Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having granted me a special period of grace. Shortly after I had entered upon my office last year, the hon. member for Yeoville predicted in a speech—which was reported—that I would be Prime Minister for only one month. Early in this debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that I would hold the office for a year. Accordingly, I want to thank him for the extra 11 months which he has granted me. I did not know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had been gifted with second sight, but it would probably be of great advantage to us if he developed that talent.

I want to begin my speech today by referring to the accusations which are being made against us repeatedly and ad nauseam by the Opposition parties, accusations to the effect that the Government has not acted as it should with regard to the unfortunate situation caused by the events which took place within the former Department of Information. I emphasize this, for reading hon. members’ speeches and considering their attitudes, one gets the impression that such a department still exists and is pursuing all kinds of unlawful activities. I referred very briefly yesterday to what my predecessor had done, and I could mention many more steps taken by him, but I do not want to do so at this stage, since I discussed these steps in detail in the previous debate during the short session.

However, I want to refer to the point where the Government, under my premiership, began to take action with regard to this matter. Shortly after I had assumed this office, it became clear to me that various departments and officials from various departments had investigated the consequences of the wrongful actions of this department and, in the second place, that practical steps had to be taken to protect the State’s interests. In this connection I am referring to the appointment of the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Pretorius, the Secretary to the Treasury. The following people were appointed as additional members of the committee: A representative of the State Attorney’s office, the head of the new Information Service of South Africa and former officials—especially Mr. Kemp—who had been involved in certain factual inquiries which had had to be conducted under my predecessor. What was the task of this committee? In the first place, the committee had to consider practical steps for placing State properties under proper control. I have a lengthy report in my possession from which I could quote ad nausean to indicate how, step for step, this committee brought the necessary machinery into operation to ensure that properties and buildings bought with State money were placed under proper control, that the necessary title deeds were obtained and that the State suffered no losses in that sphere. That task has been virtually completed and all those properties have been placed under State control.

Except The Citizen.

I shall refer to The Citizen again in a little while; the hon. member has The Citizen on his brain. [Interjections.] I can understand that the hon. member feels uneasy about the matter, because as a result of the Opposition propaganda, the circulation of this newspaper seems to be rising. In the first place, therefore, the Pretorius Committee safeguarded the properties of the State. This applies to properties abroad, properties within South Africa and properties acquired in contravention of State requirements of the State. Those properties have all been placed under proper control.

In the second place, the committee placed under control as much money as possible, everything they could lay their hands on. I am not referring now to steps we are still taking with regard to the Luyt case and the case of André Pieterse, but to other matters. To date we have recovered R3 462 513 in cash. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to make an appeal to you this afternoon. For two days I showed the Opposition the greatest respect. Therefore I now ask your protection. [Interjections.] Fourthly, I want to say that we have seized bank bills to the value of R1 255 572. Apart from working with properties, the Pretorius Committee also recovered money for the State, for example, by seizing bank bills and shares. There is one other matter which I do not want to discuss this afternoon since it is still the subject of an inquiry. But all the shares have been brought under proper control. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to tell hon. members that they have had the opportunity to speak for two days. I think I have given them a very generous opportunity to speak. There are two days left for this debate, and I want to ask hon. members to listen to the hon. the Prime Minister without making any remarks or interjections. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order [Interjections.] … Mr. Speaker, I am trying to raise a point of order, but I am told to shut up. What kind of system is this? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order?

Yes, the hon. member may do so.

Sir, I am asking whether you are ruling that no interjections are permissible while the hon. the Prime Minister is speaking.

Order! My ruling is, and I said it very distinctly, that this debate has been going on for two days and I have allowed hon. members of all parties the fullest opportunity so far to state their views. I have been very liberal in that. They still have two days ahead in which they can reply to any points raised and I therefore ask them not to interject when the Prime Minister is speaking. The time may come when I may prohibit an hon. member altogether, but at this stage I ask hon. members not to make interjections and not to keep up a running commentary.

An hon. member on the other side has asked: “Why not punish the wrongdoers?” Sir, we have initiated an action and appointed a committee which has to find out the facts for us and to see what amounts and what properties can be brought under State control. Is it not in the first place the task of this Government to ensure that the property of the State is brought under proper control? In the second place: While the judicial inquiry by the Erasmus Commission is taking place, it has been pointed out to the Government that in the opinion of the Police, they should not have a police investigation undertaken into all aspects at the same time. But it has always been the custom in the past that when a judicial commission is conducting an inquiry and police action is to follow, the police do receive an opportunity to conduct an investigation on their own. This procedure is followed in order to avoid confusion. Therefore, no one has the right to say that the Government is refusing to punish the wrongdoers in this case. On the contrary, once the report has been completed and steps have to be taken by the police, the law will take its normal course. However, I want to state categorically this afternoon that as Prime Minister, I am not a prosecutor. Secondly, I am not a police officer, and thirdly, I do not find people guilty or not guilty. For this purpose the State has other machinery, and I will not be driven by absurd agitation to do things which are not in accordance with the highest traditions of this office. [Interjections.]

Now I come to a question which is being asked here ad nauseam about The Citizen. I dealt with The Citizen during the short session last year and I shall do so again this afternoon. On that occasion I was considerate enough, in dealing with the question of the fact-finding committee, the Pretorius Committee, to send copies of that committee’s report to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I also sent a copy to the hon. member for Durban Point and to the hon. member for Simonstown, because I wanted them to know what I was reporting to Parliament. I also read out the report in full in this House and the Press could have published it had they wanted to. This being so, why did the hon. member for Orange Grove rise here again yesterday to ask what we had done with The Citizen? Why did he ask why we had done this or that with The Citizen? What does the Pretorius Committee say?

He has the right to ask.

Yes, of course he has the right to ask, but he does not have the right to keep on asking silly questions. [Interjections.] In paragraph 3 of the Pretorius Committee’s report, which I read out here last year, it says the following—

That is nonsense!

Now that hon. member says it is nonsense.

Certainly it is nonsense!

The hon. member says it is nonsense. But let us test the matter. Why did he not go to the Erasmus Commission to give them the benefit of his wisdom? [Interjections.] Now he sits here shouting “That is nonsense” while a responsible committee of Public Service officials, and senior officials at that, have investigated this matter and given their opinion. However, that hon. member knows everything. He is a know-all.

[Inaudible.]

He is an absolute know-all and he jumps from one branch to another just like a cocksparrow. [Interjections.] What else does the Pretorius Committee say? I quote—

That decision was taken by us as a Cabinet. I go on—

I also gave a clear explanation in this House of further facts in this connection. I added that we had obtained signed documents to the effect that we have no further responsibilities to this company. But hon. members opposite are as persistent as cicadas and keep asking: What about The Citizen?

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

No.

Why did you give the shares away for nothing?

In the meanwhile, the Pretorius Committee is continuing its work and I will not furnish information here which may hinder the activities of that committee. I say with the greatest resolution: If I am expected to furnish information in this House or outside which may hinder the activities of the Pretorius Committee, I refuse to do so, and it is not the Opposition which will determine what will happen, but the Government. We went further, and after a report had been published, we extended, at the request of the judicial commission itself, the period in which its work was to be done. We authorized that extension in order to ensure that nothing which the commission needs in order to publish a proper report will escape its knowledge and attention.

Now I want to dwell for a moment on the question of the evidence. We have had various commissions of inquiry in this country in recent years. There was the commission chaired by Mr. Justice Botha, for example, which inquired into secret organizations. That honourable judge was a judge of appeal and he published a report, after a thorough investigation, on the Sons of England, the Freemasons and the Broederbond. Was that evidence laid on the table? Was that evidence made public? Was it ever asked for?

Yes, of course.

No, Sir, the Botha Commission published its report and everyone accepted it. This side of the House—I say this advisedly—accepted that commission’s report with all its consequences, with regard to the other bodies as well, while the Opposition side silently accepted that report as far as some of those bodies were concerned, but did not accept it as far as one Afrikaner organization was concerned.

Then there was the Erika Theron Commission, which decided of its own accord not to publish the evidence. They gave their reasons for this, i.e. “to persuade Coloured people in particular to give evidence freely and with an open mind” and, secondly, “not to disclose hurtful remarks between Whites and Coloured people or to injure feelings”. This was accepted by the whole country.

That is a very different matter.

Oh, Sir, will that holy apostle just allow me to make my own speech?

Why are you so afraid of interjections?

As I said, the Erika Theron Commission did not release its evidence and the country was satisfied …

[Inaudible.]

Order! I now ask the hon. member not to make any further interjections.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you …

Order! No, I ask the hon. member for Yeoville not to make any further interjections, and I want no comment on that.

The Erika Theron Commission was appointed by the State President and did not release its evidence, even though the evidence concerned one of the most serious matters in this country, the future of Whites and Coloured people. Everyone accepted the report published on the basis of the evidence.

The Schlebusch Commission was a controversial one and the Opposition members carried on about it like a lot of sparrows in a bush. The one lot co-operated and the other lot ran away.

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

No.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If the Opposition members are not allowed to make any interjections, are the Government members allowed to cheer the hon. the Prime Minister on?

Order! I shall maintain order and I ask hon. members to help me in that task. It is not an easy one.

I hope hon. members will give me a fair chance to put my case. I think I am entitled to it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

The inquiry of the Schlebusch Commission was a controversial one, because it concerned the security and subversion of this country, it concerned powers which wanted to overthrow the government of the country. Was that evidence made known? No, the report was published and there was no clamour and there were no public petitions for the evidence to be released.

We have just had the inquiry of the De Kock Commission, which concerned South Africa’s most vital interests, its relations with the outside world in the monetary field. No one tried to implicate the De Kock Commission by asking to read the evidence. The commission’s findings were accepted without it.

Then there was the Potgieter Commission. Mr. Justice Potgieter, a judge of appeal, published a report on the security situation in South Africa and the role played in it by the various security departments. When Mr. Justice Potgieter had completed his report, my predecessor and the former Leader of the Opposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, consulted with one another. The former Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Durban Point and Senator Horak worked on it with my predecessor and they abbreviated that report, not the evidence, by removing certain parts in the report which were a threat to State security. Sir De Villiers Graaff did not hesitate to co-operate, because we all know that he is a patriot and a gentleman. That is why he did this.

I now want to make the Opposition an offer. The Opposition alleges that the Government is not releasing everything it has in its possession, that it is withholding certain information from the country. In making that statement, they must know something, otherwise they are speaking from a vacuum. In making the statement that the Government is withholding something, they have information available to them that he is in fact withholding something. I now want to invite the Opposition to submit their evidence to the Erasmus Commission. That commission is sitting at the moment and I request the commission here and now to conduct a special inquiry arising from the evidence of the Opposition and to find out whether any of the Cabinet members who are sitting here today knew about the subsidies which The Citizen had received from the State, knew who had authorized the irregular use of State money or possessed the same knowledge as Dr. Rhoodie and Dr. Connie Mulder. And if the commission finds anything to confirm these suspicions, I shall resign and go to the country. [Interjections.] I now invite this brave Opposition: Go to the commission and submit your evidence to it. I also challenge the Press which supports them: Go to the commission and submit your evidence to it, and if the commission confirms it, then I say that I shall resign as Prime Minister and call an election. [Interjections.]

Order!

There the brave heroes are sitting.

Does that include the former Prime Minister?

Just listen to that. I tried to teach the hon. the Leader of the Opposition some decency last night, but I am afraid I did not succeed.

Answer the question.

The commission has already given its finding about the former Prime Minister. The commission has already placed the former Prime Minister and his bona fides beyond all doubt. But this gentleman has the temerity to try to repudiate that commission. [Interjections.]

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

Yes, you are decent; you may. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have now three times …

Sit down.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville wishes to raise a point of order and is entitled to do so under Standing Order No. 106.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister saying to the hon. member for Durban Point: “You are decent” quite clearly infers that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not and … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has put his point of order. My reply to his point of order is that the hon. the Prime Minister has made a reference to one particular member of the House, and one particular member only, and not to any other member. The hon. member for Durban Point may now put his question.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he will ask the commission to grant me the same opportunity as we had with the Potgieter report, i.e. to see the evidence for myself?

Mr. Speaker, I am coming to that, if the hon. member will just give me an opportunity. I intend dealing with some of the questions he asked.

*My reply is: If this judicial commission, the Erasmus Commission, has completed its work—and it should complete its work within a few months—I am prepared, if the hon. member for Durban Point, a person in whom I have total confidence, promises me that he will have a confidential discussion with that commission and will not disclose what they tell him, things which may endanger the State, to make it available to him.

Shall we never get the evidence? [Interjections.]

Order!

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

Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to answer a question?

Yes, the priest may put his question.

Mr. Speaker, can we take it that the offer which has now been made to one particular member in this House is confined to him alone, or does it include the leaders of the other two Opposition parties?

I shall consider it. I cannot reply to that today.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked me a question yesterday to which I want to reply. He asked: “Did the Prime Minister discuss the release of evidence with the members of the commission?

†My reply to the hon. member is: In the sense that I tried to influence them, no. I saw the members of the commission on only two occasions; firstly, when they paid me a courtesy visit in Pretoria, a visit which lasted approximately one hour, and that was before they started with their work. The second time I saw them was in Cape Town, when the chairman of the commission came to me and informed me that they had decided not to publish the evidence. If the hon. member is referring to a higher authority besides the chairman, my answer is that I do not know what is referred to. I take it, however, that the chairman referred to the question of legal advice. Interpreting it, however, in the sense that I dealt with him trying to persuade him not to publish the evidence, is not correct. I hope the hon. member will accept my word.

*Then the hon. member also asked me whether I would deny that “money budgeted for defence purposes was used for this purpose”. In a technical sense I cannot deny this. I believe I admitted it during the debate here last year. I said that I could not deny it, but that from the first. I had resisted this technical procedure which was followed, and that from the first. I also achieved something, i.e. to prevent its forming part of my Defence budget and to arrange for it to be indicated as a separate item. I also said that I did not give up the struggle in this connection and that I succeeded in having it stopped. That is the point. Moreover, I reported on it fully and voluntarily to the commission. I also submitted written evidence, not only from the Chief of the Defence Force, Gen. Malan, not only letters from the previous Chief of the Defence Force, Adm. Biermann, but also personal letters in connection with the matter I submitted to the commission.

I convinced the commission of the fact that I never reconciled myself to the arrangement. However, the hon. member is entitled to ask me another question. The other question which the hon. member may ask me is whether, as some people allege, I want to suggest that I never tried to find out how this money was being spent. My reply to that is that I did. I want to point out that in the discussions which followed, I not only asked for written certificates, but also said in personal conversations that I wanted the assurance that that money was in fact being used for the professed purpose, i.e. external propaganda. If it was in fact intended for that, there was a case to be made out for it, in the sense that if we could relieve the pressure on South Africa by means of propaganda abroad, I would have believed that it was money spent on a good cause. However, I was never told by anyone that this money was being used in the cynical and irregular way in which it was used in South Africa. In addition, I want to say that it was not all the money. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout committed a very grave error here by trying to allege that all the money had been spent in an irregular way. Surely that is not true. A good deal of that money was spent on foreign projects, projects which are continuing today.

The amount referred to the appropriation which was irregular …

No, I wrote down the hon. member’s words. He would do well to read his speech again. However, I shall come to him presently.

The hon. member for Durban Point, knowing what my philosophy is, must accept it when I say that we are not only engaged in a military struggle, but that it is also a propaganda struggle in which some people in the official Opposition are helping. He will also have to concede that it is a psychological and economic struggle as well; therefore it is a total struggle which is being waged against South Africa from several quarters in the world. If I had been given the assurance that that money was being used to help us win the propaganda struggle, I would have been a 100% in favour of that, although I would still not have been satisfied with the technical manner of budgeting. I said: If this is the task you have set yourselves, go to Parliament and say that we want the money for the propaganda struggle. Since I could not get satisfaction, I persevered until I succeeded, with the help of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, in having special legislation introduced. The hon. the Minister can testify to that, for if that had not been so, he would not have introduced that legislation. Therefore I never accepted the position.

We are often asked: Do you as a Cabinet mean to tell us that over all the years in which there were differences among you about the manner of appropriation, you never discussed the matter in the Cabinet? Only people who do not know what happens in a Cabinet could ask such a question. After all, budgets are not drawn up in that way.

The statement I am going to make now does not arise from a desire to persecute my ex-colleague, but when I asked him to resign from the Cabinet, I gave him the reasons for my request. One of the reasons was, as I put it to him: You never informed your colleagues. He cannot get away from that I do not want to tell what happened at that Cabinet meeting, because I do not intend to reveal the proceedings at Cabinet meetings in an undignified way. However, I have said at Sasolburg and in Parliament as well that I requested my ex-colleague to resign from the Cabinet because he had not informed his colleagues.

It depends on a Cabinet Minister. This is the way these things work. The initiative for submitting a matter to the Cabinet rests with the Cabinet Minister concerned. If a Cabinet Minister conceals something from his colleagues in the Cabinet, it is his responsibility. However, if he feels that it is a matter on which he cannot decide on his own, I believe it to be his duty to inform his Cabinet colleagues and to tell them about his problems. It often happens that a member of the Cabinet comes to the Cabinet with the request that his colleagues should help him with a problem which he is experiencing. Then they use their concerted efforts to solve it. This is my reply to the criticism that it was never discussed.

I dealt with the Cabinet committee idea yesterday and I shall not discuss it any further.

When I refer to the following matter, I do so without humiliating my ex-colleague. Sir, you know, and I think he does too, that my behaviour throughout has been such as to avoid implicating or humiliating him, for in my opinion, he was to a large extent a victim of circumstances and I do not want to reflect on his character. The commission did not do so either. I do not believe that Dr. Connie Mulder is a villain and I shall not accept the contrary until it is proved. I behaved very decently towards him. He says that I requested him to resign from the Cabinet and that is correct. He further says that I requested him to resign from this House; that is correct, but I am not the only one who requested him to do that. In this connection I have the support of our Transvaal leader as well as the support of our entire caucus.

The Pretorius Committee came upon a letter which they made available to me in a report. The letter was written by Dr. Connie Mulder to the Union Bank of Switzerland on 17 July 1977—

This responsibility Dr. Mulder has to bear, because he did not clear it with me or with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, or with any of his other colleagues. A Minister does not take such a decision without first clearing it with his colleagues. With this I believe that I have come to the end of the unpleasant part of the report.

Would it not put an end to the rumours if we could see the evidence?

Do let us be sensible about this: There is a lot of evidence and it is of a comprehensive nature, and I do not know when the hon. member for Durban Point will have the time to go through it. I have not even seen it myself and none of my colleagues has read it. We are satisfied that we have appointed a reliable commission, consisting of a judge of the Supreme Court, a senior attorney-general and the country’s Chief Law Adviser. Do hon. members have anything against the composition of this commission? Do hon. members want to allege that the commission cannot be trusted to produce a properly balanced opinion? If we had to remove those parts of the evidence which would endanger the State, how would that evidence then read? It would amount to a lot of incoherent material which had been removed from its context, and if it were to end up in the hands of an irresponsible newspaper, like some of our Sunday newspapers, I can only say: The Lord preserve us. I think I have now replied adequately to the questions asked by the hon. member for Durban Point.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to several matters and I shall react to them later, but he referred specifically to two newspapers, and I now want to discuss that with him. He referred, among other things, to a certain edition of Die Transvaler in which it was reported that the motion I had introduced with regard to the State President was a trick to get the Opposition into trouble. He need not worry about that, because he has only to look up the traditions of this House, then he will find that it is not a trick, but the custom.

Tell that to Die Transvaler.

No. Why should I tell it to Die Transvaler? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must do that. [Interjections.] Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quote The Transvaler in this House? I did not write the newspaper. On the one hand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it is a good thing that Ministers do not serve on the boards of directors of newspapers, but on the other hand he holds me responsible for what is printed in the newspapers. What kind of nonsense is that? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to a second newspaper, i.e. the Sunday Express. I do not want to say a great deal about the Sunday Express today, except that the Sunday Express will have an opportunity on Sunday to correct the mistake it has made, and if it does not, it will be dealt with. Mr. Katzin, under whose name a certain report appeared in the Sunday Express, has been guilty of propagating a blatant, public lie, and I am prepared to say this outside this House as well. I shall give them time until Sunday to correct it. Perhaps I should tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have already received a letter of apology.

Are you referring to the report about the caucus report?

I am referring to the blatant lie in regard to the caucus. He told a blatant lie by alleging that I had discussed the commission’s report in the caucus.

What about the words?

He sucked those words out of his thumb, because the report which I received for printing did not contain those words.

Then you left them out. [Interjections.]

Now you can see the difference, Sir. That is why I prefer to talk to the hon. member for Durban Point. The reason is that you can talk to a person like the hon. member for Durban Point because he accepts your word as you accept his. However, you cannot do this with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is not able to do it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point, as well as other members, referred to the serious state of international affairs. Before I come to that, there is another matter I want to discuss first. There is a newspaper which devoted almost an entire editorial to me under the heading “It won’t go away, Mr. Botha”. Mr. Speaker, it will go away. The Government will do everything which has to be done to make clean administration possible. I will not be dictated to by a newspaper that does not know who holds 40% of its shares. It can go and smell out its bosses in the bushes of South Africa at night and it may find that we may yet want to know who they are. I will not allow myself to be lectured to by a bark that does not know who its master is.

I want to refer, as other hon. members have done, to the serious conditions inside and surrounding our country. It is true. South Africa is a threatened country, but South Africa is not the only threatened country. The Western world as we know it is being threatened. In fact, the whole earth is being threatened. A very interesting magazine has appeared in France which is read by people who attach importance to it. This journal is called Defence. A study has appeared in this journal which was prepared by a very highly regarded strategic studies group, a study which impressed people in many French and international circles. I quote a few paragraphs from it because it gives such a neat summary of the present situation in the world, and ours as part of the Free World, finds itself today. They say—

The document goes on to show how this planned total strategy is being conducted on the Marxist initiative.

Not only is this a point of view held by this study group, it is also an idea that was expressed by a man like Gen. Haig, who was until recently the commander of Nato. These are also ideas that were endorsed by Sir Walter Walker, a military figure of stature. They are also ideas that are being expressed and endorsed by Admiral Moore of the USA. This study group goes on to say that the Western problem is that it is not conducting a total counter strategy, but is conducting a defensive strategy, that it is solely defensive in its actions against this total onslaught, that it takes preventive action here and there, and that it wages this struggle in an uncoordinated way—and let me say with a great deal of selfishness and division in its own ranks. I quote further—

You make the ground fertile for that.

It also states—

They say what influences the American policy, is that “no rational solution can still be found for the problems of the Republic of South Africa”. And it is also stated—

I ask myself the question: Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not being influenced by this school of thought? After all, he stood up here the other day and referred to it derisively. When he stood up here his whole theme was that there is no time.

There is time.

He says, too, that we only have 12 months. From those circles, from that school of thought, we hear this constant refrain that there will be an eruption, and “explosion”, and that we should rush headlong into this business. Jump into the pot and be roasted with all the others!

You are talking rubbish.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Which word?

The word “rubbish”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister may now proceed. [Interjections.]

One sometimes wonders if a person can withdraw himself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is that hon. member allowed to refer to another hon. member as a scoundrel? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member who referred to the other hon. member as a scoundrel, must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I asked all the hon. members to please stop making interjections and remarks, and out of respect for the Chair the hon. members must please do so now. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

In the first place this document deals with the total war strategy as directed from Moscow and it deals with the defence strategy with the statement that there will be an “explosion” and that one can do nothing about it. How many Americans in the highest circles do not say that to one! The document continues—

On this basis and on the basis of my own observations I wish to say that the position is that the interests of Africa are not the interests of the super powers. The super powers are ruining Africa. They are pouring weapons into it, while Africa needs food and not weapons. Africa is being ruined by terrorists who are living on it like ticks. That is not what Africa needs. Africa needs health services. Africa needs technical aid. Africa needs wise leadership. Africa needs human aid, but it is not getting it because the super powers are ruining it, because they are exploiting it, because they are playing cat and mouse with it. The interests of Southern Africa are not being served by the interference in our domestic affairs by the great powers or by organized groups in the UN. They received a warning from someone who can do it better than I, someone who is critical of South Africa, and who is most certainly not a friend of this Government. I am referring to a recent report written by Mr. George Wall. He is in an advisory position to the American Government. He wrote as follows—

This also applies to the Opposition—

He continues—

Is our strongest weapon not credibility?

Our strongest weapon is that we stand together against interference in our domestic affairs. I know that the hon. member for Durban Point can be trusted as far as that principle is concerned.

This is a good way of destroying me, not so? [Interjections.]

I shall let the hon. member for Durban Point see the other side of the coin. In fact, I am more afraid of him as an official Opposition than I am of the present official Opposition, because the South African people are so sensible that they will never choose the present official Opposition. [Interjections.]

In the first place, therefore, we should resist interference in our domestic affairs. If we are not united in that respect the house which is divided against itself, will be ruined. In the second place we have learnt another costly lesson during the past few years, namely that there is no international friendship between nations. Proof of this was given in Vietnam, in Korea and in Taiwan as well. There is no such thing as international friendship: There are only international interests. In the third place South Africa should act in such a way that it is in the interests of others to co-operate with her. We are beginning to notice in the attitude of our immediate neighbours, and that of other States in Africa, that it is in their interests to co-operate with us and, because this is so, they are to an ever greater extent prepared to come forward with attempts at co-operation. How shall we achieve this? I am trying to explain in the shortest possible time how I see the course we should adopt in future. In the first place we should effect a rationalization, not only at Cabinet level, as I tried to with the restructuring of the Cabinet at the outset and by grouping together departments that belong together, but also in the Public Service. Not only should we effect rationalization in the Public Service, but we should also ascertain whether we cannot amalgamate certain Government departments with others. We shall also have to involve the private sector as far as possible to co-operate with us in an all-out effort to bring about a national strategy in South Africa. We shall then, as a democratic country, have to deal with this national strategy in this Parliament in a different way instead of trying to drag one another down into the depths, because the dangers are too great.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in one part of his motion of the Government’s absolute lack of action in the economic sphere. He condemned us and said that, to put it mildly, we had virtually caused the country to land in a mess.

That is absolute nonsense. He never said that.

Why then did he attack the Government on economic matters in his motion?

Read the motion.

No, I am not going to read it out now. The hon. member can go and read it himself. He accused us of having virtually allowing the country to land in an impossible situation in the economic sphere. The hon. members can read what is stated in his motion. If that is not so, he must admit that the country is prospering.

What is the position now after 30 years of National government? I do not wish to go into this matter in depth. There are other people better qualified than I to discuss it. In the first place I wish to say that South Africa does not receive aid from abroad and that it pays its debts. In the second place South Africa is one of the few countries which exports food-stuffs and feeds its own population. Last year South Africa had a total food production with a gross value of R3 795 million. If the Government is, in fact, so poor, how does one explain the fact that South Africa is one of the few countries which is still able to export foodstuffs?

That is thanks to our good farmers.

Yes, but they vote for the National Party. [Interjections.] If South Africa is being governed so badly, how does one explain the fact that foreign sources calculate that our total mineral exports during the past year amounted to $6,9 billion?

Is that the fault of the NP now?

Of course. If, in fact, the Government is a bad one, surely things should also go badly for South Africa. And yet its mineral production is reaching new heights.

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He wishes to have the Government condemned. I now wish to quote for his benefit what an objective person has to say about the economy of South Africa. I am referring to a document of Dallas Securities Investments in America. I am just going to quote the introductory paragraph to indicate what people who made a study of South Africa have to say. They say—

This is a testimonial for South Africa under a National Party Government. After 30 years of National Party Government an objective group such as this comes forward and states that it is not such a great political risk to invest in South Africa. On the contrary, there is great potential for investment here and they encourage people to invest here. But what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? He referred to “the inability of the Government’s economic policies” to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, full employment and prosperity for all the population groups of South Africa. This is the testimonial he gives of his own country. This is the testimonial of South Africa which he gives to the world. But here an authority which has made an objective study comes forward and states: “Investments in South African companies are considered particularly attractive at this time, because potential returns appear to outweigh the inherent risks. ”

Are you satisfied with our growth rate at present?

Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition taken into account the poor economic conditions prevailing overseas? Has he taken into account in any way the fact that the West is blundering from one problem to another? He will not stand up and say that he is aware of those problems and that he congratulates the Government on the fact that, in spite of all these international problems, it still managed to secure a loan of $250 million during the past few weeks. Has he taken into account the fact that our factory production, after a drop of 5,8% in 1977 rose by 5,2% during the first 11 months of 1978 compared with the corresponding period during the previous year? Of course unemployment is a problem. Throughout the world unemployment is a problem. If there are, in fact, countries which have more to offer, why does the hon. member for Parktown not make investments there?

He does that in any case.

The question of unemployment is a problem. One of the matters which the Black leaders discussed with the Government during the past few weeks, was in fact the problem of unemployment. We are giving attention to it. The Government, my colleagues, will furnish evidence of this. They are ascertaining whether we cannot take additional steps to cope with unemployment and to encourage production. However, that is no reason to condemn the Government. It is a reason for thanking the Government for having kept South Africa so stable during the present international climate. The facts testify against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If one examines the provision of electricity, water conservation, our transport system, the development of our export harbours, the oil supplies which we have stockpiled over a period of years, the facts testify against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is whistling down the south-easter.

One prospect we have held out is that we will effect an improvement in respect of the salary gap. In this regard I now wish to issue a short statement to show that the Government is giving its attention to substantial, positive changes, in respect of these matters as far as the White, the Coloured and the Black people are concerned. On various occasions in the past, and annually in Parliament as well, the Government has given the assurance that the creation of wage parity between White and Black is receiving our constant attention. For that reason, too, in fact, the Government has, at every opportunity in the past, awarded wage improvements to officials and within the framework of financial limitations has improved the salary ratio between White and non-White. There can also be no lack of clarity in anyone as to the policy of the Government in this regard. On various occasions in the past the Government stated this policy and I should like to repeat it now. To attain this goal, the Government is of the opinion that parity should be introduced from the highest posts and that the process should gradually be carried through to the lower cadres. However, since financial circumstances influence the rate at which this process can be implemented, the Government has never been prepared to introduce a timetable in this regard. Although it is therefore not possible to accept a time-table for the elimination of the wage gap, the Government has now, after a comprehensive inquiry, accepted a model according to which it will be possible to reach the goal in phases. However, I wish to reiterate that the phases cannot be tied to a time scale.

Therefore, I now wish to announce that posts have been identified, posts which, with effect from 1 April 1979, will be placed on parity with White posts, or which will, with effect from 1 April 1979, move closer to parity. To this purpose the Government has made available an amount of R3,5 million. Posts which have been identified for this purpose, are those posts in the so-called managerial cadres of the Public Service, and include ranks such as principal medical officer, professor, specialist, senior specialist, principal specialist, medical officer, inspector of education, chief inspector of education, certain headmasters in possession of higher qualifications, etc. It is estimated that more than 400 staff members will be placed on full salary parity by 1 April 1979, whilst a further 1 300 will move closer to parity.

Particulars of the way in which the decision will be put into operation will subsequently be made available by the Public Service Commission. The Government has instructed, too, that the whole question of loan parity should be investigated over a wide front as a matter of top priority in order not only to establish its financial implications, but also to identify the other implications it might have. The Public Service Commission and the Treasury, together with the departments concerned, will liaise with interested persons or bodies in this regard. It is foreseen that an investigation of this scope will last for a considerable period.

I should also like to say a few words about training, something which is closely bound up with economic development. South Africa has reason to believe in what it has achieved and to be proud of it. However, with that I am not saying that South Africa has achieved everything which it has to achieve. However, we have now, over a period of 30 years, been in the process of moving away from an old order to a better future for our country, if that is at all possible. In this connection I wish to furnish you with a few comparative figures released by the Africa Institute. They deal with the number of pupils and students in various countries as a percentage of the total population. In Zambia the figure is 8,9%; in Nigeria 7,1%; and in Tanzania, 6,8%. These are now the wonderful countries held up to us by the UN and foreign critics as examples of the way in which we should set to work. In respect of our own countries which attained their freedom, the figures are: Bophuthatswana, 28,6% and Transkei, 24,2%. The figure for the Republic of South Africa is 25%. Compare these now with the 8,9%, the 7,1% and 6,8% of the other countries, countries which are constantly shouting at us. I wish to emphasize that we shall continue to improve the training of our Coloureds and our Black peoples, which are our responsibility, to enable them in such a way to make a better economic contribution to the welfare of South Africa. In this respect the Government has a proud record. This is clear from the figures I have just furnished.

†As far as Black education is concerned, the Cabinet has taken several important decisions in principle to which I want to refer briefly. I think the most important of these is that the Cabinet has given its approval to the Department of Education and Training appropriating funds for the erection of community schools in Black residential areas. The new dispensation which starts on 1 April 1979 does not only entail an alleviation of the Black population, but will also enable the department concerned to plan the professional and physical development of education meaningfully.

Secondly, the Cabinet has approved an in depth investigation into the needs of tertiary education in the Black residential areas. A commission has already been appointed under the chairmanship of Prof. Viljoen, principal of the Rand Afrikaans University, and the commission has been instructed to report before the end of the year.

Thirdly, a draft Bill to replace the Act of 1953 has been published after it had been cleared fully with the Education Advisory Council. All concerned were asked to comment, and these comments are now being processed. Without anticipating the new legislation I wish to mention a few examples of some of the principles embodied in the proposed legislation. They include the following: financing of community schools; the control and planning of pre-school education; the gradual institution of free and compulsory education in residential areas for Blacks where possible; and the establishment of a teachers council which will control the profession as requested by the African Teachers’ Association of South Africa.

*Sir, I think that with these two statements I have demonstrated that in the field of our manpower, in preparing our people more thoroughly to assist in making South Africa’s future more bearable, the Government has made its willingness abundantly clear.

But on the road ahead we require not only that economic strength and economic development which we have tried to establish. We also require physical stability. The ability of the Republic of South Africa to defend itself and to maintain internal order will, therefore, be accorded top priority by the Government at all times. Orderly government presupposes stability, but not only stability in the sense that the Government is responsible for it. Orderly government presupposes that the population co-operates with the Government in order not to disrupt law and order. This we have again seen now in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and parts of Africa. Stability must be maintained by the Government and the people. There is talk of stability. Most people who become stirred up so easily against a stable Government, forget that if that stability collapses, their pensions also collapse, and so do their salaries, their savings and whatever they have accumulated for themselves in this life with great sacrifice, be it a plot, a house, or whatever. We must guard against that in South Africa. In this connection I am referring in particular to certain elements outside Parliament that speak very readily of change merely for the sake of change. However, they do not realize that if they bring wild forces into existence, those forces could endanger the savings and pensions of indigent people. That is why the Government is committed to maintaining the S.A. Defence Force as a fist of stability and, secondly, to helping the S.A. Police to the greatest extent to preserve internal order in South Africa. We shall, so I hope, succeed to an ever greater extent in conferring upon these two institutions the powers which they must have in all spheres to maintain South Africa.

Pay them a bit better, too!

I agree.

*As far as the S.A. Defence Force is concerned, I want to make a few announcements. The Navy’s first locally converted mine-hunter has just been taken into operation. The conversion programme from mine-sweeper to mine-hunter was carried out in the Naval Dockyard at Simonstown. The vessel is now being made capable, with its sophisticated equipment and specially trained diving teams, of detecting and neutralizing modern mines on the seabed. With this addition to its anti-mine flotilla, the striking force of the Navy has been enhanced and it has entered a new phase in mine warfare. We have achieved this in spite of the application of arms sanctions against us. In addition I want to announce that the first of a series of high-speed vessels which will be used for harbour protection is at present being delivered. These ships were designed by a South African firm, in co-operation with the Navy, and are being built locally. These ships are being deployed in all of the most important harbours of the Republic to safeguard our harbours for use by our own merchant ships and for those of the countries on friendly terms with the RSA.

In addition the Republic of South Africa has succeeded in developing the potential of meeting our own needs, independently of foreign countries, with regard to the use of surface and air missiles. Missiles which have been specially designed for South African conditions compare with the best in the world. This is the type of achievement which we ought to be proud of. This is the type of achievement on which South African scientists, technicians and young men are quietly working because they have faith in South Africa and because they want to safeguard this country. Among them are Afrikaans- and English-speaking people who do not allow themselves to be influenced by the fallacious arguments which are being conducted about South Africa. To our enemies I want to say that if there are forces that think that they can succeed in doing what they have done or are trying to do in Iran and other places, they will come up against the united will of South Africa and its young people.

In conclusion I want to refer more specifically to the second and third aspects of the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

†It can quite correctly be said that the primary aim of a political community is defence against foreign enemies, as I have just pointed out, and the maintenance of peaceful and orderly relations between communities and individuals in those countries. To be able to carry out such a commitment, however, governmental authority must be effective. Whilst this state of affairs has been maintained during the past 30 years, South Africa carried out important constitutional developments for its various peoples. That cannot be denied.

*Why do we not tell this to the world? Why do we not tell this to the world in unison? Why are we trying to make the world believe that there has been no real progress in the sphere of political emancipation in South Africa? During the past 30 years there has been a peaceful emancipatory progress in operation within the Republic of South Africa which is unprecedented in the world. The Transkei became independent without a shot being fired.

But you are not on speaking terms with them.

The hon. member for Houghton says: “But you are not on speaking terms with them.” The hon. member is negative. She does not say that she hopes the relations will improve. She enjoys the relations being disrupted. [Interjections.] Bophuthatswana also attained its freedom without a shot being fired, and the relations between that country and the Republic are still sound. Seven Black nations in South Africa have already received a proper form of self-government. If one speaks to those leaders today, as my colleagues and I have done during the past few weeks, one becomes convinced that good and sensible leaders have emerged through the separate governmental systems of these nations, leaders who are prepared to discuss our collective problems and their own problems with the South African Government in a spirit of peace. South Africa has created a mouthpiece for the South African Indians which they did not have before, and the Government decided that the South African Indians would remain a permanent part of the population. In addition the Government created an instrument through which the South African Indian population could communicate with the Government. If one wishes one could reject it as apartheid, but the fact remains that those people now have a voice. They have a say in their own affairs and they can talk to the South African Government. For years one had to hear that the Coloured population wanted to have nothing to do with the CRC. The other day, when I spoke to the Executive of the Coloured population and told them that there was legislation we wanted to discuss with them, they said that they first wanted to consult the CRC. I agreed to their first consulting the CRC.

Apart from the constitutional development which came about in a peaceful way, surely we have also made great progress in other spheres in South Africa. Let us examine the question of land occupied by Black people. Up to 31 December 1978 the South African Government had spent R350 174 445 on land purchases under the 1936 legislation, and the largest portion of that amount was spent by this Government. That is a large amount of money for a developing country such as South Africa. Who among the braggarts in international organizations who clamour so loudly against us, can produce anything of this nature. The quota of land acquired is 5 685 075 ha. Of the quota acquired, 4 104 200 ha were purchased and the rest was acquired without being purchased, viz. was State-owned land, for example large sections of Venda which were State-owned land. The outstanding quota on 31 December 1978 was 642 184 ha. Outstanding compensatory land on 31 March 1978 was 564 000 ha. Apart from the outstanding quota and the outstanding compensatory land, an additional 250 000 ha of State-owned land still have to be added. The total which still has to be acquired is therefore 1 456 184 ha.

Those in the world who clamour so loudly against us, who condemn us so strongly, who tell one another, if they have nothing else to curse us with, that the Black people have to make do with only 13% of the land in South Africa, do not at the same time tell the world that Britain did not keep its promises to transfer the protectorates to South Africa; that she broke her word just as she frequently did in the past. They do not recount how Britain made this task so much more difficult for us as a result of the leftist elements in the country which did not want to enable South Africa to complete this task on a proper basis. They do not tell the world that we had a recalcitrant Opposition that did not want to agree with the Government when a petition was introduced in this House for the takeover of the protectorates and that the Government had to tackle this task alone. However, look at what we have accomplished.

But I have now entered into discussions with the Black leaders who came to make my acquaintance, people with whom I held the most pleasant of talks and to whom I have given the promise that I would pay a visit, in the presence of my colleagues dealing with them, to the seat of government of each one of them. I shall do this. I shall go and discuss matters with them in depth. I want to discuss with them the future of South Africa, cooperation, prosperity and the resistance we must build up to the forces of Marxism in Southern Africa. I told them that I would take another look at the 1936 legislation. I now want to indicate what we shall do because there must be no misunderstanding in this regard.

In regard to the consolidation of the Black States an exhaustive investigation is necessary—

• (a) to determine in what way the progress which has thus far been made can be speeded up; and
• (b) to reconsider critically whether the freedom which we and the various peoples around us desire is in accordance with the completion of the consolidation of the Black States.

The general guide-lines are laid down as follows—

1. (i) The basis on which this investigation will rest is that the land purchases and exchanges in terms of the Trust and Land Act of 1936, and as embodied in the 1975 proposals of Parliament must be speeded up and implemented as soon as possible.
2. (ii) The economic development of the Black States and of South Africa is the highest priority. The recommendation of the investigating team must promote and not prejudice this priority.
3. (iii) The investigation must be geared to furthering political stability and State security.
4. (iv) Consolidation must not be considered from a geographic point of view only, but in particular, too, from the point of view of the consolidation of nations as well as the economic consolidation of states.
5. (v) Meaningful consolidation requires, inter alia, the exchange of land between states.
6. (vi) Although it is not Government policy to exceed the 1936 land quota unnecessarily, the investigating team is not being limited in its recommendations to so recommend if it is found essential for the achievement of our aims, with the express condition that all the implications in this connection must be thoroughly investigated and spelt out.
7. (vii) Ways and means of implementing the recommendations must be investigated.
8. (viii) Talks and negotiations will be held with Black governments. We do not want to do this without them.
9. (ix) The possibility of negotiating with states that are already independent is being held open.
10. (x) The highest priority will be accorded to the interests of persons and territories that may be involved, and people will not be expected to give up assets and interests without proper compensation.

In order to achieve this we envisage establishing the following machinery—

1. (i) The Plural Affairs Commission is being charged with carrying out the investigation, and for this purpose its membership is being increased to six.
2. (ii) The establishment of a central consolidation committee which will assist the commission in the investigation and will, inter alia, help to determine guidelines and norms for the regional committees, and on which the Departments of Finance, Environmental Planning and Energy, Mines, Defence, as well as interests from the private sector such as agriculture, industry and academics, will, inter alia, be represented.
3. (iii) Four regional committees which have to carry out an investigation in depth and on which the above-mentioned interests will be represented, as well as representatives of the Black Governments.
4. (iv) Provision will also be made to convene expert subcommittees if necessary to investigate specialized matters such as financing, economic development, etc.

All the recommendations of the committees will be co-ordinated by the Plural Affairs Commission which will then submit proposals to the Government for consideration.

This investigation is a matter which is going to be launched with the utmost circumspection, with all practicable speed and in an imaginative way.

We are now in a position to take decisions which could drastically influence the future of South Africa.

That is the spirit in which we shall tackle this matter. With what we have achieved and what we are prepared to do in future, we in South Africa shall look the world in the face. This is the third course which we put before South Africa; not the course of Marxism, not the course of surrender as is being preached to us from some Western countries. We put forward the course of self-respect and self-salvation here at the southern point of Africa.

Time does not allow me to discuss the urban Black people in detail today, and consequently I just want to refer briefly to that subject. In my discussions with the Black leaders I became convinced that none of them adopted the standpoint which is so frequently held up to us, viz. that the urban Black people are different from the nations to which they belong.

I have been tremendously strengthened in my conviction that there is a reason for the standpoint of the Black leaders being what it is. I have been strengthened in this conviction by a book which I read recently to make me as well-informed as possible on these matters. I am referring to The Urban Blacks, which was compiled by a number of academics in South Africa. I should like to suggest that hon. members would do well to read this book. I do not want to quote from it at length, but in this book one reads, inter alia, the following—

In this book there appears, inter alia, an article written by a person to whom the Opposition is fond of referring, namely Prof. Hennie Coetzee of Potchefstroom, an old university friend of mine and a person for whom I have the greatest respect. He is an independent thinker. In his article in this book he states, inter alia—

I urge hon. members to read this book and to end this silly talk to the effect that because a cat was born in an oven it is all of a sudden a loaf of bread. [Interjections.]

What do the urban Blacks themselves have to say about that?

We are speaking to them. The majority of Black people want to remain attached to their respective cultural groups.

What about the homelands?

The attempt to unman the Afrikaner and make of him something that floats between heaven and earth will not succeed in the case of the Black man either. One can only make progress if one upholds and respects his cultural possessions, traditions and his own ideals.

I do not wish to discuss today the constitutional dispensation which we want to implement for the Coloureds and Indians together with the Whites, except to say that I have told the Black leaders one by one, the Coloureds and the Indians, that what we are proposing in the new dispensation is not a ganging up against the Black communities of South Africa. It is provision that has to be made due to the special circumstances in which the Black, Coloured and Indian populations find themselves in South Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a number of questions to me, more than I can reply to. If I walk down Adderley Street and everyone asks me whether my toe, finger or ear is sore, I shall eventually be unable to reply to all of them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants us to reply to questions which we shall reply to when we discuss that specific legislation in the House. I shall furnish him with the answers then.

You do not know yet!

There is a time for everything. There is a time for prayer and a time for hypocrisy. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now ask me: “What about discrimination?” The Government has done away with dozens of unnecessary discriminatory measures where it has been possible to do so. Measures we inherited from the past and which could be to the detriment of good relations between the population groups have been done away with. There were dozens of such measures and it is no longer necessary for me to mention them now. Some of them were introduced by the United Party Government, inter alia, the notice boards on trains. We have also done away with the Masters and Servants Act which was introduced into South Africa by the British, to quote yet another example.

I now wish to say—and I am prepared to say it to Black and Brown people—that there is a major difference between discrimination and the drawing of a distinction with the aim of protecting population groups. In the second place I want to say that many of the measures taken in South Africa in regard to our minority problem can be ascribed to the opposition which has taken place under the leadership of ill-disposed persons, opposition to allowing a natural process to run its course. There are people who provoke one. Surely one then has to take steps. Just take the recent case of what appeared in the Sunday Express concerning the Black woman who was supposedly lying handcuffed to a bed. What is this if not a satanic effort to call South Africa’s name into question in the health year? Many of these measures must be ascribed to wilful trouble-makers and agitators who are bedevilling normal relations in order to serve their own cause. It is against these people that one often has to adopt negative measures, and then one is accused of discrimination. In America, with all its equalisation, 35% of the Negro population are living below the breadline today, and then they preach to the world about discrimination! “Sweep before your own door”, one could say to them. I am prepared to eliminate unnecessary discrimination, but I am not prepared to cause chaos in South Africa. If people want to attack me on that score then they must do so. I am not prepared to tamper with the right of self-determination of peoples. I am not prepared to tamper with the right of self-determination of the Whites. I am not prepared to cut my own throat for the sake of so-called world opinion. Let us understand each other on this score right from the outset. We shall fight for the right of self-determination of the Whites in South Africa even if we have to uphold it by force.

I have come to the end of what I regard to be my duty today. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me: “What about sovereignty? Am I prepared to share sovereignty with others?” He and I are neither of us constitutional experts. However, I want to put something to him for his consideration. There are only two extracts I want to quote to him and I quote them from a lecture I gave at one of our universities concerning our new constitutional dispensation. I quote in the first place from Law in the Making by Allen in 1957. He states—

I hope that is not the sort of sovereignty which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in mind. He goes on to say—

That is the first standpoint I adopt in that regard. The second is what Bryce himself had to say about sovereignty. He states—

That is my answer.

That is no answer.

My answer is that sovereignty is a relative term. I know that Bryce is not really an answer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He moves in a higher sphere than Bryce. [Interjections.] He moves in a higher intellectual sphere. He only moves with the angels. [Interjections.] Sovereignty, which is a relative term, is something we can share. However, effective government can still be retained—as we indeed propose— when there is a clash. This can be done by way of joint consultation and by the acceptance of joint responsibility for those things which are of joint interest. However, division of sovereignty among the population groups as far as possible to enable them to decide on their own affairs, forms part of self-determination.

And what about matters of mutual concern?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can put questions to me later on that score. [Interjections.]

You do not have the reply yet.

Oh really, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Mrs. Marais perhaps has the answer. [Interjections.]

Order!

The final standpoint which the Government adopts is that there must be a constellation of Southern African states co-operating with each other as independent states. We have already progressed a long way in this sphere. We have gone a long way towards obtaining grounds for co-operation in Southern Africa, with independent states as a basis. In the field of commerce and industry there is a customs agreement between South Africa and other Southern African states. Moreover there is co-operation in the field of transport, and this is something which is steadily growing. In the field of agriculture there is a Southern African regional commission for conservation and utilization, a commission which deals with the health of animals, with nature conservation, and which is already operating in practice. In this Health Year, steps have also been taken to bring about co-operation in Southern Africa. Even in the field of power and energy there are outstanding examples of co-operation, for example in the case of Cabora Bassa, to name but one. In the scientific and technological spheres, too, there are opportunities which can be afforded Southern Africa by the CSIR and the SABS.

I offer Southern Africa co-operation, also by way of a peace agreement, an agreement which will comprise a non-aggression treaty, an agreement which will involve the combating and destruction of terrorism, a non-aggression treaty which will involve the mutual recognition of borders, a non-aggression treaty which will involve a joint decision to keep communism out of Southern Africa We are prepared to discuss this with Southern Africa and we are prepared to contribute our share in practice, as we have in fact done in South West Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put a question to me on this score. I want to point out to him that we have kept our word to the five Western powers. After the first general election we went to South West Africa and persuaded the people there, against the will of many of them, to accept a second election.

In the second place, we shall comply with our part of the agreement in terms of proposal No. 435, as long as the other parties also comply with it and as long as there is no partiality in this regard. In the third instance—and I say this with the greatest firmness—I want to put it clearly that South Africa’s troups will not be withdrawn as long as there is no clear, practical and visible peace. The onus is now squarely on Swapo to prove that it wants to come and live in peace in South West. If it does not do so, the responsibility rests upon it and South Africa will continue to protect the people of South West against the godless forces of Marxism.

Mr. Speaker, at the start of his address last night, the hon. the Prime Minister expressed his regret and unhappiness at the discussion which took place during this debate in regard to his predecessor’s role in the Information affair. In his speech he reminded us how Dr. D. F. Malan had made a Government aircraft available to Gen. Smuts after his defeat in the election of 1948, to enable him to go overseas.

I remember that occasion, and I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that it was a praiseworthy gesture on Dr. Malan’s part. What I am unable to understand, however, is the connection between that case and the present state of affairs. At the time Gen. Smuts lost an election, whereas Mr. Vorster won the election of 1977 by a very big margin. At that time Gen. Smuts was still a member of Parliament, whereas Mr. Vorster is no longer one. Indeed, that was part of the hon. the Prime Minister’s argument. What is more, whatever the good and bad points of the Smuts Government at that time, there was no scandal concerning the Government, whereas what we have here is the biggest Government scandal in our history. [Interjections.] And yet…

Order!

And yet an effort is being made to compare these two events. It really seems to me that if anyone were to approach this matter in an impartial fashion he would find that there is something lacking in the hon. the Prime Minister’s logic in regard to this matter. It is also necessary that we furnish a reply without delay to the hon. the Prime Minister’s main charge against us in regard to the discussion of the former premier in this debate.

†Mr. Speaker, the reason why it is impossible to avoid discussing the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor in the debate on the Information scandal is just this: The most serious aspect of the whole matter is that the Government systematically and over a period of years deceived Parliament in regard to the budgeting of funds. Here we find that it was the previous Prime Minister who in the nature of tilings took the lead. The present Prime Minister has assured us many times that he protested against it. The Minister of Finance has told us continuously that he knew nothing of the activities. The responsibility rested on the previous Prime Minister. This systematic deceiving of Parliament reached its depth, as has been mentioned over and over in this debate, in the notorious lie to this House by Dr. Mulder on 10 May, while Mr. Vorster sat and listened in silence knowing that Dr. Mulder was not telling the truth.

Order! At this stage, without penalizing the hon. member in regard to his speaking time, may I say what I have been strongly considering saying since Monday. During December we devoted two days to the history of the deeds of the former Prime Minister, on the basis of a report. We have now already spent two days on that. Therefore this House has had the fullest opportunity to place all the facts in that regard on the table. In my opinion any further discussion of this could serve no further useful purpose except to imply that the present State President is not competent to perform his task. I cannot allow a discussion of that here. I therefore wish to warn the hon. member that if he continues in this vein I shall listen to him very carefully and may act against him. All I am really doing now is issuing an appeal. I really think that everything has already been tabled and that no further contribution could be made in this regard which is admissible. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, with all the necessary respect to which the Chair is entitled, I just want to say that I had not in any event intended to spend more than a few seconds longer reacting to the specific attacks launched last night in this regard on hon. members in this party. If the conduct to which I have just referred, and to which I shall not refer again, is allowed to pass, without members of Parliament protesting against it, then our view of Parliament is totally different to that of that hon. gentleman.

The hon. the Prime Minister also saw fit to say a few words about that part of my hon. leader’s motion relating to the economy. He rejected that section of the motion with quite a lot of noise and gesticulation, but I once again wish to define what that section relates to. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted it himself, and basically, what it amounts to is that the Government is not succeeding in furnishing equal opportunities in the economy, full employment or prosperity. That in many respects there are not equal opportunities for White people and Black people in the economy is surely as plain as a pikestaff. The hon. the Prime Minister himself conceded that there is unemployment, and as far as prosperity is concerned, the situation is quite simply that the economic growth rate in South Africa over the past three years has been less than the population increase. What this amounts to in real terms is that the average South African has been getting poorer. If there are three charges in the whole motion which stand on their own feet, they are these three, and the hon. the Minister’s reply to them has by no means detracted from them.

It was my chief aim, in the time at my disposal, to react to the discussion of the constitutional proposals by hon. members on both sides of the House. Since we are engaged in discussing our constitutional future, it could surely only be sound and constructive first to investigate those aspects concerning which there is apparently a large degree of unanimity. In my opinion, the first of these is that changes must take place. Whatever we may want, there is no opinion group worthy of mention which simply wants to uphold the present state of affairs; all realize that changes must take place. A second aspect concerning which there is, in my opinion, a great deal of unanimity is that the full and equal dignity of every person must be recognized. In future there may not be any continued domination by one group of any other, nor must there be any injustice towards any individual. In the third place— and here I choose my words carefully—there must be joint decision-making concerning matters in regard to which large numbers of our people are involved; that also applies where those people belong to various population groups. Therefore there must be changes, human dignity must be upheld and, where necessary, there must be joint decision-making. I think we are agreed on that.

I intend discussing various aspects of the constitutional proposals of both the PFP and the NP, and in the course of my speech I shall reply to some of the arguments by hon. members on the Government side.

By way of introduction, however, I first want to make the following general statements: It is true that it is extremely difficult to work out a constitutional policy for South Africa. The problems involved arise out of our circumstances; out of the diversity of language, culture, religion and skin colour encountered here, but also out of the major differences in wealth and level of education. We are quick to refer to each other’s proposals as dangerous when we attack each other in this House, but in fact the danger does not lie in the proposals, but in the composition of our population and in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. This danger will continue to exist, whatever we may do. The challenge we are faced with is to attempt to reduce the danger as far as possible by our actions. Most of us are realizing more and more that doing nothing seems to be the most dangerous of all possible courses of action.

A second general statement in this regard is that in the final analysis, peoples’ political interests are not to be distinguished from their economic interests. This applies in particular to the poor, but also to all the others. For poor people, the aim in regard to political rights is specifically to use them to improve their economic position. As far as our people’s economic interests are concerned, they are of course entirely dependent upon each other. There is only one economic machine which we must all maintain and of which we all, therefore, form part. Any decision relating to the economy is therefore pre-eminently a mutual matter or a matter of mutual interest. Therefore there must be joint decision-making. In other words, there must be sharing of power. This does not apply to the economy alone, but for the purposes of my argument that is sufficient Consultation alone is inadequate; a say is too vague. Decisions must be taken on a basis which causes each party to believe that he has had a rightful share in that decision-making. The proposals of the two parties must be tested against that background.

I should now like to deal with the main characteristics of the two plans. I stress the words “main characteristics”, because that is what must be debated in a serious and mature way. Both sides of the House can come up with clever hypothetical questions in regard to the way in which certain difficult details are to be worked out or not, but those would be childish tactics. We are discussing a system which is going to be implemented in the future in circumstances which are still unforeseeable today. At that time in the future, responsible people will iron out the lesser problems as best they can—surely we all know that. All we can and must do now is to lay down principles which will hopefully determine the fundamental character of our politics in the future.

†Let me turn to our proposals. The right starting point, it seems to me, is that we hold the recognition of the dignity and the rights of the individual human being to be fundamental in our civilized heritage. However, at the same time we know that ethnic, cultural and language groups exist within our population and that such groups can form a basis for political mobilization. Because of the importance of individual rights, we have concluded that there must be a general franchise, something which some of us resisted for a long time, and that the individual must be free, entirely free, to choose the political grouping to which he wishes to belong. At the same time, because of the real danger of ethnic mobilization for political domination, we must choose that form of government that will as far as possible prevent sectional domination by any group over another. In order to do this, we propose three measures. Firstly, a federal form of government so that the sites of power are multiplied and so that power itself is fragmented and there is never too much power in any one hand; secondly, the proportional representation system of election at all levels to replace the present single member constituency system, so that even quite small minorities can be sure that their voices will be heard; and, thirdly, the concurrent majority, or as we prefer to call it, the minority veto, which means that substantial consensus must be obtained before legislation other than money Bills can be enacted.

All this can be summed up in the following way: We are determined to get away from winner-take-all government as we have inherited it mainly from Westminster, and for it we wish to substitute give-and-take government, government by discussion, negotiation and consensus.

Many important questions arise, far too many for me to deal with in the time I have available. One in particular is in many minds and has been put from that side of the House, viz. do we envisage that political parties will be formed on ethnic lines or not. The answer is that that is something that people must decide for themselves. They may organize on an ethnic basis, they may not do so. In my view they will most probably do so partially and not entirely.

On Monday the hon. the Minister of Agriculture put a question to the Leader of the Opposition. The gist of that question was whether the hon. gentleman agreed that the Zulus and the Xhosas would each want their own political party. The answer to that question is that I do not know and that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture does not know. Most important of all, neither of us should be so arrogant as to presume to decide the matter. Every Zulu South African, like every Xhosa South African or every Afrikaner or Indian, should be perfectly free to choose the party to which he wishes to belong. What is vital is that the parties, once they are formed, should be guided towards consensus and away from confrontation. That is what the PFP proposals, in summary, are about Having spoken about them, I now wish to say a few words about the proposals put forward by the NP. Firstly, as has been said a thousand times in a thousand places, the NP proposals simply ignore the African population of the Republic outside the Black States. I am, of course, quite aware that their exclusion from the legislative process is supposed to be justified by the existence of the homelands. This, however, is patently absurd. A second generation Soweto resident of Xhosa descent is likely to have as much interest in the Transkei or the Ciskei as a second generation White immigrant has in Germany or England, no more, no less. Yet in the concept of equity and justice, which hon. members on that side of the House uphold, a White immigrant can come and live in Parktown and obtain a vote after five years, whereas a Black man can be born in Soweto, of good, law-abiding South African parents, can be educated there, work there, pay his taxes there and yet never obtain a vote there, and that is plain, unvarnished racial discrimination of the worse kind. For that reason alone the proposal is morally rotten. It is also unworkable.

More than half the population of what these hon. gentlemen are pleased to call White South Africa are of African descent. They form more than half of the labour force and they require about half the housing. They also provide a very large part of the buying power. There is consequently no way in which one can govern this territory without the consent of that majority, and that means there is no way one can govern it without their participation in the process. This fault alone in the Government’s plan is enough to be quite fatal, but there is another fatal fault Even if there were no Black people in South Africa outside the homelands, this scheme would still be fatally flawed, for how are decisions to be taken in matters of common concern, and mark my words, there are going to be precious few matters that do not turn out to be matters of common concern?

Matters of common concern, we are told, are to be dealt with by consensus in the Cabinet Council. Last year the former Prime Minister, in the debate on his Vote, told us that consensus, in that scheme, means that there will be a discussion in the Cabinet and that the President, as the head of the Cabinet, will then decide what the consensus is. This means that consensus is what the President says it is.

How is the President to be chosen? He is to be chosen by an electoral college, the majority of whose members will always come from the majority party in this House. So, under present circumstances, the NP will be in control of everything in the country just as certainly and firmly as it is at present. After all the talk, therefore, what do we have for the Whites who are not in the NP, for the Coloureds and for the Indians? We simply have Nationalist “baasskap”, the same old dreary, threadbare, failed policy as before. There is no power-sharing and no meaningful participation for the Coloured people or the Indians, or for those Whites who reject the NP. On this ground too—in fact on this ground alone—the Nationalist scheme is utterly unacceptable and has no chance of success.

*Before coming to the final part of my speech I perhaps have just enough time to react to another important statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday. He was talking about the Cabinet committee of three, and he was able to inform us that research has now been carried out by himself and by others, and that it has been found that there is nothing in the minutes of the Cabinet which makes mention of that committee. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to tell us that the evidence in this regard which came before the Erasmus Commission, is false. There was never such a committee, even though the commission found that there was.

The evidence.

If that is so, then it is so. We accept that, but then we ask why it is that when Dr. Eschel Rhoodie mentioned the existence of this committee in a much discussed Press statement last year—I think it was in May—there was no denial from any source? We have been discussing this matter for six months. It came before the Erasmus Commission again and it was reported on again there, but we are simply not told. It is this kind of covering up, this kind of unnecessary silence, that we are opposed to. It often seems as if the Government is simply not prepared to give us information about anything.

Once again, mention was made in this debate of something which was mentioned over and over again in the two-day debate, but concerning which no reply has thus far been provided. I refer here to the supposed loan of approximately R15 million which was apparently negotiated abroad by Dr. Rhoodie. There is always a deathly silence when we raise this question. The commission told about this loan. Is that evidence before the commission also faulty, or is the commission correct in this case, and may we therefore hear something about it? The hon. the Prime Minister states that when we put such questions we must know something and tell it to the commission. However, that is by no means true. We are asking the questions precisely because we know nothing about the matter and because the fact is that in the report of the commission that there is no explanation. We also ask for the evidence because we, and the general public as well, would like to know what is going on in regard to these mysterious loans and the other large transactions about which we are told nothing.

How many of those people do you represent?

In conclusion, I want to come back to the constitutional proposals of the parties. I want to touch on an aspect of them which is vitally important, and could well be the most important of the procedures by means of which we are to work out our constitutional future. I refer to the transitional procedure by means of which South Africa must change and by means of which we will move away from apartheid. There may be different variations of policy. For example, it is possible that there could be more than one sound and acceptable form of franchise, entrenchment of rights or power-sharing.

However, one thing is certain: No form of government, however sound, will succeed in the long run unless it is accepted by all groups, and that means that all groups must take part in the drafting of that policy. The NP’s policy has been drafted by a committee of the party, after which it was agreed to by the congresses of the party—all behind closed doors. Only afterwards was it made known to the people of South Africa, or peoples, if the hon. members prefer, what was envisaged for them. That will never do. Those South Africans who are excluded from the decision-making process will never accept the decisions after that. The national conference or convention is vital. That is the only possible way to achieve government by consent in our country. The convention will not be easy. It will take a long time. It may be necessary to adjourn and resume. In the meantime, the Government will have to work hard to eliminate discrimination and create the correct climate, but here, just as in Namibia, there will be no accepted policy without such a conference. We on our side are satisfied that the voters and all South Africans must know that we are the convention party, that we believe in consensus government instead of the confrontation policy, the “baasskap” policy, which, in spite of the fine-sounding assurances, is still championed by hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown began by telling us why the Opposition cannot show South Africa’s former Prime Minister the decency, courtesy and honour which one normally shows a former Prime Minister in a civilized country, as Dr. Malan did towards Gen. Smuts. He said that Dr. Malan was able to do it because Gen. Smuts was a member of Parliament at the time. If, then, one can show it towards a member of Parliament, for what reason can the party opposite not show it towards the State President of South Africa?

He has just said that the circumstances are not the same.

He said that Dr. Malan could do it because Gen. Smuts had lost an election. I want to ask the hon. member whether they can only show courtesy and honour to a Prime Minister who has lost, and not to a man who retired with honour and served his country with honour. In the third place he said that Dr. Malan could do so because there was no scandal in South Africa at that time. I want to tell the hon. member that in my opinion there was a bigger scandal in South Africa at that time. Why did Gen. Smuts bum thousands of files? He did not want the people to see them. Nor was he prepared to appoint a commission of inquiry. The fact of the matter is that the actions of the Opposition yesterday afforded proof that that party is alien to South Africa. That party is an un-South African party. Dr. Malan was big enough to honour and respect an opponent after he had retired. However, the party opposite is not. The reason for that is not that they are against the NP but that they are against South Africa.

Order! I have appealed to hon. members to raise that subject as little as possible.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. Except for a policy statement of 10 minutes to which we listened earlier in this debate, that hon. member is now, on the third day of this debate, the first speaker to discuss the new policy. That is a remarkable phenomenon. I believe that this is the first time in the history of South Africa that a party’s policy announcement has been ignored so totally. After those hon. members announced their policy last year, discussions took place for a week, and subsequently nothing was heard or said about that policy. That is the policy announcement which in our history has gripped the imagination of South Africa least. The people who say least about their policy are those very leaders of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

In 1948, when the NP was the Opposition, there were scandals too. However, the NP did not merely promote its cause on the basis of the scandals caused by the UP, because if they had done so they would never have come to power. In 1948 the NP came forward with a positive alternative policy. Last year the PFP, due to circumstances, was in the fortunate position by accident to be able to announce a policy, a policy on which they could have ridden as the NP rode on its policy in 1948, but it said nothing about its own policy. An Opposition cannot come to power due to the faults of a Government; it must come to power through its ideals, for what it holds out as a prospect for the people and the promise of the heights to which it wants to carry them. However, the Opposition lack the courage to discuss their policy because they know that it has been rejected by the people.

I should like to quote a few important motivations and statements from the document drawn up by the committee. It has the following to say about the franchise—

It goes on—

They therefore say that to solve the problem of domination by concentrating on the franchise, is absolutely wrong. I want to remind those hon. members that in accordance with their former policy, which they exchanged for this policy, they wanted to solve the problem of domination by means of a qualified franchise. We told them that that could not be done. The contents of this document compiled by their committee, constitutes a recognition that one cannot solve the problem of domination by a manipulation of the franchise.

The Molteno Report put it in exactly the same words 20 years ago. Go and read the Molteno Report.

Precisely. In what respect does the PFP’s new policy differ from their old policy? The old policy advocated qualified franchise within a federation and this one advocates group representation with a right of veto within a federation. Surely that is the difference between the two. The PFP told the voters that by means of a qualified franchise they were giving them a guarantee against the domination by one population group of another.

Precisely the opposite is stated in the Molteno Report.

They now say that that cannot happen.

We said so at the time.

No, the PFP did not say so. In support of this I want to refer to that blue book on the front of which their leader’s face is depicted. When their policy was still being investigated, the PFP said that as far as the political sphere was concerned, the party would stand for the just sharing of political power by all citizens of our country, and they gave a guarantee of safeguards against the domination and suppression by any race by another race. With what did they wish to do so? Did they wish to achieve that with their former policy or with something else?

Precisely, with the policy.

Thus, with the policy. Now, however, they say that the granting of franchise would not be able to achieve it, but their policy was nevertheless based on that.

We have always said that it could not be done by the granting of franchise.

But the question of franchise has always been the basis of their policy. [Interjections.] Of course. However, I do not expect them to admit it.

There are other people who are not hostile to the PFP who admit know and understand it. The people of South Africa, the Whites as well as the non-Whites, rejected the previous policy because it could not eliminate domination by means of the qualified franchise. That hon. member is now denying that that was the result. With reference to the PFP, the editor of the Sunday Times says the following—

In other words, the Sunday Times states that the previous policy of the PFP would have led to domination.

Those are its problems.

Yes, those are its problems, but it understands it and that hon. member does not understand it. We realized that that party’s former policy would lead to domination. I want to ask the hon. member for Rondebosch: If that party’s previous policy had not led to domination, for what reason did he discard that policy and compile a different policy? For what reason did they do that? At the time they said that by means of the policy they propounded, they were giving the voters a guarantee against domination. They themselves are now rejecting that policy because it did not contain the guarantee. The policy they are now propounding and which they maintain contains a guarantee against domination, does not have it either. I want to attempt to prove this to hon. members.

The first thing which hon. members maintain in these documents is that cognizance must be taken of ethnicity, of the concept of nationality and of those things which are important to people. However, the fact is that while the PFP says that cognizance must be taken of this, in the recommendations it makes and in the policy it propounds, it totally ignores those things, except as regards the Senate, for which they make provision and on which they are not all in agreement, and which in any event is meaningless. Moreover, they totally ignore the concept of nationality and ethnicity. This is illustrated by what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the other day: “The map of South Africa must be redrawn. New States must be drawn.” That party itself states that there must be partition, but not partition to make provision for nations; partition to create still more multiracial states in South Africa. That is the problem with that party’s policy.

The NP states that the solution is to be achieved by way of partition. The hon. the Prime Minister has just made an important announcement here. Geographic content is necessary to ensure the sovereignty of the people and to enable it to realize itself and govern itself. That was an important announcement. Those hon. members are also prepared …

What about the Coloured and Indian people?

Those hon. members are also prepared to partition, but not to give expression to the concept of nationality, but specifically to destroy it in a multiracial State. That is the weakness of the policy of those hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is perhaps telling us that the NP’s policy is today moving in the direction of a solution through partition?

Yes of course! Of course it is moving in that direction and I ask that hon. member what happened in regard to Bophuthatswana. Does the hon. member want to tell me that what that nation has achieved, is not absolute political freedom? Does the hon. member wish to tell me that there is any trace or any danger of political domination? Does he want to tell me that there is any trace or any danger of that nation reaching a deadlock without being able to govern itself, as will be the case under the PFP system? The fact that it is accepted by the Black peoples of South Africa surely constitutes evidence that that is the right direction.

With the group representation and the right of veto which those hon. members give—let us forget about the other peoples of South Africa and confine ourselves only to the Whites of South Africa—where would South Africa be if that kind of government was implemented in South Africa? If there had been group representation with a right to veto for the minority group, and this applied only to the Whites, my question is, where would South Africa have been? If we take it from 1910, we should still be a British colony today. We should still have been under the British flag. We should still have sung the British national anthem. We should not have had Iscor. We should not have been a Republic. With its minority representation the PFP would have used its right of veto to cause all those things to fall through. Indeed, they fought them with all the emotion and force at their disposal. If we had such a system of government, South Africa would today have been a poverty-stricken and struggling little colony of Great Britain, and that would have been due to a minority group, because the majority group would not have been in a position to mobilize the positive forces at work in South Africa and in its people and carry South Africa to the heights to which it has been carried. [Interjections.] However, I want to continue and apply this to the PFP alone. After all, it is they who are now propounding this policy to us. If they could have implemented this same policy at their latest congress, a policy of a right of veto for the minority group—what then? At that congress they fought over the question whether people who were guilty of using violent methods could in fact attend the national convention. That was one of their points of conflict. If what they propound had been applied at their congress, my question to the hon. member for Houghton is now—and I read in the newspapers that she lost by the skin of her teeth—is whether she would have used her right of veto to reject that point.

We reached consensus. [Interjections.]

No, if consensus was then reached, why did voting take place? [Interjections.] What kind of party is it that reaches consensus and still goes on to vote? [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. member for Houghton …

You are talking absolute nonsense now!

No, I am not talking nonsense.

Just read that document!

Mr. Speaker, I have read the whole document carefully. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. member for Houghton whether she would have made use of the right of veto in order to frustrate the will of the majority. Of course, I do not expect her to reply to me. She can remain seated. She need not reply to me. I shall furnish the reply to her.

You do not understand it!

Yes, the hon. member does not understand it. She does not understand it because she does not want to understand it. In any case there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. That is the case with the hon. member for Houghton. She cannot reply to that question, and I know why she cannot reply to it. There are only two replies to that question. The right of veto can either be used or not used. There is nothing in between. The reply therefore is either “yes” or “no”. If she had used her right of veto, her party would not have been here today with a policy. In fact they would still not have had a policy. [Interjections.] Now we have to apply this to South Africa. If South Africa were to be governed in this way, the Government would come to a standstill. However, if the hon. member would not have used her right to veto, what would have been the position then? If that had occurred, I want to ask her what about all the people who stand by her, her youth wing of the PFP, those who supported her. If she did not use her right to veto, surely she would have left them in the lurch.

Now the PFP tells us that they would go to their convention with seven non-negotiable principles. In the first place I want to point out that they adopt the premise that all the people in South Africa must accept those principles. What the consensus they wish to achieve amounts to, therefore, is that all the others must agree with them. If that does not occur, there is no consensus. [Interjections.] If they cannot achieve consensus about those seven principles of theirs, what does the hon. member for Rondebosch say in this document? He states that if there is no consensus, South Africa will be plunged into chaos and revolution. That is what he says: If consensus cannot be achieved, there is chaos and revolution. However, no consensus could be reached concerning this plan of theirs at the PFP congress. I want to ask hon. members opposite how many other people in South Africa rejected this plan of theirs. They themselves know that Capt. Buthelezi said that he did not agree with them, particularly not in respect of the people they want to invite to the congress. Mr. Curry of the Coloured Labour Party also rejected it.

He never did.

Yes, he did. He said that he believed in one man, one vote in a unitary state. He rejected the whole plan, but hon. members opposite do not even know that. It was also rejected by Bishop Tutu and by the newspaper Post. It was also rejected by Dr. Motlana. Their policy was also rejected by the two other Opposition parties in this House and by the National Party. Surely they do not want to tell us that we will not have a right to veto. According to the policy with which they come forward, convening of this national convention is the most certain way to plunge South Africa into chaos—by their own admission. Even in their own ranks, a group of homogeneous liberals, they are unable to achieve consensus on it, but they expect the whole of South Africa, with its 25 million people comprising different nations, to reach consensus. They themselves say that if it is impossible to achieve this, chaos and revolution will lie ahead for South Africa. In other words, they are not engaged in seeking for a peaceful solution. If one tests their policy against the experience within their own party, the only conclusion one can reach is that their intentions in regard to South Africa are not good. I can understand that because that party’s actions against the State President, as I have just said, furnish proof that they are an un-South African and unpatriotic party. The reason they come forward with a policy such as this is precisely because it arises out of their un-South African feeling and attitude. They cannot read South Africa, because South Africa is not in their hearts and minds. That, too, is why they come forward with strange things. Their hearts are with their friends in America and elsewhere, whom they try to please. I want to tell hon. members what Mr. Andrew Young said about Rhodesia’s policy, which also involves a form of group representation but which does not even contain a right of veto. He said that in America only fascists would approve and support such a fascist policy. That is what will happen with their policy as well. Can the hon. member for Yeoville not remember being called a fascist while overseas two years ago? I therefore want to ask them who they are going to please with this policy. Because the PFP knows that this policy has been rejected by the Whites and by all the other population groups in South Africa, they do not have the courage to discuss that policy. That is so because that party is oriented towards the negative. That is why it has produced such a monstrosity of a policy. Whereas the party has had the opportunity to propagate this negative policy, it was able to have a wonderful time with the Information tragedy which has taken place. That party reminds me of the fungus which grows lushly in dark sewers but which is scorched to death when one exposes it to the light of day. South Africa needs a party like the National Party which has a positive approach and occupies itself with the fine and noble things of life and is able to mobilize the pure forces in the lives of the various peoples. That party’s policy does not make provision for ethnicity and for the concept of nationality. In contrast with what those members are doing, the hon. the Prime Minister today made an announcement relating to the accelerated land purchases and further investigations carried out in this regard.

You said the opposite last year.

No. When the occasion presents itself I shall discuss the matter with the hon. member. However, that hon. member is so stupid that he does not even understand his own policy; how then will he understand what we are engaged in? We are affording every nation the opportunity to use the powers at its disposal to grow, as has been the case with Bophuthatswana and Transkei. The Washington Post reports that in Africa it is only the States under South Africa’s sphere of influence that maintain peace and order, which show economic progress and where the people have hope for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I move as a further amendment—

1. (a) to deal with the contempt expressed in public of the Erasmus Commission;
2. (b) to maintain a satisfied and efficient Police Force to cope with the increasing incidence of crime;
3. (c) and to pursue a foreign policy which in its practical application rests upon the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa and does not disregard the military necessities of the present circumstances.”

In the light of the circumstances in which South Africa finds herself, it is extremely important that people retain their confidence in the fairness, justice, balanced judgment and impartiality of our judicial system. To my mind the Attorney-General of the Transvaal has, with one single decision, done untold damage to that confidence. Unless he rectifies his mistake, or unless the hon. the Minister of Justice rectifies it on his behalf, this single decision will, in the long run, become notorious as the one most shameful decision taken during the past 30 years. The longer the Government delays before taking action, the worse the damage becomes. The hon. the Minister cannot acquit himself of this, and the argument that he did not interfere and is not prepared to interfere, satisfies few people. The hon. the Minister has never been too modest to accept greater powers or to use the great powers he already has at his disposal. But now, when public opinion demands that he uses the powers which he has, the hon. the Minister hides behind poor excuses, excuses which will eventually make his position in the Government unacceptable to the majority of reasonable South Africans. The hon. the Prime Minister now has a golden opportunity to give proof of his strong leadership and of the clean administration which he has promised us and which I believe he will give us. This is the opportunity to get rid of a Minister of Justice whose ability and judgment has long been under a cloud, not to mention the present state of affairs with regard to the South African Police.

The Police Force is the lowest paid section of the Civil Service when we take into consideration the hours they work and the responsibilities they carry. They receive no overtime pay, whereas the Railway Police as well as the officials of the Prison Service receive overtime pay. I think too much use is being made of allowances, and some of these allowances are not pensionable. Rather, the basic salaries from the lowest grade up to and including at least the rank of colonel, should be increased. The police should not have to pay for their uniforms. Apparently there is now talk of a uniform allowance of R100 per year being instituted. This is totally inadequate, for the overcoat alone costs R27. The number of resignations and purchases of discharge from the Police Service—this does not include those retiring on pension—has been alarmingly high lately. During the past year, 1 940 Whites and 70 non-Whites have resigned from the Service or purchased then discharge. This number represents one-third of the total Police Force in the Republic. At least 400 policemen have been discharged. The hon. the Minister has a grave shortage of policemen and this places tremendous pressure on the existing members of the Force. Certain police stations are unmanned at the moment and the people are literally working day and night. This does not contribute towards satisfying the police force and making it attractive for recruits. To my mind there are too many regulations and archaic rules which only lead to the wastage of manpower. Some of the most hardworking and loyal policemen in the Republic are not at all satisfied with the state of affairs in the Force at the moment Crime is on the increase and the police will have to play an ever larger and more important role in our internal security in the future. I think it will be a disaster if the hon. the Minister fails to enlarge the Force and to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. We shall be making consistently heavy demands of the police, and in order to attract more people of the right calibre, the hon. the Minister will have to take positive and active steps to establish a larger and more satisfied police force. I wish to intercede today on behalf of the police who are doing very good work in extremely difficult circumstances. I am blaming the hon. the Minister for the present unsatisfactory state of affairs, and particularly because the Police Force is still linked to the Public Service Commission, which certainly does not comply with the requirements of the police.

†Mr. Speaker, last year during the Censure debate I said that in the field of foreign affairs we hoped to be able to support the Government’s policies, but because foreign affairs was a field in which personal judgment was required to assess the fast-changing international politics involved, we would not be uncritical when we believed that the Government had erred. We are convinced that diplomatic and international political considerations have been wrongly overemphasized at the expense of military ones, which in our opinion should have had first priority. This fact has certainly affected the morale of the men serving on the border. I think this has created an entirely false impression, back home, of the true situation on our borders.

Let us consider for a moment the Government’s diplomatic policies regarding Southern Africa over the last few years. In Mozambique the Portuguese handed over power to Communist-orientated terrorists on a plate. Yet, since then we have helped to run their railways and harbours and we have paid for Mozambique labour in gold at the old price, at any rate until the revaluation of gold during the past year. Had we not done those things, Mozambique’s economy would have collapsed. Our justification for helping Machel to survive is that some mysterious other people would have helped him if we had not done so. Does this front-line president show us any gratitude for the aid we have given him to keep him going? The answer is, not at all! He holds conferences to discuss ways and means of overthrowing the lawfully elected governments of South Africa, South West Africa and Rhodesia, and he makes provocative threats about our future relationship with Mozambique. Machel helps Mugabe’s gangs who use communist weapons to attack Rhodesian towns and villages on the border with mortars, and murder and attack Whites and Blacks in friendly Rhodesia from hostile Mozambique. When Rhodesia retaliates she is criticized as endangering the prospects of peace in Southern Africa.

In Angola, American spinelessness, and thereafter American pressure, resulted in our withdrawal. Is there anyone in this House who can deny the fact that our enforced withdrawal from Angola is regarded as a defeat for South Africa in the eyes of all of Black Africa? Now Angolan bases are made available to Swapo, bases from which to murder South West African inhabitants, whilst our troops are periodically killed by their terror gangs. So reluctant are we to take action against Swapo, for fear of upsetting negotiations, that the story does the rounds that special permission has to be obtained from Pretoria to lay ambushes and landmines, and certainly to follow terrorists across the border in hot pursuit.

Where do you get that story?

It is commonly known.

Do not listen to rumours. Get the information from me.

When we successfully raided Cassinga there was a strained relationship between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence for weeks because the Western negotiators expressed concern at this act of self-defence by the Republic. We are supposed to be fighting a war but we are doing so, in my opinion, with our hands behind our backs because of our diplomatic involvement. This is fatal, said Gen. Eaton, former assistant chief of the Pentagon, during a visit to South Africa. He said—

What have we got from Angola in exchange for low-key military operations? Only yesterday President Neto said that the terrorist fight would continue against South West Africa and South Africa even after United Nations elections had been held in the territory.

And you got the fright of your life!

Yet this same Neto is consulted about the future of South West Africa by Mr. Ahtisaari. Take Zambia as another example. We help to keep Kaunda, another front-line president, in power, we transport his goods and we probably send him food with which to feed his deprived and hungry people, his people who are deprived even of the right to vote for an alternative to himself as president. However, how does he repay us? He does so by granting bases to Swapo from which to bomb Katima Mulilo and kill young South African soldiers. So what have we gained from our aid to Kaunda? Rhodesian families are murdered by Nkomo gangs from Zambia, and even a civilian aircraft is shot down, with its passengers including South Africans. Yet within weeks we sent him fertilizer, for his main crops, to keep his people from starving. When Rhodesia struck at Nkomo’s bases, Dr. Owen sent Kaunda arms to use against the Rhodesian forces, while recently we found arms of British manufacture being used against our troops on the border. Yet Kaunda also has to be consulted by Ahtisaari about the future of South West Africa, and we negotiate with Dr. Owen.

What of Rhodesia? We stepped in and arranged the release of Nkomo and Sithole to enable them to take part in the Victoria Falls conference. As a result of Western pressure, we withdrew our police from the Rhodesian borders with Zambia, policemen whom the hon. the Minister of Justice said were protecting South Africa on the borders of Rhodesia. This was a terrible blow to Rhodesian morale and a boost to the terrorists. Next we helped to get Kissinger involved in the affairs of Rhodesia and of Southern Africa, with disastrous results for Rhodesia and for ourselves.

You are talking tripe!

I am trying to make out a case. Listen to it. What is worse, Sir, is that America has refused ever since the visit of Kissinger to get off our back. We have publicly noted with satisfaction Mr. Smith’s internal settlement and now the result of the Black majority rule referendum. Yet, when there was talk of a National Government in Rhodesia a few months ago, rumour again had it that South Africa told Mr. Smith to stop procrastinating and to get on with Black majority rule. No wonder Mr. Smith has said publicly that the Whites in Rhodesia had no option but Black majority rule.

We have helped to keep Rhodesia going in countless ways, but the situation has deteriorated so fast over the past year that all we are believed to have done behind the scenes for Rhodesia may well have amounted to throwing money down a drain of our own making because we did not back those efforts up with either military or para-military assistance. Sir, when I said last year that I was sure that we would simply not sit back in the Republic and allow hostile forces to disrupt existing law and order in Rhodesia, how wrong was I. Whatever can we possibly gain in Southern Africa by Rhodesia following the same pattern as Mozambique and Angola? Will we in the Republic be stronger and more secure as a result?

Consider Botswana, another neighbour of ours. Two young South African game rangers were shot in cold blood in Botswana last year. What retaliatory action did we take against yet another State dependent on South Africa for its very existence? What retributive steps have we taken following the recent terrorist incursions from Botswana into the Republic and what are we doing about terrorist bases which are alleged to exist there? What did we do about the Soweto students being housed there in transit to receive terrorist training overseas and traitors like Donald Woods who were given sanctuary there? When will Botswana’s front-line President be firmly brought down to earth by South Africa as to the true state of affairs and his dependence on us?

Do you want to wage war?

Listen to my case. I have here a cutting of an interview with Gen. Malan in March 1977. He said: “We are in the midst of a total war at this very moment and as long as we are not fighting back, we are losing.” He went on to say: “A passive posture in the face of the assault must inevitably result in defeat.” I have said that the Government is obviously faced with a conflict between the diplomatic approach and the military approach. So far, as I see it, diplomatic solutions have been preferred to military ones and we have lost almost every diplomatic round through the falseness of those with whom we have been forced to negotiate.

Let us take a look at South West Africa. At the end of April last year the Prime Minister read out in this House a statement signifying South Africa’s acceptance of the Western proposals subject to certain conditions. The first was that the proposals were in a final and definitive form; the second was that the Western Five gave those proposals their unreserved backing; the third was the assumption that the Western Five would cooperate to give independence by the end of 1978. The Western powers have backed down from each and every one of those undertakings they gave the Prime Minister. Yet we still have to negotiate with them. Negotiations and settlements have merely sapped our morale in the Republic and every concession we have had to make to try to reach agreement has resulted in yet further demands by the West and the United Nations with which we are now having to deal direct. In my opinion we will never be able to satisfy them and, what is worse, there is apparently no quid pro quo. Mr. Ahtisaari said South Africa had accepted Resolution No. 435. He made no reference to our agreement with the West and is clearly a protagonist of the Swapo cause.

*Just look at what Dr. Owen said a few days ago after the Leader of the official Opposition recently took the trouble to visit overseas countries to make his contribution to the misunderstanding, confusion, bitterness and intolerance which already exist towards South Africa.

†Dr. Owen said there would be no trade-offs with South Africa in exchange for help with Rhodesia and South West Africa, Britain would ensure that South Africa did not get oil and Britain would reduce trade with South Africa as soon as she possibly could. There you have it. Where is the quid pro quo?

In July we heard details about the United Nations forces for South West Africa. I do not want to go into them. However, Gen. Eaton, to whom I have already referred, said that he had little faith in United Nations troops keeping peace successfully. I also want to refer to Gen. Walker, who warned against the presence of United Nations troops, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has never heard of the activities of the United Nations forces in Katanga.

*Does the hon. the Minister really believe that such UN troops will act impartially? Only a few days ago Dr. Owen said that after the UN forces have completed their task in South West Africa, they will be used against Rhodesia.

†I now want to ask: What comes after Rhodesia? Once again I want to remind the hon. the Minister concerned of the fact that Dr. Owen was the co-author of a book propagating the blockade of South Africa by a United Nations fleet consisting of Russian and American warships. Before moving on from the subject of SWA, let me just put a question to the hon. the Minister. What of the White man in South West Africa without whom there would have been no developed South West Africa at all. Mr. Mudge claims to be the spokesman of the Whites, but the Administrator-General has so far refused the Whites the opportunity of electing their new Legislative Assembly. Mr. Mudge even wants to do away with a two-tier ethnic Government in favour of a central Black majority Government, thereby depriving the majority of Whites of the one forum which, as Mr. Vorster said not long ago, would determine the actual future of South West Africa. The morale of White South West Africans has been seriously harmed by resolutions passed in the Constituent Assembly such as the one asking for the Africanization of the Civil Service.

I want to say to the Government that without White administrative control in Rhodesia and South West Africa there will be economic and political chaos in yet another two of South Africa’s neighbours. In the case of South West Africa, at least, the Government still has the opportunity and the power to prevent this happening.

If I had any doubts about raising the South West African issue today, they were entirely removed by the fulsome praise that came from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the Voice of America in this House, for the Government’s negotiations with the Western powers and his hope that even now South Africa would not withdraw from the negotiations. He also expressed the hope that after the South West African hurdle, South Africa would become further involved with the United Nations on a better basis than at present His basis would be one of United Nations-supervised elections here in the Republic, something which is also the ultimate objective of those with whom we are negotiating South West Africa’s future, because after Rhodesia has been handed over to the Patriotic Front and South West Africa has been handed over to Swapo by the West the full attention of the Western agents of the United Nations will be turned on South Africa so that it, in turn, can be handed over, as they wish, to the ANC and the PAC!

We must forget all about the cant and hypocrisy about human rights. The hearts of our enemies are not bleeding for the Black people of Southern Africa. Their hands are itching to seize control of our country. People talk about a Third World War starting, but the Third World War has already been lost to the Communists and to the Third World. However, there is a third South African war being waged against us by a whole combination of “uitlander” forces, and yet this Government seems to believe that we can get somewhere by continuing to co-operate with the Western powers, who are the most immediate threat to our very security. I believe that the hon. the Minister and the Government should adopt a far less accommodating approach towards the Western powers. For example, the hon. the Minister can take a leaf out of Gen. De Gaulle’s book and insist that they and their representatives in the Republic address him in his own language, through interpreters if need be. Has he not seen how America has treated non-communist and anti-communist friends recently in Iran and Taiwan? Is that not a warning to us?

*South Africa is being attacked, criticized and humiliated on the diplomatic front and the Western countries are interfering in our domestic affairs on an unprecedented and alarming scale.

†The United States Ambassador threatens the Republic with the ultimate involvement of the outside powers in our affairs. He and the British Ambassador far exceed normal diplomatic liberty by their thoroughly unhealthy involvement in our internal affairs. The United States information services ceaselessly encourage Black leaders to emulate the Negro civil rights struggle here in the Republic. The activities of the CIA in the Republic are more than a matter of concern to us and I for one would not be at all surprised if a CIA link is not found in the Information scandal, more particularly after The Citizen wrote that alarming series of articles “United States secret war with South Africa” which received remarkably little prominence and public consideration by the Government and by the Press. I hope that they have at least received a very careful analysis.

The whole United States programme of action against South Africa is plain for all to see, at any rate for those who wish to see. It is aimed at conditioning the minds of selected individuals, weakening Western moral or White moral and exerting economic and political pressure and, ultimately, as Ambassador Edmundson said, it is aimed at “civil war, regional conflict and the involvement of big powers”, initially through so-called peace-keeping forces in South West Africa and Rhodesia. It is plain as that for anyone who has eyes to see.

I would like to say to the House that the only counter to diplomatic aggression by the United States and the United Kingdom is the reduction of their diplomatic representation to a minimum here in the Republic, and an aggressive response to insults and threats, like the hon. the Prime Minister responded to insults and threats in the House today. Lastly, consideration should be given to our withdrawal from a useless forum like the United Nations. The only counter to planned economic aggression against us is for us to take economic measures to withhold those strategic minerals that are required by those powers hostile to us and, above all, to ensure our own economic self-sufficiency.

Lastly, the only counter to physical violence against the Republic and our neighbours is an Israeli-type preventive aggression by hard-hitting strike forces which are allowed to strike and a larger permanent force, backed up at home by the will to resist of a whole nation with something to lose. This can be achieved in the Republic and I believe the Government can achieve it by entering into a period of deliberate isolation, concentrating on finding internal solutions to our problems and learning to co-exist with others in the land of our birth, because the goodwill exists for this to be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Simonstown. He is a member for whom I have always had a high regard. I really think the hon. member for Simonstown has harmed his own image with the speech he has made here today. I shall not go so far as to say that the hon. member has now joined the camp of the HNP but he stopped just short of it in that speech of his. I do not think it was fitting for the hon. member for Simonstown to demand the resignation of the hon. the Minister of Justice because he refuses to use his influence with the Attorney-General in order to have Gen. Van den Bergh prosecuted. I think the hon. the Prime Minister as well as other speakers on this side of the House stated clearly during the course of this debate that the Government is not prepared to interfere in the legal process in this country. The fact of the matter is that if we should do so, he would not only demand the resignation of one Minister but that of the whole Government. In my view the hon. member for Simonstown represents a conservative section of the English-speaking people in this country. I think he went much too far in his speech today and thereby done great harm to his own cause and his own image. The hon. member levelled the accusation against the Government that it wanted to prescribe to Rhodesia and South West Africa what they should do. Furthermore he created the impression that the Government had brought improper pressure to bear on Rhodesia and the people of South West Africa. He also tried to create the impression that South Africa had left Rhodesia in particular in the lurch. He also alleged that we had left the White minority group in South West Africa in the lurch. When the hon. member levels these accusations there are two questions he must answer. He must tell me how South Africa could have exercised any influence over the referendum that was held in South West and how South Africa could have exercised any influence over the referendum that has just been held in Rhodesia. The people concerned judged for themselves; they decided themselves what they regarded as being in their best interests. That was the decision they came to and, as a South African, I really think it ill behoves the hon. member for Simonstown to place this Government in the dock as though it were this Government that drove those people into a corner.

I agree with the hon. member when he says that we abhor interference in our domestic affairs and that we will not allow anybody, neither America nor whoever it may be, to dictate to us in regard to what we must do here in South Africa and how we must govern our country. I do think, however, that the hon. member went too far when he criticized the Government for withdrawing our police from Rhodesia. I think the hon. member should know that in delicate matters such as these, only one norm applies when the Government makes a decision, namely, what the Government regards as being in the best interests of South Africa. After all is said and done, that is surely our major responsibility.

That I accept unconditionally!

Nor do I think the hon. member should drag across the floor of this House those extremely delicate matters which are still the subject of negotiation. The hon. member tempts one to say things which may be prejudicial to our bargaining position and our situation in this whole matter. I believe it is in the interests of our country that we refrain from discussing these matters across the floor of the House. If the hon. member has any objections I am sure he knows that the hon. the Prime Minister’s door is open to every responsible person in South Africa who wants to discuss these matters with him.

I want now to refer to something the hon. member for Yeoville said in a previous debate in this House. However, before I come to that I should like to say something about what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said about the hon. the Minister of Finance.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this House that the hon. the Minister of Finance ought to hand in his resignation. I want to quote what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said (Hansard, 5 February 1979)—

Earlier in his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Minister of Finance whether he knew about The Citizen, to which the hon. the Minister of Finance answered as follows (Hansard, 5 February 1979)—

That was the definite reply of the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition continued to persist with this type of insinuation until eventually he reached the stage where he said he thought the hon. the Minister of Finance ought to resign. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did was to cast doubt on the personal honesty of the hon. the Minister of Finance in this House. He refused to accept the word of the hon. the Minister of Finance when the latter stated explicitly and in public that he knew nothing about it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not want to accept it.

What I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that nobody grows fat on the meat of putrefying corpses lying in the streets. Nothing positive can be attained by a process of disparagement. The only thing one achieves is self-degradation; all one does is commit character assassination and that gets one nowhere. Hon. members must begin to realize that in this country of ours the whole question at issue is the maintenance of the existing order and set-up. What the Opposition is trying to do is to shake the faith of the nation in everything that is government, in the entire existing set-up and order in our country. They are trying to create a psychological situation in which one will not be able to believe anybody, in which one will eventually not have to recognize any authority, a situation in which chaos will reign supreme in this country. By so doing they are playing into the hands of our enemies.

Referring again to the position of the hon. the Minister of Finance, I believe it is in the interests of the country that in no respect ought his integrity and honesty to be doubted. After all, it is on behalf of every one of us that he faces the world. Consequently if we in this country say that he is sly and dishonest and that he does not speak the truth, we only denigrate ourselves in the opinion of the outside world and in the opinion of those with whom we have to negotiate. I put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he still has a great deal to learn. I want him to learn something from the hon. member for Yeoville.

On 8 December 1978 the hon. member for Yeoville said the following in this House (Hansard, col. 215)—

The hon. member says here that the personal financial integrity of the hon. the Minister of Finance ought not to be questioned—

Thereupon the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture put this question to him—

The hon. member for Yeoville replied as follows—

Apparently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with that. For the sake of the record it is necessary that we look at what the Erasmus Commission has to say in connection with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I refer to para. 10.341 of the commission’s report. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition another example. He is now trying to denigrate the hon. the Minister of Finance. I just want to mention to him that the journal Management, which is widely read in this country, recently nominated the hon. the Minister once again as the business personality of the year. They say: “1978 was a year of many high-lights.” They also mention Dr. Anton Rupert, etc. and then go on to say—

Then they say why and the reasons are significant—

I want to appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to stop belittling the hon. the Minister of Finance and trying to bring his personal integrity into dispute.

I should now like to refer briefly to what the hon. the Prime Minister said earlier on in connection with consolidation. I want to say at the very outset that it is a privilege and an honour for the Plural Affairs Commission to accept this instruction from the hon. the Prime Minister—we regard it as a definite gesture of confidence in us. I should like to assure him furthermore that we shall do our best to perform this important task properly. I also think it necessary to say that the commission will do everything in its power to give its fullest attention to this matter, impartially and honestly. It will certainly avail itself of all the expertise relating to this matter that is already to be found in this country by way of the Department of Plural Relations and Development, other Government departments, academic institutions, etc. Finally we shall try to produce a report that will be fair and reasonable to everybody, a report that will contain proposals that will be an honest attempt to solve this delicate problem.

As a matter of interest I may say that the questions of the partition of land and separate residential areas are old concepts in South Africa that date back to our earliest history. I found an interesting article recently in which no less a person than the Rev. John Phillips made representations to the British Parliament for territorial separation to be applied in South Africa. Based on his long association with and his knowledge of the various population groups in South Africa he maintained that separate residential areas and everything that went with it, as well as territorial separation, would give a lasting contentment and satisfaction to both major race groups. [Interjections.] As a matter of interest, I may just mention that this idea has already been supported by many other people, people who possibly hold views different from ours.

There have been many commissions over the years and bearing in mind what has happened to the recommendations of some of these commissions, one cannot but accept one’s task with some trepidation because whatever the commission recommends will be bound to be controversial. However, on behalf of the commission I should like to say that we shall in all honesty do our best to come forward with a plan that will satisfy as many people as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, quarrelled with the hon. member for Yeoville, as usual. The hon. member took up the cudgels for the hon. the Minister of Finance and I do not believe that it is necessary for me to intervene or to spend any time on him. He mentioned a few ideas about the question of consolidation. I should like to react to that later on in my speech, because I have a few very definite ideas on this question and I hope that we can take the matter further in this House. In my opinion the entire question of consolidation poses great danger to South Africa if not handled correctly. I believe that we might be able to put a few interesting ideas to the House in this regard.

†Yesterday when the hon. Prime Minister started his speech, he issued the challenge to the Opposition that they must either cease to talk about the person of the previous Prime Minister, now the State President, or take the constitutional action that is open for them to take. I agree entirely. This party has such a regard for the office of the State President and we are so conscious of the difficulty of the situation in which the previous Prime Minister finds himself that we would be entirely willing to take up the challenge of the hon. Prime Minister. I do not think we should allow this matter to pass without stating that. In order to take meaningful steps, however, the Opposition needs certain facts in order to prepare the petition, as required in this case, that would be presented to the House. The prime requirement in this case is the evidence that was before the Erasmus Commission on which such a submission would have to be based. The hon. the Prime Minister told the hon. member for Durban Point that he would make that evidence available.

You do not have a case; now you want somebody else to give you a case.

If the evidence makes it clear that such a step is necessary in the interests of South Africa, we shall not hesitate to take up the challenge and make use of the opportunity the hon. Prime Minister has provided us with. I welcome the fact that that evidence will be made available to us, because without it the hon. Prime Minister’s challenge would be hollow. As matters stand now, he has made it a meaningful challenge.

I did not say that I would allow the hon. member to examine the evidence.

I was not referring to myself; I said that the party would take up the challenge which the hon. the Prime Minister has put to the Opposition as a whole and, that if it should be necessary, we would take that action.

You have got no case. You want to go witch hunting.

I want to make it quite clear that we will do so because we believe in the integrity of the office of the State President. For that reason the challenge of the hon. the Prime Minister will not go by the board and, should there be nothing in the evidence to lead us to the conclusion that it is necessary to take action, we shall say so.

Are you better than a judge?

That is, to my mind, as fair as one can be in the light of the challenge which the hon. Prime Minister put to us. [Interjections.]

Who issued the challenge?

You just want to go on a fishing expedition.

Hon. members must remember one thing, and that is that the hon. Prime Minister challenged the entire Opposition last night to take the required steps, should it be necessary.

The hon. member has admitted that he has no case, so why does he not sit down?

If the hon. Prime Minister is not prepared to assist us, why did he challenge us? The Prime Minister challenged us because he believed that the State President and others can come out of the challenge with flying colours. In that light we accept the challenge as put to us by the hon. Prime Minister.

You want to go on a fishing expedition. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That hon. member is casting a very serious reflection on the hon. member for Durban Point and on the decision of the hon. Prime Minister to make the evidence available. I think he should be very careful of what he says in that particular regard.

I shall repeat it: You want to go on a fishing expedition. [Interjections.]

You have absolutely no right to say that I think it is an absolute disgrace …

Order! The hon. member cannot conduct an argument across the floor of the House.

I now wish to refer to a speech which was made by the hon. Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training. We are busy debating a motion by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and one of the legs of the motion deals with the constitutional arrangement which is going to be made by the Government …

Where is your tinker toy?

I shall show it in a minute. I think it is very important indeed that the matter of the proposed constitutional changes should be debated fully in this House, and not only in this House but also elsewhere where the opinions of the different parties are available to the public. If there is any fairness, decency and any serious intention that the constitutional change should go through in a reasonable fashion, I believe that the public should be informed, that the media should carry the debate and that the TV service should be made available for all parties, on a totally free and equal basis, to take part in a discussion. The people must see that it is an open and a frank discussion so that they can make up their minds.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said the concept of consociation cannot work. He said that it had worked nowhere in the world. He called as witness a Mr. Fraenkel of the University of the Witwatersrand who did not say the alternative to consociation, which would not work, was the Government’s policy, but that the actual alternative to consociation, which would not work, was majority rule. I therefore fail to see why the hon. the Deputy Minister should call Mr. Fraenkel as a witness for his side. I believe that we are perfectly entitled to debate, in this House, the validity or otherwise of the policies which we, the PFP and the Government put forward. I find it very strange indeed that where we have said our policy is founded on consensus and consociation and the PFP has also said its policy is founded on consensus and consociation, I now hear from someone who pretends or claims to be a mouthpiece of the NP that its policy also has strong signs of consociation. I shall ask someone, perhaps the hon. the Minister of Post and Telecommunications who is smiling so sweetly, if he would answer some questions about consociation and whether it is, in fact, the policy of the NP. If it is so that there are signs of this in the NP’s policy, and since the hon. the Deputy Minister said that it cannot work, I think the contention that I made, in some articles I was fortunate enough to write in Beeld, i.e. that the NP is “uitgedien”, is correct. It has nothing left to offer South Africa. The leadership that it is giving is merely reinforcing the old policy that has been embarked upon, and even the gesture made by the hon. the Prime Minister to review the consolidation proposals is nothing more than an attempt to breathe some life into the old, shattered hulk, that corpse of apartheid. The Government has pretended to put it across by creating independent homelands whilst totally ignoring the whole of the Black community which has moved out of the orbit of the homelands. We are entitled to ask these questions.

What we must do, however, is structure something different. The hon. the Deputy Minister says consociation does not work and has not worked anywhere in the world. Then we are fully entitled to say that the Westminster system has not worked anywhere else in the world, other than in the Western nations. If one wanted to find a system of government that has worked, where would one find it? What system of a democratic nature is there that has worked anywhere outside of the nations of Western Europe and North America, with the exception of Japan which is very closely modelled on Western Europe? What we face in this country, and the Government recognizes it, is that the Government is today moving away from the pattern of this Parliament. This Parliament will be used as a vehicle of the Government’s policy of changing this Parliament. The powers which this Parliament now has are going to be changed by the Government in another direction. That is an admission, and we endorse it, that the Westminster system does not apply in the circumstances of our country. What we face is a challenge of such vital significance to us that we cannot ignore it. We must accept it and live through it, and we must succeed. That is why public debate is so important. We must succeed, not only for the sake of the Whites, the Blacks and others in South Africa, but for the entire history of the whole continent of Africa and of the whole world. That is why we want to have an open debate, why we must start with the policy which is deliberately going to structure a system which is going to succeed.

But yours cannot!

If the hon. the Minister will listen I shall tell him that it can.

I shall tell you why yours cannot.

The hon. the Minister has had his turn.

The hon. the Minister will have the rest of the session to tell me why it cannot work. There will be legislation and he can then tell me why it cannot work. I now intend to tell the hon. the Minister why it can work and why we have to find a system that will work. It has to be structured so that it can work. If the hon. the Minister would listen carefully and intelligently he would have some answers. [Interjections.]

The whole story of consolidation is founded in the writings of political thinkers in overseas countries, in Europe, Germany, Holland and elsewhere. One of the persons who writes most about it, and whose ideas are accepted most readily, is Prof. Lijphart who delivered a paper in this country last year. [Interjections.] While in South Africa he pointed out that in drafting constitutional and other basic rules for a plural society that is to be governed democratically, the political engineer should be aware of the wide variety of consociational and federal forms and the various combinations of these that he can choose from. We can therefore choose from various forms—federal, confederal or whatever we like—and deliberately structure a change from the model we have before us.

The Government has certain proposals. These proposals are that a change should be made to the sovereignty of Parliament. The sovereignty of Parliament is going to be divided and will devolve upon a Coloured Parliament and an Indian Parliament. There will be a Council of Cabinets with an executive president. That is going to be the system in which the White, Coloured and Indian communities are going to work out their joint future. Whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations will take this as being consociation or a working federation or whatever he would like to call it, he has expressed the opinion that it is not power sharing but a structure which merely brings people together on an ad hoc basis, and they will work out some kind of solution. As I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister, the ultimate sovereignty still lies with the State President He will take the decisions and the White Parliament will still be the dominant Parliament of these three Parliaments. On that basis, let us understand the matter very clearly, the Coloured and Indian communities decisively rejected the proposals made by the NP. It is only now, because of certain vague indications, of which we know nothing, that there may be a change with other factors coming into the situation, and only now are we getting murmurs from the Indian and Coloured communities that they may be prepared to discuss the matter with the Government and go along with them provided certain other matters are clarified.

Surely you are now telling nonsense!

The problem is that we have a Government in the present situation which, for political purposes, totally ignores the entire Black population. I say categorically that any party in this country who ignores the entire Black population is totally unfit to govern. [Interjections.] Let us understand what the Government is doing. It is attempting to construct a political model for the White, Indian and Coloured people. That is going to be the system of government, and there will be some sort of relationship with the Black community.

That is unworthy of you!

It is not, and I will quote the previous Prime Minister. Last year, when we told the previous Prime Minister about the model and the policy we espouse, he said there would be no political links with the Black communities.

That does not mean that the Blacks are ignored.

For the purposes of the debate … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are interrupting the hon. member too often.

For the purposes of practical government there has to be some kind of body or political structure which will bind together the different groups in this country. The previous Prime Minister categorically said, however, that there would be no such political structure, only an economic one. The practical result of that is going to be that the Government will increasingly attempt to isolate the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians beside the main stream of politics which will then become a Black stream. We shall have a situation in which there will no more be “regering” but only “reagering”. We shall have a Government which will react to pressures exerted by, demands made by and attitudes adopted by a Black majority becoming increasingly militant in the face of rejection. To adapt to those situations the government will have to change its policies continuously.

At this moment, in my view, after 30 years of Government rule, we have reached the point where the constructive possibilities of Government policy have come to an end and the Government cannot bridge the gap that is looming between the urban Blacks in the White areas and the Whites, both part of one political system. They take no cognizance of them and have no intention of doing so.

For all the noise the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development is making, and all the indications that he is changing his ideas, we can see no indications that that fundamental change in the policy of the NP, is about to take place. If he can tell us here and now that a body will be created with the aim of effecting political co-operation or federation or anything else between the Indians, the Whites, the Coloureds and the urban Blacks within the bounds of the urban areas, he will be telling us about a major and a real change in the policy of the NP.

It will become relevant.

Yes, it will then become relevant. The only way in which the policy of the Government and the history of South Africa over the past 30 years can become nationalized, will be by adopting some formal consociation which will bring the people together.

[Inaudible.]

It is a long word and I know the hon. the Minister will not understand it, but I shall try to make it simple for him.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees that in his system, his inner-circle, he starts off with the Whites in a minority position?

The position of the White, Indian, Coloured and urban Black communities in our situation is that they are in a federal relationship.

With the Whites in the minority?

All are minority groups. [Interjections.] Of course! The Zulu community in South Africa constitutes a minority in the total population. Every group constitutes a minority in the total population. I want to put the hon. the Minister’s mind at rest. We have said that there are some Black communities in the urban areas who do not associate or wish to associate with a federal form of Government as they are still home-landers.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees that in terms of their policy they accept all the Blacks outside the homelands as one particular group in that federation?

He has just answered that question.

I was trying to explain that to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] As I have already said in this House, a survey undertaken in Soweto some years ago established that 19% of the people living there were totally committed to the Western, individual, free-enterprise way of life; 45% of the people living there still regarded themselves as part of the homeland scene; there was also a group in the middle at that stage who were not yet committed. I think it is important that we make the point very clearly that it is not for us to say to those people what they have to be. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens was present with me in Pietermaritzburg at a three-day conference on the political future of South Africa. At that conference there were Black people from Soweto who said that they were not in any way tied to the homelands. They entirely rejected any kind of link with the homelands. [Interjections.] Nobody can answer that question. How do we know how many of those people wish to associate with the Western way of life and how many wish to associate themselves with the homelands? To me, however, it is totally immaterial, because in a federal situation each group has its own legislative authority in which there are residual powers which cannot be affected by any other group. Where powers are delegated to the central federal body which governs the so-called White areas, only certain matters, which do not affect the identity of the different groups, are discussed.

But those Black groups … [Interjections.]

Ah, give him a chance.

The hon. the Minister is trying to understand me, I know, and I appreciate it. What I am saying is that there are four bodies which have residual powers which nobody can take away. They agree upon certain central powers which they will handle together and which do not affect their identity, powers which are not political.

I now want to refer to an example from contemporary history which very closely parallels our proposal, namely that the population groups in the White areas under a federal government should be in an arm’s length relationship with a confederation of the homeland areas. We can liken this to the system in the Federal Republic of Germany. Look at the city of Hamburg.

That is not a good example.

One can also take Bremen and Bavaria as examples. A State with residual powers acts with other powers at the centre in Bonn. This extends to Brussels, which is the centre of an administrative confederation, a working association of groups of people. Surely we are entitled to say that in our country we can structure exactly the same thing.

But Germany is not a plural society.

Order! The hon. the Minister is making too many comments.

The principle applies whether it is a plural society or not. The point is that this system can be structured on a basis of achievement.

It sounds better in German.

Listen, Jimmy, for Pete’s sake, do not even try to understand; just go home to bed. The whole system can be structured on a basis of achievement. I want to stress this point very seriously indeed. In the province of Natal the NRP, which is in control, has reached an agreement with other race groups there which amounts to a working arrangement in terms of which all the groups can work together and achieve a system in which they can get to know and trust one another and to build something which is positive. [Interjections.] If hon. members laugh at it and say that it cannot and will not work, there is no hope for the system they themselves propose. [Interjections.] If that system is unacceptable and will not work, what point is there proceeding with the proposals of the hon. the Prime Minister which are based on precisely the same sort of things we have been achieving? [Interjections.]

We are listening seriously.

My point is, if we aare going to structure something, the whole future of this country is going to depend upon the fact that in a plural society it is the desire and the determination of the constituent groups to remain separate. It is the elite who meet and work together and make the practical working arrangements which make common living possible. [Interjections.] They elect themselves. We have achieved precisely that situation in Natal. There are separate areas in which people live and they all have their leaders. They meet together and they have to work out and administer on a practical day-to-day basis how the affairs of the whole of that area are to be structured and how they work, and they have got to make them work. It is not a lot of political theory, eyewash, grandstanding and that type of thing. They have to meet on a practical basis. They have to determine which way a road will run, which way the sewerage will be laid and which way the water will flow. Here we are building a cadre of people who know each other, who understand each other, who have a knowledge of each other which they will extend into other echelons of government as the plan spreads. In that way one will arrive at what is absolutely essential, i.e. groups of people, the élite of the different groups who understand each other.

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

No. I have already answered lots of questions. I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister many more questions, but now he is not present. I shall therefore ask the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs a question. In an article in Beeld the editor says—

I must say this is the first time I have ever heard anything like this is the policy of the NP, and I have been here for a fairly long time. I have become used to the NP, but when one gets a policy laid down and it is like the laws of the Medes and the Persians—“granietmuur” and all that—then suddenly they come along with a new policy, but then we hear that it is merely an unfolding of the old policy. I now want to know whether what we have just heard, also constitutes “unfolding”. The NP is now beginning to talk about a consociation, a confederal structure and that kind of thing. We congratulate the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. He managed to sell to that party the “granietmuur” which was the old policy of the UP. It was our old federal policy which he managed to peddle across to them and got them to accept. I would therefore like to issue an invitation to the hon. the Minister to come back to us in order to find out what our new thinking is, then he can go back again and sell it to them too. That might be a helpful solution to their problem, because now they are stuck and will never cope with the problem of people living together in an area which will be non-homeland and in which there are going to be four groups of people, each one of whom is entitled as of right to expression and to live out its life in a normal fashion. They cannot do it.

Mr. Speaker, …

Piet Kanon!

Order! I feel I have to disapprove of remarks like that. A tendency is developing in this House not to address hon. members in the manner in which they should be addressed but to address them as “you”. That does not enhance the dignity of this House.

Sir, we know the hon. member for Mooi River who has just resumed his seat as a friendly member and as a person who is an esteemed member in many respects, but ever since he produced those little balls in this House, he has gone completely off the rails when discussing these matters. This afternoon he reminded me of a herd of cattle milling around in the kraal; the hon. member did not arrive at the point he wanted to make. If I may, I should like to give the hon. member some good advice. When he discusses matters that are important to the country he should be as realistic as possible and come back to earth as far as possible because that is what is urgently required.

I want to say something else to the hon. member. He spoke about the matter that was raised by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon and there must be no misunderstanding about this whatsoever. As the hon. the Prime Minister said very clearly this afternoon, if the hon. member or any other member of the NRP or of the PFP has any evidence that involves any Cabinet Minister, he should lay that evidence before the Erasmus Commission. If the Erasmus Commission should then make a positive finding concerning the matters to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred, he, as Prime Minister, will call a general election so that the country can decide on the matter. That is very clear and the hon. member must not be under any misapprehension as far as that is concerned.

In the second place, the hon. the Prime Minister has stated clearly what his attitude is in respect of the position of the previous Prime Minister. I want to add that the time has arrived, after this prolonged burial service for the Information incident, for the defunct Department of Information, for us to cease spreading these stories. I do not think this terribly long burial service is in the interests of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has given the lead very clearly and he has asked us to direct our attention to those positive things that are in the interests of South Africa. I want to add that this scandalmongering and story-telling, particularly about people occupying important positions in this country, must really cease. It is not to the credit of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that if any hon. member of this House has anything to say against the State President, he should do so by way of a substantive motion and that substantive motion must then be moved in this House. He will then not be able to make allegations lightly, to start a gossip campaign throughout South Africa and then come along to this side of the House for proof of his scandalmongering and think he can get away with it. That will not work.

I also want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister that it is in the interests of those important matters on which we should concentrate to do so. In my humble opinion the hon. the Prime Minister made an excellent speech this afternoon, a speech in which he gave us very practical, strong and brilliant guidance. It is only when we concentrate on those important matters that we shall be able to live together peacefully and happily in South Africa.

I accept with the necessary humility the task that has fallen on my shoulders. I have good reason to be humble. I also accept it with the prayer that I shall be given the strength, the insight and wisdom to carry it out successfully. Alone I am quite incapable of doing so. But if I have the necessary co-operation, with God’s blessing I shall be successful.