Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) to conserve South Africa’s energy resources, and to utilize them to their maximum potential, by means of a comprehensive energy policy;
2. (2) to investigate and further develop the utilization of new sources of energy; and
3. (3) to make the public conscious of the need to conserve energy.

It is a pleasure for me to introduce a discussion of this motion. Since energy resources play such an important part in our society I wish to express the hope that hon. members who are going to participate in the discussion—including members of the Opposition—will avail themselves of the opportunity to approach this matter in an objective and positive manner and not to try to turn it into a political issue.

I sought far and wide for a definition of “energy”. Since it is such a highly technical matter, I am giving this abridged definition of energy which I came across: “Energy is the capacity for performing work.” Hon. members will be able to determine for themselves on the basis of this definition how much energy each individual has at his disposal.

It is common knowledge that there is great concern throughout the world because the energy resources which are being utilized today are dwindling. Until approximately 10 years ago, energy in the form of oil was in such abundant supply that its availability was taken for granted. Crude oil and natural gas were in such abundant supply that these forms of fossil fuel took the place of coal as the world’s primary source of energy. To this day there are basically only three well-known sources of energy which are utilized to a significant extent in the world. In the first place there are the fossil fuels occurring in the form of coal—of which there are several kinds, for example lignite and anthracite—as well as natural gas and crude oil. In the second place there is hydro-electric power, and in the third place nuclear energy.

Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea of how the consumption of energy has increased, I can mention that between 1961 and 1972 the total energy consumption in the world increased by 5½% per annum. This figure, i.e. 5½%, may not sound very significant, but the ultimate effect is that the energy consumption of the world doubles every 13 years. It is almost incredible to think that between 1964 and 1977 more energy was consumed in the world than in all the preceding centuries of mankind’s existence on earth, and that this consumption will double within 13 years after 1977.

One could ask to what this increase in the consumption of energy is attributable. Basically there are only two factors influencing this consumption. The first is the natural increase in population in the world. The second is the continual effort on the part of mankind to raise its real level of prosperity, in other words its standard of living. We may attribute the every-increasing energy consumption to these two factors alone.

Perhaps I could illustrate this argument with a practical example. Primitive man, who lived approximately a million years ago, did not make use of implements or resources. Those people used approximately 2 000 kilocalories per day to perform a daily task in order to satisfy their elementary needs. By 5000 B.C. man had already learned to work with implements, he had begun to farm on a rudimentary scale and he had already begun to harness animals to perform work. At that stage man’s energy consumption was 12 000 kilo-calories per day. Let us compare this with any of us sitting here. How much energy do we consume in a day? In the morning one is woken up by an electrically-operated alarm clock. One reaches out one’s hand to switch on the electric light and the radio. After that one gets out of bed and runs a bath of hot water. Then the kettle and the stove are switched on. If one has an electric toothbrush and an electric shaver, one uses these, too. Those of us who do not go jogging in the mornings, use a belt massager to shake up our tummies a little. Each of us then either takes his car, catches a train or a bus and arrives at his air-conditioned offices, uses the telephone and consumes power. Instead of going out for some exercise, we take a sauna bath. Do hon. members know what effect these things have? Whereas primitive man consumed 2 000 kilocalories per capita per day, we, in an industrialized country today, consume 230 000 kilo-calories per capita per day. This gives an indication of how the energy consumption of the world has increased. The result of this is of course that the developed countries, in which only 30% of the world population lives, are today consuming 80% of all the energy consumed in the world. Only 6% of the total world population is living in America. Yet America in aggregate consumes 30% of all the energy which is utilized on earth.

If we consider the situation in South Africa, we find that we have reasonably large quantities of coal. We were always under the impression that we had enormous quantities of coal available, but that is not true. As far as the other fossil fuels are concerned, i.e. natural gas and crude oil, we have nothing. Hydro-electric power generation in our country is of little or no value. We do have uranium, but we have only just begun to build a nuclear plant. We are dependent for our oil on imports and what Sasol can produce. One can easily maintain that we are fortunate in this respect that we need import only 20% of our total energy requirements. Do hon. members know what this costs? In 1970 a barrel of crude oil cost $1,50. In 1977 the same barrel of crude oil already cost $13. This means that the price of crude oil increased ninefold over a period of seven to eight years. We may now ask ourselves whether the price will not perhaps drop, since it is becoming more and more difficult to pay these high oil prices. It is just not possible. Even with all the economizing measures which we in South Africa, as well as people in other countries importing energy, have already adopted, it means that the known sources of oil reserves will, at the present rate of exploitation, be able to last only 15 to 20 years. This is one fact which the outside world and we in South Africa have to accept, i.e. that when the essential commodity dwindles and becomes scarcer, the price will inevitably have to rise in the same measure. We form part of the world, and we must take cognizance of this. In other words, South Africa will become increasing dependent on the two resources which it does have at its disposal, i.e. coal and uranium.

As regards the generation of energy from coal, we have the Petrick Commission report of 1975. According to this report the reserves in situ, i.e. the reserves which are still under the surface, are approximately 98 milliard tons. That means that the reserves amount to 98 000 million tons. However, we must take another factor into consideration, i.e. that of that coal we only bring approximately 20% to 30% to the surface. Some people estimate this figure to be even lower. Our actual reserves are approximately 25 milliard tons. Even this is an astronomical figure if one compares it with the reserves of other countries. In 1975 South Africa used 71 million tons of coal. According to projection this 71 million tons will amount to 180 million tons per annum in the year 1995, in other words 20 years after 1975. This means that even we in South Africa, with our great reserves, will have a shortage of coal within 15 to 20 years, even if it is only a shortage of certain kinds of coal.

It will depend, however, on the life of the various kinds of coal. Perhaps I could just give hon. members an idea of what form our consumption takes. In 1976 we mined 77 million tons, of which we exported 5,9 million tons—a small amount of the quantity mined. Our internal consumption was 71 million tons. What is important, however, is that of these 71 million tons, 41 million tons were used for the generation of electricity. Of these 41 million tons, Escom used more than 50%, viz. 37 million tons. Sasol used only 2,78 million tons. And then we waste electricity as if it will never go out of fashion! Even in Acasia Park I see the outside lights of some of my colleagues burning all night. [Interjections.]

We must accept one thing, and that is that Escom is the great coal consumer in South Africa. In our attempts to economize we shall have to bear in mind that Escom consumes more than 50% of our coal. If one feeds Escom a bag of coal there is nothing left of it when it comes out the other side. However, if one feeds Sasol a bag of coal, one does at least get a little petrol and a little gas, a little plastic and sometimes even a little margarine at the other end.

Everything indicates that we are heading inevitably for an energy crisis. In 1973, too, there was a world crisis, but it was not an energy crisis. It was an oil crisis, a crisis precipitated by political considerations. The crisis we are now heading for, is an energy crisis, and we shall have to take cognizance of this fact. There is only one reason for the crisis, viz. the disparity between supply and demand. That is how simple it is.

It may now be asked what we in South Africa have already done to avert such a crisis. In 1974 the hon. the Prime Minister established a Cabinet Committee on Energy Policy, consisting of the Minister of Planning, as chairman, the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Transport. In addition an Energy Policy Committee consisting of 12 persons was also appointed. I believe that this committee is under the chairmanship of one of the greatest sons of South Africa, Mr. Piet Pretorius. At the same time a secretariat was created within the Department of Planning, under the leadership of Dr. Dawie Kotzé, one of the best authorities on energy matters in South Africa. This entire initiative was aimed at establishing a structure by means of which an orderly, integrated energy policy—something which we really need—could be worked out and put into operation.

My problem is that the energy structure in South Africa is too fragmented, too widely scattered and too decentralized. Let me give this House an idea of what I mean. Escom falls under the Department of Economic Affairs. Sasol falls under the Department of Industries. Coal and oil prices are determined by the Department of Commerce. Oil companies and the strategic stockpiling of oil falls under the Department of Industries. Furthermore the Atomic Energy Board, the Uranium Enrichment Corporation and Soekor fall under the Department of Mines. I am not saying this in order to be critical, but can hon. members understand the situation in which the Department of Planning finds itself, the department which is in fact basically responsible for the formulation and the co-ordination of an energy policy for South Africa.

During his election campaign President Carter said that he would establish a new energy policy in America, and he did so. He established the so-called DOE—the Department of Energy. But according to all reports we have received, this arrangement is turning out to be a flop. One of the reasons given for this by the Press in America is its diffuseness and the equal say in this matter of too many State departments.

I do not know what the solution is, but I do know one thing, and that is that there will of necessity have to be greater rationalization. Even if the present dispensation developed historically in this way, we shall have to devise another plan, because the present dispensation will never be conductive to truly effective control over and supervision of our energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, you may ask me whether the picture is really as sombre as I have painted it. Does it mean that society as we now know it has to degenerate in 20 years time, so that we will no longer be able to maintain our standards of living? This need not necessarily be the case.

The existing known uranium resources in the world are sufficient to meet human needs for another hundred years. However, there is one condition, which is that the so-called fast breeder nuclear reactor will have to work. If we fail in our attempts to make it work and we have to reply on the conventional nuclear reactor, it means one thing only, and that is that all the uranium in South Africa of which we are aware is not equivalent to even one-fifth of our coal resources and reserves. However, there are alternative resources as well: There is wind energy, tidal energy and thermal energy—one need only think of the heat underground in our deep-level mines. We are already mining at a depth of more than 2½ miles.

To my way of thinking the answer probably lies in the sun. We shall again have to turn to the source of fossil energy and shall again have to attempt to make better use of it. The total amount of sunlight reaching the earth in four days could provide sufficient energy to meet the energy requirements of all the people in the world for a full year if only we were able to utilize it and if only we knew how to apply it in an economic and productive way.

Therefore, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Cabinet today for a central, national energy research institute which will be incorporated in the CSIR. We are all aware that research in this regard is being done. At every university there are people who are experimenting, for example, with a windmill, a wind-driven generator, a wind tunnel or with gas as fuel for engines. However, this is a waste of time and energy—and I am not saying this disparagingly. We should tackle this on a large scale. The CSIR is already doing research in this regard, but how are they doing it? The Building Institute is doing research on heating units for homes; the mechanical engineering department is working on a fly-wheel engine; and the electro-technical institute is working on something else. I am pleading for centralized research which will be done by an institute. None of us will deny that this will cost money. Energy is life, however, and for us it means survival. The time has now arrived—if it is not already very late in the day—for us to tackle this problem on a large scale. We have the manpower and the skill. Our scientists are faced with a challenge. Our people have the vision, for we have already produced many world leaders in many branches of science. Here we have a challenge and an opportunity to develop a new technology so that South Africa may again provide the world with guidance in this sphere as well, not only in regard to the conservation of energy, but also the better utilization of existing resources.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of satisfaction and content that we have heard the speech of the hon. member on the subject of energy. The House will be aware of the fact that for some years I have been speaking with great urgency about the need to take full cognizance of the energy crisis, the consequences thereof, the growing energy shortages and the need for this House and this country to be aware of the growing dangers, complications and the need for action in South Africa if we are to avoid a calamity.

Particularly since my earlier attempts to arouse interest in this subject met with indifferent success, or indifferent reception from that side of the House, I am grateful this morning to have heard a motion and a speech of the kind we are discussing at the moment.

It would be wrong if I were not to use this opportunity to congratulate the Department of Planning for the work which has already been done in connection with energy, but as I shall try to show in the course of my speech that this effort, laudable though it is, is not in my view adequate to the kind of challenge which we face in South Africa and I shall make certain proposals in that regard.

I would like to begin by moving an amendment to the hon. member’s motion, with all of which, I may say, I agree, so far as it goes. I have no trouble with the three legs of the motion, but I should like to add one more. I therefore move as an amendment—

It is fashionable at the moment to speak of the energy crisis as though the threatened shortage of oil or, presently, the increased price of oil, actually constituted the energy crisis or lay at the root of the problem. It is true of course that the countries of Opec did produce a dramatic confrontation between oil needs and oil resources, but the real issue is obviously very much more than just a shortage or an increase in the price of oil. While conventional energy resources are finite—and when I speak of conventional energy resources, I refer in particular to the fossil resources like coal and oil—there are an infinity of undeveloped and untapped energy resources which await the inventiveness and the productivity of man in order that they may be set free to serve mankind. I refer of course to nuclear fission and in the longer prospect, perhaps, to nuclear fusion and the hydrogen economy, to solar energy, which is perhaps the most promising of all in the longer view, to geothermal energy, etc. The more acute problems lie in the shorter term, for although all these new forms of energy hold promise, the immediate problem is to bridge the gap between the present decline in conventional energy resources, the foreseeable ending of the life of these resources, and the need to create new sources of energy, to develop the new fuels and the capital equipment sufficient to replace existing sources of energy within the time available before these conventional fuels are depleted entirely. It is easy to overdramatize these things, but I think we need to look very closely at our own situation in South Africa to see to what extent the urgency is also applicable here.

In South Africa coal is, and will for several decades continue to be, our principal source of energy. The trend towards the greater use of oil in our fuel economy has fortunately been arrested. We were in fact increasing our use of oil at an alarming rate. We had a timely warning and it is now unlikely that the trend towards the large-scale use of oil will be resumed, unless we ourselves discover substantial economic resources within our own domestic territory.

As the future of our own growth, our ability to house, clothe and feed people, to deal with our growing population and their rising expectations, is directly dependent on the availability of energy, the replacement of our two major fossil fuels as they become depleted is of course a matter of major importance to South Africa. Now is the time to start contemplating the kind of changes that will be needed, and the enormous capital investment that will be involved.

In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister of Mines this month, he said that 85,4 million metric tons of saleable coal were mined in South Africa during 1977, and that of this quantity 12,7 million metric tons were exported. In reply to a further question the hon. the Minister disclosed that in the same year some R29 million had been spent on prospecting for oil on land and at sea, and that none was discovered. While coal provides for some 70% of South Africa’s energy requirements, oil continues to be an essential requirement of our transport industry and of some other sectors of industry as well. The amount of money being spent on oil exploration is not high by international standards. Inland drilling has produced no hopeful results so far and, I believe, will soon be abandoned.

There have been promising indications, however, in at least two sites off-shore, and I believe that they are sufficient to justify a continuation of Soekor’s drilling programme. Nevertheless, this remains a gamble and I do not believe that it should at this stage be regarded as a bankable element in our energy budget.

It is tempting to conclude that South Africa should therefore rigorously conserve its coal in order to ensure that we conserve our resources against the day of penury in respect of conventional fuels. The matter is not quite as simple as that because, while coal production in South Africa has, for a number of years, been locked into a price control system, which has had benefits for certain sectors of the economy, the time has already come for us to consider very seriously whether this policy—without qualification—is not in fact depriving us of the expansion of coal reserves which the country badly needs in a time of advancing energy crisis.

Subsequent to the Petrick Commission report, wise counsels did prevail, and exports have been allowed on an increasing scale. The effect of these exports has been to stimulate the collieries and the coal mining industry to a point where it is mining better and more efficiently, and where it has more profits to devote to exploration. In spite of the increase in domestic use, and in spite of the added exports abroad, our reserves are actually being extended and not reduced by this increased activity. I mean therefore that the policy is the right one and that we should continue along these lines. There are further possibilities that need to be explored. We need to look very closely, and continue to look closely, at the fact that so large a proportion of our coal reserves is of a very low grade. Because of the threatened decline in oil supplies and the increase in the price of oil, the export of coal—even thermal coal, steam coal—has become profitable business and attracts high prices internationally.

We can benefit by these things, but we will find that as the cost of transport rises, profits will decline unless we ourselves are able to export coal of high quality. Coal of high quality is very scarce in South Africa. We do not have an awful lot of anthracite. Coking coal is extremely scarce and the bulk of our coal is in fact ordinary steam coal which is suitable for thermal use, but not for metallurgical or chemical use. The Energy Research and Development Administration in America, and some others, are doing extensive research into liquid extraction processes which can, by using a solvent which is itself derived from coal, purify coal and thereby reduce the amount of ash and of sulphur content which creates enormous pollution problems as well as reducing the economic efficiency of our coal. It can, in fact, produce a higher quality of coal, both for export and for domestic use. This is a very promising prospect and would, to some extent, extend the life and effectiveness of our coal-produced energy sources.

One could go on in this vein for some time. I believe, though, that in addition to conserving our coal resources, not by leaving them down a hole in the ground but by using them economically and efficiently, we are extending our potential to adapt to the changing energy situation with which we are faced. I believe, therefore, that it is by the active and intelligent use of these resources that we shall succeed, if we are wise and plan correctly, in bridging the gap between our present needs and the growing needs of the future, bearing in mind as well the eventual need for a total substitution of one form of energy production by another. The capital costs of doing this will be enormous, and I want to quote to the House very briefly what was said recently by Dr. Frankel, chairman of Petroleum Economics Limited. I quote—

Leaving aside other sources—

… as much as would present fossil sources. I quote further—

Our energy growth rate in South Africa is higher than that—

We therefore face a vast change in the whole of our energy pattern, and South Africa will not be exempt from this revolution in the production of energy, nor exempt from the vast costs entailed. We have no time to lose. We need to start thinking and planning now or we shall be caught short.

We look at the situation in South Africa and see that although there is commendable interest and activity in the industry, not least by the universities, certain other institutes and certain departments which are authorized to carry out the necessary planning, there remains still a great fragmentation or proliferation of activity throughout a number of departments and institutions.

I am not going to argue, as the hon. member has done, that they all need to be under one roof, but they d<5 need to be, symbolically, under one planning roof. The Department of Planning does have certain responsibilities and is doing a certain amount of co-ordination, but the fact remains that in this Parliament—and therefore, I believe, in the organizational structure as a whole—it is extremely difficult to co-ordinate planning and to stimulate the forward movement towards the creation of a new energy philosophy and energy structure in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Mines, for example, is responsible for coal mining but is not responsible for the conservation of oil. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, however, who is responsible for the conservation of oil, is not responsible for the oil drilling programme. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is also responsible for the Fuel Research Institute but not responsible for the way in which other sources of energy are brought to bear on the problem. A further example is the hon. the Minister of Mines who is responsible for the Atomic Energy Board and the research being conducted into nuclear energy, but he has no responsibility for the creation of nuclear installations which will exploit the uranium or other nuclear fuels and turn them into energy.

I believe we need to take a hard look at this matter. I have had the good fortune to go to America to talk to the officials of the Department of Energy, which is not as decrepit as the hon. member believes, and to talk in particular to the Energy Research and Development Administration. Although there is a vast proliferation of public and private interests involved in the energy field there, gathered under one roof there is a planning system, a research and development system and a demonstration system which creates links between the Government and private enterprise and sets in motion a vast planning system which is directed at saving America from nothing short of catastrophe if America should not succeed in transforming and converting its entire energy economy within the next 30 or 40 years. They are aware of the urgency of the problem and they have got stuck in now. I believe we need to be filled with a similar sense of urgency and to approach the problem in the same way.

A little while ago I put a question in the House to the Minister of Planning and the Environment. I asked whether the advisory interdepartmental policy committee on energy matters held any meetings during 1977 and what recommendations it had made.

What was the question?

My question was whether the advisory interdepartmental policy committee on energy matters held any meetings during 1977; if so, how many and on what dates; and what recommendations did they make. I received the following reply to that question. (Questions; Friday, 3 February 1978; col. 17)—

Apparently four meetings were held in 1977. The reply continued—

Then, in respect of my question whether any recommendations had been made and, if so, what recommendations, the reply was—

Whilst I do not want to decry the importance of having both an interdepartmental committee and a Cabinet committee on energy policy, I believe this falls far short of the kind of needs we are describing. I believe we need to think hard again. Energy has become a major element in the planning of our national life and, indeed, without exaggeration, in planning for our national survival.

I could add to the remarks made by the hon. member by pointing out that, for instance, even in the field of agriculture, which is regarded as falling outside industry in the narrower sense, every single activity in advanced agriculture depends on the availability of energy. From the removal of stones from the ground to the ploughing, the seeding, the fertilizing, the harvesting and the marketing, every single step of the way is dependent on energy and is daily becoming more energy-intensive.

This is merely an example on the lowest level of the kind of demands for energy, demands that are growing daily. I believe it has become a matter of national importance that we should regard energy as being one of the major topics Parliament and research institutions should concern themselves with and that planning is required at Government level in co-ordination with the private sector. I believe these are the things we must look at.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East who introduced the motion in such a competent way. He covered a very wide field in the course of his speech. I also listened to the speech by the hon. member for Constantia. I can find no fault with his amendment in so far as it concerns the central control or our energy research and co-ordination programme. I also agree with the hon. member that the problem which we are faced with actually concerns an energy gap which must be bridged. I shall refer to this as well in the course of my speech.

I tried to ask myself what new energy resources are. In reply I must state that basically, there are in fact no new energy resources. Therefore, what I want to advocate today is not the development of new energy resources, but a completely new approach by our people towards energy resources as such. If one takes a look at the House, one comes to the conclusion that the hon. members of the House are not aware of the problem of the importance of energy in our modern life. Perhaps the fact that several hon. members are absent at the moment, bears out the conclusions I have come to.

You must not underestimate us. [Interjections.]

When one reads the research documentation by the energy experts of the world, one comes to one sobering statement: The standard of living which we have become accustomed to, is primarily dependent on the availability of abundant energy. If we wish not only to maintain this standard, but also to see to it that the standard of living of the developing countries is maintained and increased, it means that the increase in energy consumption as we have known it over the past decade, will have to be maintained.

My plea this afternoon is going to be that we must have a new approach, not only to energy, but also that our approach to politics and the economy, as well as a new technological approach, should be concentrated on the energy resources at our disposal. If one takes a look at the crushing grip which the recession has on the world economy at the moment, and on the industrial growth of the industrial countries of the world in particular, and one takes a look at the capital needed to provide for the energy requirements of the world, one comes to the conclusion that the satisfaction of energy requirements requires more capital than that required by the steel industry. Experts’ estimates indicate that R2 000 milliard in capital will be required to meet the energy requirements of the world from 1971 to 1980. If one takes this fact into consideration, as well as the fact that the Western world is pumping hundreds of millions of rands into the economies of the developing countries, one’s heart becomes heavy with the knowledge that the world will not be able to escape the grip of the prevailing recession. What will be the result? Poverty and very much lower standards of living, which may then result in a serious confrontation for economic power and energy power—the latter is the most important of the two—occurring on the international level amongst the industrial countries of the world.

The brighter side of the picture is that one has a firm conviction that the world will escape the grip of the prevailing economic recession. I want to talk about the new approach which we in South Africa in particular must develop concerning our energy resources, in the confidence that we will escape the hold of recession and succeed in maintaining our growth rate.

We have heard—this has already been referred to—that cheap energy in the form of oil was available in the world in large quantities. It was also pointed out what the cost of energy amounted to. A new approach to energy began to develop in the world as far back as 1973, the energy watershed year—if I may call it that. The hon. member for Pretoria East referred to the price increases which occurred at that time. A shortage of energy did not occur when this situation developed in 1973, as the hon. member for Constantia correctly said. What happened was that the economic reliability of oil as an energy resource in the world, became questionable. This is where the problem arose. Experts from the major energy-consuming countries of the world then began to carry out studies concerning the demand for and the availability of energy. On the basis of these studies they arrived at certain findings and from these findings they made certain predictions, predictions which reflected an extensive series of findings. For instance, a popular finding is the allegation that our energy resources—oil in particular—will be exhausted within the next decade or three. However, I want to associate myself with a line of thought put forward by another group of experts, viz. that the energy resources will not necessarily be exhausted, but that the demand for energy will maintain the historic growth rate it has maintained over the past decade. Let us take a look at the growth rate. From 1960 to 1970, the world growth rate was 4,9%. The estimate for the period from 1970 to 1980, is 5,6%. Let us, however, take a look at Japan. In Japan the rate was 11,9% and 9,9% respectively for the periods 1960 to 1970 and 1970 to 1980. In South Africa, the growth rate from 1980 to the year 2000 is predicted at 4,5%. Electricity is responsible for 5,4% of this and oil for 8,1%. It is this 8,1% which forces us to adopt a completely new approach towards the utilization of our available oil resources. If the growth rate of 4,9% is maintained—or 4,8% as far as the world energy consumption is concerned—we must ask ourselves: What is the position of energy in the world? Many authoritative studies have already been carried out in this regard. One of the most important was made by MIT, the institute for technology. According to this study, the position will be as follows in the year 2000: The energy demand will amount to 90 million drums of oil energy. However, due to economic considerations and technological reasons, the world will only be able to provide the equivalent of a mere 70 million drums of oil energy. This is what the argument of the hon. member for Constantia is all about. An energy gap is therefore going to arise which we shall have to bridge until such time as new technology has developed the existing energy resources further.

In the light of this we can perhaps take a look at two of the most important energy resources only. Firstly, let us take a look at oil. If one looks at the oil reserves, one will see that the known oil reserves amounted to 46,59 million kilolitres in 1960. In 1972, the known oil reserves amounted to 100 460 million kilolitres. In 1974 it was 99 920 million kilolitres. This indicates that the known oil resources are dwindling.

This, however, is not the greatest problem. The greatest problem is that we are exploiting more and more of these resources. The ratio of the reserves to the production was 40,9 in 1960; 35,5 in 1972 and 31,2 in 1974. We are exhausting the reserves at an ever-increasing rate. In 1974, the rate of the discovery of uranium reserves was 65 000 tons per annum. In order to give effect to the basic nuclear power requirements of the world, according to their present nuclear power programmes, the rate of discovery will have to be increased to 150 000 tons per year. This is if we take the present technological position into account. Basically, what this amounts to is that if we can exploit the present known uranium resources at less than $26 per kilogram, then at the moment, in the light of present technology, we have just enough to supply the demand for nuclear energy programmes until the year 1981. It is this type of background which forces us to adopt a new technological approach to nuclear energy.

What do we conclude from this? We conclude that the economic resources of specific energy carriers are very limited. This is our first conclusion. The second is that the rate at which new resources are being developed, does not keep pace with the rate at which the energy resources are being consumed. The problem with uranium is that it has a technological suppressor. How do the large energy consumers view this energy gap and the new approach to energy? Coordinating bodies have been formed in the USA and Britain. Departments of energy have been established to co-ordinate the energy requirements of the specific countries and to look for possible new resources on a large scale.

The coalmining industry of the Western world is reviving. In England, 26 000 new workers were employed in a single year in order to bring about a revival of the coal mining industry. At the moment, most industrial countries in the world are spending between 65% and 85% of their available research funds on nuclear and uranium research. What have they done about the oil crisis? We know that most European countries are dependent on oil. France is dependent on oil for 66% of its energy; Britain, 50%; the USA, 35%, while Western Germany falls in the same category. They have already instituted saving programmes as a result of the new approach towards the availability of oil. In the first year after the energy crisis, France brought about a 6% saving on its oil consumption; Britain, 9%; the USA, 5% and Western Germany a saving of 14%. The question now arises: Where does South Africa †It into this energy picture? It has already been pointed out that we are dependent on oil for 25% of our energy and on coal for 75%.

I want to take a brief look at the position of oil in South Africa and at the question of how we should approach it. In my opinion, every new application of a known energy resource is a new energy resource put at our disposal. Apart from the Sasol production, South Africa is entirely dependent on its imported oil for energy. What are we in South Africa doing about this? Sasol 2 and Soekor have already been referred to in this regard. Over the years, Sasol has built up a team of experts to provide for our energy requirements. They can be compared with the best in the world if we take note of the research done by them which has made it possible for Sasol 2 to produce fuel on a very large scale. Since oil is of strategic importance, just two remarks will suffice. Firstly, I want to say that as a result of the energy gap, the tremendous economic pressure which may be brought to bear on the industrial countries, may also extend to the international level. If this economic pressure is going to begin at the industrial competitive level of the international countries, the question arises whether South Africa will be able to withstand the economic pressure. I am afraid that the economic pressure will also have political implications. I leave it to the imagination of hon. members to decide for themselves what political implications it may have for South Africa if the economic pressure increases on an unprecedented scale.

As far as South Africa’s oil is concerned, I want to conclude by asking for a totally new approach towards Sasol I. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who is concerned with Sasol, whether he will not consider making Sasol I a research-orientated industry, in an effort to develop new energy resources from coal. We sometimes forget that the petrochemical industry is responsible for providing synthetic materials as well as fertilizer, products which we are dependent on to a great extent. I therefore want to ask that Sasol I should become a research-orientated industry, especially as regards the search for new forms of fuel in the petro-chemical industry is concerned.

The position of coal has been dealt with very intensively by previous speakers and there are also many bodies which carry out research on coal. I want to suggest that we accept a new approach to coal in South Africa. I should like to point out a few shortcomings in our whole energy approach in this regard. A great deal of research can still be done concerning these shortcomings. The first shortcoming is well-known and has already been mentioned by previous speakers, viz. that on average, we mine only 20% of our in situ coal. There is only one reason for this, an economic reason. Coal is only mined in so far as it is economical for the miners to do so. If we are to look for the basic reason for this, we find only one: The price of coal is too low in South Africa. This is the reason why the in situ coal is not mined in sufficient quantities and on a large enough scale.

I want to content myself by taking a brief look at uranium. The fact that our uranium resources are limited has already been spelled out very clearly. This finding is not due to the fact that there is not enough uranium available in the world; it is due to the fact that present technology does not utilize uranium efficiently for the generation of electricity. I think that we in South Africa must give very serious consideration to not making use of existing uranium technology in expanding nuclear power stations in the future, because we cannot afford it. Despite the good work being done by Ukor, we must strive to develop technology in the sphere of fast breeder reactors and to make our own so that we can utilize uranium far more efficiently.

In conclusion, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pretoria East as well as to ask for a body to deal with the central control and co-ordination of our entire energy programme. I do not agree with him that it should be the CSIR, because it is not the CSIR I am concerned about but the importance of the energy resources and energy research in South Africa being coordinated and rationalized under unified control.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members have made mention of the finite sources of energy available to us. However, I believe we should be looking to the infinite sources of energy which will not be exhausted by the year 2000, or 2020, or whenever research shows that our present sources are likely to be exhausted. There are three major sources of infinite energy, viz. the sun, the wind and the sea. I should like to deal briefly with the question of the sun and solar energy. Mr. Speaker, although I missed the sun here in this debating chamber, I want to give you the assurance that I am not going to ask for our roof to be changed to a sun roof so that we can tan while we talk!

We do not have to wait until tomorrow or for another 20 years before we can use solar energy. It is available now, is free and is always there for us to utilize. We can deal with the subject under three major headings: How much is available; how we can utilize it; and how we are going to co-ordinate the utilization of solar energy. The hon. member for Pretoria East made a rather interesting estimate of how much energy is available. I have two others. One is that the earth receives from the sun in one day more energy than man has used in recorded history up to 1972. The second source claims that in one second the sun emits more energy than has been used by our known civilization to date. However, it is not really important which of those three estimates is the most correct. We are talking in terms of mind-boggling quantities of energy. The question we must ask ourselves is how we can best utilize this incomparable source of energy available to us.

To date the world has made quite significant advances with solar water heating at a reasonable cost and with pretty good results. Another aspect is the direct generation of electricity from solar energy by a chemical or photo-voltaic cell. This project is fairly far advanced. The efficiency of these cells has improved over the years after much research and at great cost. It has improved from an efficiency of 11% of available energy to 22%. Professor Peter Swart, of the Rand Afrikaans University, has devised a method of converting sunlight into energy with what he calls his “solar energy machine”, which, he claims, can run a television set. He has devised a way to reduce the size of the previously used very large and expensive silicone converters by some 90%, without losing power in the process. This indicates a direction in which we can do research. The secret of his prototype, which is two metres square and concentrates sunlight through magnifying glasses onto an ion-impregnated silicon cell, produces 100 watts of electricity. There will be people who will doubt the value of solar energy because of its intermittent availability, but perhaps in this light the latest research in America is of interest to us. There they are working on schemes of solar satellites which they envisage can orbit the earth at very high altitudes, of up to 35 000 km, at which altitudes they are exposed to sunlight almost 24 hours a day. They can absorb this energy and transmit it back in the form of microwaves to earth where it can then be used. Before we are inclined to dismiss suggestions such as these as mere science fiction, let us think back not many years, to the 1940s, when the question of satellites was discussed and ridiculed 1940s, and yet a mere 20 years later we were using these communication satellites. The fact of these solar-power satellite stations could be a fact of life in our lifetime, according to Mr. Van Straten of the National Building Research Institute. A little less spectacular than these, but also solving the problem of intermittent availability of the sun, is the latest “fast response solar energy panel” which is available in Britain. This design can be used to augment conventional sources of heating of water and in certain circumstances can even replace these conventional methods for varying periods of time. The collector-plates of this unique system incorporates one-way heat pipes; so that as long as sunlight reaches them, the circulating water is heated. If the sun is clouded over, no heat is transferred and cannot be lost by the turning down of the one-way pipe. The important point here is that heat is available to the exchanger within 30 seconds of the sun shining on the collector-plates, so that even short bursts of sunshine can create enough heat for practical use.

Another point of interest is that the American company Boeing had a contract to develop a 10 million watt power-plant using heliostats, mirror-light reflectors, which catch the sun’s rays and reflect them to a central receiving tower where the heat can then be used to drive a turbine. The mirror concept also has vast potentials in other fields, because mirrors can concentrate the solar energy, giving a temperature of several thousand degrees Celsius. Temperatures of this magnitude can be used for refining metal, and the heat is of course clean and pure and can be used in a vacuum, which is also important.

Obviously there are certain countries, and within those countries certain districts, which have more solar energy and sun available than others.

*In this respect we in South Africa are very fortunate. Experts are of the opinion that any area that enjoys more than 2 000 hours of sunshine per year, can utilize solar energy economically. Most places in South Africa enjoy an average of eight hours sunshine per day. What are they doing in other countries in the world? In Israel approximately 25% of the population is using solar-heating systems, and in this way they save 500 barrels of oil per day. In Japan approximately 80% of the houses are heated with solar power. Last year America spent more than R200 million on the development of solar energy.

†The USA has grounds to believe that solar energy has a potential of supplying 0,8% of the United States’ energy needs by 1985, 7% by the year 2000 and a truly massive 25% of their energy needs by the year 2020—40 short years away. They are looking and planning ahead, and so should we.

We obviously are also using solar water-heating and there are at present a number of large installations in the country, alone making an annual saving at the moment of just under 5 million kilowatt hours. Our own Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has developed what is thought to be the least expensive solar heater available. It costs about R120, has a capacity of 65 litres and is over 60% efficient. The system—which is important too—is said to be capable of powering an absorption or paraffin refrigerator as well. So, we are doing a little, but much more research and co-ordination is needed. How are we to co-ordinate the energy available to us? Some possibilities are the following. We should consider whether it is possible to incorporate solar water heating in the building of all new homes so that traditional and existing water heating methods can be augmented. We should encourage the development of known methods of the conversion of sunlight into electrical energy and we should investigate new methods. The Government should call a national symposium to discuss new ways of utilizing solar energy. Finally, more research should be done in our universities with bursaries available to contributors to the knowledge that we already have.

Hon. members have called for the founding of a department of energy in this country. I would like to support that call very strongly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea made an interesting speech, full of things worth knowing. I agree that we in South Africa should inquire into all sources and possible sources of energy. Sometimes when I see the wind blowing as it does here in Cape Town, I have a feeling that a great deal of energy could be generated from this very wind. I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria East. It is a great pleasure to me to participate in the discussion of this motion, together with the hon. member for Wonderboom.

The hon. member for Pretoria East and the hon. member for Wonderboom both referred to the forecast of available supplies of our primary energy resources in South Africa, especially of coal. We are totally—more than 95%—dependent on fossil fuels in South Africa. These are limited resources and therefore they should be handled with discretion and in the most economical way possible, as well as with a view to conserving them. The aspect of the motion or which I should like to concentrate in my speech is the steps which can be taken to make the public aware of the necessity of conserving energy.

Firstly, I want to refer to fuel conservation. We are familiar with the measures which are taken by the authorities as far as fuel conservation is concerned. Of course, it is important for us not to assume that these are the only conservation methods, especially not after the latest announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in connection with the hours during which fuel will be available. It is especially important for us not to gain the impression that it is no longer necessary to save fuel.

There are practical methods by means of which we as consumers can bring about further savings. These are practical, quite obvious conservation methods, and naturally it is not possible for me to refer to all of them. The driver of a motor-car should drive smoothly. It is great fun to “dice” another driver from one traffic light to another—if I may use that word—but it costs us a great deal in fuel and money. Then there is stopping and starting a motor car unnecessarily. It is alleged that starting the engine of a car uses just as much fuel as when the engine idles for three minutes. The engine of a motor-car must be properly tuned. The tyres must have the right pressure. One must accelerate smoothly up a slope. In addition, people can also make better use of public transport. It happens all too often that public transport is not properly utilized.

It is interesting to note that, according to calculations, the fuel consumption for transporting 100 passengers over a distance of one kilometre is as follows: In the case of an urban bus the consumption is less than three litres per kilometre. In the case of a private motor-car, more than six litres of fuel are used to transport 100 passengers over a distance of one kilometre. In the case of an aeroplane, the quantity of fuel is between 9 and 15 litres per kilometre, depending on the distance and the capacity of the aeroplane. This makes it very clear that public bus transport is actually very economical and effective.

Furthermore, greater use should be made of lift clubs. An investigation has shown that there are 1,2 people per car travelling to work in the mornings. And this is at the peak hour. It seems to me that a good case may be made out for the electric car which basically consists of a plastic shell with a number of batteries and four wheels, but which can transport two people. The transport of goods could be better co-ordinated in the transport industry. The electronics industry could also help us with fuel conservation in the future. One often travels long distances for interviews or discussions and it may not be farfetched to say that one day, one will be able to conduct an interview over a long distance from one’s office by means of television.

I have calculated that a saving of 10 litres of fuel per vehicle per month in South Africa could mean a considerable saving for the consumer and the country. There are approximately 3,5 million vehicles on our roads. In saying this, I do not include the approximately 124 000 motor-bikes, nor the lawnmowers, power boats etc. A saving of 10 litres of fuel per vehicle per month comes to 420 million litres per year. At an average purchase price of R0,27, this would give us an amount of R113,4 million per year which could be saved in this way. The purchase price of the 420 million litres of fuel from abroad could be saved. The money could be invested or used for other essential development. We in our country are forced to generate our own capital and the best way of doing this is in fact by saving.

Furthermore, I want to take a look at the question of saving electricity and in this regard I want to concentrate chiefly on saving on domestic consumption. Percentage-wise, domestic consumption of electricity showed the largest increase in comparison with the consumption for other purposes in 1976. I am referring to power provided by Escom and to the increase in the consumption of electricity for domestic purposes, which amounted to 11,6%. The demand for electricity will keep on increasing and will always make greater demands on the primary energy resource, as the hon. member for Wonderboom correctly pointed out, as well as on its availability. To generate electricity, Escom alone burned 37 256 metric tons of coal in 1976 to sell 63 365 million kilowatt hours of electricity. I calculate that 1 metric ton of coal gives approximately 1 900 kilowatt hours of electricity; i.e. one metric ton of coal provides two hundred 100 watt bulbs with enough electricity to bum for 10 hours. This is basically the amount of electricity provided by a metric ton of coal. This gives us an indication of the demand which is being made on our coal resources by the production of electricity. However, it is an essential demand with a view to development.

According to the latest figures, 2 046 million kilowatt hours of electricity were consumed in Cape Town in 1975, for which the consumer paid approximately R42,5 million. Domestic consumption is included in these figures. In the same year, the domestic consumption in Cape Town was 569 kilowatt hours of electricity per household per month, which is equal to half a metric ton of coal. Therefore, each household in this city used approximately half a metric ton of coal in 1975. A saving of 10% on this consumption would have meant a saving of R4,25 million in one city. A saving of 10% on 2 046 million kilowatt hours is equal to a saving of approximately 100 000 metric tons of coal. This is what the saving would have amounted to if a saving of 10% had taken place in Cape Town in 1975.

Where can we save? I want to point out some practical measures today, but in general I want to state that in order to save one must know that the cost of saving a unit of energy is equal to approximately 10% of the cost of producing a new unit of energy from the primary source. Another interesting fact is that on an average, 40% of domestic accounts for electricity consumption is in respect of the heating of water,

I believe one must know what a thing costs one if one wants to save. Therefore, let us take a look at what it costs here in Cape Town to use certain appliances. The cost of electricity consumption is as follows: Hot water cylinder, approximately 40 cents per day for a family of four; a stove with its plates on maximum, 5,8 cents per hour; electric kettle, 5,8 cents per hour; an iron, 1,5 cents per hour; a television set; 1 cent per hour; a freezer, 5 cents per hour; a 100 watt bulb, 0,3 cents per hour and a 60 watt bulb, 0,2 cents per hour.

Now let us look at a few practical ways of saving in connection with the use of a hot water cylinder. There must be many methods which can be used. For instance, the hot water system must be situated as close as possible to the hot water consumption points. Attention must be paid to the proper isolation of the system so that the water can preserve its heat, for instance by putting fibre glass in the roofs of buildings in order to preserve the heat. One can also draw the attention of house-owners to the use of solar energy and the possibilities connected with it. The building industry could also pay attention to this. The hot water system can also be switched off during the night, and when one goes on holiday. One can limit the use of hot water by using it only when really necessary. For instance, when rinsing one’s hands, one often rinses them under the hot tap although one can rinse one’s hands just as well in cold water. Of course, using the hot water tap starts up the hot water system once again.

It is also alleged that it is cheaper to cook food in an oven, for instance, rather than on the plates of a stove because the heat in the oven is not lost so easily. As far as the electrical appliances in homes are concerned, one can suggest practical measures to save on the consumption of energy and to use it carefully. Sometimes if one wants to make a cup of tea, one fills the whole kettle with water and heats it to boiling point to make just a single cup of tea.

The judicious use of lights is another example. I believe that a great deal can be saved in this respect. My information is that a certain large business concern prefers to let the lights bum day and night because the wear and tear and the replacement cost of bulbs as a result lights being switched on and off is greater than the cost of the unnecessary consumption of electricity. However, the scarcity value of that commodity is not reflected by its price, and I think this is the point which the hon. member for Wonderboom also raised.

The ever greater demands which are being made on the provision of electricity will also make greater demands on our primary source, i.e. coal, and result in higher mining costs. In time, this can cause an increase in the cost of supplying it. I understand that it has been calculated that establishing a new coal mine will cost approximately R100 million.

I therefore feel it is essential to conduct a survey of the coal still available in the old mines, for instance those at Witbank and Newcastle, in order to determine whether they can be mined economically with new methods. The fact is that a considerable saving is essential. I am convinced that the public must be made aware in a uniform way of the necessity of saving. For instance, I am thinking here of a national campaign to make information available to the public as to where and how energy can be saved as well as what financial advantages it may hold for the public and our country. Saving on an individual basis usually looks rather insignificant both in extent and in monetary value, but the cumulative effect of conserving our energy resources is considerable, both in extent and in monetary value. Information can be made available on a regular basis by the Press, radio and television, as well as by means of informative documents which could be distributed by our local authorities, and there are in fact local authorities who do a great deal of good work in this connection. Attention may also be paid to the possibility of providing particulars, when electrical appliances are bought, as to their energy consumption, so that consumers can make a choice on the basis of the energy consumption of different appliances. For instance, if I want to buy a stove, I must see how effectively it works and how economical its energy consumption is. This is also known as “energy labelling”.

If we look at the graph of electricity consumption per day, we see that there is a tremendous increase in electricity consumption around eight o’clock in the morning, after which it drops sharply until lunch-time, when there is a small increase. After that it levels off once again, but in the evening it increases tremendously. A levelling off in the consumption of electricity could possibly be effected by paying attention to the tariff structure with a view to a more equal distribution of electricity consumption during the day. It is important that research be done in this regard, with a view to increasing the conversion per unit of coal into electricity and achieving a higher production from the same unit of coal. In this regard, too, I should like to support the hon. member for Wonderboom.

It is also important for research to be done in connection with energy conservation and the use of alternative resources. I have mentioned only a few conservation methods. There remains a very rewarding field for inquiry and application. Accordingly, I should like to support the idea of a central national institute for energy research mooted by the hon. member for Pretoria East.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klerksdorp has stressed the necessity for more stringent fuel conservation measures and has suggested various methods of fuel conservation. He also stressed the need for research into conservation methods, and particularly in regard to the use of electricity. I think we in these benches certainly agree with everything he has said.

Energy demands throughout the world are growing; so much so that, as the hon. member for Pretoria East pointed out, in approximately 25 years the world will need five times as much energy as it is using at the present time. There are various reasons for this, for instance, population growth and the development and industrialization of underdeveloped countries. There are various estimates of how long the supply of fossil fuels like coal will last, but they will certainly not last for ever. We have seen that the end is in sight as far as oil is concerned. The hon. member for Pretoria East estimated that in 15 to 20 years the world will be out of oil. I think that he is not very far wrong there.

The rapid depletion of the reserves of other commodities indicates that there are serious limitations to virtually every energy source at present available to us. The further development of hydro-electric operations in South Africa and elsewhere continues, but this source also has limitations. In spite of the tremendous technological advances in recent years, the exploitation of other energy alternatives has not kept pace with increased demands. The building of nuclear power stations, for example, has contributed on an enormous scale to the world’s energy pool, but again there are obvious limitations to what can be achieved and, although technology is increasing the potential all the time, it has become apparent that, short of a major break-through perhaps in the field of nuclear fusion or in respect of an energy source that is at present unknown, the world is not going to be able to meet energy demands. This is a serious state of affairs. We are looking forward to the factual situation three or four decades hence when the world will just not have enough energy. This, of course, has tremendous implications.

The hon. member for Pretoria East said, I think, that energy is in fact life, and he is correct. We are talking about life on earth in the future when we are talking about energy. South Africa is in a sense luckier than many other countries in that we have raw material resources like coal and uranium which will assist us to meet our energy requirements in the future.

We have fairly massive hydro-electric schemes which contribute a large share of our electricity requirements. However, in spite of our relatively lucky position, there is no doubt at all that we are not exempt from the general run of things. We must give more attention than we are giving at the present time to the conservation of our existing energy resources and the conservation of energy itself. New sources have to be developed, and we have heard in detail of the new areas where research is taking place at the moment. We certainly have no quarrel at all with the sentiments expressed in the motion, but I would agree with the hon. member for Constantia that we have to go a little further than the motion. It is necessary, urgently necessary, for us to have a department which confines its activities to energy.

In looking at our resources, we should, firstly, take a look at the position of oil. As is the case in most industrialized countries, transport is the main consumer also of our oil. As yet there is no viable alternative to the petrol engine. Nothing has come to the fore to replace that sort of engine. It is going to be necessary for us to develop a national transport policy which will take account of the limitations of the oil supply. Obviously our huge oil from coal operations, Sasol 1 and Sasol 2, and perhaps more of their kind, will assist us substantially. However, they will not be able to produce sufficient to replace the enormous quantity of oil that we import at present and which will inevitably run out in the foreseeable future. There is not much disagreement as to when supplies are going to run out. If we are feeling a little depressed about things we might say that it is going to run out in 15 years. However, most experts indicate that, as an absolute maximum, world oil supplies will run out in 25 years. Therefore we have to plan ahead because we must know what we are going to do when oil supplies do run out. We must be thinking of transportation and transportation systems which do not rely on oil. Our Railways have been converting to diesel locomotives on a large scale, but we must realize that this can be for a limited period only. Something else has to replace this type of engine. Our transport policy must start gearing itself for an oilless future in the realization that even the supply of coal is limited. Even if the Railways gear themselves to use electric traction power or prefer to go back to steam locomotives, we are still only going to solve the problem for a limited time.

We heard a lot of talk this morning about South Africa’s coal resources. Measured by world standards, they are pretty substantial, although most of it, as the hon. member for Constantia said, is low grade coal. I believe it is imperative that we maintain a balance between the quantity of coal we export for use by other countries and our own needs for the future. Obviously we must export coal. It is an earner of foreign exchange and it has stimulated the coal industry. On the other hand we must also be aware—and this is important—that we are in a sense mortgaging our future when we export coal. Our coal supplies cannot last for ever. We have heard from a speaker on the other side that we are going to be short of coal within 25 years. World coal supplies are in a similar situation. At one time it was felt that the resources of coal were virtually unlimited and that it could keep the world supplied with energy for hundreds of years. Thinking on this has changed, however, and even with a tremendous amount of optimism we can now estimate that world coal supplies could last at a very maximum, only another 100 years and that it will probably be depleted very much sooner than that. The resources of coal of other countries are already depleted to the point of exhaustion.

Perhaps the future lies in the generation of nuclear energy. Nuclear fission, which requires uranium 235, also has limitations, however, because that fuel is in short supply. Therefore we cannot rely on that sort of nuclear energy. There are of course great hopes for the breeder reactor which converts uranium 238, which is fairly plentiful, into fissionable plutonium 239, and thorium 232 to fissionable uranium 233.

Nuclear fission power has its critics, because of its obvious danger and the difficulties of getting rid of radio-active waste, among other difficulties. This is of course a tremendous problem and must be a limitation on the use of nuclear reactors. Some way or another, one has to get rid of radio-active material of which a lot is vicious radio-active material. As there is a proliferation of nuclear reactors, we are getting an accompanying proliferation of radio-active waste. Inevitably this poses tremendous problems which, in themselves, become a limiting factor upon the use of nuclear power.

It is possible that research will make the necessary breakthrough to prove that nuclear fusion will be the final answer. That breakthrough has not yet happened and fusion experimentation so far has also been with raw materials that are in relatively short supply. Again there are limitations, as far as we can see, in power generated from nuclear fusion.

There is no doubt that we must direct our minds to conservation as well as to the most efficient utilization of other potential areas of energy supply. In this regard we have heard, for example, of solar energy. I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Berea discussing in fair detail the possibilities in regard to the use of solar energy. He indicated that it will take 40 years before any major, substantial contribution can be made by solar energy. It is becoming more extensively used, but the technology is still not very efficient. It is estimated that, at any rate, it will be 50 years before we can make use of this form of energy on any major scale. It is, of course, very important indeed, and I believe that this is one area in which we could direct more money for research immediately. There should be more research into the question of the use of energy by householders. We have heard some very good ideas in this regard this morning. Another area which should, to my mind, be researched, is tidal power. Throughout the world this has been talked about for some time, but I am told that only one country in the world in fact produces energy and electricity from tidal power. This is an area we could investigate as well.

In regard to the question of conservation, I want to have a word about Escom. Escom is a business undertaking which is in business to sell electricity. In a sense there is a conflict of interest between the conservation of electricity and the sale of electricity. Obviously Escom would like to sell as much electricity as they possibly can …

They provide the electricity.

Yes. They provide electricity. I see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs shaking his head when I say this, but as far as conservation is concerned we could perhaps suggest that Escom, in its new building north of Johannesburg, should start off by turning off all the lights that it leaves burning all night. We have heard, from the hon. member for Klerksdorp, just how much this costs and how much coal we have to use merely to keep lights burning. I am not going to make an issue of this point, but I do believe there is a conflict of interest in this regard.

I would now like to come back to something that is a hobby-horse of mine. I raised this question with the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment in 1976, when I asked him whether consideration had been given to the introduction of daylight saving as a means of saving power, and if so, with what result. The tenor of his answer was that so little of our national grid electricity supply was needed for domestic use that in fact it was not really worth while to introduce daylight saving. He said that the Republic’s climatic conditions were of such a nature that the great majority of factory and office workers perform their work during daylight hours. As a sideline I could perhaps suggest that it is not only work that is important in this regard, but it is how one spends one’s leisure time. I think it is important for any worker to have leisure time in daylight hours and if we introduce daylight saving in South Africa people, particularly those in the northern parts of the country who have very limited after-work daylight hours, would very much appreciate the additional daylight for recreational purposes. In his reply the hon. the Minister said that the estimated demand for electricity for household lighting purposes constituted only 2½% of the total electricity consumption and that possible savings would consequently be minimal.

I want to express the thought that in fact it is important, even if it is as little as this. Even if we say that we are perhaps buying time for the advance of technology, and that we are perhaps just staving off the evil day, a measure of this nature would also indicate to the public how important energy conservation is and how important it is to save electricity. I do not think there is any general awareness on the part of the public of just how necessary it is.

In conclusion I would like to suggest to the hon. members on the other side that they support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, the world was certainly shocked in 1973 when the Opec oil countries decided to bring the question of oil resources into the political field. We know how we have suffered, politically and economically, by the decision of the Opec countries in 1973. However, at the same time this dark cloud has certainly had a very bright silver lining. That silver lining was the realization by the industrialized nations of the world that our energy sources are finite and not infinite. It is interesting to see that in 1973 65% of the energy required by an industrialized nation like the United States, was being provided by an energy source which comprised no more than 18% of the reserves of that nation, viz. liquid petroleum.

The problems which we have, and the nature of our resources, have been thoroughly discussed here today by the hon. members who have spoken before me. I think we are all agreed that we have a problem. The question which arises is how we can best find a solution to the problem. I contend that we are only going to solve this problem in the short, medium and long term in South Africa if we insist that a co-ordinated, joint venture for research and investigation is conducted and participated in by all those organizations and institutions in South Africa which have a vested interest in energy.

The hon. members who spoke before me clearly indicated that the mainstay of the energy source in South Africa is coal. There can be no doubt about this. It is going to be incumbent upon whichever organization, body or institution carries the responsibility for the conservation of energy in South Africa in the future, to ensure that it has adequate representation by those bodies which are interested in the coal field. We have a number of these organizations operative in South Africa at the moment. We have a Coalcom organization, the Committee for Energy Planning, the Department of Planning and the environment, the CSIR and the Fuel Research Institute. These people are all looking at this vital question of conserving, and the better utilization of, our energy resources in South Africa, which inevitably focus around coal.

The question of coal in South Africa is a very interesting one. The latest estimate given to me by knowledgeable sources is that South Africa possesses something like 89 000 million metric tons of coal. This sounds a tremendous amount and, in fact, is a tremendous amount, but the problem we have in South Africa is not really one of quantity, but one of quality. It is interesting to note that in a report written by Dr. Horsefall of Anglo-American in 1975 the calculations he has made indicate that more than 70% of this vast coal resource we have in South Africa, has an ash content in excess of 25%. The experts in coal tell me that that is an excessively high quantity and that there are certain things that you can do with this coal, but also certain things which you cannot do. For instance, one can bum it in thermo-electrical generating power stations, but one cannot use it for the manufacture of coke which is so necessary for our steel and allied metal industries.

The parties which will have to participate in any body charged with the responsibility for energy conservation and the better utilization thereof can certainly not exclude the consumer, as one of the hon. members has indicated. It is interesting to note that, although we are focusing our attention very rigidly and explicitly on the sources and the quantity of our energy resources, it has been stated by people who know, and who are scientifically versed in this field, that of the energy or the heat generated by all sources of energy at the moment, 60% is lost again to the atmosphere. In other words, the environment receives back 60% of the heat and we are only utilizing 40% of the potential energy which can be derived, for instance, from sources such as coal. The producers, such as the mining houses, will certainly have to be involved and integrated into any body charged with responsibility for the conservation and utilization of energy resources. We shall in fact have to help them so that they in turn can help us with the conservation of energy. They have a number of problems, of which hon. members have spoken. The manufacturers, miners or producers of coal in South Africa experience a problem with their recovery rate, as we have already heard. The average recovery rate, which means the ratio between the amount of coal extracted and the coal left in the ground, at present is optimistically set at an average of 50% for South Africa. We also experience the problem of Escom being a consumer of coal on a tied colliery basis, which means that they put the power station on top of a coal mine, from which they feed the generators. This has created problems for the other miners of coal. Because they were not able to provide low-grade coal to the power stations, they were forced to pick out the eyes of the high quality coal they had available to them in other areas.

We also have the problem of the pricing mechanism. I know that the producers of coal are most unhappy about the present method being used for fixing the price of pit-head coal. If we are going to expect them to assist us in conserving and planning our energy resources we shall have to assist them to overcome three major problems, namely the recovery rate, the quality factor and the pricing mechanism. It is interesting to note that Escom utilizes 59% of the coal mined in South Africa at the moment and yet the process of converting the potential energy in coal into electricity is a relatively inefficient one. The figures I have available indicate that at best the exploitation of the potential energy in coal by our power stations at the moment is about 30%. This is not Escom’s fault as it is a technological problem. We shall have to assist Escom to help themselves to overcome this problem and to make better use of our coal resources.

The steel industry has a problem as well. The high-quality coking coal, to which they have the exclusive right in South Africa at the moment, is going to run out very shortly. We shall then not be able to manufacture steel as Iscor is doing at the moment.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, in concluding the very minute dissertation which I started before business was suspended I would like to qualify what I said earlier in terms of my appeal to this House, namely that whatever body is created to take over the very excellent work performed by the Department of Planning and the Environment in respect of energy conservation, my appeal is that we should avoid the dangers inherent in the fragmentation of our efforts for the conservation and utilization of energy in South Africa by permitting isolated and individual bodies to tackle particularly the problem of coal conservation in South Africa. Whether we like it or not, South Africa is going to be tied to its coal resources for at least the next 200 years. When we create a body to undertake the responsibility for the better utilization and conservation of this vital black gold, then I would appeal for the direct participation and inclusion of organizations such as the producers, Escom, Iscor, the S.A. Railways, the consumer, the exporter, and representatives of organizations such as the Fuel Research Institute, as well as representatives of the environmental conservation groups. I believe that if we tackle our problems, which we have clearly identified in South Africa, on an integrated and joint basis, we shall be able to ensure that South Africa and her neighbouring countries, and possible even in better days, other Western countries, will benefit from the tremendous expertise and potential which we have in this country of ours, the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my first speech in this House I am very deeply conscious of its great traditions and the many important decisions taken here that have so vitally affected the history and the well-being of our country. On this occasion, I am sure, the House will indulge me if I do not comment directly on the speech of the hon. member for Durban North or on those of the other hon. members who have spoken before him.

In 1973, when the Arab petroleum producing countries used their oil as a political weapon for the first time, and the realization of an impending energy crisis loomed ominously real and large before a somewhat thoughtless and wasteful world, scientists, economists and statisticians throughout the West began drawing up comprehensive inventories of the world’s strategic and energy resources and reserves. Among them was Professor Alistair Buchan of Oxford University, who concluded that most of these, with the notable exception of oil, were to be found either behind the Iron Curtain or here in South Africa. This fact, the professor added, would of necessity ultimately temper the attitudes of the West towards South Africa. Indeed, this land of ours has been richly blessed by Providence. It is the only country in the world which has the ability to produce 54 different mineral commodities. It ranks amongst the world’s 12 topmost producers of eight strategic minerals which are indispensable to modern technology and the manufacture of the instruments of war. These eight minerals, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Andrew Young, was constrained to concede in Congressional testimony just over a year ago, almost to the day, were readily available to his country only from South Africa on this side of the Iron Curtain.

Turning more specifically to sources of energy we are somewhat less well endowed. But we do have the Western world’s second largest known reserves of uranium and we are currently its third largest producer. We rank twelfth in world production of bituminous coal, but our resources are not abundant. They are a decidedly finite asset as other hon. members have pointed out. Nonetheless, we do have sufficient for our projected needs into the next century when nuclear energy is likely to come fully into its own as a result of fast-breeder reactors and other technological advances.

We are also among few other, a handful of countries, who have developed their own uranium enrichment process and who have the prospect of meeting their own nuclear fuel needs within the foreseeable future. We have many fast flowing rivers, but our water resources are limited. Nonetheless, projects like the Orange River scheme and the Drakensberg scheme attest to the imaginative use to which we are already putting our available sources of hydro-energy. As the hon. member for Berea pointed out, our climate is such that far greater use could be made of solar energy for domestic water heating and other low intensity uses which could be further enhanced by more efficient insulation of our houses. Tidal and wind energy in this country offer, unfortunately, fewer prospects than they do in other parts of the world and, of course, worst of all, we do lack oil. Nonetheless, the gas strikes that we have made along our coast should encourage us to pursue relentlessly the search for liquid fossil fuels until we know exactly where we stand in that regard. Fortunately, to make up for this lack, we do have the only viable coal liquefaction process in the world. Sasol 2 is already under construction and should reach full production within the likely life-span of this Parliament. Furthermore, we are situated on one of the busiest sea lanes, a sea route which carries up to 70% of Nato’s oil supplies and 26% of Europe’s food—food which is perhaps the prime source of energy to humankind.

There, we are among only eight countries in the world that still produce food in sufficient quantities to export it significantly. We do have, in fact, the potential to feed 125 million people. This wealth is both our strength and our weakness. It is our strength because it gives us, of all the endangered areas of the world, the greatest autonomy of action, the ability to stand alone if necessary. It is our weakness because it is the reason why we find ourselves at the very core of the East-West struggle for power and influence that is raging over the African continent today. It is the reason why we are the ultimate target of the Soviet strategy in Africa; a grand strategic design enunciated for the first time publicly by Nikita Kruschchev in 1955; a strategic scenario designed to subvert Europe by concentrating on sensitive areas in Africa, areas of strategic importance to it, by surrounding them with Marxist client and proxy States from which they in turn can be subverted to limit the options of the West in any future confrontation.

In recent times, this strategy has been orchestrated and co-ordinated in the Mediterranean arena by Mr. Boris Ponomareff, the Soviet central committee member responsible for liaison with Western communist parties, and here in Southern Africa by Mr. Vasiliy Salodownikof, the Soviet Ambassador to Lusaka who, for 15 years previously, had headed the Africa Institute in Moscow. The areas in question are, firstly, the mineral-rich areas of our continent such as the oil-producing areas of North Africa and West Africa, and, of course, Southern Africa, including countries like Angola and Zaire, and secondly, the strategic choke-points on the world’s major shipping routes around our continent, viz. the entrance to the Red Sea between the Horn of Africa and Aden on the oil rich Saudi-Arabian Peninsula, the Suez Canal, the entrance to the western Mediterranean and, of course, the Cape of Good Hope.

Mr. Speaker, even the most cursory glance at the map of Africa today shows the success with which this strategy has been deployed: progressing from the Horn of Africa across the Mediterranean littoral, probing inexorably southwards towards its ultimate objective, Southern Africa where, in Angola and Mozambique, it already has the bridgeheads for the construction of a girdle of Marxist proxy-states running through Zaïre, Zambia and Rhodesia, from which to launch the final onslaught upon us.

*Nevertheless the Western World seems to be pursuing a foreign policy today which is obviously promoting the development of this Soviet expansionism in Africa, in the north by passivity and impotence, and in the south by active pressure on us. They are already withholding the means of protecting their oil route from us. They are threatening us with a complete oil and energy boycott and other sanctions, even if the ultimate result of this is a Marxist Southern Africa. Mr. Andrew Young has stated this openly and repeatedly, and added that this would only be a temporary state of affairs, because even a Marxist South Africa will of necessity have to sell these minerals to the West to stay alive and because the West has the technological and economic power which the Soviet Union does not have—something which, to my mind, can be questioned—such as South Africa will eventually, together with the rest of Africa, have to return to the Western sphere of influence. But, Sir, it has not yet happened anywhere, not in Asia, not in Africa, not in Eastern Europe where the Kremlin has cruelly dominated the scene for more than 30 years. Hungary and Czechoslovakia did admittedly try to liberalize their economic and political relations with the West, with the tragic results known to everyone in this House today.

If the Soviet Union should gain control of the Cape oil route and our strategic minerals, leading Western strategists such as Dr. Peter Janke of the London Institute for the Study of Conflict, Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, of the British Foreign Affairs Association, Dr. Alvin Cottrell and Lieut. Gen. Daniel Graham of the USA, are of the opinion that it will also be able to force Europe into surrender within five to ten years, without declaring war. This, Sir, is one of the reasons why the great British historian, Prof. Toynbee, wrote that what is being decided in Southern Africa is not only the destinies of the people living here, but the fate of the whole of mankind.

This means that we have a responsibility, a duty and a calling to survive, to withstand the onslaughts from outside, not only for our own sake and for the sake of the people living here with us, but also for the sake of the West and in spite of the West, until one day it comes to its senses again, which to my mind it will of necessity have to do in its own interests. This demands particular political action from us which does not fall within the ambit of a maiden speech, but also and particularly that we should not be lavish with our precious energy resources. We should protect and preserve them. We should exploit and utilize them, improve and expand them to the best of our ability, as we are already doing in many cases. Therefore, Sir, it is with great pleasure that I wholeheartedly support the motion by the hon. member for Pretoria East, especially as far as the rationalization of our energy policy and the establishment of an energy research institute are concerned. As the hon. member has already said, energy is life, and the lack of energy is a pining away and eventually death by strangulation.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Benoni sincerely on his maiden speech in this House. We have already learned to know his face fairly well, and as a result of television interviews, etc., which he conducted, we know of his interest in those matters for which he has qualified himself. As was to be expected, he has today given us an excellent exposition of something which cannot be questioned, i.e. the importance of our energy resources in the strategic position in which South Africa finds herself in the world of today. As far as I am concerned, he has made a particularly good contribution. I congratulate him on that and I wish him the best for his future in this House.

I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria East very sincerely for the fact that he has moved this motion in the House. It is a very important motion, more important than many of us may think, because without energy and without the exploitation thereof by man, not one of us would have been able to sit here today. We would perhaps have had to meet in a different way and in different way and in dismal circumstances, with altogether different facilities at our disposal.

I should now like to refer to the hon. members who have taken part in this debate. They are the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Wonderboom, the hon. member for Klerksdorp, the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Durban North, and, last but not least, the hon. member for Benoni. I want to thank them for their participation in this debate, a debate in which there has been no suggestion of the usual party politics which we encounter here but all too often.

This is a debate which is mainly concerned with technical matters, and when it comes to their relationship with the strategic or political aspects, it is something about which we as South Africans stand united because it basically concerns our survival. I am therefore pleased that I observed this golden thread throughout this debate. I appreciate the contribution of every member who took part. All of them made interesting contributions. Of course I also had to do a lot of reading up, but I was very pleased to note how well the hon. members had done their homework. I have heard quite a few things today which I have never read about myself. It is therefore a good idea for us to supplement one another’s knowledge in this manner. My impression throughout has been how essential it is to combine all energy actions or energy efforts into one program. Whether we can realize this ideal, of course, and whether it can ever be implemented at this stage, is another question. The fact remains, however, that in my view it is an excellent aspiration.

The specific proposals which have been made are of different kinds. The hon. member for Pretoria East is asking for a central energy research institute.

†The hon. member for Constantia wants a Ministry of Energy. Unfortunately I cannot comply with either of these requests, not at this stage in any event. I think my standpoint will become clearer later on. There are very specific reasons why at this stage we cannot do it the way hon. members want it done.

At the outset I thought and, having listened to the debate, I concluded that it would perhaps be best for me to reply to the debate in a general sort of way and to make an overall comprehensive approach to the problem, because there is an appalling ignorance amongst the public at large, and perhaps to a certain extent also among members—although it was not in evidence in the speeches I have heard on this motion—about what the Government is doing in the energy field.

*In respect of aspects such as our available resources, which were discussed at some length, the conservation of energy and the alternative sources, for example solar energy, etc., I should rather give the hon. members a picture of what the department and the Government are doing in this connection, and I shall only be able to refer here and there to what the hon. members have said.

When we evaluate energy according to its merits, it probably constitutes the most pressing problem of our time. We would revert to a primitive state if it were not for the energy resources which we have and for the methods by which energy is made available to us. Our standards of living would decline drastically. We have become completely dependent upon fossil energy. As the result of the crisis of 1973, a crisis which shook the world because the cheapest source of fossil energy, namely petroleum fuel, was no longer readily available and its price accordingly soared, feverish efforts have recently been made, especially by the Western Governments, to do something about it. It will surprise hon. members to see how much information about energy and research in that connection has become available during the last three or four years, too much to digest all of it. In America, a department with a staff of 20 000 men was established last year at a cost of approximately R10 milliard—the cost of it is equal to our entire budget—to tackle the energy problem which is being experienced there and to try and find a solution. Whether this overhasty action was the right thing remains to be seen. Nevertheless it indicates how serious this problem is today. In our country too there are voices clamouring for a Department of Energy. The hon. member for Constantia is not the only person who is asking for that.

I want to inform the hon. members of the machinery which the Government has established in South Africa to deal with energy. Since 1973, and even before that time, the Government has not been altogether inactive in regard to energy. Sasol, Escom, the Atomic Energy Board and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation were all established before the energy crisis was experienced here. The set-up is, however, fragmentary, and it has been suggested that there should be greater co-ordination in this field. It is a matter which, since the crisis of 1973, has assumed greater importance. Since then, two energy committees have been established. One of them is the Energy Policy Committee, on the level of the people who are not only knowledgeable in this regard, but who deal with it every day, people from Sasol, Escom and some of our Government departments. This committee must actually help formulate the policy in this connection. The other committee is the Cabinet Committee consisting of the Ministers of Transport, Planning and the Environment, Economic Affairs and Mining. In the Department of Planning and the Environment, too, a secretariat has been established which already consists of a number of experts who liaise peripherally with all the other departments. In this way it co-ordinates the work of the departments which are concerned with energy, but at the same time there are also certain tasks which it undertakes itself, and research is not the least of these. An energy policy, which is the central theme of this motion, is something which is very complex. It cannot simply be called into existence. The idea as regards energy which has been gaining ground in recent years is the optimum utilization of energy, but also the conservation of those resources. Some hon. members have stressed today how important, it is that we should conserve those resources which we still have, because science and technology may require 30 or even 40 years before a breakthrough is eventually made and that perpetual source of energy, namely the sun, is placed at our disposal—the hon. member for Berea and also other hon. members have referred to that. It may even take half a century, and in the meantime we must somehow utilize the existing resources, which are of an extractive nature. However, we shall have to utilize them very efficiently and economically if we are to conserve them.

An energy policy is, however, not merely concerned with the conservation of energy. Such a policy bears a relation to the economic resources at our disposal, with one’s capital flow and one’s short-term and long-term economic policy. If one has vast energy resources which one can utilize temporarily for other purposes, this can affect one’s trade balance. The price of energy is also of particular interest. There is also—and I am so pleased that the hon. member for Benoni has stressed this aspect—the strategic importance of our energy resources in this country. It is something which we cannot stress sufficiently, and as a result one cannot always disclose all the information in regard to the energy resources which we have at our disposal. Some of those resources are indeed of strategic importance and about some of the others, too, one can not disclose everything.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that a comprehensive energy policy cannot easily be established in its final form. Such a policy is of a dynamic nature and can never be quite completed—and I want to stress that—because it has to be adapted from time to time, as internal or external circumstances influence it. We should take due note of the fact that an energy policy can only be applicable according to the circumstances prevailing from time to time in regard to that country and its people. We can, however, lay down basic guidelines and establish a framework. We can also establish machinery in order that we may be prepared on a short-term or a long-term basis, whenever it may be necessary, to do something about the matter or to steer the policy in a specific direction. This is what the Government has done, and I can quote two examples to hon. members in this connection. Many hon. members will remember the report—the so-called Petrick report—of the Commission of Inquiry into the Coal Resources of the Republic of South Africa. This report was thoroughly studied and thereafter it was referred to the Energy Policy Committee which I have mentioned. These people made a thorough study of the report, submitted recommendations to the Cabinet committee and ultimately it was decided, on the basis of the information obtained from the report, that the best approach would be for the Department of Mines to accept the responsibility to establish machinery within that department for the conservation of our coal resources, which are really our most important energy resources in South Africa today. That machinery is now in the process of being established. I am merely referring to this in passing and do not wish to enlarge on it. The department is working on it.

A second aspect is the addition of ethanol to petroleum fuel. Ethanol is a form of alcohol which is extracted from agronomical products by means of a process of fermentation. It is a well-known chemical process. In connection with this, we have had a thorough study undertaken under the guidance of the SCIR. A report in this connection was studied and it was decided that further investigation would take place within a particular period so that when the administrative process—to put it that way—has been in operation for a while, it may possibly lead to drastic decisions being taken to tide us over the most difficult periods as far as the conservation of liquid fuel is concerned. I should not like to say any more at this stage. This is however also a case where use is made of solar energy. Moreover, it is also the case that we have here a repetitive source of energy, so that it can be used continually in future. It is not a source which is used extractively.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp has talked about conservation and has made a few very interesting points in that connection. Conservation is a matter which is receiving the undivided attention of the Energy Policy Committee. It is a fact that the growth rate in the consumption of energy is greater than the growth rate in the general economy. In relation to the growth rate, the funds expended on energy were therefore far too great. We should try and find methods of conserving energy. A working group is already in operation and will submit a report to the secretariat. Bodies like the CSIR and Escom are working on it and the Department of Planning and the Environment is also represented in a committee which has as its object the preparation of a report in which many of the aspects which have been referred to today, will be specifically covered. We have already received a few very interesting proposals, but unfortunately I do not have the time to discuss them.

Energy conservation is a matter which is also receiving the attention of the secretariat. The secretariat is at present compiling a report thereon. The prevailing situation in the world, the present position in regard to research, the role the Government must play, where the national economy fits into the picture and the guidelines to be laid down, must all be ascertained. We are busy finding answers to all these questions.

I do not really want to say anything more about research, except to point out, in consequence of the request by the hon. member for Pretoria East, that an Energy Research Institute be established: At the CSIR we have a steering committee on solar energy research. The Cabinet Committee has furthermore approved of a research structure by means of which the Energy Policy Committee has combined into one organizational framework all the organizations which can make a contribution. I do not want to set out that framework now; it is even schematically difficult to understand when one looks at it for the first time. A research structure has therefore been established and in my view it has, for the present, almost been perfected with a view to ensuring that research will be co-ordinated and will take place in such a way that our energy resources will in future be of greater value.

I can also point out that the scientific research about energy is mainly the work of the CSIR. In this connection we allow ourselves to be guided by that body and all its institutes. We also receive assistance from the universities. Contract work has been awarded to the different universities and the University of Cape Town has been requested to compile a report on energy consumption. The University of Stellenbosch has as its task the research into energy consumption in the transport sector. A report about this will hopefully be published next year, and we are expecting the report by the University of Cape Town during this year. I have here a short list of reports to be published: “Energy utilization in South Africa,” a report which we are expecting in about two months; “Die beginsels van energiebesparing,” a report in Afrikaans and English which will probably appear within the first half of this year; and “Nie-konvensionele energie en moontlike benutting in Suid-Afrika”, another very important report. It deals with long-term energy conservation and is likely to be published towards the end of the year or early next year. We therefore have several universities helping us with research projects.

†We are concerned about our energy resources, as well as about the environment and the effect of pollution, especially with the nuclear materials which can not only pollute the atmosphere, but also the environment. As far as that is concerned, a preliminary study is already being undertaken to determine to what extent this type of pollution is occurring in South Africa and to what extent it can be prevented in the long run. At this specific moment it is not as yet really dangerous. We are also in contact with the USA about this matter.

*It is alleged that if one were to bum the total supply of the world’s coal, the damage caused by waste would be as great as when one released nuclear waste. There are people who hold this view. This proves how dynamic these concepts are and how they change at times.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, a thorough investigation is in progress so as to ascertain what the position of nuclear power will be for the next 50 years. The hon. member over there discussed the fusion reactor. One can go a very long way with this type of reactor, but as yet we have no proven techniques and it may take us many generations to carry these proven techniques into effect. For that reason we have to be very circumspect in making prognoses in regard to the future of energy.

†The hon. member also said that a national transport policy was important. That is so, and I can tell him that there is also a study being undertaken, with the University of Stellenbosch participating, to investigate the effect of city transport, especially its effect on our energy usage and the overall effort towards energy conservation.

*As far as that is concerned, research is also in progress and a great deal is being done in that direction.

I have tried to deal very expeditiously with the many facts. I wrote them down for the very reason that I wanted to be comprehensive and would otherwise not have been able to discuss all the facts. I should like to refer in brief to the projects we have given out on contract. An econometric study, i.e. a study on the demand for electricity, is being undertaken by the University of Pretoria, and not by the University of Stellenbosch as I said initially. A detailed survey of energy consumption is being undertaken by the Energy Research Institute of the University of Cape Town. A report on that is expected in the course of the year.

By means of research one can set up models which can help one to work out an energy policy for the future on the basis of the facts at one’s disposal. The Institute for Operational Research at the University of South Africa is presently engaged in a study in that direction, but the project has not yet been completed. In conclusion I want to refer once more to the project in connection with urban transport which is being undertaken by the University of Stellenbosch.

Finally, I want to say that we should not overlook the matter of giving publicity to all these things. We are in fact engaged in giving publicity to these things by means of the dissemination of information, brochures, an energy bulletin to be published in the course of the year, other publications and possibly a film. At the Rand Show this year, we are going to make energy the main theme in the exhibition hall of the Department of the Interior. I think that this is going to help a great deal to impress upon our people the importance of energy conservation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the demands this will make on us in the years ahead.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, every right-minded South African should be concerned about the dangerous position in which our country finds itself today. He should not only be concerned about it; he should sit down and reflect on where mistakes have been made, where we are still at fault and what we can do from all quarters to get our country out of trouble. The gravity of the situation has been indicated by none other than the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself. Not so long ago he said in Natal—

Hon. members should note that he does not only say that there is no one who is our friend; he also says that they are all our enemies. The question is: Enemies of what? I think it is wrong to say that they are enemies of South Africa, for that would mean that they are enemies of White, Black and Brown, of everything and everyone associated with South Africa. We know that this is not the case and that people are not hostile to South Africa as a country.

The enmity which exists is of a twofold nature. In the case of the West, the Third World, the old colonial world, it is enmity directed not against the country as such, but against the political philosophy, the policy and the conduct of the governing party in the country. In the case of the communist world, it is more than this. Their enmity is aggravated by their imperialism, their desire for world domination and their method of exploiting to their own advantage every trouble spot and conflict situation in the West and the Third World, in which they often succeed.

If we wish to survive under these circumstances, it should be clear to us what we should do, and we shall have to see, in the first place, where we have been at fault in the past and where we are still pursuing an erroneous policy which can be corrected and removed. Furthermore, we must do nothing to play into the hands of the communist world any further. The most important thing is that we should make it possible for the West and for the old colonial world to enter into normal political relations, even friendly relations, with us. I do not want to dwell too long on the past. However, I do not think that any balanced observer can have any doubt about the underlying causes of the result we have achieved, namely “that no Government and no State in the world is our friend; they are all our enemies”.

I remember the time between 1945 and 1947, when General Smuts wanted to incorporate South West Africa into the Union on conditions which would be acceptable to the whole population. General Smuts was then at the peak of his fame as a world statesman and he enjoyed strong support for his standpoint among the Allied leaders. He made the necessary preparations and held a referendum among all population groups in South West Africa. Of almost a quarter of a million people who were consulted, 86% voted “yes” and declared themselves to be in favour of the incorporation of South West Africa into the Union. On this basis, General Smuts applied to the UN for incorporation of the territory. He was confident that he would succeed. Unfortunately, something happened in domestic politics just then which upset his whole plan. The Whites in Natal started agitating and demanded that Indians should be prohibited from buying White properties in the city centre of Durban and other cities in Natal. General Smuts was greatly upset about this, but he yielded before the pressure brought to bear on him by his party and allowed the “Indian Pegging Act”, a quite unmistakably discriminatory Act, to be launched through Parliament. The consequences for him abroad were catastrophic, for when he went to the UN shortly afterwards with the application to incorporate South West, he encountered a storm of protest led by India about the measures enforcing race discrimination which he had just allowed to be passed in this Parliament against the Indians. The result was that he suffered the greatest defeat he ever encountered in his foreign policy. This was also the greatest lesson learned by our country about the intimate connection between foreign relations and domestic policy. I remember that General Smuts returned a bitterly disappointed man, and reported to Parliament. In fact, he sounded a warning in Parliament, saying that the Second World War had brought about a radical change in the world. A holy war was approaching in the world against, firstly, racism, the violation of human dignity and discrimination against people on grounds of race and colour, and, secondly, any continuation of colonialism, especially in the form of White or European domination over Black. Against these, as I have said, a holy war would henceforth be waged. It is wrong to think that this attitude was aimed only against South Africa. The details of our domestic politics were known only in a limited circle at that time. Shortly afterwards, with the introduction of the apartheid policy, they were to become widely known, but at that time the segregation practices in America were much more widely known in the world than our domestic affairs.

Their apartheid.

Yes; and for that reason a powerful country such as America, perhaps the one country that could have withstood the foreign pressure on matters of this nature if it had wanted to, began to remove measures imposing race discrimination in that country, its own form of apartheid, immediately after the war. That is also why every European country, except for Portugal and ourselves in respect of South West, began to liberate its colonies and subject territories. It is a question of opinion, of course, but I believe that if Gen. Smuts and his party had remained in power, they would have adapted to the new realities for our country and would have protected us from the fate which is now overtaking us.

But history took a different course; General Smuts was defeated in 1948 and the electorate refused to learn the lesson that race discrimination at home was no longer compatible with harmony and peace in a country’s foreign relations. The new Government which came into power in 1948 had good points in its policy. Where would one find a Government which does not have good points in its programme? There was nothing wrong with sound Afrikaner nationalism. There was nothing wrong with the Republican ideal. So there were very good points in the policy of the NP, but it was the Government’s negative program, to which it gave the name of apartheid—a policy based on colour discrimination which became the official policy—which had the whole world up in arms against us, and in this way the Government became the architect of the invidious and dangerous international position in which our country finds itself today.

Later on you joined us.

Amongst other things, we are already engaged in a hot war about the question of South West Africa, a question which we could and should have solved years ago. It is often alleged that a great deal of false propaganda has been spread abroad about the Government’s policy and that this has led to a false image of South Africa. In certain respects this is so. Unfortunately, false propaganda is just as much a characteristic of politics between countries as of politics between parties in countries. In fact, I think I can say that there are few political parties in the world that are blameless in this matter. However, untruths about the Government’s policy could be effectively refuted abroad, and the Department of Information has not done badly in this field. However, what they have not been able to do, what they have not been able to fight successfully, what in fact has left the Department of Information powerless—this was recently admitted by the Secretary for Information himself—is the truths of apartheid. The truths of apartheid still cannot be effectively countered because measures such as race classification, the Group Areas Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act, the prohibition of mixed marriages, job reservation, separate facilities—all the major foundations of apartheid which still survive intact—are all of them based on race and colour, i.e. on discrimination, and have nothing to do with mutual arrangements between nations.

Then, of course, I am not even mentioning the effect which measures such as banning and detention without trial have abroad. People’s memories are short, but there are hon. members sitting in this House who will remember the first 10 or 12 years after 1948. Those were the years in which one Parliamentary session after another was dominated by race legislation, race legislation which continually received the widest publicity in the world. The implementation of those measures created an even more devastating image of South Africa abroad. Think of things such as the removal of thousands of people in terms of the Group Areas Act, the notorious trials in terms of the Immorality Act in which well-known people and thousands of others were sent to gaol. In fact, during the greater part of the Government’s regime, throughout the years, there has been no end to the harmful publicity which South Africa has received in the world because of the Government’s policy and actions. [Interjections.]

Even in March 1961 we had the traumatic experience of losing our membership of the Commonwealth. Why? For no other reason than the Government’s domestic policy of apartheid. [Interjections.] In fact, the breaking point was brought about by the simple question of whether or not Dr. Verwoerd would accept a High Commissioner from a Black Commonwealth country in Pretoria. His answer was a definite no, and that was the decisive aspect which caused us to lose our membership of the Commonwealth. [Interjections.]

There is irrefutable proof of this. Just look at the writings of Macmillan, of Ian Macleod and several other leaders. The damage done by that was permanently imprinted upon the minds of the Black and Asian states and has been fully exploited by the communist vultures of the world. [Interjections.] There is one thing that we can accept as a fact today. This is that unless the remaining apartheid measures are removed and clear and unambiguous steps are taken to put an end to all legal discrimination between South Africans of different colours, and an open society is created, we shall be drawn ever more deeply into a situation in which our chances of survival in this country will be slender. [Interjections.] In fact, it should no longer have been necessary to discuss the question of discrimination and its removal in this Parliament. That should have been accomplished by now. The only legitimate debate which should have remained in South Africa by now is the question of what kind of new constitution we need to ensure full citizenship for all South Africans and to enable everyone to participate in the government and administration of the country without one group dominating another. [Interjections.] This should be the only debate still remaining. [Interjections.] I now want to leave the past at that. What is important is that the bitter and dangerous enmity which we experience all over the world today is directly connected with and a direct outcome of our domestic policy of race and colour discrimination. [Interjections.] Hon. members can shout as much as they like, but it is no use trying to make other people into scapegoats. What one finds difficult to understand is that every thinking person, whether he is sitting on this side or on that side of the House, knows in his own mind that of the discriminatory measures still standing on the Statute Book, including the so-called pillars of apartheid, not a single one will survive. Since we know and realize that we ought to abolish them, why do we have to be so painfully slow about it? What can we gain by delay? Why must we wait until we are forced, by charge, by riots, by enmity and perhaps even by aggression from inside and outside and by the loss of the lives of some of our best people, to abolish the measures? We know that what a man does on his own initiative is always better than what he is forced under pressure to do after all in the end. Why must we keep playing into the hands of Moscow?

I do not often have an opportunity to do so, but just listen to the propaganda used by the communists in Africa. Listen to Radio Moscow. Listen to Radio Tirana from Albania, which is directed at Africa. They do not provide sophisticated lectures on Marxism. The people do not understand a word of that. They speak about the things happening here, in Soweto, in Unibell, and they speak about discrimination against the Black and Brown. These are the communists’ strongest weapon against us. We are playing into their hands, and unfortunately, more Black and Brown people in Africa have been driven into the hands of Moscow and its satellites by the discrimination for which the “White South” is known than by any other factor that can be mentioned. It is a very bitter experience for us to find that by means of the prevailing policy in our country we are enabling the greatest oppressor on earth to pose as a liberator in Africa compared with us.

†Mr. Speaker, I know it is not easy for a political party and for a Government to correct erroneous policies. It lies in the political nature of the present Government that they place a very high premium on the elections they have won and the support which they have from the majority of the electorate. But, Sir, look what happened in Rhodesia and particularly in South West Africa. In Rhodesia Mr. Smith for 11 years won election after election, and every time he increased his majority for his policies. Many young people have already died in defence of those policies. And now? In order to save Rhodesia and provide security for the White man, as he now sees his duty, he recently had to bury every one of his old policies and adopt completely fresh alternatives. What is happening in South West Africa is even more significant. There, until recently, the NP, a part of the NP in South Africa, also won election after election on policies which they propagated as holy and unalterable. In fact, they took every seat in the Legislative Assembly and every seat in this Parliament, surpassing even the record of the NP of the Republic.

As recently as 1974 the Prime Minister himself, as leader of the NP of South West Africa and of the Republic, addressed a public meeting in Windhoek. To rousing cheers he promised them separate self-determination for Whites, and that the White Legislative Assembly would independently determine the future political place of the White man in South West Africa. The cheers have died down. Things are deadly serious in the Territory now, and like in Rhodesia all the NP’s sweeping victories in South West Africa have come to naught as far as the holy policies of the party are concerned. Nobody of importance in South West Africa any longer seeks his safety in the policy which won so many elections for that party in the Territory. On the contrary, the party is torn in two and the National Party of South West Africa and the breakaway Republican Party of Mr. Mudge are both rushing against time to correct the erroneous policies of their recent past. The only regret you find there among people is the fear that they may be too late. All the apartheid measures which the Government carried from here into South West Africa in the visionary name of “White survival” are being slaughtered without ceremony. Millions of rands were spent transferring power from Windhoek to Pretoria. Now everything is in the process of being carried back to Windhoek, costing the South African taxpayer many more millions of rands. The tragedy—and the lesson to be learnt is that what one must do one should do in time—is that the Government had the benefit of 30 years for solving the South West Africa question in a climate of internal peace and tranquillity. It took the Government 20 years, however, to accept that South West Africa was a territory with an international status, and to concede that there was no way out for us but to grant South West Africa self-determination and independence. It took the Government another seven years to concede that South West Africa should become independent as an integral whole and that all its inhabitants should be given the right to participate in the constitution-making process and in the destiny and future Government of the territory.

Unfortunately, in the long years of erroneous policy, Black resistance grew and gave rise to a terrorist force, and what we are now facing, which we would not have had 10 years ago, or even five years ago, is a Black political movement with strong support inside the country and with a growing military wing of between 6 000 and 10 000 men outside the country, all busy locking us into a escalating war situation on the northern borders of the territory. If the problem of South West Africa had been properly tackled and solved 10 years ago, the whole situation would have been different today. That is the lesson. What we must do, we must do now, and we must do the right thing and correct erroneous policy. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is here.

I am not pleased to see you.

We have anxiously been watching the efforts, by the Western members of the Security Council, the Government and the political groupings in Namibia, trying, under the very difficult circumstances that now exist, to find a peaceful path to an internationally recognized independence. What we must realize, however, is that what happens in and to South West Africa could become a matter of life and death for us in the Republic. We ought to realize that. It is therefore ridiculous for hon. members on the other side—and I include the hon. the Minister—to pretend that the matter is “too delicate” to discuss here in this Parliament. Some of our young men are already dying because of what is happening there. In Windhoek itself there are the most open, detailed and controversial public discussions about the Western efforts and our Government’s policies and attitudes. In all the newspapers, amongst the people and from every political platform, vying with each other for supremacy, people are aware of every move and openly talk about this everywhere. Here, however, the subject is “too delicate” for discussion.

But it is their country, not yours.

There is, in any event, nothing more delicate than the race question, which is always being freely discussed.

You got out of South West Africa, didn’t you?

I think the Government should, either through the hon. the Prime Minister or through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, without unnecessary delay give this House a frank and honest account of what the stumbling blocks are which still prevent South West Africa from moving smoothly to a recognized independence. Earlier this week I visited Windhoek and spoke, amongst others, to prominent political leaders and spokesmen who had been to New York the previous week. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have a copy here of the full details of the Western proposals for a settlement. The document is dated 31 January, only three weeks ago. It is marked “confidential” and I intend to treat it as such, but I must presume that this was discussed with the Government. I know it was discussed with all the different political parties in Windhoek itself well before the Foreign Ministers met in New York. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs knew what was in it, and I presume he must have discussed it with the hon. the Prime Minister before he went to New York. Of course I was not in New York myself, and, therefore, if any of my information is wrong I should be only too happy to be corrected. My information, however, is that these proposals remain—and did remain—the basis for discussion between the Foreign Ministers in New York, and that no new demands were made. I understand that on Walvis Bay, for instance, the position remains unaltered as far as the West is concerned, without prejudice to what views they might hold on the future of that port, in the current independence negotiations. They do not regard this as an issue. Swapo does, but they do not. The field seems to be clear: Walvis Bay is not an issue.

What are you suggesting?

Mr. Speaker, Swapo and its army have become Moscowbound. If they opt for a peaceful settlement, they will not only lose their Soviet support, but the leader who opts for peace might very well find himself displaced by another who is prepared to carry on the war. Therefore we might as well face the fact that Swapo and its army will not return and will not participate in free and peaceful elections leading to a peaceful independence. I would be most surprised if they did. Swapo is suspicious of the West, and we forget that. It is suspicious of the United Nations Administration which is Western-orientated. Moscow itself is suspicious of the United Nations, and we should not forget that either. From what I hear, the Swapo leaders made a poor impression on the West in New York. This was confirmed last night by the leading United States negotiator, Mr. Don McHenry, when he expressed the opinion that the General Assembly of the United Nations had erred in recognizing Swapo as the authoritative representative of the people of South West Africa. Some people here have the mistaken notion that the Western Five are in close cahoots with Swapo. This is not the case.

Oh, please!

Yes, “Oh, please!” and that from somebody who knows absolutely nothing about it. The unfortunate part is that, because of our past history and policies and our history in respect of South West Africa, everybody is also suspicious of our real intentions and bona fides. That is most important and therefore I believe we should make every effort—and I hope that that is what we shall get from the Government—to prove our bona fides by supporting proposals that will ensure real free elections to the satisfaction of those powers interested in a peaceful settlement, by having the elections properly supervised by international representatives, and by adequately recognizing the concern the Western powers in the Security Council have in the matter. I believe that, if we do this, we ought to come to the point where there will be a smooth road to independence for the Territory and where the necessary Western recognition, aid and support ought to be readily available to the new emerging independent Republic of Namibia.

As far as we in the Republic are concerned, we believe that an early solution of the South West Africa question along these lines and in co-operation with the West would be the greatest contribution we could make to our own future safety and to at least the prospect of a more positive place for our country in Africa and in the Western world, because the Western Five have succeeded in gaining considerable African and international support for their proposals.

*Soon we are going to find ourselves in a situation where we shall have as many as eight independent African states on our borders. It will be of vital importance to us to create a circle of friendly States around our country.

We want that too.

Yes, you want it, but you are doing nothing to get it. That is the trouble. Let the hon. member rise and tell us what they are going to do to get it. All they can do is to make a noise. We want to know from the Government what it is going to do to get it. The hon. member does not have a reply and when he gets up in a little while we shall see that.

†All that I can add, is that the Government will have our support in every positive action they take to overcome our prevailing difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years we have often conducted debates in this House on South Africa’s international relations and the bearing our internal policy has on those relations. In fact, last year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout moved a private member’s motion of virtually the same purport. This hon. member still holds the view, as he did last year, that South Africa’s position in the world results exclusively from our internal policy or the so-called measures of apartheid and discrimination applicable in this country. I should like to come back to that point of view of the hon. member.

The way in which he dragged South West Africa into his motion, is, in any event, indicative of the lack of sensitivity on the part of that hon. member to something which is in the interest of the people of South Africa and South West Africa. It is his wont to try to get a share in the government of South Africa from the Opposition benches, instead of trying to increase his party’s majority or his small majority of 50 in his own constituency.

He should have been out.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will concede quite readily that there are certain matters as far as our internal policy is concerned which do influence South Africa’s relations in the outside world. This is so particularly as a result of the misrepresentations and one-sided reports on these aspects of South Africa’s internal policy which are sent into the world. That hon. member and his party also have a hand in this.

Prove it.

However, to conclude from that, as the hon. member of Bezuidenhout does, that South Africa would have been in the good books of the world and would, in fact, have been able to take its place in Africa and the world but for the Government’s policy, is, to say the least, naïve. I am amazed that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is a student of international politics …

He is not.

… can, even today, when he only has to open his eyes to see everything that is happening in Southern Africa, hold the view that if only we were to bring about a few internal reforms and changes, we would in fact—in the words of his motion—be able to take a positive place in the Western community. Is the hon. member really of the opinion that world opinion towards South Africa will be changed radically by a few internal reforms being effected?

The Sunday Times, which is not sympathetic towards the policy of this Government, is much more sober-minded and realistic about this matter than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This paper’s editorial, published on Sunday, 19 February, reads as follows—

I repeat—

The elimination of certain measures of apartheid, measures of separation, discriminating measures, or whatever the hon. member wants to call them, in South Africa, will not turn the world’s wrath away from us. As a matter of fact, the stream of condemnations of South Africa is increasing in scope as well as in intensity at a time when more internal reforms are being brought about in South Africa than ever before. While we are moving away, in terms of our policy, from unnecessary forms of discrimination and are creating a political dispensation of equal value for all the inhabitants of South Africa, the reaction against us is becoming progressively sharper. Why? Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer is clear: Because Southern Africa has become the arena for the power struggle between East and West, one in which the West has evidently decided it does not want to become involved under any circumstances. For that reason the attitude of the world towards South Africa is not going to change if we bring about a few internal reforms.

The outspoken Mr. Andrew Young, the United States’ Ambassador at the UN, has, in my opinion, summed up this matter correctly and honestly. What it amounts to is that America is seeking a solution in Southern Africa which will not be opposed militarily. In other words, they are seeking a solution which will result in all the parties co-operating. All the parties have to accept such a solution, because otherwise the military opposition will not disappear and that is unacceptable to America. Mr. Young’s argument is that if the present administration of the USA were to recognize a new dispensation in Southern Africa, it would also have to support it. Then the danger would exist that the USA might, in some way, land in a conflict with a group enjoying Russian support with the possibility of such a conflict escalating. That is the last thing in which the USA wants to get involved in this post-Vietnam/Watergate era. In this regard Mr. Young said the following in a report in the Sunday Times of last Sunday—

It is as clear as it is stated there—

For that reason the policy of the present USA Administration is very clear: They are not prepared to support a dispensation in Southern Africa, whether it is in Rhodesia, South West Africa or eventually in South Africa, too, which does not meet with the approval of the agents of the Soviet Union in Africa as well. Mr. Young, the man who uttered these words, is not only ambassador of the USA at the UN, but also a member of the Cabinet.

The time has come for us in South Africa to realize that we are thrown on our own resources. If we were to take the approval of the world as the criterion for what we should do internally, we would divest ourselves of everything. The demands of the world would not stop before the White majority in this country had utterly abandoned their right to self-determination. To take the demands of the world as criterion is tantamount to participating in a race in which the winning line is constantly moved further away; one simply cannot win.

Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not realize that even the policy of his party will not satisfy the demands that are made on South Africa today? Even the hon. member’s policy will not satisfy them. The hon. member accuses us of discrimination, but does he think for a moment that Africa and the world will accept the blatant form of discrimination built into their policy? It is a form of discrimination which means that four million Whites will enjoy full political rights, while 14 to 15 million Blacks will not enjoy the same political rights in their country. Full political rights with all its implications is regarded as a human right today. It is a human right and not an educational right. That is the demand which is being made on South Africa, the ultimate demand of “one man, one vote”. The hon. member must say whether he and his party are prepared to meet this demand. [Interjections.] The hon. member will not be prepared to answer that now, but what he and his party must know is that we as Whites in this country are in this dilemma together; not only the Nationalists, but also those on the opposite side of this House. We are not in this dilemma as a result of certain policies. It is simply our presence in the country and our claim to the right of self-determination that is unacceptable to the world. It is our determination to survive as a nation that is apparently unacceptable to the world.

We on this side of the House are not indifferent to human rights. On the contrary. It is the stated intention of the Government to make it possible for everyone in South Africa to live a life of human dignity. We are moving away from unnecessary forms of discrimination. We are engaged in bringing about constitutional reforms so as to accommodate the political aspirations of the Coloureds and the Indians. We are giving attention to the problems of the urban Blacks. We are trying, by means of better employment and salary opportunities, better education and training opportunities, to improve the quality of life for the Blacks. However, one does not hear a thing about that; evidently good news of this nature is no news.

We do not ask not to be criticized, rebuked or reprimanded. We accept that there are certain aspects of our policy which is difficult to explain to the outside world, which the international world finds difficult to comprehend. We accept that the rate of change and renewal in the country may be too slow. Our policy is not perfect, but it is an honest endeavour to have justice done to the right to self-determination of peoples. We simply ask for more objectivity.

If we are to be condemned for the violation of human rights, we take exception to the selective way in which South Africa alone is singled out. When a morality of human rights is being applied as selectively as this, it casts suspicion on the very principle of human rights as such. It makes it farcical.

Mr. Daniel Moynihan wrote the following in an article entitled “The Politics of Human Rights”, published in Commentary of August 1977—I shall quote a short passage from the article—

I hope the American people, a sensitive people with a well-developed sense of justice, will take note of the way in which the present Administration is applying their policy of human rights in an ambiguous manner. The Philippine Islands which, according to a report of the American Government itself, trample upon human rights, receive economic aid to the tune of $55 million. South Africa is being threatened with economic sanctions. The Philippines Islands which, according to that same report, torture people in their prisons, receive $18 million in military aid. South Africa has to suffer an arms embargo. Mr. Vance’s reply to this is that it is in the interests of the USA to assist the Philippine Islands. Human rights do not enter into the picture. So when self-interest applies, human rights do not apply. No, Mr. Speaker, when human rights are applied so selectively, the concept as a whole becomes questionable.

I want to repeat that we in this Party are not indifferent to human rights in South Africa and for that reason the attitude of the world towards South Africa may never become an excuse for us not to proceed, with utmost diligence and dedication, to create good human relations here and to eliminate humiliating forms of discrimination. In fact, I am of the opinion that today White, Brown and Black in South Africa are, like never before, dependent on one another to protect the free Christian civilization, the basis of our survival in South Africa. For that reason we must find one another and not become estranged. By finding one another, we shall also find the international community again. I believe that our road to Africa and our road to the world runs through South Africa. I also believe, however, that the only basis on which the peoples of South Africa can find one another meaningfully, is the policy of the Government, the policy of the right to self-determination of peoples. Only on the basis of this policy will South Africa and the peoples of South Africa be able to take their full and equal place in Africa and the world.

Therefore I move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

Mr. Speaker, when it was announced that the hon. member for Johannesburg West had been appointed as chairman of the foreign affairs group of the NP we on this side of the House were genuinely pleased. We know him as a modern-minded member who has the reputation of being fearless, and we hoped that in this new capacity he would bring a fresh look to the foreign policy attitudes of hon. members on that side of the House. Regrettably, I am forced to say that today he has not fulfilled that promise. [Interjections.] He made a speech today which, with the exception of an acknowledgment that Government policy is not perfect in all respects, was indistinguishable from the kind of speeches we hear every night on current affairs on the SABC.

One cannot change basic truth.

The South African international position is a very difficult one and it is no use, in South Africa and in this House, arguing and debating the issue through a cloud of emotionalism. If an example is sought, one only has to look at the last general election and observe how the question of foreign affairs was dealt with in order to gain votes at the hustings, without regard to the possible consequences on the conduct of our foreign affairs in the more particular sense. I believe that making the claims that were made during the elections in the manner in which they were made was recklessness of the highest order. I think the time has come for us to take a clear, cool look at the situation as it really is and to strip that situation of all the woolliness, obfuscation and emotional cloudiness which has come to surround it.

There is a growing international literature on the case of the outcast nation. Without wishing to identify myself entirely with this literature, I wish to say that it deserves the attention of every member of the House. It should be read for purposes of critical self-examination, if nothing else. Without wishing to claim any originality in briefly recounting what it is about, I do believe that doing so might render some small service to the kind of debate I believe we should be conducting in the House.

The international literature on the case of the outcast state refers to such countries as Israel, Taiwan, Iran, South Korea, Paraguay, Uruguay and South Africa. In current history these seem to be the outcast states. They are states whose common feature is that they adhere to a value system which is out of tune with the world or with the geographical area in which they are situated. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be that for religious or cultural reasons, or for reasons of development, self-interest or survival, a state finds itself in an alien environment and that it needs to maintain certain attitudes in order to ensure its survival. It is nevertheless a characteristic of the outcast state that it finds itself in such a condition. A further characteristic which flows from this—it is a very common feature, as we have already heard in one speech today—is the refusal by such states to acknowledge that a change of their basic system could help to relieve that hostility. For the umpteenth time we have had the example here this afternoon indicating that although apartheid policies might have something to do with the hostility with which we are regarded in the outside world, changing that system of values and morals would not help a bit because the world would go on gunning for us just the same as before. This is merely a way of saying that one does not intend to change one’s system even if it might help one to survive. It means that one is not prepared to make that sacrifice, that one will not acknowledge that one’s system really has anything wrong with it and that one is going to stick to it even if one dies by the side of it.

Another characteristic is the determination of such states to maintain a static position, regardless of the fact that the world around them is changing. This seems has hard thing to say because we all claim to be aware of changing circumstances, and that we are willing to adapt and to modernize. However, the world around us is changing very rapidly. At times, when one’s own values are at risk or at stake, it is very difficult to change and adapt at the pace of, or in accordance with, the change that is taking place around one. It is nevertheless a feature of the outlaw states that they find it particularly difficult to change or adapt their attitudes to the circumstances which are changing all around them. I shall illustrate what is meant by this. Many of these states were previously a part of a structured alliance system in the classical East-West conflict, and they continue to stand rigidly in that role and to assume that they still belong to that confrontation, even though that bipolar situation, that polarity, has changed into a much more complex system of checks and balances. In other words, one stands by attitudes which relate to a past historical condition and does not adapt oneself to the new system of checks and balances, to the new shift in circumstances with a new spectrum of balance of power which develops. They cannot, for example, understand why their strong domestic opposition to communism is not respected more, is not valued more by their erstwhile allies. They go so far sometimes as to direct that opposition to communism against any opponent who is against their system, to paint with a broad brush as communist anybody who opposes them, thereby to dull the perception of communism and to make it more difficult to fight communism, and at the same time to repel, to put off people who might be prepared to support them because of their attitude, simply because they carry their so-called anti-communist activities too far to be tolerated by their former allies.

How does all this apply to Israel?

I shall come to that. This is a situation which earns such countries, not the praise which they are seeking and which they desire to earn, but condemnation. Now, the hon. member has asked me: What about Israel? The kind of country we are dealing with here is what is regarded as the outcast state. Israel is an outcast state because through circumstances of history it finds itself within an Arab situation in which there is a conflict of interests, a conflict of religion, a conflict of culture, i.e. those situations which create difficulties for a country such as Israel.

What about Somalia?

I cannot go into every example. Israel finds itself in the kind of situation which we are trying to describe here. I shall go on to illustrate some more of the conditions. This is not to say that the situation of every outcast state is identical. There are certain sets of circumstances which appear to apply to them in greater or lesser degrees. I am not trying to prove that the Israeli situation is equal to the South African situation.

These states tend to create an increasingly authoritarian regime in which economic planning and social engineering tend to override basic human values. The benefits which these produce are thought to give proof of democratic progress and of allegiance to the Free World, while the Free World’s hostility to the inequalities created by such systems is dismissed by these outcast states as pure hypocrisy. Again, we have had examples of it today: that if there is a difference of opinion, a difference of value systems, as between such states and their erstwhile allies, the argument is rejected as being pure hypocrisy. One could go on to give other examples.

They continue to rely on the strategic importance of their assistance to the West, but they fail to recognize the dynamic nature of international change in the life of the West which shifts its strategic values, and the changes which the West may be forced to make in order to disengage from the outcasts and to broaden its own options.

What is South Africa’s reaction? I could mention some more of these case histories or examples of similarity which have been identified by the international jurists and political scientists, but I want to get on in the time available to South Africa’s reaction. There is a denial here that apartheid, which is after all a rejected value system in the West, is the fundamental cause, and the argument is put forward here that even if South Africa agrees to abolish apartheid the Blacks or the Reds will persist until they have taken over all South Africa’s wealth. There may be some substance in this belief. It may be genuinely felt that this could happen. But this is also not a proven case, and there is much evidence that the rejection of these values and the willingness to adapt to new situations, might create situations—and there is evidence for this from past relationships in Africa and the West—in which our relationships may be improved very substantially.

There is the principle of legitimacy. That is the question of domestic sovereignty within historic frontiers. Here we have a difficulty with the African countries because, although we originally took a stand on our domestic jurisdiction, on the sanctity of our own frontiers—which is a line similar to that followed by African countries who were also forced, in the post-colonial period, to insist upon the sanctity of frontiers—it is we who are now disregarding that kind of sanctity. In balkanizing and fragmenting South Africa, in creating new independent states within South Africa, we are going against a basic philosophy which prevails in Africa. Rightly or wrongly so, but I am describing a conflict situation which exists.

A third thing I must mention, is that anticommunism as it exists in South Africa is not consistent with the attitude to communism abroad. We are out of line with thinking abroad on this issue. We may be justified and we may even be right in our attitude, but the fact is that communism has taken new forms. There is, for example, Euro-communism in which certain adaptations have been made and where it has become necessary for Western countries who live with communism within their systems to identify certain aspects of communism as dangerous and to try to survive or to co-exist with other forms. They accept, more than we do, a mixed economy. They accept a degree of socialism as being compatible with democracy in a modern state, while rejecting the rest.

I believe that there is a view by our erstwhile allies that Soviet intervention in Africa is essentially aimed, not at a moral target or at subversion of political thought, but simply at the exploitation of unstable areas, and that South African race policies, despite the repression of communism, make Southern Africa such an area, an area where the Soviets are attracted and where they will continue to make trouble.

We have the strategic argument that South Africa is a bastion of the West. Here again I think we must look at ourselves critically. We have based our argument upon the situation of the Cape sea route and we have made our plans on the basis of the significance or importance of our strategic minerals. There has been a change, as we found in the debate earlier today in the House, in the nature of the world energy situation and there is a rapidly declining dependence on oil in general and on oil obtained from the Persian Gulf in particular. Therefore we must anticipate that this particular route and its significance as an artery of the Free World will rapidly decline. If we adjust our international situation and if we want to have fair regard to our relationship with the West, we must not continue to count on the Cape sea route as being essential to the West as the oil artery of the West. The West is learning fast, because of necessity, to do without that artery.

If we stand on De Waal Drive on any day of the week and look down at the harbour below us and see how many tankers are in that harbour or passing by or anchored out at sea, we will see what is actually happening to the oil trade between the Gulf ports of the East and the Gulf ports of America. It is declining rapidly. It is a fact of life which any person can observe with the naked eye.

There is also the question of our mineral resources. These are, quite clearly, of great significance. The point has been made. However, here again we must have regard to the fact that if we make Western countries too dependent on goodwill towards South Africa as the price of obtaining these things, and if their close association with South Africa is in fact too high a political price to pay, then the West, as it has done at other times in its history, will look for substitutes. It will find other ways, other methods and other materials. We must remember the warning of a friend of South Africa, Mr. Reginald Maudling, who was here not so long ago. He has defended South Africa through thick and thin, but he warned us not to place too much reliance on these particular strategic aspects. He said we have to put ourselves right with the West in other ways as well.

In South Africa, however, we listen to all this emotionalism. We see propaganda efforts being conducted to deal with these issues, very often in conflicting ways. In America, for example, which is the most important country in the world, our Department of Foreign Affairs seeks to emphasize and extend common interests. It attempts constructively to create common interests and to place special emphasis on these to facilitate an exchange of information and to create confidence between the two countries.

There is also the Department of Information which seeks to make apartheid look respectable in America, and by making it respectable, to gain the confidence of the American public. It does so in ways which sometimes cause raised eyebrows, to say the very least, in America, the very place in which it is trying to achieve that objective.

Let us also look at the SABC, and particularly at the political broadcasts. If one compares the texts of broadcasts in recent months, one finds a stream of constant invective against America. We cannot be doing all these things at the same time and hitting the same target. We cannot achieve all these things if, in fact, we are using so many different and conflicting methods. I believe it is time, not just to have a look at our opponents and at aspects of our foreign policy, but also in this House, above all, to have an honest look at ourselves. I also think that generally the South African public is not being fully informed of the various aspects of our foreign policy. One finds far more information amongst people who look at these things from abroad and who are interested and are experts in South African affairs. I believe that our public is being very largely deprived of genuine sources of information and that outside interference is being grossly exploited as an element in our political situation.

Why are we doing these things? Why are we emotionalizing our foreign relations? Why are we, in fact, adopting the attitudes we do? To what purpose are we doing these things? There are many positive and constructive things we could be doing. Some have been mentioned in the House today. Our positive efforts in South West Africa and Rhodesia have, in fact, earned us a good deal of credit. We could earn additional credit, however, if we were to pay more attention to constructive co-operation with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, since our relations with these neighbours are not as good as they should be. We should do more in the way of creating stable relations, at the economic level, with Maputo. Any advance towards full citizenship in South Africa—not simplistic one man, one vote or a sell-out, but dynamic change to a more just society—would earn a great deal for us.

Lastly I want to make one brief point. It has become fashionable, in this House, for hon. members on that side to blame this Opposition for the bad name it has abroad.

Yes, that is so.

There they are saying: “Yes, that is so.” I want to tell those hon. members, however, that if this Opposition allowed itself to be intimidated by hon. members on that side, thereby being prevented from saying the things it has to say in criticism of Government policy, the bad name that Government would earn, in consequence, would be far worse than the name it has now. I can tell them that what they are doing is totally counter-productive. They know, as well as we do, that their accusations are not well-founded. They can produce no proof whatsoever that these accusations are true or Opposition criticism harmful. When, for example, the Americans took the action they did in removing Nixon from public office, with all the display of dirty washing involved, America’s image came out stronger because of its determined opposition to political misconduct and in rooting out evil and injustice wherever it may be.

With their whole internal security system destroyed!

I believe that in South Africa active, critical Opposition is the best advertisement we can have to indicate that this is a democratic state which deserves the friendship and support of the Free World. I believe that by taking the opposite line, those hon. members are doing precisely what they fear we might be doing and are, in fact, damaging South Africa’s name abroad, giving it precisely the ugly image they fear so much.

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the motion before the House, it becomes very clear that it is only a general statement. Anyone anywhere in the world may propose such a motion in the Parliament of his country to achieve some object or other. This motion, if we look at it closely, actually deals with internal affairs. It deals with policies and political actions.

I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—he is actually very well aware of this—whether the public at large did not have the opportunity two months ago to give their opinion at the ballot-box on the policies and actions of the Government. What was the result? The hon. member with his meagre majority of only 50 votes, when he was returned unopposed on the previous occasion, may not be able to join us, but we on this side want the outside world, that is going to read that motion, to know what type of person introduces such a motion in this House. Our policies and actions have also met with general acceptance at our congresses. Whatever policies of the Official Opposition we accept, it will only mean a stab in the back of South Africa.

The hon. member for Constantia said that the criticism they levelled at the Government was good for the image of South Africa abroad. If those are not the hon. member’s exact words, it comes to the same thing. The Government has never been opposed to criticism being levelled at it. In fact, this is done daily in the newspapers. I want, however, to point out to the hon. member that the criticism his side of the House levels at the Government is seized upon by the outside world for the very purpose of achieving the dark aims of communism.

That is utterly untrue.

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member talked about literature abroad which branded us as one of the out cast states of the world. However, there is just as much literature abroad which is in favour of South Africa, which says good things about our country and which pleads our cause abroad. Why does the hon. member not quote that as well? [Interjections.] The hon. member pointed out many things that we have to change, but we have always said that we shall do anything that is fair and will promote human dignity in South Africa; that is the way our amendment to the motion is worded. We are still doing that.

The hon. member also said that overseas, communism is not interpreted as we see the picture. However, we do see that picture as well; after all, we do read as well. It is not only the hon. member who is privileged to read what is said about communism overseas. We also read and experience it; we also travel overseas. The communism intended for the southern tip of Africa is completely different from overseas communism. Its objective is the overthrow of authority and order in the southern tip of Africa. Does the hon. member agree with that?

What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mean by saying that our policies should be more acceptable? Why did he not give us a definition of what he meant by that? The points the hon. member mentioned, are not all policies. Restrictions, detention, etc., are not policies, but in fact actions taken for the sake of the security and the human dignity of the people in South Africa. Some of the other actions he mentioned only concerned incidents and we aimed at the promotion and benefit of social trends in South Africa. He talks about discrimination. Is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not aware that the Government has progressed in leaps and bounds towards the elimination of discrimination based only on the colour of a person’s skin? We request recognition for that. It would have been much better if hon. members opposite had stood up here today and spelled these things out positively. Would that not have been far more beneficial for our image than the vague terms hon. members opposite used today?

The hon. members must beware of discrimination in reverse. That may also happen. Some people, political parties and newspapers, go out of their way to do more for the people of colour than those people themselves expect. That can also be much more harmful to the people of colour than the protection and security they receive from the Government. There should at all times be a balance as far as these matters are concerned.

The issue is not one of apartheid or our policy or policies; nor is it one of political actions that we have to change to improve our image—it goes much further than that. It would not have the slightest effect on the onslaught on South Africa if we brought about these changes. I want to repeat—the hon. members pointed out that we are always saying this, but I want to say it again—that complete surrender and capitulation will be the result if the Whites leave here or if they are being undermined.

The PFP and those who are turning the screws in South Africa to change our policy, as they call it, are living in a dream world. I repeat—this has also been said in the House before—that it is our country which our enemies want. They do not want us to change our policies: They want our minerals; they want our country; they want our strategic position; they want the head of the White man on a platter. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Constantia—I want him to listen—has made an allegation here that I want to deny absolutely. He said that we on this side of the House deny that apartheid is the cause of the attack against us. However, what happened at the conference of the Organization for African Unity which was held two years ago in Mauritius? There the council of ministers passed a unanimous motion to the effect that they were not against South Africa on the grounds of apartheid. They said: “We are going for the liberation of South Africa.” That is what these people want. The hon. member should read once again the relevant report of the Organization of African Unity. The steps which hon. members on the opposite side advocate will only lead to the downfall and suicide of the Whites. It would be a shattering blow for the Coloureds, the Blacks, the Indians, and all of us. Nothing would remain of the human rights of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians if we were to do what those hon. members are asking for.

I see my time is passing quickly. I want to deal with a few of the positive aspects. The fight for the world is an ideological fight—we have to tell the hon. members opposite this once again. It is an ideological fight and the West is fiddling while Rome burns. The dangers we are forever spelling out to them are the dangers we are experiencing and facing here. People are not detained in South Africa because they are White, Black or Coloured: It is for the sake of the security of the nation and the security of human rights. What did Mr. Vance say on, I think it was, Tuesday last week? He said that the security of a State should have a higher priority than human rights. That is very true. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout talked about political actions, detainees, etc. The hon. member for Johannesburg West, however, mentioned in passing the 60 000 detainees in the Philippines. Here is another report in which 450 detainees in Ghana are mentioned. Why do the people not talk about the other detainees as well? Throughout the world there are things like the Biko case, but the hon. member does not mention those. Here is an article about “Biko” cases in England and in it they ask that this type of thing should not happen. Cases of this nature, however, are not mentioned.

Let us, however, deal with the opinions of people who are experts in their field. Maybe they are better experts than the people who write the type of literature to which the hon. member for Constantia referred. There was the article about Genl. Daniel Graham and I believe hon. members have taken cognizance of that. He said in this article—

Recently a great American businessman, a Mr. Norris, visited South Africa and made a plea for South Africa. He did not approve of our policy, because he asked that we should change our policy in an evolutionary fashion. However, that is what we are doing. Mr. Henry Ford II and a man from the BMW factory visited South Africa and they said that they were going to continue investing in South Africa, because they had confidence in the country. The previous Speaker of the Bundestag in Germany, Mr. Gersten Meier, visited South Africa as well as he, too, had many positive comments. According to an article he said the following—

He is talking about our policy here—

There is also the well-known Mr. Garry Allen. I believe all those hon. members know him and perhaps they have read his famous book as well. There he talks about a conspiracy. He also refers to our position here and he praises us for that. There was also Mr. Malcolm Thomson, the governor of New Hampshire. These are people who know what our position is. He told us that reports about South Africa are not being honestly represented abroad. There are so many others one can mention here. During the past two or three weeks, reports about statements by Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Durell appeared. What did Mr. William Macmahon of Australia say? He criticized his Government because they were so anti-South Africa and as a result he has lost his post as Minister. There are, furthermore, periodicals like Die Alternatief of Belgium in which the following is clearly put to us—

Here it is put to us very clearly.

This negative motion before the House today is a disgrace to this Parliament. It is a disgraceful motion which has been moved with the specific aim of harming South Africa and hon. members on that side of the House cannot see this. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

Before resuming my seat, I want to put South Africa’s position to hon. members in a very practical way. I think that all hon. members are aware of the television series “Rich man, poor man”. We can demonstrate South Africa’s position according to that story as follows: South Africa can be compared with Rudy Jordache. The enemies of South Africa, like the communists and those who want to bring about South Africa’s downfall, may be compared with Charles Esstep. The five Western countries are represented by the bribed senators, although some of them came to their senses later on, and I hope the five Western countries will do the same. Falconetti symbolizes Swapo and all the organizations of that nature. Countries well-disposed towards South Africa can be compared with Wesley Jordache. If the hon. Opposition also wants a small role in that story, we may compare them with Billy Prescott.

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed that the hon. member for Potgietersrus said he felt that it was a scandal that the motion should have appeared on the Order Paper. I would have thought that hon. members on that side of the House would have taken the opportunity to debate the issue objectively to try and resolve some of the outstanding issues which are facing South Africa. After all, the motion is concerned with policies which are adopted in South Africa and which aid the enemies of South Africa, and I believe we have to accept that we do have enemies who are against South Africa. My problem, in recent times, has been to try to identify exactly who are South Africa’s friends and who are its enemies. When we consider what has happened in Africa in recent years, we sometimes find that our so-called friends are sometimes aiding our so-called enemies. While over in Europe and England last year I happened to read an article in the Daily Telegraph of 26 September. The article was headed “Labour Right warning of Leninist control”. The report read—

It goes on to say, in respect of the congress of the Labour Party which was held about that time—

It goes on to say—

What does this mean? It means that the national executive committee of the Labour Party, which is the Government of Britain, is under the control of Leninist Communists. When one considers that their Foreign Secretary, Dr. Owen, who has discussions on such matters as Rhodesia and South West Africa, must I believe be under the control of the national executive of the Labour Party, one then wonders exactly who our friends are. The Labour Party itself is having a big debate about its party now falling under communist control. This is something that I believe we cannot ignore entirely. One wonders what exactly the intentions of these people are. When we look at Rhodesia, we find that the Patriotic Front, which is supported by the USA and Great Britain in respect of the conflict in Southern Rhodesia, is basically Marxist-controlled.

Let us now take a look at what is happening in South West Africa. Here was a country which held the Turnhalle conference, which was representative of every single racial and ethnic group in South West Africa. They came forward with constitutional proposals, but the wishes of these people are now being frustrated. My question is: By whom? Who are the friends of Southern Africa and of the people of Southern Africa, and who exactly are their enemies?

I would have thought that in this particular debate we would have rather tried to look at ourselves and examine what is happening within South Africa in the hope of trying to resolve some of our burning issues here and in the hope of settling the differences between our people. In this respect I agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg West who said that we are on our own in South Africa. If we are to survive, I believe we have to resolve these problems which exist within South Africa, and this can only be done by means of a consensus between the peoples of South Africa. I also do believe this is the greatest defence against the enemies of South Africa. Our friends in the outside world would also like to see signs within South Africa that we are resolving these problems.

In this particular motion we find the hon. member for Bezuidenhout suggesting that we should like to do away with some of the harmful policies practised by the Government. On the other hand, the hon. members on the Government side are saying that the hon. members of the Official Opposition are the ones who are aiding and abetting some of our enemies on the outside. This has been said many times in the House in recent times.

Is that not correct?

Of course, some of them are correct, though I do believe that some of them are also wrong. So if both parties are both right and wrong, it means, I believe, that the Government is wrong in some of its policies and that the Official Opposition is also wrong in some of its policies.

We in these benches believe there are two pressing problems, two unresolved issues, facing South Africa at the present time. These unresolved issues are causing problems within South Africa, are causing embarrassment to our friends, are confusing and frustrating our friends, and in some respects are aiding our enemies. These two problems are, firstly, the political rights problem within South Africa and, secondly, the problem of human rights within South Africa.

We must accept that political rights cannot, for all time, be denied to the people of South Africa.

They are not.

The hon. member says that political right are not denied to the people of South Africa. The Government may be granting limited rights to the different races of South Africa, but this is not what we would call full political rights. [Interjections.]

You tell us what they are.

I will come to that. We do agree, as has been said by some hon. members in the NP in the past, that political rights are all about political power, and it is political power which imposes upon a country policies which affect our hearths and homes, which affect the finances, taxation and property ownership in the country, and also the well-being and the self-respect of the people of South Africa.

In respect of political rights I should, firstly, like to come to the Official Opposition, and in particular to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What do members of the Official Opposition believe in? They believe in the common society ideal. They believe in the common roll, Black and White on the same voters’ roll. They also believe in a common Parliament for all races. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Is this not correct? Is this not the official policy of the PFP?

It is incorrect.

The hon. member says it is incorrect. This means they now do not believe in a common roll or a common Parliament. It is this type of thinking about the political rights in South Africa which plays into the hands of some of the enemies of our country, those people who are crying out for a system of “one man, one vote” in South Africa which must ultimately lead to Black majority rule. In this respect I believe the PFP is rather naïve in its whole attitude. Those members, I believe, are seriously damaging the Opposition in this Parliament by propounding a philosophy which the majority of the White electorate will reject, as has been shown in the last general election. This could lead to a situation similar to that in Rhodesia, where White politics eventually led to a one-party political system. I think such a system would be wrong for South Africa. In respect of their political philosophy, the PFP, in my opinion, is totally irrelevant when it comes to the political dispensation which must eventually emerge in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is because of this that they speak so much to their outside friends, but I think they tend to confuse people on the outside as to exactly what is going on in South Africa.

I should now like to come to the Government’s policy, the policy of apartheid, the division of power as they call it. This is a policy of total segregation. The division of power is a concept which is accepted by the NRP as part of its pluralistic thinking. South Africa is a plural country and plurality and the philosophy of pluralism must be recognized in the future constitution of South Africa. However, this must not only represent a division of power. It also requires a devolution and sharing of power between the various groups, which means all groups in South Africa, and ultimately also the urban Blacks. It is in this respect that I believe the Government falls short. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said in the past that a constitution of a plural country such as South Africa or South West Africa must have the total support of all the people if it is to survive. We believe this must also apply here in South Africa.

All the talk about plural democracies, however, which we hear from the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations is, we believe, just a matter of playing with words. I should like to suggest to him that when he talks about plural democracies he is really talking about parallel democracies. I say this because lately we have received every indication from hon. members on that side of the House that they refuse to include, in the future South Africa, the concept that urban Blacks must also be included in any future political dispensation. In this regard we in the NRP believe that South Africans of all groups should get around a table, as they have done at the Turnhalle Conference in South West Africa, and agree on a pluralistic constitution which, we believe, our friends in the outside world would understand and which we could sell to them. We cannot, however, sell the apartheid philosophies of this Government to the outside world.

I now want to discuss the second issue, that of human rights. In this respect we in these benches do reach some consensus with the hon. Official Opposition. I do believe that we do when it comes to human rights. The NRP condemns the Government for its policies, and in this respect we do agree with a part of the motion moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I do not believe that we can sell discrimination based on colour anywhere in the world. I should like to ask hon. members in the Government benches whether or not their policies do embody discrimination against people of colour. This is what is damaging South Africa’s relationships with the outside world and what people in the outside world have great difficulty in trying to understand about South Africa, namely that we do have these policies which are so discriminatory against people of colour.

The Government talks about change. Some years ago the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs pledged, in the United Nations, that South Africa would remove discrimination based on colour. Our friends in the outside world, however, would like to see positive signs that this is, in fact, happening. I believe there must not merely be cosmetic touch-up jobs which fool no one, such as the changing of names of Government departments. I should like to ask hon. Government members whether they would answer for some of the areas of conflict embodies in their policies which are causing South Africa considerable trouble in the outside world.

For argument’s sake we can look at job reservation. Is the Government going to accede to the requests or demands by the Confederation of Labour that job reservation must stay? Are they going to persist with this out-dated apartheid philosophy? What about equal pay for equal work? How fast is the Government going to accept that this should become a basic human rights principle in South Africa? What about trade unions? Government legislation denies Blacks membership of the trade unions we have in South Africa. What happens, however? The trade unions insist upon a closed shop system within a particular work situation and, as such, because of this and because it is a White trade union, Blacks are denied particular jobs in a particular work situation. This must lead to Black worker resentment.

We can look at the sports policy as it is practised by the Government. We do believe that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has made some progress. However, what a ridiculous situation arose recently when one of the largest marathons ever was held in South Africa. It received nationwide TV coverage for many hours. When an invited Black athlete from Rhodesia won the marathon, however, his prize including a trip up the TV tower in Hillbrow, he was denied access to the tower. What does this do to our image in the outside world, and how do our friends in the outside world feel about it? Our friends cannot comprehend such contradictions and statements. We can go on discussing many other aspects of South Africa’s Government policy. These are the issues I would have liked to hear debated, issues which are causing South Africa considerable problems in the outside world and which, I believe, are embarrassing and confusing our friends. At the same time, they are aiding the enemies of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—the hon. member whose hate of the White Government in this country is so venomous—according to whose opinion, according to what standards and in terms of whose policy are Government actions harmful to South Africa? Is it not far more a question of a hostile Western world in opposition to South Africa? Is it not a sickly Western world which is doing us more damage at this moment than communist aggression itself; a sickly Western world which has decided to take sides; a sickly Western world which has decided to vie with Russia for the favour of Africa and in the process is throwing overboard all civilized norms and all existing practice; a sickly Western world which has decided to accede to the demands of the liberalists, the terrorists and the Black racists that “one man, one vote” is the so-called solution to the problems of Southern Africa; a sickly Western world which has decided to join Russia in making its final aim the total destruction of Western civilization here on the Southern tip of Africa? Nothing which that hon. member asks of the Government, nor any concession or change effected by the Government, will budge the world from their final purpose.

I cannot understand that the Opposition should blind its eyes to this fact. If it were not so, the Opposition would not have come to the House with such a motion today. But since they have done so, I am probably fully entitled to ask what contribution the Opposition is making to counter this onslaught and pressure on South Africa. Up to now they have not yet told us that in the course of this motion today.

Take away discrimination!

With reference to the second leg of the motion, namely that relating to political actions which bring us into discredit in the eyes of Africa and the Western community, I want to ask the Opposition what real contribution they are making. Instead they are making a sustained attack on the Government in respect of the so-called attitude changes which have taken place abroad. This is unethical behaviour, because by doing so they are trying to conceal the fact that it is in fact the Opposition and its allies, the liberalist, extremist elements of the English Press, that are the true initiators and inciters of the campaign of hatred against South Africa.

Do you mean the Opposition or the Official Opposition?

Surely there are many countries of the world in which the actions, ideologies and policies of Governments aim at depriving millions of people of their identities. In this process hundreds of thousands of people are eliminated, but the international community do not see this. The international Press does not get concerned about it. Nor is it discussed in the international forums of the world. In contrast to this, it is the policy of this Government to recognize and extend the sovereignty and identity of the various nations and national groups in South Africa, and in the process, among other things, the standard and percentage of literacy among our Black peoples has become the highest of all peoples in Africa. Their per capita income is among the highest of all Black peoples in Africa. They already possess more motor cars per thousand than the people of Russia. Their birthrate, due to good hospitalization, good food, good housing, is among the highest in the world. Now I ask: Is that the image of merciless repression or political action which supposedly brings us into discredit in the eyes of Africa and the Western community, or are those the positive aspects of our policy? What is that Opposition, and its allies, the English Press, doing to inform the world of this? Absolutely nothing. They only blacken our name all the more so as to neutralize the positive aspects and the fine image of South Africa within Africa. Let us see how they do so. From now on we must continue to show that the Opposition encourages the hostile outside world to take action against South Africa by way of sanctions, boycotts and the withholding of investments. That they even do this openly when they travel overseas is no longer a secret. In the Volksblad of 3 November 1977 I read the following under the title “PFP het gevra vir druk op Suid-Afrika”—

Shame!

I read further—

[Interjections.] Now there is an uproar on that side of the House. I shall afford the Opposition the opportunity to state their standpoint in this regard unambiguously to the House. I shall put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Would he strongly condemn any person of influence and status in South Africa who encouraged the outside world to boycott us and not to invest here?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says: “Yes.” I ask the hon. member whether he would condemn any person and the reply is “yes”. I want to say at once that I am not referring to the hon. member for Parktown. Is the answer still “Yes”?

Yes.

The answer is “Yes”. The fact that that party changed its standpoint in respect of pressure during the election for the sake of propaganda purposes is not a secret either. I shall come back to that “yes” which they gave me. That party saw to it during the election that their insistence on pressure against South Africa was consistently brought to the attention of the outside world. For that purpose they used the most outspoken Black racist and the biggest enemy of the Whites in South Africa. Because I do not get the Daily News myself, I quote from the Volksblad of 4 November 1977, in the thick of the election battle, which states—

In that way that party saw to it that the politics of destruction aimed at the existing order in South Africa was continually brought to the attention of the outside world, even during the election struggle when they were compelled to sing a different tune for propaganda purposes. Now I ask: What political action does South Africa greater damage than that, because if it is that party’s policy to oppose sanctions against South Africa and if it is their policy to encourage investments, why did they not vigorously repudiate and reprimand Captain Buthelezi at this important time—election time—if this statement had not been issued with their co-operation and approval? [Interjections.]

Let us look at other ways in which they use politics to cause tension within the country and thereby to discredit South Africa in the eyes of Africa and the Western community. In this regard I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I want to ask him: Does he believe, and is it his party’s policy, that the Government should talk to Black people, the community of Soweto, for example, through people who have designated themselves as leaders? I repeat: Does the hon. member believe that the Government should talk to people who have been elected by the inhabitants as their leaders? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, let me put the question differently. Will the hon. member and his party vigorously condemn any person of influence and status in South Africa if he were to incite the inhabitants of Soweto and urge them not to organize themselves into an ordered community with elected leaders? [Interjections.]

What did that hon. member and his party do when, on 29 January, in his hate campaign against South Africa, Chief Minister Buthelezi urged the people of Soweto not to take part in an election of community councils? And why did that hon. member allow his people to repudiate him in this House? Let me quote to the House the Hansard report of the speech made in the censure debate by the hon. member for Rondebosch. He states, inter alia (Hansard, 2 February 1978, col. 355)—

This is therefore a group of leaders which comes to the fore itself—they designate themselves as leaders and are not elected. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member goes on to say—

That is the Government—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rondebosch allowed himself to be repudiated here in the House last Wednesday when the Official Opposition opposed a measure which would have made provision for just this. [Interjections.] Now I ask him whether he is intentionally trying to create the impression that the Government does not want to allow the Black people to elect their own leaders. [Interjections.] This is the kind of political action which causes us a great deal of harm overseas. This is the venom which is intentionally being spread about. I want to say to the hon. member for Rondebosch that many people are still going to die as a result of that venom.

That is not venom. That is the truth.

In conclusion, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what his political motive was for referring repeatedly in the censure debate to this Government’s White majority in the election. Do such statements not constitute a definite and clear message to Africa and the Western community, countries which are at this moment, for the sake of their own political propaganda, adopting the standpoint that a White minority is governing South Africa? Such statements in this Parliament aim at one thing only, and that is to cause tension within the country and to discredit us in the eyes of Africa and the rest of the world. Then I ask what political action—if one weighs the actions of this side of the House against those of that side of the House—will cause South Africa the most harm overseas in the long term? Those actions which play into the hands of those whose ultimate aim is to destroy the existing order in this country, and in doing so, the hon. members opposite as well! That is why I reject the motion they have introduced and why I take pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker …

That is the best speech I have yet heard from you! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be as well if this hon. House were to take note of the concluding remarks made by the hon. member for Constantia. [Interjections.] He said that if the Government and hon. members were to succeed in silencing the Official Opposition, shouting it down, eliminating it, that could be the greatest disservice the NP could do South Africa. [Interjections.] It is common practice in this House, and it was also common practice during the general election of 1977, to blame any criticism from abroad of whatever nature, even if it be done with great verbosity and the utmost circumlocution, on the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order!

If ever there was a case of people running away from the facts because they were unable to reconcile them with their consciences … [Interjections.]

… then this was it, particularly in view of the attitude of the NP towards the PFP. [Interjections.]

Oh, shame!

In every possible case which could have been interpreted to reflect unfavourably on South Africa, the opportunity was seized upon to brand the PFP as un-South African and anti-South African. [Interjections.] Yes, there they are doing it again. [Interjections.]

Order!

The best example of a statement made in this connection which could be quoted in this House, was used in an effort to discredit this party. Now I want to ask hon. members a very simple question. Say for argument’s sake the Opposition were to state that there was a general, universal, worldwide debate on the domestic policies of the Republic of South Africa.

No, I think you did better as a “stormjaer”! [Interjections.]

Yes, along with the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

Say for argument’s sake the Opposition were to say that there was a general debate and that all civilized countries in the Western world took an interest in the domestic policy of South Africa and that it was therefore desirable and permissible that there should be difference of opinion, for example between the American Government and South Africa, concerning our domestic policy, so that there would be joint and mutual encouragement between the two countries with a view to doing what was right, would hon. members then maintain that that was anti-South African or un-South African? [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to have an answer to that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Repeat the question, please. [Interjections.]

Hon. members do not want to listen to the question. I shall tell them what the answer is.

Oh man, you are too long-winded! [Interjections.]

The reply was furnished by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs no more than a week ago. He said on television that it was permissible.

But why do you ask, then? [Interjections.]

In the course of the censure debate the hon. the Leader of the House quoted from what I supposedly said to an American television interviewer.

Did I quote incorrectly?

It was correctly quoted, word for word. What I said there corresponds exactly with, and falls within the framework of, the question I put to the House. [Interjections.] The question put to me by the television man, is …

Whatever you do, do not repeat it!

I shall repeat it so that hon. members can know exactly what the question was: “What is wrong, if anything, with the American insistence that South Africa move much faster towards a multiracial society?” The hon. the Leader of the House quoted that. When I furnished the answer, he quoted it. I now give hon. members the answer: “Because their opinions agree entirely with our own—that of the PFP. I say there is nothing wrong with their doing it.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Parys has already made a speech. He must therefore make fewer interjections.

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the House expressed criticism of a statement I made, but a statement which, in my humble opinion, fits precisely within the framework of what is admissible according to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.] Let us dwell on that for a moment and analyse it, if hon. members will just afford me the opportunity of doing so. [Interjections.] Throughout the world a debate is in progress and everyone is discussing South Africa’s policy. If it is a policy proposal which corresponds with the NP’s policy, it is welcomed, praised and publicized. If it is a policy proposal corresponding with that of the Official Opposition, it is shouted down as anti-South African and un-South African. [Interjections.] That is what has now happened here as well. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg, too, has now made just about his full quota of interjections.

For the past few years the Government has been intimating—in the UN and through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well—that we are moving away from discrimination. This afternoon it was asked what discrimination there was and what we should move away from.

You have moved away from your past.

I ask only one question: On what basis are the Coloureds in South Africa discriminated against? That is a simple question. The outside world puts it to us and people from overseas put it to me repeatedly. I then try my best to explain.

What do you tell them?

I shall tell you exactly what I tell them.

Did you not reserve judgment? [Interjections.]

I say that the Government decided almost two years ago to establish a new constitution for South Africa in order to give the Coloureds a share in the Government of South Africa and after almost two years and after we have fought an election on the basis of those principles, there was absolutely nothing before the House. [Interjections.] There has only been a lot of talk—contradictory talk in many cases—but in reality there is nothing before the House and, according to the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, nothing will come before the House in the course of the present session. Not one of the hon. members who interrupted me so noisily …

We like you!

… can tell me with certainty what will eventually come before the House to prove that there is no discrimination against the Coloureds solely on the basis of colour.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s motion is critical of Government policies and actions on the grounds that they play into the hands of enemies and prevent South Africa from taking a positive place in Africa and the West. I have known the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for a long time. I do not think he is naïve, and I do not think he is particularly ignorant, but I wonder why, then, he moves a motion of this kind. I have come to the conclusion that he moves this motion because he is influenced—and I mean this in all sincerity—by the circles in which he moves, and the circles in which he moves are the embassies of the Western countries. I do not think therefore that under these circumstances he is able to see the wood for the trees. Mr. Speaker, if you had allowed me, I would have liked to have moved an amendment which would have accepted the first three lines of the hon. member’s motion but which would have gone further and have given it more balance. I would in addition have called on the Government to prepare the peoples of the Republic to withstand the onslaught which is being mounted against them and which is aimed at bringing about radical change and one man, one vote, and Black majority rule. I think that motion would then have been worth debating. That would have given it much more balance and would have put things, I think, into their proper prospective. As it stands, however, I do not believe that the motion can possibly be supported.

I believe that for a long period of time Government policies have indeed aggravated our situation in the outside world. I maintain that the word “apartheid” has done South Africa great harm in international circles. I too believe that statutory apartheid has, in fact, harmed South Africa even more greatly and has undoubtedly added to international hostility. I also think that the Government has not emphasized the positive side of separate development. I think that if the Government had thought of the term “separate development” before it thought of “apartheid”, the story might well have been very different. The Government does, in addition, neglect to emphasize the positive aspects of separate development. As a country we have not sold our policy well enough overseas. I think our information services have been inadequate. The Government, however, has itself come to realize that many of the policies for which it stood before are unsaleable today, and that is why the Government has committed itself to the removal of discrimination, or what I prefer to call harmful and unnecessary discrimination.

The Government can well be accused of dragging its feet, and I am one of those who believe that in some spheres the Government does drag its feet unnecessarily and is unnecessarily cautious, but one must admit that there have, in fact, been incredible changes in attitudes in South Africa and that the Government itself has undergone a remarkable change. When I first came to this House I never thought that the Government would endorse the attitudes and policies it endorses today. Things have changed.

The only thing that has not changed is you.

The world, however, is still not satisfied. Not even the West is satisfied. I would say that no matter what steps the Government took, at any stage could one satisfy world opinion! I would say that at this stage one cannot even satisfy Western opinion. The West will not be satisfied. What is it that the world wants and what is it that the West wants? To put it mildly, the West, I suppose, wants radical change leading to one man, one vote and Black majority rule. And if my friends over there think that is not so, there are masses of British and American leaders one can quote who say that this is precisely their objective. Stating it in the worst possible terms, what the world wants of us and, to an extent, what some of the Western countries want of us is the bloody overthrow of the whole political setup here in South Africa. They want an end to White influence and White Government in South Africa. They want war criminal trials and they want apartheid, for example, to be declared a crime against humanity. That is what the extreme elements in the world want.

Let us look at Rhodesia. The policies of Rhodesia have always been quite different from ours, but they are not satisfactory. Look what has happened in South West Africa where the peoples have come together in the Turnhalle and have arrived at an agreement. That is not satisfactory, however, even to the West. Sir, there are countries in the world which are solely bent on breaking White influence in Southern Africa. They want the support of the Third World and their votes in the United Nations. They want nothing to stand in the way of the détente that they want with Russia, and they also, of course, have materialistic outlooks concerning the future of Southern Africa. This is nothing new. The Carnegie Endowment had a study many years ago, with plans to invade South Africa.

That is not so, man!

Owen, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Britain, has jointly written a book advocating a blockade of Southern Africa. The Kissinger Papers are available in our Parliamentary library, and there one can see four or five plans set out, plans indicating what the West should do to alter the situation here in Southern Africa.

Gary Allen!

The hon. member for Constantia has referred to the literature branding us and others as outcast nations. We should indeed read those publications because I think that the mistake the Government makes—and I only have a minute left—is that it is not informing the people of South Africa about the danger in which we stand today. I do not believe that it is helpful for people to talk of a war for survival, to say that we are fighting for our survival, without going into details and spelling it out for the people of South Africa, and to this extent I think the Government is failing the people. It is not taking them into its confidence and it is not telling them just what a precarious situation we are in today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to do two things. He tried to revive the censure motion of his party. But he failed in his attempt; he was even feebler than his hon. Leader in the censure debate. He also tried to conduct a debate on South West Africa by trying to provoke me by saying that the people of South West Africa know what is happening.

The future of South West Africa is being determined by the people of South West Africa. If the hon. member thinks he can frighten me by saying that it is not my duty to inform the people in the territory first, he is making a mistake. I am not frightened. He can say it if it gives him pleasure.

I did not say that.

No one really knows what the hon. member is saying. I have a great problem with him. I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown that at a time when there is real danger for South Africa we should conduct debates of this nature with greater earnest in this House and not come to light here with ill-judged stratagems.

†We cannot debate with the old venom, the old vitriolic approaches, petulance and frivolity. The hon. member is repeating this year after year.

*He came here with the tale that Gen. Smuts had allegedly said that a new era would dawn in the post-war period, that a new world of peace would come into existence and that the separation policy of South Africa was allegedly the real reason for the problems which Gen. Smuts experienced at the UN. That is not true. Gen. Smuts returned from the UN discussions, and when he tried to get the UN charter approved in this House, he said—

That was the basic attitude that Gen. Smuts adopted. I know that Gen. Smuts subsequently returned from the UN deeply disillusioned, and thought that that monster organization might at some time or other swallow up the small nations which did not belong to big power blocs. The hon. member, however, gives an entirely different interpretation to it. He sucks things out of his thumb, and then dishes them up.

I listened to the speech in the Other Place myself.

I am not finished with the hon. member. He said that Gen. Smuts had received support at the UN, and that if it had not been for the Indian question the incorporation of South West Africa would have proceeded successfully. When the hon. member was still a member of the NP, he said—

One grows a little weary of his stories. One moment he says that Britain was the only country that supported us, and the next he says that Gen. Smuts enjoyed general support, but that only the Indian question caused his attempt to fail. Furthermore, he alleged that the hon. the Prime Minister had said that the White Legislative Assembly would determine the future of South West Africa. Shortly after the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister, we compiled the publication South West Africa Survey, 1967, under the guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister. He approved the political section himself. I shall quote from this Survey—

These were prophetic words, which were approved by the hon. the Prime Minister. These prophetic words were written 11 years ago. But now the hon. member comes here and tosses something in from the left to sow suspicion by saying that we had allegedly stated, two or three years ago, that only the Whites would decide about the territory of South West Africa. But that is not all. There is one thing the hon. member cannot escape from. He cannot escape from the fact that he comes to this House without having done sufficient research. He comes here with insufficient facts and incorrect perspectives. He tried to make the House believe that it was only because Dr. Verwoerd ostensibly did not want a Black High Commissioner in the country that we left the Commonwealth. That was not the question at issue. The question at issue was that we had decided that we wanted to become a Republic, and then the question arose, just as it did in the case of India and Pakistan, whether we should apply to join and what formula had to be found in this regard. It was on the basis of that question that we ultimately decided not to submit our application. The fact of the matter is that there was an Indian High Commissioner in South Africa for a long time. The hon. member ought to know that. Once again one sees what kind of debate the hon. member conducts here.

That is not all. I want to ask the hon. member whether, after he had returned from a trip overseas, as he said the following in this House—

Did he say that?

Of course I did!

Thank you very much! How am I then to understand his motion today? I have not been in this House as long as he has, and my senior colleagues must correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the hon. member sat in these benches as an NP member from 1950 to 1959. He had come over from the UP. During the years 1950 to 1959 he enthusiastically supported all the laws and measures which he rants and rages at today.

That is not true!

At that time he stated here that apartheid was not an export product, but that it was a means of preserving security in this country. At that stage I was attached to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Subsequently I entered politics and today I am the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in that capacity I sometimes have quite a hard time with some of those measures which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not only defended, but ardently supported.

That is not true!

Today I have to help undo some of his wretchedness. How can one continue in one’s political career with this kind of attitude to life?

Then why was I kicked out?

The hon. member left the UP because at that stage the UP was too liberal for his inclinations. He then came over to the NP, because the NP, in his own words, had a policy which would guarantee the security of the peoples of this country. Then he left the NP. I do not know what all his ports of call were, but he has not yet completed his political travels: There is one party left, i.e. the HNP!

If one looks at our situation seriously—there is insufficient time for this today, but an opportunity will probably present itself when there will be more time to do so …

Come back to the motion!

If one looks at our situation seriously, one must take particular cognizance of the basic dilemma of the country. There are a lot of other matters we can argue about. We can, if need be, conduct sound debates on discrimination, but then with considerably less venom and irresponsibility on the part of the PFP …

Most of the venom comes from you!

We could conduct a debate on discriminatory measures. We could spend many hours discussing separate incidents which occur in the country and which indeed harm the country—one cannot argue against that. In any event, as far as discrimination which is based solely on colour is concerned, discrimination in the negative sense of the word, this side of the House has stated long ago that it will remove such discrimination. It is indeed part of its programme of principles of fairness and justice to remove such discrimination. However, it is a question of money, a question of time and, let me be frank, it is a question of one’s having to take one’s people along with one.

People like Dr. A. P. Treurnicht!

No, it is not what that hon. member thinks at all. The country consists of people with different points of view, and not only of a group of clever pundits who sit on that side of the House and wish to force their own particular premises on everyone. One cannot blame the Whites of this country for feeling as they do, for if one looks at countries to the north of us on this continent, what does one see? One sees a continent in turmoil, a continent which is in the process of disintegrating. What else does one see? Show me a Government to the north of our country which upholds the freedom of the Press. Show me a country in which a multiplicity of political parties is allowed and in which elections are regularly held. Where are the independent judicial systems which uphold the rights of the individual and the rights of the individual against the State? Show me a country in which there are flourishing cities and economic growth. Show me a country in which lawsuits are brought to court to protect the rights of individuals. On its continent is America, complacent in its security. It enjoys a “balance of power” in its favour, and in the last resort it is able to use nuclear weapons. The White people of this country at the southern tip of this continent, are weighed down by all the turmoil and disintegration that is taking place to the north of us. It goes without saying that the man in the street is afraid that if this Government does away with certain measures in the sphere of separation too rapidly, it will be the thin end of the wedge. He is afraid that we will, by so doing, move so rapidly to the edge of the precipice that we will in this way destroy ourselves in any case. That is the standpoint of the man in the street, rightly or wrongly, but an honest standpoint which I am stating here. We are trying to get through to the electorate, and in our inner circles and wherever we meet, we try honestly and sincerely to see what measures—which regarded by the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asiatics as unfair and as a violation of their human rights—can be reconsidered. Where possible we are giving attention to such measures and we are relaxing or removing them. I am not saying that we have been entirely successful in doing this or that what has already been done is the end of the road, but it is our sincere desire to move in that direction.

But what does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout do? Today he tried to conduct a debate on these matters without taking the historic facts into consideration and without—and I referred to this at the beginning of my speech—taking cognizance of the basic fact of life in South Africa, viz. that there is a White nation of 4½ million people here. The dilemma is that, unless the White nation is removed or eliminated together with the Coloured group, together with the Asiatics and together with the Black minority groups, we shall not obtain the friendship which he wants.

Then why are you negotiating about South West Africa?

That is the fundamental problem, Mr. Speaker. I repeat—I have told him this before, but he does not want to listen, because he has too many questions which he shouts across the floor by way of interjection.

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

No, sit still now! Mr. Speaker, that hon. member referred to South West Africa and he tried to drag in a discussion of that territory. He also referred to Rhodesia and tried to drag in the circumstances of that country. However, he tried to drag them in in a completely different context to the one which is supported by the facts … I almost said “distortion” but I shall not do so. He does not realize what has happened in Rhodesia; he does not understand it at all. What has happened in Rhodesia, is that Bishop Muzorewa, Rev. Sithole, Chief Chirau and Mr. Ian Smith are at this moment fighting for recognition of Black majority-rule to which Mr. Smith has agreed. He does not understand that. He says that we should achieve a positive position in Africa. With what? He spoke of disgraceful policies which make it impossible for us to achieve a positive position in the world. He should also state the opposite of his motion by saying which policies will ensure that friendship. He should state today what steps we should take to gain that position in the world which he so passionately desires. That is the problem with his motion. He cannot get to that point, because he realizes that the policy of his party also falls far short when it comes to acceptance.

I want to come back to the peace settlement for South West Africa to which he referred. He wanted to conduct a debate on South West Africa today in order, by so doing, to provoke me into discussing critical issues. I stated clearly in public that we were still exchanging views with the five Western powers. After all, I do have a certain obligation to the inhabitants of the territory. I have no obligation to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am under no obligation to him to disclose secrets to him so that he in turn can give them away to our detriment as he is constantly doing. I have an obligation to the people of South West Africa, to the leaders of South West Africa and I am discharging those obligations to the best of my ability. In this respect I do not spare myself and I go overseas or to South West Africa whenever it is desirable and necessary to do so. Until we on this side of the House are convinced that we can conduct a debate with safety in respect of the interests of that territory, such a debate will not be conducted. That was the prospect held out by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House. I am not prepared to say anything further about it now.

What is important about South West Africa, however, is to note what is happening after the principle of “one man, one vote” was accepted and after it was indicated that discrimination based on colour would be removed. What is happening? I am by no means certain, in fact, it seems unlikely to me that an internationally acceptable solution will be found in spite of an agreement on those aspects. I am stating this here in all honesty today, because they do, after all, want me to give them my opinion on this matter. That, then, is my reply. In spite of all the efforts we have made, in spite of the fact that Black groups and Black political parties in South West Africa have requested that a sufficient number of our troops should remain in the territory until a new Government has been elected there on the basis of “one man, one vote”, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Black political leaders, Coloured leaders and Baster leaders are asking this of us, it is being demanded and expected of us to take steps to reduce the number of our troops in South West Africa to a level which according to military experts will be lower than the minimum which is regarded as essential to guarantee the security of the people there. That is the position in which we find ourselves.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout simply has no concept of world tendencies. He has no concept of world politics and of the dangerous world to which Gen. Smuts referred in 1946-’47 and which he foresaw. In this regard one is dealing with vast currents, as I have said before. There are today colossal powers which, in accordance with their aspirations, wish to hold sway in the most sophisticated manner in their own interests and to ensure their own survival.

I want to explain the position finally to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I hope he will be satisfied. This time he must listen. When President Carter took office a great change occurred in the USA—whether they want to believe this now, I do not know—a great change in the American conception of the role which Russia plays in the world and the way in which restraints should possibly be imposed on Russia in its desire for world hegemony, as well as of the way in which the problems of Africa should be approached. Within the crucible of new administration reasoning the school of thought is more or less as follows: There is really no place for a White nation on the African continent and such a nation cannot maintain itself against the growing unrest of the continent. That being the case, America is hesitant to associate itself with any form of White administration. [Interjections.] They must not groan, moan and utter strange noises now. Did the American Government perhaps shout for joy after Mr. Smith accepted majority rule? Did the American Government say that it accepted that? We in this House should also reach the stage where we should stop making mere noises, and we should become conversant with the facts of the situation and we should then debate with one another on the basis of knowledge, and with skill, insight and perspective. We should not hurl a stream of vituperation across the floor of this House. America does not at present consider it to be in its long-term interests—I hope and trust that they will alter this view one day—to give any form of co-operation to any White Government in Africa. That is how simple and how elementary the situation is at present. What we should do in respect of Rhodesia—this is what we are trying to do—is to try to create an atmosphere in which the parties, both White and non-White, can come together to find and implement their own internal solution, if possible, with the greatest measure of international recognition so that the sanctions imposed on them may be lifted. It would mean a great deal to the sub-continent if matters could take this course.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, the political leaders of the territory decided that they would accept an election on the basis of “one man, one vote”. They asked us to bring about independence before the end of the year. They asked for the removal of discrimination based on colour. They agreed to the presence of a UN representative to satisfy himself that the elections are held honestly, openly and without intimidation. These requests were all acceded to and we are still hoping that an internationally acceptable solution can be found. The Government, the hon. the Prime Minister and I will go out of our way, we shall continue to exercise patience and we shall continue to lean over backwards to obtain the high priority of international recognition on behalf of the people of South West Africa, if it is possible. However, we cannot make concessions to a point where the territory will, in any event, fall into the hands of a terroristic, Marxist tyranny. Hon. members will surely concede that I am right on that score. However, there is still hope that a settlement can be achieved, and we shall continue to build on that hope. But time is running out. Therefore, we want to try to bring about détente in respect of South West Africa as well.

It is true that we are confronted by serious problems. Our dilemma is that we as a White nation should like to survive. Our dilemma is that we wish to preserve our cultural patterns and system of values, our languages, religion and everything which we consider to be our cultural assets and cultural wealth—regardless of how good or how bad these may be in the opinions of others—and wish to live and to be governed in accordance with these values. Mr. Speaker, we should like to be able to assemble in a House such as this, under the chairmanship of a Speaker such as you, who in fairness upholds the authority of the Chair. It is against that background that I can say to a friend from Black Africa: “My friend, I do not look down on you because your country does not have freedom of the Press, or because you are a one-party State, or because you do not have an independent judiciary. I sympathize with you and understand your position. I sympathize with you because your human infrastructures are still undeveloped.”

I understand the frustration of an African leader today whose ambassador lives in London or Paris and realizes that they have 300 years to catch up with before they can achieve the standard of living of Britain and then sees, moreover, that the Western industrial powers are simply not prepared to help promote the development of his country in any material way. I can understand those frustrations and I sympathize with the people of our continent. I once put a question to a diplomat on the right of a nation to govern itself in accordance with its own norms and system of values.

†I told him that it was his right, that he was entitled to rule his country according to his dimension, the African democracy, the African democratic socialism or whatever he wants to call it, and then I asked him: “May I then, Mr. Ambassador, have the right also just to live according to our values, not White values because we have White skins, simply the values inherited by us and brought to South Africa without any idea of Herrenvolk concepts or racial superiority concepts? May I just have that right for my people, a small people who have also worked hard, who also toiled for the development of their country, who fought for their country?” He said: “Yes, my colleague, but it is a very unpopular concept in your case.”

This is what it is about. These are very serious matters.

*We can speak for days in this House and feed the media even more examples of the unpleasant and unsavoury things which sometimes happen in our country. But cannot we, for a change, feed our media with the good things which happen in South Africa? Cannot that hon. member, for a change, tell the outside world of the good relations between Blacks and Whites which continue to exist throughout this country and which are expressed in the daily lives of our people, of our farmers, our doctors, our clerks, our teachers and our administrative staff? Do I have to make a survey of the hundreds of cases of goodwill that occur daily in South Africa between Coloureds and Whites, Whites and Asiatics, Coloureds and Asiatics, Blacks and Whites? Has not the time arrived for us to walk through our streets with a camera, as I once saw someone doing, to see whether the people in this country hate one another to the extent to which the hon. member wants to suggest? Surely that is not true at all. The truth is that the Black people of South Africa are the most highly developed, have the best medical services, have the highest school attendance rate and probably earn the highest salaries on the entire African continent. Why does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not tell that to America and President Carter? Why does he not tell other countries what is at the root of all our problems? This fundamental cause of our problems is the dilemma of a number of nations which would like to preserve what is their own. I am utterly convinced that a Tswana will not vote for a Zulu, no matter what people say; not because he hates him, but because he wants to be a Tswana. I am utterly convinced that this also applies to the Xhosa and to other Black nations. This is not racism. We must accept this basic dilemma and not wish it away, as the PFP wants to do.

I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that if one wishes to prepare a mess of pottage, one should first remove the stones and unsavoury particles and discard them, and not use them in preparing it. I should like to ask the hon. member to stop doing what he does. In all sincerity I want to make an appeal to the hon. member in this House today to forget his past. He must forget that at one stage he made the difficult laws which I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, must today ask my Government to reconsider. I shall continue with this task, in spite of the fact that the hon. member helped so zealously to place them on the Statute Book.

I want to warn the hon. member that there is a difficult time awaiting South Africa. Sanctions might be imposed on us. The pressure on us is going to increase, and there may even be greater escalation of violence in Southern Africa. In the same breath, however, I also want to say that if that happens, the pendulum will swing at some time or other. If it has to happen that the news becomes worse before it becomes better, I want to say that it will become better after it became worse, for fundamentally there is in our people—the Coloureds, the Asiatics, the Whites and the various Black groups—a deeply-rooted need to understand one another better. It is there. In spite of the pressure which is being exerted upon us from all quarters and in spite of the difficult times, the channels will exist and will to an increasing extent be used to understand one another better in this country. In spite of the increasing pressure and the growing problems and difficulties, I still, ultimately, foresee for this country the most wonderful future when it will extend to its Black neighbours its technical knowledge, its assistance and economic strength to this extent that we shall all collectively form the bastion against Russian domination and aggression so that we, Black, White, Brown and Asiatic, will make our historic contribution to survival. We shall do this because we do not hate one another. They must know that this Government, in its heart of hearts, means well and wishes to do justice to them, as long as we are willing to have regard, in a balanced way, to one another’s.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.