millions of rands in South Africa. It seems that when the hon. member said that in his speech, the hon. member for Yeoville approached him at once and asked him exactly what he had meant by that statement. It seems that he did this immediately on that occasion. Did he mean that he himself was doubtful about South Africa as a field of investment, the hon. member for Yeoville apparently asked him. He then said (Hansard, 1 February 1978)—

i.e. that there need not be any doubt on the part of foreign investors. That is what we are concerned with. I quote further—

This is what the hon. member for Parktown said. But is it so? Then he said—

He said he happened to be a director of companies. He went on to say that it would be impossible for him as a director of companies to advise anyone not to invest here. He said—

I want to ask him a question in this connection. In Business Week, he is described as “an executive director of Anglo American”. I want to ask him whether he was speaking on behalf of Anglo American, because that is what it says here. Did his fellow directors of Anglo American know what he was going to say there? Did any of them know in advance? I believe this to be a very serious matter. I should very much like to learn from him exactly on behalf of whom he was speaking and why reference is made here to “Mr. Zac de Beer, an executive director of Anglo American Corporation”. Sir, he made this speech in November 1976. It is now February 1978, and yesterday was the first time, as far as I know, that he tried to defend himself and to place a different interpretation on his words from what any normal, reasonable person would place upon them. Why did he hesitate so long? Surely he could have set this matter right long ago, if he had not meant it in this way. I think this is a serious matter. I think that he and his party are going to be embarrassed by this for a long time to come.

† I do not want to make any personal attack in this matter, Mr. Speaker, but we are dealing with a new official Opposition and we are entitled to know precisely where we stand with them. The country is entitled to know. Here is a case where certain statements were made by a senior member of the Opposition, a man whom I think is being groomed for higher status. He made this statement approximately a year and two months ago, and the first thing he does in this House is to try to defend himself. If he was going to refer to this matter, Sir, which the Prime Minister put unexceptionably, would you not have thought that he might have said: “Look, I made this statement. On reflection I can see that this could be extremely damaging to South Africa, the country I love. (He has said in the House that he loves his country.) I greatly regret that I should have put it in that form.” That is not what he said here yesterday. I leave that matter, Sir, but I thought that the House ought to know that the Prime Minister had put this matter absolutely impeccably.

I do not want to spend too much time on the Opposition, but there is a further matter I wish to raise. I ran into this question personally at every election meeting I held in November, and I held many. The question arose as to how and by whom this great country should be governed. For a long time members of the PFP, before even they had that name, were saying it should be either by one man, one vote or Black majority rule. The hon. member for Houghton said in this House that that was eventually what it would be.

That is absolute rubbish!

There are others, but the hon. member for Groote Schuur, who was until recently a Senator with me in the Other Place, had a great deal to say about this matter. In the Other Place, as recently as 1976, he had a great deal to say about this matter, and I tackled him on it then. I have the Hansard here. I do not want to quote it all, but I think the House ought to know that he made it perfectly clear. He said he was taking part in the by-election in Durban North. He was asked a question by a Nationalist. When I asked him how he knew it was a Nationalist he said the person looked like a Nationalist! That, of course, anybody would have known it was a Nationalist! [Interjections.] He said he was asked four questions. I shall not go into all four of them. One question was whether a Black man could, under PRP policy, be on the common roll. The answer he gave was “Yes”. He was also asked: “Is it PRP policy that there can be a Black Prime Minister of South Africa?” His answer was “Yes”. The third question was: “Can there therefore be Black majority rule in South Africa?” His answer was “Yes”—unreservedly. I tackled him on this. He did not make any reservation whatsoever. In fact, he went on …

Under a new constitution … [Interjections.]

I shall repeat exactly what I said in the Other Place because that is exactly how I see it now. I said—

This refers to Black majority rule under PFP policy. The question was addressed to the present hon. member for Groote Schuur. The hon. Senator replied “Yes”. The Hansard states—

He again repeated the statement. If that were the end of it, it would be bad enough, but that is not quite the end of it, because I raised this matter at every single election meeting I addressed. Let me make my position clear. I hold nothing against the Blacks of this country. We have to co-exist. In fact, I can show that I have adopted a very constructive personal attitude towards Blacks throughout my life. But the question is what would become of us in this country if South Africa were to be taken over at this moment, or in the near future, by a majority of Blacks as rulers of this country? That was the issue in the election.

You are qualifying it, are you?

And then during the election campaign certain advertisements were placed in the Argus groups of newspapers. Here I have a huge advertisement by the PFP in The Argus of 24 November, a week before the election. The advertisement reads:— It’s a lie.

It was a lie.

It was said all over the country and I was confronted with it at a meeting at that time. I quote: “It is a lie.” What, according to the PFP, is a lie? They say—

What is interesting is to see who signed this advertisement for the PFP. Let me quote the names: Colin Eglin, Ray Swart, Harry Schwarz, Japie Basson, Nic Olivier, Kowie Marais, Helen Suzman, Van Zyl Slabbert and Harry Pitman. Where was the hon. member for Groote Schuur? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Groote Schuur was a senior executive member of the party. So why did he not sign? After all, he is the Cape leader. Incidentally, it would be very interesting to know why the hon. member for Pinelands did not sign either. [Interjections.] These are two glaring omissions. Sir, this is the kind of thing we are dealing with. Here we have the new official Opposition and we have to put up with this sort of thing. No wonder that the electorate absolutely dismissed them. One would have thought, reading some of their newspapers and some of their speeches, that they had taken over the Government of the country, but as the hon. the Prime Minister said, they went out with 18 seats and came back with 17. Even my hon. friend, the hon. member for Yeoville—I am saying this in a friendly way; I am not fighting with him— drew only 4 300 votes in his constituency. How on earth did he manage that?

How many have you had so far?

Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville spoke yesterday for 25 minutes, of which he spent exactly five on finance. I am not sure whether the fact that he gave only five minutes to this subject was a compliment to me and to our side of the House or otherwise. I am inclined to think it was a compliment. I know the hon. member well enough. If he could really have got his claws into something to criticize us on severely or seriously, he would have done so.

Just be patient.

He and also the hon. member for Parktown have had their opportunity.

The hon. member for Parktown made the point that we must be very careful about our gold and foreign exchange reserves. Let us just deal with that for a moment. The hon. member knows that the gold content of our reserves is valued at $42,22 per fine oz. If that were valued at market prices, it would be a completely different figure. I happen to have in front of me the figure of the reserves at the end of November 1977. These are the official figures. If one values the gold content of the gold and foreign exchange reserves then, which amounted to about R800 million, at the gold price in the ruling market at that time, the total would have been about R1 830 million, and the gold price is a good deal higher now. The reserves are indeed a very important factor and we must watch the position in that regard very carefully. Let me say, however, that as the figures indicate, the reserves are not doing too badly.

I did not quote an absolute figure. I merely quoted the decline.

I am not so sure. If one goes by the current market value of gold, I do not think there is much of a decline.

The hon. member for Yeoville did raise a few points. One thing he did was to ask me to spell out my policy. Goodness me, Mr. Speaker, I thought that if one thing was clear to the House and to the country at the moment, it was our financial policy. However, I shall try to refer to some aspects of it in a moment. The other point he made was that this was the time in which to stimulate the economy. What happened when we stimulated the economy through the building industry in November? Immediately he accused me of indulging in an election gimmick. The Rand Daily Mail was so keen to get his view across that the day after my address in Johannesburg—in which I spelt out our policy in this respect, that we were injecting another R250 million into the building industry for Coloured, Indian and Black housing over and above the record amount already provided for in the current year’s budget—the Rand Daily Mail could not wait to give a clear statement of what I had said but must needs make a big headline to the effect that: “Schwarz says it’s a gimmick.”

But it is true—it was.

Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? Let me state the facts. When I came back early in July from a visit to a number of countries in Europe, I was asked on my arrival at Jan Smuts Airport by the Press and the other news media to make a statement on how I saw different aspects of the financial position, which I then did. I was then asked if I had some view on the possibilities of stimulating the economy. I said: “Yes, we have been discussing that.” I said that if the improvement in the current account which was then taking place, continued for a few more months, if we saw that that appeared to be a sustained trend, I thought that the time to stimulate the economy in a moderate way so as not to drive up inflation or prejudice the balance of payments, would be in a matter of three or four months. I said that in July. Well, from July to November is four months. In August I said again in public that I thought that, as the economy was developing, we would be able to indulge in some moderate measure of stimulation before the end of the year. That, again, would make it about November. Is the hon. member suggesting to the House that in July and August I knew there would be an election in November?

I do not know what you knew. But your timing was very good, was it not?

Sir, he said it was an election gimmick! That is nonsense. I already referred to it in July. Anyway, then he made a statement—which he was quite entitled to make—in which he said that we should immediately uncouple the rand from the dollar. He said that the link between the rand and the dollar should be ended. He also said that our policy in that regard was disastrous. He made that dogmatic statement on an extremely important aspect of financial policy without giving any reasons at all. He was running into difficulties with time at that point, but the fact remains that he made that statement towards the end of his speech without giving any reasons at all.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House will realize that this is a highly technical and extremely important issue. In fact, I do not think there is any other single price in the economy which is quite as important as the exchange rate of the rand. We have to be very careful that our policy in this respect is properly founded. If it is not, we can overnight do incalculable harm to the economy. The hon. member may have forgotten, but about two years ago we had a position of that kind. He said that the rand should be linked to a basket of currencies. Well, in effect we did that about two years ago and we made small, short-term adjustments. What happened? Some clever people broke our code, one might say. They started anticipating our moves, in the light of developments, and that is where the very serious adverse movement in the leads and lags in the balance of payments started. This caused us very great problems, and very large amounts of foreign exchange left the country as a result of sheer speculation against the rand. We encountered such serious problems that we had to revert to linking the rand to a currency. What currency does one choose? We chose the dollar as a universal currency, a currency which is well known and is used throughout the world. It is true that the dollar has been in difficulty lately, for the last few months. There is a great deal of talk about the extent to which the dollar has, in fact, depreciated. What really has happened is that the powerful currencies such as the Swiss franc, the German mark and the Japanese yen have appreciated in terms of the dollar and have done so fairly substantially. The rand, being linked with the dollar, naturally also moved down against those currencies. However, if one looks at the dollar in relation to a trade-weighted index of currencies, i.e. of the important trading countries with America, one will find that from September 1977 the dollar has depreciated in relation to that group of currencies by only about 5%. The rand does not automatically follow suit as we have to look at the value of the rand in relation to another group of currencies, i.e. the currencies of the countries which are commercially the most important to us. In that group the weight of the United States would be approximately 28%. The rand has depreciated by about 4,4% since September in terms of the currencies of the countries commercially the most important to us. That is not a very serious depreciation. In fact, I will argue under the circumstances that it has benefited us rather than the reverse. What is interesting is that after all the currency turmoil that the world has encountered and experienced, since 1975 particularly, i.e. from the time we devalued the rand in September of that year, the rand today stands almost exactly at the exchange value it had immediately after the depreciation of September 1975. In other words, we have maintained the value of the rand since then despite all the turmoil and disruption in world monetary affairs experienced since then. Mr. Speaker, I think that took some doing. What it means is, amongst other things, that the decision to devalue the rand, and by the percentage by which we devalued it in September 1975, has proved to be absolutely sound. One sees it when one looks at the current account in these conditions of world depression, the worst the world has seen since the early thirties. Conditions were such that at times even countries like Germany and America had negative growth rates. Thank goodness, although our growth rate has fallen, it has never been negative. On the contrary, it is still positive. Early in 1976 we saw the current account running into a very big deficit. As a developing country it is nothing new for us to have a deficit in our current account, but the deficit became rather big. We immediately took conscious steps through old-fashioned conservative fiscal and monetary policies, nothing other than old-fashioned financial discipline. We took those measures, and I am glad to say that they have worked extraordinarily well. That, together with the fact that we took measures to encourage our exports and to provide the infrastructure to carry our exports to the ports and into the ships of the world, has swung the deficit of R1 700 million on the current account in 1976 to a surplus of approximately R700 million to R800 million last year. That is a turnaround of something like R2 500 million in one year. I am thankful for it.

I am not boasting about it, but it happened as a result of conscious, deliberate policy. If one compares South Africa’s position with comparable countries and if one takes the IMF’s annual report—it is an admirable document and worth reading—one will find that South Africa is classified with the more advanced primary producing countries, i.e. Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Yugoslavia and a whole lot of others. And one will find that where our current account has run into this substantial surplus due to our policy, the deficit for the other countries in the same comparable group is $12 billion to $14 billion this year. That is the latest estimate. Their inflation rate is more than 15%while ours is at most 11%. It might be even slightly less at this moment. Our inflation rate is unacceptably high, but we should keep a sense of perspective.

Another matter which deserves the attention of the House is what has happened to monetary policy. In 1973 our supply of money increased by 23%; in 1974 by 22%; in 1975 by 17%; in 1976 by 9%—for the first time in years it was then less than the rate of inflation—and last year—I have received the figures today—it was 6,9%. That is another reason why we have had this turnaround from a big deficit in the current account to a substantial surplus. That and the fact that we have taken a grip on Government spending to the very best of our ability for two years running, is why we could manage this turnaround.

That is why we are in recession.

Our policy is to have financial discipline under these extraordinary, difficult conditions. We shall continue to have problems, but by what we have done I venture to suggest that we have demonstrated to the world and to South Africa that we are able to handle our problems in a very difficult economic and financial world.

In a word my policy then is to uphold the basic strength of the economy as far as I can, to maintain the integrity and the basic strength of the rand as a world-recognized currency. The rand is one of the currencies in the world determining the value of the SDR by the IMF, as the hon. member knows. My policy is to build on this solid base so that when, as will surely happen, better times and the upswing really come, we will be in a position, through conscious policy, to take the fullest advantage of that situation. Then we shall see once again the realization of the great prospects for our economy and the splendid growth rate which the world knows we are capable of and which we have had for so many years of our existence. I have the greatest confidence in the future of our economy and in the future of gold, which has once again demonstrated its strength against a sustained onslaught by some of the strongest countries. We stand on these things, and it is only a matter of elementary confidence that is needed in the country to lift us out of the tardiness and slackness in the economy. All the prerequisites are there to bring us to the great heights to which we have every right to aspire.

Mr. Speaker, it was most interesting to hear the hon. the Minister of Finance telling us what a great state the economy is in. I think we must grant it to him that the deficit which the current account experienced a year ago has definitely been reversed and that things are looking in better shape. However, after listening to him this afternoon we can only hope that his predictions are going to be borne out to be correct. We sincerely hope that when we come back to this House next year the hon. the Minister will be able to say: “I told you so.”

However, my speech this afternoon is not concerned with financial matters, but rather with constitutional matters, in particular with the speech that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made yesterday. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister has apparently left the House, which is a great pity. Nevertheless, I will speak through his deputies to him and I, like many others, would like to congratulate him on his elevation to his present position. I would also like to congratulate him for the positive start that he has made so far. The 10 point plan which he announced yesterday has, I believe, raised hopes that the root causes of the festering sores in places such as Soweto will soon be eliminated. I would, however, like to point out that as long as the Government persists in its apartheid policy, of insisting that the residents of Soweto will have political rights vested in independent homelands or the remaining territorial authorities, the improvements which the hon. the Minister is proposing will only be materially based. In other words, he has done nothing to resolve the core issue of the problem, namely the political rights which are required to give the people of Soweto their self-respect.

The granting of limited self-government has been proposed, but it is only a cosmetic operation and I believe it will not douse the fires which are burning in the breasts of the citizens of Soweto. We must accept—from listening to debates in this House I know that the Government accepts—that there is overwhelming evidence throughout the world that the desire for group identity and self-respect is the world’s most powerful motivating political force. I only wish that the Government would accept that this is also the case in South Africa. The desire for group identity, which we hear so much about today, i.e. the pride in one’s group, in one’s culture and in one’s history, and the desire for a political say in the destiny of one’s future, is what builds nations and people. Regrettably, it is also the motivating force which fans the fires of revolution. To ignore this reality is to close one’s eyes, I believe, to the root cause of the unrest in a place like Soweto. If we study our own history we find that it is this motivation which is the reason for the rise and the success of Afrikaner nationalism and also the Afrikaner Broederbond. If we look at more recent times it is also this motivating force which is causing the rise of Zulu nationalism under the leadership of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and the Inkatha movement. [Interjections.]

For these reasons I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to consider the pluralistic principles upon which the NRP stands and to create for the peoples of Soweto a far greater political dispensation than the hon. the Minister presently has in mind. He could start, for instance, by declaring Soweto an urban territorial authority, similar to the other homeland authorities. In so doing the hon. the Minister will go down in history as the man who led the people of Soweto to greater political independence. The time has surely come for all of us to see these things for what they are.

Only Soweto?

It could certainly be applied to other places as well. It is time to see these things for what they are, and that is an expression of a racial or ethnic group’s desire for its self-respect, for a pride in its identity and for a say in determining its own destiny via its own political power base. This is what the Government denies the people of Soweto.

In recent years and right through history we have heard of various rights which people should have. If one studies the American Constitution, one will find that 200 years ago the Founding Fathers insisted that States’ rights should be entrenched in the American Constitution. In 1960 the issue was civil rights and today the issue is human rights. Only two days ago we heard the hon. member for Pinelands proposing to this House six basic human rights which he put forward for consideration. These are all admirable objectives, but none of them are a guarantee of racial and ethnic harmony. I regret to say that the hon. members of the PFP have failed to grasp the fact that the potential for human misery and the very denial of human rights as a result of a major inter-group conflict resulting from the denial of group rights in South Africa, far exceeds the suffering which is presently being endured by the detainees and bannees in South Africa, however unfortunate and regrettable their present position may be.

There is this other right which the hon. member for Pinelands and the PFP have failed to recognize and that is a group right, a term which, I believe, not only South Africa, but many countries throughout the world are going to hear a great deal about in the future. I am, however, pleased to see that the PFP have accepted, however reluctantly, the inevitability of independent homelands and their confederal links with South Africa in the future. I use the word “confederal” as we understand it in our terminology. The NP may call it a commonwealth link. However, we do detect that when it comes to White South Africans in the urban areas, the PFP persists in completely rejecting or refusing even to consider a political structure in South Africa—which we call pluralistic in nature— which will entrench group rights as a means of preventing inter-group conflict situations from arising in South Africa.

What are the group rights?

I am a member of the White group and I am talking about White, Black, Coloured, Ciskeian, Xhosa and Zulu rights. These are group rights.

I think it is a pity that the PFP totally rejects this concept and persists with its common society philosophy which is the corner-stone of its policy, when we know from logic that this policy must eventually lead to Black majority rule, which will deny the various groups in South Africa their group rights. There was a time when the Progressive Party claimed that they spoke for the Black and Brown people in South Africa. This week we heard that this might have changed and that they are now talking on behalf of the Black and Brown people in South Africa. I doubt whether they have ever spoken for them. That party, however, does have a recent record of negotiating with the Black group, namely the Black group of Inkatha. I should like to refer to this issue. In December 1976 the Progressive Reform Party organized a conference concerning the removal of discrimination in the city of Durban, to which was invited Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. He addressed the conference and offered the PRP an alliance with Inkatha. I should like to quote from The Natal Mercury of 14 January 1977. I quote—

It goes further—

It is very clear in my mind what the PRP stood for, but what are these aspirations to which they refer? In the same paper Dr. Bengu, who is the Secretary-General of the Inkatha movement, said—

Then he goes further—

In this respect we in these benches agree with Dr. Bengu. We also believe, like him, that a qualified franchise is a discriminatory practice. We have studied the PFP’s constitutional proposals and we see that they propose a multiracial common roll which will elect either Blacks, Whites or Browns to a multiracial parliament. If we accede to the demands of a Black group such as Inkatha, then the PFP’s policy must ultimately lead to Black majority rule. This means that the Parliament of South Africa will be dominated by the Black group. Having said this, I believe it is logical that one should examine the consequences of such a situation. Here again, Dr. Bengu, the Secretary-General of Inkatha, had this to say in a Daily News report at about the same time at which this conference was being held. He says—

I want to ask the PFP here and now: Is this the reason why the PFP’s alliance with Inkatha broke down? Is it because when it came to the “nitty gritty” of the consequences of it …

It has not broken down. Do you not believe in consultation?

We believe in consultation. You were talking about an alliance.

Who was talking about an alliance?

But what has happened to this alliance? They are now starting to squeal. When it came to discussing this matter with the Black group of Inkatha, they found that if they acceded to the Black group’s demand under a common society ideal, which that party propounds, it would end up with the total destruction of the economic order and of the culture and the way of life of the Whites of this country.

Do not speak such nonsense.

This is what happened. They may say “such nonsense”, but why has nothing materialized from this alliance? Now we find more recently that certain elements of the Coloured and Indian communities of South Africa are also discussing an alliance with Inkatha. I would like to say here and now that I believe that unless such an alliance takes cognizance of the pluralistic principles to which this party has referred, it is doomed to failure, as were the Progs, unless, of course, the Indian and Coloured leaders concerned are prepared to submit their people to the cultural, political, and economic domination of Inkatha’s philosophy.

What you mean by “group rights” is privileges.

No, we do not mean that. We do not expect you to understand this. It is because of these happenings that we believe that the concept of pluralism is so relevant today. And we have been appealing to all parties to give this concept its due consideration. But of course the PFP is unable to do this.

It is in this context that I now turn to the Government. We accept, as the NP does— and I would like to emphasize this—the right of groups to their identity. However, we differ in various degrees as to how this should be achieved politically. The Government’s apartheid philosophy—and this word “apartheid” is the word which has brought the world’s condemnation down upon our heads—is one of total separation and total segregation. I now wish to refer to what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1958—

These spheres were defined as economic, geo-political and constitutional and socio-cultural and bio-genetic. As a result of this philosophy we now have these large numbers of apartheid laws on our Statute Books. It is much of this legislation which is the basic cause of the unrest and unhappiness amongst our Black people in this country and which has also brought the condemnation from our friends overseas. The reasons for this are quite clear. This legislation, under the NP’s philosophy of apartheid, must lead to discriminatory practices against people who do not belong to the NP group. It also leads to domination of the people who fall under the legislation emanating from this Parliament. We believe in the philosophy of pluralism which accepts certain principles. First of all, the various groups in a plural society such as South Africa have a right to their identity, their self-respect and their dignity as a group. To achieve this a political dispensation must be evolved which will remove domination of one by another. This dispensation should also remove discriminating practices which impinge upon the group’s dignity and self-respect. The hon. members on that side may argue with us about the nomenclature involved in such a political system. We believe, however, as has been said here, that this must take a federal or confederal form.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the new constitutional proposals which were put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister last year and which he said were one of the major reasons for the election last year. At the outset I want to say that when I first heard that the NP was proposing three Parliaments, one for the Coloureds, one for the Indians and one for the Whites, I personally welcomed this move. I thought to myself that with this we had a major break-through in race relations in South Africa. I was prepared to consider this as being a change in direction on the part of the NP. The reason was that part of these constitutional proposals would mean a coming together of representatives of the various Parliaments in some central body which we would prefer to call a federal assembly but which the NP prefers to call a Cabinet Council. There was consequently a great desire on the part of many people such as myself, I am sure, to give these proposals a fair hearing.

Before I discuss a pamphlet which has been printed by the information service of the Federal Council of the NP of South Africa, I would just like to indicate briefly what the Constitution of my country means to me and what I believe it should mean to every citizen of the country. The Constitution of the country is something which, in the past, men have died for. Men have fought for the Constitution of their country. The Constitution is, in the political sphere of activity of a country, what the Bible is to Christian people. It is the book of rules by which we operate, and therefore in the minds of the people of South Africa the Constitution should be held up as the highest priority in the country’s political life. One does not easily change a Constitution. The Constitution is something which everybody supports, or should support. If there is eventually going to be a Constitution which is to incorporate Indians and Coloureds along with Whites, and we hope in the future even urban Blacks, this Constitution must be believed in as much by the Coloured races of South Africa as it is believed in by the Whites. This is what a Constitution should mean to people. However, in this pamphlet, put out by an official organ of the NP, we have a question and reply discussion of the constitutional plan. This is what it has to say, under the heading “The position of the Whites”—

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very logical question to ask. Here is the reply—

I should like to ask hon. members opposite whether they agree with this statement.

Of course.

I see they do. What is the meaning of this statement? It means that the constitutional proposals put forward by this Government cannot even withstand the normal democratic process of a change of Government through an election. That is what this means, because it says that such a happening would result in the destruction of this Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the Nationalist Government. They are trying to ram down the throats of the people of South Africa a Constitution which can only be safe if it is controlled by a one-party state, namely the NP. I think this is a shocking state of affairs. No wonder the Coloureds and the Indians have rejected these proposals. I was personally prepared to give these proposals a fair hearing, but when I read nonsense like this it makes me wonder what the NP was thinking of. Then, Sir, this document, an official document of the NP, goes even further—

Mr. Speaker, this is a downright lie and I accuse the NP of lying in this official organ.

But you said so just now.

I beg your pardon. Our pluralistic policy does not include bringing Blacks and Coloureds into this White Assembly. Here, Sir, you have a case where the NP goes to the people and prints in one of its own official organs a downright lie. I would like an apology from the NP for saying such a thing. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, there is something else I want to say. What does the outside world think of such arrant nonsense? What does the United States think of a constitution that cannot even withstand the normal democratic processes of an election? The American Constitution was drawn up 200 years ago. In 200 years there have been only 26 amendments to it. Why? Because, under the American Constitution a change to the Constitution can only come about when 75% of the states which are covered by that Constitution agree to such a change. This proposed plan of the NP cannot withstand even the normal democratic processes of a change of Government. These are the things which we in these benches accuse the Government of and which, quite frankly, make our hearts sore. We thought that these proposals were going to create a new political dispensation in South Africa. We felt that South Africa urgently needed a new constitutional arrangement which would solve the race problems in this country and which would take off the backs of South Africa the heel of overseas countries which is driving our economy into the ground because of the withdrawal of investment capital. As long as this Government persists with this type of race relations exercise we will continue to have the problems that we have had in South Africa in the past. I now appeal to the Government. They have a fantastic majority. Why do they not allow some of their clear thinkers to turn their minds to this problem? Why do they not get together with other constitutional brains in this country so that they can try to come up with a Constitution of which every South African who will fall under its jurisdiction can be proud? Why does the Government not do this? It is like Soweto; when the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training arrived in Soweto, what was his first reaction? He said: “We paid for these schools. They have got to do what we tell them or else.” And what did the people do, Sir? They burnt the schools down.

Where do you get that from?

What is going to happen under this Constitution, Mr. Speaker? How long will it last?

You are being irresponsible.

I am not being irresponsible; I am dead right. I again appeal to the Government to give this document to which I have referred serious consideration, because it is damaging the possibility of acceptance of the future Constitution of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we should take the hon. member for Amanzimtoti seriously. If I were in his party I, too, should want to weep. If my history was that of that party, I should have done more than merely weep. The “smiler” has gone from that party. Sir De Villiers Graaff, the man with the smile, is gone.

Talk politics! [Interjections.]

What has remained? There we hear the gall bladder which is left over from that party. In any case, I realize that the hon. member for Umhlanga would immediately want to draw attention because no one has yet paid him any attention. The government governing this country can change the constitution at this moment by a single vote. However the hon. member does not know that. The hon. member’s ignorance ought not to form the basis for his attack on the Government. He ought first to make sure exactly what rights he has and what rights have to be changed by way of a two thirds majority and what rights can be changed by a majority of only one vote in terms of the present constitution which has been in force for so many years. In any event, I ought not to waste so much time on the hon. member. [Interjections.]

I just want to quote something to the hon. member. What I find so strange is that everyone is complaining about Soweto. Everyone is talking about Soweto. However not one of these people really knows very much about Soweto. However, it is not going to be my task today to discuss Soweto. I just want to put to the hon. member what the late General Smuts had to say. After all, General Smuts was their leader, was he not? Or do they perhaps not know him anymore? [Interjections.] General Smuts said—

That is what General Smuts said in the course of a speech made in London on 22 May 1917. He therefore started with apartheid. [Interjections.] He was the man who originally said that apartheid was not really discrimination. He went on to say—

That was in 1917 and hon. members can read it themselves. [Interjections.] All I can say is that I could quote to them for six months on end but they would not take anything to heart. [Interjections.] However I do not have the time for that. When I speak in this House today, I am not discussing the NP’s majority. It is unnecessary to discuss it. Anyone who can see for himself and can think intelligently will know what has happened in this country. [Interjections.]

Aha! Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just entered the House. I should like to talk to you today about the election. Let us go to Bezuidenhout. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is known in his constituency as “Japie the wolf”. When I asked the people there: “Why do you call him ‘Japie the wolf?” they tell me: “Mr. Barnard, the only person in this constituency who still believes him is Little Red Riding Hood.” Then I discovered that there was a big screw loose in that constituency. As hon. members will know, we had various meetings there. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the candidate who did not win. I shall tell hon. members why in a moment. I shall show to hon. members that 11 500 people attended our three meetings. I made a survey. In most cases I was chairman of the meetings. One of our meetings was attended by 7 500 people— the hon. member said 4 500. As the people entered the tent, I made a random test and my colleagues and I asked the people: “Who is the most unpopular man in Bezuidenhout?” The people replied that there were two people who were unpopular in Bezuidenhout: The one was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who eventually won the unpopularity contest, and the other was Falconetti from “Rich man, poor man”. According to my survey he beat Falconetti as the most unpopular man in Bezuidenhout by a number of votes.

How many votes did your party get?

I am still coming to that hon. member. I have been wanting to get to grips with him for a long time. I want to put a few questions to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Where is my R1 000?

The hon. member was afraid to bet. Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you one story. [Interjections.] The hon. member can tell me if I am wrong. Why did he weep? After he heard that he had lost, he walked out and stood outside and wept. The doors were already open …

That is absolutely untrue.

The doors were already open, and then the hon. member came in and asked for a recount.

Mr. Speaker, that is a lie.

No, Mr. Speaker.

Order!

I just want to ask the hon. member if his counter, Reznick, said to him outside: “We have found another 50 votes.”

Order! The hon. member must listen when the Chair speaks. He must not get so carried away by his own argument. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must withdraw his statement that that is a lie.

Mr. Speaker, if what the hon. member said had not happened …

Order! It does not matter.

Very well. Then what is said is untrue. I withdraw the word “lie”.

But Mr. Speaker, I saw him weep.

Oh, man, you were tight.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was in ecstasy when he told the Prime Minister “I won.”

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to say that the hon. member was “tight” at the time?

Order! Hon. members must uphold the dignity of this House. The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, let me say then that he looked as if he was.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I knew the hon. member would make jeering attacks. He is going to make many more. However, I want to point out the facts to him. He is a man who has been in a constituency for 16 years and then he comes here and boasts that he won by 50 votes.

He did win.

Sir, it is a disgrace. He lost. He lost absolutely the confidence of people who had supported him without question year after year. At the first count there were only 36 votes short and then there were 62. Then 54 more were added and then the doors and everything were open. If I were the hon. member …

No, you are fibbing!

… I should very seriously … The hon. member must not waste my time. He knows, as I know, that he is sitting in a warm place in his bench over there. It is a hot seat. I want to ask the hon. member something. He said that a third party had aided the NP. Which is that third party?

The hon. members in the benches alongside me here— the NRP.

I had thought the hon. member would run away. In any event, all I want to say to the hon. member is that one must take care. The next election is coming and I am waiting for him. It is only in five years time, but that is not long for me to wait. [Interjections.] It could be even quicker. But the hon. member and I will meet again. When one wants to be objective in this House, one sometimes speaks a little light-heartedly because if one wants to be objective, one must look at things with an open mind. In the course of the five years that I have been here, I have looked at the PFP and I have asked myself the question: Is this party what it seems to be? Die Vaderland has a game known as “Seek the terrorist”. One can read the whole newspaper without finding the terrorist. One has to turn the newspaper around and look at it from the side before one sees the terrorist. In recent years I have been watching this party and I have seen how the pattern which started with Mr. Steytler occurs throughout the party.

In this House there was one person who followed the pattern worked out by Mr. Steytler. That hon. member is the hon. member for Houghton. She has followed that pattern slavishly day after day and developed it further. It has to be said that that pattern links up with people outside Parliament. If a matter had to be raised in Parliament, it was done regularly over a period of 17 years by a person who appeared to be innocent, just as innocent as a hen hatching eggs. However those eggs were not ordinary chicken eggs, but snake eggs. In many respects that pattern was linked with people outside Parliament.

I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he uttered the following words—

Are those the hon. member’s words? Tell me. The hon. member is just like his leader. They immediately become deaf and dumb if they have to reply. He also added—

Did the hon. member say that? Can I take that the hon. member said that?

No, you cannot.

The members of the PFP do not want to accept responsibility for what they have said.

Tell me what you are quoting from.

Will the hon. member believe me if I tell him that it appears in The Star? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member deny that he said that to The Argus? The hon. member conveniently forgets the speeches he has made. The same words which the hon. member for Pinelands used were used by Nelson Mandela as well. No one would be able to draw a distinction between the speeches of these two.

After the events at Sharpeville Mr. Steytler launched an attack on the Government. The Daily Mail had known about his attack the previous day, because it was stated in that newspaper that a certain representative in the House had made certain statements and that news was disseminated throughout the world. Hon. members are aware of the consequences of Sharpeville for South Africa.

We had been warning you for years.

Sharpeville and the Biko incident had an identical pattern. Hon. members would do well to investigate and to read the book I have before me so that they can see what pattern the PFP follows with their foreign contacts, with their contacts outside Parliament. The hon. member for Houghton has followed this pattern for 17 years. Year after year that hon. member has launched attack after attack on the Whites in South Africa. I have nothing against a Black man, but her attacks were always aimed at the White man.

† I dare the hon. member for Houghton to single out one minute out of the many hours of speeches that she has made where she has said something in favour of South Africa or the White electorate. The hon. member has not spent a single minute saying something good about the Whites in South Africa. Did the hon. member for Houghton sign the appeal for clemency for Harris after the bomb explosion that took place on the Johannesburg station?

What?

I shall repeat my question to the hon. member in plain Afrikaans. Did the hon. member sign that Harris should not be hanged?

I do not like capital punishment in any event.

Lovely. The hon. member does not like capital punishment Does the hon. member agree we should hang terrorists or imprison them for life? Does the hon. member agree with terrorists?

Don’t talk nonsense.

I want the hon. member to answer my question. Is the hon. member in favour of terrorism? Where does she stand? I think the country needs to know where the hon. member and her party stand when it comes to terrorism and attacks made against South Africa by people like Donald Woods.

Mr. Speaker, there is a comic saying in Southern Johannesburg that “Wie Langlaagte, lag die lekkerste”. I think the hon. member for Langlaagte has done his best to try to live up to that slogan. There is very little one can say constructively about his speech.

You can tell us where Von Brandis went.

I would like to tell the hon. gentleman, first of all, that I would have been delighted to reply had he made any constructive contribution in his speech. In passing I would like to say that if he wants a reply from a standing speaker on this side of the House, it is that we utterly condemn terrorism in all its forms. Is that good enough and clear enough?

The motion by the Opposition refers to policies and actions of the Government which have resulted in the deterioration of South Africa’s relations with the nations of the Free World. I wish now to discuss this specific aspect of the motion. There is no dispute about the fact that there has been a grave deterioration in South Africa’s relations with the nations of the Free World. Not on that side of the House nor on this side is that fact disputed. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated at Illovo as recently as 16 December 1977 that “there is no Government in the world which is our friend; they are all our enemies”. I disagree with the language the hon. the Minister used and I would say to him that I believe in the conduct of diplomacy there is more to be gained by moderate language than by the use of extravagant language. Leaving that aside, it is of course true that our isolation is growing and that it threatens to become total. The hon. the Minister was quite right in warning of this state of affairs.

So, we are all agreed upon the latter part of the motion which refers to the deterioration in South Africa’s relations with the nations of the Free World. Where there is disagreement in this House, is as to the cause of it. We have said in the motion that it is the policies and actions of the Government which have created that deterioration. We have heard from that side of the House a series of speeches, accusations and innuendoes suggesting that it is this small party which is in fact responsible for the deterioration of South Africa’s relations with the rest of the world. This, surely, is the most extravagant and farfetched remark that has been made. No evidence whatsoever has been produced about these so-called links we have with people abroad. There is also no evidence of the links internally which have caused this state of affairs to develop. There is no evidence whatsoever, but a constant stream of innuendo and accusation. I say with absolute clarity that there are no such links. We take orders from no one. We act in this House and in the political scene as we think right. There is nobody who gives us orders and we have no links with any subversive or other such element at all.

It is indeed a fact that the isolation of South Africa and the hostility against us has got one single cause. That cause—and it would be idle to deny it—is in fact the world’s disapproval of our race policies. There are no major disputes which we have with the world, nor which the world has with us, except those which are directly related to our race policies. If there is any other issue which is in heavy dispute I am not aware of it.

I think we must ask ourselves in all honesty why it is that this issue is seen by the Free World as a major problem. I believe security has become indivisible. A threat to any part of the Free World is now seen to be a threat to us all. The super power conflict which existed some years ago has very largely given way to a new kind of confrontation which is that of regional intervention. Communist pressure moves from one regional area to another, seeking out points of weakness, seeking out points where it may attack and shift the balance of power. This is done to undermine the Free World spheres of influence and to move the balance of power in favour of the communist world. There are various regions which are currently under such pressure or under such attack. It is, of course, common cause that Southern Africa is one such area.

The response by the Free World to this new international form of conflict is obviously to try to strengthen or quarantine regional areas of weakness. However, a racial conflict is a particular difficult one to handle in this regard, because racial conflict is highly contagious and easily infects or spreads from one region to another. There is also the danger that racial friction can draw intervention from an outside region to within the region.

It is widely conceded by Government spokesmen and others that we will not succeed in explaining apartheid, nor in persuading other states to understand the essential nature of separate development. These are quotations I am using at random. There is a dispute of fundamental principle between us and the Free World. This dispute is not about the inevitable inequalities of the human condition. This is something which has always been with us and the world and will always remain with the world. It is not possible to eliminate the inevitable inequalities of the human condition. The argument is about the institutionalizing of race inequality by statute and by constitutional law. This is the hub of the problem. The conviction of the world outside is strengthened by such evidence as we have recently provided. I refer, of course, to the events of 19 October 1977, events which are regarded by the outside world as the inevitable consequences of the kind of policies conducted in this country. Rightly or wrongly, this is the conclusion they have reached as a result of the way squatters’ camps are demolished, editors and journalists are detained or restricted, as a result of the Biko case and other deaths in detention, and Amnesty accusations, right or wrong, of torture in South Africa. It does not help us to say that foreign reports are selective, biased, or hypocritical. They often are. It is also true that things such as these do happen in other countries as well. It still does not help us to prove that this is so, for these issues are seen by the outside world to be an essential part of the State system in South Africa and not as an imperfection or aberration. They are seen to be the direct consequence of a system which we deliberately apply in this country. I am trying to explain what it is that makes people see us the way they see us. Their conviction is strengthened when hon. Ministers condone, rather than condemn, the things to which I have referred. I believe the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is shortly to leave on a journey, would do well today to take this opportunity to condemn some of those things which have so far just been condoned by his colleagues. I think the time has come for him to speak clearly. He will in fact have done his cause much good when he reaches New York.

Why must we seek new solutions to this problem? We cannot go on the way we are. There are many reasons, moral, economic and social, why we should in fact change the existing policies, but I now want to look at the external implications. The fact is that the internal domestic issue has, in spite of ourselves, become internationalized, because of threats to exclude us from a world which is daily becoming more interdependent in many things like trade, knowledge, food, energy, ocean resources and security. We are inextricably interdependent and our policies are driving us out of this interdependent world. That expulsion is an international question. It has also been internationalized because our ability to contribute in a positive way to the welfare and stability of our Southern African region is being frustrated by the reaction to our policies; and because of suspicion that our legitimate defences are in fact instruments of oppression or aggression. That is one of the difficulties the hon. Minister of Defence faces. He is building the elements of a defence system and rightly attempting to create a defence system which can protect South Africa against external aggression. I am saying that because of our race policies the hon. the Minister’s best intended methods are regarded or misinterpreted from outside as attempts to oppress internally, and are not seen in their legitimate role as instruments of defence. That is why some weapons which he requires for external defence are denied him for fear that they may be used for internal oppression. Our survival as a stable and prosperous country in Southern Africa concerns not only us; it is a part of the Free World and the Free World is concerned that this essential strategic area might in fact be lost to it That is why I say the problem is essentially an international one. It is no longer a domestic issue. Failure to identify the problem and to see it in its wider reality is to misunderstand the extreme urgency of the problem, and to squander our hopes of being able to remedy the situation in time before we ourselves have lost our grip on the way to survival. Failure to understand this problem leads to ineffective and misdirected diplomacy. You cannot conduct an effective diplomatic offensive when you are handicapped by a policy which fundamentally cripples you in your attempts to do those things which are right and constructive. South Africa can restore its position by conciliation but not by bluster or insult, which is what we have heard so much of today in this House, directed very often at this Opposition by proxy because the enemies are not available to be directly accused.

The hon. the Prime Minister was correct when he said in the Senate in October 1974 that the toll of a major confrontation would be too high for South Africa to pay. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was correct when he told the United Nations in November 1975: “Discrimination based solely on the colour of a man’s skin cannot be defended. We shall do everything in our power to move away from discrimination based on race or colour.” That is the language of conciliation. That is the language which opens doors to further communication. But, conversely, it is sheer nonsense to talk of South Africa’s Masada. Masada was an act of self-destruction, an act of despair by the Jewish people. To talk of South Africa facing a Masada, and almost to appear to welcome such an alternative rather than surrender, is in fact to misunderstand the meaning of Masada. Masada is something which the Israelis hold up as an example of what must never ever be allowed to happen again.

Conciliation is not surrender. Presidents of the USA, prime ministers of the Free World fly to Moscow and Peking to discuss the terms of survival, to try to engineer relationships which will create peace, or at least achieve a respite in the conflict which divides the world. To seek peace in this manner is not to appease. To conciliate is not to surrender. What is our logic when faced with a situation such as we have in South West Africa? We find it impossible to talk to Swapo. We have a situation there where the Administrator-General is saying openly that he desires Swapo to take part in the elections. Mr. Mudge is also inviting Swapo to lay down their arms and to take part in the elections. If this is the true intention in the Territory, why is the hon. the Minister unable to engage directly in talks? Why does he need proxies to speak for him? Surely this is essentially a Southern African problem, a problem for which he as Minister of Foreign Affairs has the most direct responsibility and the most authoritative knowledge and the greatest real interest.

This is a matter in which he should speak. It is very difficult to accept the argument produced by the hon. the Prime Minister that because these people are communists or adventurers we cannot speak with them. Diplomacy is not just about talking to your friends. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies and trying to survive. It means trying to obtain a way out of difficulties which could cause endless problems for South Africa. Why cannot one speak to one’s enemies? It is the time-worn route, manner and pattern of diplomacy that one should try to seek agreement with one’s enemies in order to achieve a better future for oneself. We say we cannot speak to Sam Nujoma. Very well. He is a communist, we allege, or his friends are communists. We have succeeded very well in reaching an agreement, or at least a modus vivendi, with Samora Machel. The experts and communist watchers state that Samora Machel is much more of a down-the-line Marxist than ever Sam Nujoma was, although the latter is the one who is now more suspect because of his affiliations with communists. If this is so and if it is good to speak to Samora Machel—and we have strongly applauded the Government’s success in achieving a modus vivendi with the Government of Mozambique—why then, on the other hand, is it wrong to speak to the other people who can play so significant a part in the kind of peace settlement we are seeking to achieve in South West Africa?

These problems must be solved by South Africans. They must be solved in our region. The attitude of conciliation, as I have said, does not mean appeasement. It means that we should express our determination to find the solutions ourselves. It means that no other country can really find a way out for us, no other country can do for us, in our external relations, what we must do for ourselves.

We had a speech yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It was a speech we welcomed because it was one of the few speeches from that side of the House that was truly constructive and dealt with the criticisms from this side and gave some cohesive answer. I would add to that the speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance in which he also dealt adequately with his own portfolio. I feel I should refer to something said in his speech by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development yesterday. He said this—

These are the people of Soweto—

*Very well, we understand it and we understand it very well. However, the hon. the Minister also said that he stands by certain other ideas, ideas such as not wanting to forfeit people’s identity. He said that he stands by certain ideas and certain political principles that cannot be changed. Here in Southern Africa—and we all know it—tremendous change is taking place. At the moment we are experiencing a cultural revolution in which thousands, even millions, of people are moving out of their old culture to a new culture. There is a demographic revolution in which population groups are moving from one part of the country to another. There is an economic revolution in which people are moving from one kind of economy to another. There is also a social revolution that is changing people’s whole way of life. The time has come for us to look at those things again, we must not adopt an attitude on a static or one-sided basis. We find ourselves in a very dynamic situation and we look at these things again.

† The key to our existence is to find a fair basis for internal co-existence with the Black majority. We must work out, with our Black and Brown fellow South Africans, a system in which all may participate fully without domination of one by another. That is the basic principle by which we stand, just as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development stands by his principles.

We believe it is late in the day. We believe this motion calls for action. It means that while we can find other solutions of a practical nature, it is not too late—in fact, it is almost too late—to start working on the political sphere, because these things are interwoven. Our motion calls for just that. We ask that we start now to investigate the whole of the constitutional dilemma of South Africa. We ask that the constitutional enquiry should eventually open the way for a national convention. That is where we stand and we are not ashamed of asking the whole of this House, in the interests of South Africa, to stand by us in supporting that determination and that resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia is very concerned about something which I said about Masada during the election campaign. I know very well what Masada means and it is not necessary for him to deliver a sermon about it today. What he does not realize, however, is that if a nation wants to survive, one has to display that single-minded, firm will to resist to the death which was manifested at Masada. That is the point, and not merely to die, to lie down or to make concessions to the point where, in any case, one plunges over the edge of the precipice. That is what I said. The hon. member ought to listen more carefully before deciding to present an argument on that basis.

In the second place he takes me to task for having said that the governments of the countries of the world are our enemies. I do not know what he understands by enmity, but a government which wants to plough the South African Government under and deny the Whites their authority to govern themselves and therefore want to establish a Black majority rule in South Africa, is, whether or not it is the hon. member’s enemy, still my enemy and having said that I have nothing further to say.

In the motion of censure the Government is blamed for its policy and actions having resulted in certain negative and even critically negative results both at home and abroad. I shall discuss the foreign aspect and also the accusations in that connection briefly.

There is a recurring debate about whose policy is responsible for the onslaught from abroad which is bearing down upon us. I contend that even if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had been in power today, he would have been as much in the way of the tidal wave from abroad which is rushing upon us. They are displaying either an innocent ignorance or a wilful ignorance of this matter. I contend that it is wilful ignorance, because they travel abroad quite frequently and have many friends there and must therefore know what is happening. They have many connections with the leftist radical elements abroad. I must therefore assume that it is a wilful ignorance which is being displayed here. Indeed, the wording of the motion of censure—and I shall read it out in a moment—corresponds almost word for word with a draft resolution which was moved against us in the Security Council. There are even words which are identical. It is virtually a rásumá of the motion of censure. I do not know whether there is telepathic communication between them, but it is the result that counts. I think we have already grown a bit tired of debating this matter. We have just had an election in the course of which we clearly informed the electorate about this aspect We gave special attention to this aspect and the electorate has given its verdict.

† The official Opposition cannot deny that they actively participate in creating an image of South Africa as a country where Blacks are being denigrated, dehumanized and educated virtually only for slavery or for the purposes of serving the White man. They cannot deny that.

Of course we can deny that.

They cannot deny it, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Yeoville. I must concede that, but he is not the whole party unfortunately. [Interjections.] They encourage the pressure against us. The hon. member for Houghton I think made an interjection, but because of the noise I could not hear what she said. However, this is what she said just recently—

That is the same kind of statement made by Mr. Ramphul of Mauritius in the Security Council a day or two ago threatening us with sanctions if we do not toe the line according to their prescription of what they want for this country. Surely it is an arrogant attitude on the part of the hon. member to deny this.

Deny what?

That is not all, however. Basically the onslaught against South Africa is generated by international Marxism. We know it, and we hope they will agree with that statement.

It is generated by your policies …

I shall come to that in a moment. It does not matter which Government is governing this country. Let me go even further. Even if a Black moderate Government were to be governing this country, democratically, maintaining law and order and discipline, the same onslaught would be planned against that Government. This is the basic position.

By the United States?

The international vendetta against this country, I say, is based on hypocrisy and double standards, it is my contention that even if this Government were to initiate all the changes which they keep on saying we should initiate, there would not be any abatement of the onslaught against us. By that I do not mean that we should not effect certain adaptations and changes. Nobody has suggested that. We must continue to examine our domestic position. We must continue to consider in what way we can most effectively resist that onslaught. We did effect changes, and the hon. the Prime Minister has stated that we shall effect further changes, but only within the framework of what we see as a peaceful evolution in this country. We shall effect such changes within the framework of what we consider to be right and fair, and White South Africans are not so bad or immoral that they cannot hold their own against other nations of the world in respect of these norms. Other nations of the world have, however, not been placed in the particular dilemma in which we have been placed. That is the big difference and the hon. members of the hon. Opposition fail to see this. But let us see exactly how hypocritical the vendetta which is being waged against us is.

† In the United States there is an organization called “Accuracy in Media”. It is based in Washington. This organization monitors the accuracy of reports in news media in the United States. In 1977 they carried out a survey. They wanted to find out what coverage the American media gave to human rights’ issues and the violation of human rights in five countries of the world. The five countries were Cambodia, Chile, Cuba, South Korea and North Korea.

South Africa was excluded for a change. But I shall come to South Africa in a moment. Five of the most prominent media in the United States were singled out, i.e. the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC and CBS. It was found that during 1976 there were 90 stories about human rights’ violations in South Korea, 137 in Chile, but only one story about violation in North Korea, an enemy of the United States, a communist country. There was only one story about North Korea, in spite of the fact that during that year two American officers were brutally axed to death by the North Koreans. It was further found that in the American media I have mentioned there were seven stories relating to the violation of human rights in Cuba, and only 16 stories about violations in Cambodia where 1 million people were killed. One million people were killed in that country, but yet only 16 stories appeared. As far as South Africa is concerned we examined the indexes of only two media, the New York Times and the Washington Post—not of the other three channels I mentioned. During the same year those two media alone published 513 stories about violations of human rights in South Africa. That means 513 times more stories about South Africa in those two media than about North Korea, 73 times more stories than about Cuba and 32 times more stories than about Cambodia. Whatever anyone may think of us, to come and tell me that the people of this country, this Government, are 513 times worse than the people and Government of Cambodia simply does not make sense.

They expect that from Cambodia … [Interjections.]

I am talking about accuracy and fairness, because this is part of the onslaught against South Africa which increases tension in this country. It causes tension to escalate, raises expectations in this country which cannot be fulfilled and directly encourages people, sometimes innocent people, to get involved in riots against the Government. This is the problem and this is what those hon. members are encouraging.

Nonsense!

Even the official Opposition are however beyond reality. Let me tell them why. A friend of theirs, a contemporary and ally of theirs, writes as follows—

† This friend of theirs continues and says—

The author is Mr. Martin Schneider, who is described as the “political editor of the Rand Daily Mail and is currently working as a reporter for the Boston Globe on an exchange programme”.

*Mr. Speaker, this shows you to what extent the reality of the onslaught has passed them by. They do not even realize that even their own allies are telling them that they are missing the boat. There is really no salvation for them. What better proof than this could one wish for in this connection?

Let us proceed. I wish to consider the position of South West Africa. But before I do so, I wish to express a few thoughts on Rhodesia here.

† I assume the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition is aware of the fact, as it has now been published, that Mr. Ian Smith has accepted majority rule in Rhodesia. What he bargained for was 33 seats. Apparently there is agreement on 28 seats, although there might be difficulties as to how candidates are to be elected to fill those seats. Be that as it may, I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared to accept that as a policy for South Africa.

I shall deal with that.

Apparently, what Mr. Smith has done is not acceptable and I shall tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition why. Just before adjourning the recent meeting of the Security Council where it was planned to issue further sanctions against South Africa, the president of that council stated—

*Mr. Speaker, this is the campaign which is being waged. They are not even interested in the majority rule which Mr. Ian Smith wants to establish there. They are not even interested in his negotiations with Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and with Chief Chirau. It is not even relevant to them whether discrimination is being eliminated there. It is not even relevant to them whether equal treatment in respect of wage scales is being brought about there. They have only one objective, and that is that a radical, Marxist power must govern the area. Unless the hon. member is prepared to say that that is the policy of his party, surely we need not dream dreams or dish up hypotheses here in the House. Surely we can rely on the actual facts, on our observation of how the stream is flowing and how and around what the tornado is building up. I repeat: I do not want to imply that in this country we should rejoice at unsavoury incidents which occur. I did not allege that no member of the NP, or even members of other parties, have never at times thoughtlessly said things which are harmful to us abroad. Of course this happens and such things are harmful. Of course the death of Mr. Biko was harmful to South Africa. I am saying here today that it was infinitely harmful and I do not hesitate to say so. We are painfully aware of the consequences, but hon. members heard what the hon. the Minister of Justice said. Hon. members heard what he said here in all sincerity, that he was sorry that this matter had done South Africa harm. Hon. members also know that he said that he would see what steps could be taken to prevent a repetition of such an incident. Of course I do not condone it if things are said unthinkingly, things which are harmful to internal relations. Nobody can condone that. The hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers are constantly making appeals to the public to uphold and respect the dignity of all peoples. They ask us to co-operate so as ultimately to find solutions to our problems in this country together.

The new constitutional proposals have infinite potential for co-operation between Whites, Coloureds and Asians in this country. Furthermore there is the positive contribution which the new hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made in this House yesterday, in which he indicated which guide-lines he was laying down for himself in order to improve the quality of life of Black people in urban areas. The Deputy Minister of Education and Training also made certain statistics in regard to Bantu education known to the House. Did his speech yesterday sound to hon. members like that of a person who does not care? But no encouragement comes from the hon. members in the Opposition benches. Those hon. members will not concede that the Government has done its best to solve the Rhodesian problem in a constructive and peaceful way. Nor do they mention the considerable progress which we have already made in South West Africa under extremely difficult circumstances. No, the hon. member shakes his head.

[Inaudible.]

I fear that what the hon. member has just said there is not correct. He initially said the following (Hansard, 30 January 1978)—

He then grudgingly conceded the following—

Then he magnanimously said—

Then, however, comes his real sentiment—

Read on. What is the quotation I made?

But that is what you said.

What is the quotation I made?

I have now quoted what you have said. In other words, what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is doing here is that he is almost warning me in advance to toe the line again. He is warning me in advance that they have serious misgivings about a unilateral declaration of independence. Whoever spoke about a unilateral declaration of independence?

What did Mr. Justice Steyn say?

For the hon. member’s information, Mr. Justice Steyn issued that statement in consultation with me. I think I actually worded that part for him. The hon. Leader has, however, contrasted that with his statement concerning a unilateral declaration of independence. Mr. Speaker, do you know where one finds a similar statement? It appears in an article by Mr. Anthony Lewis in The New York Times which was written a little while ago and in which virtually the same idea is expounded as the one by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. This is what Mr. Lewis wrote—

That is me—

There it is; there is the correlation again. One also finds it further afield. I return to the draft resolution in the Security Council. Let me read this to hon. members as it is almost a summary of the censure motion of the Leader of the official Opposition.

This is what is stated in the preamble to one of the paragraphs of the draft resolution proposed in the Security Council whereby they seek the imposition of further economic sanctions on us—

This is exactly what is stated in the censure motion—

Therefore they want to issue sanctions against the country.

*It is obvious that the mere fact they think the way they do, is an encouragement to our enemies. They create the impression that there are many people in South Africa who think as they do. Fortunately the election has nipped this impression in the bud and has refuted it. That was one good result of the election. But we shall evidently still continue to a certain extent to have the problem of indicating where the official Opposition continues to encourage the hostile outside world against us. With the adjournment of the debate against us in the Security Council it was said that they were adjourning to give the West a chance to plan its final actions against us if we did not toe the line. According to them pressure must be exerted on us with regard to South West Africa and Rhodesia and we must accept their solutions, otherwise the sword of sanctions hangs over our heads.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, independence towards the end of the year, independence for the territory as a whole, has been agreed to on the grounds of the resolutions by the Turnhalle delegates. There will be no fragmentation. It has been agreed that discrimination on the grounds of colour will be eliminated. It has been agreed that elections can be held on the basis of “one man, one vote” in order to establish a constitutional assembly for the drafting of a constitution. It has been agreed that the UN can be present to satisfy itself that the elections take place openly, honestly and without intimidation. It has been agreed that we shall release so-called political prisoners if a panel of jurists, appointed by Waldheim, were to decide that they were political prisoners and provided the 1 000 rebels being detained by Sam Nujoma in Tanzania and in Zambia, are also released. Those are the main points. I now ask the hon. Leader of the official Opposition: What more does he want to give than that? The hon. member now says he hopes there will not be a unilateral declaration of independence. My question to this hon. member is: What further concessions does he want to make? Does he want to make concessions to the point where independence on the basis of “one man, one vote” for the territory is out of the question and where the terrorists can merely take over the territory by force? They will then proclaim the Independent Progressive People’s Republic of Namibia, which will be recognized by the OAU and also recognized by the Western powers two months later. Then it will be said: “It is a fait accompli; very sorry; we better accept it now; be good boys everybody.” That would be the end of the matter. That is what it is all about, but hon. members sit there with their eyes completely shut To them it all means nothing. The hon. Leader has addressed an implied warning to me, namely that he hopes there will not be a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of South West Africa. No one said anything about that. The Government has leaned over backwards and the people in the territory have leaned over backwards in their search for and efforts to find a peaceful settlement. But how long can it go on, and how far can one go before everyone plunges over the edge of the precipice in their search for peace and an internationally acceptable solution? Of course we are seeking an internationally acceptable solution, but at what price?

† What price is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition prepared to pay for that international acceptability and international recognition? This Government is not prepared to expose the people of South West Africa to a terrorist coup d’átat in the territory or to jeopardize their security. We want to withdraw from South West Africa honourably. We want to withdraw in a way that will give the peoples of the territory the chance to develop further economically and otherwise. That is our stated aim, but if on the other side there are forces who are not interested in the well-being and in the welfare of the people through this kind of solution, what price must we be prepared to pay? I refuse to be a party to the handing over of the territory to terrorist minorities in South West Africa.

*The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised quite a number of questions with reference to the internal situation. I have already dealt with some of these aspects. I would like to stress that it is self-evident that we should like to take positive action in this country.

Do those hon. members really think that there is jubilation on this side of the House when an incident like the Biko affair occurs? Do they really think that we enjoy passing laws like the Terrorism Act? Do they think it is pleasant for the hon. Minister of Justice and for the Government to pass such laws in South Africa? Has it never sunk into their minds that there are circumstances which force the Government to take these steps and that the Government is weighed down by the fierce onslaught which is being planned against us? Do the hon. members not realize that the Government does not have as a wide choice of parcels as a Father Christmas has, that it has fewer and fewer alternatives and that it often has to take the less painful of two painful decisions in the interests of the security of the people of the country, regardless of their colour. Has it never occurred to those hon. members that the same situation as that which now confronts Mr. Ian Smith, is also confronting the peoples of South West Africa? It was said that apartheid was being opposed. It was then decided to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of colour. It was said that South African administration of the area was being opposed. We said we wanted to withdraw from the area before the end of the year. It was said that political prisoners should be released. This was agreed to on the conditions which I have mentioned. It was said that it had to be ensured that the South Africans were not dishonest and that the UN had to come and monitor and make sure the election took place openly and honestly. That was also agreed to. It was asked whether Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, the Commissioner for Namibia in the UN, could be the Secretary-General’s representative in South West. This request, too, was granted. What more do the hon. members of the PFP want done in South West Africa to bring about an internationally acceptable settlement? As far as South West Africa is concerned we are committed to changes and improvements, inter alia, the elimination of the wage gap between Blacks and Whites. We are also trying to bring about an improvement in the relations between Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians. But what contribution do those hon. members make? What encouragement is there from them? All these hon. members do, as I have proved, is to say things here and to wrest them out of context and out of perspective, things which the enemies of South Africa in turn use against us. I want to make an appeal to all South Africans today, as I have already done before. It is that in the difficult times that lie ahead we must exercise patience, perspicacity and foresight and take care what we say and do and how we act towards other people.

The hon. the Prime Minister continually makes this appeal and I should also like to make it. I think many of our problems result from thoughtlessness. There is however a great difference between thoughtlessness and a deliberate, purposeful action on the part of the PFP to drag South Africa through the mud. The hon. members of the official Opposition, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Yeoville, derive pleasure from the onslaughts against us. They enjoy it. The hon. member for Houghton enjoys it every time South Africa is hammered. I think she is sorry that the sanctions campaign against South Africa in the Security Council has been postponed. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member is extremely sorry, because it gives them constant reason to put the blame on this Government.

There has been a great about-face in the USA’s attitude towards South Africa. The about-face is attributable to the new Government which has come to power and which no longer regards the Russian threat on this planet in the same light as the previous Government did. They think that they can exorcise the threat in other ways.

There are advisers who think that the White Governments of Southern Africa should rather be removed, the sooner the better, even though it might mean that Black Marxist radicalism would take over. The reasoning is that in the long ran the Russians may bum their fingers as they will not be able to come up to the expectations which even such radical Governments will entertain of them. It is further argued that the Russians will not be able to buy all the raw materials and minerals from Southern Africa because Russia herself has sufficient quantities of just about all raw materials and minerals and that, moreover, stockpiling is an expensive process. In addition Russia does not have the same technological ability as the USA. At some stage or another, even a Black Marxist Government of South Africa will turn to America to enter into commercial transactions and to obtain technical assistance. In this way America will then be able to normalize its relations with these governments and with the rest of Africa and there will also no longer be the stumbling block of a White Government with which America might be identified. There are people in the USA who argue in exactly this way and who think that the Russians can be stopped in this way. We shall have to accept that they will not stop Russia in Africa by military means. There are indeed other methods through diplomatic channels and through commercial pressure whereby Russia can be confronted. But they are not prepared to do so. I assume that it is possible that at some stage or other in future Russia may bum her fingers in Africa. It is however of paramount importance that we survive the interim period which now lies ahead of us. I do not wish to become the victim and the proof of Russian aggression. It would be of no use to us if other people’s eyes were opened after we had been ploughed under. That is what it is all about. One is dealing with immense international currents and tides which have to spend themselves, and one must stand like a rock against the waves of the ocean until the tide ebbs, and then lift up one’s head again and stand in the full sunshine. It will, however, depend upon whether that rock is deeply anchored, and whether there is the will-power, the ability, the ingenuity and planning ability to remain standing. That is what it is all about.

I believe that there is still sufficient decency and goodwill among White, Asian, Coloured and Black people to reach, in the difficult time which lies ahead, the stage where we can resist the onslaught against all of us. But if the price of friendship with other nations is such that the right of survival, identity and self-determination of the Whites, the Coloureds, the Asians and the Black minority groups must be voluntarily surrendered, then I want to tell the Opposition now that we shall then have to pay the price which resistance to the end will require from us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has directed most of his remarks and questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the PFP. I assume the Leader of the Opposition will reply to many of these questions when he replies to this debate. However, we in these benches wish the hon. the Minister every success in his talks on behalf of South Africa during the forthcoming talks in New York. We believe the importance of a peaceful settlement in South West Africa is such that a very great responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Government. We realize too the tremendous responsibility the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to carry regarding the future of South Africa. We believe that he has difficulties with the internal policies which are presently being followed by the Government. Many mistakes are obviously being made by the Government which reflect to the discredit of South Africa. These are matters he has to try to overcome. However, we wish him every success.

As far as this party is concerned, we believe we must find solutions to our own problems in South Africa without outside interference. During the last election campaign and during the course of this debate we have indicated that we believe that certain directions should be followed to bring about a better and happier situation in South Africa.

The hon. member for Durban Point has moved an amendment to the Censure Motion which has been moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. In that amendment we indicate in very clear terms the essential requirements, as far as pluralism is concerned, in formulating a constitutional policy for this country. We do this in the belief that these terms, as far as pluralism is concerned, will lead to a just and a happier South Africa. The motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is one of condemnation in certain respects and also deals with the question of a national convention. However, as indicated by the hon. member for Durban Point, our amendment censures both the Government and the official Opposition for the policies they are following. In the circumstances it is the intention of the NRP merely to vote in support of its own amendment and to abstain from voting on any other questions before the House. We believe that with our identity we have put forward a positive policy for solving many of our problems, a policy which has not been criticized by the Government or indeed by the PFP.

We hope to see that on this basis the Government will move in the direction of pluralism when considering the constitutional changes that are to take place in South Africa in the not too distant future. We also believe that there is a growing support for the concept of pluralism and that it is possible that the Government, in its wisdom, might at a later stage adopt some of the policy points that we have raised as part of the NRP’s programme to bring about a better South Africa. We have heard policy statements from members of the PFP but we believe that in the interests of South Africa we should find ways and means of creating a climate in which policies will be more acceptable and have the greatest possibility of succeeding. That is why we believe that there are certain aspects concerning our internal position which require far greater attention from the Government. Obviously, if we are going to find solutions one of our greatest difficulties to bring about peaceful co-existence is the question of our continued economic development. In the light of the situation in South Africa today, it is surprising that the hon. the Minister of Labour has not participated in the debate so far—and it is obvious that he perhaps does not intend doing so—because unemployment is perhaps one of our greatest problems in the country at the present time. The effects of unemployment can be felt in almost every section of the country. It becomes obvious that perhaps the greatest force for peaceful co-existence is continued economic development because it promotes the inter-dependence of the races.

I think the importance of the interdependence of the races has to be high-lighted. It means that economic growth and development must take place to provide employment opportunities, so that people of all races are enabled to attain their highest potential and to sell their labour to best advantage. It means too that confidence can be expressed in the system of free enterprise. Obviously, we believe that free enterprise is an essential element to bring about a peaceful co-existence in South Africa and to avoid socialism. Obviously, if people of other races and, indeed, even those of the White race become disillusioned with free enterprise, they will look towards socialism as a means of finding a better way of life. If they become disillusioned with free enterprise, we shall face considerable difficulties.

We know that together with economic development we must have a high growth rate to try to create opportunities for the various race groups. The hon. the Minister of Finance, who spoke earlier this afternoon, apart from outlining the R250 million which is to be spread over two years for housing as an impetus to the building sector, did not give an indication of any other stimulation of the economy he had in mind in order to create further job opportunities for our people. I read recently—and I have refreshed my memory on it—an interesting article that was written by Dr. Jan Marais, as chairman of the Trust Bank of Africa, as far back as 31 January 1971, which is seven years ago, where he said—

Under our present circumstances these words which were spoken seven years ago are very relevant to our position in South Africa. We know that the hon. the Minister of Labour has released certain figures concerning unemployment and those do indicate that there is still a substantial degree of unemployment in the country. The hon. the Minister indicated that the Unemployment Insurance Board did not believe that a state of emergency existed as far as unemployment was concerned, and that the position was to be kept under review. Although the figures that were given by the hon. the Minister of Labour, figures obtained from the various Bantu Administration Boards, showed that 148 000 were unemployed in the peak period of July 1977, we know that as far as the Whites, Coloureds and Asians are concerned, there were 30 000, or 1,4% of the relevant work force, that were unemployed. However, figures that were recently released by the Department of Statistics show a slightly different picture. According to their figures there are 634 000 Africans unemployed, which represents a massive unemployment rate of 12,4% of the economically active African population, which is estimated by the Department at 5 110 000. This is an unemployment rate of nearly 12,5%. We can see that, in trying to find solutions and creating an atmosphere in which such solutions will be acceptable to the various people, we are now reaching a stage where unemployment is certainly an extremely important factor in overcoming some of the difficulties. We know of the evils of unemployment that have come about. It gives rise to many social evils. We know that people who are hungry and who have to provide for their families become desperate when they are unemployed for long periods. We have seen a large number of insolvencies in recent times amongst people who thought they were in permanent employment but suddenly found that their posts had become redundant. We have seen an escalation in the crime rate in South Africa, an escalation in the social problems which have developed and a state of affairs having an adverse effect on family life in South Africa. What positive steps does the Government intend taking to try to off-set these dangerous developments in connection with unemployment? We have an Unemployment Insurance Act, but I do not intend to deal with that because there is an amendment Bill on the Order Paper. There are, however, numerous shortcomings in that legislation. We know that many persons in the higher income bracket now find themselves unable to claim any benefits.

We realize, too, that those persons who have claimed benefits for six months cannot receive further benefits. Surely, particularly where there are redundant workers, there should be a programme of training and retraining for them so that they can take up further employment in other work categories, and during that training or retraining the benefits should be extended beyond the six-month period so as to assist them to fit back into the labour market of the country. We know that there are certain avenues of social relief that can be afforded these people, but again this falls far short of the requirements. There are many people who are experiencing extremely difficult times and who are having to appeal to emergency funds or to take charity to try to find ways and means of surviving in the present economic climate.

There is also the situation of the young school-leavers. A survey undertaken in Durban in December showed that from 1 January there would be something like 10 000 young people seeking employment with very few opportunities available to them. Indeed, the number of vacancies is very low. We know that there are young men who are required to undergo military training for a period of two years, and they number 35 000. We only hope that in two years’ time the Government will have taken sufficient steps to try to stimulate the economy to such a degree that these people can be absorbed into the labour market. Otherwise we are going to face an even more serious situation when these young men have rendered their service to their country only to find themselves in the invidious position of not being able to be placed in employment. We therefore do urge the Government to take steps to bring about a better situation. We do not believe in a Welfare State. Obviously that is not in the interests of the country. We do believe, however, in free enterprise and the free enterprise system, as I said earlier. Surely this is something that has to be encouraged. We have to find ways and means of encouraging free enterprise wherever we can. We must see this as a matter of extreme urgency which should receive the immediate attention of the Government. I believe that in almost every instance the free enterprise system is accepted, even amongst our trade unions and the trade unionists who believe that the free enterprise system is the right system to have in South Africa. We must not, however, see this system threatened.

Because of the cost of living, inflation and the difficulties such as unemployment that arise, we find large numbers of people who are unable to make a living. Spiralling costs have had a tremendously adverse effect on their standards of living. The standard of living has deteriorated, and now we have to find ways and means of assisting the people who have been affected. In view of our situation in South Africa, we must find ways and means of bringing about more work opportunities. We know that there will be many more increases in the cost of living. There are a large number of increases in the pipeline, and almost every day we open the newspapers to read of increases in prices on a very large and wide scale indeed. Many of these increases are only being felt now and some will be felt later in the year when they have reached the consumer. That is why the consumer often throws up his hands in despair, because this means that he has to ask for an increase in wages, and we all know what the vicious circle of inflation means. We have been fortunate in that organized labour has not made excessive demands on the Government and on their employers. They have adopted a responsible attitude, and for that we must all be grateful. They are all exercising a degree of patience, but we must not over-extend that degree of patience or we could perhaps find a more serious situation developing in South Africa. We believe that the policy of pluralism which we have outlined shows the path and the necessary steps that have to be taken to bring about a better situation in South Africa, and that is why we consider it important to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. We shall do so in the belief that it will bring about a more just and prosperous future for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo as usual put forward a very moderate standpoint. He was concerned about unemployment in our country. We can only say to him, however, that the NP Government has always had a very sympathetic ear and a soft heart for the poor and the unemployed in South Africa. What is more the hon. the Minister of Labour has already proved that he can deal with these matters dynamically and effectively. Therefore, the hon. member for Umbilo may feel free to leave these matters in the capable hands of the hon. the Minister of Labour.

I want to deal today with the new official Opposition in this House. We have reached the end of a debate in which we had the opportunity of seeing the new official Opposition in action and of evaluating them. And this happened after the English Press had informed us with a great fanfare of trumpets: “Now you will see an opposition in action. Just watch!” [Interjections.]

I must say the mountain did not bring forth a mouse. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took off and teetered like a clumsy skater from one subject to another. He tried to say everything but he said nothing. Disappointment at his performance was written all over the faces of his own people here in this House. It was also reflected in the newspapers which had previously praised the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so highly. Both newspapers are now dumbstruck from disappointment. Then the hon. the Prime Minister came along and in his usual very effective manner and took the initiative right out of the hands of the Opposition. What should have been a great day for the Opposition here in this House, was a sad one for them, indeed a day of mourning. After that no one could save the day for them. The unpatriotic, almost un-South African, attack made by the hon. member for Houghton could not be wiped out by the enthusiastic patriotism of the hon. member for Yeoville.

It was clear to us that there was already some tension in the ranks of that party again. One could see it, particularly when the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking. In any event they never know what to expect from that hon. member. I do not wish to be unfriendly, but for the life of me I cannot visualize that new official Opposition as the alternative Government of South Africa I cannot visualize it today, nor shall I be able to do so tomorrow or in the distant future. As I see it, they cannot be an alternative government, in fact they cannot even vaguely resemble one. Why do I say that? Because that party is already carrying around in it the seeds of destruction, the same seeds which led to the downfall of the old UP. If we peel off the masks from those hon. members who are sitting there, if we remove the masks from the official Opposition, we see people who do not think alike, who do not belong together, people who have it in for each other and who are speaking different languages. I say that if double-talk was a disease, there would have been an epidemic in the ranks of the official Opposition by now. During the election there was so much double-talk, they gave so many different interpretations of their policy and there were so many deep-seated ideological differences of policy between candidates and leaders of the party that it was shocking. It is indeed a bitter irony that the PFP is today the greatest exponent of double-talk in the country for was it not they who left the old UP because they could no longer bear the double-talk in that party? The man who had the most to say on this score—the hon. member is not in his seat now—was the hon. member for Yeoville. We remember full well how the hon. member for Yeoville rebuked his previous party for the double-talk in their ranks. The hon. member for Groote Schuur also had a lot to say about the gross double-talk in the UP. That was what made him so fed-up that he left that party.

The liberalists in that party recounted without hesitation that the PFP was on the road to Black majority rule in this country. During the election campaigns, however, when the leaders saw what a disastrous effect this was having, they were stopped. They were silenced. A stream of denials followed. After that crisis conference which was held on the Rand, they did a complete political somersault. It was a spectacle to see how, shortly before the election, they tried to flee the implications of their policy and today we cannot but brand them as the greatest of all double-talkers.

In the ranks of the PFP there are men who can play that part very well—men for all seasons. The Opposition party, alias the old Liberal Party, alias the Progressive Party, alias the Progressive Reform Party, alias the Progressive Federal Party or simply the Progs, as they call themselves, now consists of so many people blowing hot and cold at the same time, that they can no longer be brought together under one roof. More and more of them are slipping out from under that roof, and more and more blows are being meted out under it. I want to prove with chapter and verse how bad the double-talk in their ranks really is.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that the concept of that party is Black majority rule. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will immediately tell us that this matter cannot be replied to so simplistically, but in his reply he will surround the issue with so much cotton wool that we shall not know what it is all about and what the truth is. But we do know that there is a burning point of controversy in that party and that it cannot be concealed. Consequently I am going to demonstrate this today.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is playing a political game. He knows very well that his party is committed to a common voters’ roll on which the Blacks will inevitably constitute a majority. If it is not true that his party is on the slippery slope to Black majority rule, why did the political infants in that party express themselves in favour of it during the past election and tell us that that was indeed the case. I should like to read out a few quotations. There was the case of Mr. Johan Buys, the PFP candidate in Umhlanga. It was said—I am quoting from The Star of 25 October 1977—

We could go further. Let me quote to you what Mr. Ken Tully, the PFP candidate in Florida, had to say in this regard—

Thus Die Transvaler of 29 October 1977.

It was not only the infants in that party who stated this standpoint in this way. The grown men have also stated repeatedly that that party is on its way to Black majority rule. The hon. Senator Poorter, who joined the NP—he is also very welcome in the NP—told us that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout could not succeed in persuading the PFP to change its policy. That means therefore that PRP policy and PFP policy are still the same. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he still adheres to the standpoint which he adopted when he sharply condemned the PRP. According to the Volkstem of 5 January 1976, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had the following to say about the PRP—

That was how the hon. member for Bezuidenhout condemned that party. We wish to agree with the hon. member. The PFP signed its own death warrant when it adopted that course. It realized this during the last election. I want to ask the hon. member whether he still adheres to that standpoint. If not, where does he stand now? Has the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now deviated from this disastrous course, or where does he stand now?

Another leading member of that party, Professor Nic Olivier, who only last year was still sitting in the back benches over there …

He is coming back.

Yes, according to rumours he is going to return to this House because he is more valuable than some members who are sitting over there. This same Professor Olivier wrote as follows in the Sunday Times on 7 September 1975—

To this he went on to add—

You see, Sir, how these people blow hot and cold. Professor Olivier was also a signatory to that advertisement to which the Minister of Finance referred this afternoon, the advertisement under the headline “It’s a lie”. The one day he says “it’s a lie” and the next he says that this thing will lead to Black domination in South Africa. How are we to accept these people if they carry on in this way?

The hon. member for Houghton, too, has repeatedly expressed an opinion on this matter. She probably did so in the clearest terms when she told a British television audience in London at the beginning of last year that Black majority rule in South Africa was the inevitable end-result of the policy of her party. Now a group of leaders have denied in an advertisement in The Argus that that is their policy. Would the hon. member rise and tell us whether she agrees with that group or whether she is opposed to them?

Did she sign the declaration?

She did not sign the declaration, nor does she want to pay any heed to what I am saying. Hon. members must, therefore, take cognizance of the double-talk of that party. However, one appreciates the honesty of the Cape leader of the party, namely the hon. member for Groote Schuur. [Interjections.] That hon. member also said that Black majority rule was the policy of the PFP and that a Black person could get on to the common voters’ roll. He said this in the Senate, as the hon. Minister of Finance quoted here this afternoon. He said that there could be Black majority rule. However, we now wish to ask the hon. member whether this can be reconciled with his long article in The Argus of 23 November 1977. In it he said that the policy of the Progs in no way amounted to “one man, one vote” and that his party rejected Black majority rule. That hon. member is a provincial leader of his party, but the one day he says one thing and the next he says another. Would the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition not rise now to tell us whom we should believe? The one member of his party says he is in favour of it, while the other member of his party says he is not. However, we want to ask the hon. the Leader if he does rise, not to spin a cocoon of cotton wool around his reply, but to give us the facts. Could I perhaps ask the hon. member for Groote Schuur whether that article in The Argus was merely election propaganda? Has he again changed his standpoint after the election? The hon. member would do well to tell us.

By way of interjections?

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that double talk is the fashion in that party. Another important member of the party spoke here this afternoon—the hon. member for Constantia. I find it very interesting that that hon. member was not a signatory to the declaration in the newspaper either, because just prior to that, that hon. member had also stated his standpoint in respect of Black majority rule. I see that that hon. member is the hon. deputy chairman of the federal executive committee of the PFP, and he therefore occupies an important position in the party. The Citizen of 1 November 1977 reported as follows on the statements of the hon. member concerning the question of Black majority rule—

He said: “We are working in that direction.” So the hon. members continue. The hon. member for Yeoville, who unfortunately is not here this afternoon, is used as a lightning conductor in his party. He frequently has to try to water down the black statements that have been made so that they do not sound so bad. The hon. member told us something very interesting. He said: “The PRP is a White party with responsibility to the White voters. He said in addition: “We, as Whites, have the right to be here. There is no question of our negotiating on our own downfall.” That hon. member is speaking almost like a Nationalist when he says those things. I cannot see how he can feel at home in the ranks of that party if he adopts this standpoint, but the hon. member for Yeoville does not tell us how his party will be able to prevent a multiracial national convention in a Prog unitary state leading to a Black majority government. How will he be able to prevent it? The one White “Schwarz”-hand will not be able to save the Whites in that conference. While the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking like a Nationalist, The Argus threw cold water on his words when the newspaper wrote about the PFP in a leading article on 16 November 1977. In this leading article the newspaper also dragged one of the new hon. members, the hon. member for Parktown, into the polemic. The Argus wrote as follows about the PFP—

This hon. member, too, spelled it out that his party was heading for Black majority rule. I do not understand how the hon. members can deny in an advertisement in a newspaper that this is the case. We shall have to begin to take a poll, for 50 per cent say that they are heading for Black majority rule and the other 50 per cent say that it is not true: “It is a lie”. To me it seems as though there is a chronic sickness in the ranks of those people—viz. double-talk. It is the virus which led to the destruction of the UP, and I am convinced that it is also going to lead to the destruction of the new official Opposition if they do not now choose where they wish to go.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind the hon. member for Bloemfontein-North did not say anything new in his speech nor did he quote anything we have not heard before. The hon. member reverted to the same theme which ran consistently through the attack by the Government on the Opposition, namely the problem of Black majority government or “one man, one vote”. I think that theme was clearly outlined by the hon. the Minister of Defence when he asked the following question—

That is a fair enough question. What hon. members then proceed to do is to say that our policy is “one man, one vote” and then to spell out to us what the dire consequences would be for South Africa if that were to be applied here. I fail to understand why the Government attacks us and I want to explain why I say this by referring to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister …

Tell us at the same time what your policy is.

I shall do my best. Referring to South West Africa the hon. the Prime Minister said—

A little later the hon. the Prime Minister said that the time had arrived for a date to be determined for the election. The question which now arises is this: If hon. members opposite are so concerned about the chaos and catastrophes that will be experienced in South Africa should a policy of “one man, one vote” be adopted here, am I to assume that the Government is deliberately co-operating in causing those same consequences to arise in a neighbouring state? Surely South West Africa is part of Africa. As indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, there is going to be a system of “one man, one vote” in Rhodesia. We are now confronted with a serious dilemma. I personally do not believe that the Government wants to expose the people to chaos and bloodshed. This fumbling and juggling with the concept of “one man, one vote”, has to my mind nothing to do with the slogan “one man, one vote” and Black majority. It concerns a society enmeshed in a survival crisis. That is what it is all about. Nor has it anything to do with whether those people are trying to avoid bloodshed, violence and chaos. That is the solution as they see it and they are going to try it. We are going to try to help them attain their objective. All of us in this House know—the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs underlined that today—that the destinies of Rhodesia, South West Africa and South Africa are closely linked and that we cannot avoid one another when it comes to resolving this survival crisis in which we are all involved. For all practical purposes, decolonization as we knew it in Africa, came to an end when Mozambique and Angola became independent. However, these three societies inherited many of the basic problems of colonial societies, without the way out of decolonization, for the simple reason that we simply were not colonies in that sense of the word. What are these basic problems? The basic problems are firstly, a White minority at the helm wielding effective political and economic power; secondly, a Black majority in an inferior economic and social position as against the White minority; and thirdly, political movements which have come into existence within the Black majority demanding their freedom.

That is the situation in which we all find ourselves and the crux of the dilemma of the survival crisis is simply to be found in the acceptance by the Governments of these three societies, as well as the world outside and the Black majorities, that the status quo as it is at the moment in these societies is untenable. That is accepted here in South Africa. With its new constitutional proposals the Government accepts that by implication. It is accepted by the minority governments in Rhodesia and South West Africa. If the status quo is to be changed the dilemma lies in what the position of the White man will be. That is what the crisis is all about and I think there are two ways out of this dilemma. The White minority government can decide either to use force to maintain the status quo or to insist that any change be in a direction of its own choosing, or the minority may try to negotiate for a set-up in which it can play a role and in which there can be peace and consensus. Those are the only two alternatives. That is precisely the problem with which Rhodesia has been struggling for eleven years and that is also the problem they face in South West Africa. We in South Africa blandly believe that we can avoid that problem. We are not going to be able to avoid that dilemma and problem and that is why we in South Africa will have to decide which of the two alternatives we are going to choose.

This party has clearly decided on the policy of negotiation and discussion. When we talk about political negotiation, we are told that we are capitulating, that we are heading for bankruptcy. We are told that we want to hand everything over to those people and that the White man will have no role to play. [Interjections.] This party has repeatedly stated what we regard as not being negotiable in any such situation. [Interjections.] If hon. members will give me a chance, I shall again tell them what that is. There are three principles. A strong White Government must indicate that it is not prepared to negotiate the following three concepts: There should be effective political participation without discrimination and without domination of one group by another. This principle is not negotiable. [Interjections.] Secondly, there must not be any discrimination and, thirdly, every person in the community should enjoy full citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time is limited. If these three principles cannot be agreed upon—suppose one party does not agree— from the very nature of things there will be a struggle. It is as simple as that. There will be a struggle, but then the Government will be in a strong position to put up a struggle. However, if in respect of a strong Black government we do not demonstrate our bona fides to all the citizens of that society by committing ourselves to those three principles, there will in any case be a struggle. We must show that we are prepared to negotiate on the basis of those principles. These principles are not figments of the imagination; they flow from the essential points of conflict in the Southern African setup. Every negotiation centres around effective political participation, the elimination of discrimination and full citizenship. What we can do in South Africa is to say that we are prepared to bargain on the basis of those three principles. If we do that we shall have the whole world floored. I agree with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he says that outside influence will be exerted. Of course outside influence will be exerted and it will increase. I agree with him that no matter what dispensation a White minority introduces, the Marxist elements will exert pressure because they have their own peculiar ideological objectives. It is, however, a question of how strong and capable South Africa, Rhodesia and South West Africa are internally to withstand that pressure. I maintain that if we cannot strengthen our position internally on the basis of a negotiated solution to our problem, we shall be twice as vulnerable to the onslaughts from outside. That is what it is all about.

I can assure hon. members that if the position in South Africa remains as it existed previously in South West Africa and Rhodesia, where all decision-making is in the hands of the Whites, no matter how well-intentioned, we shall be vulnerable internally because that is not a policy based on negotiation. It holds out no prospect to those people and it does not tell them what they can strive for if they negotiate with us. And that we have to do; we have no other choice. That is why in the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition we advocate the setting up of a constitutional committee to seek alternatives. We also seek in this motion to suggest the idea of a convention in South Africa. As the hon. member for Parktown has said, the convention will be a kind of forum for this type of negotiation.

The hon. the Prime Minister has rejected the idea of a convention. He is not interested in it. He put certain questions. He asked in the first instance what is to be discussed at this convention. I think I have made that clear. Secondly, he wanted to know who would attend that convention. That is simple. At no conference table can one side dictate to another by whom it should be represented. That cannot be done. That is one of the dilemmas confronting the Government as a result of the Soweto crisis. Every now and then a small group of leaders come to the fore, they say nasty things, they become militant and they issue threats. Then the Government says it does not like them and appoints new leaders in their stead. Those in turn become angry, whereupon the Government disposes of them and appoints new leaders in their stead. On every occasion another minor election is held. If they do not allow the Black people to choose their own representatives in whom they have confidence, they can forget about negotiating. It is not necessary to become jittery and frightened about it. Let them choose their own leaders. The Government must negotiate with those leaders. They should talk to them and make it clear that we shall negotiate on the basis of those principles, but if they do not accept those principles, there is no possibility of a peaceful solution. It must be stated clearly—and I am sure it will be done—that in those circumstances a solution will be found. I am not suggesting that it is easy to negotiate. To negotiate is exceedingly difficult. It is much more difficult than to fight I do believe that against this background we shall be able to find a solution, or to look for one, and obtain internal co-operation.

What do we find instead? I want to congratulate the Government once again on its fantastic victory at the recent general election. We are told the same old story. I listened last night to the speeches of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and the hon. members for Standerton and Innesdal. They spoke as if we had 500 years’ to introduce separate development gradually. Who will determine the pace? No, the Whites will determine the pace. They will decide when those people have grown up, when they have reached maturity. We are living in a fool’s paradise if we think we can continue along those lines. We cannot do so. These are not idle words. I say it because I honestly think that every White person in this country is faced with the common problem of survival. We can try to steal a march on each other, but that is what this debate is all about. This is the alternative which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made very clear to the Government and nobody has replied to the merits of it. No one has said: No, we are not interested, for one reason or another. They only become frightened. Every time one speaks about negotiation, they become jittery. After that they become threatening.

The reason why I say that separate development will not achieve what we want to achieve, why we cannot make the grade along those lines, is because we have already tried it. We have already tried it in South West Africa. An attempt was made to introduce it there. Hon. members know about the commissions etc. which were appointed. One can argue that outside pressure and not separate development is to blame.

What I do say, however, is that if all the indigenous people of South West Africa had been staunch supporters of separate development, South West Africa would have been in a much stronger position to withstand outside pressure. But we know that territory could not become strong on that basis. Had all South African population groups supported the policy of separate development 100% as the solution to our problem of co-existence, pressure from outside would have been meaningless. Then we would have been in a very strong position, but we know we do not have that support. One of the reasons why we do not have that support—a very important reason—is the whole question of ineffective political participation. Surely that is what it is all about. We can, of course, say: Very well, we know separate development causes friction. We realize that we can help you a little bit here and there, but if we adopt the attitude that we want to retain for ourselves the sole right to make decisions, we will have lost before we have started. We then become part of the conflict instead of part of the solution. That is why we in these benches ask simply that we discuss seriously the necessity of following a policy of negotiation; that a convention or something similar be held so that people can discuss the question with one another. We are not being sanctimonious when we say this. We say it because we really believe that that is the only way in which force, violence and bloodshed can be avoided. I believe that if we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity, since the White people are in a particularly strong position at this stage of their existence, the very foundations of our power will crumble away because of our adherence to an ideology which is going to divide us internally and impair our ability to withstand outside pressure.

Mr. Speaker, we have now been arguing for almost four days in this House about things which are very important to South Africa and we have been arguing under circumstances which are also unique circumstances for our country. We have a new official Opposition. It is the smallest official Opposition in our history in spite of the fact that so much money has been pumped in and so much fuss has been made to get them here. Hon. members who are on that side of the House, can probably not judge as well as we who are sitting on this side of the House, and see what is happening here before our eyes. Hon. members on the other side look as if they have been run over by a train. I can also understand very well that hon. members look as if they have been completely derailed even before this parliamentary session has got properly into its stride. I can also understand very well that other people too—not those of us who sit here in the House, but people who are looking in from outside—would also be interested in knowing what is happening here and are looking at this Parliament with an expert eye in order to see what becomes of this new party. The very day after the motion of censure was moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Pretoria News, having seen the new hon. Leader of the official Opposition in action, actually followed the hon. Prime Minister. The newspaper began by saying—

I can understand very well why the Pretoria News would feel like this. They go on to say—

The article goes on in this vein. However, it is not only in this article that this is being said. It is an impression which is starting to take root in the country too. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is bad enough for a man to begin as he did, but then he should not do another ugly thing. Today—Thursday, 2 February—there is a report in The Argus—I am not going to read the whole report—entitled: “Eglin may reply on report” Now, after a few days, it is reported that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke to them outside Parliament. The report reads—

I wonder why the newspaper did not come up with this story on Tuesday but waited until now—

Hon. members must listen carefully: the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa distorted. And everybody heard what happened here.

Did you say that? I dare you to say it across the floor of the House.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking to you. I am talking to your boss. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition— because it is possible that The Argus reported him incorrectly—whether this report is correct [Interjections.]

Come on, answer!

If the hon. Leader knows whether the report is correct, he knows it and does not have to stand up. All he has to do is to say “yes” across the floor. The hon. Leader must tell me whether the report is correct.

You will not get away with this one, Colin! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me across the floor of the House, or he can do so by nodding his head. I am intelligent enough to follow it. [Interjections.] He can simply nod his head in order to give me an indication as to whether this report is correct or not. [Interjections.]

You coward!

You coward!

As the hon. the Prime Minister said despairingly a few years ago, I also want to say that these people …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order Is it permissible for an hon. member of this House to call the hon. Leader of the Opposition a coward? [Interjections.]

Order! What hon. member said that?

I said it, Mr. Speaker.

I also said it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North and the hon. member for Stilfontein must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I also withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

What is actually happening now, is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes appointments with newspapers and spreads this type of story concerning the hon. the Prime Minister and concerning you, too, Sir. In a moment I shall say why I say “concerning you”; you must just excuse me for a moment. When we confront them to repeat those stories in the House, they do not. I ask myself whether this is not the type of pattern which can be expected in tire House in future. Since it is not allowed in Parliament, I dare not say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a coward. I am tempted to say it, but I shall not.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say it indirectly or any other way either.

Sir, I thank you for your guidance. I shall do my best to honour your decision.

The case I want to put is that the hon. the Prime Minister is being accused of “distortion” in the House. He is being publicly accused of this despite the fact that everyone of us who sat here, knows exactly what happened. That is not all: Sir, it is a reflection upon you, because the allegation is that you allowed the hon. the Prime Minister to distort things here in the House under your chairmanship. Therefore, you are also being accused of wrong behaviour. That is why I am suggesting for your consideration that you appoint a committee of the House to investigate and report to the House the allegation made outside the House against the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Why do you not move such a motion?

You should, Colin.

My time is running out, but I want to point out that the present debate has been very interesting in several respects. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition immediately: Why did you not do your duty as Leader of the Opposition in this debate? I want to explain my question. The motion before the House consists of two parts. In the first part the Government is condemned for its policies and actions. Those policies and actions have supposedly led to certain things which are detailed later in the motion. The second part is very important. It reads—

As far back as last year the hon. Leader told the whole country that his highest priority was to discuss fundamental matters concerning South Africa in the House. What is more fundamental than the leader of a party which has now become the official Opposition for the first time, telling the country how and through whom he wants to obtain a new constitution for the country? To us this is fundamental, because it concerns what will happen to South Africa if those hon. members should come into power. Of course this is not likely—perhaps it is far-fetched—but the official Opposition could in fact come into power. If the hon. members on the other side win an election, they will form the Government of the country and I have no reason to believe that they will then do other than what they have promised to do. What they have promised, is to draw up a convention. This is very important for us, because we must remember that South Africa is a sovereign country. This also serves as a reply to the hon. member who participated in the debate before me. South Africa has a constitution and it is independent. We know where we are going and we are not looking for a future; we are working for a future by means of a Government which already exists. We are already moving in a certain direction, on a basis upon which the voters have given their opinion. We have a South Africa that knows where it is going. However, prior to the election those hon. members opposite promised all sorts of people and their hangers-on outside this House and at various symposiums abroad, that as soon as they should come into power the highest priority would be to hold a national convention and that that national convention would give South Africa a new constitution. Is there anyone in this House who would say to me that it is not vital for us to know who is going to comprise that national convention and who the people are who will have to draw up the new constitution? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here and now that what we do know of him and his national convention—because he has said it and has said it by implication here too—is that he will summon all sorts of people to attend the convention.

The hon. member for Houghton has admitted in this House that she recognizes and accepts the principle that there will be complete political freedom of movement should they be in power. Then I asked her pointedly: “And the Communist Party?” Her reply to that was: “Yes.” In other words, we are going to have a national convention of all sorts of people in South Africa, and it will be a convention which will be held in circumstances in which the Communist Party will be brought back and will be able to participate. I now want to put a straightforward question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If a prerequisite for holding a convention of this kind, when it is called, would be that he should first have to release all persons who are condemned under South Africa’s security legislation, would he comply with this or not?

That is a fair question.

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he would comply.

People who have appeared in court or only people who are being detained?

Let me mention a name. If it was demanded of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition first to release Mandela before a convention could be held, would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition release him in order to attend the convention?

Say “no” so that we can hear.

I have a second question for the hon. the Leader. If a prerequisite for holding the convention would be that all the exiles outside South Africa, from Donald Woods to Joe Slovo, including those who are in offices in Tanzania, had to return in order to participate in the convention, would the hon. the Leader agree to that?

Have they been charged before a court or not?

These are people who have left the country and who want to return under amnesty. It is very important for the hon. member to reply. The reply to the question which I have just asked, is not only of importance to us in this House. It is also of importance for people inside and outside South Africa. I now want a clear reply from him. Would he agree to that?

Who asked for Sithole to be released from prison?

Is he going to agree to this if it is a prerequisite for his convention?

If they were people who had not committed any crime, yes.

Thank you very much. In other words, he is going to allow everyone who fled the country of their own accord to return?

Perhaps some of them are criminals.

They fled before they could be sentenced.

That hon. Leader is thinking of a convention, but he is not thinking of the sort of question which could arise in a case like that. That is their problem. I want to ask the hon. member another question. Bear in mind that we are now supposing that he is the Government. We are not at the convention; he is there with the representatives of all the groups in South Africa, including the people whom he will allow to return to South Africa, as he has just said. Then my question is: If he does not get his way, is he going to cut and run or is he going to remain there?

Then we would still govern.

In other words, if I have understood the hon. the Leader correctly, should he call a convention and not get his own way, he would leave the others and run. Am I correct? [Interjections.] I want to repeat my question: If he does not get his way at that convention, will he run off or will he stay there?

I shall answer you in my speech.

Make your own speech.

We shall not get a reply. With respect towards the hon. member and towards the House, I want to say that when he reaches the stage at which he has called a convention, with all the advance promises and all the compromises he would have already made in order to get them there, he would have already lost control of the situation.

Is that what you are saying about Mr. Smith?

He will have already lost control of the situation and have a choice between two things: On the one hand he can leave the convention, hat in hand, and leave the others behind to continue, whether he is in power or not. I guess that he will not run, but that he will remain there, because what he is going to do? He will remain there to be able to crawl to save his skin, to try and save himself. That is what he will do. The hon. the Leader and his party will always adopt the attitude in South African politics of being able to crawl—not to negotiate, but to be able to crawl. That is what they will do. That is why they are where they are. There are still so few of them, despite everything that has been spent in getting them here.

They are fewer.

In future the hon. the Leader will also find out one thing, viz. that the people who elect us to Parliament, the hundreds of thousands outside the House, also have an instinctive feeling for when disaster, a catastrophe, threatens. That is why they rejected that party and they were barely able to get one out of six votes from the White voters in order to come here. That is why the hon. Leader talks about conventions. What does he know? He will never be able to come into power in any other way than by means of a convention.

That is why he is so careful about what he says here. He does not want to answer my questions across the floor of the House, but he wants to talk outside the House as he did the other day, and as he did in this newspaper report. The pattern of what happened here, of the debate and his actions as a whole in South Africa spells disaster for the country and that is why the PFP is a disastrous party. However, one thing is very important to us, and this is that the division was as it was. There are also other parties in the House. The voters had a choice. Not only could they choose between them and us; there were also the other parties which they could choose. The NP came into power with the vast majority it enjoys because there was confidence not only in the Prime Minister, but also in the direction which he is taking. There was confidence in the direction which this party has been taking for many years in South Africa. The point which I want to make, is not only to say that there is confidence in the NP, but also that I had the feeling that wherever I was in South Africa and wherever I came into contact with people, that the people who had voted, not only chose a party, not only chose the NP and put them in office, but also decided that, man for man, they were prepared to comply with the conditions for survival if they were called upon to do so and if the Government should ask for it That is what our people promised with their vote. One finds this idea everywhere. When one travels through South Africa, one gets the feeling that the people of the country know that there are two requirements which must be complied with. The one is that we must develop all our potential, pool all our talents, in order to give and to work for South Africa because this is the basis on which one is going to win. The other is that there is an instinctive feeling amongst our people that the Government for which they voted must retain its initiative and must continue to take the initiative in the future.

We do not have to be afraid. There are many people in this country who become panicky. How could it be otherwise, because if they read and listen, the viewpoints of people who are defeatist and have lost faith, make a strong impact upon them. However, if one listens to the industrialists of South Africa, they will tell you one thing: That the NP Government has laid a foundation upon which we can build and has done so in good time. A while ago I attended the opening of the P. K. le Roux Dam, a ceremony which was conducted by the hon. the Prime Minister. He was just as inspired as all the others and he said that when one looked at that immense structure, it was the answer to people outside who did not have faith. He also said that a nation which could build a dam like that, could also do many other things. He asked them to come and see what we can do. When one travels through South Africa, you know that scientists, industrialists, students, officials, farmers and people who work everywhere, are prepared to build and to work for South Africa.

Last year it was also my privilege to be with the hon. the Prime Minister one evening. There was not a great deal of fuss made about the occasion. It was an evening when hundreds of labour leaders gathered in Pretoria. What did they come to do? They came to tell the hon. the Prime Minister: “We believe in the road you are taking, we shall act responsibly.” Looking back over the past year, we can ask ourselves: What did the year teach us? It taught us that the 5,3 million labour-active workers who are involved in the giant labour machine of South Africa, are prepared to work until South Africa is out of the wood if necessary. They are prepared to do so. These are people who modulate themselves, and that is why I as Minister of Labour want to say that it is a privilege to be the Minister of people like this. It is a privilege to be able to say on an occasion like this that they are responsible. In what country in the world do labourers display such responsibility? Those 5,3 million workers will do what must be done in this country. In this regard I should like to address an appeal to them. Whether they are working in mines, factories or wherever, they must work in such a way that it is in the best interests of South Africa. No matter what demands are made, they must be demands which fit into the pattern of South Africa’s requirements for the future. I believe that this is going to happen, because I believe that this is the state of mind and spirit in which these people see these things today.

A moment ago the hon. member for Umbilo quoted figures here and said that 12,6% of the Black labour force were un employed. 12,6% of the Blacks are in fact unemployed, but I want to add that only 1,3% of White, Coloured and Indian labourers are unemployed. Although this compares very favourably I do not want to make a great deal of fuss about it. Although 12,6% of the Black labour force are unemployed, that figure in the USA is more than 20%. In Germany, one hundred thousand people are walking the streets unemployed, some of them students. It is said that there are up to a quarter of a million unemployed under the age of 25 years. In the USA almost 50% of the Black students cannot find employment A figure is a strange thing and one should not make too much use of it. However, I quote it just to show that however one looks at it, there is still confidence within South Africa.

Therefore, the message we must convey, is that it is unnecessary to hold conventions. If the ball is thrown into the scrum and it is hooked by South Africa, it cannot be otherwise because there are people here who want to and who will. Therefore we know that people have confidence in the country and that they will be prepared to react to the confidence which the Government puts in them. That is why it is our task to do our best and to take the initiative.

My time is almost up. I just want to tell hon. members in passing that we have formed part of a great political momentum. If adjustments have to be made, they will be made and I and every colleague in the department will carry them out, as we have in fact already done. We must take the initiative. That is why I want to say at the end of this debate that we have seen a tragic spectacle here. However, confidence in the Government and in South Africa is there because we represent the people who want to work, who want to create, who want to build and who want to win. That is why I move the following further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, we have had visible evidence of the confidence and the smugness of the Government as a result of its swollen majority at the last election. The hon. member can belittle us by saying that we were reduced from 18 to 17 seats, but this party and its philosophy is a growing factor in South African politics. [Interjections.] It is steadily growing, when compared with three years ago. This time 170 000 White South Africans voted against race discrimination and for the concept of negotiating a peaceful co-existence between Black and White in this country. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister was not here to hear the hon. member for Rondebosch give his address, because he put the clear alternative: Either we in South Africa fight and there is a conflict, or we negotiate. A convention, or whatever other name you call it, is the concept of negotiation in order to get peace and security in this country. It may well be that the Government can continue for some time without negotiating, but we believe that the solutions which they propose are bound to lead to conflict and that one of these days even this Prime Minister perhaps, is going to sit down and negotiate a new settlement with Black South Africans. We do not intend detailing the nature of the convention—perhaps it will be this Prime Minister who will call the convention—but what is important is the two conditions that we have stated, i.e. that we shall not surrender or move away from the concept of no discrimination on the one hand and a system of no racial domination on the other. Those are the two conditions on which we shall negotiate. The hon. the Minister wanted to know what would happen if there were an impasse. Has he no faith in the people of South Africa and does he not believe that Black, White and Brown people can come to terms? Is he saying that the only alternative is a conflict situation? Let us start thinking, against the background of a conflict situation which could well develop, in terms of how we can reconcile the differences. Whatever system we believe in today, one of these days we are going to sit down and talk not as enemies, but as South Africans, Black, White and Brown, each concerned about their own future and about the collective future of South Africa. That is the gravamen of the motion. That has been the burden of the message that we have tried to get across during the past four days.

Nobody is against consultation!

We are not talking about consultation; we are talking about negotiation.

Neither against negotiation.

The motion that we have been debating is in two parts. The first part deals with the state of the country, and the other does not go as far as calling for a national convention, but it asks the Government to initiate moves to set up a constitutional commission for the future of South Africa. There has been little or no attempt from that side of the House to deny the conditions which we spell out in our motion. Indeed, the hon. the Minister of Finance, in his own way, indicated agreement in his own area. We say there is a decline and recession in our economy and he says: “When better times come.” He also says: “The only need is elementary confidence.” Therefore we are correct when we say that we are in a trough period and in a position of recession, that we are in a position in which our foreign relationships are at a new low ebb, and that we are in a position where there has been increasing repressive and authoritarian legislation. I am saying this because there has been no serious attempt to refute the charge and in the economic field the hon. the Minister agrees with us.

What charge?

The charges contained in the motion. What has been attempted by that side was to say that although these may be the conditions, the Government’s policies and actions are not at fault, but that it is the fault of other people; forces outside, communists, agitators, the Press …

And the Progs.

The PFP if you wish to state it. All of these factors are blamed.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the NP has been the Government of South Africa for 30 years. He has been the Prime Minister of South Africa for 11 years, and he has to accept responsibility for the situation. It is no use blaming other people all the time. Whatever the other factors may be, whatever the influence of the outside forces, communists, agitators and others, the Government must realize that its policies and actions have contributed to the situation; most certainly its actions have. The whole question of the Biko affair and the Government’s handling of it has been a significant factor in the present situation in South Africa. The Government cannot evade responsibility. It has to accept responsibility for a situation which exists 30 years after the NP came to power.

I listened to a number of hon. members and would like to deal briefly with one or two. One sensed that somehow or other most of the hon. members were clutching at straws, either to denigrate the Opposition or to exculpate themselves from any blame for the circumstances which have arisen. I would like to refer to one or two of the speeches made.

*In the first place I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Defence. In order to prove that the Government had performed its duty with regard to race relations, the hon. the Minister drew a comparison between the amount spent by the UN on impoverished countries and the amount spent by the South African Government on the Blacks in South Africa. Because the latter figure exceeded that of the UN he claimed that the Government had performed its duty. How can the hon. the Minister draw any comparison of the kind? The UN has neither financial resources, nor citizens. The Black peoples of South Africa are, however, part of South Africa. They are citizens of South Africa and are contributors to the welfare and the prosperity of South Africa. They are part and parcel of society and they, too, must be assisted and uplifted. Therefore it is senseless to compare UN’s obligation to an impoverished country with that of the Government to the Blacks.

The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry spent nearly 10 minutes trying to link the PFP and its thoughts to the arms embargo of the UN and its motivation. If only the hon. the Minister had done his homework properly, he would have seen that we condemned that resolution of the UN in the strongest terms months ago. I quote from a newspaper report with the heading “Eglin slams arms ban”—

The report continues—

That was my statement at the time, and it is also our attitude today towards people abroad who want to exert pressure of some kind on South Africa to bring about changes within South Africa, without the approval of the South African citizens themselves. That is our attitude and that was how I put it in my statement on the resolution of the UN.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training defended his department and the state of Bantu education enthusiastically in his speech. In a certain sense he said there was nothing wrong with the system of Bantu education at the moment and that the problem was caused by agitators from outside. That was the thrust of his argument.

Bantu education is not divorced from the rest of the Black community. It is part of their grievances and part of the tension within the Black community. It does supply palliative opportunities, but it also adds to the total frustration of the Blacks. Evidence of this was given in the speech made by the new hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He said that scientific research had been conducted into the basic grievances of the Blacks in Soweto. The hon. the Minister read out the findings of the inquiry here in this House. There were four grievances at the top of a list of 10 which could be regarded as the most important. These main grievances of the Blacks in Soweto were housing, wages, facilities and education. The hon. the Minister pointed this out to the hon. the Deputy Minister and he should go and read this report, because the fact of the matter is that Bantu education forms part of the total frustration and grievances of the Black community.

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here at the moment, but I want to say a few things to him in his absence.

† We listened to his speech with interest and found it a remarkably constructive one. We would wish him well, because I think on the success of his department can well depend whether we are going to have peace in South Africa. However, the hon. the Minister did tend to draw his lines again. He used the tennis-court syndrome. Once before he drew lines and said parallel lines would never meet; that Coloureds and Whites would never meet in one single political structure. However, here the parallel lines have met; they have met in the Cabinet Council. I want to tell the hon. the Minister not to be too rigid about those lines, because sooner or later he is going to have to make some adjustment to them.

What worries me about the hon. the Minister’s position is that I believe something is going on. The hon. the Prime Minister has put the hon. the Minister in a political minefield and he is going to have great difficulty seeing whether he can come through on the other side. One senses a strange tension in the front bench amongst the hon. the Minister, who is not here, the hon. the Prime Minister and even the hon. the Minister of Defence. Somehow something is going on. We heard the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration proudly saying that in the Transvaal they beat the PFP by knocking their 13 seats down to nine. The clear reference here is to the hon. the Minister of Defence, as in the Cape we found that the PFP increased its number of seats from three to seven. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Speaker, one senses this tension going on. The other interesting factor—and the hon. the Prime Minister will know more about this—is that suddenly the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has lost his Deputy Minister of Information. Now, when he gets an increased work load in taking the most important portfolio in the country, he loses his Deputy Minister of Information. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister can tell us: Did he decide that such a Deputy Minister was unnecessary, did the hon. the Minister decide, or did tire hon. the Deputy Minister decide that he would rather not have the post?

You are merely indulging in gossip!

No, Mr. Speaker, I am only saying that this is the situation and that we are going to have to take note of it. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs started his speech by confirming what he had previously said, i.e. that basically the world at the moment is our enemy. We think this is a tragic, negative approach towards an issue of foreign relationships. What we would have expected to hear today from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is what he and the Government, in view of the fact that there has been this deterioration in our foreign relations, are going to do to get us back on the side of the Western World. I am sure the hon. the Minister’s department, the S.A. Foundation, the Department of Information, the Foreign Affairs Association and other organizations have told him that whatever else his problems may be, apartheid and race discrimination as practised in South Africa are no longer for sale.

The next Minister with whom I would like to deal with very briefly, is the hon. the Minister of Justice. We welcomed the fact when he mentioned yesterday or the day before that the report on the inquest had been sent to the Attorney-General. Although we welcome it, we do find it a strange procedure because the Inquest Act makes it quite clear under what circumstances that report will be sent. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us whether the report was sent some time ago or only recently.

Some time ago.

I would also like to know whether there is any inference to be drawn from the fact that the hon. the Minister decided to send the report when the Inquest Act did not require the Chief Magistrate to send it. Does the hon. the Minister in fact have any reservations about the judgment of the Chief Magistrate? This is very important.

None whatsoever.

Why has it been sent then? A judgment was made and there are circumstances under which it would have to be sent under the Inquest Act, but outside of that the hon. the Minister decided to send this particular document to the Attorney-General.

The next point I want to raise concerns the hon. the Minister’s explanation. I can accept that perhaps he did not have all the information at his disposal, but what he did say to us was that he could not believe that the Security Police would have treated this man in this way had they known that he was seriously ill. The question is whether the Security Police told the doctors of the head injury.

Have you not read the report?

If they did not tell them, how could the doctors know about his head injury?

Have you not read the record?

Did the doctors not recommend that this man should be admitted to the Port Elizabeth hospital? They recommended that he should go to the hospital but the Security Branch refused. Did the Security Branch not know the seriousness of this man’s ailment or complaint before he was put in the back of a truck and taken all the way to Pretoria? I think all sides of the House sense that there is still something wrong which does not ring true. It smells of a Watergate situation. Some kind of cover-up is taking place. I can only hope that the legal proceedings which the hon. the Minister instituted by handing the case over to the Attorney-General will somehow result in us scouring this thing out to find the truth in the interests of all of us in South Africa.

I should like to return to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. I misjudged the hon. the Prime Minister.

Tell us about The Argus.

I shall come to that. Considering the seriousness of the situation and the expectations which I and the public had after the election, we expected some exciting new message by the hon. the Prime Minister—perhaps a New Year’s message—but none came from him. I believe people in all shades of political opinion need a positive lead to come from the hon. the Prime Minister, the leader of the nation. In those circumstances I would have expected a degree of statesmanship. I am sorry that I found a party politician really playing to his new gallery of backbenchers. That was the impression he created, save for the last few minutes when he was dealing with Rhodesia and South West Africa. We saw a man who was a master of every debating trick and innuendo, but, I regret to say, not always a master of the truth. That was the situation … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark if that is your ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I kindly suggest for your consideration that the hon. Leader of the Opposition apologize.

Order! Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition withdrawn that unconditionally?

Yes, Sir, I have withdrawn it unconditionally.

† Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a few facts contained in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. [Interjections.] Hon. members can get excited if they wish. The hon. the Prime Minister glibly said that I ridiculed the homelands. It is not true that I ridiculed the homelands. I do not ridicule the homelands. That is just not true. In fact, we have made it quite clear that we think the homelands can make a constructive contribution. However, what we do attack is the manner in which the Government is setting about this. He also went on to say that I was arrogant enough to claim that we speak for the Black majority. We do not claim to speak for the Black majority. We believe that the very people who should speak for Black people are Black members of Parliament or Black legislators. This is the gravamen of our argument. We cannot carry on with a situation where White people speak about Black people. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that Mr. Woods was a member of the PFP. It is not true. It is an untruth.

He told me himself that he was a member of your party.

You did not say that. You said he was. I am telling you it is an untruth.

He told me himself. [Interjections.]

I briefly want to refer to the controversy over The Star article. Here I do take umbrage. The situation was that some time prior to the election the leaders of the various parties were asked to answer questions which would appear in grids of five in The Star. We received these questions, we returned the answers and they appeared. The hon. the Prime Minister no doubt saw them when they appeared in The Star. However, the hon. the Prime Minister said (Hansard, 30 January 1978)—

The document from which the hon. the Prime Minister was reading, was not the set of questions that was put to him and me. It was untrue to say that those were the questions put to him and me. I never saw those questions. My information is that he did not see them. He was using a document containing a set of five questions which had not been put to the leaders of the parties. He then claimed that this was in fact …

I said it was put to the PFP.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister did not. [Interjections.] I repeat what the hon. the Prime Minister said—

Upon that I asked—

The hon. the Prime Minister then answered—

I then asked whether that was my answer and the hon. the Prime Minister said “yes”. I want to be quite frank with the hon. the Prime Minister and tell him that I did not see this document. It was not referred to me. That was not my answer. In fact, it was not the document which was referred to the hon. the Prime Minister … [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister, having said that he was reading questions put to “die agb. lid” and himself …

As leaders of our parties.

No.

… then proceeded to read a set of questions which had not been put to me or him. That is the gravamen of my complaint. That is the reality of the situation.

You can explain it to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether that reply in The Star which I read out came from the PFP and whether that is his policy?

That deals with the concept [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister cannot run away from this. He said that those questions had been put to him and me. I say that that was a different set of questions.

Did The Star state your policy correctly?

I shall deal with that. I do not think there should be any debate about our policy. I shall later deal with our policy in detail. I have no problems with it.

Those answers were not drafted by the PFP. I understand that they were put by a journalist in good faith to an individual who was a member of the PFP. That journalist assumed that he had the authority to confirm, or otherwise … [Interjections.] However, he did not have that authority. I know about it because I have checked on it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I just point out to you that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to my Hansard, he read out that he said—

He left out what I said to him before that—

I made it perfectly clear … [Interjections.]

Shame!

Sir, I submit for your consideration that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition read that out, he purposely left out that part … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether that is a point of order or not?

That is not for you to decide. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask hon. members to make fewer interjections. With respect, I do not think it was a point of order which the hon. the Prime Minister raised.

As it may please you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other points which I would like to have raised, but time is running out and I do not want to leave hon. members with any misapprehension about the platform or the policy on which this party was elected. There is one thing on which we should have clarity, i.e. that we were elected on a certain platform and we do not want to hide that platform. We are proud of it and we believe that we have a mandate to promote that platform just as hon. members on the opposite side do.

Did The Star state your policy or not?

I shall tell you what our platform is and here it is. On Monday I said that there were three basic factors. Firstly, whether we like it, with all the divisions that exist, we are a shared a society. Secondly, there is a critical need for a common loyalty so we can have some unity in the face of an enemy. Thirdly, that we needed some protection for the minorities to see that there was no domination of the one race group over the other. These three factors we accept as fundamental. On these there is no compromise. We make this quite clear. We have decided, and our policy is quite clear, that our overall philosophy is that we stand for full citizenship rights for all South Africans, without discrimination on grounds of race or colour.

This is fundamental. We believe that there will have to be a period of transition and adjustment as we dismantle discrimination and as we move in an orderly way towards the goal of full citizenship rights. Therefore we are committed, as I hope other hon. members are, to the concept of full citizenship and full citizenship rights. Secondly, we believe in an open society. In other words, we do not believe that there should be statutory enforced apartheid.

You do not have to tell us that; we have heard it already.

In other words, we do not believe that there should be statutory enforced apartheid. We believe in an open society. There will be people who will say: But what about our cultural identity? We know that in countries around the world, that almost in every example which was mentioned during the last few days, are plural societies with varying cultures who do not need apartheid to protect them. Is anybody suggesting that Mr. Dirk Mudge or Mr. A. A. van Zyl are actually going about destroying the identity of the White person in South West Africa? Are we suggesting that Mr. Ian Smith is destroying the cultural identity of the White man in Rhodesia by getting rid of apartheid and getting rid of discrimination?

Thirdly, we believe that in the economic field there should be no barriers to the advancement of any individual in South Africa within an economy based on free enterprise. When we come to the political rights, we believe that we should and will have to share political rights, and I read partly from our election manual—

That is fundamental. We then go on and say that there are certain features in a new constitution which we believe at this stage would be essential. We believe that there has got to be a separation of powers.

Words, words, words!

It is not only words at all. There should be division between an executive which at the moment is intertwined with the legislature. There should be a separate executive, a separate legislature and a separate judiciary. Within that framework one can find various ways of constituting either the executive or the legislature. Secondly, we believe that there should be a decentralization of power on a federal basis. We believe that homelands, where they exist, can be accommodated, whether independent or not, within South Africa on a federal or a confederal basis. We believe that once you have separated the judiciary from executive and the legislature, then the concept of a Bill of Rights as an additional reinforcement becomes a critical factor. When I have said all of that, I still want to make this one point. In the end, neither the Prime Minister’s constitutional system nor the system of the hon. members on my left, or ours, is going to succeed unless it is the product of negotiation and joint decision-making by all the people of South Africa. So while this is our model, while we shall throw this into the ring, as Mr. Dirk Mudge and his colleagues did, in the end the solution that is going to be found is a solution which is going to be negotiated around a table with tough arguing, with areas of no compromise. We do not see the Black people in South Africa as our enemies. We see Black people in South Africa as fellow citizens. We believe that they are co-contributors, and we believe that one of these days we Whites in South Africa are going to say thank God that in this country Black and White can stand together as full citizens against any onslaught from outside.