Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I should like to furnish the particulars concerning the business of the House for the next few days. In a few minutes I shall move a formal motion to the effect that the hours of sitting of the House shall commence at 10h00 tomorrow and next Thursday. The object of this is to make two additional hours of sitting available for the discussion of the Sales Tax Bill and four hours of sitting for the discussion of matters relating to the Department of Information.

Tomorrow it will not be possible for the hon. the Minister of Finance to be present in the House. The House will therefore resume the Committee Stage of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, dispose of the Second Reading of the Fund-raising Bill and take, if time permits, the Second Reading of the Social and Associated Workers Bill.

On Friday the Third Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill will be resumed and on Monday precedence will be given to the discussion of financial measures. If problems arise with regard to the printing of Bills, and there is still time available on Monday, the House will proceed to discuss Orders of the Day Nos. 7 and 8, two measures of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. On Tuesday we shall continue to discuss the same two measures. After that the House will dispose of legislation as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we have had an explanation from the hon. the Minister on behalf of the Leader of the House in regard to the circumstances in which this motion has been introduced. Of course, the facts are perfectly correct. In general the Official Opposition does not in principle accept the idea that sitting hours should be extended. I am not talking about this particular case. I think hon. members will accept it when I say that sitting afternoons and sometimes in the evenings places a fairly heavy burden upon members of this House, who have also to do other work during a sitting. I want to say that just as in a court of law justice is not done when the judge is tired, legislation is not passed properly if legislators are tired. Therefore I believe the principle should be maintained that the House should not sit longer than 4, 4½ or 5 hours on any particular day.

Having said that, I want to say that the particular reason for introducing this motion arose from a request from the Official Opposition for a particular time to be made available. I regret it, but I understand that, in fact, it had to be done in this way. I understand that perfectly. However, I want to make it clear that, by not opposing this particular motion, we are not to be taken as indicating that we will co-operate in any way to hasten the proceedings of this House if, in fact, that will derogate from the propriety and fullness of the treatment we give to legislation before the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege to me to refer to the first recommendation of the Select Committee which related to the case of Mrs. Pienaar, better known to all as Wena Naudé. I think most hon. members of this House will be aware that over the past 50 years she has been one of the most persevering leaders in the field of Afrikaans theatre in South Africa. Indeed, I believe I will not be exaggerating when I say that if we had not had people of the calibre of Miss Naudé and others whose names I do not want to mention now in the 1930s and early 1940’s, in other words before the advent of the national theatre organization and long before the advent of the performing arts councils in the various provinces, in the field of the theatre, and in this case Afrikaans theatre in particular, Afrikaans theatre and that very important part of our cultural life would have suffered very severely. As far as Miss Naudé is concerned, I can only say that she deserves this unusual recognition from the highest Chamber in the land and that it is fitting that she should receive it. Moreover, by affording recognition to an individual in this fashion, both by a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee and, hopefully, a unanimous decision of this House, the House is doing itself the honour of coming forward and showing itself to be a body which will promote and protect cultural interests in general—in this particular case, Afrikaans cultural interests. This recommendation adds lustre to this House.

Mr. Chairman, when this matter was before the Select Committee, the Select Committee was unanimous in their feeling that a pension had to be recommended which was in fact recommended in the report. In the Afrikaans theatre Wena Naudé is a household word. Recently we had the privilege of seeing her in the TJ 7 television series on Thursday nights. She has therefore utilized the medium of the stage from the small touring companies to the most modern form of stage medium, viz. television. In this way she has become known to probably the majority of homes in South Africa, and not only Afrikaans homes. We are glad that we can afford her this recognition. We learned in the Press this morning that the news has reached her and we have also learned of her reaction to it. I believe that this gesture would mean more to her than the mere financial value of the gesture in her present state of health, and that it is indeed an exceptional acknowledgement of the pioneering work which she has done for the Afrikaans theatre. We can only hope that this gesture which, it is to be hoped, will become law during this session, will be of special significance to her in this late hour of her life, that it will be a comfort to her and that it will help her for the rest of her life so that she need not concern herself about a livelihood in time to come.

To that I want to add that a pension is also being proposed for Miss Van Coller in this report. She, too, indirectly rendered public service in another special way by assisting her father for many years in the public duties which he had to perform. I think that in her case, too, it is a fitting acknowledgement to someone who has made a silent contribution to the public life of South Africa.

Recommendations agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had four speeches in this hon. House, two from the Opposition side and two from the Government side. It is surprising that although we were debating the same issue, there was a pessimism and a depression noticeable in the Opposition benches, while the speakers on this side of the House were optimistic. Listening to the hon. member for Yeoville, one comes to the conclusion that he is a pessimist and that he has no confidence in his country. He only sees the dark side of the economy. He is a leader among his people and he owes it to this country to project a spirit of confidence and not the spirit of pessimism and depression he conveyed here yesterday. He takes a gloomy view, just like some of the newspapers which support the opposition parties. I just want to quote briefly what the Rand Daily Mail has to say about an issue which I did not feel very good about. The report reads as follows—

It is a pessimistic and bad report and one which will undermine the morale of our people. In contrast to that report, the Citizen reported the following—

These two newspapers reported the same event; one is a totally gloomy and pessimistic report, while the other is a positive report which is encouraging to all South Africans.

Which one is the more realistic?

That hon. member wants to know which one of the two is the more realistic; I can only advise him to read the Reuter report which is completely objective. Then he will find that the Citizen report is the correct one and not that of the Rand Daily Mail. We as representatives of the people, owe it to the people not to concentrate on the dark side of our economy only, but also to strengthen their morale in difficult situations.

The budget which the hon. the Minister presented to the House on 29 March attested to confidence in the economy of the Republic of South Africa. It also attested to confidence in the people of this country. The hon. the Minister’s budget was based on growth with financial discipline. In other words, he did not foresee unlimited and uncontrolled growth, but growth with discipline. This is an idea which appealed to the imagination of the business and industrial world, as is clearly indicated by the latest report of the Bureau for Economic Research, and I quote the following extract—

This opinion poll was conducted by the Bureau after the budget. We all respect and appreciate the reports of the Bureau for Economic Research because they are objective in all respects. That is the Bureau’s verdict. The hon. member for Yeoville maintains, however, that the stimulation by the budget is inadequate; that unemployment is still a major problem and that the general sales tax will depress our economy. In my view we should be deeply appreciative of the hon. the Minister of Finance for never losing his confidence in South Africa, even in these difficult times. This has never yet happened. Confidence breeds confidence, and in my opinion South Africa is fortunate in having such an optimistic, but also brilliant, Minister and a very effective Department of Finance.

Before referring to the budget in more general terms, there are a few issues concerning the Western Cape in particular which I should like to bring to the attention of the House. On 1 June the Citizen reported the following—

The report goes on—

This is important—

This fact is greatly appreciated in the Western Cape and I think it also bears testimony to insight and good planning. I am making this statement in the light of the fact that a statistical analysis of the economic trends by the Bureau for Economic Research indicated as early as April this year that in the first place—

Secondly—

Thirdly—

In the light of this report, it is very important and significant that the major part of the increase in additional spending will take place right here in the Western Cape. It is clear from a regional index relating to unemployment that Cape Town and vicinity is also more sensitive in this respect than other regions of this country. The main reason for that is that the industries of the Western Cape are mainly manufacturers of consumer goods and this type of industry is very sensitive to fluctuations in the volume of demand. It is also true that the economy of the Western Cape is largely based on the agricultural industry, and since this sector is not doing very well this has a negative effect on the rest of the economy of this region. I have already pointed out this fact in a private motion at the beginning of the year.

Moreover it is a fact that it is the Coloured people who traditionally provide the labour for the industries and the agriculture in the Western Cape. Therefore it is also good news for the Coloured people of the Cape that more than 40% of the expected increase in Government fixed investment will take place in the Western Cape. Once again, therefore, I come to the conclusion that the Coloured people of the Western Cape should be afforded a measure of protection against Black encroachment.

I cannot recall any member of any of the Opposition parties making any mention at all of this fact which I have just mentioned.

These are the people who talk about the Coloureds and about what should be done for them day in and day out. In this budget an enormous concession is being made to the Western Cape which will benefit the Coloured people in particular, but we do not hear a single word of gratitude or appreciation for this insight and planning from that side. [Interjections.] Since those hon. members so often try to speak on behalf of the Coloured people, I think it is their duty to bring these positive facts to their attention too and in that way to build the morale of the people. That simply reaffirms one’s belief that hon. members of the Opposition are not concerned with people, but with their own political situation, which is somewhat bankrupt.

I want to state it as a fact that in the light of world conditions, South Africa is faring relatively well. We are receiving reports from other developed Western countries which indicate that the economic prospects there are not good at all. It is reported from London that the British growth rate is decreasing drastically, that inflation and unemployment are on the increase that the company sector is facing the worst year since 1924, that the balance of payments position is weakening and the standard of living will drop. We learn from the USA that due to increasing interest rates, the United States is in danger of experiencing a complete downswing on the Stock Exchange. Inflation in the USA is rapidly increasing and it seems as if the monetary situation is getting out of control. Everything must be done to try to save the dwindling value of the dollar. This is a clear indication that the American economy is not well and that they are experiencing enormous problems.

From Germany we learn that at the coming economic summit meeting in Bonn in July, America could be accused of totally failing in their endeavours to do something for the world economy as a result of that very inability to put their economic house in order. The world looks on America as the great, strong and Western country which can do something to the world economy, but they are failing miserably in their attempts. West Germany itself is struggling to stimulate its economy. During the first half of the year economic development there was disrupted as a result of monetary fluctuations and wage disputes. Unemployment in West Germany remains at a constant high level. It is interesting that five West German economic institutes advised their Government to reduce taxes and, in particular, to move away—and this is important—from progressive taxation and to return to a more proportional tax. If I have the time, I shall come back to this later. All this is being done to stimulate the West German economy.

The examples I am mentioning, are those of the leading Western countries and not of backward and developing countries. Therefore there seems to be a measure of hesitation in financial circles throughout the West.

It is against this background that the South African economy, which is also experiencing a recession, is being stimulated by a very wise budget and by a Minister who creates confidence. In contrast to the many pessimistic reports from abroad, what do we see in South Africa? Already a spirit of optimism reigns among our businessmen here, although there are sectors which are having a hard time of it. We do not deny that, but one need not lose confidence every time one meets with hardship. There are many indications of better days to come.

I have already quoted from the latest report of the Bureau for Economic Research, indicating that there is definitely a spirit of optimism among our industrialists and that only 4% of the industrial sector is not expecting an improvement in the immediate future. I want to quote further from Trends, from their report—

That is not all. Our Stock Exchange, which is a very sensitive barometer, also showed a strong upswing after the presentation of the budget. The general market index definitely reflects a bull phase, in contrast to the American Stock Exchange where the bears are having a ball. The performance of gold is of course very important to the South African economy. It was very encouraging to us to hear over the news this afternoon that the price of gold has risen by another $2. It is becoming more and more evident that the world’s confidence in gold is increasing and that it will constitute an essential part of international monetary reserves for a long time to come. At the former official price of $42,2 per ounce, gold constituted only 13% of the total reserves of the Free World. After the revaluation to the present price, it constitutes approximately 40%. At an international congress of bankers in Munich recently, delegates made it very clear that they do not expect many countries to sell their gold reserves because gold is still the safest investment. Even the Americans, with their faltering dollar, cannot afford to upset the balance on the gold market too much, because their gold sales will have to help them solve their balance of payments problems.

This positive trend to which I have just referred is creating confidence among businessmen and is being augmented by incentive elements in the budget itself. This is appreciated by businessmen and financiers. For example, Volkshandel points out in its April issue that the drop of 2,5% in sales tax on imported goods will result in a considerable drop in prices where it is levied on raw materials. This is of course the result of the escalating effect of lower taxes on imported goods. This will be particularly beneficial for industries using heavy machinery in their production processes.

Reference is being made to the abolition of the surcharge of 10% on personal tax, and Volkshandel comments as follows—

Thirdly, they say—

Now I just want to refer back briefly to what I said earlier in connection with the West German economy and the recommendation by their institutes that for the sake of stimulating the economy, they should move away from a too progressive tax and return to a proportional tax. In the light of that I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the step he has already taken. He should be complimented for the fact that while others were still considering it, he had already done it. The relief afforded in regard to estate duty is also stimulating initiative and is an incentive element in the budget for which there is appreciation. These are only a few examples. It is not only the Handelsinstituut which is taking note with appreciation of the incentive elements in the budget. We need only look at what the Chamber of Mines is saying. Apart from their optimism, which obviously derives from a revaluation of the gold reserves and the new method of gold sales, and the supply of gold to Mozambique, they also appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister opens the door to the private sector to take the lead in bringing about the recovery of the economy. The Chamber of Mines also says the following in its monthly report—

I am referring to all these things to show that we can have confidence in this country and that we should also project a spirit and image of confidence to our businessmen so that it can meet with a response in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member for Malmesbury has received an injection of optimism from somewhere. If I remember correctly, that same member, during the discussion of a private members’ motion earlier this session, repeatedly spoke in sombre tones about the farmers who had their backs to the wall. [Interjections.] Now, however, the hon. member is quite optimistic. He does not understand hon. members of the PFP very well. Our attitude is not one of pessimism. Our attitude is not one of dejection. [Interjections.]

Order!

Our attitude is one of realism, of reflection on the nature and extent of the problems which face South Africa today. It is no good trying to hide those problems or to run away from them. There is no doubt that there are problems. There are tremendous problems. [Interjections.] However, we have to do everything in our power to overcome those problems.

The hon. member for Malmesbury will pardon me if I do not react in detail to all the aspects of his speech. I shall, however, make certain references to it in the course of my speech. Other members of the PFP will also discuss the same subjects.

†Mr. Speaker, we are now approaching the end of the first session of the Sixth Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Your worst session!

This has been a session with some unusual features. [Interjections.] I think it is appropriate to comment briefly on the session as well as on the long budget debate which has preceded this debate. In the first instance this session has been dominated by events unfolding beyond the borders of the Republic, events to the north, and particularly in South West Africa. In a sense, the minds of many hon. members have been outside this House, have been concentrated on the other problem areas which are of such importance to us.

Perhaps the most significant occasion of this session was when, at 16h00, on 25 April of this year, the hon. the Prime Minister announced the Government’s acceptance of the proposals by the Western Big Five for a settlement in South West Africa. Let me say that while the South African Government’s acceptance has not yet brought the immediate and positive benefit which, I believe, it deserves, I believe that its implications are very, very far reaching. We all hope that it will result in a peaceful and internationally recognized independence settlement for South West Africa. However, beyond this, I believe that this action by the Government could open up a new prospect of better relationships, not only with the West, but also with the more moderate States in Africa.

Secondly, this has probably been the first session in 30 years in which there has not been some major legislation introduced which is of an ideological nature. I am sure it is not because the Government has lost its appetite for this kind of legislation. The reason is simply that the Government has already introduced so vast a quantity of ideological legislation in the 30 years that have gone by that at the moment it has simply run out of new Bills of this kind.

What a silly argument for a Leader of the Opposition!

I am just hoping that this phenomenon will not be limited only to this session. Thirdly, this session has to be seen against the background of the concern about growing conflict which is developing within our South African society. In particular, South Africans are watching to see what this Government, with its new huge majority, is going to do to ease the conflict situation in our country. I believe that the hon. members on this side of the House and the general public are entitled to be disappointed, for during this session very little has been done by way of reform to remove the basic causes of conflict in our country.

We have a new hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Plural Relations and Development, if you please!

Yes, the hon. the Minister’s department has been given a new name. It is now the Department of Plural Relations and Development. The new hon. Minister started off very well. Communication between him and a number of Black leaders was encouraging. A five-year plan has been announced for the development of a new beautiful city of Soweto. However, all this has been undone by a single statement that, in terms of Government policy, one day there would be no Black citizens of South Africa.

What is more, this has been undone by the Government’s commitment to demolish the squatter homes at Crossroads.

You should be flattened by a bulldozer!

There have been movements away from apartheid. However, often the impact of such moves has been negatived by the continuing racial absurdities in the administration of Government policy. There have been encouraging progressive statements by the hon. the Minister of Finance and by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, committing the Government to the policy of meritocracy, of judging people on the basis of merit and not on race or colour. This reminds me of Jan Steytler who said in former days that people should be judged on merit and not on colour. Even these statements have been offset by the hon. the Prime Minister’s commitment, his repeated commitment, to a policy of separate development. I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not here now. [Interjections.]

The message was given to the Chief Whip that the Leader of the Opposition would be entering the debate at this stage this afternoon. Had he been here, I would have challenged him, as was done by the hon. member for Yeoville, to enter this debate and tell us whether the two important statements made by front-bench Cabinet Ministers …

May I ask a question?

No, Sir; I cannot answer questions at this stage. Towards the end of my limited time I shall certainly answer questions. I say the Prime Minister should enter this debate and tell us whether the philosophy of that party is now to be that merit will be the determining factor and not race or colour … [Interjections.] We have had a budget which was mildly stimulatory and partly inflationary. It hits the poor more than it hits the rich. There are increased funds for housing, for education and for pensions, but overall, this budget will lower living standards and it will make scarcely any contribution to closing the dangerous wage and wealth gap in our country.

Now that the hon. the Prime Minister is here, may I say that I hope he is going to respond to the invitation and the challenge by the hon. member for Yeoville to state, during the course of this debate or before the end of this session, whether in fact the statements made by his two senior front-benchers, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and the hon. the Minister of Finance, that we must judge people on the basis of merit and not on the basis of race or colour, represent the philosophy of the Government, or whether the philosophy of the Government is still the philosophy of separate development. I believe the Prime Minister should enter the debate and clear the air on this issue.

Last week there was a chilling announcement, not in this House, but outside of it, that in addition to the trials that have been held around the country in recent months, another 67 security trials are soon to take place. This should have brought us back to the stark reality of the conflict situation that is developing in our midst. Some will see these trials as a testimony to the competence of the police. They certainly draw our attention to the fact that over our borders there are people who are ready to train young South Africans who have turned against our society and our system, in sabotage and terrorism. When one looks at the situation from an overall point of view, from a survival point of view, this situation is a reflection of the failure of this Government. It is a reflection of 30 years of NP rule, 12 of which have been under the stewardship of the hon. the Prime Minister. Look at the ages of the people who are being charged and who are being trained: 19, 22, 25, 28, 30, a few in their early thirties. These young people are all the children of apartheid. They have known no other Government other than the NP. They have lived all their formative lives under the impact of the policy of apartheid. We in these benches condemn violence as a means of trying to bring about political change, but our condemnation does not conceal the fact that their recourse to the philosophies and methods of violence and destruction is unfortunately a reaction to the kind of society in which they have grown up.

That is an irresponsible statement to make.

It is the truth, nevertheless. According to Brig. Zietsman, our new Chief of Security, there are some 4 000 more South Africans outside South Africa receiving training in terrorism. There are indications that this group of young radical revolutionaries, or activists, is merely the tip of an iceberg of resentment and discontent, reaching deep into the whole Black community. [Interjections.] If hon. members do not like these warnings in the form of the terrorists and the training that is taking place, let us then heed certain warning signals which have been issued only during this last week. There was, for instance, the decision of the Coloured Labour Party, announced after their federal conference, that they are going to boycott banks who take up defence bonds. They say—

Is this what we are going to see in South Africa? [Interjections.] In this regard I think too of a statement which was made in the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly. I quote from a newspaper report in this connection—

Prof. Hudson Ntsanwisi said—

I think of Mr. Franklin Sonn, a Coloured educator, who said—

Mr. Speaker, I have read out statements by Black and Brown leaders who are still prepared to use the platforms which Government policy has given them, but can you imagine what is being said by other people who are not prepared to use those platforms? In the ranks of the Government there seems to be on occasions an awareness of the potential danger, but we see very little evidence of any sense of urgency to make reforms that will head us away from conflict. Indeed it is ironical that it is the nature of the Government’s response that has encouraged the build-up of pressure and the use of violence in bringing about change in South Africa. To many Black South Africans and to many of South Africa’s opponents overseas the changes which the Government is making today are not part of their own initiative; it is not a new deal which the Government is initiating, but it is seen by them as a response to pressures which other people are applying. What we need today is not just a retreat from apartheid under the impact of pressure. What we want from this Government is a new initiative, a new start, a positive plan for the survival of all South Africans. We want a new vision …

And a convention.

We will come to a convention as well.

A convention with Motlana?

We want a new vision for the future. This is what we have looked for during this session. This is what I believe a concerned public has looked for. This is what they have looked for in vain. We in the Progressive Federal Party have a plan. [Interjections.] It may have its imperfections. During the course of this session we in these benches have dealt with aspects of the plan. We believe it is appropriate that during the final debate of this session we should spell it out in a comprehensive way. A military machine, an efficient Police Force and a strong economy may be invaluable assets in a time of crisis, but we believe that in the end our survival—I stress that word—in South Africa will depend more than anything else on the degree of unity that there is amongst our people and on the extent of their loyalty to South Africa. That is the basis of survival in South Africa.

Is that a new thought?

It is for this reason, as I have said before, that we cannot go into the future as a divided people. To achieve unity and to ensure loyalty, we know that we must create the kind of society which all South Africans will want to defend, for which all South Africans will want to work and, if necessary, will be prepared to die. They will only do this if this society recognizes and accepts them as full members, as full citizens, with all the rights, responsibilities and obligations that go with this concept. We say that full citizenship is fundamental to any plan for survival in South Africa. It is on this concept of full citizenship that we in the PFP base our policy for the future of South Africa. Yesterday my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, in telling phrases, spelt out the PFP’s plan for survival in the field of our economy. During the course of this debate I and colleagues of mine will deal with other aspects of our national life. I want to concentrate on the political and constitutional fields.

Let us look at the problem of the political and the constitutional fields. If we are going to achieve this unity—and I suspect that there is a desire for unity in spite of the policy of the National Party which drives people apart—in the political field, if we are going to promote this South African loyalty which transcends racial and ethnic barriers, we must evolve a constitutional system in South Africa which will enable all citizens to participate in the decision making at all levels of Government without the fear of domination of one group by another. I believe that that is fundamental if we are going to look for constitutional dispensation, for the future. [Interjections.]

Let me say quite frankly that, in dealing with this problem, there is no point in running away, as the hon. the Prime Minister and the other members on that side of the House do, from the issue of power sharing or of joint decision making. The Government may be able to satisfy the political aspirations of a relatively small section of Black South Africans through independent homelands at the risk of future conflict, but it is the areas of common interest and not separate areas that are growing in size and importance in South Africa. There may even be a few peripheral fields of government that could be administered on an ethnic basis, but we all know in our hearts that all the important areas of power, all the important areas of government that relate to the survival of South Africa— Finance, Defence, Police, Labour, Communications and Economics—affect all South Africans equally whether they are Black, White or Brown.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he can name any single Black leader of importance with whom he has come to an agreement as far as these matters are concerned?

I would say that not only Black leaders of importance but that any Black or White South African with any common sense will realize that this is the truth.

Answer the question.

It is only common sense. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he has discussed this with Gen. Magnus Malan and the Military who time and time again say full citizenship, loyalty, unity …

Why do you not answer my question?

Because it is a ridiculous question. That is why. However, I shall deal with Black leaders in the course of my address. [Interjections.]

In its new constitutional proposals for Coloureds, Whites and Asians, the Government has accepted the principle of power sharing, but it runs away from it in practice. What is important is that the Government stubbornly refuses to accept the concept of power sharing for Blacks, even for the non-homeland Blacks who live permanently in our cities. We believe that this is to run away from the realities.

May I ask you another question?

In a minute. Let me just finish what I am saying. The Blacks are as much part of the South African power structure as are the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites. Their power will not be eliminated by shutting them out of the country’s constitution-making institutions. Such an exclusion will merely invite them to express their power in an unconstitutional way, and by doing this the Government is adding to the conflict situation and threatening the stability of all South Africa. If we want peace and stability, it is not a question of whether we should include the Blacks in the political structure of South Africa, but how we are going to do so. That is the issue: Not whether, but how.

Let me look at the PFP’s policy in this regard.

May I now ask you a question?

Yes, certainly. May I just ask whether, by arrangement, the Chief Whip will allow me more time seeing I have to answer questions?

Do not be silly. Either you answer or you do not. [Interjections.] Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition name us any single Black leader with whom he has come to an agreement as to how to share power according to his policy?

Mr. Speaker, we have not come to agreements. We have formulated our own policy. But let me speak to the hon. the Prime Minister on this. He says that he negotiates from time to time. He must tell us what areas of his policy are negotiable. We will then tell him what areas of our policy are negotiable. Let me just put our policy. I do not want any misunderstanding about what it is. We believe that our present unitary system of government with its sovereign central Parliament and its winner-take-all approach is totally unsuited to the needs of a complex plural society like South Africa. We reject the concept of a unitary system of government with a single central sovereign Parliament. A unitary system resulting in simple majority rule might work effectively in a country with a homogeneous population and a long history of democratic government. However, in itself it is no guarantee of democracy or of fundamental human rights. A system which concentrates total power in the hands of a party or a group that can command a simple majority in Parliament we believe constitutes a danger to the rights of individuals and exposes members of minority groups to political dangers which they simply are not prepared to accept. That is the reality of South Africa. Therefore we reject the unitary system. Instead we believe in a federal system of government in South Africa.

First of all, let me say that there are four essential features which are essential features in our constitutional model. The four essential features are firstly, a decentralization of power on a geographic basis to States which will have a high degree of self-government. Secondly, there will be a separation of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Thirdly, a limitation of power will be effected by means of a bill of rights and a strong independent judiciary guaranteeing the rights of individuals and groups. Fourthly, there will be the sharing of power through an entrenched federal constitution. The PFP has a detailed constitutional blueprint which serves as a model. I will call it no more than a model …

Has it been published?

Yes, I shall read it out to you today. It serves as a model of how the principle of sharing of political rights without the domination of one group over the other, can be achieved in practice.

*Mr. Speaker, let us look for a moment at the model of the draft constitution of the PFP. What does this model look like in broad outline? In the first place there is the new federal Republic …

Do you not want to borrow Bill’s little spheres?

The federal Republic will consist of a number of states, each of which has the maximum legislative, executive and judicial powers. In addition to this there is a federal government that will only have such powers which are of an essentially national nature. That will be the general structure of the bodies within that federal Republic. [Interjections.] In the second place the borders of the states within that federation will be determined with regard to the interest of groups, regions and other aspects.

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

There will be an opportunity for questions later. Today there are autonomous and semi-autonomous areas in our country. We feel that these areas can best be accommodated within a federal or a confederal relationship with the rest of the Republic. [Interjections.] However, when a referendum indicates that the majority of the inhabitants of that area prefers independence, we shall recognize such a desire. Such a recognition, however, will be subject to three conditions. In the first place there will be no forced removal of people. In the second place realistic boundaries will have to be determined to the satisfaction of both the Republic and such states.

In the third place no South African citizen will, as a result of this, be deprived of his South African citizenship without his personal permission. We shall recognize the independence of such a state subject to those three conditions.

Let us consider the federal Parliament. The federal Parliament will consist of a Senate and a Federal Assembly with equal and co-ordinated powers, with the proviso that the Senate shall only have delaying powers as far as tax bills are concerned. There will be a constitutional dispensation to resolve the deadlocks between the Senate and the House of Assembly. Furthermore the Senate will have—the power to reject or confirm senior federal appointments. And the Federal Assembly within each state half of the seats allocated to that state will be elected on the basis of proportional representation of parties by all citizens with basic literacy.

What is that?

Four years of ordinary education is an acceptable level of basic literacy. In the second place the other half of the seats allocated to the state will be elected on a constituency basis by voters who have attained the required level of education or who were registered at any other stage as a voter for this Parliament. The requirement will be 10 years education up to Std. 8 or similar vocational training, because we are committed to the introduction of compulsory free education for every citizen of the country up to the Std. 8 level.

The Senate will be the watchdog of the various groups and the interests of the states. Within every state the senators allocated to that state will be elected according to proportional representation of parties which are represented by the members of the Legislative Assembly of every state. Every senator acting on behalf of a group or a state can, by way of a senatorial petition, refer any alleged infringement of the Bill of Rights to the federal court of appeal.

†A Bill of Rights, written into the constitution, will not only protect the rights of individuals, equal rights and the protection of the law, but will also make provision for the rights of groups and, in particular, the group identifiable by virtue of race, colour, language or creed, and will afford protection against oppression by legislative or executive action. The federal appeal court, in proceedings based on an alleged breach of the Bill of Rights, may order that the views or wishes of a group or of a state be determined by way of a referendum in such matters as the courts may order.

Tell me, when did you have this nightmare?

Amendments to the constitution, as is necessary in the care of any rigid constitution, cannot be passed except by a three-quarters majority of the House of Assembly and the Senate. In regard to matters which would affect or diminish the rights of a state, a three-quarter majority of the state legislature will be required.

This is a model of how one can achieve this balance between the extension of the franchise on the one hand and the safety of minorities and groups on the other hand. This constitutional model, which will be examined …

What does Motlana say about that?

I shall deal with Motlana right now. This constitutional model will be examined and, if necessary, updated by the PFP’s standing committee, because we realize that we are living in dynamically changing times. There is no political party in this country or in the House which can claim to have the final solution to our constitutional problem.

Dr. Motlana, chairman of the Committee of Ten in Johannesburg …

May I ask you a question in regard to the constitution?

When I have finished. I believe that Dr. Motlana’s speech in Benoni last Wednesday was a very important speech, articulating the areas of agreement and the areas of disagreement as seen by somebody who is representative of the modern people of Soweto. Dr. Motlana expressed views which differed with various elements of the PFP’s constitutional model. Quite frankly, I would have been surprised if he had not. I think it is important that one should look at what he said.

Firstly he rejected what he called the qualified franchise and was in favour of a full franchise for all South African citizens of 18 years of age and over. If the qualified franchise is seen as a device for maintaining elitism or if it is seen by some as being a device to maintain White minority control of the political system, then I believe it deserves to be rejected, but if it involves the use of an educational attainment as a regulator of the evolutionary process to full participation of all South Africans in the Government of their country, then I believe it is a mechanism— there may be others—which should be seriously considered by all people who are concerned with peaceful change, from apartheid to full citizenship in our country.

Secondly, Dr. Motlana rejected the fragmentation of South Africa in favour of aunitary State. This is an understandable response from a South African who does not want to lose his citizenship or his birthright as a South African through the Government’s policy of making nations independent and then linking these independent nations with inadequate and non-viable independent homelands. Dr. Motlana has made it quite clear that he does not reject federalism as a concept. He makes it quite clear that he called for majority rule in a united South Africa. He said—

Thirdly, Dr. Motlana rejects Black majority rule, but is in favour of majority rule, which in his opinion could include a White Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Hon. gentleman over there can laugh, but I think occasionally the views of an important Black man should be expressed and listened to in this House. I believe his rejection of the racist concept of Black majority rule is both welcome and refreshing. Having said this, I should like to state that in a deeply divided society a society with many diverse elements, simplistic majority rule is no guarantee for non-discrimination and no guarantee of fundamental human rights. So we in the PFP do not accept that simplistic approach to majority rule. We believe in the sharing of power, rather than the simple majoritarian philosophy of “winner takes all.”

Fourthly, Dr. Motlana rejected guarantees for the rights of groups in favour of guarantees for the rights of individuals. This, once again, is the reaction of a Black man to the Government’s labelling of every South African according to his group association and then using this group label to determine this South African’s social, economic and political rights. The PFP does not agree with Dr. Motlana’s view on this matter. While it could be argued that citizens enjoy rights as individuals, it is undeniable that experience around the world, and in South Africa, shows that citizens can be discriminated against because they are members of a group. For this reason it is important to incorporate in a constitutional system for South Africa both safeguards for individuals and for groups. This is an essential component of any constitutional system for South Africa.

These are things which Dr. Motlana said about constitutional policy. They were blunt and forthright, and who would expect any Black leader of stature to water down his standpoint in the face of the uncompromising attitude of the Government? I should like to read two quotations to the House. Dr. Motlana has explained his attitudes, the maximum bargaining point which he would make at the negotiation table, in these terms—

In other words, Dr. Motlana states there that this will be his stance in a pre-bargaining situation. I think we should understand the Black man’s view on this. Dr. Motlana’s stance is not much dissimilar from an attitude expressed by Mr. Steven Biko when giving evidence in the Saso trial in Pretoria eighteen months ago. I quote from the court record—

Mr. Speaker, we must realize that we must meet somewhere in the middle.

But, what is important about Dr. Motlana’s speech is that he said in unmistakable terms that there are Black South Africans who, whatever their frustration and resentment may be, still want to sit down and negotiate with White Africans on the future of this country. That is the basic message which comes across.

I know that there are people who do not see any real protection in constitutions. Perhaps there are some hon. members on the other side of the House who think so.

Of course.

If this is so, then what the blazes is Mr. Smith up to working for an internal settlement in Rhodesia? What is Mr. Dirk Mudge wasting his time for in Namibia with the encouragement of the hon. the Prime Minister, if constitutions give no protection? Why is the Cabinet wasting time and money setting up a new political dispensation for Coloureds, Whites and Indians, if constitutions cannot provide viable protection for minorities and individuals in a plural society? It is true that constitutions cannot defy the realities of a country’s situation. Constitutions cannot impose consensus on a deeply divided society. They cannot function effectively in a conflict situation. When they are devised by one section of the community and are then, by that one section of the community, imposed on the others, they will fail. This is the essential weakness of all the Government’s constitutional plans. However, when constitutions are the result of negotiation and when they reflect agreement which has been reached, we believe they provide the indispensable framework in which orderly government can take place. The essential weakness of all the Government’s plans is that they are not the product of negotiation and not a reflection of agreement. They are part of the conflict situation and not a solution to it.

In the long run the security of minorities obviously does not lie just with constitutions. It lies in reaching agreements and consensus. The safety of minorities lies in negotiation with the majorities in that country and in a society in which all South Africans can share. We shall not be able to head off conflict, nor shall we be able to reach agreement between Black and White, if we continue to absolutize race or colour in the constitutional structure of South Africa. Therefore our task in framing a new constitution must be to seek common ground across the barriers of race or colour, to minimize the differences and maximize the common interests, whether they be economic, cultural or religious. It is for this reason that throughout the session we in these benches have been calling for reform towards a just and shared society, not just because it is right, but because it is essential if we are going to be able to reach agreement with our fellow Black South Africans. It is for this reason that we have in the censure debate moved a motion calling on the Government “as a matter of urgency to request the State President to appoint a comprehensive Constitutional Commission to investigate and report upon a new and just constitutional system for consideration by a National Convention representative of all sections of the South African community”.

We did so in our sincere conviction that unless we Whites start negotiating now, we run the risk of the gulf between Black and White in South Africa widening until one day it will become unbridgeable. The hon. the Prime Minister has consistently rejected the concept of a national convention. He claims, however, that he does negotiate. But if negotiation means anything, it must indicate a willingness to make concessions, otherwise it is meaningless. We have said what is not negotiable. For us full citizenship for all South Africans and the protection of individuals and members of groups are not negotiable.

If you have full citizenship, why can you not have “one man, one vote”?

The manner in which one can achieve a constitutional model is negotiable.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether, in respect of his so-called negotiations as far as the Blacks are concerned, land is a negotiable factor, land in excess of the 1936 settlement. Is it or is it not a negotiable factor? Secondly, is the issue of citizenship, permanent citizenship, an issue which is negotiable as far as the hon. the Prime Minister and the Blacks are concerned? Is the question of the urban Blacks’ participation in the South African political structure negotiable or not? I ask these three simple questions, and they sit “stumm” silent and zipped. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether, as far as the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned, the number of representatives in the electoral college which is to elect the State President, is negotiable. Is the number of members on the Council of Cabinets negotiable? Is a share in the sovereignty on matters of vital concern to the Whites, but also of common concern to Coloureds and Asians, negotiable? I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is negotiating. He is trying to force other people to accept his terms. If he is not doing that, he must tell us what the areas of his policy are which are negotiable as far as he is concerned.

In conclusion I want to say that as an Opposition we shall do what we can, but we believe that the Government must start the negotiating process itself. As we in South Africa move into the future, we shall come to realize more and more that the choice before us is no longer, as hon. members on that side of the House would have it, a choice between apartheid and a shared society. The choice before South Africans—and let me say that this applies to Blacks just as much as it applies to Whites—is going to be between negotiation and settlement on the one hand and conflict and violence on the other. This is the essential alternative. The harsh reality facing this Government and this House is that after 30 years of NP rule we are no nearer a solution; indeed, in many ways we are closer to conflict.

There is another problem facing South Africa and this Government in particular, and this is that over the past 12 years the hon. the Prime Minister’s pragmatic adjustments away from apartheid towards an integrated society have undermined the credibility of separate development as a viable policy for resolving conflict in South Africa. I say to the hon. the Prime Minister: You have destroyed a vision which was once held by the NP. I do not mind that, but you have put nothing in its place. The hon. the Prime Minister, by his pragmatic breaking down of apartheid and not putting a new philosophy in its place, has given rise to a situation where the NP, having once been a party of idealists, is now a party of youthful sceptics and aging cynics.

The survival of South Africa, we say again, depends more than ever on the Government’s willingness to sit down with the authentic elected leaders of the Black, Coloured and Asian communities and agree on a new basis of government for the future.

Why do you not get someone to write you a better speech?

Even if the Government refuses to accept this challenge, we in the PFP shall continue, within the limitations placed on us as an Opposition Party, consulting, conferring and negotiating with Black and Brown leaders in South Africa, those leaders who share our commitment to work for peaceful change towards a South Africa free from discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. We in these benches who at this moment bear the responsibility of opposition, will carry on preparing for the day when the policy of apartheid finally collapses, and collapse it will, so that South Africa will have a viable alternative, a viable basis for co-existence for all of the citizens of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is something quite pathetic, a tragedy, which is being enacted here: That a man of the stature of the hon. the Prime Minister should listen to such a Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised 11 points. He had a written speech. Sir, we are still proud of our politics. But every matter to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, was dictated to him by his English Press and by his advisers. [Interjections.] He began by taking a turn through South West Africa and discussed the settlement with the five Western powers. After that he spoke about “conflict within South Africa”. Then he spoke about the squatters. Finally, he asked the question: “Is NP policy still a policy of separate development?” Of course it is! Nor is it for myself that I want separate development. I want it for the Tswanas, to mention one example. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the Tswana in Bophuthatswana cannot bear to think that they should be governed by a Zulu. They are asking for separate development.

Nonsense!

Of course, it is so! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition rejoices at reports of uprisings and terrorist activities. His soul delights in it, just like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. They enjoy making use of such negative things with the object of getting somewhere along the political road. The hon. member spoke about race classification. I shall come to his policy in a moment. He spoke about the legislation relating to mixed marriages, which they will abolish, and also about race classification, and he said: “I shall give full citizenship.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must now reply to a few basic questions pertaining to his policy which he has now tried to explain for the umpteenth time. If he abolishes race classification, if he has abolished mixed marriages, if he has granted “full citizenship rights”—that is his policy, as he has explained—where does he draw the line? Can a Black man then be granted full proprietary rights and residential rights and move into Sea Point and Houghton?

Yes.

Can he go and live there to the fullest extent? [Interjections.]

Yes.

Will there be absolutely no impediments? If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition extends the line all the way through, as far as their policy is concerned, surely there is no impediment to that. [Interjections.] Now there is another question I want to put. It is now the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for Houghton … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, could I just ask the hon. the Minister whether he realizes that there is already a considerable number of Black people living in Sea Point and Houghton? [Interjections.]

I do know that. However, they do not have permanent citizenship. [Interjections.] They do not have permanent citizenship.

*What I should like to know, however, is this. If it is the standpoint of every hon. member of the PFP … [Interjections.]

Tell us about the Immorality Act!

If it is the standpoint … [Interjections.] Is it also the standpoint of the hon. member for Constantia?

Talk about the butter shortage instead!

Tell us about the Immorality Act! [Interjections.]

Our standpoint in regard to the Immorality Act has repeatedly been made clear. The Black man is not asking for the abolition of the Immorality Act. I also say that we cannot abolish that Act. [Interjections.] In any case, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a long speech, and ultimately arrived at “group rights”. Oh well, can one believe it? Can one believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is even now talking about “group rights”? Is that the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton as well? Does she also agree that the question of “group rights” should be discussed? [Interjections.] The hon. member has never thought of talking about “group rights” before. [Interjections.]

I just want to refer quickly to a few of the things the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. He also spoke about how his States will be constituted. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the boundaries of his State would be determined after consultation. Now, of course, he is going to consult Gatsha Buthelezi about the boundaries of KwaZulu. We must remember that KwaZulu has 5 million people. Therefore it means that Buthelezi have to be given the whole of Natal. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to give him the whole of Natal?

He does not want to be separate.

Of course not! [Interjections.]

Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated clearly that he would negotiate on the boundaries.

The difference is that we shall negotiate, while the NP will dictate! That is the difference.

Listen! That is the new leader of the PFP speaking! [Interjections.]

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, it is really tragic and pathetic. Those hon. members have come forward with a policy. However, they do not take note of the possible consequences of their policy. What are these consequences? One consequence will be that that little party will simply disappear. It is not practical politics which they are preaching. They are being dictated to by people who do not stand with both feet in South Africa, people who do not know our circumstances. If those hon. members would just for one day stand with their feet planted firmly on the ground and think for themselves, if they would ask themselves whether those proposals of theirs are practical and capable of being implemented! I wonder whether they know that the voters are laughing at them. Secretly the voters are laughing at the PFP. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must pray that we do not hold another election tomorrow. He will then have gone for a loop.

He will cry again. [Interjections.]

If we were to apply the proposal which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made today … Actually I do not understand very clearly what he really has in mind. I am certain that, if we were to ask each hon. member of the PFP individually how they interpret what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, they will, so help me, not know themselves. [Interjections.] What I actually want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is whether what he has in mind amounts to the same things which have just been proposed by the Whites in Rhodesia. Is that what his proposal will ultimately amount to?

Surely they do not have a federal system in Rhodesia?

Very well then. However the Rhodesians have conceded in all respects. My conclusion is just this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party are suffering from an inferiority complex. Because they form part of 4,5 million Whites, they have already decided that they do not have a snowball’s chance in this country. They have already thrown in the towel. However, that is not what the Rhodesians did. What did we do in South West Africa? We accepted the proposals of the five Western powers as they stood. We did what those people asked us to do. They asked us to accept their proposals, and we did so. But, Sir, what does the world want? We are simply wasting time with all these things, because the world does not want them. The world wants the communist, Marxist idea to prevail. They want Swapo to govern. That is the wish of the world.

Who is “the world”?

I mean the world, with the exception of the five Western countries which do not want to adopt a standpoint. It includes America. Now Carter is beginning to realize that things are going too far. Just look at the case of Rhodesia. There is no Immorality Act there. There is no Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. There is no such thing at all as separate development. In Rhodesia there is no race discrimination or group areas. [Interjections.] All these things have been done away with in Rhodesia, but Rhodesia cannot satisfy the world. In South West Africa we want to give everyone the franchise so that everyone can have the right to vote. Has that produced any results? What have we achieved with Swapo? Just think of what Dr. Motlana said. The hon. member tried to camouflage it, but he is naïve. I quote what he said—

Those were the hon. member’s words.

Those were his words.

Those were your words. Just now you said: “Motlana is for majority rule. ”

He was quoting Dr. Motlana.

But he believes him. [Interjections.] What is going to happen to minorities in this country under that party’s policy? Let us forget about the White man for a moment, because they have sold out the White man a long time ago. What is going to happen to the Indians and the Coloureds in this country?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister say that we have sold out the White man? [Interjections.]

Order! This is said by one party of another and vice versa and in the process reference is made to their policies. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, those hon. members are ensnared in an ideology which is being dictated to them. Those ideas do not emanate from this nation. If anything is said in one of their English-language newspapers today, it is repeated in a week’s time by hon. members opposite. With reference to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I want to say that I am extremely disappointed that this side of the House should ever have disparaged Sir De Villiers Graaff. He was a hundred times better than that hon. member. It was a disaster which has overtaken South Africa that one now has to discuss politics with that type of opposition leader. Where were the days of Sir De Villiers Graaff! At least he understood the basic premise that we do not want to play one group off against another. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout rejoices in his heart of hearts when something like the death of Biko occurs.

That is a disgraceful thing to say!

He is not sorry; he enjoys it.

I am very hurt for my country’s sake. [Interjections.] Where is the hon. member for Yeoville? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was frequently interrupted, and the Minister, too, has up to now been interrupted many times. I think this has now gone far enough. Hon. members on both sides must please continue the debate more calmly now.

I appreciate your ruling, Sir. I just want to tell you that the Black, the Asian, the Coloured people and I trust the hon. the Leader of the Opposition just as far as we can see him. I am not interested in him in the dark. The sun must be shining very brightly when he talks to me! [Interjections.]

Order! What does the hon. the Minister mean by that?

Sir, I mean that I do not think the hon. member can be trusted with my future. [Interjections.] There are certain things that I am very concerned about. From time to time the Official Opposition exerts pressure on us to narrow the wage gap in this country, and I am in favour of that. While we are dealing with this debate, I want to tell these hon. members that we have already narrowed the wage gap in this country and that we are still going to pay for that in future. We must not wrest things out of context. There is a situation developing in this country which is making me feel uneasy, and that is mechanization. I find increasingly in the industries, and even in agriculture, that there are thousands of people walking around in this country without a job.

There are many of our industries which cannot afford to pay a person R5 per day, plus food and accommodation. On the scale on which we are now mechanizing, unemployment in this country is going to increase tremendously. On Saturday I was standing by when a Black man asked someone: “Give my only R150 per month to drive your truck. I cannot find work anywhere. ”

At Royal Dairy the other day I saw radar-controlled electrical equipment being used to wash milk bottles. Even the one person who worked as supervisor on that floor is now being eliminated when it comes to washing the bottles, filling them with milk and sealing them with caps. Everything is being mechanized.

On the Railways we want to save labour in every respect by means of containerization. In agriculture aircraft are used to spray pesticides. There is no longer any opportunity for a person to do pick and shovel work. We are mechanizing because we want to narrow the wage gap. In Taiwan I saw a Taiwanese offloading sulphur from a ship in a basket. I asked their Minister of Agriculture why he did not use mechanical equipment. He said that that man must have work. I then asked why he could not use a larger basket. He then said that the ship would then be emptied too soon. Those people must be provided with labour. Sir, I am dealing with a very serious matter here.

There is a Black country in Africa, the chief of which decided that he was not going to allow a single tractor because he said his people had no work and that they could turn the soil over with forks to keep them busy, even if it was for a penny a day.

What about the unit costs?

Unit costs increase, but one’s labour is much cheaper. The hon. member is asking a very reasonable question. As I said, one’s labour is cheaper, and one does not have unrest or a person who idles away the day because he has no work to do. He would prefer to work for less, as long as he can stay busy. These are things we should look into.

If he is working, he is not throwing stones.

In conclusion I want to say that a request has been addressed to the Minister of Finance here on the tax on food. I want to tell the hon. members that we should be very realistic about this matter. The total value of food he is able to tax is R6 000 million. Of that amount meat constitutes R1 400 million; milk, R551 million; maize, bread and grain products, R1 200 million; fruit and vegetables, R936 million; and jam, sugar, etc. R398 million. Now hon. members are asking why the food of the poor man is being taxed. Let us be very careful because I have to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance for R70 million for research to develop better seed varieties to be able to produce more food. I am going to ask him for an additional R100 million for the construction of bulk grain elevators to be able to store food for the dry years which are coming. I am going to ask him for money to finance municipal markets. The ratepayers of Johannesburg and Durban are no longer able to meet those expenses. I am going to ask the hon. the Minister for a whole series of things. Where must he get the money from? We should not be penny wise and pound foolish now. Suppose he were to accede to this request and loses R200 million, and the day when I come to him and ask him to help me so that we can produce more food and so that we can store more food away, he tells me that he is so broke that he cannot help me. Therefore every individual will have to contribute his small share to enable us to have enough food for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has given very little meat to which to reply. I shall deal later with aspects of the policy announced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The only message the hon. the Minister of Agriculture seemed to have was that one should offload ships with small baskets to keep more people busy and that one then has a good policy.

No, man. You should listen properly for once. You are the leader of a small party.

That can happen if we continue on the road along which the Government is leading us in its financial administration of the country. Then that policy from Taiwan to which the hon. the Minister has referred might not be the joke it appeared to be considered here. The poorer this country gets, the more serious the issue of unemployment is going to get and the more the hon. the Prime Minister’s nightmare of people without jobs and without food is going to keep him awake at night. However, I do not want to follow that line further now.

As this is the last major debate of the session, it is, I believe, an occasion on which to deal with some major political issues.

To begin with, I think I am entitled at this stage of the session to explode a rather wishful illusion which existed at the beginning of the session amongst many members and to replace it with the unpalatable truth. I refer to the illusion some members fostered that the NRP was a one-session phenomenon. As we near the end of the session, I believe I can say now with confidence that this party is not destined to disintegrate, to disappear or to die. Instead, this small team, of which I am inordinately proud, a team which was ignored, denigrated and written off and whose very existence has been suppressed for the total duration of the session by two Sunday newspapers, has faced the Government dinosaur with defiance and has come through and survived because, I believe, this party has a message, something positive, to offer this Parliament and South Africa. We have survived because we have brought a positive message, instead of mere criticism, into the House. I have no illusions of grandeur—just a quiet confidence that we have introduced something permanent into political thinking, something one can debate across the floor, disagree about, but at least talk about as a practical alternative which has to be considered. Much as members may mock or scoff, this is going to be one of the facts of political life ahead.

Wishful thinking!

Yes, that may well be, but we have defined a territory, which is already coveted by other parties, in the political spectrum—namely the territory of pluralism associated with a federal and confederal political and constitutional structure. It can be laughed at and the terminology misappropriated, but in the end it will be the answer South Africa is looking for. It will be the catalyst for new political thinking on how we are to live together in this country.

Wishful thinking!

That may be. Let us see how wishful it is, because this is the occasion on which we can review the respective parties’ contributions to this session, which started with the NP in euphoria over its election victory and ended with the NP in euphoria over its 30 years in power—that, plus the phobia that “everybody in the world hates us”. This is the stage of the session to look through the illusions and the euphoria and to examine the filling in the euphoria sandwich.

That must then be tested against the fundamental dilemma of South Africa, the need to find and maintain a delicate balance between what the faint-hearted may consider irreconcilable. One is the legitimate aspirations and demands of self-identified groups in a plural society to their right to identify as groups, their right to guarantees against domination by other groups, their right to determine and control the character of their own group or community, it’s society and its own neighbourhood amenities. The dilemma of South Africa is to balance that legitimate right against a system, a method, a mechanism by which matters which are of concern to all those groups can be decided jointly by all the communities—communities whose destiny is inextricably interwoven. How do we balance joint decisionmaking on the matters that concern them all without destroying the right of the group to its own identity and its right to control its own amenities? The test of the session is to see what each of the parties here have contributed towards solving it. Let us first look at the Government.

Do you agree with the Leader of the Opposition?

I am going to come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. Certain hon. members came into this House to the fanfare of their own columnists’ trumpets.

*We still remember what was written in all their newspapers: “Hier is ’n nuwe tydvak.” “Nou sal ons dinge sien.” “Die deure is oop.” “Daar is ’n nuwe buigbaarheid. ” “Daar is positiewe dade wat voorlê.” “Nou sal ons sien hoe dinge sal verander.” “Kyk net na die Janne, die Denisse, die Piete, die Dawies en die ander mense.” Those were the people who would initiate a stream of “verligtheid” in the NP. Those were the people who would be responsible for a new outlook on matters, new attitudes and a new dispensation in politics. I accept their sincerity, but I envy their wishful thinking. We had the reply from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday in this House when he said that he acknowledges the fact that he pleaded for change and that he said that change had to come. He also said that he took proposals to the Cabinet and that the Cabinet …

He never said so.

He did. He was standing in that bench yesterday when he said it. Go and read his Hansard. He said that he submitted his ideas to the Cabinet. He also admitted that the Cabinet put him in his place and that he bowed to it as a result of the advice given to him and the opinions expressed in contrast to his by his colleagues in the Cabinet. He praised them and said that he also saw the other side of the matter then whereas previously he had only seen things from the point of view of the outside world. Hon. members can go and read Hansard, but that was his admission and that was the final blow for those who had hoped that there was a group within the NP which would initiate change. Feelers were even put out to me and people asked me why I did not join them. I will give them credit and say that that did not come from someone who knew me or who understood me. It came from other people who do not know me.

†Mr. Speaker, they must be joking if they want me to become a fawning appologist for the Government’s disasters at a time when urgency and action is required in politics. They must be joking if they want me to sell my faith in the new South Africa in which my heritage and future will be safe in favour of a few crumbs from the Government’s table. I believe this is a time for urgent action to find a way in which to live together. The Government’s three-parliament plan does not produce that answer. I have not even started referring to the urban Black issue. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations settled that issue well and truly by saying that there would be no Black South Africans, no links and no “oorkoppelende liggaam”. According to him there will be leasehold ownership in beautiful cities, but the Black people will not be allowed to belong. He, the author of the new “uitlanderbeleid” in South African politics, is sowing the seeds of future conflict.

I have not yet dealt with the Transkei debacle, but despite this debacle, the Government goes plugging blindly on, promising independence to another state while citizenship and land problems remain unsolved. I have called for a moratorium on further independence, but it is like talking to a brick wall. The Government plugs on blindly, because it refuses to introduce into its thinking the third choice for the homelands, i.e. the choice of a confederal relationship. What right does the Government have to take away peoples’ citizenship? We have talked a lot about the Black man’s citizenship in the urban areas, but what about the White man’s citizenship in Transkei, Bophuthatswana and elsewhere? I cannot put it any better than one of these people, who wrote the following recently—

Because he is living on a family farm which he is unable to sell. The letter continues, but I do not wish to quote it all. He ends the letter by saying—

It is therefore not only the Black man’s citizenship that is at stake; it is also the Whites who find themselves in these new states and who find that they have no consular or diplomatic representation …

Whose fault is that?

It was not their fault that they went into those states. They were put there by the Government. [Interjections.] I have not even started; there is no end to the reasons why I could never become part of the apologia brigade of the Government and of that party. Bearing in mind all these points, I believe that I am entitled to say that the Government has made no new contribution to the solution of the South African dilemma.

Let us take a look, then, at what contribution the Official Opposition has made to solving this dilemma. It came in with banner headlines, it strutted and postured into its official status as the united effective opposition. It started as a disaster and it has ended as a flop.

Come on!

I shall show the hon. member why I say that. Except for a couple of odd soloists, a couple of virtuous, trying to change the image of their own party, as a team and as an Official Opposition I say that they have been a disaster for South Africa. I had hoped that responsibility would bring greater realism. However, regrettably that party has struck to its radical philosophy and therefore has no positive or new contribution to make to the debate. They are like the Government; trying to dress up an old product in new clothes, but the new clothes are a mini-skirt and the old petticoats are sticking out underneath.

We have had today the unveiling of the PFP’s plan. I have there a report which appeared in today’s Citizen under the heading “PFP to put forward ‘survival plan’”. According to the report the PFP considers South Africa to be in a crisis situation and will put forward a plan that could save the situation. In the light of this I naturally listened with great interest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s announcement of the new plan, this new concept, which would give to South Africa a new answer to its problem.

It is nothing new.

After listening for a while to the hon. Leader of the Opposition something rang a bell and I pulled out this booklet of the PRP’s policy. Recently, when I said that this was PFP’s policy, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that they are now the PFP and that that had been PRP’s policy and not the PFP’s. Yet as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition read out their new plan, I looked up the old PRP’s policy in this booklet and found that he was not even changing the punctuation. He was reading it to the last comma, the last full stop and the last italic straight out of this booklet. I followed it word for word and when he went into Afrikaans I followed it in the Afrikaans side of the booklet. He read it out word for word. It was the very same phraseology. This then is the plan for survival in the crisis we face! This was the new plan. They promised to unfold their policy. They did it with a great flourish. I expected that we were now going to get the PFP’s policy, the answer for which the hon. the Prime Minister was prepared to wait with his sandwiches, to hear. He need not have waited, because it is all in this booklet, which is an address to the inaugural congress of the Progressive Reform Party by its leader, Mr. Colin Eglin, at Johannesburg on 26 July 1975. [Interjections.] What was supposed to be the model for future survival, was the model of the party before the hon. member for Bezuidenhout joined them. In other words, the hon. member has accepted their model. He has accepted their policy to the last comma and to the last full stop. These six hon. members, who were supposed to have merged, to have produced a new party with a new name, have in fact simply taken over the old Progressive Reform Party’s policy. At least we now know where we stand with this party. Now we have their policy as a model. Now we can say that they stand for a qualified franchise. They stand for one vote for every citizen with Std. 2, irrespective of race. They stand for a non-racial voters’ roll.

Right!

They stand for a voters’ roll by which Parliament—it is called here a federal Parliament—will be elected directly by the voters on a common voters’ roll without any distinction according to ethnicity or race of the people. Is that right?

[Inaudible.]

Thank you. I am getting it clear. They confirm that this is their policy.

It has been like that for ages.

The hon. member should listen how some of her colleagues squeal to high heaven when we say that that is their policy. The hon. member’s bench-mate, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, said that I did not know what I was talking about when I said that this was their policy.

We will go to the negotiating table with this as basis.

Now we have it. This is where they negotiate from. In other words, this is the minimum from which they negotiate and therefore the result of negotiation must inevitably be more than this. This is their starting point and therefore they will be negotiating further. This makes it absolutely clear to me that the fundamental philosophy of that party—I believed this would be so, but hoped I was wrong—is no ethnic identification, with all areas open for ownership and residence by all, including homelands and Bantu reserves, with all schools open; a totally integrated society. That philosophy is totally incompatible with the philosophy of the NRP. There can be no compromise on these matters. I had hoped that the responsibility of being the Official Opposition might change them and moderate their views, but it is quite clear that that is not the case. On that basis there can be no possibility of any sort of inter-party agreement.

To those who, like us, accept pluralism—a plural society,—in South Africa and the right of communities to their own identity, I believe I have a right to appeal, over the heads of their party leaders in Parliament, to help us to create a broad based, effective Opposition which can become an alternative Government. [Interjections.] That party has reached its ceiling. It cannot grow, but can only become smaller. We are a party which has found a cohesion and a unity which is a joy to work in. We have found a common direction and a common thinking based on pluralism, federalism and confederalism. On that basis we can only grow. I believe that many who, in the confusion of the last election, voted for an image, for the R8 000 full-page advertisements and for the talk of an effective united Opposition, have now seen what that Opposition stands for and how they have performed in this House. Those people will turn back to the responsible approach to opposition which enables us to debate issues across the floor and not just engage in total confrontation, which leads to the Opposition flaying the Government and the Government flaying the Opposition with no meeting point.

Do you prefer collaboration?

If the Government acts correctly in the interests of South Africa, we shall support it. If we disagree, as I have been doing for the last 15 minutes, with something we believe is wrong in Government policy, we fight them on it. I believe that is the role of an Opposition—not just to be in blind opposition to everything irrespective of merit. [Interjections.]

Order! There have been enough interjections now.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the squealing on my right, because I think it is getting through to the public that they have been a failure as the Official Opposition. It has become clear to the public that they are a party which is openly, clearly and visibly divided. I wish I could be a fly on the wall at their constitutional committee meetings and their congress at which they are going to look for a new policy. I think it will take place in November. They are urgently awaiting a lead from their policy committee. But however that congress may dress it up, we now know that the fundamental approach will still be one of compulsory integration of the whole of South Africa to form a totally integrated society. That we do not and cannot accept. However, we believe that there must and will grow in South Africa a new and effective Opposition. I believe the people are tired of the ineffectiveness of the present Official Opposition.

I believe that the new and real Opposition will grow out of this small nucleus which I have the honour to lead in this House. It will grow out of this nucleus, because the people are looking for something new and we are able to give them a new vision and an exciting task.

You will have to change your leadership then.

It would not make one bit of difference, because this party is founded on clear principles, on a unity and a philosophy which is its own. It is not founded on glamour, on artificiality or on public relations. It has been founded and built the hard way, on the message which we wanted to convey. We have not had the money to build ourselves an artificial image. We have done it the hard way, by debate after debate in this House. With the confusion that existed before removed, I believe we shall start to grow in the recess. There is only one condition I make in my invitation to those who have become disillusioned with their present parties. The only limitation to my call on them to join us is that we are a team, disciplined and united, and there is no room in our ranks for hitch-hikers hoping to become hijackers to lead us to a different destination. However, there is room for all South Africans who, like us, seek to mould a new Republic, to walk tall with us into the future in a new South Africa in which we can face our fellow citizens eye to eye and man to man with pride and with mutual respect. This is because we have found a way to establish the delicate balance between the rights of groups to protection and identity and the machinery by means of which they can link together in “medeseggenskap”,—the “medeseggenskap” which the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and the hon. the Prime Minister reject, but without which, without such joint decision-making, such joint responsibility this country has no future. Certainly, the airy-fairy claptrap that we have heard called a survival plan this afternoon makes no contribution whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, we have now listened to the hon. member for Sea Point and to the hon. member for Durban Point. If I have to summarize these two speeches, I would say that these two hon. members did not succeed in making a point. I should just like to remind the hon. member for Durban Point that the process of expropriation and compensation for Whites in the Transkei is still continuing, both in respect of compensation for business undertakings and for the few farm owners who may still be in the territory. He can therefore give that valid reply to the person who wrote him the letter.

If we look at this year’s budget, and even if we look back over the past few years, it is a platitude to say that during the past few years our economy has been going through a slump phase of the economic cycle. I do think, however, that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government have acted with great discernment during this time, and have handled the situation with great success. I think I can make that statement because in the first place, the hon. the Minister did not seek to achieve personal popularity, but fearlessly took the correct and necessary steps to keep the economy of South Africa healthy and to get it going again at the right time. The hon. the Minister displayed the necessary discipline. I am thinking, for example, of his policy of discouraging imports to South Africa.

On the other hand, those selfsame measures at the same time gave the necessary encouragement to manufacturers and industrialists in South Africa.

I am also thinking of the reaction of the population itself, the population which was encouraged by a variety of measures to make the required effort and to work with the necessary efficiency to get the economy of South Africa going again. If, in addition, we look at the balance of payments, at the improvement in our balance of payments during the past two years, we can justifiably congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on having succeeded in this way in placing at least one important aspect of our economy on a sound and solid basis.

I should also like to point out that our economic growth, and the maintenance and development of a sound economy in South Africa, has a broader basis than merely the necessary financial measures in the hands of the hon. the Minister. In other words, the task of keeping an eye on the state of our economy and ensuring that all goes well is not the task of the hon. the Minister and the Treasury alone. I want to state that we should keep in mind that the basis for a sound economy has always been found in honest labour by every employee of the State or of the private sector. Nowhere in the world is there such a thing as a flourishing economy without a population that is willing to work hard and to live frugally. Allied to this of course there is also the necessity for effective production and for increased productivity. Increased productivity must be backed up by sustained training, whether in-service training or training by the bodies established and maintained by the authorities.

There is, however, something important, something which causes one concern—in fact, we pointed this out at the time and clearly proved it—and that is that one should always act with circumspection and not be over-hasty in increasing salaries and wages if it is not accompanied by the necessary productivity. I venture to state that part of the hon. the Minister’s problems have arisen from the fact that the increase in productivity has by no means kept pace with the increases in wages which have been granted in South Africa during the past four or five years. I am therefore pleased that the necessary emphasis is also being placed on this aspect today. It was in fact illustrated with the creation of a Ministry of Education and Training, something which has been done especially with a view to the needs of our Black population. I want to express the hope that we should remember not to expect that the economy of South Africa should simply get going again. We must remember that it can only happen if we are willing to work hard and if we are prepared to give the necessary efficiency to every undertaking in South Africa. That also applies to the various branches of the Public Service.

I also want to make the point that the growth and the development of a healthy economy is to a great extent dependent upon the necessary maintenance of law and order. It is impossible to maintain economic stability of there is no proper maintenance of law and order. We are therefore pleased that the hon. the Minister of Police has acted so forcefully in recent times, especially in our urban areas where there were so many complaints, complaints which also came from the supporters of the PFP. We are thankful that the hon. the Minister of Police has acted so firmly in having loafers and criminals traced and brought to book. It redounds to the credit of our Government and there are many people who, though they support the Official Opposition and the NRP, nevertheless have appreciation for that. That is why I find it regrettable that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is for ever acting here as a kind of publicity agent for people who are dissatisfied with the existing order.

I concede that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction and a desire for change. We do not want to overlook that. In fact, the Government is aware of it. But when the hon. Leader of the Opposition acts the way he does, he unwittingly creates the impression among the various non-White population groups of South Africa that regardless of their output or contribution they make to the development of our economy, they are still being treated unjustly. His conduct is such that even the terrorists in South Africa think that the Official Opposition is on their side. The hon. member for Houghton is preeminently a person who is always on the side of those people.

Because you do not charge them in a court of law.

If we assume that law and order form an important basis for the development of a strong economy and the maintenance of economic growth, we have to be careful in our actions, and the hon. member should also be less irresponsible in her actions and in the things she says.

Even when the hon. Leader of the Opposition says the Government must give these people “full citizenship”, he refers to such things as group areas. To me it has always been a question of in what respect group areas prevent people from having “full citizenship”.

To me it is a serious question, because a person only comes into his own—that is simply how the world is—within the context of his own group. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton too, since she is now reacting on his behalf, are the people who created the impression among the elements that cannot care less what contribution they make to the development of South Africa and the creation of prosperity, that they are the oppressed people. That is a dangerous thing to do, and it must inevitably jeopardize law and order.

Apart from that, there is also the necessity for security. In every society, there must be security for all members of the population. I should like to read what a voter in Sea Point, the constituency of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, wrote. He was particularly concerned about how unsafe the people of Sea Point were—

I want to ask the hon. members of the Official Opposition what provision they make for these people. They must say what provision they are going to make for these people if they want to abolish group areas. What provision are they making for people who complain and say they are elderly people who, over the years—I think the writer of the letter is a former member of the city council—helped to build the society and tried to make a contribution. What protection is there for them? I am asking the hon. member for Houghton, in particular, who carries on to such an extent about the police.

Are you saying that everybody who is not White, is the cause of that?

The problem is that one creates a situation of insecurity and we must take that into account. That is why even the Erika Theron Commission did not recommend that the Group Areas Act should be repealed or that the system of group areas should be scrapped, and hon. members made quite a fuss about this report, a report which suited their purpose, and I should like them to bear that in mind.

There is more crime now than before the Group Areas Act came into operation.

The hon. member says there is more crime now. Crime increases in proportion to the population growth. The point the hon. member has now made, is absolutely without foundation. I also have certain proposals to make about those things, because it is not only the Whites who suffer, but also decent Coloured and Black people.

I want to make a final point, and that is in respect of the maintenance of a healthy economic growth. For that, there must be confidence in the future, and there can only be confidence in the future if law and order are maintained and if the borders of South Africa are safe and can be properly guarded. If we look at the budget, we also endorse the money being appropriated for the defence of our borders and the maintenance of internal law and order.

I should like to express a few positive thoughts about the problem of maintaining law and order and on the involvement of people in the development of South Africa. It strikes me that a man like the Prime Minister of Transkei, which is now an independent State, should care so little about the development of Transkei. Transkei is a territory with a good potential. He is asking for more land without really given attention to what he has to do in connection with the development of his country and the prosperity and the future of his people.

That does not apply to Transkei only. We also find that attitude among so many of our non-White people here in our country. They think their problem will be solved if only they can obtain more land and higher salaries from somewhere without really making any contribution themselves. We shall have to instill the idea in our White, Black, Brown and Indian people that the prosperity which every population group and every individual so badly wants to enjoy, must for the most part be earned by themselves. They must make a reasonable contribution towards achieving that. That is why I think we should also continue to give our support to the newly independent Black States within the historical South Africa, not, in the first place, to spend money on providing all kinds of services, but rather to develop their countries. We should continue to stimulate as much development as possible in our Black homelands. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture touched on a very important point here for which I have a great deal of sympathy. He has said we should guard against over-mechanization. In planning the development of these territories, we should also guard against over-capitalization. We should concentrate on persuading people to take as active a part as possible in the development of their territories, even if we have to supply them with rather elementary implements. There are undeveloped areas in South Africa which, I think, lend themselves to major projects which can be initiated by the State and which can ultimately make a great contribution towards assuring the people and individual land owners of a subsistence. I am thinking, for example, of the Lower Orange River Area. The hon. member for Namaqualand mentioned that, and when I speak of the Lower Orange River area, I am speaking of the area to the west of the falls. In that area, there are still thousands of morgen of land which can be irrigated, and this can be done with the available water supply. In my own constituency there is the Doring River area, where up to 20 000 morgen of land could be developed in due course. The water is still flowing unimpeded to the sea.

I feel that we should direct our attention to those areas, and that the problems of overpopulation in our cities, of layabouts and juvenile delinquents, should be linked to that development. Our police have a difficult task. Urban dwellers like Mr. Rabinowitz in Sea Point are complaining that they are not safe. Personally, I believe that we have a very difficult task in this connection unless we initiate large projects by which we can provide thousands of people with employment and, as the Theron Commission has recommended, re-orientate them to a new approach, i.e. that of making a contribution themselves. There is no more effective way of making a person steer clear of crime than to give him a place in society and to make him feel that he is worth something and can make a contribution.

During the past few years we have done a lot to develop our infrastructure and I trust that in future we shall also give attention to such projects as far as possible in order to prevent what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has warned against. Our problem is, in the first place, not a problem which is comparable to the problems of the European. In South Africa, we have a man of European extraction, a Black man from Africa, a Brown man, and a man from the East. It is our task to give each one of them an existence which is worthy of a human being. But we cannot simply apply recipes here which work overseas. We cannot simply transfer the development which is in progress there to our country and expect it to work—we cannot afford it in the first place. I therefore want to express the hope that when we and the hon. members of the Opposition urge the Government to do this, that and the other for people, we should tone down our requests and not simply overload people with what we want, but that we should rather create more and more possibilities for people to make a contribution and so to earn their own prosperity and have a part in it.

I want to conclude—the hon. Chief Whip has just reminded me that I do not have much time left—with one of the few pieces of wisdom Mr. Andrew Young has expressed. In connection with much of what he says, one feels that one can only shake one’s head. But he did say one important thing which, I think was worthwhile. He said that when he was the leader who stood for Negro rights, he told his own people something—I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Andrew Young in America and talking to him—which was not unacceptable: “Don’t get mad: Get smart.” That is an important truth to me.

As Nationalists who support the policy of separate development, we have very little objection, if any, to sitting or working next to a Black man if he is a civilized and decent person. The same applies to the Coloureds and the Indians. But it is extremely difficult when people do not want to improve their standard of living or to help combat crime and find a positive place for themselves as civilized people; then the voters of the hon. member for Sea Point complain, and the voters of the hon. member for Houghton complain. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will, in future, make an important contribution in this direction with all the means at his disposal.

Mr. Speaker, you must please excuse me if I draw a comparison between the hon. member for Piketberg who has just resumed his seat, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition who spoke shortly before him. The hon. Leader of the Opposition equivocated and prevaricated, whereas the previous speaker was plain and straightforward. Everybody was waiting in tension to hear what the hon. Leader of the Opposition was going to say today, but we are none the wiser. We simply could not understand his equivocation and prevarication. It is beyond my comprehension how the voters can understand the policy the Opposition wanted to spell out for us here. It is no wonder that in the recent general election, the electorate rejected them with so much contempt. One gains the impression that there is no unanimity in their own ranks, and that they do not speak with one voice. Our people in Natal, and South Africa too, rejected this Opposition partly during the recent election. Nor is the policy of the NRP clear to our voters. The leader of the NRP has spoken of “clear principles”. However, to us they are not at all so “clear”, and it seems to me that they are not too “clear” to the voters of South Africa or those of Natal either. It seems to me as if they are walking in the shadow of the former UP policy, because that party changed its policy time and again. We Natalians are sorry that they are not the Official Opposition, because the impression one gains in the House, is that the members of the NRP are patriots. But I do get the impression—and I am sorry if it is the wrong impression—that the members of the Official Opposition are not for, but against South Africa. The hon. Leader of the NRP has said “we operate as a team” and I concede him that. However, one definitely does not get that impression when one looks at the Official Opposition.

If one goes through the budgets of the past 30 years, one forms an impression of economic growth and prosperity in this country. We are proud of Natal’s contribution to the Cabinet in the person of the hon. the Minister of Finance, who has made a very great success of his portfolio. His diligence and his thrift ought to serve as an example to us as representatives from Natal. What is more: Our people do not work for the financially powerful, but for the nation. For that reason, the ability to work on the part of the members of the Cabinet was an eye-opener to me. I never realized that these people sacrificed so much and worked so hard. I want to pay tribute to them today and to assure them that they are setting an example to the nation. I thank them for that.

We in Natal are satisfied with the NP. We appreciate what the Government is doing. I want to bring to the notice of hon. members that we are the majority party in Natal today and that we have already come a long way. The entire country area of Natal has rejected the NRP. Only one country constituency is still being held by the NRP, namely Mooi River. It seems to me that the hon. member representing that constituency is on his way out. After the recent general election, the English-speaking voters reproached us for not having opposed this hon. member. They wanted a promise from us that this would not happen again. I therefore want to assure the hon. member that next time it will not be so easy for him.

It seems to me that they realize that he is on his way out, because the English Press has already started looking for a position for him. They want to make him Administrator of Natal. [Interjections.] Apart from that hon. member, all the members of the NRP come from Durban or Pietermaritzburg. I want to point out to those hon. members that whereas we won all the country constituencies, we are also in the process of winning the urban constituencies, because today there are four NP representatives from Durban and Pietermaritzburg. I think that is an achievement. I do not think the PFP has a future in Natal, because the voters of Musgrave are already sorry that they sent that hon. member here.

We can differ about many things, but we cannot differ about the fact that Natal is a beautiful province. It is a province with a high rainfall and an abundance of water. It has labour resources and energy, because there are vast resources of coal, anthracite and coke. Except in Pietermaritzburg and the harbour city, Durban, very little happened in Natal before the NP came into power. In fact, only farming was practised on an extensive scale. After the NP had come to power, dams were built and an infrastructure was created for industries. It has become not only a province for holidays, but also a province in which people work. In Northern Natal, especially, where previously there was only sheep and cattle farming, there has been development through the instrumentality of this Government.

The advent of Iscor, the Richards Bay railway line and the Richards Bay harbour, have created employment opportunities for our people, and markets for our products. The mining industry, especially the coal mines, has grown prodigiously. Provision has been made for export possibilities, and that has also made a major contribution to stimulation of this industry. I should also like to pay tribute to the Government and to the Cabinet for the insight and perseverance they displayed in the province of Natal by establishing the infrastructure which led to the development in Northern Natal. If it had not been for the Government’s initiative in this connection, the recession in the economy would have affected the people of Natal much more seriously. While we were riding on a wave of prosperity, there was a small number of people who had a hard time of it, or who suffered in the process. I should like to say a few words about those people today. The farmers whose farms border on the coal mines had a hard time of it, in that their water resources became polluted by the effluent from the coal mines. Natal is a well-watered and mountainous province. The exploitation of coal takes place horizontally in a mountain and the polluted water seeps from there through the various openings on the sides of the mountain. There is coal and anthracite in those mountains. The ventilation shafts and the draining holes create these problems, in that the water from the mine comes into contact with the pyrites in the mine, and then forms sulphuric acid which runs down the various mountain streams to the farms and then pollutes their water. The farmers of Northern Natal—that is the coal-rich area of Natal—are losing a lot of money as a result of the activities of the coal mines and the pollution of the rivers which goes hand in hand with that. In this regard I have in mind in particular the Black Umfolozi and the Umkuzi rivers in that area. I wish to emphasize that it is especially the upper reaches or the sources of the rivers which are being polluted, and that lower down in the river, where there is more water, the threat is not so great. All the fish and aquatic life in these rivers has already been destroyed. The water has become altogether unsuitable for irrigation, and some of the farmers have had to leave their farms. The capital value of their land has therefore also decreased. In early years, there was a limited amount of pollution there, but increasing mining activities as a result of the opening of the Richards Bay harbour and the railway line, have caused the pollution problem to increase to such an extent that representations have been made from various quarters in this connection. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs for what he has already done in this connection, because we believe that he has already done everything in his power. However, I fear that the hon. the Minister will have to compel these large mining companies to do more in an attempt to counter this type of pollution. All the rivers below the coal mines have been polluted.

There is yet another problem which is being experienced in this connection, namely that the only thing the mines do about this, is to throw lime into the water. As a result, there is too much lime in the water, and if the farmers use it for irrigation purposes, they get a super-abundance of lime in the soil, with the result that their soil becomes inferior. I can quote examples of farmers in the area who, as a result of the activities there, have landed in fairly serious financial difficulties. The mines prefer to negotiate with the farmers individually, and hon. members can therefore realize that the farmers have absolutely no bargaining power against these people. The mines are prepared, after having polluted a farmer’s water, to drill a new borehole for him. From the borehole, they then supply drinking water for himself and for his cattle. That, however, is as far as they are prepared to go. They are not prepared to undertake larger schemes such as storage dams for unpolluted water during the summer period, for example. The greatest problem does not arise during the summer period, when there is an abundance of fresh water, but rather in winter, when the irrigation water is most needed.

Some of the water has been tested by the CSIR and has been found altogether unsuitable for human or animal consumption. There is, for example the harm people suffer in this connection. Their irrigation pipes rust, their animals die of the water and refuse to drink it, the water pumps and radiators of tractors and other vehicles rust, and the water pipes and hot water systems of the homes rust away. It has also resulted in vegetable and other irrigation farming having to be discontinued. These farmers also have to incur legal expense to negotiate with these mining companies. However, the mining companies are well provided with capital and are prepared to spend anything up to between R40 000 and R50 000 on a court case, and a single farmer has not so much money available. Some of the farmers cannot meet their financial obligations. They cannot pay their interest and loan redemptions. In some cases, drinking water must be conveyed by road from neighbours or from the nearest town.

When the mine has been worked out, the pollution continues, because the water continues to seep out. We feel that the mining companies should be compelled to prevent the water in the mines from causing further pollution. In most cases, negotiations fail because, as I have said, the mining companies are prepared to go to great expense, while the farmers do not have so much money. I can quote the example of a farmer who instituted a court case against a strong mining company. It lasted almost five years to get the case set down for hearing, and this will cost the farmer R20 000. The people simply do not have so much money, and I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the Cabinet today to look into this matter so that there can be relief for these farmers.

The mining companies do not want to accept responsibility. The onus is on the farmer to prove that the mining company was negligent and caused the damage. As I have said, it is mainly in the upper reaches where the conditions are worst. The individual farmer has to take up the matter personally with the mining company and negotiate with them.

In conclusion, I wish to express my thanks to the S.A. Agricultural Union, the Natal Agricultural Union, and to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Mining for what they have done for these people, but I do want to request that consideration be given to the possibility of affording relief and protection to the farmers who are going under in the process against the big mining companies.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vryheid, the hon. member for Piketberg, and some of the other hon. members on the Government side have struck an optimistic note in respect of the budget. Our feeling is that we here in the House should face all the facts and that at the same time it is also our duty to encourage investors, and we in this party should naturally like to do so.

†I had hoped to hear a statesmanlike speech from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I must say that my hopes were dashed. His speech was, as they say in Afrikaans, “’n totale misoes”. I thought that he would pledge his party to work for peaceful solutions, but instead he widened the prospect of reconciliation.

One of the paramount objects of a budget must be to develop an economy that can provide for all those who, through no fault of their own, cannot provide for themselves. I am thinking for example of the sick, the poor, the pensioners, the unemployed and a host of other people. The budget must provide the machinery for ensuring a strong industrial State in which private enterprise flourishes and sufficient money is generated for, amongst other things, defence expenditure in order to meet the national commitments of the country. Our budget does not provide for a large inflow of foreign capital. This is a deplorable state of affairs for South Africa and a poor reflection on the countries of the West. South Africa should have a large enough investment of foreign capital to make it the dynamo of Africa. The foreign investment should be such that we can establish an African economic community and a defence network which will enable the States of Africa to withstand the Marxist aggression. The establishment of an African economic community could wage war on poverty and starvation on a continent which, if it were properly developed, would not have to stand back for any other continent in the world.

The defence of Southern Africa could become the responsibility of the States of Africa provided the West assisted South Africa to play the very vital role it should be required to play in these circumstances. The West and Southern Africa should be working on a joint blueprint to ensure the well-being of this continent. No State in Africa can prescribe to any other State in Africa on its internal policies unless, of course, the internal policies of a neighbour are detrimental and designed to injure the policies or the interests of another neighbour. The West and the States of Africa are being played off against one another because the Marxists have achieved a certain amount of success in Africa. This success can be very easily reversed with a minimum amount of effort. The Marxists want a policy of discontentment, poverty and strife to overtake Africa. This they hope to achieve if the West continues with its policy of disinvestment in Africa and particularly in South Africa. South Africa must have maximum foreign investment. I have no doubt that the quality of life of South Africans, and all Southern Africans who will then become part of the greater community will benefit from this investment.

I believe the Government has bent over backwards to assist in solutions in Rhodesia and South West Africa. The Government has to effect changes from a position of strength. Changes which are made under compulsion are not good changes. We in this party believe that one does not have to join the NP in order to serve South Africa. At the same time the attitude of certain politicians and sections of the Press leads one to ask the inevitable question, whether their hatred of the NP is greater than their love for South Africa. That is a question which certain sections of certain political parties and of the Press could do well to answer.

Since time immemorial politicians have taken advantage of political situations to ensure the advantage of their own political parties, and perhaps themselves. The timetable of events in Southern Africa has led to a situation in which South Africans of all races and their political leaders have a responsibility to create an atmosphere of stability and peace in this continent. The Government has a special responsibility. It has to give the lead, but having given the lead, it can only be assured of total success if the political leaders of all races, White and Black, and their supporters, are prepared for total co-operation. I stress the question of co-operation because it does not mean capitulation when one does not agree with the Government. It means the reaching of solutions through consultation and dialogue instead of confrontation. At present we have a situation in which confrontation politics are taking place in certain quarters. Everybody, irrespective of the colour of their skin, has similar aspirations and certain similar hopes which cannot remain unfulfilled.

A satisfied and contented South Africa can fulfil the just and fair aspirations of all its peoples and make this country a haven of happiness for all the people living in it. Such a country will have the moral fibre to withstand the onslaughts from both within and without South Africa. None of this can be achieved if the Press is not a willing and very anxious partner that accepts its extra-special responsibility in these critical times. In other words, what is required is a national commitment and nobody can stand aloof from that commitment. Everyone is required to play his or her part in this commitment. I believe we can learn from our mistakes of the past, but to rake up old bones for the purpose of scoring cheap political points is not worthy and is a self-destructive process which does not assist anybody in the end. I believe that a state of affairs, as I have outlined, can and must be achieved. There can be golden years of ensuring the stability of this continent, and these golden years are here if we only take the opportunity. This stage must be reached immediately, not only in the interests of South Africa, but in the interests of Southern Africa and of the West. Neither the West, the OAU nor South Africa can be foolish enough to believe that the Marxists can be blocked in Africa by a torrent of words, because that is what we have had up to now. If the rest of Africa cannot look to the West, it is obvious that it will look to those who will supply them with their short-term needs. The Marxists will only supply short-term needs sufficient to take control of a particular African State, and thereafter that State will lose its much-cherished freedom and it will also lose its independence. The African State will become a puppet of Moscow or Cuba. No African leader who is worth his salt will be able to control the future destiny of his country or the future destiny of his people. We have seen the experience of certain countries in the Middle East who received unlimited Russian assistance and who now cannot get rid of Russia and its influence from their countries fast enough, but over the passage of time they seem to be succeeding. The object of the Marxists in Africa cannot only be the subject of concern of the States of Africa because their eventual aim is global control. Southern Africa is target No. 1 and thereafter strategically Europe becomes an easier target No. 2. Thereafter the rest of the West cannot counter the Marxists because they will be far too late.

There are positive signs that even the political leaders of the West are more alive to the situation now than they have ever been in the past. However, the question is: At what cost have they become alive to the situation? We have had a Mozambique, an Angola and the Horn of Africa, and these situations have occurred with the West virtually standing on the sidelines as spectators. In those wars, I am sorry to say, it was Blacks who were killed, and the home truths had not yet sunk in to the West. In Zaïre, however, its tragedy struck closer home and its innocent victims, who were citizens of Western countries, were tragically and aimlessly killed amongst others. It is a grave pity that it takes the death of some people to make other people alive to their responsibilities. Europe has been a graveyard before and it does not take a genius to see that Europe could become a graveyard again unless the Marxists are stopped in Africa. South Africa, I believe, has a vital part to play in assisting the West, but then the West must make sure that South Africa is placed in the position to play that vital part. There are two essential requirements with which the West must comply before we can play the part that I believe we are destined to play. Firstly, there must be no limitation on the sale of arms to South Africa. South Africa has always paid for its arms and it has not been a liability to the West in this regard. In the future South Africa will always be in the position to pay for the arms that it purchases. Secondly, there must be vast foreign investment in South Africa. This is not subsidized investment, as foreign investors in South Africa have always had excellent returns on their investments. I make bold to say that there are few countries where foreign investors have done better than they have done in South Africa.

The other equally important aspect of foreign investment is that it will ensure and assist dramatically in improving the quality of life of all South Africans and—as I have said—of all peoples in Southern Africa. Every South African must have a stake. A South African who has a stake has something to lose. Therefore he will stand shoulder to shoulder with every other South African. The 99-year lease for Blacks is a step in the right direction. The next step is to sell or lease on the same basis all Government-owned housing to permanent occupants, even if it means giving them 100% bonds. A nation of home-owners, who have a stake in South Africa, is the greatest insurance policy we can have. A nation of lessees can never ensure the stability of this continent.

The Government has embarked on a large-scale housing development and there are certain organizations that have also embarked on large-scale housing developments. We should encourage people in commerce and industry to follow this example. Home-ownership can be the most stabilizing factor in our present circumstances. The Government knows full well which of its policies must be revised if it wants to face up to the challenges of our times.

In conclusion I want to deal with another matter. I want to make a final appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to sales duty in general, and more particularly in regard to the motor industry. In the discussion on the Customs and Excise Bill the hon. the Minister indicated—if I understood him correctly—that he would like to see sales duty abolished. Does that mean that after the first month, if the general sales tax yields as much money as the hon. the Minister anticipates, or if it yields more money than he anticipates, that he will then do away with sales duty? I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if possible, to spell out to us the parameters. Will he tell us at what point in time he anticipates he will obviate or get rid of sales duty?

Does the hon. member refer only to the motor industry?

I am referring to the motor industry in particular. However, I have also said that I refer to industry in general. Finally, I have already appealed to the hon. the Minister of Finance to obviate the surcharge affecting certain portions of the component industry, which is also a very valuable part of the motor industry. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give us this assurance during this debate. He should tell us what his intentions are, because I believe the industries are very anxious to hear about this. I am sure they are waiting to hear from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville, the speech with which he introduced the Third Reading debate. I have always considered the hon. member to be a very great realist. I always thought of him as someone who looks at matters very realistically. Now, however, the hon. member for Yeoville says that he demands certain things of South Africa. As far as my knowledge goes, however, he is demanding things that are found nowhere in the world. Amongst other things, the hon. member demands that there should be no unemployment in South Africa. In actual fact the hon. member has a Utopia in mind; the ideal state to which everyone aspires. He also asks why there is so much unemployment in South Africa.

Furthermore the hon. member demands that there should be no poverty, no unrest and no crime in South Africa. He demands a South Africa with full educational and training facilities for all. He also demands hospital facilities for all in South Africa. Of course I must say that these things are the ideal of all of us. These are things for which the Government has been working for 30 years. In fact, these are things in regard to which the Government has already achieved great things.

When the hon. member for Yeoville makes demands of this kind, I want to ask him at least to show some gratitude and to tell South Africa that the NP Government in fact has tremendous achievements to its credit as far as these things are concerned.

Then, however, there is a second matter that I want to charge him with. I find it particularly unfortunate that the hon. member for Yeoville once again alleged that the sales tax is an effort—as he put it—to tax the poor. As economic or financial spokesman, I think the hon. member ought at least to tell us why the hon. the Minister proposed this form of taxation. He should surely have told us what facts he wants to quote. He should surely have told us that South Africa needs funds to be generated on a large scale. Those funds are required for supplying for the growing needs of the State. No one—not I nor anyone else— needs to tell the hon. member for Yeoville this; he knows it too. There is a need for the generation of funds because our country has ever-growing requirements. He could have said that the burden on our companies, gold mines and private taxpayers is very high. He could have said that 6% of our taxpayers contribute 80% of the direct taxation of the country. I wondered whether the hon. member for Parktown agreed with the hon. member for Yeoville that we should not lighten the burden on mines and companies. This is what we are in fact trying to do. Furthermore he could have said that he knows that the revenue from gold and other mines in South Africa is swindling because mining is a wasting asset. He could have said this, because he knows it. Fourthly, I would have expected him to say that the revenue that the State derives from customs and excise, does not have much potential for growth.

He would not have said it…

He could have mentioned these four points when he said that the sales tax “is a measure to tax the poor”. I think the hon. member for Yeoville sleeps poorly at night because he says to himself: My friend, you did not tell the truth; you know better, but you do not have the courage to say it.

No, I sleep very well.

As a reasonable, realistic thinker, the hon. member for Yeoville should say, when the tax debate comes up in a few days time: Politically I am wrong; I know better. I expect it of him; I think he has the decency to admit that.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on the fiscal policy. It is true that the hon. the Minister had to lay down a certain fiscal policy two or three years ago. That policy was unpopular and many people complained about it, but not one of us wanted to admit that we were living beyond our means. At that time the fiscal policy was implemented in an effort to discipline us. I would say that the present budget is creating a more buoyant business climate. I believe that the budget is going to contribute towards pulling us out of the doldrums which our economy is going through at the moment. I believe this budget will result in growth.

I had thought that there would be positive sounds from the hon. member for Yeoville concerning the latest report of the International Monetary Fund. A few weeks ago a three-man team from the IMF visited our country and undertook certain studies. The reports that appeared concerning this matter, stated that the report of the three-man team was confidential. The report has, however, already been made known to many financial leaders in the world. I read the following in an article written by a certain Jim Strodes in the Sunday Times—

He goes on to write—

The heading of the report also reads “South Africa gets a pat on the back from the IMF”.

A body like the IMF has given a testimonial that South Africa is building positively. It is a remarkable testimonial in view of the fact that the IMF has also found that there is increasing unemployment in the world. The IMF committee also says that there is inadequate investment in industry throughout the world. They say that there are low and even negative growth rates throughout the world. They also say that countries throughout the world are experiencing a major deficit on their balance of payments. All four of these points of criticism were made by the IMF in respect of other countries in the world, but not in respect of South Africa, because they were aware of our achievements in this country over the past year or two.

I ask myself what this is ascribable to, in spite of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers on his side said. They said the world does not have confidence in South Africa, but I ask myself how it was possible for us to have achieved what I have just referred to. How could we have achieved so much that the general manager of the security branch of one of the world’s largest banks, the name of which I shall mention in a moment, said the following—

The words “baie veilig” are underlined in the report. Who is the man who says this? It is a Mr. Hüser, of the Union Bank in Zurich, Switzerland. He was in Cape Town, and after he had investigated and looked at certain things, he made the important statement that foreign investments in South Africa are safe. I want to say once again that it is the fiscal policy of our Minister, the monetary policy of our Government and the fact that the inhabitants of the country—in spite of many things—are disciplined people, that gave rise to this. It is also because the people abroad respect the actions of our Prime Minister in managing his country. Ultimately the entire responsibility rests upon the shoulders of our Prime Minister, as far as decisions and action is concerned.

I want to mention four instances where our Prime Minister was paid high tribute for the way in which he governs the country. First of all I want to quote the opinion of an organization called “World Peace Through Law”. It is an organization of which the top management consists of three Americans, plus a Liberian, an Argentinian, an Indian and an Italian. This general manager says that our Prime Minister is one of the great leaders of the present world. Here an international organization consisting of representatives of various countries says that our Prime Minister is one of the great leaders of the present-day world. These are words that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can take note of.

I quote the words of a second person, also a world figure, i.e. the governor of the American state of New Hampshire. He was in South Africa recently. He was not indoctrinated by anyone and he had the opportunity to look around in our country and to ask questions. He says the following—

This is a wonderful testimonial.

I now want to quote from what a domestic leader, a person who is very often placed under a great deal of pressure, viz. Dr. Bergins, one of the Coloured leaders, said. When he spoke about the new dispensation that the Prime Minister is offering South Africa, he said—

He then utters the following words—

Is this not a fine testimonial from a Coloured leader in South Africa of our Prime Minister?

In a lighter vein I want to say that the Sunday Times recently asked young children to write letters on the subject: “If Mr. John Vorster was my father”. In a lighter vein, but also quite seriously, I quote what one child wrote in his letter. Mark David wrote the following—

It is a child that says this. These are the reasons why things are going well for us in this country and White people have confidence. It is because we are in power and have as a leader a man of whom I do not have to speak because everyone knows him as a person with strong principles and as a Christian, as well as a strong leader.

I should like to talk to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We have heard about Dr. Motlana and of Benoni’s “mini-national convention”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Dr. Motlana issued a statement after those discussions that was reported as follows—

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on whose behalf he was speaking. Did he speak on behalf of the White community in South Africa? It says in the statement that his discussion with Dr. Motlana was good and that “he put the case, the problems and aspirations of the people in his community”. On whose behalf is he speaking here? Is he speaking on behalf of the few people who supported him in the election when they did not yet know what they were voting for? He can definitely not speak on my behalf or on the behalf of 90% of the Whites of South Africa. That is why I say he is arrogant in thinking that he can speak on behalf of White South Africa. What is more, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he is going to tell us what he told those Black leaders. What standpoint does he adopt and advocate when he holds a conversation with such a Black leader? Has he had the courage today or previously to outbid even the Sunday Times? What did the Sunday Times tell Dr. Motlana after he had said: “A Black man in my position will necessarily and naturally talk about a unitary state”? Why could the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not also say what the Sunday Times said on that occasion, or did he perhaps do so? I quote the Sunday Times—

Did the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition tell this to the Black leaders to whom he spoke? Did he have the courage to tell them that they must watch out and be careful because there is a White population living in this country that is not simply going to go away?

I want to allege that the PFP, and their leader specifically, run after every Black man who calls himself a leader in his own words. It is Chief X, then it is Dr. A and then it is Mr. B. I want to tell them that it is a dangerous, futile exercise. He cannot achieve anything by it. He should rather tell the Black man: There is also a White population living here of which 90% do not support me and that 90% that does not support me, are the people with whom you must talk. These are the people who are concerned about White sentiments and who will put the case of the Whites.

I want to allege that the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition owes the Government an apology. What did one of his supporters, Mr. Joel Mervis, say? He said that he has been thinking for sometime about the question of who is the greatest danger to South Africa and that he reluctantly had to award the prize in this regard to Messrs. Vorster, P. W. Botha and Pik Botha who, in his opinion, are the greatest danger to South Africa.

Hear, hear.

There are still Progs who say “hear, hear”! They say Mr. Vorster is a bigger danger for South Africa than Carter. Is that not a scandalous remark? I honestly think that it is a scandalous remark when young fellows like the hon. members for Wynberg and Green Point say that the Prime Minister, Minister Pik Botha and Minister P. W. Botha are the greatest danger to South Africa, a greater danger than Carter. I leave it at that. I also think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should tell Dr. Motlana and others that the 90% of the Whites who do not support him, are not interested in an integrated unitary state. Furthermore, he should tell the Black people with whom he holds discussions, that numbers alone can, may, and never will be decisive in a highly developed country like ours. It is not the number of people that counts, but their quality. That is important. He can also tell them that the South Africa of today has been built amongst others, by a White population that is proud of its own achievements and has achieved a great deal in this country.

I should like to come to the idea of a federation and I am not going to quote myself. I want to quote what people in Rhodesia and other parts of Africa have said. They have referred to various reasons why a federation would not succeed in South Africa. There have been various cases where federations were planned in Africa. I want to refer to two authors, one of whom is the former Chief Justice of Rhodesia. In the Afrikaans translation of his book he says the following—

He refers to America, Germany, Italy, Australia and New Zealand. He says that this is one type of federation and one large nation is built out of the components of that federation. He also says, however, that there is a second type of federation and this is a federation that tries to group different ethnic groups in one political home. The chief justice says that all the attempts to establish a federation as was the case in America, Germany, Italy and Australia were successful, whilst all the federations where an attempt was made to gather the population groups in one political home, such as in Rhodesia and Indonesia, failed.

My time has expired. I think it would be a good think if I could lay the rest of my speech on the table, because in it I refer to the eight reasons why this type of federation to which those hon. members referred, has failed everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the pesisism of the Official Opposition and in site of the people who are leaving South Africa to seek greener pastures, all of us in South Africa are privileged to live in a country which, according to the UN itself, is one of the three developed countries in the southern hemisphere. The other two countries which qualify for inclusion in this category, are Australia and New Zealand. We are privileged to be able to live in a country which has the highest per capita income on the continent of Africa. In saying this, I am excluding the oil-rich Libya and Gabon. Our per capita national income is three times higher than that of Ghana, five times that of Kenya and ten times that of Malawi. We are privileged to live in a country which is more developed than any South American state. We live in a country in which the Asian has four times the average income of his brother in the East. We live in a country in which the Coloureds are better off than the people of Cuba. We live in a country in which the Blacks make a better living than half the world’s population does. We are privileged to live in a country in which more than 40% of Africa’s industrial production is produced, in which almost 50% of the total mineral production of the continent is mined. We are privileged to live in a country in which two thirds of the Free World’s gold is produced. We have a third of the total coal reserves of the southern hemisphere. South Africa produces 20% of the world’s ferrochrome. Our vanadium ore represents 90% of the reserves of the Western world. I can continue in this vein to point out what the potential is here in South Africa and that it is the duty of the peoples in South Africa to utilize it. We are privileged to be able to live in a country which is regarded as the workshop, the treasure-chest and the pantry of Africa. This has resulted in our becoming an economic giant, a respected trading partner. However, our country is also one which is desired by other peoples. The Creator has given us not only potentially one of the richest countries in the world, but also a country with the most complicated ethnic, racial and social circumstances in the world. In spite of what South Africa has, we also have our political, social and economic problems which we are trying to solve to the best of our ability. It is a generally recognized fact that the grip of the recession and the political onslaught on South Africa represent our greatest predicament in post-war years. We have economic snags and we must realize that economics and politics, in Africa and South Africa in particular, cannot be separated. Until recently our economy has been characterized by phenomenal investment in and development of our infrastructure services.

In this regard I have in mind our road and rail facilities, for instance, as well as the supply of power, irrigation schemes, medical services, education facilities, communication services and many other things one can mention. Due to the essentiality of military preparedness, however, the picture has changed, and virtually one-fifth of the Government’s revenue is being spent on defence. Our pattern of capital utilization is a completely new one, and strategic investment has become priority no. 1 for us. Today it is important for us to be prepared militarily so that we may be able to maintain South Africa’s strong economy. We are obliged to entrench our security and our survival in this way. And yet, while we have to establish our economy by being militarily strong and prepared, one finds people like Mr. Sonny Leon, the leader of the Labour Party of the Coloureds, and his committee, passing the following resolution, as reported in Die Burger of today—

He went on to say—

He continued—

I want to ask these people in all seriousness this evening whether they have given serious consideration to the question whether it would be at all worth their trouble and whether they would be capable of defending the country without White South Africa—as they call it. Mr. Leon and his Executive Committee must realize that if it ever were to happen in future that aggression occurred from across our borders and the White man were to die for South Africa, Coloured people, too, would die with us in South Africa. No right-minded person can comprehend the thinking of a person who is prepared to endanger, by indulging in petty political activities, the land that feeds him and his children. I leave the matter at that.

I want to come back to the snags in our economy. One of these is the rate of inflation. Our growth rate will be stimulated by the budget and we believe that we shall be able to fight also this wolf at our door. It is true that the rate of inflation is testing the managerial ability of our businessmen to the utmost. They find it very difficult to make advance estimates of costs.

Another snag in our economy is the inadequate flow of capital from abroad. South Africa, which, traditionally is an excellent commercial risk, has usually been able in the past to rely on a fair inflow of foreign capital. The problem South Africa is experiencing in recent times in obtaining long-term capital and risk capital, in particular, can be ascribed on the one hand to the less favourable economic conditions abroad, but on the other hand it can also be ascribed to internal factors. One of the important factors in this regard is the disloyalty of the English-language Press. I exclude the Citizen in this regard, not because I have shares in that paper, but in all fairness. The sustained negative reporting of the English-language Press over the years has contributed to this state of affairs. Other factors are speeches that are made by, inter alia, the hon. member for Parktown, as well as speeches like the one made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with all respect that even a leader of a party living in a fool’s paradise can also harm South Africa by means of a politically childish speech.

Another snag in the economy is unemployment. The general recessionary condition, too, has gradually started having an effect on employment opportunities in South Africa. It is true that in terms of the South African experience, South Africa has a relatively high unemployment rate. The demands that have been made and will be made on the economy in the future, have changed considerably over the past two or three decades. A new concept has arisen in the world: The concept of developed countries and developing countries, the so-called Third World. Demands are being made to an increasing extent for the division of wealth throughout the world. We can accept that the homelands in South Africa will likewise want to be regarded as developing countries after independence, and will want to lay claim to increased economic assistance from South Africa.

On the home front more pressure will be exerted for equal pay for equal work without regard being had to productivity. Low productivity is one of the major problems being experienced by the industries in South Africa. There are so many unskilled workers in South Africa looking for employment opportunities that we dare not mechanize or automatize to the desired level.

It is disconcerting that another snag in our economy is the tremendous population explosion. Modern civilization extends the lifespan of people. It is said that in the time of the Romans the average lifespan was 30 years. Today it is approximately 70 years. By the end of the 18th century the world population was 900 million. In 1970 the world population was estimated at 3 600 million. This figure will double within 35 years, and after that it will double within the space of 25 years. In 1946 the White population of South Africa comprised 20% of the total population. Today the White population comprises only 16% of the total population. The Black population increased from 9 million in 1946 to 20 million in 1978. In our economy we have only 8 million economically-active people. These 8 million people have to see to an economy that has to feed, clothe and house 28 million people and has to create employment opportunities for 28 million people so that they may make a decent living. What I find even more disconcerting is that the White component, from which the entrepreneurs and managers are chiefly drawn, is gradually becoming relatively smaller. I believe that enormous amounts will have to be spent on Black and Brown education and training in the years ahead if we want to maintain the standard of living of our country’s people.

A shortage of highly skilled manpower is one of our biggest single economic problems. From what I have said, it must not be deduced that one has to approach these things in a spirit of dismay. In the actual fact opposite is true, because I believe that there are few countries in the world that have a stronger will then this country to protect what is its own and that have a greater potential to effect the further development of its assets. We alone, however, will have to effect this protection and further development. We cannot expect a helping hand from abroad, not even from the weak-kneed Western countries, in spite of the fact that South Africa assisted them in two world wars and in the Korean war. In this regard we have an example worth following in the small country, Israel, which, in spite of the enemy on its doorstep, continues to fight and to survive.

When we turn the kaleidoscope of the future, it becomes clear to us that we and the Official Opposition see different visions. Our vision is one of confidence and optimism. I believe that we have the insight to adapt to changing demands in good time and that we have the ability to accept changes. Providence alone, however, can determine our future.

We can overcome our economic problems. In the first place we must ensure that we make the optimum utilization of our existing production means an objective of ours. It is important for the emphasis to fall on a large-scale short-term improvement of our economy. Therefore our strategy must be to exploit our present infrastructure to the full without our utilizing scarce resources for anything of which we shall be able to reap the fruits at a much later stage only. The next few years will determine how matters will stand for us in the year 2000. We can learn a lesson in productivity from West Germany, Japan and America. America, with 6% of the world’s population, produces 50% of the world’s industrial goods. One American worker produces as much as do two British workers.

We can look at the post-war achievements of West Germany and Japan. Our productivity compares poorly with that of these countries, because we have a tremendously large number of work-shy people in South Africa. It is important for us to ensure that the management of our undertakings will be streamlined. It is estimated that better management and a higher quality of labour are responsible for as much as 65% of our increase in production.

The Government has a gigantic task and responsibility to ensure that South Africa’s skills will be joined together to the maximum extent. We can overcome our economic problems by stimulating our local manufacturing industry. Every endeavour must be made to manufacture a larger range of goods locally, not only for our own consumption, but also for export. 70% of our wool production is processed abroad. We should rather do it ourselves. Research has shown that we can save R400 million on our present imports by manufacturing these products locally. I believe we can and will meet our own wants to an increasing extent. In addition we shall have to give preference to local products. One cannot over-emphasize the need for the South African buyer to give preference to the local product. Our products are good, and our people must be more proud of and more patriotic towards that which is our own. We must learn that if we invest in that which is our own, we are able to create more employment opportunities and ensure a higher standard of living. In this way we can ensure a better economic future. “Buy South African” holds good not only for the ordinary man, but also for the dealer who has to decide from whom he is to buy. I ask the question: Is it necessary for us to import wine? Why are tyres for motor-cars still being imported? Why are some Afrikaans books still being printed abroad? The strongest endeavour must be made to support South African products. A consistent and united export effort on the part of local undertakings is called for. We welcome the fact that the Government is setting about the stimulation of joint marketing in real earnest. We may not rely on our gold exports alone. In future we shall have to make use of some export product or other in the place of gold. I believe the Government and our industrialists must set about the matter of an energetic and sustained export effort in real earnest in the years that lie ahead.

The matter of savings is another important aspect of our economy. We shall have to save domestically. In the first place we shall have to generate more capital by means of personal savings. In the second place, the utilization of capital depends on the actions of the private sector. The question is: Do our dealers not buy a larger variety than is necessary? Do our industrialists not manufacture too wide a variety? I need only mention the 30 makes of motor-cars we have at present, with no fewer than 220 different variants. Are our industrial leaders not gadding about abroad too much? Are we not buying what is too luxurious? Everyone in South Africa will have to make a contribution towards savings. The question is whether all of us can afford those luxuries. We shall also have to exert ourselves in the field of labour to achieve better race relations, and in the years and months that lie ahead we shall have to give further attention to creating peaceful and harmonious working conditions between the various race groups. We shall have to pay our people according to their productivity, and by this I do not mean equal pay for equal work, because to do a job and to do it well, are two different things.

In South Africa we shall have to have confidence in the future. Albert Schweizer said that confidence was the most important capital in any enterprise; without it nothing of real value can be accomplished. What we in South Africa need, is an attitude of mind, a striving towards progress, a desire for improvement on what has already been achieved, determination to improve on yesterday’s achievements today and then to improve on today’s achievements tomorrow, a willingness to apply new methods and techniques and an unshakeable confidence in tomorrow and next year and in the future of our country, our country the Land of Good Hope, our permanent home and the permanent home of our children.

Mr. Speaker, it is the Government’s declared aim to move away from the Westminster parliamentary system. Today in this House the Government took a giant step away from that tried and trusted system of parliamentary practice when a straightforward question which was put to the hon. the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Yeoville—a question which was printed on the Question Paper— was not answered. That question related to a statement of policy which had been made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance, who is a responsible senior Minister, speaking overseas, said the following—

That was a rather surprising policy statement. Quite correctly, the hon. member for Yeoville wishes to establish whether the hon. the Minister of Finance had in fact uttered those words.

Secondly, the hon. member for Yeoville wanted to establish whether those words, if uttered by the hon. the Minister, did in fact reflect NP Government policy. Therefore he put a question on the Question Paper and gave the hon. the Prime Minister the opportunity of simply answering “yes” or “no”. However, the hon. the Prime Minister—for reasons of his own; looking rather embarrassed, I thought—declined to answer that question. [Interjections.] I may just say that whilst the hon. the Prime Minister was looking rather embarrassed, the hon. the Minister of Finance was blushing audibly … [Interjections.] … I actually mean he was blushing visibly. [Interjections.] However, for reasons of his own, the hon. the Prime Minister declined to answer that question. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister, in his answer, indicated that this was a subject for debate and that hon. members on the Government side would deal with the question. We have been sitting here all day anxiously waiting for an NP speaker to deal with this question, to tell us whether it is true or not; to tell us whether it is NP policy or not. If the hon. the Minister of Finance indeed said these words, and if they reflect NP policy, I submit that South Africa is grossly misinformed about NP policy. Therefore, South Africa would like to know whether in fact restaurants, for example—let us just take one thing—are open to all races in South Africa. This statement does not say that some or a few restaurants, or that more restaurants than before, are open to all races. It merely says that restaurants in South Africa are open to all races. It also says that all places of entertainment in South Africa are open to all races. Either South Africa has been grossly misinformed or people overseas have been grossly misinformed by this statement. I believe it is in the interests of South Africa, and in the interest of the Government of South Africa, as well as in the interest of the credibility of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Finance that the facts and the truth be now known. I therefore hope that another hon. member on the Government side will take the opportunity of telling us what the truth is. Let us take, for example, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations, who is now looking down and who apparently now wants to be avoided as far as this question is concerned. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations tell us whether all restaurants in South Africa are open to all races?

Which one are you actually referring to?

I am talking about the hon. member for Waterberg. Can he tell us whether restaurants and places of entertainment in South Africa are open to all races? If that is indeed so, I am afraid that in terms of the beliefs of the hon. member for Waterberg, the identity of the White group in South Africa is going down the drain. That is what he said. He said that opening all these things to all races would cause the identity of the White people to go down the drain.

Why so quiet, Andries?

We are trying to deal with the concept of the survival of the White people in South Africa. We are responding to an invitation from the Government side to positively and clearly state what should be done to ensure the survival of the White people of South Africa. The White people of South Africa could only survive if the Government would now take steps to create a stable and secure society to which the prosperity which South Africa experiences is also available. That prosperity should be available to all South Africa’s peoples and the happiness of having South African citizenship and the benefits attached to such citizenship should be available to all people. It depends ultimately on a negotiated political settlement reached between all the race groups sitting down at a conference table and reaching consensus on the future of this country. It depends on doing what was done in South West Africa. It depends on doing what was done in Rhodesia Sooner or later the Government in South Africa will have to follow precisely that line.

An important aspect is that such negotiations cannot be successful if they are to be conducted in an atmosphere of distrust, prejudice amongst people and resentment from one group towards another. Such an atmosphere will detract from the potential success of such a process of negotiation. These factors must be reduced or removed by timeous action taken by the Government.

It means that we shall have to re-educate all our people away from race prejudice and towards trust amongst the races. It means that we shall have to change Black and White attitudes in South Africa. It means that we shall have to put the full facts of the political situation in South Africa to the people. It means that we shall have to create a new insight amongst the various population groups of the country.

The Government has the most powerful audio-visual means at its disposal, namely TV. The Government can by an intelligent, enlightened and honest use of that medium— for instance by having on that medium multiracial panels discussing South Africa’s problem—achieve the aims I have set out. During such panel discussions people should be allowed to put honestly and sincerely their diverse views, because it will bring about new insights in the country.

It means further that we must remove all discrimination based on colour. It means that we must improve the quality of life of all our people. If we want to improve the quality of life of all our people, it means that we must create a free society in which people of all race groups will find the means and the opportunity to achieve a satisfying, secure, prosperous and happy environment for themselves and their families, a comprehensive environment encompassing all the factors which are necessary for the bringing about of such a happy environment, an environment in which people will be able to achieve the desired quality of residence. In other words, people will be able to achieve a home of their choice, a home which accords with their means, a home in which they can live and develop a normal family life. It means that people must have quality in education, or have access to quality in education for themselves and for their children. It means that people must have access to the recreational facilities of their country, to sport clubs and to places of entertainment. It means that people should have the opportunity to have normal social intercourse with their neighbours and their friends across the colour line. It means that people should have available to them an adequate social security system. It means that people should have available and access to economic opportunities, not in terms of the colour of their skin, but in terms of their talents, their abilities and their determination to achieve. It means that people should have security, that they should be free from fear of robbery, assault and attack. It means that people should have access to political participation in their country.

People generally understand and accept that all cannot enjoy the same standard of living. What people cannot accept, however, is that their colour alone should disqualify them from the achievement and the attainment of the standards of which they are capable. The deepest resentment follows from comparison when a person of a particular race group compares his opportunities and his chances in life with those of people from another race group.

I want to mention very briefly a dramatic example which I experienced some years ago when a group of overseas journalists—they were very, very important journalists from Europe and America—were brought to a meeting at which they met people from various political parties, businessmen and in particular a moderate, responsible Black man. There was a great deal of theoretic discussion, but eventually the question was put to the Black man as to how he saw the position. He explained by means of a comparison how his quality of life compares with that of the Whites. He said, I am a Black man and my family lived in the Johannesburg area 100 years ago when the first Whites came here. My great-grandfather served with a Boer Commando and was killed while serving with that commando. My grandfather was wounded in the First World War serving with the South African forces and my own father served with the South African forces in the Second World War. He is a taxpayer living in Soweto who once owned property in freehold title in Johannesburg. That person said that he could compare his quality of life with a recent White immigrant to South Africa who also worked for his firm. Because of the disparity in income tax, the Black man, who is a South African citizen, was a taxpayer. The White man, because he had four children and his salary was of such a nature that it was below a certain level, was not a taxpayer.

The difference is that although the White foreigner could choose to live anywhere in South Africa, could choose the design and the type of house close to his work and close to schools, or whatever his requirements were, the Black man could not do so. The Black man had to take the house that was allocated to him; he had no choice. He had to take a stereotyped house, far from his work, far from schools, because it was the policy of the Government as applied to him.

As far as education is concerned, the White immigrant of a few weeks’ standing, who had four children at school, could send them to any school of his choice. At that time the South African Government spent R2 000 per annum on the four children of that White foreigner. On the other hand, the Black man could not send his children to any school he wished, and at that time the Government only spent R120 per annum on his four Black children. He pointed out to these people that his only impediment as a Black South African citizen was that he was Black. There was no other disqualification. The only qualification that the White foreigner had for his advantages over the Black South African citizen was the fact that he was White. There was no other qualification. This also applies to recreation. The White foreigner could go to any place of entertainment. He could go to any cinema or restaurant, but the Black South African citizen, whose family was of 100 years’ standing in that area, could not go where he wished. His only impediment was that he was Black. The White man’s only qualification was that he was White. This applies to all the facilities for these people. It applies to economic opportunity. The White man could take any job he wished, while the Black man was subject to the Environmental Planning Act and job reservation and the provisions of the Group Areas Act. The White foreigner could open a business or any industry anywhere in South Africa, while the Black man was restricted by a large number of legal restrictions applying to him because he was Black and for no other reason. It is in terms of this stark contrast that the Government must take action if it wishes to create the trust and the confidence between people which is an absolute prerequisite to making progress in terms of political negotiations to achieve a peaceful and a stable society between the peoples of this country. In the first place you have to look at the housing situation. In Soweto today there is a shortage of more than 20 000 houses. Mr. Joubert, the Under-Secretary of the Department of Bantu Administration, said that there was a shortage in South Africa of 170 000 houses for Black families. In five years’ time it will be 200 000 houses. At the moment we need R500 million to fill this need. It is vital that this particular shortage be met right now.

As far as education is concerned, R644 is being spent on a White child in South Africa today. On Africans in the common area, only R41,80 is being spent on a Black child. This is less than 10%. Something like 70% …

That is a lie.

That hon. member says it is a lie.

It is a lie and you are distorting it.

The information which I am quoting here, comes from the Government itself.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; The hon. member for Innesdal repeatedly accused the hon. member for Bryanston of “verdraaiing” and lying.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member distorted things to such an extent that I said it was a lie, but I withdraw it.

That is not a withdrawal.

Order! The hon. member has just repeated it. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one further point.

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to reply to questions.

I want to make one further point with regard to the security of Black families in the Black areas. The Human Sciences Research Council carried out a survey which showed that in an area like Soweto one in four households had the experience that at least one person residing in the household had been the victim of robbery, assault, rape or theft. Only 27,2% of crimes in that part of the world have been reported to the policy because of the belief there that it was pointless to report these crimes and that the available police force could not provide them with adequate protection. If the Government wishes to bring about stability, peace and progress in South Africa, the very fundamental and first requirement is to create circumstances in which every South African, irrespective of colour, can look forward to a better quality of life or the same potential quality of life for him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston commenced his speech by saying that he was going to deal with the concept of the survival of the White people of South Africa. I did not hear much said about the necessity for the survival of the White people of South Africa, but I found in the hon. member’s remarks a considerable concentration on the apparent iniquities applied in regard to the Black people of South Africa, which I of course obviously deny. I can, however, see what the intention was of the hon. member for Bryanston. He was attempting to back up certain statements made this afternoon by the hon. Leader of the Opposition—I hope the Whips opposite will show me the courtesy of asking him to return to the House as I would like to address certain remarks to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition stated in the House this afternoon that he had a positive plan for survival. He did not give us the details of this plan, but he contended that it was basically for the survival of White South Africa. I think it is reasonable to deduce from that statement that the hon. Leader of the Opposition with his party intends to take certain political actions in an attempt to apply that plan. I do not think he will dispute that I think I am being quite fair in saying that. I am prepared to admit that the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition have a plan and that in regard to that plan they are taking certain definite political steps.

Thank you.

I am glad to hear that interjection, because I should like to attempt to deal with a clear elucidation of that plan as we would see it in the House and as has been displayed through the course of the debates this session. Let me say right at the outset that the speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition today was nothing more than a summary of the particular standpoints adopted by the Opposition in the course of this session. It started off at the beginning of this session with the censure debate when the Leader of the Opposition, representing the minority of a minority of the White electorate in South Africa, set himself up as the spokesman—I do not think he will deny this; it stands in Hansard—of the so-called 20 million voiceless Black citizens of South Africa.

That does not stand in Hansard at all.

When did he say that?

In order to arouse the political views of the 20 million voiceless Blacks.

When did he say it?

He said it in the censure debate.

Where is it in Hansard?

I can bring the entire House as witness that he said it. [Interjections.] In order to establish and arouse the political views and opinions of the so-called 20 million voiceless Blacks, he adopted certain themes.

In the censure debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward with an idea. There were three basic themes and I shall outline each one. There was, firstly, the idea of establishing a national convention as a means of creating political power and a voice for Black citizens. This he recently discussed again at a symposium held in Benoni on Republic Day.

There was also a second theme and that theme was set in the course of the appropriation debates. That theme, which was adopted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and backed by hon. members of his party, was the right of Black national groups to a common South African citizenship. I think I am right in saying that.

Right!

Right. This must of necessity imply a common voters’ roll, otherwise there can be no claim for common South African citizenship. The second phase of this discussion and this type of propaganda amongst the 20 million Blacks was established in the course of the budget debate, as the hon. the Minister will well recall.

We then came to the third phase of this propaganda theme towards the 20 million voiceless Blacks. That theme was established during the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members took the line that White discriminatory practices against Black people must disappear as this was an infringement of their basic human rights. We had that theme again from the hon. member for Bryanston a few minutes ago.

That is what Pik Botha said, your own Cabinet Minister!

I do not think he will dispute it. I think I state the facts very clearly.

Is that not Government policy?

All through this session these three themes which I have outlined have been the basis of attacks delivered by the Opposition on any type of legislation. We even had the hon. member for Yeoville with his continuous unfounded claims. In the speech he made in the beginning of this debate he talked of the privileged Whites and again started with the theme that the general sales tax was a penalty against the poor of South Africa, and by that he directly inferred the Black shopper in the urban areas.

I never referred to colour!

That is what the hon. member was referring to. We had it again in the debate on the National Welfare Bill. There again we saw the application of race philosophies in an attempt to rouse the feelings of the people outside.

You would not recognize the truth if you saw it.

I am prepared to accept that the PFP, as a hopeless minority in this House, believes that the solution to all South Africa’s problems lies in the acceptance of a multi-racial political philosophy, as opposed—and let me say this immediately— to the concept of multi-nationalism as accepted by the vast majority of people of all races in South Africa. [Interjections.] This fact I believe not even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other hon. member sitting on those benches will dispute. If this is so, and if this is a political fact of life in South Africa, by the same token it must be recognized that the concept of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of multi-racialism has been rejected by the White electorate, which leaves the Opposition with absolutely no hope of attaining political power other than by some other type of political action, whatever that may be …

Be careful!

… political action by the so-called 20 million voiceless Blacks …

Be careful!

It is therefore my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition has resorted to exploiting Black political opinion as a pressure group against White South Africa. By this means they believe that they can bring about the surrender of White South Africa as regards its claim of its own White identity. Any casual observer on the South African political scene—and let me say immediately that a diplomat to whom I talked the other day expressed this view, not I—is driven to one conclusion only, namely that the Leader of the Opposition and the party that he leads has surrendered his position and that of his party to the politics of confrontation between Whites and Blacks.

Tell us the name of the diplomat.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to be discourteous to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but this is the second time that I have requested him to be present. I am going to direct some remarks directly to him and I therefore hope that the hon. Whip will attempt to have him present in the House. Before the House adjourned this evening, I had obtained an admission from the Official Opposition that the three main themes that they had followed this session were to be found today in the summary of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and that they were primarily directed at what he described as the so-called 20 million voiceless Blacks. He set himself up as a spokesman for these people at the beginning of the session, so the PFP resorted to exploiting Black political opinion as a pressure group against White South Africa. Through this they want to bring about the surrender of White South Africa to a claim for its own identity. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already stated that the following in the course of discussions during this session—

I think the House and indeed the country are entitled to know how, by his party’s acceptance of a multiracial concept, they are intending to supply the leadership, with the aid of the English Press, in such a move as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition describes. I think we are entitled to ask, and that the country is entitled to know, whether they intend to undertake the organization of further symposiums, as was recently organized in Benoni, for an expression of this Black political viewpoint for which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now professes to be the spokesman. We are entitled to ask in this House, as is indeed the country, whether the common strategy for arousing Black political support, as referred to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, will be that of the three themes which they have followed this session and which I outlined before the adjournment earlier this evening. They openly admit these three themes and do not dispute them. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agree with the Sunday Times view, as published on 9 April under the headline: “Now the Opposition is Black?” The published article read—

It is not without significance that certain speeches made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are almost point for point similar to the article from which I have just quoted. Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not deny that the Sunday Times is the most ardent supporter of his party’s multi-racial concepts. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is using his party to create public platforms for extreme Black opinion in our country. When this Black opinion receives wide publicity, he does not publicly dissociate himself from the views expressed, but resorts to closed-door discussions. I want again to refer to the Sunday Times, because in reporting a certain joint statement involving the Leader of the Opposition, the Sunday Times said that the two leaders, one of which was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, after wide-ranging discussions and talks, submerged themselves behind closed doors. As one often has doubts about the veracity of stories that appear in the Sunday Times, I took the precaution of checking the other newspapers and I found that The Star completely confirms this point of view. The Star stated—

It is interesting to note that closed-door discussions are held by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with so-called Black leaders, after his views and his political leadership had been publicly rejected by these Black gentlemen.

The report in The Star went even further and said—

What did Dr. Motlana say? He is known for his leftist views. According to The Star, he said—

It is very interesting. We had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today quoting certain reports of statements made by Dr. Motlana. I should like to know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not take the opportunity of dissociating himself from these remarks. He talks about negotiating and further discussions behind closed doors. Is it the use of force which he discussed with Dr. Motlana behind closed doors? [Interjections.]

The answer is “No”.

If the answer is “No”, why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not at that meeting come to his feet and immediately deny and dissociate himself from these statements?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Von Brandis allowed to suggest that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would subvert behind closed doors about the use of force?

Yes! [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to adjudicate on that point of order because there was such a noise that I did not hear what the hon. member said.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Could you not ask the hon. member for Von Brandis to explain what he actually said in this respect?

Order! Would the hon. member for Von Brandis care to tell me what he said?

Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what I said. I quoted from a newspaper report in regard to certain statements made by Dr. Motlana in which he urges force and alleges that the NP or the Whites cannot continue to rule over South Africa with impunity. I said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have used that occasion to dissociate himself from remarks of this kind publicly.

That is not what you said.

Let me add that in the context of the speech, it is clear that these words were used to convey that force would be used by every means possible, even to the extent that Blacks trained by Russians and using communist arms would be involved. These views were expressed on a public platform, a platform shared by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] All the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could do was to go behind closed doors and issue a joint statement that there was a division between Black and White in South Africa. He did not have the courage to stand up on a public platform and deny and dissociate himself from these views. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he believes a negotiated settlement can be reached. I think the hon. members will agree that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes the House and the country an explanation as to why he believes, with such views expressed on a public platform, that a negotiated settlement can be arrived at, even after his closed-door discussions. Would such a settlement take place after or before the use of force? I ask this in the light of the fact that it is the clear opinion of Dr. Motlana that the White Government must be overthrown with the use of force before the Whites can be brought to the negotiating table. After all, I think it is fair to demand that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should clarify his position in this regard, because it is he who is busy creating the public platform for the expression of these extreme viewpoints. [Interjections.]

It was he who created it and it is he who wants to continue to do so, as he has said today. He must not now shelter behind closed-door discussions; he must come out in the open and give South Africa the benefit of his beliefs.

I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether, in the light of his claim that he is speaking for the 20 million so-called voiceless Blacks, he aligns his party to and accepts the leadership of Black confrontation politics. Does he accept the political viewpoint expressed in the Sunday Times, viz. that the Opposition to a White Government is Black? I want to ask him, who has been sent here by a minority of the White electorate, whether it is his intention to continue to use the forum of this House—as he has done again today—to act as spokesman for those elements who alone on the grounds of race and the difference in the colour of our skins seek to overthrow the responsible Government of White Africans.

I wish to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if not to warn him, that at this time in our history, when more than ever before it is essential to preserve the good relations between the peoples of our multinational society, which is the basic aim of this Government in the application of its policies, South Africa cannot afford and will not tolerate the undermining of our society and our right to peaceful coexistence as nations in Africa, even if it is by the leadership supplied by the PFP, which is presently walking on such dangerous roads.

I want to say a few words about the third theme raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that discriminating practices against Blacks were an infringement of their basic human rights. I have never considered that discrimination is a one-way trade; it operates just as well against the other. A recognition of our multinational society immediately entails an inherent right of each national group, be it White or Black, to retain its own identity. That is no offence against humanity. We as Whites only commit an offence against civilization when, in the attainment of our own objectives, the retention of our own identity and the development to our fullest potential according to our own way of life, we deny those objectives to other national groups. Our whole activity in government in South Africa as a White group since we have become a nation, has been a struggle to develop the enjoyment of basic human rights by all our peoples, irrespective of the colour of their skin.

What are these basic human rights to which the hon. member for Bryanston has referred today? I see them as the right to be properly fed, to be decently clothed, to be adequately housed, to elementary medical care, to remunerative employment and to make sure that our children receive better education than we ourselves received. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, goes further and says that full and equal participation in government in a mixed South African society is a basic human right. Under our policy the right to enjoy political expression has been given to the other Black nations of South Africa who never had it before. The fact of the matter is that those hon. gentlemen have lost faith in themselves and that they have lost their pride in their own national identity. They are so dominated by a racial approach to South Africa’s affairs that they are utterly unable to think in terms of human relationships. They fail to appreciate the fact that once you have accepted a man’s national identity and the differences that exist, then one respects what is his as well as his customs as much as one would wish respect for what is one’s own. The acceptance of this outlook and these policies by White South Africa has placed a great challenge before us as far as the future development of our country and Southern Africa is concerned. I believe that we will face up to them, irrespective of the attempts of the Opposition to lead Black Africa on a road the end of which spells disaster for all our national groups. We can be grateful that not only White South Africa, but also Black South Africa reject them entirely. We as the NP will be true to ourselves, to our African heritage, to our responsibility and to our fellow Africans—White, Black and Brown—and we shall take our decisions accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, today we had the privilege of listening to the so-called new PFP policy, which is the same, in all respects, as the old PRP policy, with one important exception and qualification, and that is that their party no longer believes in Black majority rule, but only in majority rule. Now I want to ask what the difference is between Black majority rule and majority rule. I want to ask, too, whether they now think that the Whites can be a majority in a country where there are 20 million Blacks and only 4 million Whites. I want to ask them whether they are not playing a bluffing game here and whether their “majority rule” is not, in fact, in plain language, the same as Black majority rule. The Official Opposition has to reply to this question. All I get from them is silence. The public of South Africa will not swallow this bluff. We listened this evening to one of the most terrible, defiant and bitter (“bitterbek”) integration speeches by the hon. member for Bryanston. Now South Africa knows better than ever before …

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Durbanville allowed to suggest that the hon. member for Bryanston made a “bitterbek” speech? [Interjections.]

Order! I have heard quite a few questionable expressions in this House tonight and I have overlooked them. I shall not allow an hon. member to call another hon. member a “bitterbek” member, but tonight I shall allow reference to the speech of the hon. member in those terms. [Interjections.]

I wanted the emphasis to be on the word “bitter”, but what I actually meant, was that the PFP has more sound than substance. To me it is very clear that that party is extremely bitter, and not only because with the independence of homelands, not only areas, but also Black ethnical groups become independent, as a result of which the number of Black South African citizens is being reduced. As a result of this the chances of Black majority rule are dwindling and it is becoming more difficult to force the Whites of South Africa against their wishes into a Black majority government.

On Republic day, which is a sacred day for this country, because it is the symbol of unity of South Africa, that party saw fit to invite Dr. Motlana to their congress in order to find common ground and to show South Africa that they and he, who is regarded as the leader of the urban Blacks in South Africa, have common ground. What have they found? They found that there was common ground in regard to majority rule. They found each other on the issue of “one man one vote”. Then, however, Dr. Motlana went further and said that he would not protect minority groups in South Africa. What happens now? Surely that is irreconcilable with the point of view of the hon. member for Yeoville. It is also irreconcilable with the standpoints of the Van Zyl Slabberts. It can rather be reconciled with the standpoints of the Suzmans, the Boraines and the Bamfords. Therefore the hon. member for Yeoville clearly proved that there is a left wing as well as a right wing in the PFP. [Interjections.] Moreover, even before they were able to hold their national convention, they had already established that their right wing and the urban Blacks were worlds apart. Now I want to know how they are going to find each other when it comes to a national convention.

Now I want to refer to what the hon. member for Von Brandis said, and I want to ask what attitude the PFP is going to adopt in its continued negotiations with Dr. Motlana, negotiations of which notice has already been given. What will the attitude of the PFP be in future? Will they state them clearly to us today? Are they going to tell us about what they are going to discuss with Dr. Motlana? Furthermore, I want to know from the PFP whether Dr. Motlana and his people will also be invited to attend the national convention. Will the PFP please reply to this question? What does the hon. member for Bryanston say?

The elected representatives of all the population groups will be present there. [Interjections.]

Now that is really an interesting reply. Dr. Motlana said that he would effect political changes in this country by causing political instability. That is what he said. However, what has the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition said here today? He said that it was the policy of his party to continue negotiating and consulting with Brown and Black leaders who are striving for a peaceful settlement. Is that what the PFP regards as a peaceful settlement? Is this the settlement they are striving for, a settlement with the aid of a Black leader who wants to bring about political instability in South Africa? Is that their intention? [Interjections.]

Will the PFP give an answer today on whether they are prepared to forfeit the Whites’ say over their own affairs? Are they prepared to allow that, or are they prepared to protect this in future? Can they answer this question for me? Are they prepared to protect the interests of minority groups in South Africa? It seems to me that I am going to get no reply. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I will have to wait a very long time for a reply.

Don’t worry, we shall protect you as well!

If the PFP’s reply is positive tonight, I challenge them to repudiate Dr. Motlana here and now in regard to those things he strives for, i.e. the non-protection of minority groups and the non-protection of the interests of the White man in South Africa. If the intentions of the PFP are honest, I also challenge them to tell us tonight whether they are the champions of the stirring up of political instability in South Africa. I also challenge them to tell us whether they agree with Dr. Motlana when he says that he is endeavouring to ensure that in the intended new political dispensation, the political boundaries of Bophuthatswana and the Transkei will disappear and that there will eventually be only one state in South Africa again. I challenge the PFP to reply to this question as well. [Interjections.] I want to warn the PFP that if they continue associating with those who strive to bring about a state of political instability in South Africa, they are creating a state of tension in this country, a state against which South Africa and the NP Government have been fighting all these years, a state with regard to which there has just been a fresh mandate from the voters of South Africa, bigger and stronger than ever before.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred earlier today to the 320 accused who will appear during the next two months at the 67 separate security trials on charges of the most serious crimes against South Africa, subversion of South Africa, treachery against South Africa, possession of communistic literature, possession of Russian arms and explosives, efforts to cause internal unrest. To that one has to add the terrorists on our border as well as the onslaught in South Africa against the human spirit in order to break it.

Then we come to the negative elements with which we are faced in South Africa. I want to dwell for a moment on those aspects. In the first place, I want to dwell in particular on the Brown and Black militants and then I want to confine myself to certain statements of some of the leaders of the Coloured community. I also want to refer to certain militant statements by Whites who help these people. Unfortunately this is linked, in every case, to leaders of the Official Opposition. I do not mean, of course, that they are all terrorists, but I mean that they are deliberately making the State and its actions seem ridiculous, that they are deliberately making the maintenance of discipline seem ridiculous and that they are deliberately presenting the maintenance of law and order in our country in a ridiculous light to the people of South Africa.

Let us dwell for a moment on the Labour Party. We see that they have been travelling through the country during the last few months holding mass meetings and stirring up emotions. That was not difficult, because it must be remembered that one has to do with masses that are politically uninformed and with masses who are illiterate or half illiterate. We are aware of Mr. Leon’s about-face and his sudden change of mind with regard to his statements. In the first place he said that the new dispensation would herald a completely new era, but afterwards the about-face followed. We know that it is common cause that the Official Opposition subsequently spoke to Coloured and Indian leaders and said to Mr. Buthelezi: But what about your urban Blacks; should you, then, not also be consulted in this plan? After all, we know the background of the Official Opposition. After all, we know that they realize that the only way in which they can take over the government, is to form an effective union with the Coloureds and the Blacks in the country. I am not objecting to their rejection, because anyone can differ from someone else. Therefore anyone has the right to reject our new constitutional proposals. What I object to, is the vindictiveness with which it is done.

What does Mr. Leon say in this case—

if the new dispensation is accepted. He continued—

I don’t mind that. He said further—

Note the following—

In addition to that, these leaders openly advocate revolution in South Africa on public platforms. I refer to Rev. Hendricks who is the chairman of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. Last year there was a motion before the CRC moved by the Federale Volksparty in which they condemned unjust interference by the outside world in South Africa’s affairs. What does Rev. Hendricks say, according to the Hansard of the CRC, Vol. 39, page 848—

This is the language those people use. This is the language of people who, the hon. member for Groote Schuur himself admitted, have been advised by him. These are the people with whom the Official Opposition associates.

Does this not correspond to a statement of Mr. Harry Pitman? Surely he said, talking along the same lines, that the Government should be overthrown by extra-parliamentary means.

I shall now continue, but I shall come back from time to time to the link between certain of these leaders who are advised by hon. members of the Official Opposition and their own leaders. I also want to refer to the abuse of position and in this regard there was a meeting which took place on 7 March 1977 in Port Elizabeth. There Rev. Hendricks once again appeared. There he said that any person who had a problem and wanted to approach him, should first prove to him that he was a member of the Labour Party. I refer to the abuse of his position by a person who is in a position of State authority to lead people, help people and to provide a service. We know that there has been a manipulation of posts, particularly in the education field as far as the appointment of teachers and principals are concerned. However, it goes much further than that. Among the Coloureds, intimidation and mass blackmail take place on a large scale. I have many examples, but I want to pause at only one. I believe that this is one of the most telling. I refer to a letter someone wrote under the pseudonym “Bang Jan” from Heideveld. What did he write? In the Volksblad of 10 February 1978 he wrote referring to the mass blackmail at a political meeting addressed by Mr. Sonny Leon, the leader of the Labour Party, at Heidedal, where he said that people who no longer supported him, would be found and dealt with. I point out how far the vindictiveness in this country goes already. “Bang Jan” went on—

Mr. Speaker, this shows you how far it has gone already. I want to continue and get to the policy of the PFP that schools should be opened to Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. We see that in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage no fewer than 70 Black children are allowed in Brown schools. In all cases there were Black schools which they could attend and there were bus services; it had to happen, nevertheless, to retard the development of this Coloured because there are language differences. These people also have to use the books which had to be provided from the Coloured budget.

I now want to refer to unpatriotism, and particularly to the decision taken by the Labour congress at Oudtshoorn held in November 1977. An unanimous motion in favour of foreign economic sanctions against South Africa was accepted there. This is what happens. I want to relate this to the statements of the Official Opposition, because this is exactly what the hon. member for Park-town said. This is the same advice he gave to people abroad and which is now followed by these leaders who are advised by them, to use the very words of the hon. member for Groote Schuur. The same unpatriotism we get in the statement of the hon. member for Pinelands, when he said with regard to Mr. Donald Woods, being a person engaged in large-scale treachery against South Africa, that he had the greatest respect for Woods. This is despicable. Time and time again the statements can be linked to the vindictiveness and things happening in this country. The Labour Party went further and held a stormy, very emotional meeting, with Mr. Buthelezi of the South African Black Alliance as chairman, and Mr. Leon as vice-chairman, in March 1978 in Athlone. That meeting ended in disorder, and in what way? I shall read out how—

This shows how far it has gone already. Furthermore we have Black Power polarization in this country. While I am dealing with this point, I just want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not present at the moment. He is always pious; he is always the man who wants to be patriotic and who always wants to create the impression in this House that he is for South Africa and with South Africa. He has other friends as well, for instance the hon. member for Rondebosch, on the other side of the House. I say that as long as one is sitting on that side of the House, one cannot put forward ones own patriotic convictions. One has to associate oneself with the people with whom one is sitting. We cannot carry on with that mask.

Against this background, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you what benefit the Coloureds of South Africa can get out of the Labour Party’s participation in Inkatha. Which benefit can they get out of the Labour Party’s participation in the S.A. Black Alliance. Which benefit can they get out of participating in one of these organizations and the emotional events such as attending the funeral of Robert Sobukwe? What use is that to the Coloured? Then, too, I want to ask what the hon. member for Houghton did at that funeral. If she went there because a good friend of hers was being buried, that is probably well and good. But why did she go to make a speech there? When she could not make the speech, she issued it to the Press. What did she want to say? At his funeral, the only one where there was no police protection, she wanted to say in an emotional atmosphere that Sobukwe was the only man in South Africa in regard to whom the whole Parliament of South Africa had to make a separate Act.

I am sorry that I do not have the time to complete my story, but I want to say that it is late in the day and that the leaders of that party and of certain negative Coloureds and Blacks in this country speak the same language. South Africa evaluated them and decided to form a united front against those who seek confrontation in South Africa. South Africa will stand by that and destroy those members until none is left of the 17.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Durbanville who has just sat down and also to the hon. member for Von Brandis before him, I want to say that we have once again witnessed hon. Government members at the throat of the Official Opposition. While I want to say at the outset that I certainly do not agree with everything the hon. member for Durbanville has just said, an awful lot of what he has said has shown that the Official Opposition, its policy and its attitude towards South Africa are clearly becoming less and less relevant in the South African political scene of today. The question I should like to pose this evening is whether or not the policy of the Government itself is in fact relevant in the long term as far as South Africa’s political development is concerned. I believe this is a question we should pose at this time in the session as this is the last major political debate of this session.

We are also nearing the end of the first session for the NRP. I should like to use the time at my disposal to try to identify quite clearly the differences in political philosophy between the Government, the Official Opposition and ourselves.

I hope that, in doing so, we will establish which party has the greatest relevance in South Africa’s politics of the future.

Before I do this, I should like to say that, while we may be a small party with only ten members in the House and because we are so small, we are probably the hardest-working party in this House. [Interjections.] While we may be small, we are indeed an extremely proud party. We are proud because of our political philosophy, which is the philosophy of pluralism. Mr. Speaker, you have been in the Chair for a number of years now. It is a fact that in recent years the Opposition has been an extremely unhappy Opposition. I think that, as you will have observed, the NRP this year is an extremely happy party. [Interjections.] We are happy because we are a party that has no political hang-ups. We in the NRP do not sit on the horns of dilemmas as do the NP, as I intend showing, and the PFP, as I shall also show. As pluralists, we know that the philosophy of pluralism is right for South Africa. I should like to put it to hon. members that the NRP is the only political party in South Africa that can lay claim to being South Africa’s pluralistic party. During the session we have taken every opportunity clearly to state our views in this regard. It is in Hansard for all to see and for history to judge us by. On the other hand Hansard shows that the NP has clearly indicated this session that they have deviated not one inch from their policy of apartheid. Therefore the NP remains South Africa’s traditional separatist party. They are the segregationist party of South Africa. During the Second Reading I stated the following (Hansard, 6 April 1978, col. 4061)—

Then I posed the following question—

I was referring to the new constitutional plans—

Hansard records that the reply to this question was a resounding “no”! It was an unanimous “no” from all hon. members. I believe I should possibly ask that question again. Has the NP deviated from the old political principle of totally separated political destinies for Whites, Indians and Coloureds? Have they? I want to know this, Mr. Speaker. Are they prepared to answer this question?

“Tjoepstil!”

They may be pondering the question I have put to them. If this is the case, I do believe that this session has served a purpose. However, I do believe that in the heart of hearts of those people they honestly feel and believe and would like to believe that there has not been a deviation from their political principles. As such this is the NP’s dilemma. They do not want to abandon apartheid principles …

Nor do you.

Why does not the hon. the member for Bryanston listen … [Interjections.] The NP does not want to abandon apartheid principles which demand total political separation for Coloureds, Indians and Whites. That is their stated policy. Yet if any thinking person studies the constitutional proposals for a multiracial Cabinet Council he will see that there is in fact a political coming together of three groups. That is the tragedy of their separatist thinking. The tragedy is that it demands of them that they continue to dominate this coming together of the three groups of the Cabinet Council. In so doing it threatens the possibility of a solution to South Africa’s problems, which is possible, we believe, by applying true pluralistic principles to this particular problem.

We on these benches are quite convinced that time and circumstance, aided by justifiable pressure for a square deal for Coloureds and Indians, will eventually force the NP to change to the NRP’s philosophy. This, I submit, is what makes the NP’s present stand totally irrelevant in the political future of South Africa. The tragedy is that in the meantime, in their blind adherence to the political rallying call of apartheid, they are going to do the intergroup relations in South Africa and also our relations with countries outside South Africa, immeasurable harm. It is such a pity that they appear to be totally incapable of doing what we have suggested, and that is to use the best constitutional minds in South Africa for drawing up a new constitution based on true pluralistic lines. This is the NP’s dilemma and one can see them struggling with it in every debate. Only they can solve it by exercising their minds and most of all by searching their consciences.

I would now like to turn to the PFP. As I have said, the NP are the segregationists, we are the pluralists and here, to my right, we have South Africa’s traditional integrationists. These people are the common society idealists. They are the people who, through the media and through what they say from public platforms are trying to condition the minds of Whites to eventual Black majority rule. This is the Black majority rule party who find themselves, at present, here to my right.

[Inaudible.]

I had no doubt that they were going to object to this label, because they know it is political suicide to say to the electorate that they are a Black majority rule party, but that is what they are.

All I want to know is: Why did you negotiate with them? [Interjections.]

Hearing the reaction of the party to my right; I shall never forget an experience I had during the Durban North by-election. Shortly after the count had been announced …

Who won? [Interjections.]

The PFP amidst all the exultation, there was a young girl that went running around, putting her arms around everybody and saying: “All we want right now is immediate Black majority rule.” This is what the PFP had told their people, because this is what quite a number of them were saying when the election result was announced. The hon. member for Berea’s brother was there at the time, as was the ex-member for Umlazi, Curt von Keyserlingk.

They sang “We shall overcome. ” [Interjections.]

Yes. They sang “We shall overcome.” Those people heard and witnessed this particular episode. I believe that everybody in the House will agree with me that it is the duty of the Official Opposition to come clean with the South African White voters and to state quite clearly where they stand in this regard and where their proposed constitutional arrangement will eventually lead South Africa. They have a dilemma, as has the NP. In their hearts they are integrationists. They are the common society idealists. They believe in a common role and in a common Parliament for all race groups. I would like to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove whether that is not correct. [Interjections.] It was stated by the hon. Leader of the Opposition earlier on today.

He said it.

Yes, he said it. The political reality of our complex plural society is causing them to equivocate. One can see it in their pamphlets. I have some of their pamphlets here and I want to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for sending them to me earlier this session. I have here pamphlets outlining their party’s principles, policy and constitution. I have studied these in great depth. I have also studied the writings of their academics and I have with me a cutting from the Rand Daily Mail.

This article was written by Prof. David Welsh of the University of Cape Town, who I believe is drawing up the constitutional proposals of this party. I am quite sure that hon. members will be interested in this article, which is headed: “A liberal’s case against majority rule”. The writer was referring to the type of democratic parliament that is found in the USA or in Britain. The article reads—

He says further—

He proceeds to say further on that if we do not want conflict in South Africa, we must negotiate, and that if we do not negotiate soon the conflict will be more intense, etc. Nowhere does he clearly state, however, on what basis a solution can be negotiated, a solution which will protect the ethnicity and the group identity which, according to him, is so necessary for peace. How can he, if the basis for negotiation as announced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the House today does not provide for group identity? The dilemma of the PFP is their inability to acknowledge the plural nature of Africa’s peoples. In my opinion this makes them totally irrelevant in the future political scene in South Africa.

The NP’s segregationism and the PFP’s integrationism will not solve South Africa’s problems; the NRP’s pluralism will.

What do you mean by “pluralism”?

The hon. member for Pinelands wants to know what I mean by pluralism. [Interjections.] If I may I shall quote what it means. In his A Dictionary of Politics Walter Laqueur defines pluralism as—

[Interjections.] This is a definition of pluralism, and now maybe the hon. members would like to know what I as a pluralist feel. [Interjections.] Firstly, I am a member of the White group of South Africa [Interjections.] In the heterogeneous society which South Africa is … [Interjections.] Let me ask the hon. members of the Official Opposition whether they are not members of the White group and if they are, whether they are ashamed of being members of the White group.

We are members of the human race.

I am proud of being a member of the White group. [Interjections.] Our philosophy of pluralism expresses the wish that all people should be proud of what they are and of their identity. I am proud of my history in this country. I am proud of the experiences of the Whites in South Africa, I am proud of what they stand for and of the standards of the White people. I believe that these things, which make me what I am, are the things which I, as a South African and as a member of this Parliament, want to make sure are continued for the White people to enjoy in the future of South Africa. Having said that, I am just as sure that the Zulus in the province which I come from are just as proud of being Zulus and have the same intention and desire to preserve what is dear to them as I have to preserve what is dear to me.

We live in a heterogeneous society with many other groups. These people have the same basic rights to their own political power base as I have, and my power base is this Parliament. Therefore, as a pluralist my philosophy demands of me that what I ask for myself and my White group, I must give also to all other groups in the country. It is because of this that we propose our concept of a negotiated federal confederal constitution for South Africa.

On what basis?

I shall tell the hon. member if he gives me a chance. Such a dispensation must—as the definition states— produce a fair distribution of government, general costs and benefits. On these things we are prepared to negotiate.

With whom?

With all groups in South Africa. But we in this party will never negotiate—as the PFP is prepared to do—the destruction of our only political power base, a power base which is our only guarantee for our future identity, as well as for the future identity of the Indians, the Coloureds and the Blacks.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said: “I am proud to be a member of the White group.” To a question which he put to the PFP, the hon. member for Pinelands replied: “I am a member of the human race.” I want to ask the hon. member whether he is proud of being a White man; yes or no? It is a simple question. If one were to ask anyone else whether he was proud to be a South African or a White man, he would not hesitate to reply that he was. But this hon. member cannot give a straightforward or unequivocal reply. We have suspected for a long time that hon. members of the PFP were not only ashamed of being White people, but also felt guilty because they were White. This is our first point of difference with the PFP, because we have no such feelings of guilt.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that the NRP was a “happy party” because it was so small. We have always believed that there was truth in the saying “the more the merrier”. To me the case with the opposition parties seems to be one of “the more they are, the more unhappy they become” and that they are happy only when they consist of small groups.

Watch this happiness grow! [Interjections.]

I want to say to that hon. member that if that happiness grows at the expense of the PFP, I wish him greater happiness. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked the NP whether it was still their policy that Coloureds and Indians should have completely separate identities.

†I should like to say to him that he knows that as far as this is concerned, the NP is committed to change, but not to a change of policy—the policy is clearly established. It is committed to a change in the situation as far as the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned. In the first place I should like to point out that as far as the Coloureds and Asians are concerned, it is the policy of the NP to withdraw White authority over matters pertaining exclusively to both Indians and Coloureds and to do so completely. In the second place it is the policy of the NP to relinquish the exclusive authority the Whites have at present over matters of common interest and to establish in the place thereof a system of government based on co-operation with the Coloureds and the Asians. The hon. member knows that.

I want to refer to the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made today. I should like to talk for a few minutes with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about political power. The basic motivation behind all political activity in this country is to achieve power and to exercise it. It is the ideal of all political parties in this Parliament and outside to achieve some degree of power. However, when we talk about power we must, firstly, look at our society and the societies of other countries. Let us look at the situation in Africa. If we look at the situation in the various African States, we immediately see that in those African States there are heterogenous societies. This is a very important political fact. In these countries there live people who belong to different ethnic groups, national groups, nations, cultural backgrounds and language groups.

Over the past couple of decades there have been power struggles within these societies. The basic problem of Africa today is the problem of how to solve the power struggle between these different national groups within a particular country. I defy the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to deny that the most important problem of and challenge to Africa is how to resolve this power struggle. In this Parliament all political parties realize, and it is written also into our policy, that power must be given to the Black people of this country. When we talk about how we are going to give power to the Black peoples of this country there are a couple of very important questions to be asked and answered. In the first place: What will the consequences be of the granting of power to the Black peoples? What will the consequences be for the Whites, what will be the consequences for the Coloureds and Asians, and what will be the consequences for the Coloureds and Asians, and what will be the consequences for the Blacks themselves? As far as this is concerned, the overriding aspect is the question of security, not only the security of the White people of this country, but also the security of the different Black groups in this Country as well as the security of the Coloureds and the Asians. What would be the effect of the granting of power on our own political power struggle and what would be the effect on our standard of living? We know what has happened in Africa. These questions have become very pertinent in the South African scene. Every political party has a strategy for the granting of political power to Black people. The NP has a strategy and the PFP has a strategy, and if we examine the strategies of the different parties we must look to Africa to see what has happened in Africa in the past few decades. The lesson of Africa is clear. Power-sharing in Africa between different national groups has failed and has failed dismally. All Black States in Africa started in a democratic way, with a democratic constitution, with a strong judicial system and with a Bill of Rights built into the constitution. And what is the position today? Today there is no democracy left in Africa in any heterogeneous society. But Africa has solved its power struggle problem to a great extent. How has Africa solved the power struggle problem? It has solved the power struggle problem in the first place by the institution of one-party States and, in the second place, by the institution of military Governments. We would not tolerate either of these systems in South Africa. Democracy also has succeeded in Africa. It has succeeded in a country such as Botswana. Why has democracy succeeded in Botswana? Democracy has succeeded in Botswana because Botswana is a homogeneous country.

It has never been a homogeneous country.

90% of the Botswana society constitutes a homogeneous political group. They speak the same language, they have the same political background and they belong to the same ethnic group. It is basically a homogeneous society. That being so, we must try to learn from Africa. We must ask ourselves what is the lesson of Africa. The lesson of Africa is that democracy can only succeed in politically homogeneous units in Africa.

Now let us look at the policy of the PFP as set out this afternoon by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition tells us that he wants to create federal states and he wants to create boundaries, taking into account various factors. I would like to ask him across the floor of this House whether he will take ethnicity into account when he draws those boundaries.

*It is an important question. One of the things which he will most certainly bear in mind in determining the boundaries of his federal states, will be ethnicity, I challenge him to deny that. That being the case, the hon. Leader of the Opposition tells us that the various federal states will each have the maximum legislative, executive and judicial authority. The separate federal states will each have the maximum authority. What does that mean? Surely it means a policy of division of power.

†The policy as far as the federal states of the PFP are concerned, means merely one thing. It means a division of power amongst the different federal states. That they want to do to the maximum.

*Now I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why he wants to apply a policy of division of power among the separate federal states. The basic principle of the policy of the NP is the principle of the division of power. The NP is doing it for good reasons. But why does the PFP want a division of power among the separate federal states? Why? Surely the answer to that is very clear. The PFP realizes that the principle of the division of power is the most important political principle on which our survival depends. [Interjections.] The PFP realizes that there must be a division of power in South Africa, that power in South Africa cannot be centralized, because the power struggle cannot be resolved in that way.

Then the PFP goes on to say, however, that as far as its federal constitution is concerned, there will be no division of power. In my opinion therefore the PFP does not have the moral courage to carry through to its maximum and logical conclusion the principle that it wants to apply with regard to the federal states. Surely this is the only way in which the power struggle can be resolved.

Now we come to the policy of the NP. The policy of the NP and the motivation behind it basically boils down to one and the same thing. The problem of the power struggle in South Africa must be resolved in a democratic way which will satisfy the respective Black peoples as well as the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. What is important, is that it should take place in a democratic way. This power struggle cannot be solved in a unitary state, however.

In Africa we have witnessed how the power struggle has been resolved in heterogeneous communities. It has been resolved there by creating one-party states and military dictatorships. We in South Africa tell the world that we have another solution, however. We have a different policy. Our policy amounts to self-determination to all the respective population groups. Our policy is one of the division of power. When power is divided, when power is being separated among the separate groups, one undeniably succeeds in resolving the power struggle among the population groups involved. When we look at the Transkei—and we know that the PFP has held up the Transkei to us as an example of the failures of NP policy—we realize, however, the Transkei today is living proof of the success of the policy of the NP. This is so because, in spite of differences which will always exist between states, the basic power struggle between Whites and Blacks, has been resolved as far as the people of the Transkei are concerned. When the Transkei severed its diplomatic relations with South Africa, the Prime Minister of the Transkei argued that it centred, inter alia, round certain land questions. However, it is not a question of whether John Vorster or Kaiser Matanzima should be the Prime Minister of the Transkei or of the Black people. That problem has basically been solved already. Because that problem of the power struggle has been solved, the ground has been cleared for a large measure of agreement, co-operation and concensus between White and Black.

I am now referring to Bophuthatswana. Who can deny that Bophuthatswana became independent through the leaders of 2 million Black people and 0,4 million White people coming together and with the approval of the various population groups, deciding to regulate their mutual relations in a particular way. It was done, and on the basis of the power struggle between White and Black being eliminated. We are no longer fighting about who should be Prime Minister—President Mangope or our hon. Prime Minister? That struggle has been finalized. Since it has been finalized, the parties have come together to try to reach an agreement with one another, on how it should be done, in considering the common ground which exists between them and us. Those agreements are not casual agreements, but agreements embodied in more than 60 contracts. They are bilateral agreements between two States and signed by the leaders of the various States. Day-to-day existence is determined by those contracts between White and Black. This is the result when people get together and wish to eliminate their problems. The result we enjoy, is one of co-operation and consensus between White and Black.

For that reason the policy and strategy of the NP means only one thing: It is a wonderful, an unsurpassable framework for the co-operation and coexistence of White and Black peoples here in South Africa. The implementation of this policy means a growing consensus between Black and White in South Africa. The implementation of this policy means that White and Black will come closer together and arrange their affairs by way of contract.

We are eliminating the power struggle. What does the Official Opposition want to do? Can any member of the Official Opposition state that there is the slightest possibility of the power struggle between White and Black in this country being eliminated in accordance with the programme which those hon. members have in mind? Goodness me, they do not even have a programme. They do not know what their policy is. Their policy can only lead to further conflict and to further tension between White and Black. Within the policy of the PRP there is no way in which there can be co-operation between White and Black. After all, the PRP comes to the conference table with a weak hand.

In dealing with the granting political power to the Black people and the strategy in this regard, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the Government, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, does have the recipe which is acceptable to White and Black. We have a recipe which means safety. We have a recipe according to which standards—the standard of living, too—in South Africa will not drop. We have the recipe which means development. We have the recipe which will lead to friendship. We have the recipe which will set an example to the rest of darkest Africa on how people from different cultural groups and of different colour can all live together in peace.

Mr. Speaker, at the very outset I want to say that the hon. member for Pretoria Central spelled out the concepts of the “sharing of power” and the “division of power” very logically and efficiently. I should like to compliment him on that.

History has once again been made in Parliament today. Over the past 30 years, whenever the political opposition in our country started talking politics, they enveloped everything in political gloom. Today it happened again from what I could gather from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, that party advocates a federal system. But they reject ethnicity. Consequently I assume that the components of the federal State which they advocate will be determined according to geographic guidelines. That party advocates full citizenship throughout the country and that party advocates that there should be no influx control whatsoever. My question is this: How is the Official Opposition going to protect the rights of minorities like the Coloureds, Whites and Asians but with paper guarantees which are absolutely worthless? Until the Official Opposition offers a clear, logical and comprehensible alternative, it will continue to be an insignificant factor in South African politics.

I should like to make a few remarks about the budget itself. The Official Opposition was unable to derive any joy from the main objective of the budget, viz. growth with financial discipline and the proposed measures to accomplish this. It was not through a lack of trying though. The hon. member for Yeoville made the following negative comment in this regard, and I quote from Hansard, 3 April 1978, col. 3698—

In Hansard of the same day, col. 3707, he continued—

Then he asked—

He furnished the reply himself—

The hon. the Minister of Finance made two predictions which are bound up with these two main objectives. Firstly, the hon. the Minister said that the country’s economy was on the threshold of a new upswing. Secondly, he said that there would be a moderate increase in real private consumption during 1978 in comparison with 1977. The latest results of the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch prove that the hon. the Minister was correct in both his predictions. In the May edition of the Bureau’s report, the following conclusion is reached on page 8—

On page 10 of the same edition the following discovery is made—

It is clear that the hon. the Minister is achieving his objective. Now, it cannot be an argument to allege that there was too little stimulation or that the upswing was too slight. It must be taken into consideration that the budget was introduced only two months ago. It must be regarded as an extraordinary achievement that, in the midst of economic uncertainties, a period of approximately two months only has been long enough to prove the hon. the Minister right. This is in sharp contrast to the Opposition Parties and their political predecessors for whom a period of 30 years was too short a time to prove anything positive.

I want to proceed. The hon. member for Yeoville made great play of the point that the budget contained the principle and had the effect of the poor being taxed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition associated himself with this. The hon. member for Yeoville actually became dramatic and said that he wanted to call it a tragedy. I want to concede that if I were in the place of the hon. member for Yeoville, and like him, had economic arguments without any substance, I would perhaps have done the same. The moment the hon. member called it a tragedy, however, it aroused suspicion. It aroused the suspicion that the hon. member was merely paying lip service. The suspicion in this regard cannot be anything but overwhelming, because, after all, the hon. member for Yeoville and his fellow party members were all born economic fat cats. One may rightly ask what experience whatsoever that party has of poor people. I have the impression that that hon. member’s experience of poor people more or less corresponds to that of Marie-Antionette, who, when the French people were crying for bread, asked why they did not eat cake. I want to allege that there are people on this side of the House, in contrast to that party, who have intimate knowledge and experience of poverty. Although the Government has always put the interests of the poor people and the less priviledged first over the past 30 years, we shall not allow them to be insulted by throwing alms to them, as the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to do in a figurative sense.

I actually want to discuss a completely different subject in the time at my disposal, i.e. the most remote part of the Republic of South Africa, Walvis Bay. That area is often in the news lately and I have discovered that members are interested in more details. I shall give only a few. The Walvis Bay area has a coastline of approximately 60 km and landwards its boundaries vary from 15 km to 30 km. In this area there are 28 000 people of whom 12 000 are Whites, 4 000 Coloureds, 6 000 Blacks and 6 000 Black contract labourers. Walvis Bay is a modern town with a valuation of R73 million. The most important economic activities are the fishing industry, which has a turnover of approximately R100 million per year, the harbour activities with a goods turnover of nearly R200 million per year, and a growing salt industry with a current production of approximately 600 000 metric tons per year.

There are a few aspects concerning Walvis Bay that I should like to underline. The first is that the uncertainty in South West Africa is having an influence on the inhabitants of Walvis Bay as well. Those people fear isolation. They are afraid that they will be regarded as the step-children of the Republic. For that reason I am very grateful that the hon. member for Tygervalley requested independent representation for that area in this Parliament. To me it is a great honour to represent a community like that in this House. As far as this matter is concerned, I shall allow myself to be guided by the wishes of the people of Walvis Bay and by what is in the best interests of Walvis Bay. On the long term, the economic prospects for the territory are good, especially as a result of the importance of the harbour for commercial purposes. It is true that the fishing industry, which is playing an important role there at the moment, depends on catches within the fishing areas of South West Africa. One must accept that an independent South West Africa will try to reserve the greatest possible advantage for itself. It is also true that Walvis Bay and South West Africa are interdependent because Walvis Bay has the harbour facilities, the processing facilities and the water obtained from the Kuiseb mouth. I can also refer to another possible long term economic possibility, and that is that investigations have proved that if Southern Africa stabilizes politically, a rail link between Walvis Bay, Botswana, Rhodesia, Zambia and Zaïre is a practical and economic possibility. On the short term, the community of Walvis Bay has certain financial and taxation problem about which representations have been made to the hon. the Minister. These problems result from the take-over of the administration of the area by the Republic after it was administered by the administration of South West Africa. Although I know that the hon. the Minister adopts a sympathetic attitude towards these people, I want to ask nevertheless that the greatest possible concessions be made to these people because they are people who are living in isolation and are manning one of our outposts. To date, strategic considerations have exceeded all other considerations in importance. Britain annexed the territory 100 years ago for strategic considerations. The Dutch also annexed the territory for strategic considerations prior to the British annexation. Strategically Walvis Bay will in future probably become the most important point on the west coast of Africa, in the interests of the Cape sea route, in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of South West Africa and in the interests of the Free World. On behalf of the people that I am representing here, I ask that the control over this important strategic point should not be negotiable. In this regard I want to express my deepest gratitude to the hon. the Prime Minister for clearly taking the standpoint that Walvis Bay will not form part of the agreement on South West Africa under any circumstances. It is significant that in a hostile world South Africa’s legal title to Walvis Bay is not being disputed anywhere. There are people who claim the territory on grounds of certain moral rights. Such rights are unknown to me. I am aware of moral obligations though, and that is the duty one has towards a helpful and loyal neighbour. That is why special privileges must be given to South West Africa in respect of harbour facilities at Walvis Bay in the form of a free harbour or by way of preferential treatment.

In conclusion, no moral obligations rests on any country in the world to do its enemies a favour so that those enemies may be in a better position to get in at it. I want to allege that this holds good for South Africa too.

Mr. Speaker, at the start of his speech the hon. member for Namaqualand raised an issue as a point of attack against the Official Opposition, a theme which has been raised repeatedly by hon. members on that side of the House, as well as by hon. members of the NRP. What the issue amounts to basically is that one of the most important consequences of the policy of the PFP, as spelt out by the hon. leader of this party, poses the danger of Black majority government. In this regard I want to make the statement that this attack in itself—I am going to demonstrate and prove this now—is a clear demonstration of an intellectual dishonesty in the policy which those two parties put forward. I want to illustrate this. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the following yesterday—

Then he continued and said the following important words—

These words were repeated today by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and are also constantly being repeated by the hon. members of the NRP, which boast of pluralism. If it is a factual reality that we have a multinational community, and if it is a factual reality that one does not support the other, then it is a practical and logical impossibility that there will ever be Black majority rule in South Africa. Therefore they cannot argue on the one hand that there is a multinational South Africa and on the other, when attacking our policy, allege that it will lead to Black majority rule. On the contrary: If our policy were to be put into practice, that multinationalism would realize itself in the most natural way in South Africa. That is exactly what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. If it is as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs maintains, that if in regard to every section, they …

We do not believe that and you know it.

The hon. members do believe that, for they state repeatedly: “We are a plural society.”

†If we are a plural society, Black majority rule is factually impossible …

That is a funny argument.

It is a logical and completely correct argument. If the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that even if we remove all legislation referring to ethnicity, then we will really be revealing the kind of ethnicity we have in the society, I challenge him to do it so that we can see. That is exactly what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, i.e. that we are prepared to negotiate with all the natural political interest groups that exist in our society.

*Next I want to come back on the important issue which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised, because what I have reacted to now, is tautological political point scoring which is convenient to use in the House and those hon. members do not believe in it themselves, or if they do, they do not believe in their own policy. Basically, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentions six aspects in his speech. The hon. the Minister tried to hold a concrete political debate. He said, in the first place, that the Government cannot expect understanding and support from the West merely because it is anti-communist. Secondly, he said that communist countries are interfering increasingly directly in Africa and particularly in Southern Africa. Thirdly, he maintained that the West regards the White man in South Africa as of merely economic import and that he should be prepared to play a subordinate political role. Fourthly, he alleged that no White political party could therefore satisfy or alleviate foreign pressure by policy statements. He said that repeatedly …

Do you agree?

I agree to a large extent. The hon. the Minister subsequently said that the White man should therefore rather try to find an internal solution than to be obsessed by the idea of satisfying the outside world. It is the most important statement he made. He then came to the following conclusion and said that the central premise on the Government side was the following: The Government was prepared to remove all discriminatory measures and obstacles, but one thing it will never give up, and that is the right of the White man to govern himself. Those were his words.

Do you disagree?

That is exactly what I want to deal with now. Before doing so, however, I just want to say that I have never heard so much about the need to move away from discrimination, and had so few examples of it from that side of the House, as during this very Parliamentary session. Let us take a look at the concept of the need for the White man to govern himself. At first sight it seems a fair demand, but what does it mean in practice? In this regard I do not want to put questions to the authorities alone, but to ourselves as well, for we as Whites are all involved in this demand which is being made. Firstly, I want to know whether it means that the way in which the White man governs himself in fact makes it essential for him, in effect, to take all the effective decisions, decisions governing the life of the Black man? In this regard I have in mind, for example, where he may live, where he may work and where he may have citizenship. If so—and it is the case at the moment—the inevitable counter-claim of the Black man will be that if the White man can only maintain his identity by governing the Black man, that identity should be denied and eliminated. At the moment we are witnessing signs of that in our own society.

Secondly, does this demand mean that the White man, too, is prepared to govern himself in a manner comparable to that which he wants any other population group to have? In other words, is the White man prepared to see a third of his active permanent labour force migrant labourers without a settled family life, and a third of his White population living permanently outside the White homeland where they will never obtain political rights. I do not believe that this is what the Government has in mind for the White man, but it is the consequence for the Black man of the demand, and for that reason this demand will be rejected to an increasing extent, as a result of these very consequences.

Thirdly, this demand also means in fact that the White man, in order to be able to govern himself, claims for himself virtually all the benefits of the free market mechanism, whereas to the Black man they are virtually unattainable. I have in mind, for example, benefits such as: where he can acquire capital and land, erect factories, work, etc. If this is indeed the case, the Black man will increasingly reject the free market mechanism as being an instrument of his subjection at the hands of the White man. The signs of this, for those who want to read them, are clearly to be seen in our society. The 4 000 young children from Soweto who left the country, are being taught one thing above all, viz. that the free market mechanism is the biggest culprit in their oppression and is a force in the hands of the White man. What is taking place here is ideological polarization.

Fourthly, does it in fact also mean that the White man can only govern himself in respect of other population groups in terms of the Population Registration Act, the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and the Group Areas Act? Does it really mean that? The hon. member for Pretoria Central talked about the wonderful system we have. Is it a prerequisite for this system that the Immorality Act, for example, has to apply? Is this legislation essential for the White man to be able to govern himself? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training unequivocally says: “Yes.” However, there are people here who do not say so. What is negotiable so that the White man can govern himself? If these laws are necessary, we as White people can expect no co-operation from the Black people to help us to preserve our identity by means of these measures.

Therefore, when the Government states that the only non-negotiable demand is that the White man must have the right to govern himself, and with these consequences, there are two unavoidable implications. Firstly, this demand immediately becomes the greatest single source of conflict in the relationship between White and Black in our society. If that is the result, the Government will never be able to obtain consensus for a solution of our problems of coexistence. A second, paradoxical implication of this demand is that it also becomes the greatest threat to the White man’s security and survival in Southern and South Africa. Evidence of that is clear. We are caught up in a parallel process of increasing racial polarization, as well as ideological polarization, precisely as a result of the fact that the demand made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as formulated in the policy of apartheid, has the consequence that this demand is being rejected by the Black people. For that reason, even if we were to concede that it is a waste of time to try to satisfy foreign demands and pressure, what does the Government intend doing to alleviate internal pressure?

Looking at this year’s parliamentary session, there have been two statements which I believe contributed immensely to an increase in this pressure. One was that of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development when he said that there will be no Black South Africans. The other was the announcement of the preference policy which will be applied in the Western Cape. We are not going to hear the end of that story for a long time to come.

The inherent dilemma of the Government is that it sees apartheid as the only way for the White man to exercise the right to govern himself, and this policy is being rejected, not only abroad but also by the vast majority of Blacks at home. Consequently, the policy which is supposed to safeguard the White man’s security becomes the greatest single threat to that security. Why is that so? It is so because the outstanding feature of the Government’s policy is that of unilateral decision-making. That is the cardinal point of difference between this party and the Government, for we maintain that one cannot find one-sided solutions.

†That is why we stress the importance and necessity of a national convention. Many questions have been asked about this convention. I want to answer them and repeat what has been said by the leader of the PFP many times. What is meant by a national convention? I quote—

How should this national convention be composed? Its composition should represent a cross-section of the various groups, be they ethnic, non-ethnic or regional, forming the elements of a power structure in the country. This national convention should be attended by the elected leaders of the various groups. The precondition for holding a national convention—the hon. member for Bryanston dwelt on this at length—is the removal of race discrimination so as to create a favourable atmosphere conducive to the reaching of agreement. How would a convention make decisions? Conventions do not operate on a head count principle. Their decisions are based on consensus and the broadest degree of agreement attainable. What would be the effect of the convention’s decisions? A convention is not a Parliament. It is advisory to Parliament which, as the sovereign body, would have to enact any new constitutional proposals.

Lastly we were asked what would happen if a PFP Government failed to reach agreement at a convention. The answer is simple. There is no end to the process of negotiation because the alternative is confrontation. The PFP would carry on governing on the basis of its own policy while continuously trying to expand areas of common ground so that agreements could be reached.

*We are offering this alternative, not because we are wishful thinkers, so-called liberals or “grand common society idealists”, but because we have learned the lessons of Southern Africa. We have seen what happened in Rhodesia and we see what is happening at the moment in South West Africa. We know that if the demand of the White man to govern himself in South Africa means that he must govern other people and will deny their privileges and opportunities, it is doomed right from the start. But if the White man of South Africa says that he is prepared to accept the common citizenship of all those other people, to meet them at the level of their elected leadership and to debate and negotiate in order to find a way out of this conflict situation, his salvation and security will be found there, but not if he is going to try to conquer the whole world and lose his political soul.

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member for Rondebosch gave us a brief insight into the soul of hon. members of the Official Opposition. The mere fact that the hon. member thought it fit to question the White man’s claim to govern himself, is a very clear indication that hon. members of that party surrendered the claim and the right of the White man to govern himself in this country a long time ago.

What did the hon. member ask us? He asked us whether the right of the White man to govern himself, implied certain things. He then presented an illusion which has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of the White man to govern himself. He presented a distorted image of the existing problematical situations in our society. The hon. member now presents the very things which serve as a challenge to us, the very things to which we pay attention every day in our policy and in our actions in order to deal with and to accommodate these problematical situations, as though these are ostensibly the essential characteristics of the White man’s right to govern himself. In all fairness to the hon. member for Rondebosch, I want to tell him that I do not believe that he is so naïve or so ignorant as really to believe in the image which he represented here tonight of the White man’s right to govern himself.

The hon. member for Rondebosch said the PFP “are prepared to negotiate with all the natural interested groups”. Those were his words. [Interjections.]

The interest groups.

Interest groups.

“The natural interest groups.” Very well. I want to refer the hon. member for Rondebosch to what the hon. member for Bryanston said on a previous occasion and again here tonight in reply to the question as to who would be invited to the national convention they are proposing. The hon. member for Bryanston stated very categorically that it would be the elected leaders of the various nations. As a sociologist, the hon. member for Rondebosch would undoubtedly agree with me that one of the basic needs of every individual is to belong to a group. I also want to put it to him that the most natural interest group there is, is a nation. Therefore there is no stronger bond of interest than ethnic ties. Therefore the hon. member for Bryanston is correct when he recognizes the fact that if we want a meaningful debate, we should debate with the elected leaders of the various nations. Tonight, however, the hon. member for Rondebosch made what he thought was a clever choice of words and created a vague image by saying that they would invite the representatives of the various interest groups. What is this but deception? It could mean one of two things. It could mean either that they have no intention whatsoever of holding a real national convention in the true sense of the word, or that they have already decided that the leaders of the various nations will in any case take the lead at the national convention and that they will merely follow and do what those people dictate to them, whether it is a one-day jamboree or a longer or intermittent discussion.

I do not wish to dwell on the hon. member for Rondebosch any longer. I want to turn to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, inter alia, in the course of the Second Reading debate. I quote his words. He said—

This same standpoint echoed like a refrain through the speeches of various other hon. members of the Official Opposition. In connection with this, I first of all want to make a few remarks on the concept of equality or “gelykheid”.

In his book Democracy in America de Tocqueville made the following statement, a statement which I want to use as my point of departure in this regard. He said—

Equality before the law and equality of opportunity are not only important as ideals, but are in fact indispensable for every completely free society. Therefore it is precisely this type of equality which is lacking in totalitarian states, totalitarian states in which false equality has already led to both the freedom and the equality before the law, as well as equality of opportunity, being destroyed.

These days equality of opportunity is to an ever-increasing extent being put on a par with equality of circumstances or equality of result. This is the type of equality—equality of result—which forms the essence of the process of equalization preached by hon. members of the Official Opposition and which they are constantly trying to force upon us. In their political thought equality has become more than a recognized and highly regarded principle, one of many similar principles. It is, and to an ever greater extent, being recognized and propagated as virtually an article of faith. It is being pursued and propagated with the same moral fervour and zeal and with the same promises of salvation as those which characterized religious movements and crusades in the past. The difference, however, is that while the religious movements and crusades of the past were aimed at the spiritual welfare of mankind, this new faith of equality is not aimed at spiritual welfare, but only at attaining economic, social and political aims.

When equality of economic and social circumstances and the equality of result is praised and idolized, it can only create and arouse expectations. Jealously, the lowest of all human passions, and the most destructive for the human character as well as the society, soon reigns supreme, and the desire for power, power to satisfy each new dissatisfaction, to allay every social pain and to satisfy each new expectation, soon becomes limitless. Equalization of this nature can never give satisfaction as a political policy. It can only lead to an inevitable and never-ending escalation of expectations, which cannot be satisfied in the long run.

Equality of social and economic circumstances and of result cannot be attained, pursued or really be promoted without measures which are counter-productive to political freedom. For this reason, as I have already said, true equality is completely lacking in totalitarian states. Goethe expressed this fact as follows—

Hon. members of the Official Opposition will have to decide for themselves which one of these two descriptions apply to them.

What is more, equality and redistribution of wealth, of which the hon. Leader of the Opposition also spoke on occasion and which was echoed and interpreted by other hon. members of the Opposition, are in fact code words for a revolutionary reconstruction of society. Equality is the principle which lends itself pre-eminently to serving revolutionary aspirations. Therefore it hardly seems strange that practically all revolutions in history were based on an attack against so-called inequality. Freedom has served, and can still serve, as a point of a departure for freedom movements, freedom from whichever real or supposed bondage. But freedom cannot with continuing success serve as the motive for a revolution. When the revolution has succeeded militarily and politically, those who were formerly in bondage, are by definition free. However, they are still not necessarily equal. Hence the need for a process of continuing revolution, and this can be motivated most effectively by the principle of equality and constant reference to the relics of aristocracy, capitalism and other so-called privileged classes. Certain economic and social inequalities are unavoidable, even in any free society. By constantly harping on those equalities and trying to remove these by way of legislative measures, the danger is created of not only losing the freedom, but in fact of creating greater and even more intolerable inequality.

Basic freedom, as well as true equality, can only be maintained to the extent to which the Government is able to exercise its authority in the society and maintain law and order. In a situation of anarchy, revolution and disorder there can be no question of freedom nor of true equality. Therefore, when members of the hon. Opposition question and attack the existing structure and dispensation in the name of equality, they are in fact gnawing at those very things which are an indispensable prerequisite to the existence of our basic freedoms and true equality. Let me add that majority rule in a single state structure is no guarantee at all of a free, equal, reasonable stable or efficient society.

I want to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that other hon. members on this side of the House and I have had more than enough of their continual nagging about equality, as though they have a monopoly on fairness and justice. Had their pious talk been confirmed by deeds, one could although one differed in certain respects, have had respect for their point of view. But what are the facts? In The Argus of 5 June 1978 there is an article under the heading “Mossel Bay’s equal pay decision”—

I want to challenge the PFP to put up a candidate in the Mossel Bay constituency on the occasion of the next election and to see whether they can persuade one of those town councillors who took this decision to vote for their party. I challenge them.

There is nothing to stop or prohibit any employer from paying equal salaries to his White and non-White employees. Any employer is free to pay equal salaries for equal work, irrespective of the nationality of his employees. If the hon. members of the Official Opposition are in earnest with their plea and insistence that there should be equal pay for equal work, why do the many companies through the boards on which they serve, not pay equal salaries for equal work? I am waiting to hear whether the many subsidiaries of Anglo-American will follow the example of the municipality of Mossel Bay. Only then will the good faith of hon. members of the Official Opposition in respect of equal pay for equal work be confirmed.

Two years ago Prof. Thomas, who was then on the staff of the University of the Western Cape, delivered a paper on occasion of the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce at Mossel Bay on equal opportunities for Coloureds in the business world.

Where is he now?

After the paper had been read, one of the local Coloured businessmen pointed out that the largest local business enterprise in Mossel Bay was a Coloured business and in fact owed its establishment and its expansion to the policy of the Government. Since then this business has expanded spectacularly, thanks to the policy of the Government. What is more, it is estimated that there are approximately 4 000 Coloured business concerns in the Coloured areas of the Republic at the moment, of which more than half are retailers. In 1970 the average income earned by Coloureds was R931 per year. Seven years later, in 1977, it was R2 092 per year, a growth of 15% or, in real terms, a growth of 15%. While the corresponding Coloured income was 28,7% of White income in 1970, it was 32,7% in 1977. Expenditure on essential goods by Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula, increased from R179,9 million in 1970 to R494,l million in 1977.

As far as equal opportunities in the economic field are concerned, this Government has already accomplished a great deal in eliminating historical backlogs. The same applies for historical inequality in the social and political spheres. Further elimination of those inequalities are still receiving active attention. The surest way of destroying everything which has been achieved so far, however, will be to try and enforce complete equality overnight, without taking into account achievement and merit. This side of the House is certainly not prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay began his speech by giving us an exposition of his beliefs in the virtues of separate development. I do not propose to follow him at any length or in any depth in that regard. He showed himself to be totally out of touch with the real facts of life in multiracial South Africa. The hon. member spoke of having to choose between being a dreamer or a charlatan. We on this side of the House can claim to be the realists. If one wants to look for dreamers, one can find them very often in the ranks of those who are sitting opposite us. They are the ones who still dream at this stage, in this day and age, of preserving some sort of White exclusiveness in this African continent. I think those hon. members are the dreamers. If hon. members speak in those terms, it shows that they are totally out of touch with the realities of the situation in Africa, Southern Africa and, in particular, in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of National Education can make a speech at a later occasion, probably on Friday, if he so wishes. One feels almost sorry for the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of this Bill, because the Bill has almost been totally ignored in the general debate that has taken place. One realizes that this is the practice when one deals with an Appropriation Bill. It is generally conceded that the hon. the Minister has an unenviable task in the prevailing economic and political climate in South Africa. I believe it is common cause, whatever the economic problems are and whatever fiscal and financial policies are applied to meet them, these problems are compounded daily in South Africa by the continuing and escalating of the political problems, both in this country and on the sub-continent itself. We have a situation which necessitates the expenditure of some R2 000 million per annum on defence in order to meet the threat of external aggression. We also have a situation of almost absolute isolation of South Africa from the international world. These factors, linked inextricably as they are with our internal racial and political problems, hardly contribute to a healthy economic climate. I do not want to argue the whys and wherefores of these factors at this stage, but it is important that we recognize the realities of our existing situation, whatever the causes may or may not have been, and that we do something about it as a matter of national urgency. It is this that concerns us on this side of the House at the present time. We have a crisis in South Africa of frightening economic and political proportions, and we want to know what the plans of the Government are to ensure the survival of this country in the future. What is their plan for survival? Yesterday and the day before, during the Foreign Affairs Vote debate, we heard hon. member after hon. member dealing with South Africa’s isolation from the international community in terms which I found totally depressing, but which I am afraid were very realistic. Perhaps it was because they were so realistic that they were so depressing. It was certainly a most depressing debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote, and I think that all hon. members on all sides realize that very little comfort can come to South Africa out of the situation that was discussed there, the situations which were revealed and the attitudes which were adopted during that debate. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his replies to the debate, confirmed and underlined the prevailing gloom in regard to our perilous international standing at the present time. For the purpose of argument it does not matter whether we agree with his diagnosis or not, but I am bound to say that, with one faint exception— with which I shall deal later—I found his admission, i.e. that there was no immediate remedy for the situation, alarmingly defeatist. He has told us that no matter what changes took place in South Africa, no matter what policies short of Marxist policies we follow, no matter what concessions we made, we would still be subjected to the same unremitting hostility from the outside world. I thought this was as devastating a statement of near hopelessness as any which I have heard in this House. The only remedy which the hon. the Minister suggested towards the end of his speech during the discussion of his Vote, is that perhaps the best we can do in the present circumstances is to concentrate on our own internal policies and attitudes, so as to ensure maximum co-operation amongst all our people in producing conditions in South Africa for peace and harmony and the stability of our own population.

No-one on any side of the House would argue with the good sense of that observation. Quite clearly, in the situation in which we find ourselves at present, that is precisely what we should be doing. We should be looking at our own internal situation and we should be going all out in order to provide the machinery in terms of which there can be maximum co-operation and the maximum unity amongst all the people of South Africa in meeting the threats against our country from all sides.

This brings me back to my basic question to the Government, a question which has also been highlighted by other PFP speakers during this debate. Given the extreme crisis situation in which South Africa finds itself, what is the Government’s plan for survival? One must repeat that question. Surely there has got to be a conscious and a co-operative effort, involving all our people, to meet the challenge for survival at the present stage in our history? In situations of extreme national crisis, one of the basic steps taken both in this country and in other countries, has been to try and find methods of uniting people. In times of threats of war and in times of threats of economic crises, Governments have tried to form some sort of a national Government in order to be fully representative of all the people and in order to close ranks to meet a common threat. One also thinks of the situation at the time of the last world war, when the UK, in order to meet the threat, created a national Government in order to speak with the consensus of all the people of the country. One also thinks of a near similar situation which existed in South Africa in the early 1930s when there was a move towards forming a national Government in the face of an economic crisis. They sought a closing of ranks so that there could be unity and so that the people could be speaking with one voice in order to meet the crisis situation.

Is that what you are asking now?

No. What I am asking, however, is that we should look to a situation where we have a Government that does not only represent 10% of the population of South Africa. If we are really going to meet the threats which confront our country, then it is going to be necessary for us to ensure that the maximum number of South Africans of all racial groups are participating in taking decisions about the future of the country so that they too can participate in meeting the crisis situation which exists. I believe there is a desperate need to seek out common ground and to find a common patriotism in order to meet a common threat in South Africa at present. But what do we find in South Africa at present? Despite the threats to our very existence, we find this Government, in its arrogance, still intent upon dividing rather than uniting the nation. Despite the pressing need for unity we find the Government busy dismembering South Africa into areas for different ethnic groups. Despite the need for unity, for the development of a common South African patriotism, we find the Government depriving millions of our own people of their South African citizenship and replacing it with separate citizenships based on ethnic considerations.

Can it be said that any of these steps bring us closer to a situation in South Africa where we, as a Southern African community, will be able to resist together the mounting attempts to undermine our very existence? The Government has time and again, during this session and before, indicated its determination to proceed with the policy of converting the existing homelands into separate independent States. We have the existence already of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, and the hon. the Prime Minister at the beginning of the session, in the censure debate, told the House that the Government was proceeding with its attempts to encourage other homelands to follow suit. He told us that he could foresee that within the next five years all the homelands, with the exception of kwaZulu, will have become independent. In other words, within five years we shall perhaps have some eight Transkei-type independent States situated in our midst in what was the single land area of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister’s statement was of course made before the Transkei broke off diplomatic relations with South Africa and the sad events which followed that announcement.

However, can it be claimed that what has happened in Transkei has added to the security of Southern Africa or has brought the people of that area closer to the rest of the community in South Africa? Can that possibly be claimed? After all, independent Transkei and Bophuthatswana have been the show window of Government policy, but looking to the entire security situation in South Africa and looking to the need to meet the challenge for survival in South Africa, what has the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana added to that situation? Can it be said that an independent Transkei has resulted in a greater cementing of common interests between its population and the population of South Africa, or has it indeed resulted in greater division and in differences being accentuated? Yet, despite this particular and other examples, the Government persists with, and is still committed to, its policy to dismember South Africa. I believe that the end result of this policy, i.e. the fragmentation into independent homelands, will not only not satisfy the aspiration of Blacks in South Africa, but will also instead exacerbate differences and accentuate the inequalities which exist between the people living in the different areas. Again, when one looks at the security situation in South Africa, this is a very real danger.

I have said before that homeland development for the purpose of bringing improvements to under-developed areas, or even in general terms for the purpose of providing some form of regional administrative infrastructure, is one thing and something to which we in the PFP are not opposed, but homeland development as the ultimate in meeting the aspirations of Blacks is another thing altogether. It is like sweeping the dust under the carpet—it solves very little. I believe the mere creation of independent homelands in order to try to satisfy the aspirations of the Black people without taking into account the real problems and concerns of the people in these areas, resolves nothing. With the continuing disputes over land, over citizenship, over employment opportunities, over the whole question of migrant labour, the mere creation of independent homelands in these circumstances resolves nothing. The problems are merely transferred from one authority to another authority, i.e. from the South African State to the new independent State, and when that situation comes about, these problems become magnified out of all proportions, because after independence is achieved by the particular homeland they become part of an international dispute.

Even those homeland leaders who have accepted independence, I believe accepted it really for the sake of convenience. A greater degree of autonomy is always attractive as it offers a little bit more authority over the area of their jurisdiction. However, I do not believe that they accepted independence as the final answer to their problems and I certainly do not believe that these leaders or their people mean to relinquish their birthright over the rest of South Africa by accepting independence.

What part is there for the homeland leaders who do not accept independence in the Government’s plan of survival for South Africa? They are told largely to take it or leave it. They are told that they will not be forced to accept independence, but they are also told that if they do not accept what is offered to them, they can leave it there. Again I want to apply this situation particularly to the crisis situation about which we have been talking in the House for days now. Again there is no indication as to what the Government intends doing to bring these millions of Black South Africans into a situation where they, together with the other race groups, can participate in the fight for survival in South Africa. It is no good simply saying to them “Take it or leave it”, that they must take independence or otherwise accept what the Government is giving them as a homeland or some sort of administrative authority. What is the Government going to do to allow these people to participate in the future development of their own country? We know that next year the Government will come forward with a different constitutional proposal for the Asian and Coloured communities, but once again the greatest community in numbers in South Africa is left out in the cold in regard to those proposals.

What hope have we as a country and as a nation of moving forward in a united way in order to meet the threats against South Africa when we exclude the major population group in South Africa in constitutional proposals of this kind? If we are to proceed realistically at this stage, I believe the Government has to rethink its entire attitude and consciously seek to unite people and let them feel they are participating in providing the solution to our security problem. However, until such time as that can be done, the Government will play a game of politics, which may be to the advantage of the NP, but certainly not to the advantage of South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave became involved in the debate about the question of who are dreamers and who are not dreamers. Before I make any further reference to his speech, I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Rondebosch. In reply to the question which we frequently put to the PFP, i.e. what will happen if they do not achieve a concensus at their convention, he said that there will simply be no end to the negotiations, i.e. that these will simply continue. If there has been proof today of who are daydreamers, then this is surely the clearest proof. If the PFP government—merely in theory, for we know it will never happen— convinces the national convention and calls upon the peoples of South Africa to meet round a conference table, they will, in so doing, tell the people that the PFP feels extremely guilty about our history and know that the others have been wronged. What else have hon. members of the PFP been doing today, if not to say that the other peoples of South Africa have been wronged? When the PFP calls those peoples to the conference table, they want to say to them in that way that they are still being wronged and that the Whites have always denied them their rights and opportunities. The PFP will invite them to sit around a conference table so that they can negotiate on ways in which to rectify this injustice which has been inflicted on them throughout the whole of South African history, especially during the past 30 years under the NP Government. That will be the psychological atmosphere in which the PFP will bring those people together round the conference table. The PFP will tell them that they, the PFP, will introduce a policy motion at that convention. As is stated in these documents, this will be nothing more than a proposal. The PFP will then propose that a line be drawn through the constitutional history of South Africa and invite the other groups to draw up a new constitution with them.

What about the national convention of 1909?

The national convention of 1909 was called after a war. Four colonies—two of which were free and then lost their freedom through a war—participated in it That situation cannot be compared to this one.

When one calls a convention in such a psychological atmosphere, one lights a fire and one arouses expectations in the hearts of those other people, expectations which will take shape in the form of claims at that convention, and those claims will be supported by a numerical majority. These are claims which will not wait quietly to be satisfied in the process of never-ending negotiations, as the hon. member for Rondebosch put it, but which will mean that those people will say: “We want replies, here and now”. These are claims which are already, even before there can be a conference, being put to the hon. Leader of the Opposition by Dr. Motlana at a PFP meeting. These are claims which state that the qualified franchise which the hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke of this afternoon, is not good enough. If the PFP is prepared to vouch for their standpoint that they will ensure the protection of minority groups, then that convention will break up in a few hours, or they will give way. I think this is the road they will follow. Then they will tell Dr. Motlana: “We accept your offer that there can be a White man as Prime Minister for the first few years; then you can take over.”

We have already had a heated debate today, and before hon. members start feeling that this debate is also never-ending, like the negotiations by the hon. member for Rondebosch, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.