Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to use this opportunity—the first one available to me—of responding briefly on behalf of the official Opposition to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House on Tuesday on the issue of the South West Africa settlement.

First of all, I should like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for informing Parliament in the way in which he did, at the earliest opportunity he found it possible to do so. I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for having briefed leaders of the Opposition parties and their foreign affairs spokesmen, and for having made himself available to me and to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for subsequent discussions in his office.

We in these benches—and I would presume hon. members opposite as well— appreciate the implications of the situation which has arisen. Indeed, only a week ago I said in this House: “The advantages of success in achieving internationally recognized independence were so great, and the consequences of failure were so grave that we in South Africa have reached one of the most important moments of decision in the history of our nation.” We are today in that state of important decision-making. 5 March 1979, the date by which South Africa and Swapo were asked to respond to the report of the Secretary-General of the UN concerning the implementation of Security Council resolutions Nos. 435 and 439 on the question of Namibia, has come and gone. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that the reply from South Africa was delivered just before midnight on 5 March. On 6 March the hon. the Prime Minister reported to this House. As we understood his speech after having analysed it, he summarized aspects of the negotiations which had taken place between the Government and the Secretary-General since 21 December 1978. He referred to the views of the Constituent Assembly of South West Africa and to those of the Namibian National Front and Swapo Democrat parties, with which he and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had had discussions. He also tabled memoranda setting out their views.

He tabulated some of the acts of terrorism which Swapo had perpetrated since 23 August 1978, and he expressed in very forceful terms his deep disillusionment with the five Western powers. He spelt out the latest interpretations proposed by the Secretary-General, which, he said, were not acceptable to the South African Government, and he reaffirmed that the Government’s reply to the Secretary-General “does not slam doors”.

The hon. the Prime Minister also tabled the Government’s reply to the Secretary-General. When one reads that reply, two points become very clear. The first one is that the South African Government is prepared to agree to the Secretary-General’s proposals for a comprehensive cessation of all hostile acts to take effect from midnight on 15 March 1979, provided naturally that Swapo as well accepts the proposal and adheres to the ceasefire agreement. Secondly, the memorandum makes it clear that the South African Government is still prepared to co-operate in the implementation of the Security Council Resolution No. 435, provided the implementation thereof is in accord with the settlement proposals accepted by South Africa on 25 April 1978. That is the essence of the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister and of the memorandum of the reply submitted to Dr. Kurt Waldheim.

We in the official Opposition are deeply distressed, as I believe all hon. members are, at the turn of events which the hon. the Prime Minister was compelled to outline in his statement. We believe that it would be a tragedy if the settlement plan, drawn up over two years of negotiation, were to collapse at this critical stage. For the people of South West Africa in particular, who in recent years, in a unique way, have found one another and have decided to move forward to an independent Namibia in which all Namibians, irrespective of race, colour or ethnic origin, would have equal rights, the collapse of the settlement would be an especially bitter blow. It is because the stakes and the hopes are so high that we believe that, even at this late stage, a determined effort must be made to get the settlement plan back on the rails.

All parties have their part to play in any settlement, but on the shoulders of the Governments of the five nations which constitute the Western contact group rests, we believe, an especially heavy responsibility. After all it was they who originally initiated this settlement plan. It was they who have acted as the link between the various parties during the two years of negotiation. It was they who gave the assurance, way back in April last year, that they would use their good offices and their influence to ensure that the proposals set out in their memorandum of 10 April 1978 were implemented.

It is distressing from our point of view to see that right towards the end of a long road of negotiation, at a stage when the plan was about to be put into effect, the implementation of the plan as a whole should be jeopardized. When one considers all that has been done and that has been achieved to reconcile two points of view on South West Africa, views which two years ago appeared to be completely irreconcilable, I believe in this process of reconciliation of views the pendulum has swung heavily towards the South African point of view. The South African point of view was that flowing from the mandate, South Africa had the legal right to administer the territory and to allow the people to decide on their own future, and that Swapo was a terrorist organization using illegal means of violence, murder and intimidation in order to seize power. That is the point of view held by us in South Africa.

The other point of view, with which we disagree, is an African point of view. This view had been expressed in resolutions at the United Nations. According to this view South Africa was an illegal administrator, it must be expelled from the territory, and Swapo, the liberation movement trying to throw off the yoke of apartheid, was actually the authentic voice of the people of Namibia. Those were the two contrasting points of view about the territory which were held two years ago. But two years of negotiation have I believe achieved for South Africa a much more satisfactory situation. South Africa has now been acknowledged as the administering power in that territory, something which was rejected before. South Africa appointed its own Administrator-General, who is acknowledged to have administrative and legal authority in South West Africa right up to independence. Thirdly, the S.A. Police are to remain responsible for maintaining law and order right up to independence. Fourthly, there is an acceptance by other parties that there must be a cease-fire which means that Swapo must cease its acts of violence. Fifthly, far from being recognized as the authentice voice of the people, Swapo—like other parties—must be prepared to submit itself to the will of the people at free and fair elections.

In these circumstances I believe it would be unfortunate if the advantages which have already flowed towards us as a result of the negotiations and of the effort of the parties concerned, including the South African Government, fell away because of the gap which now exists between the UN Secretary-General and the South African Government.

From the Prime Minister’s statement it appears to us that there are two essential elements that have to be put right. The first element, perhaps the most important of all, is the element of trust, of confidence and of faith. The Prime Minister’s statement makes it clear that the confidence of the South African Government in the five Western powers has been badly shaken, and that the integrity of the Governments of these five countries is now at issue.

What do you say?

Do you agree?

Order!

That is what the Government had said. We do not claim to know the whole story. We have not been privy to the long discussions, formal and informal, which have taken place over the years. But what we do know, and this is important, is that our South African Government feels very deeply on this matter and that its confidence in the five Western powers has been badly shaken. We believe that this is bad, very bad, not just in relation to the South West Africa settlement, but in relation to the whole field of international relationships which reach beyond South West Africa and which will continue after the South West Africa issue has been resolved.

So we believe that at this stage it is vital that trust and confidence should be restored, because without that there can be no peaceful settlement.

What steps do you suggest?

In the prevailing circumstances this restoration of trust will understandably not be easy. I believe it will not be achieved by written communications or by arm’s length discussions with emissaries. The situation calls for frank, man-to-man discussions at a very top level. As I said in the statement yesterday I hope that somewhere in the Western world there will be a statesman big enough to take the initiative on behalf of the West in order to try to restore this bond of trust which has fallen apart as a result of what has taken place.

What about Don McHenry?

Order!

I hope the hon. the Prime Minister—and I put it to him very earnestly—will, if such an approach is made, if there is somebody who wants to try to resolve this problem and restore an element of trust, respond in a positive way to any overture which may come towards him.

The second element that we believe has to be put right involves the interpretations now being placed on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Secretary-General’s proposals. They relate to the issues of armed Swapo forces that may be inside South West Africa and the monitoring of Swapo bases. These are two cardinal issues, and let me say immediately on behalf of this side of the House that the interpretations which the Secretary-General proposes to place on these two important elements of the plan, is a cause for very serious concern, and this concern is aggravated by the spirit of mistrust which now prevails in the whole field of the settlement.

I want to make two points in this regard. Firstly, in any settlement plan, however tightly drawn, there will be grey areas, phrases sufficiently ambiguous to result in differing interpretations and there will inevitably be lack of precision on matters of detail. It was in fact in order to resolve these problems that the Secretary-General’s staff visited South West Africa twice and why there has been ongoing negotiation between the South African Government, the contact group and the Secretary-General of the UN. What has to be guarded against is that no interpretation, no fleshing out of details, should be allowed to undermine features which are considered essential for the successful implementation of the plan.

Secondly, no settlement plan is without a measure of risk. I believe that all Governments and all Opposition parties realize that every settlement plan has an element of risk built into it. The Western plan accepted by South Africa was not entirely without risks. These risks arise from the nature of the problem we are trying to resolve—the hostility, the tensions, the mistrusts—and from the nature of the terrain in northern South West Africa. Phrases like “restriction to base” and “monitoring” are important concepts, but they are not in themselves clearly defined terms. They are not an absolute guarantee that the settlement will not be violated. What they are, however, are important features included in the plan to reduce the level of risk and to see that the risk of violations is kept to the absolute minimum. In our opinion the latest interpretation which the Secretary-General places on these provisions, has the effect of increasing the risks to beyond acceptable levels, to a point where they could endanger the whole process of peaceful elections and the subsequent transition to independence. What is essential is to ensure that the increased risks to peace, inherent in these latest proposed interpretations, are eliminated so that the plan can be implemented with confidence that it can succeed. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that the Government’s reply “does not slam doors”. I believe that everyone in South Africa welcomes this. The stakes are high, not only for South West Africa and the people of South Africa, but I think people outside should realize that the stakes are also high for Africa and the Western world.

Whatever might happen in the months to come, we in the Opposition believe that at this stage the immediate priority should be to try to bring the settlement plan back onto the rails. In the circumstances that have arisen, we would expect the first move in this direction to come from the Western five or from the UN Secretary-General. We would hope that any move that comes from them would demonstrate a greater determination than has been evident in the past, to get Swapo to toe the line of a peaceful settlement. That is what we believe should be the call to the West and to the Secretary-General at this stage. We as the official Opposition will support the Government in any move it makes in order to try to bring the settlement back onto the rails, in terms of the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House. More than this: I offer to the Government of South Africa, in all humility, the services of members of the official Opposition, whether individually or collectively, whom the Government in any way feels could assist it in its attempts to try to save the settlement at this stage. We believe this is a national responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come to light with a flood of meaningless words. Looking at the history of those hon. members, on the basis of their statements in this House and outside, one sees that all they are doing is engaging in their old tactic of uttering a lot of meaningless words. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he hopes “that he will try to get the settlement plans back onto the rails”? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wish to intimate thereby that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government did not do their duty? [Interjections.] That is by implication the meaning of his words. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government to do, apart from what has already been done over the past months and years? Or does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want us to throw overboard certain principles with regard to the people of South West Africa? Or does he want the hon. the Prime Minister to crawl back to the UN on his knees and say: “Please let us talk again. Do not slam the door from your side?” In my opinion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made an arrogant speech. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have expressed himself more strongly and told the world that South Africa’s conduct was correct, that South Africa bore no blame, that South Africa had honoured its promises and that hon. members in the Opposition benches stood by South Africa’s decision. I had not known that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would raise this point now, because then the tone and the course of the debate may have been different.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Durban Point is in the House. A moment ago he nodded in agreement when I said something about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In the course of his speech during the Second Reading of this Bill the hon. member made a scandalous remark which in my opinion also casts a reflection on the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Durban Point was referring to the Erasmus Commission. In the unrevised Hansard edition of his speech the hon. member said, inter alia, the following—

The hon. member for Durban Point made a statement that the hon. the Prime Minister had extended the life of the Erasmus Commission in the hope that this sore would simply disappear.

I did not say so.

The hon. the Prime Minister told the Erasmus Commission that the life of the commission will be extended until May to afford the commission the opportunity of carrying out further in-depth studies of the matters with which they were engaged. The idea behind this whole action was that the Erasmus Commission would institute an investigation, collect the facts and submit a report to Parliament. However, the hon. member for Durban Point comes up with the allegation that the hon. the Prime Minister issued the directive to extend the life of the commission because he hoped that the Information story would disappear and “that it will just go away”. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he trusts the hon. member for Durban Point, that he is a man of integrity whom he can take into his confidence, the hon. member for Durban Point comes along with a disparaging, insulting remark directed at the person of the Prime Minister. I regard it as a personal insult and an affront to the integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister.

There are by-elections on the way, and it is strange that the PFP, who pretend to be the great democrats, the great champions of human rights, really want to stop the NRP from taking part in a by-election. Have you ever seen anything like it? There is to be a by-election in Swellendam shortly and there will be others elsewhere, and I think the hon. members are making misuse of the opportunities they have to criticize the Government. They have compiled a list of grievances in the hope that the voters will look at them and then vote against the Government.

When I begin to list the achievements of the Government, I know what is going to happen. The Opposition will say: “These things were done in spite of the Government.” I want to quote a person who is not a member of the NP. Indeed, this person is a financial writer in the Sunday Times. That man—and I may mention his name later— who is an opponent of the Government and often criticizes the Government, has nevertheless said positive things about the economy and finances of the country which one is proud to quote. I am referring to the editor of the Business Times of the Sunday Times. While hon. members opposite complain about how badly things are going in South Africa, and tell the voters how they are suffering, how little the Government does for them and what dangerous times we are living in, the editor of the Business Times said the following on 22 October 1978—

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] No, wait, give me a chance! He is a man who is not on my side, but he is telling the outside world— and that goes for Opposition members as well, of course—that the people must be told that South Africa has a need for confidence, that we can tell each other that our cause, our country and our policy are sound and that we must help and trust each other. He also said the following on 19 November 1978—

This man says that our credit-worthiness is high, is perfect! Thirdly, he also said the following, on 7 January—

I do not wish to say this, because as soon as I thank the hon. the Minister, the Opposition parties laugh. But here a man who is not on our side, a financial author and financial expert, says: “We can thank the Minister of Finance.” Then, too, on 25 February he had the following to say in regard to the petrol problem—

It is not a Government supporter who says that. It is not a man whose head is in the clouds, but a man whose feet are on mother earth.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Rondebosch and the political policy he has thought out for his party. Right at the outset I want to say that I have no respect for this political policy because it is an imported affair. [Interjections.] It is an imported policy. However if one goes about seeking a solution for Africa’s problems abroad by wanting to import a policy from abroad, one will find that the policy will be a failure right from the outset. Why do I say that? I have before me a page from the periodical South African International and under one of the subheadings, “Foreign Report”, the following is stated concerning the new PFP policy …

Is that book not out of date already?

No, it is not their book. The following is said, and I quote—

They go on to say—

That is the PFP policy. I quote further—

Where is it imported from?

From the Worcester ballet school!

Order!

What are the weaknesses of the national convention? [Interjections.] I should like to discuss this. To me, the first question is: Who may be there and who may not be there? In the second place, I believe that if one were to have such a national convention one would only be saddled with a lot of placard-bearers who would sit outside and agitate about who is not there, who ought not to be there and who should in fact be there. In Hansard of 8 February 1979, col. 329, one reads the following—

Then a few are given. For me the question is whether other people will also set these non-negotiable requirements and, if so, whether these people will abide by them after the convention.

A second weak point, in my opinion, is that no provision is made as to how long the convention will sit. The hon. member for Rondebosch said that it could last 100 years. I think that in that way they would plunge the country into chaos. The PFP wants to place the onus upon the NP to convene such a convention. The hon. member for Rondebosch also said the following on 8 February (col. 329)—

The PFP is therefore telling the voter at large: We are bringing you a wonderful policy but because we do not have Government powers it is to be expected that the Government must convene that convention. I shall tell you what my objection to that is. The PFP puts forward this convention as the great solution for our country’s problems. They do so because they realize two things: Firstly, that the PFP will never come to power and that they will never therefore need to convene such a convention; and, secondly, that the NP Government will never want such a convention, or at any rate not one of the kind that they are advocating. What is the implication of this? The implication is that the PFP is telling the people at large—remember, they are saying this to the Brown man and the Black man as well—that the PFP has an ideal solution for them, viz. the national convention, but that because they are unable to implement it, they are asking the Government to implement it. They go on to say that since the Government will not be able to do so, the Government is not prepared to afford the people the opportunity offered by such a national convention. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bryanston can laugh, Sir, but I accuse him of incitement because he tells these people: “Our convention is the solution, but because I am unable to convene it on behalf of the Government of the day and the Government does not want to convene it, you do not get a chance in this country.”

The third weakness of this convention is that the PFP themselves pass judgment on the success of such a convention when they say (col. 329)—

I want to know when the Black man and the Black political leader in particular will sit back and say: “Very well, now I am fully satisfied; I am now no longer being discriminated against.” I want to repeat what the PFP said, because it is very important. They said—

Now my question is: Can the PFP tell me at what stage certain Black political leaders will be able to sit back and say that they are satisfied that there is no longer any suggestion of discrimination against them? The reply to this will never be furnished because those Black leaders will never say that they are no longer being discriminated against.

My second question to the PFP is: At what stage do they think the White man will say that he is satisfied that he will no longer be dominated? In no country in the world does one find an ideal paradise; throughout the world one encounters a certain degree of domination and discrimination.

Therefore the PFP admits that the weakness in their national convention is that the stage will never be reached at which all present at that convention will say that they are a 100% satisfied and that they will cooperate. We have heard many militant Black leaders say that they will only be satisfied with a unitary State in which the norms of one man, one vote and Black majority rule apply. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether I can be accused by other people at that convention of discrimination if I insist on the right of self-determination concerning matters which affect me alone. That is an important question. I wonder whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is such a cultured man, can reply to me and say that he thinks that I am right. I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North whether I am discriminating against the Brown or the Black man when I tell him that I want the right to self-determination in regard to my own affairs.

If you do it at his expense then I say “yes”.

I must add that what I demand and require for myself I must also wish for the Brown man and the Black man. [Interjections.] Therefore the hon. member for Johannesburg North agrees with me. What does that mean? That means that he is now admitting that the national convention which his party envisages will never succeed. He made that admission because he has just told me that if I demand my right to self-determination and do not deny the Brown man and the Black man the right to self-determination concerning matters that affect them intimately, then he agrees with me. If at that national convention I say to certain people present there that I want the right to self-determination, they will tell me that that is out of the question because they want a unitary State. In other words, they say that one country with one nation of 30 million or 50 million people must be governed by a Black majority Government. I am pleased that the hon. member for Johannesburg North supports me in this matter.

I want to go further. The hon. member for Rondebosch said, inter alia (Hansard, 8 February 1979, col 330)—

He therefore states that the weakness in the Government’s policy is that the Government enforces ethnicity on people. Do we force the Zulu to be a Zulu?

Ask Mias. [Interjections.]

Do we force the Xhosa to be a Xhosa? Do we force the Indian to be an Indian and to say that he is an Indian? Do I force the Afrikaner by legislation to say that he is an Afrikaner? Do we force the hon. members for Yeoville and Houghton to say that they are members of the Jewish community? Of course not. We have never told the hon. member for Yeoville that we want to compel him by way of legislation to belong to the Jewish ethnic group.

The hon. member for Rondebosch lays the charge against the NP that we force a man to belong to a specific ethnic group. One is born in that group and it is one’s heritage to belong to one or other ethnic group. One’s ethnic links can never be denied or destroyed. That is part of one’s being.

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

No, I have too little time.

The hon. member for Rondebosch was once part of my philosophy and of what the Afrikaner people stands for, but he has gone astray. I think he is confused about links with an ethnic group and membership of a specific political party. [Interjections.] The same goes for the hon. member for Johannesburg North. In spite of the PFP’s accusations, in spite of the fact that they say that the Government is doing nothing with regard to the regulation, development and furtherance of national relations, and in spite of the fact that they say that we are doing nothing in the field of constitutional development, I want to maintain that the contrary is true. The Government knows that it is still going to be governing for a long time. Not only will it still be governing for a long time, but it has to govern for a long time to ensure that we shall accommodate the Brown man, the Black man and the White man in a peaceful and orderly way in this country. Therefore the Government carries the responsibility of keeping South Africa multi-national and developing the aspirations of other groups in such a way that there will be peaceful growth in our country.

Why should the Government oppress people? Why should the Government deprive people of their freedom? Why should the Government begrudge people their aspirations? Why should the Government be egoistic in its development plans for South Africa? I say “why”, because this is not the case. White South Africa is surely also part of the fatherland. Surely it is also the Brown man’s fatherland. Surely it is also the Black man’s fatherland.

That is why I say in conclusion that we as a Government, who are in earnest as regards the future of South Africa, do not come up with wild promises like a national convention which will certainly come to grief, but instead we come up with plans for the Brown man, the Black man and the White man which will be developed with success in the future and we shall obtain evidence that the Opposition, too, will say at some stage that they honestly admit that the NP’s policy affords the only true solution to the problems and challenges of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester will pardon me for not reacting to his speech. I have to admit in all honesty that it was very difficult for me to find anything to which one could in fact react. At a later stage I shall deal with the “funeral oration” with which he concluded his speech as well as with a few other remarks he made. With regard to his attempt at misinterpreting my words, I should just like to tell him that he is so wide of the mark that it is not even worth replying to what he said. He tried to use my words, i.e. that the Prime Minister was hoping that if the inquiry took long enough, the Information matter would disappear, as an attack on the Erasmus Commission. I never referred to that. I said a protracted inquiry would not make the Information debacle disappear. It is totally out of context to try and link that to the Erasmus Commission, and I am not going to waste my time on it.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and to say at once that I cannot fathom why he considered it necessary at this of all times, to raise this matter across the floor of the House. He and I reacted to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday and I am not going to repeat what I said. I do not want to read my statement into Hansard. It stands on record in the Press, and I believe that at this moment in time, with delicate, finely balanced issues to be resolved, issues that will affect the future of every South African, our task as Opposition Parliamentarians should be to do our utmost to make it possible for that delicate balance to fall the way we would like to see it fall.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he has had discussions with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I make no secret of it that my party had discussions yesterday with one of the five ambassadors, discussions in depth and at length in which we tried to sell South Africa’s side of the story and tried to encourage the achievement of the sort of solution we would like to see. I believe the NP Foreign Affairs group had a similar discussion this morning. This, I think, is the way to deal with it. What disturbs me is the suggestion that we should appeal to the West to persuade Swapo so as to get the negotiations “back on the rails.” The implication is that they are off the rails, that there has been a derailment and that it is the end of the road unless we can persuade Swapo. I do not see it that way.

It was not intended that way.

But that is the way it was put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

That is what he said.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “Get the negotiations back on the rails.”

That has nothing to do with Swapo. [Interjections.]

Anyway, I am not going to argue that, but the implication is that the negotiations are off the rails. I see the thing that is off the rails as being solely the attitude of Swapo, not the negotiations. South Africa has stuck strictly to the agreement which we made with the West. We have not gone off the rails; therefore our negotiations are not off the rails. It is Swapo that has gone off the rails, and the task now is to persuade the West to either ignore or force Swapo, or to proceed without Swapo in reaching a peaceful settlement. This is what I believe we should be striving for. I do not want to pursue this further. As far as the NRP is concerned, we seek—as I believe all South Africans seek—a peaceful and an internationally accepted solution in South West Africa.

I will repeat only one sentence of my public statement. That is that I believe we should talk as long as it is humanly possible to talk. However, there comes a time when talking is no longer negotiations, but becomes surrender. That is something to which this party will not commit itself and with which it will never agree. We will not accept the argument that one can talk beyond the point where talk and negotiations become a mere slide to surrender.

I now want to come back to the background against which these negotiations have taken place, the general political scene in South Africa. We heard from the official financial spokesman on the Government side about the economic situation. I do not want to deal with that from the point of view of economics. I want to deal with it rather from the point of view with which the hon. member for Worcester, this new fan of the Sunday Times, concluded his speech—i.e. his quotation on confidence.

The lift-off of our economy has faltered. I think everybody must accept that. If it falls flat it will take years to revive it. We need economic stimulation, tax relief on a large scale and an injection of money. We need the tariff restraints such as those which the hon. the Minister of Transport applied in his budget yesterday, and the fiscal measures which we all hope will come on budget day. All this is necessary. However, even if it is all done, there is still a key ingredient missing for the recovery which South Africa needs. That ingredient is confidence—the real key to recovery. But that confidence will not come purely from fiscal measures. It is political confidence that is required.

I get no joy out of saying that when I warned, during the special session in December 1978 and again at the start of this session, of a looming crisis, although I was pooh-poohed, events have proved that I was correct. I just want to look at the last week through which South Africa has passed. In that one week we had the South West Africa situation reaching the point which it has reached and with which we have already dealt. We also had this almost comic opera farce of Dr. Eschel Rhoodie and Gen. Van den Bergh, like some James Bond situation in which the South African Government is being held to ransom and blackmail …

Not at all.

… and threatening to release information which might bring the Government down.

They are not blackmailing us.

The hon. the Prime Minister rejected the blackmail. Nevertheless, it was attempted.

Not at all.

This is the issue: that Dr. Rhoodie has now become a security threat to South Africa.

That is right.

He is threatening to release information because of which the Government is not prepared to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh in case he releases that information. [Interjections.]

Order!

Dr. Rhoodie has become a security risk according to the former head of Boss and the Prime Minister’s adviser at that time.

The time has come for this Government to start legal proceedings and apply for extradition. They must bring Dr. Rhoodie back to South Africa so that he can appear before a court and so that we can get this thing cleared up once and for all.

On what charges?

What else has happened? During this last week we have had a mineworkers’ strike from which the Government washes its hands and for which it denies any responsibility and refuses to take any action. According to the Government this is a matter between the mineworkers and the employers. However, there sits the Government, and where an issue of this nature arises, it has a responsibility to act. The irony is that in both these cases—Dr. Rhoodie and the Mineworkers’ Union—these Frankensteins were created by the NP and those Frankensteins have now turned against their creators and their masters.

The Mineworkers’ Union started the strikes in 1948 which played a major part in the fall of the Government of that time. They have also stood in the way of any real advance. Yet this Government says to that creature which has supported it through the years, until the HNP came into existence, that it has no responsibility and is going to do nothing about it.

In the last week we have seen the growth of tension erupting into crisis within the NP itself. I do not want to use my own words in this regard, but quote from an official mouthpiece of the NP …

Look behind you, Vause. [Interjections.]

This is what the NP’s own newspaper says—

The same report continues—

We now have a situation where there are external crises, internal difficulties and a Government which is paralysed. It is taking ad hoc decisions from day to day.

Let us look at some of the facts. I say that apartheid is in ruins. Does any hon. member on that side of the House deny it? [Interjections.] Is there one hon. member there who will stand up and say that apartheid is still the policy of the Government? I can see a couple of heads nodding, but not one hon. member on that side of the House will stand up and say that he believes in apartheid and that it still is the policy of his Government [Interjections.] Is there one? No. Not one of them will stand up and admit to the parenthood of apartheid. It can therefore be said that apartheid is in ruins and that the Government is searching for new policies. Do any of them deny it? Is there one of them that denies the fact that they are looking for new policies? We have heard vague hints and personal opinions expressed, for instance by the hon. Minister of Health—he is not here at the moment—whose personal opinion is that there will always be Black South African citizens “vir ewig Swart Suid-Afrikaners …”. Then we have a constitutional plan that is being rewritten in secret and, according to the hon. Minister of Coloured Relations, being renegotiated with a view to seeking a new policy. We have had job reservation abandoned, post office and station apartheid abandoned, changes in the sports policy, opera houses being opened to all races and talk of a constellation of States. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister in passing whether his constellation of States means a confederation? I do not, however, want to argue that issue now. The indisputable point I want to make is that we have a Government whose policy is in ruins and which is looking for a new policy, and that this search has stirred up fundamental differences within the NP. A party of 1948 is trying to deal with the problems of 1979 and resolving them agonizingly—inch by agonizing inch—by compromise, by evasion and by applying double standards at times. However, within the time schedule available to South Africa, it is facing an effective stalemate.

During the Second Reading debate of this measure I said that the only hope for South Africa was a new Government of national reconciliation. I want to take that statement further today by saying what I meant and what I did not mean. In the first place, I do not need to tell the Government that it is not “toenadering” or a coalition kite. Heaven preserve me from becoming mixed up in the NP’s blind man’s buff. I have experienced enough dissention in my political life like faction fighting, Young Turks and Reformists—enough to last me for the rest of my life. [Interjections.] I am looking for genuine and for real reconciliation, looking forwards and not backwards. The UP, to which we are heir, committed an act of faith by breaking the political log-jam and the old rigid two-party system. We have had the courage to evolve new concepts and new thinking, not “in between” apartheid and integration, but “instead of’ either apartheid or integration. We have originated a new concept and started a new debate on which political thinking has concentrated.

In the NP there are very many people who have moved so far ahead of their party that they have come very close to our thinking. I want to warn them to watch their backs. The knives are out and their political heads are being sought. They can make no contribution to South Africa as political corpses or martyrs. I believe that those who have moved ahead of their own party have a role to play in South Africa, and I ask them not to get themselves knocked off, one by one. There are thousands of people in the NP, outside this House, who are waiting for a lead from their own leaders.

Within the ranks of the official Opposition there is an equally large number who only justify their support of that party by repudiating the philosophy, the standpoint and the policy of their own party. They say that they do not accept compulsory integration and majority rule. They say that is not the policy of their party. They support it for other reasons.

The task—the role—of the NRP is to lead this growing mainstream of new thinking into a political force which can create a new Government. But two fundamental elements are necessary to achieve this. In the first instance I believe that as a base for reconciliation between White and White, White, Brown and Black and Black and Black, and for co-operation instead of confrontation there must be the following elements: Firstly, recognition of self-identification of ethnic groups; secondly, accommodation in the social and political structure of those groups; thirdly, the option to determine the character of one’s own community and with whom one will live and associate; fourthly, the right to determine and control one’s own intimate affairs; and fifthly, joint decision-making on matters of common concern, including the recognition of the urban Black as a separate entity with an own identity.

These fundamentals exclude the NP from this reconciliation. I do not have time to deal with the reasons for this, but it is obvious from their policy. It excludes the PFP, because they reject the structuring of ethnic groupings into a constitutional system.

While I am on this subject, I want once and for all to deal with the recurring red herring which is dragged across the trail so much these days. I admit that it occurs in my own party as well as in the PFP. This red herring is the so-called “united Opposition” syndrome, this illusion that if the Opposition parties could only get together the Nats could be beaten, this false concept that your enemy’s enemy is ipso facto your friend. People will only trust and put into government a party in which they have confidence. How on earth can diametrically opposed philosophies work together in presenting a credible front for people to vote for?

Who are the men with you who say that?

No-one on my team.

†I want to state clearly and finally that I am not prepared to prostitute my principles. I am not prepared to sell my soul—neither to the NP nor the PFP—for dishonest expediency or for convenience, in any attempt to mislead the public and thereby have an easier election passage at the cost of my own conscience. I was prepared to talk about avoiding three-cornered contests, but nobody double-crosses me twice. [Interjections.] I am not interested in being a perpetual Opposition because perpetual opposition is ineffective opposition. I am interested in being part of a new deal which gives South Africa a new Government. I believe that the people should be able to pick the Opposition they want, but I also want the people to pick the Government they want …

They do that in any event.

… us, and I think the time is fast approaching when the people will be looking for just that.

And where are they going to find it?

They are waiting, and the time is ripe because South Africa is in desperate need. I believe this, and I hope there are those with the courage to help us. I do not expect miracles. I do not expect Pik to walk across the floor, giving us suddenly a new Utopia in South Africa, because even if that happened, it would not create a new Utopia.

They will bury him first.

No, he will come yet, and so will a number of others, that is if they are still politically alive at that time. I am looking for people with the courage of their convictions. [Interjections.]

Order!

You are looking for people, period!

We are prepared to do it the hard way. When I listen to all these interjections around me, I think of an age-old political law—a phrase that is so very true, i.e. “contamination by association”, and I do not want to be contaminated. [Interjections.]

You are the worst pollution in the country!

I am working, as are NRP members in this House and NRP supporters throughout the country, to persuade people to put their country before party unity, to put the interests of South Africa before NP unity, and to those in the PFP who do not believe and accept the policies their leaders have imposed on them …

There are none!

… I issue this invitation: Join us, break the chains that bind you to your party and let us go forward to construct foundations upon which confidence, which South Africa so desperately needs, can be built, confidence in a new deal, a new dispensation! I think South Africa needs that confidence now, and it is for that reason that this party has been prepared to sacrifice and take the blows. We have nothing to offer, no patronage! We do not have millions, no sugar-daddies who feed our coffers. We do not have commissioner-generalships to give away, nor ambassadorships in London when somebody becomes a little embarrassing. We have nothing to offer except faith and dedication to a belief, faith and dedication to South Africa, a complete commitment to South Africa and a belief that we have a role to play in giving it a new deal. That is why, on this occasion, I have wanted to put the attitude of this party clearly and unequivocally on record.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point made a very amusing speech, but in the short time at my disposal I do not feel like dealing with all the points he raised. However, I do want to tell him one thing. He has had experience of the turmoil which arises in a party if that party loses its leader, or gets a new leader. The fact that they are sitting there in three groups today, proves that they had three leadership crises. The first was when Gen. Smuts died, then there was the failure of Mr. Strauss and thirdly the inability of Sir De Villiers Graaff to manage the lot of them. They are sitting there in three groups now, and then the hon. member talks about my party that has internal difficulties with a few members in one of the provinces. Let me tell him today that the NP in the Transvaal, just as in the other provinces, will not fall victim to his propaganda because we are united on principles.

Hear, hear!

If he wants to know what those principles are I can tell him that they are not the principles which he claims we allegedly stand for.

Where do you differ from them?

They are not the kind of caricature which he and his party have made of the word “apartheid”, to the detriment of South Africa abroad. Who created this caricature of Government policy?

The creator of apartheid.

It is the party of the hon. member for Durban Point that created all the caricatures on which the outside world ultimately adopted standpoints, and in consequence of which they began to make propaganda not only against the Government, but also against South Africa.

That is absolute nonsense!

The real creators of the false images abroad are sitting on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Because that is so, because that hon. member and his party were guilty of creating those false images of South Africa, the voters of South Africa have rejected them and will keep on rejecting them until they return and openly atone for their sins.

Wait until next year.

We need not wait until next year. The by-election in Swellendam will take place soon. We can test them there already.

We shall be there.

Whether the farmers are harvesting or not harvesting? The hon. member also raised the issue of Gen. Van den Bergh and Dr. Rhoodie. In this regard let me just say that the Government will not be held to ransom by anyone. The Government is not afraid of anything which any of these gentlemen are able to disclose.

Well, bring him back.

Why did you not charge Gen. Van den Bergh?

Order!

We do not have a Police Force abroad to seize Dr. Rhoodie by the scruff of his neck. All the embassies have instructions to issue him with a travel document to South Africa in exchange for his passport if he contacts any of them. Those instructions still stand. As far as Gen. Van den Bergh is concerned, I want to say that he is a retired official with whom the Government has nothing to do.

He was brought back once before.

Order!

If he wants to perform political stunts to get himself into the limelight, he is free to do so. He is only making a fool of himself.

Vause, do you not want to take over from him?

Order!

I want to say to the hon. member that nobody is holding us up to ransom and nobody is going to threaten the Government as far as the Information scandal is concerned.

*The Erasmus Commission will complete its investigation and bring out its final report for Parliament to evaluate.

With the evidence?

If the hon. member and the newspapers which publish banner headline reports about people who are trying to embarrass the Government think that they will succeed, I want to tell him that any person who harms South Africa and divulges secrets of this country which could jeopardize other countries, will find that we shall settle his hash for him. Is the hon. member with me?

That is what I want.

Very well, then I shall leave it at that I want to refer for a moment to the question of South West Africa. I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Point for the strong standpoint which he adopted on this question. He adopted that standpoint throughout, and I have no quarrel with him on that score. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon that someone must get the talks back on the rails. He went on to say: “Don’t slam the door!” But who slammed the door?

I quoted you as saying that.

I said explicitly that the door had not been closed.

That is what I said as well.

Order!

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to create the impression that someone must get the talks back on the rails. What talks? The five Western countries and Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the UN, must keep their word and carry out the agreement. That is the point. There is nothing more to discuss. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the letter sent to Dr. Waldheim by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Government. In that letter, which was tabled, it is stated very explicitly that in respect of negotiations there is nothing further that stands in the way of the implementation of agreement No. 435. Surely this is stated in the letter which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs sent to Dr. Waldheim on 5 March 1979. It is stated in that official reply to him that on the part of the Government there is nothing whatsoever that stands in the way of the implementation of that agreement.

What has happened now? In the first place the five Western countries have once again— repeatedly, as I said in my statement—broken their word. I accuse them today of no longer abiding by the agreement which they and we and Dr. Waldheim concluded with one another. That is the first point.

According to radio reports—I have not yet been able to verify them—Mr. McHenry said that there was no difference between agreement No. 435 and the report by Dr. Waldheim to which we are objecting. I just want to ask this question: Where, in that agreement which we concluded and signed, is provision made for the fact that Swapo bases across the border will not be monitored? Dr. Waldheim admitted this in so many words in a letter to us, and I quoted it when I made my statement yesterday. With all the responsibility at my disposal I want to say that if Dr. Waldheim and the five Western powers do not see their way clear to monitoring those bases across the border, in Angola and Zambia, there is no agreement I hope I have the support of Parliament on this matter. In any event, I know I have the support of the hon. member for Durban Point. What kind of absurdity is it to say—let us consider this for a few moments—when one concludes international agreements of this nature and one does so with a country such as South Africa which is a member of the UN, that its forces must be monitored, but that the terrorists from whom South Africa is protecting South West Africa may carry on as they please across the border without being monitored? Now we are being told that this will be arranged with the Governments of those countries. Just imagine! It is being said that an arrangement will be made with the frontline States, the States which harbour terrorists, to ensure that the terrorists do not take any action. What foolishness is that? Surely it is childishness.

In the second place no provision was made in the original agreement for the establishment of Swapo bases in South West Africa. In this connection South Africa not only stated the standpoint of the Government but that of the DTA as well—which proved indisputably that it represents the majority of the population—of Aktur, of the Constituent Assembly and even of two parties such as the NNF and Swapo-B, two parties that did not want to participate in the election, but that have now come forward and stated that they cannot agree to Swapo obtaining bases in South West Africa through a swindle—for that is what it is: A swindle in this respect that what Swapo has so far been unable to achieve through the barrel of a gun, it will now achieve through the mediation of the Secretary-General of the UN. That will be the day! This Government has responsibilities to the population of South West Africa. Those people have repeatedly asked for our protection and our help, and we shall keep on giving that protection and that help until there is a visible, permanent peace. I want to spell out here today that that permanent, visible peace shall consist of the following elements: There shall be no mine laying by Swapo; secondly: There shall be no murder committed by Swapo; thirdly: There shall be no abduction of innocent women and children; fourthly: There shall be no attacks on headmen; and fifthly: There shall be no raids across the border. Swapo must return and subject itself to the laws of South West Africa. As long as that visible peace does not prevail, South Africa will not reduce its troops. I hope I have the absolute support of Parliament on this matter. I do not want there to be any doubt about where we stand. If Mr. McHenry was correctly reported—I do not want to do him an injustice—and he maintains that there is no difference between the agreement and what they have now dished up for us, then I want to tell him that he must learn to understand the truth.

In addition I want to say that a very serious element has crept in here. Hon. members know that the composition of Untag is very important South Africa cannot blithely and without keeping a watchful eye open, allow any foreign force into Southern Africa. We made certain proposals in this connection. We told Dr. Waldheim that we wanted to cooperate on the composition of the force and we know that the UN, when it sends out its forces, takes geographic areas and the composition of the UN into consideration. South Africa furnished a list containing the names of countries to which we would raise no objection if those countries sent units to help in the formation of Untag. But not one of our proposals was accepted. What is more, Dr. Waldheim did not do what he undertook to do, viz. to consult on the composition of the force. I say that is outrageous. Now I want to ask this question: Is it Dr. Waldheim who took these steps, or were they taken on his behalf? Would he not please answer this question for us?

I want to conclude. In my opinion the five Western powers must do a number of things, and I do not want to be presumptions now. But the question is: Can we still speak of the West? Is it still a concept we can speak of? Is it not a fact that of the concept of “the West”, as we knew it in the past—as countries that were characterized by honourable government and a fixed course in international affairs—almost nothing remains? There is no counter strategy. There is a shuffling and stumbling from one blunder to the next. The West is being ousted all over the globe, i.e. if there still is a West. And why? Do hon. members know that this is being said in Africa? It is being said by more than one country in Africa that the West must prove once again that its word can be accepted. And if its word cannot be accepted, how can it expect other countries to follow it? The other day I enumerated one example after another to hon. members here of how South Africa had been left in the lurch, how promises made to South Africa had been broken. I am still waiting for a reply to that accusation. It is on record. When Mr. Ahtisaari was here, he paid me a goodwill visit Quite a number of people met in my office, a party of his representatives and of our representatives. I put this question to him: “Say for instance that we have now reached the stage in which Untag is deployed in South West Africa and this so-called peace has set in. If, suddenly, there is an attack across the border on innocent people on this side of the border, what are you going to do?” His reply was: “One of my officials will reply.” The official then gave me this reply: “We will withdraw to base, because we are not a peace-keeping force; we are a monitoring force”. I then asked him: “Who is then going to protect the innocent people of South West Africa after we have withdrawn on your terms and are no longer there to protect them? Who is going to protect them?” To this day he has still not given me a reply to that question.

It is this kind of half-hearted, weak approach to practical problems which causes one to shudder when one thinks that the salvation has to come from that quarter.

In the second place the West will not only have to convince the world again that it has a reliable word. It will also have to cease from pursuing its disastrous policy in Southern Africa. The West is pursuing a disastrous policy in Africa and in Southern Africa. What do we have here now? Economically, the frontline States are collapsing. The only country which can bring salvation to the frontline States again, in various spheres, is the Republic of South Africa. However, we are being prevented from doing so because the West is one of the stumbling blocks in this process. They will have to review their disastrous policy in regard to Southern Africa if they want to get anywhere. They will have to face up to the tragic facts concerning the situation of the frontline States. It is of no avail to say on each occasion that they are going to meet the frontline presidents, and that resolutions are then adopted with much ado, on the fate of South Africa as well, while they cannot determine their own fate. In addition the West will also have to stop letting Swapo have its own way for the sake of opportunistic considerations. Swapo does not represent the people of South West Africa. Swapo is not interested in an election. Swapo wants to subjugate the majority of the population of South West Africa at the point of a gun.

They say so, too.

Why is the West talking to Swapo in the same terms in which they talk to us? Surely we are not a lot of barbarians. We do not batten on other countries like ticks and suck those countries dry and make night attacks on innocent women and children. When will the West return again to that level where it upholds the principles of civilization, in its foreign negotiations as well?

In making known our standpoint and in the letter to the Secretary General of the UN the Republic of South Africa has adopted a standpoint from which there can be no turning back. I made this clear to Mr. Vance. I told him that if South Africa had to choose between stability in Southern Africa and international rejection, we would prefer stability in South Africa.

The West is not promoting stability in South Africa with its present attitude. Nor is it promoting stability in the frontline States. The West is playing into the hands of the forces that want to cause chaos in this southern part of Africa. Therefore, in spite of all our differences, South Africa and this Parliament, in these times, more than ever before, needs one voice that says: We shall solve our problems in our own way and if you touch us in your unfair way, we shall resist you with everything we have.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, reference was made to aid in regard to the financing of local authorities. At this stage of the debate I wish to come back to this subject When we refer to the financing of local authorities, then in the nature of the matter we must realize that this is a very complex and complicated matter. As was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance we must also take cognizance of the fact that an interdepartmental committee has been appointed under the chairmanship of the former Secretary for Finance, Mr. Brown, to investigate the problem of the financing of local authorities.

I now wish to approach the matter of local authorities and the financing of local authorities from a specific angle, and concentrate in particular on the situation as the problem manifests itself in the Cape Province, and the Cape Peninsula in particular. I think I am entitled to say that the approximately 450 local authorities in the RSA play a very important but subordinate role in the structure of Government as it has manifested itself since Union. When I say that the local authorities play a subordinate role in the structure of Government I do not thereby wish to disparage the contribution made by local authorities to orderly government and financial and economic stability. On the contrary, I want to maintain that in the financing involved and the role they play in the total political structure, particularly in the light of the new constitutional dispensation, local authorities are very sensitive political and economic instruments. When I say that local authorities are politically sensitive I refer to the fact that in the execution of many important statutory measures the authorities act as agents of the central Government.

I refer firstly to the partnership between local authorities and the Department of Community Development in realizing the ideal set by the Minister of Community Development. The ideal is to become a democracy of house owners. In 1978, 23 000 houses were provided to the various population groups in co-operation with local authorities and the Department of Community Development I could also refer to the cooperation between the central Government and the local authorities in regard to the provisions of the Group Areas Act and the Environmental Planning Act I say this to illustrate the fact that local authorities are very effective political instruments.

Apart from this political aspect carried into effect by the local authorities in regard to which they act as agents on behalf of the central Government, local authorities are very much in the firing line as far as economic matters are concerned. Unfortunately my figures are a little out of date but if one bears in mind that the total revenue account of all the local authorities was R1 000 million in 1972, one realizes that they constitute an economic factor of importance. If one also bears in mind that during the same year local authorities spent R400 million on the capital account and if we bear in mind the contribution made to the net domestic product by rates and taxes, then we can deduce that apart from the political sensitivity of local authorities, they also have a very important economic role to fulfil.

I believe that everyone in this House agrees with what I have said, and in view of that I want to say that there is a significant problem with regard to local authorities. I want to expound this problem as follows: Rates on property as levied by local authorities have reached a ceiling. I believe that in all fairness I can make the statement that local authorities have reached the economic limit as regards rates.

The situation has now developed—in all humility I take my own constituency as an example because such cases are known to me—where in some categories the rates are higher than income tax. There is an imbalance between rates and income tax. If we recognize this fact, then in my opinion what we are dealing with here is a problem similar to that being experienced with regard to income tax. There is also a structural imbalance in regard to income tax, in the sense that 70% of the income tax is gathered directly whereas 30% is gathered indirectly. The general sales tax is aimed at rectifying this imbalance.

I want to maintain that the same imbalance that exists in the income tax structure, exists in the structure of local authorities as well. There are a number of reasons why this situation has developed. The first is the fact that the tax base of local authorities is very limited. I want to maintain that the interdepartmental Browne Committee must investigate this limited base on which local authorities levy rates. In this regard it would also, in my opinion, be very advisable to consider the findings of the then Borckenhagen Commission which made the following finding, inter alia, in recommendation 49 when investigating the same matter—

I want to maintain that this finding is no longer appropriate in changed circumstances in a changing economic and social structure and that the Browne Committee will have to concentrate in particular on shifting the burden of rates from the house owner to the occupant. In this regard I want to quote what the hon. member for Randburg said about higher rates (Hansard, 1978, col. 1095)—

There is a second reason why local authorities are today saddled with a tremendous burden of rates, viz. the fact that in the nature of the matter, local authorities are service oriented bodies. In the nature of their composition, their function is to furnish basic services to the community. The cost of the provision of these services has increased tremendously in the last few years. The rates are based on this increase in cost. The increased rates must now be paid by the ordinary salary earner whose salary has not increased at the same rate as the cost of the services. Another factor is the increase in interest on capital loans.

I have attempted briefly to bring to the attention of this House once again the problems with which local authorities are struggling, viz. a steady increase in the cost of services on the one hand and inadequate sources of revenue with which to cover this expenditure on the other.

I want to come back to the situation in the Cape which manifests itself in the Cape Peninsula. This brings me at once to the position of divisional councils. I want to state very clearly that I am not advocating the abolition of divisional councils. It must be admitted that owing to the vastness of the area, divisional councils in the Cape do outstanding work. At certain projects such as Atlantis, Mitchell’s Plain and the redevelopment of Elsies River, the divisional council is the local authority that stimulates these developments. Therefore I am not advocating the abolition of divisional councils. I am merely placing in dispute the fact that the divisional councils collect a certain part of their rates from municipalities within the geographic borders of the divisional councils.

I am calling this system into question and wish to argue the matter further. In the first place one can argue on principle that it is not right that equivalent authorities should tax each other, but I do not wish to take that any further. The reason I am asking for divisional council tax to be shifted away from local authorities within the geographic borders of the divisional council to a different point which I shall deal with later, is the fact that within the geographic borders of a divisional council from which it has to obtain its rates, there is no parity between the various local authorities. In other words, different rates are levied on the various local authorities within such an area, and this has to be so because the property values differ. However, this does not detract from the fact that there is no parity among the local authorities within the geographic borders of the divisional council.

However, I also wish to mention another very important reason. In my opinion a divisional council is a regional authority which performs regional and national functions. This being so, the funds for the functioning of divisional councils must be obtained not from the local authorities but from a regional authority, viz. the provincial administration. Therefore, where divisional councils perform national functions they must obtain their funds from the national body, namely from the central Treasury. This would cause a shift of tax away from the local authorities and by so doing afford relief of between 20% to 25% in rates.

I now wish to conclude. The principle I am advocating is already established and I need only refer to the development of projects by the Department of Community Development in co-operation with the Divisional Council of the Cape at Mitchell’s Plain and at Elsies River where the communities are fully equipped with community services. There are halls, recreation facilities and libraries. However, it is not only Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis that want such facilities. There are also Bishop Lavis, Athlone and various other Coloured areas that also require libraries and swimming baths as community facilities, and for as long as these areas have to compete for these facilities on the Revenue Account or the Capital Account of the Divisional Council, they will go without. I therefore plead that this entire system of divisional council tax be shifted from the local authorities to the provincial administration and then to the central authority.

We are aware of the investigation of the Browne Committee in this regard and we are also aware of the fact that the Borckenhagen Committee took a number of years to investigate the same matter. I therefore wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible to publish interim reports. We are aware of the fact that the investigation of the Browne Committee covers a wide spectrum, not only the spectrum of local authorities but also the spectrum of community councils and administration boards. Would it not, therefore, be possible for this committee, as its work progresses, to branch out into different committees in order to investigate this matter of national importance and to come up with a report as soon as possible?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellville dealt with a specialist subject of which he has obviously made a very thorough study. He dealt with it very carefully and I think he made a very excellent speech. I am sure that what he said will be given consideration in the appropriate quarter. I think he will forgive me if I do not myself go into that particular subject.

The whole Third Reading debate is only a three hour debate and so far it has covered a tremendously wide range of subjects. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. the Minister of Finance at the very outset that this is of course the last financial debate before the main budget debate. I should therefore like to direct a plea to him at this point in time. I want to ask that, whatever else he will do in the budget, he should seek to increase the disposable income, in real terms, of the ordinary people of South Africa. That is the appeal I make to him and I make it specifically on behalf of tens of thousands of elderly people and pensioners who are finding the situation in regard to the cost of living tremendously burdensome and who are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet.

I want to request the hon. the Minister— and I should like him to reply, without in any way committing himself in respect of the budget—to look at the plight of the pensioner who is not a social pensioner but who has saved for his old age, who is being hit by an inflation rate in excess of 10% per annum and who is now faced with reducing interest rates on his investments. His standard of living goes down at the rate of approximately 20% per year on this basis—and this concerns people who have in fact made a contribution to society. These are the people I specifically ask the hon. the Minister to consider. I ask him to consider again the means test and the pension level, because these people are amongst the most deserving in our entire community. I make that appeal in all sincerity and deference to the hon. the Minister in this last financial debate before the main budget debate.

Then I should like to address myself to the hon. the Minister of Labour. I want to say to him that, of course, it was with some regret that we learnt that he has seen fit, for reasons we can perhaps understand, not to comment at this stage on what I think is a very significant strike, a strike which is unfortunately still in progress at this very moment in time. The hon. the Minister declined to comment on the basis that it was a matter between the union and the workers themselves. I submit that, unfortunately, this is not simply a matter between the union and the workers themselves because the issue has repercussions for the country as a whole. I should like to demonstrate this. There are, I think, three major issues we have to consider in this connection. The first is the key role the mining industry plays in South Africa, an industry with a total production of R7 000 billion per annum in approximate terms; and our dependence on this industry for foreign exchange, a dependence not only on gold but on all mineral exports. The carefully laid plans of the Minister of Finance in respect of the revival of the economy could be shattered by a long strike in the mining industry. They could be completely shattered in a manner one need hardly dwell on. The second consideration—and it is perhaps equally important —is whether South Africa can make progress in removing discrimination in industry, mining and commerce and whether we can grant equal economic opportunities to our people when we are faced with the situation that a group of people seem to be—I say “seem to be”—opposed to the whole concept.

I believe this is the beginning of a crucial time in the labour history of South Africa. It is a crucial time facing us and to my mind the Government cannot be seen to be showing any form of weakness at all. When I say that it must show no weakness, I want to add that, if it shows strength, it will also have to show tremendous tact and negotiating skill in order to deal with what I believe to be a very serious and difficult situation. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister of Labour that one of the factors which, I believe, is creating uncertainty and causing anticipatory manoeuvering is the fact that we are still waiting on the publication of the First Interim Report of the Wiehahn Commission. Everybody knows that the Government has that report, but there exists an uncertainty as to what it contains and as to what the Government is going to do about it. I believe that this uncertainty should be removed at the earliest opportunity. The hon. the Minister should see to it that the report is tabled as soon as possible and should tell the country what the Government’s attitude is on the recommendations. I believe that that will remove the uncertainty, which is one of the problems which presently faces labour in South Africa. Then he will have ahead of him a period of intensive, tactful and skilful negotiations, which he will have to conclude in order to make sure that a change to what must really be a new era in South Africa’s labour relations, is brought about without any disruption in the labour field and without any prejudice to the country as a whole.

Thirdly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister—this is relevant, perhaps even more to the hon. the Minister of Finance—what effect this strike is going to have on overseas investments in South Africa. I think labour stability has been one of the major attractions for people who desire to invest in South Africa. I do not think there is any question about it. If the present threatening situation is not quickly dealt with, it can shatter that image of labour stability in South Africa of which this country can be justly proud. Furthermore, we have understood from overseas visiting businessmen that they have understood from the Government that they may comply with the Sullivan code if they are Americans and with the EEC code if they come from EEC countries.

Many of us in the House have encouraged people overseas to invest in South Africa and have told them that they need not worry about these codes, that they will have no difficulty in complying with them, because the concept in South Africa is that we are going to do away with discrimination. This has been said, and I can tell hon. members who said it if they want to know. However, what I would like to know today from the hon. the Minister —perhaps during the course of his Vote, if he finds it inconvenient to reply today—is what is actually the attitude towards compliance with the Sullivan code and the EEC code. Have we been wrong in the information we have received and which we have in turn conveyed, because if overseas investors are now going to have trouble in respect of these codes, the hon. the Minister of Finance’s task in seeking to encourage investments and in making equity investments available whereby we really are selling portions of South Africa at a discount in order to attract money to South Africa, will be frustrated. I therefore want to say now that we cannot afford to let this strike drag on or to let the circumstances, which have given rise to it, become a problem in South Africa. We have to face this problem in an effective, strong and tough manner and at the same time show the necessary tact which is required in these particular circumstances.

I should like to refer to some of the arguments which have been raised here today. I want to refer to the comments made by the hon. member for Durban Point as to how he sees a political dispensation in South Africa. I want to say here and now that I regret that I differ very substantially with the hon. member on a number of issues. I think it should be said publicly. Firstly, I believe that if anybody in South Africa believes that a fragmented Opposition is in the interest of good government and parliamentary procedures, I regret to differ with him. As far as I am concerned—and I want to make it quite clear that I speak for nobody here except myself—I cannot believe in the concept of consensus on a national basis when I do not believe in consensus in a more limited sphere, even in respect of an Opposition. I cannot believe in consensus between Black and White on the one hand and not believe in consensus in the White community as a whole on the other hand.

Do you want consensus with the Nats?

I am prepared to work to achieve consensus with the Nats and to sit around a table with them to try to find solutions to the problems of South Africa. I am prepared to do it, and I make no secret of it. My approach to this matter is that I do not believe that it is in the interest of politics in South Africa, nor in the interest of South Africa as a whole, that personalities should prevent co-operation between Opposition parties or prevent a situation where it is now found that scorn is being poured upon concepts in terms of which parties might well work together. I do not want to use the words of the hon. member who referred to “contaminated by association”. Somebody once said in this House that if it is necessary in the interests of South Africa to sit down with the devil and to work out how to deal with the devil, he would sit down with the devil. Let us be quite frank that when it comes to the concept of trying to work together in so far as South Africa is concerned, I am not afraid to say that I seek consensus and that I am prepared to sit down at a table with anybody if I feel it is in the interests of South Africa to do so. I want to say now, so that there should not be any misunderstanding, that I think that this kind of trying to woo Nationalists across the floor in the present political situation is an idle exercise and serves no purpose. Situations are developing in South Africa in terms of which there will eventually be an issue in the South African political scene which will lead to there being people on the one hand who will say that they will do nothing for Black people, that they will make no changes, that they will maintain the status quo and that they will fight to the end in order to maintain them, while on the other hand there will be those who say: Let us change, let us adapt so that we can survive in the process; let us be strong, let us be tough, let us defend our country, let us see that there is stability in the country, but, at the same time, let us bring about the changes.

South Africa is not interested in the small print of policies. South Africa is interested in broad philosophical approaches to find the solution, because nobody can say that, when you take the small print of the NP policy as it was in 1948, the policy in which the whole NP believes in today is still the same. There may be isolated members of the party who do, but the truth is that there are directions in which we move and there are philosophies. To have this kind of nonsense where we start arguing about the small print in policies, as if that is what the future of South Africa is going to depend on, is to my mind dealing in irrelevancies.

I am pleased the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations, Education and Training is here. I want to address a word to him because it concerns him specifically. With regard to the actions which have been taken by his Transvaal NP executive towards a member of this House, has the hon. the Deputy Minister ever asked himself whether those actions have any meaning for South Africa as a whole?

It has nothing to do with you.

That is the point. I want to tell the hon. Minister—I say it with due respect to the hon. Minister for whom I have respect in lots of ways—that I believe that the terrible vengeance of the right wing of the NP in the Transvaal and the humiliation which they are imposing upon a colleague, is creating the impression in the country as a whole that they are afraid as to what this portends for the actions of people in the political scene as such. When one humiliates a man to the extent that the hon. member for Pretoria Central is being humiliated, where one extracts a vengeance which is not related to the action which he took, but is rather related to entirely different matters, then South Africa becomes frightened of the right wing of the NP in the Transvaal. I know what it is like—everybody in this House knows what it is like—to be subjected to party discipline and to be expelled from a party. I know it and I know what the anguish is that one undergoes. I make no secret of it. But I say with due respect that even the harsh treatment that was meted out to me is, in relative terms, gentle compared with the manner in which the right wing of the NP is behaving towards the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I know what I am talking about. I know what it is about. [Interjections.]

If I may, I now want to turn to another subject. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the issue of what was unfortunately described here earlier today as a comic opera. However, I believe this Hendrik and Eschel show has elements of tragedy in it for South Africa. We have the situation in which Gen. Van den Bergh had comments made about him in the Erasmus Commission report, comments which I will not repeat. There was a question of prosecution, and Gen. Van den Bergh provoked the Government. He pulled the nose of the hon. Minister of Justice by signing a petition calling for his own prosecution. Then, on Sunday, 4 March, we find in the newspapers of South Africa a statement made by him in terms of which he states that Dr. Rhoodie has certain demands, and that if these demands are not met, there will be a series of tapes released to the world. I want to venture to say today that anybody must have known—including Dr. Rhoodie and Gen. Van den Bergh—that in making such a statement in public there could be only one answer from any Government anywhere in the world. That is the answer that the hon. the Prime Minister gave when he said: “I will not be blackmailed”. How can any Government be seen to be in that situation, particularly when that Government is seen in a situation in which Gen. Van den Bergh is reported as saying—

What he is doing is actually to get the best of both worlds. He is virtually saying to the public of South Africa that those tapes contain the evidence that will cause the hon. the Prime Minister to resign, but that he is now going to try to see that those tapes are not published. He has now tried to achieve both purposes in that context. He also makes it very clear that when he makes an offer here, and when Dr. Rhoodie makes an offer, it is not an offer the Government cannot refuse. It is an offer the Government cannot accept. He knows it, and he knew it when he made that statement.

He then said he is off to Europe. He is now going to be the saviour of South Africa and he is off to Europe to see that Dr. Rhoodie does not make these disclosures. He says he does not know where Dr. Rhoodie is, but that he is now going to find him. To be accurate, within hours he finds him. He also says he has been to Cape Town and he has seen Cabinet Ministers informally. I believe the time has now come that the hon. the Minister of Finance or the hon. the Prime Minister must tell us who he saw. They must tell us which Cabinet Ministers Gen. Van den Bergh saw and what was discussed, because the impression is being created that Gen. Van den Bergh did not go overseas without first discussing it with members of the Cabinet.

Then, we are told, there is no agreement yet. So, the sword of Damocles is still hanging. It is just a draft that has been prepared. And here we now have a situation that Dr. Rhoodie is going to be employed overseas by somebody called Van Zyl—a man I do not know and have never heard of— who apparently has resources overseas. When he is asked how he is going to pay Dr. Rhoodie his lawyer interrupts and says that is a very delicate matter. I must say that if it is so delicate, the hon. the Minister of Finance should have a good look at it.

However, the question I want to put today is this. Having been told now that Dr. Rhoodie was going to sell these tapes for money—he said he was hard up and that he wanted to clear his name—where is all this talk we had about patriotism? Where is all the talk of them doing this for the sake of South Africa? What does he mean by saying he did things for South Africa, if he is prepared to sell the tapes which, he says, will ruin us overseas, and when he says he is prepared to sell them for money? That is the patriotism we have been told about. You cannot have a situation in which South Africa’s security is allegedly in issue, being dealt with by private agreement. I want to make a public appeal today to Dr. Rhoodie to come back to South Africa, bring his tapes with him and tell whatever story he has to tell in South Africa. He should not deal with matters jeopardizing the national security, but he should clear himself and speak here. He should trust the fairness of the judiciary and the watchfulness of the Opposition. I appeal to him to come back to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend participating in this debate. I rise, therefore, in response to remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to apologize to the hon. member for Vryheid for trespassing on part of his time. I promise to do it as briefly as possible.

With regard to the first comment by the hon. member for Yeoville, when he said he thought it a pity that I had indicated that I did not want to make any statement at this stage and did not want to comment on the strikes which have occurred in South Africa over the past two days, I want to say that there is a very good reason for my doing this. There is one very important principle of which employers, employees and the Government, not only in South Africa, but in the whole of the Western World where the system of free bargaining exists, are very jealous. I am referring to the principle that where a process of free bargaining is going on, whether legitimate or not, the Government does not interfere. That is a principle on the basis of which I believed that it would be inappropriate for me to concern myself with the events at this stage and under these circumstances, in spite of what I might think about the matter and what the course of events might be over the following days.

Therefore, if I comment, it is in the first place not to reproach. In the second place it is not to rebuke or to pass judgment. The comments which I want to make as Minister I make in a spirit of goodwill at this stage where we are dealing with a very delicate and difficult situation. In the first place I want to say that I find it regrettable that in these circumstances and at this juncture a strike has been precipitated which is of such magnitude and of such a nature that I think that South Africa cannot afford it either domestically or abroad, nor with regard to the relations between employer and employee.

The Government’s attitude has always been one of non-interference, and this has been accepted and jealously guarded and appreciated. Having adopted the attitude that I am not going to make any reproaches at this stage, I have received expressions of appreciation from various trade unions today. The machinery of conciliation has been provided by the Government, as is its task. It is also the Government’s task to assist through its inspectorate, to advise, to examine legislation and to maintain the correct relations. However, the Government does not interfere with the process of bargaining. I have not yet received any official report or request from either the Chamber of Mines or the Mineworkers’ Union to which I dare react at this stage.

I have read in the public Press that the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, Mr. Arrie Paulus, alleged that I had phoned him. This is not true. I received a call from him which was both uninvited and extraordinary in the circumstances, in which he told me that he was in Springbok. He went on to say that he had heard about a strike in the rest of the country, but that he knew absolutely nothing about it. He could not contact them and did not know what it was about. He was absolutely shocked and surprised that something of this nature had happened. I do not want to comment any further on that. I regret that this has happened. I will believe Mr. Paulus, since he asks me to. I do not know who else will believe him. [Interjections.] That is Mr. Paulus’s point of view and I do not want to comment on it.

I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will accept at this stage that, in my opinion, I must content myself with that. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that, should it be necessary in the interests of the country, or because it is my task as Minister of Mines, I shall in the correct way, as required by law and in the interests of everybody, take the action which my department and I consider necessary at a given moment.

I want to add that when people strike under circumstances such as these, I want to warn them that when one strikes, one should have the right object and should know why one is striking. One should not merely go on strike blindly. I hope I shall be quoted correctly in this regard. I do not know what that object is, since I read the newspapers just like everybody else. If I am told that there are various reasons for the strike, other than the circumstances of the workers, then I say that is wrong. I hope that is not the object. I do not know whether the newspaper reports are correct, but I hope that that is not the object.

One should know what the object is when going on strike, because if it is not done in a level-headed way, it means that losses will be incurred. This country will suffer great financial losses. The mining industry as a whole could also suffer great financial loss. Moreover, events of this nature can create the wrong impression abroad, as was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and one regrets that as well. A strike could cause women and children to starve.

I must state clearly that if it is correct that this is a strike in sympathy, it is illegal in terms of our legislation. I do not know whether this is a strike in sympathy, but if it is, then it is illegal. If a strike is illegal, it would be a pity if people lost their jobs and their income as a result. A strike of this nature would then take its course and this could mean that some people could lose benefits built up over a long time. I should not like men, women and children to lose their benefits. I hope they do not lose their benefits, for, as you know, a strike of this nature is not in their interests. For that reason I say that I hope the motive for the strike is correct.

Finally, I should like to refer to the Wiehahn Commission report. I read in the newspapers, too, that the report of the commission is being advanced as a reason for the strike, but I do not know whether this is true. I hope these newspaper reports are not correct. They are only newspaper reports and not official reports. I hope the Wiehahn Commission report is not being advanced as the reason for the strike. I hope, too, that there are not perhaps other motives, for example even political motives or any other motives than those provided for by the Act. I hope not. The Wiehahn Commission report is in the hands of the Government. The report is being translated at the moment and I undertake today to bring this report before the House as soon as it is ready. In the second place, I shall create the opportunity for further consultation, opinion-forming and participation with regard to this report over as wide an area as possible and as quickly as possible. In the third place I shall try to bring legislation which may arise from the report before the House as soon as possible. Therefore, this report will be approached in the correct way and will be dealt with as soon as it is possible for the Government to do so.

In view of this I hope that the hon. member understands the situation and that we do not have to discuss this again. I should be sorry if anything were done with regard to the strike at this stage, by whichever party, which could cause damage to people or to our country.

Mr. Speaker, it was a privilege to me to give up some of my time to the hon. the Minister, because I believe it was in the national interest and essential for him to make this matter absolutely clear.

The hon. member for Yeoville said, among other things, that we should concern ourselves with the future of South Africa, and he then presumed to pry into other people’s affairs with all kinds of petty political speculation. This hon. member does not know what discipline is, but nevertheless he wants to prescribe discipline to other people in their problems. In my opinion, it is necessary that discipline should be maintained, and the way it is done in a specific province is the problem of the people concerned. I trust that the 15 people who decided about it are responsible people and that the decision they have taken is in the interests of South Africa, of the province and also of their party.

I come now to the hon. member for Durban Point and a few remarks made by him. He alleged that “the NP is getting close to our thinking”. He went on to say that the electorate would vote into power people who acted in the interests of South Africa. He also said: “We are prepared to go the hard way,” and “Put the issues of South Africa first,” as well as “We have dedications towards South Africa.”

I want to test a few of these claims by going back into the past for a moment. We must go back and see what the attitude of the NRP’s predecessors was to matters which were in the interests of South Africa. I want to mention three matters in this connection, i.e. defence, fuel supply and national unity. We would have found ourselves in a dilemma if previous Governments had not adopted a positive standpoint concerning these very important matters and if they had not put South Africa first in the process.

Let us turn back the clock 50 years and see what the attitude of the predecessors of the hon. member for Durban Point was towards the establishment of Iscor. The Hertzog Government said that it was extremely important that Iscor be established. If one looks at the circumstances today, where there is an arms boycott against South Africa, one must admit that the Government of the day was far-sighted. But what was the reaction of the Opposition at that time? They said, among other things, that the Government was proposing an expenditure of countless millions on something which was bound to be a failure. The amount envisaged was only R3,5 million. They said that ore deposits in Newcastle, England, were sufficient and of a better quality than those of South Africa. They also asked why such a State enterprise was being established in South Africa. They were convinced that it would be a disastrous failure. They also said that Ministers and members of the Government were more concerned about the political aspect of the enterprise. They went further and said: “If we did such a thing, who would still invest money in South Africa?” Another claim was that new ore deposits had been discovered at Newcastle in England. The question arises of who was right in respect of this very important aspect.

Let us now deal with the example of Sasol. In 1948, when the NP Government came into power, they were already concerned about the position of the oil reserves in the world. They said that the production of fuel from coal should be investigated. They felt that this should be a South African company and that the chairman, the managing director and the majority of the directors should be South African citizens. It is history that people such as Dr. Rossouw and others then set to work. Activities commenced in 1950 and the factory was erected in 1952. As early as 1955, the first petrol manufactured by Sasol was used. When an immigrant who had come to help with the project arrived in 1950 at the place where Sasol stands today, he said: “I arrived at night and could see nothing; the next day still nothing, but I could see it better.” Was the establishment of Sasol not in the interests of South Africa, and who had the insight to do it? As far back as 1956, Dr. Van Rhijn reported that twice the expected amount of petrol was being produced.

What was the attitude of the then Opposition in this connection? They said that there were enterprises which the Government could embark upon at smaller risk than this one, such as irrigation schemes. They also said that gold mines were desirable for the country. If security of R15 million had to be provided for Iscor, they said, the same guarantee should be given to the gold mines. This is the insight which those people had in the past. [Interjections.] They said that the water of the Hartbeespoort Dam could not be used for Iscor, because they alleged that that water was too important for agriculture to be used by Iscor. That was their attitude.

Let us see now what the attitude towards national unity was in the past. We know the history of the Republic and we also know what their attitude to it was. I have said that national unity is very important, and I now want to quote what was said about it by Dr. Verwoerd, the then Prime Minister, on 23 March 1961 (Hansard, Vol. 107, col. 3510)—

Let us see now what the then hon. member for South Coast said about our becoming a Republic—

That was what they said, but now they have changed their tune. Do hon. members know what they are saying now? Now they are talking about “our Republic” and the new party they have founded is called the “New Republic Party”. [Interjections.] We battled for years to get those people to give up the British flag, but after we became a republic, it took them only two years to lower the flag. In 1963 they lowered the flag for the last time in Pietermaritzburg.

In our present era, it is essential for us to have unanimity about the defence of South Africa and to stand together as far as that is concerned. Our survival depends on it. I am grateful for the fact that the Government has taken the essential steps for expanding the Defence Force to such an extent. I am also very grateful for the fact that the Government plans to investigate the defence of our borders, and I trust that the Government will find a solution to the problem. This is in regard to the military defence of South Africa. As far as the non-military defence of South Africa is concerned, however, I must say that in many respects the official Opposition gives ammunition to the enemies of South Africa.

Let us look for a moment at the present fuel situation. There is serious threat to us, but I do not know whether the public knows how serious this fuel situation is. I think the Government has done its duty with Sasol 1, Sasol 2, the further expansions and plans for a possible Sasol 3, but there will be a period when fuel is going to be very scarce. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to give serious consideration to very drastic action. Instead of rationing, there should be drastic action, and I trust that we shall have the co-operation of everyone in South Africa in making the people aware of this very serious situation.

While I am on the subject of serious action, let us look at a province such as Natal. In that province, the provincial administration has assumed to itself the power to confiscate a man’s car for illegally catching elvers. They have already confiscated quite a number of cars. I can prove that if one shoots an impala in Natal, the provincial administration confiscates one’s car. If one has received an impala as a gift and one does not have a permit for it, they take one’s car. If one has a weapon in one’s car and one is driving in an area where there may be game, they take one’s car. I can prove that people’s cars have been taken away from them for that reason. That is why I say that it is in the interests of South Africa for the Minister of Economic Affairs to take drastic action in terms of this Act, even to consider suspending people’s licences when they have repeatedly exceeded the speed limit, for example, eventually perhaps confiscating their cars, if necessary. He must very definitely enforce the law very strictly.

I come to the last and I believe also the most important point I want to make. This relates to the national unity which we have built up. We have quite a few respected members of the House of Assembly in the NP today who belong to the English language group. We also have many English-speaking supporters in South Africa, whom we greatly appreciate. We have an English-speaking Minister in the House whom we are very proud of. He is the leader of the NP in Natal. He has done wonderful work. I believe that he entered the House in 1973. Now a terrible fuss was made in the Other Place a day or two ago. On that occasion, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs asked, among other things: “Why did Senator Webber move a motion which, on its presentation to the outside world, would be a smear on the name of the Minister of Finance?” That was the question he asked. I shall answer it. The present Minister of Finance is one of the most successful Ministers of Finance we have ever had.

Hear, hear!

Opposition members have been trying to denigrate him in every respect ever since he entered this House. However, they have not succeeded. During this session they have begun an attempt to denigrate his person. Let me say what their attitude at the beginning, in 1973 was. The then member for Zululand …

Who was he?

It was Mi. Cadman. He said in 1973 (Hansard, 6 February 1973, col. 162)—

That was what was said in 1973, five years ago. Today the hon. the Minister is the leader of ten members in this House. Because the Opposition members realize that they have no way of countering this, they have decided that it is in their interests to drive a wedge between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people in Natal. That is what they are engaged in at the moment in this House. I want to say that it is not in South Africa’s interests for us to allow them to continue this degeneration. They have singled out the hon. the Minister for their attacks because he is English speaking. However, he is not a man to be disconcerted by that. Although they ridiculed the fact that he was the leader of two members in Natal in 1973, I want to tell him that the time is drawing very near when the NP will have the majority of the seats in that province.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. Whip informs me that I have less than ten minutes of the allocated time, and therefore I just want to add a few words to what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with regard to South West Africa. I should like to say quite frankly that when it comes to the question of South West Africa, my sympathies lie not so much with the Government, nor with the UN, and of course they do not lie with Swapo at all. These three have each contributed in their own way over the years to the dilemma in which the territory and its people find themselves today. The Government of the past two decades can be criticized for an accumulation of mistakes and omissions in connection with South West Africa. However, it serves no purpose to look back on this political history now, and I do not intend to do so. The UN can be criticized for the false expectations it aroused in Swapo that that organization would be crowned king in South West Africa, apart from the many other mistakes it has made. I shall have more to say about Swapo in a few moments.

As far as the question of South West Africa is concerned, my sympathies lie with South West Africa and its people. I believe that South West Africa and its people should be our only consideration in trying to map out the road that lies ahead. They alone have rights in this matter and we and the UN only have duties to perform.

†We tend to forget that about three years ago South West African leaders, such as Mr. Dirk Mudge, Mr. Clemens Kapuuo, Dr. Ben Africa and several others whom I can name if I have the time, men from all race groups in South West Africa, realized that their future and that of South West Africa depended, not on the policy of the Government or on the interference by the United Nations, but on themselves and their people in South West Africa alone. They realized that to prepare themselves for national independence they first had to prepare themselves for national unity. That is how the constitutional conference—which commonly became known as the Tumhalle—came into being. It turned out to be the most unique political adventure in the constitutional history of Africa. Eleven national groups, as diverse as anything one could find in a single country—encompassing Bushmen, Bergdamaras, Basters, “Blankes” and all the others—met together in a constitutional convention to work out a new future for themselves and to forge a constitution for South West Africa on the basis of consensus and of the avoidance of ethnic domination. What is important is that the initiative came from them and not from the Government or anybody else. That is why my sympathies lie so deeply with the people of South West Africa. They are not asking us to agree with every decision they took in the Tumhalle or with the nature of the preliminary constitution they drew up at the time. What is important is that the recognized leaders and representatives of the majority of the 11 ethnic groups met together of their own free will and promulgated a “Declaration of Intent” by which they pledged themselves to abolish all apartheid and discrimination on the basis of race, creed and colour in South West Africa; to provide for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all; and to create a Government in which all South West Africans could participate as full and equal citizens. They set to work to achieve these objectives and they created democratic political structures which proved that it was possible for Black, Brown and White to co-operate politically and to find a common patriotism without anybody having to fear for his identity. They went further and agreed to participate in a “one man, one vote” election under full United Nations supervision and control. I want to ask what more one could reasonably have expected of them. It should not be forgotten that what happens to and in South West Africa is going to have an important influence on political developments in the Republic. If it is made impossible for the people in South West Africa to achieve success along the route which they have chosen, a most unfavourable reaction must be expected in South Africa itself.

That is why I want to appeal today particularly to the Governments of the West and to our own people in South Africa to give greater recognition and greater consideration to what the people in South West Africa have achieved for themselves in the field of political co-operation. They have proved their bona fides and their willingness to subject themselves to free and open elections under international supervision. As I see it, it is now up to Swapo to do the same, if they genuinely believe in liberation. As far as Swapo is concerned I want to say that whatever the reasons might have been for their original decision to resort to arms and to create an army of liberation—as they call it—the simple fact is that if they genuinely believe in liberation, then the point has been won. Today liberation is offered on a plate. There is no need for an army of liberation. Not a single shot need be fired and not a single life need to be taken in the cause of liberation. It is there for the taking. Every life now deliberately destroyed in the name of liberation amounts to sheer murder. As I have said, liberation is there for the taking. It should be realized that if Swapo continues with the deliberate use of force, then it can only be because they are not fighting for liberation and for constitutional independence, but for a Swapo dictatorship.

*For that reason it is of the utmost importance that no mistake should be made on our side so that we cannot one day be blamed for having wrecked the attempt at a settlement. I am not saying that we have done this. All I am saying is that we must avoid it in the future. I know that the Government is well aware of this, and we expect the Government under no circumstances to allow Swapo to outwit it politically in the long run. I do not think we should exaggerate the differences between us and the West in particular. And we must not indulge in endless recriminations and try to be more anti-West than Swapo. No one is more abusive towards the West today than Swapo. We are in a much stronger position than Swapo. As a country, we have undertaken to withdraw from South West Africa and to allow the territory to become fully independent and the people of South West Africa to choose their own Government under international supervision, the way they want it. Therefore we can afford to stand firm and not to lose patience. I hope that we shall continue negotiations, in so far as it may be necessary, until it has become clear to everyone that the onus now rests only on Swapo to prove that it will accept peace and democratic elections.

For this reason, I find it a pity that the hon. the Prime Minister said that there was “nothing more to discuss”. I am not talking about Swapo and I am not talking about other malicious people, but as long as there may be an honest difference of interpretation on the part of some about the true meaning of the agreement, I believe that it is our duty to go on talking without having to relinquish any of our principles and standpoints.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot differ with the statement by the previous hon. member to the effect that the world should pay more attention to what the people of South West Africa themselves say, since that is exactly the viewpoint of the Government, viz. that the world should heed what the people of South West Africa themselves are saying. In these critical times it is not unreasonable to expect of the Opposition that they should support the Government specifically in this viewpoint and to say so, too. But this is apparently too much to expect of the Opposition.

I should like to refer to the Government’s intention to consolidate the homelands more meaningfully. For someone seeking solutions for this country’s problems and looking to the Opposition parties for a contribution to these solutions, it must have been a tremendous shock to see their reaction to the Government’s intention to institute an investigation into more meaningful consolidation. What was their reaction? They did not welcome it at all. There was no constructive contribution on their part in this regard, not even an intention to make a constructive contribution in this regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said nothing about this during the no confidence debate. This can only mean that he does not attach enough importance to this matter, that it is not important enough to him to say anything about it at all. The hon. leader of the NRP made the shocking statement that this was merely a smokescreen to draw attention away from the Information scandal. Admittedly the hon. member for Bezuidenhout described this as new thinking, but then he added that it was too expensive, that it was something we cannot afford. The Opposition could have reacted so much more positively. They could have told us how consolidation should take place, how we should set about drafting a formula to be able to consolidate more effectively. This would have been tremendously welcome, as it is not an easy task. It is extremely difficult and complicated. They could at least have emphasized the necessity and the urgency of this matter.

In the meantime they busy themselves with absolutely petty politicizing. They spend almost all their time on the Information scandal. They are trying to make political capital out of this. However, to the real problems of this country they give no attention, not nearly enough attention. Surely the South African electorate simply cannot be blamed for not taking the PFP and the NRP seriously.

However, I suspect that the NRP, due to their Natal background and also because it fits into their policy of federalism, realize the necessity of better and more meaningful consolidation. However, they do not associate themselves with it because they realize that it will mean sacrifices for Whites as well as Blacks. Consequently they want to join us only when political capital can be made out of it. This country simply cannot afford the luxury of such parties.

I also believe that this reaction exposes the PFP in particular for what they really are. They pretend to be the protagonists for the other race groups in South Africa. If they are, then, so concerned about the other race groups, why do they not support the Government in this matter? Why do they not propagate this matter? This proves that nothing is further from the truth than that the PFP is really concerned about the welfare, in its fullest consequences, of the other population groups in South Africa. In reality they serve only the greedy interests of their own financial masters under the pretext of rights for others.

In a previous debate the hon. member for Constantia also warned that consolidation could have a detrimental economic effect. That statement seeks to create the impression that one should only be concerned with rands and cents, that in the assessment of the problems of the country, one should only examine the economic aspects. Suddenly, the question whether something will be more equitable is no longer applicable. Whether better consolidation will give rise to more justice, is simply not to the point. What is at issue here, is to institute an investigation so that territories may be made more controllable and more identifiable for all population groups in South Africa. This will be to the advantage of Whites as well as Blacks. Therefore, this will be a better dispensation for all the population groups in South Africa.

To provide your people with a better dispensation, will not necessarily be more economic. However, I am convinced that more meaningful consolidation will also be an economic proposition in the long term, since it will provide Black States with more economically controllable areas. For that reason it will be to the economic and political benefit of these population groups. However, not only Black areas, but White areas too will be consolidated. For that reason it will also be to the benefit of the whole of South Africa.

I should like to mention a few examples in this regard which also indicate that this could be an economic proposition. In the first place, meaningful consolidation will reduce and simplify the boundary line. It will also facilitate our task of defence. The present thorny border farmer situation will be alleviated and border skirmishes and the possibilities of discord reduced. Good neighbourliness will also be promoted. This matter is so important to the future of South Africa and I am sure that the people in this country regard it as so important that they will even be prepared to go as far as buying not only defence bonds, but also Government bonds for the more meaningful consolidation of the RSA, as well as the Black areas. This more meaningful consolidation will also have the great advantage that it will promote economic stability and growth. Whereas there might be economic uncertainty at present, it will promote more confidence in those areas. It will also be possible to bolster economic growth in those areas.

I want to conclude by praising the hon. the Prime Minister for his profound farsightedness in having this investigation instituted. This is not an easy task and will set heavy demands in all fields. However, it is necessary and in the interests of all. For that reason I believe that our people will support it and be prepared to make sacrifices for it.

Mr. Speaker, during a good deal of the debate this afternoon we have heard about South West Africa. I do not think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point—he is not present at the moment—will perhaps feel badly done by if I do not particularly react to their speeches. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the matter fairly fully. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to South West Africa a few moments ago. He made the point that he did not have any particular sympathy for the South African Government in this matter.

Not so much for the Government.

However, his sympathies lay with the people of South West Africa. That is of course something that I think we all are concerned with. The sympathy for the people of South West Africa has been the basis of the attitude of this Government over many years. This Government has a proud record of not only protecting the inhabitants of South West Africa at all times, but also of developing the territory to the advantage of all sections of the population. I myself feel that it is not generosity that would call for a sympathetic attitude towards the Government of South Africa for its sustained efforts on behalf of South West Africa, but a simple and sheer acknowledgement and recognition of the facts. I think the record speaks for itself.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the Government should be very careful not to wreck the independence of South West Africa or cause it to fail. I do not think it was necessary to say that, because the Government will never be responsible for anything like that. But it does apply to certain other parties and organizations. We are not anti-West, but, to my mind, South Africa has every right at this stage to ask the West once and for all to state unequivocally what its attitude with regard to South West Africa is and to show the world exactly where it stands. I shall now leave the South West Africa question at that.

In my opinion, the hon. member for Bellville made a very interesting and thorough speech with regard to the financing problem our local authorities are experiencing, more specifically the authorities in the Cape Province and especially those in the Cape Peninsula. I think that what he had to say is very relevant to the problem which is being experienced all over the country in this regard. The hon. member drew our attention to the fact that local authorities form a part of our government system. We must always bear in mind that there are three levels of government, i.e. the central, the provincial and the local level. The hon. member further argued that the burden of property tax should be shifted from the owner to the occupant, so that the present property tax becomes an occupant’s tax. The hon. member also advocated a greater diversity of sources of revenue for municipalities. He recommended that divisional council tax should be shifted from the municipal authorities to “another point” within the geographical area of the divisional council. In cases where such tax is related to provincial matters, the hon. member felt that the province could make a contribution to the financing of local authorities. He also felt that the central government could make a contribution if some of its interests were affected. The hon. member also wanted to know whether the Browne Committee, which is making an in-depth inquiry into this important matter, could not bring out interim reports, and also whether the committee could not branch out into separate committees. I shall immediately draw the attention of the Browne Committee to these interesting recommendations and ideas which the hon. member expressed, and I am certain that the committee will give careful consideration to and go into all these aspects.

†The hon. member for Yeoville said that this was the last time that we would be debating financial matters before I introduce the budget. He asked me to give a great deal of consideration to increasing real disposable incomes, and to bear in mind the problems that are experienced by the aged, pensioners, the less privileged classes, etc. That has, of course, been a very important part of our own policy for a very long time.

What it really boils down to is the need to see that we have an adequate growth rate. If we can get our growth rate moving again to levels which we had before this latest very serious setback which hit the world economy after 1973-’74, then I think we can meet these important requirements. But I want to stress that even in these recessionary conditions which we like so many other countries, have been through, we have never forgotten the plight of the pensioner, the aged, our young people and the infirm. Our record shows this and I can assure the hon. member that he will again see in this coming budget how important we regard this aspect of our national life.

When are you going to look after the pensioners?

I can assure the hon. member that the plight of the pensioners is safe in the hands of this Government.

The hon. member referred to the miners’ strike. My hon. colleague replied to this and I think the hon. member will agree that I ought to leave that matter there for the moment. That does not mean to say that we do not regard this matter as an extremely important event. On the contrary. My hon. colleague will certainly keep this matter very much in mind.

As far as his reference to Dr. Rhoodie and Gen. Van den Bergh is concerned, I want to say that I agree with him that Dr. Rhoodie ought to come back to South Africa. If he wants to put his case, let him put his case in the proper way. We have a civilized society and we provide the right kind of opportunities to people in all circumstances and conditions to put their case. He will be protected by a legal system which stands back to no other in the world.

*The hon. member for Vryheid tested the actions of the Opposition against certain important considerations, including defence, the provision of fuel and national unity. He proved in all three cases that the Opposition had failed to support the Government actively in those respects. He put it well and argued very convincingly. The hon. member and I are departing for Vryheid tomorrow to open a new building of the Land Bank. I think that proves not only what an important centre Vryheid has become, but also the importance of the Land Bank for the agricultural industry in South Africa. I wish the hon. member, his constituency and Natal everything of the best. He was kind enough to take up the cudgels for me when another attempt was recently made to criticize me. I greatly appreciate his attitude. In any case I shall not allow myself to be put off by such reprehensible methods. Attempts to bring me in disrepute have been made since 1967. When I was rector of the University of Natal at that time, a group of leftists and a few Marxists thought they could take over the university. However, I succeeded in maintaining discipline. I think the University of Natal is a good university. Today one does not hear any more of those people who thought they could take over the university with reprehensible methods and tactics. I should like to continue in a pleasant and constructive way, but if there are hon. members of the Opposition and others who think that they can put me off my stroke by making a personal attack on me in such a reprehensible way, as I have been experiencing over the past few weeks, they may attempt to do so if they wish. They must not squeal if they get hurt, though.

I now come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I know I have to be completely impartial, but it seems as though these young people from Natal are making good contributions. I hope my hon. friends in the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape Province will forgive me when I say that. The hon. member pleaded for more meaningful consolidation. He stated his case unequivocally and well, and I listened to him very attentively. I can give him the assurance that consolidation is a very important matter to us on Government level. It is, of course, a very expensive process, but we give it preference in any case. We are doing the best we can within our financial means and I hope that, as we proceed into the future, we shall increasingly be able to apply our financial means in that direction. We shall certainly do our best to encourage that entire process.

†That really brings me to the end of my comments on individual members’ contributions to the debate. In conclusion I think I should merely say—and I think it is fair to do so—that if one compares the position of this country’s economy today with that of say a year ago, one would find, I think, that all dispassionate observers agree that we have made some very solid advances. Our balance of payments, which reflects the state of our finances in relation to those of the rest of the world, is basically extremely sound in the difficult world in which we are living. Our capital account which has, of course, suffered in recent years because of a world recession, difficulties on the capital market and for other reasons, is improving, and I believe that that improvement will continue. I certainly hold out very great hopes for the financial rand under this new dispensation that followed upon the findings of the De Kock Commission. I believe that more and more non-resident investors, i.e. people from outside, will show an increasing interest in investment in South Africa. I am glad to be able to say that although this new system has only just commenced and has only been in operation for a few weeks, the Governor of the Reserve Bank informed me yesterday that he is well pleased with the way this financial rand is already tending to attract new capital into South Africa. So we watch that with great interest.

The steps we have taken to allow the rand increasingly to find its own level in our foreign exchange markets, with the Reserve Bank’s intervention to ensure an orderly market at all times, are to my mind in accord with every sovereign country’s wish to be able to control its own affairs, for what is more important than to be able to control the destiny of one’s own currency unit? That is an extremely important part of one’s whole economic order and arrangement. I believe the growth rate which has been, by our standards, very low for the past year or two, and is now somewhere between 2½% and 3% in real terms—it represents a very sound improvement over the last six or eight months—will certainly continue with its upward trend, and I think that is the key to the economic future of our country, perhaps more so than any other other single circumstance. I am optimistic on that score. So my message to my countrymen is to be of good heart.

While the hon. member for Durban Point talked of confidence, the need for confidence, and mentioned certain things which he seemed to suggest were evidence of a lack of confidence, my own approach is quite different. I believe I can enumerate a whole number of very important circumstances which clearly confirm that there is indeed a growing confidence in this country both on the part of our own people and on the part of people abroad who take an interest in us. There is much evidence of that.

While I am on these matters, I want to refer to something else in which I think the House might be interested. We are often told that South Africa is perhaps not all that important in the world economy. The Foreign Minister of Great Britain recently went out of his way to say that his country did not regard trade and economic relations with us as all that important and that his country’s relations with the rest of Africa were more important. That is of course not borne out at all by the facts. If one looks at the relevant figures, one finds that British trade with South African and South Africa’s trade with Britain and British investments in South Africa are increasing much more rapidly than British investments in and trade with the rest of Africa. So that gentleman should first establish the facts before he talks in this type of irresponsible manner. I do not particularly wish to waste time on that.

What I have come across, however, is an article in an economic journal of considerable standing, interestingly enough a leading economic journal in Italy. The article, written by an Italian economist, appeared last year and is therefore pretty well up to date. This article concerns United States economic relations with the Republic of South Africa. I shall just refer to one or two things the author says. He says first of all that it is important that a clear and objective appraisal be made of the United States economic relations with South Africa and vice versa. He goes on—

Thus, of the sum total of national products of Africa, South Africa contributes 22%. He continues—

That is in the whole of Africa—

He says these are the facts of the matter as they stand and that he finds them extremely impressive. He goes on to say—

This person is a prominent Italian scholar and economist. He goes on to say—

Have you checked that it is not one of Rhoodie’s secret projects?

I thought that the House would not wish to view this objective analysis by a prominent Italian writing in a prominent journal in Italy, with frivolity, as the hon. member for Groote Schuur, who has made that interjection, has done. I have found on every occasion I have said something good for South Africa, that it upsets him. [Interjections.] We have heard it again today.

Mainly because we have never heard of the chap.

It is not my purpose to argue with the hon. member because I do not think it is worth he trouble. I think it is much more important that we who love South Africa, should continue on this great road to develop our country and to take all its people with us to the great future which awaits us.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon I was indicating that hon. members of the official Opposition, as well as an hon. member of the NRP, were in fact delighted at the amendments proposed in this Bill since they saw this as a change in the standpoint of the Government on this matter. They think the Government is now prepared to abandon its declared policy of keeping Black universities nationally orientated. However, I want to point out that what they are actually delighted at the normal development of the policy of the NP and the fact that we have now reached the stage where we have led the Black groups of this country to self-determination and to the status of fully-fledged nations with full independence. For that reason these amendments to the Act are being effected so that we, as stated in clause 11, can also make legal provision enabling a country such as Vendaland, which is to become independent at the end of the year, to send its students to the University of the North, for at present the economic situation is such that Vendaland cannot afford to build its own university within its borders.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to give prospective Black students of our Black neighbouring States the assurance that if they go to this university, they will be justly proud of it. They can be justly proud of this university which the Government originally, of course, established for the three northern homelands. Over the past two decades this university has grown from a modest institution with 87 students to a full-fledged university with six faculties, 56 departments, more than 2 000 students and a teaching staff of 189. This is a university with a campus of which any university could be justly proud. Any traveller driving from Pietersburg in a north-easterly direction is amazed to find that there before him, there in the unspoilt scenery of the stony koppies of the North-Eastern Transvaal, beautiful buildings resembling those of a young city with architectural beauty have sprung up. This is a campus of which any White university in this country could be proud. We are dealing here with the University which is accepted by the community it serves. This is substantiated by the fact that that university has received more than 5 000 inquiries from prospective students this year. We are dealing here with a university where a sound interaction between university and community is already discernible. In brief, we have here a university which, therefore, takes its place in every respect as a full-fledged university beside every other university in our country.

This development in the field of our tertiary education costs the taxpayer of this country an enormous amount of money. If we take the University of the North, the total capital investment in that university is no less than R19,5 million, and the operating expenditure at such a university is R4,7 million per annum. In fact, it costs, as the hon. the Deputy Minister also stated in this House yesterday, no less than R3 026 per annum to keep a Black student at a university. For that reason it is the Government’s duty to keep a close watch and to prevent money from being wasted unnecessarily. For that reason we must sincerely welcome clauses 3, 8, 11 and 18. They are applicable to each student and—I want to emphasize—to the White student, too, for if we examine an identical section in Act No. 75 of 1977, we see that that provision has existed for a long time now, viz. that any White student’s academic year can be cut short by the university authorities if it is clear that he will not be able to make the grade, or if by his irresponsibility he is wilfully wasting the Government’s money. He may then be expelled from the university.

I wonder if the young people of this country are always aware of this. Our studying youth in this country should know that wilfulness, negligence or flippancy in this regard amount to flagrant sabotage against their own country, to say nothing of students who for political or other reasons damage or destroy the property of the university. This is an offence against society which cannot be tolerated in this country and which must be eradicated with the strongest measures conceivable. Last year, at the beginning of the academic year, Prof. Hamman, in welcoming the new students to the University of Pretoria, said the following according to newspaper articles—

He went on to say that the State subsidy for the ten residential universities for Whites in 1977 amounted to approximately R161 million. Here at the beginning of the new academic year it is perhaps just as well that students of this country take renewed cognizance of the fact that they should regard it as a privilege to be able to attend university, that they should make maximum use of that privilege and that academic success is part of our process of survival in this beautiful country of ours. If our students do their duty and their work, they are making a nation strong and resilient.

In clause 16 section 3 of the Medical University of Southern Africa Act, 1976, is being amended and the following provision inserted—

Previously the wording read as follows—

This means that the Medical University of Southern Africa now becomes legally accessible to other students in Africa as well, to students from our neighbouring States. In this way we are extending a helping hand to our Black neighbouring States in Southern Africa. If we just consider how necessary this is and consider the Transkei, for example, we see that in that country there is only one medical practitioner for every 13 235 people. In Lesotho there is only one medical practitioner for every 21 522 people, in Botswana for every 15 854, in Malawi for every 37 982 and in Bophuthatswana for every 16 094 people. When comparing these figures with those of South Africa, the figures for White as well as Black people, we note that we have one medical practitioner for every 1 964 people. If we consider what we have already done in this regard, it is necessary to note the fact that last year provincial hospitals in South Africa treated 7 338 patients from the Transkei alone. From Lesotho 292 and from Rhodesia 215 patients were treated in provincial hospitals in South Africa. Surely it is then clear, in this legislation as well, that we are trying to extend a helping hand to the rest of Africa.

It is true that each particular population group has since the earliest years desired its own university, its own medical institution. I just want to indicate that, in the history of the Medical Faculty of the University of Pretoria for example, representations were made as far back as 1902 by the then professor of gynaecology, Prof. Sinclair, to Lord Chamberlain for the establishment of a medical school in the Transvaal. He emphasized the fact that it is important to keep the young farmers away from continental medical schools since there was such a strong anti-British feeling in the Transvaal. He realized at that stage already that the medical practitioner is often a person who exerts considerable influence on his community, where he acts as adviser, as confidante in the inner circles of family life. Surely it is clear, therefore, that such a person can be best equipped for his task when trained by his own people.

We must remember and realize that, although we sometimes want to see Blacks and Whites as a homogenous group, we must, nevertheless, note that there is a big difference between the two groups, for example in the medical aspect. So, for instance, we find that between Whites and Blacks there are a number of diseases that are more prevalent among Whites.

Order! Which clause is the hon. member dealing with now?

Mr. Speaker, I am now dealing with the clause which determines how important it is that Black people be trained at a university for Black people by their own people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but he should stay away from hospitals and confine himself to universities instead.

I shall bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker. Then I also wish to point out that coronary cardiovascular diseases, for example, are far more prevalent among Whites than among Blacks. The geographic distribution of diseases is also important. If we consider a disease such as bilharzia, it is very common …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I shall bear it in mind and only point out one more aspect as to why it is important that Black people be trained in the medical field by Black people. The following is the most important reason. It is the complex psychic make-up of the Black people themselves. I have yet to see the Indian or White medical practitioner who can understand the complex mental constitution of our Black groups. They also differ from one another because of the differences in their customs, their traditions and their rich metaphorical speech. For that reason it is necessary for Black medical practitioners to be trained by Black teachers.

We are therefore affording the Black medical practitioner the opportunity to build up a rapport with his Black patient, a person who can know and understand the deepest fears and the greatest happiness of his patient, a person who can evaluate the fine nuances of that human spirit, a person with whom that patient can form an intimate doctor/patient relationship, and in that way establish a practice which can have real meaning for the community. In reality that opportunity is being created by the legislation under discussion.

Now to confine myself to a greater extent to the legislation itself … [Interjections.]

Since Whites will to a large extent have to manage medical services and medical research here and in the rest of Africa for many years to come, the amendment in clause 19, in respect of which Whites, with the permission of the Minister, will be allowed to study and do research at Medunsa, has become necessary. We can, therefore, find that a lecturer wishes to proceed with his studies or do research under the guidance of a professor at that particular university, that he wants to do it there where he is involved, where he is working on the project, there where his interest lies and there where the most relevant research material is in fact available. For that reason it is a good thing, and can it only benefit the entire community in South Africa.

The same argument applies to clause 20 of the Bill, where legal provision is made for the establishment of an institution subject to the authority of the council and the senate of the university concerned.

This University for Blacks Amendment Bill is a positive step in the advancement of the interests of the Black community of the whole of Southern Africa in the field of tertiary education. For that reason I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will understand if I do not reply to the points made by the hon. member for Pietersburg, because, as you yourself have pointed out, he seldom spoke on the Bill itself. It is my intention not to deal with a general survey of the university and the medical services for Black people, but to try to concentrate on the Bill we are discussing today. As far as the hon. member’s speech is concerned, I shall only make one remark. I want to point out to him …

It was very good.

It might have been good, but it was not very relevant. It would make a very good subject for a private member’s motion and I recommend that to the hon. member for next year. A good survey of the medical services and university facilities for Black people would be useful. Since the hon. member has given the House the benefit of the medical statistics he has at his command relating to the number of physicians or doctors serving the community, I should like to point out to him that 80% of the doctors in this country work in the urban areas of South Africa, which means that they are looking after only 30% of the population. He might just bring that into his private member’s motion next year.

Let us see whether you can stick to the subject.

Well, I am at least going to try to stick to the subject. I will try to do that by replying to two or actually three speeches made yesterday which I believe were relevant to the subject. I want to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech and two other speeches. I shall also refer in passing to the most relevant speech of all, which was the speech delivered by my colleague, the hon. member for Musgrave. [Interjections.]

I want to start by replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River. Unfortunately, I see he has disappeared.

He is coming in a minute.

I will leave the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River until he returns to the House. Where is the hon. member for Virginia? Is he here? [Interjections.] That’s my boy!

Stand up!

No, he can remain seated. [Interjections.] I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Virginia assure the House that no change in principle is being introduced by the Government in this Bill. He reiterated that statement several times. The hon. member has obviously forgotten, if he ever knew, which I doubt because he is reasonably young …

He is not as old as you are. [Interjections.]

I am just saying he is reasonably young. I want to tell the hon. member there that very few people in the House are as old as I am. It is very depressing for me and I do not need him to remind me. I only hope that some of those hon. members wear as well as I have!

Hear, hear!

As I say, the hon. member is either too young to know his history or has forgotten the debates that took place … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get on with my speech now. Perhaps the hon. member has forgotten the debates that took place in the House in 1959. In those earlier days both the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Parktown were in the House. Both the hon. members will remember, as I do, the intensity, indeed, the passion with which the debate on the Bill of 1959, the quaintly named Extension of University Education Bill, was conducted. The then Minister of Education, Arts and Science, who introduced the Bill, told us over and over again what the objectives were in that Bill. As it was very long, I am only going to quote a short part of the hon. the Minister’s speech. When he introduced that Bill, he said (Hansard, 8 April 1959, col. 3170)—

That is the principle that continued down through the years until 1969, and hon. members who were in the House then will remember that the Black university colleges were then converted into proper universities. Mutatis mutandis all of them had the same clauses applied to them, clauses in terms of which Black people could only attend universities outside their own ethnic groups on a limited scale. So the matter was not taken further even at that stage. It persisted from 1959 to 1969 when the whole principle of ethnic attendance at Black universities was restated. Hon. members will remember that this provision also applied to the University of Durban-Westville and to the University of the Western Cape. At that stage persons of other races could only attend the University of the Western Cape subject to the permission of the Minister. At no stage, however, could Black students, as a right, attend White universities. They were only allowed to attend those universities in very special circumstances, generally if the faculty in which they wished to study was not available at their own universities, or if they wished to study special disciplines that were not offered to them at the ethnic universities, the University of Durban-Westville or the University of the Western Cape. It was the principle of racial separation and it was maintained in its absolute form as far as White students attending Black universities were concerned. Section 21 of the Act made that absolutely clear. There was an absolute, positive prohibition. I say that we are certainly departing from that principle, and that it is a departure which I, like my friend, the hon. member for Musgrave, welcome. We shall certainly, as he has already told the House, be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill for that reason. This I want to emphasize for the benefit of the hon. member for Virginia.

In regard to ethnic classifications the then hon. Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. M. C. Botha, made this point very specifically when he said the following (Hansard, Vol. 26, col. 3193)—

He said this on 25 March 1969. In attacking the then official Opposition, the hon. Minister went still further by saying (Hansard, Vol. 26, col. 3195)—

One is therefore entitled to draw the obvious conclusion that the NP was very keen, in those days of 1969 anyway, on maintaining the ethnic differences, not only between the Whites and Blacks, but also within the Black nations, as they were called.

Forced ethnicity.

Yes, forced ethnicity. So what I want to know is: What ever has become of that ethnicity? It has gone out of the window because this Bill certainly changes all that. As I say, however, we welcome the measure very much indeed. We are pleased to support the Bill, because to a certain extent it returns one important element of what is known as academic freedom, and this is where I differ from the point of view of the hon. member for Mooi River, but I shall come back to him in a moment. One element of what is known as academic freedom is the question of who shall be taught. The other elements are what will be taught, who will do the teaching and how the teaching will be done. In this case the question of “who will be taught” is at least more flexible than it has been in the past. Through this measure the Government is showing much more flexibility by allowing Blacks of different ethnic groups to attend the existing three Black universities. They may do this without applying for permission from anybody. It is now a right, and no longer only a privilege, for any Black to attend universities outside their own ethnic grouping. The hon. member for Virginia was at pains to point out that we have always admitted foreign Black students. That is so, but it was done by special permission. They had to get permission from the Minister. From now on no permission will be required and a Zulu can now decide that he wants to attend the University of Fort Hare and a Xhosa can decide that he wants to go to the University of the North. Presumably foreigners will have to obtain permission from the hon. the Minister of the Interior to enter the country, and having done this, presumably they too will be able to choose which university they want to go to. So a great deal more flexibility is being introduced. There is also more flexibility in that the blanket prohibition which existed from 1959 onwards, against the entry of any White student into a Black university is now being withdrawn. It is true that a White student who wants to go to a Black university has to obtain permission from the hon. the Minister, but nevertheless it is possible now for a White student who wants to study an African culture or language at a Black university, to do so. He may even wish to attend a Black university because the faculty of mathematics may be particularly good at that university and therefore wishes to attend the lectures given by the professor of mathematics at that Black university. This introduces much greater flexibility than existed previously. We on these benches welcome this greater flexibility and for that reason we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

I cannot understand the reasoning of the hon. member for Mooi River, who also welcomed the additional flexibility introduced by this Bill. I have his speech here. He praised the Bill because it introduced greater flexibility, but said that it still did not allow the council of a university to decide whether or not a White student could attend a Black university. Because such provision is not made in this Bill and because he says, this breached the autonomy of the university, his party was not going to vote for this Bill. He mentioned that he thought there might be a technical difficulty about moving an amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill. I understand that, because we on these benches also think there may be a technical difficulty, but I have never heard such an extraordinary rationale that because one is not sure whether an amendment can be moved during the Committee Stage, one votes against the Second Reading of a Bill which contains the correct principle.

That is not the point I was making.

What then was the point the hon. member was making?

The council does not have the final say.

I understand that, but this Bill is an improvement. If the hon. member votes against the Second Reading, it means that the status quo remains. Am I right?

I am still entitled to oppose it if it does not go far enough …

No. That is not in terms of the procedure of this House. The hon. member’s arguments is completely topsy-turvy, because if he votes against the Second Reading of the Bill he knows that the status quo remains. That means there will be no flexibility, no cross ethnic grouping in these universities and no admission of White students to Black universities whatsoever, regardless of whether the council agrees or whether the hon. the Minister gives permission. It will be a blanket prohibition. The hon. member has got confused. It is from playing with all those balls all the time! [Interjections.] He must go back to first principles, which govern procedure we follow in this House.

We moved a reasoned amendment.

Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member moved a reasoned amendment or not…

That is parliamentary procedure.

No, it is not! The right procedure is to accept the principle of the Bill and then to attempt to move amendments in the Committee Stage to take your point further. If one is unlucky enough to have the amendment ruled out of order, that is too bad. One would then at least have accepted the improvements which are contained in the Bill. Surely that is the right thing to do.

Have you read our amendment?

I have read the amendment, and I have read the hon. member’s speech. He says his basic problem is that he is not sure whether he will be able to move an amendment during the Committee Stage that would be in order. In this respect the hon. member became confused.

The hon. member for Virginia told the House with great pride that the NP does not stand still. He is absolutely right: they do not stand still, they go backwards. They keep going backwards and eventually they will get back to square one—and that is progress! Yet, we have to be pleased with that, because every time the Government repeals a provision—which should never have been introduced in the first place—that is progress. We are now doing very well, because we are gradually getting back to square one! That is their variety of progress! They take down notices they should never have put up—and that is progress! They open libraries which they should never have closed—more progress! A new publication has just been issued by the Bureau of National and International Communication, post hoc the old Department of Information. On page 62 of this publication …

Order!

Do you think I am out of order, Sir?

Yes, I think so.

Mr. Speaker, I promise I will not be long. I just want to answer …

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir. As I was saying, what the hon. member calls progress is just going backwards to the status quo ante the Government. On page 62 of this publication it says—

Except in Newcastle!

I want to tell the hon. member for Virginia that the situation which is described in this publication existed in

1948, but he is obviously a little too young to know about it. There is more boasting about the opening of clubs, theatres, hotels and so on to people of all races. That is fine. We welcome these measures, but let us not call it progress, because none of these facilities were really statutorily closed until the public amenities legislation was introduced and separation became entrenched in our statutes.

Order! The hon. member must now return to discussing the Bill.

I want to point out that the ethnicity which was so treasured, was in any case completely overrated, because I think I am right in saying—I must admit that I am not 100% sure, and the hon. the Deputy Minister may have more accurate information—that the majority of Black students at Black universities, and those who are able to attend White universities, come from the urban areas of South Africa. The urban section is more able to afford to send young people to university. Blacks are more likely to have the earning power in the urban areas to enable them to send their young people to university. If one goes to Soweto, or any other large urban centre where Blacks are concentrated, one will find that ethnicity does not really play such an important part in their lives as hon. members believe.

I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there appear to be a number of conflicts in law as a result of the Bill which is before the House. For instance, unless the hon. the Deputy Minister is intending—as I presume he is—to amend the Extension of University Education Act, No. 45 of 1959, there will be a conflict in law, because section 13(5) of that Act gives the Minister the right to limit the admission of non-White persons to any non-White college to persons of one or more ethnic or other groups.

In other words, if that Act is not amended, the hon. the Minister retains the right to limit the right of a Xhosa to attend, say, the University of Zululand or the University of Fort Hare. So, I think he must amend that Act otherwise it is in conflict with the Bill we are passing today, a Bill which gives Black people the unlimited right to attend any Black university without ministerial permission. This provision is made in clause 1 of the Bill.

Section 17 of the Extension of University Education Act, No. 45 of 1959, lays down, as I have said, an absolute prohibition on any White student from attending any Black college or university. I think the hon. the Minister must look at those two provisions. Section 32 of that Act gives the State President the right by proclamation to prohibit Blacks from attending White universities. That can be a blanket prohibition, and then the right the hon. the Minister presently has to allow Black students to be admitted to White universities, will go.

With these words, I say again that as far as we are concerned, we are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which we believe to be the correct parliamentary procedure since it is a considerable advance on the existing situation. A much more flexible situation is being introduced. We shall try our best to introduce an amendment at Committee Stage to improve this Bill even more.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton covered a very wide field and in fact hardly dealt with the Bill at all. Like the hon. member for Musgrave yesterday, she, too, did not have much to say, except to accuse us of having suddenly changed our policy. In the course of my argument I shall prove that this is not true. If we examine the pronouncements of Dr. Malan in 1948 and those of Dr. Verwoerd in 1954, we see that we are still following the same policy.

History has proven that it was the correct approach to pass the legislation on Black universities in 1959. The hon. member for Houghton also spoke about ethnicity, and in the course of my argument I shall refer to that again.

This Bill is similar to legislation which we passed last year concerning the Universities of the Western Cape and Durban Westville. In respect of that legislation White students and lecturers are permitted to undertake part-time studies at those universities. The Black universities, too, asked to have the same right to accept students.

The three Black universities were not inaccessible to the various race groups, because, as the hon. Deputy Minister indicated yesterday, Black students from South West Africa and Africa studied at those universities. The medical university, Medunsa, is open to all Blacks as well. Students from various groups study at the agricultural faculty of the University of Fort Hare. The University of the North offers a course in pharmacy and any Black student who wishes to be a pharmacist, can follow it. These various universities are, therefore, not closed to the various Black groups.

Another proviso in the legislation is that students do not necessarily have to study a full year, and a student finding that he cannot make progress, is now being afforded the opportunity to “drop out”, to use the student term, in the course of the year.

It is clear to me that the Opposition do not quite understand these amendments. This is apparent from the speeches delivered by the hon. members for Musgrave and Houghton today.

I want to emphasize that not a single hon. member on this side of the House has ever alleged that the NP is stagnant or standing still. Where necessary, we are prepared to adapt the policy of the NP, but we are not prepared to surrender our principles. We do not begrudge other groups what we do not begrudge ourselves. The Black universities will not lose their identities, as they are the proudest product of the NP policy. If there were no Black universities, there would not have been so many Black graduates today.

Looking at the number of students, we see that 2 022 Black students studied at these universities in 1970 and 4 670 in 1977. This proves that these Black universities do, in fact, play an important role in their communities and in the national context. The number of lecturers has increased from 293 in 1970 to 459 in 1977. There is growth and progress at the Black universities, and this cannot be stopped. To an ever increasing extent they will play a role in the training of Blacks in South Africa.

We must respect one another’s identity and the character of each university. It would be a pity if these Black universities were to allow their character to be lost, because the character of each university must be preserved and extended.

We accept the reality of the diversity of peoples, a fact we cannot ignore. Various Black language groups have the desire to have their own university, but, as my colleague explained, owing to the economic climate this is simply not possible. Therefore, Black students should be allowed to study at the various universities.

Since their inception, the universities of the various groups have developed in a brilliant way into full-fledged universities. This fact has contributed to the balanced development of communities. The Black universities maintain a high standard of training and education. This Bill provides that White lecturers teaching at Black universities, will now have the opportunity to study part-time or to do research at these universities. This ensures that the services of these lecturers will not be lost to those Black universities. The admission of other students to these universities will also contribute to the consolidation of the status and the prestige already enjoyed by these universities.

Today the Black universities have the best equipment and facilities, the same as that found at any other university. For that reason they do not have to take a back seat in anyway to any university in South Africa.

I now want to examine the situation in other countries also composed of a variety of national groups. In Belgium, for example, one finds divergent communities. There, too, are various universities, for example the French-speaking university, a Protestant university and a Roman Catholic university. Let us examine Canada, where there is a similar situation, as there is a French-speaking and an English-speaking community. Let us look at Africa, too—at a country such as Nigeria which is a reasonably developed country and where the universities develop on the same basis as here in South Africa. The three universities became fully autonomous tertiary institutions in 1970. If we examine the amount spent on development, we see that it was R3,5 million for capital works in 1970, and an amount of R22 million in 1977-’78; this is evidence that there has been substantial development at these universities. A new development in 1974 was the appointment of Blacks to the councils of the universities. Since then the number has been increased to nine after the establishment of Medunsa in 1976. The intention is ultimately to replace not only these councils, but also the teaching staff at these universities, with Blacks, as enough students complete their training and become available.

During the 31 years that the NP has been in power, we have made adaptations where necessary, and we do this, as I have stated, in a responsible fashion. The Opposition, in particular, piously maintains that we should open the universities. However, there is a lot of difference between talking and acting. However, the Ministers concerned have repeatedly pointed to the number of Indian and Coloured students who are admitted to study at White universities on merit.

In conclusion I should like to make an appeal to White, Brown and Black students to make the best possible use of the facilities established for them in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a succession of speakers from the NP who have been very apologetic about the legislation before us and have made all manner of excuses in their support of the Bill we are discussing, starting with the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday. There was a definite air of apology for the fact that they had to come with this amending legislation. [Interjections.] This was continued by subsequent speakers, and the hon. member for Alberton, who has just resumed his seat, continued along similar lines.

I think that our decision to oppose the Second Reading and to move the amendment which was moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, was in fact the right decision. [Interjections.] I shall motivate that case further. There are two basic principles involved here. The one is that the councils now have, in certain respects, more powers with regard to the admission of people of other race groups than they had before, but the really important thing, as we see it, is that in regard to people of a race group other than Black, it is left in the hands of the Minister to decide whether any of these universities may make such admissions. To us this was a fundamental concept with which we could not agree. Neither do I accept the gratuitous advice of the hon. member for Houghton who so virtuously told us how we should conduct our decisions regarding our debates in this House. I find it rather strange coming from the hon. member for Houghton who has never hesitated to use tactics to her own best advantage in this House, and I also find it strange that she squeals when other parties pre-empt a situation and take a line which I believe the hon. member may have tried to convince her caucus to take.

However, I now wish to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that he should have gone the whole hog, and that if it had been the hon. the Minister himself who had introduced this Bill he might well have gone the whole hog in allowing the universities to admit people of other colours without this being subject to the permission of the Minister. However, we know the political philosophy of the hon. the Deputy Minister sitting opposite us and we know that he does not wish to see that situation arise. We believe that would have been the desirable step to take, namely not just to throw the universities open but to leave the decision-making to the university councils. We heard paeans of praise of the hon. member for Virginia for Prof. Kgware, and I must say we associate ourselves with the tone of his remarks, but if one has such very good impressions of these people, surely one should be prepared to leave it to them to take those decisions. Decisions should certainly not be subject to the permission of the Minister. There is already too much legislation in which decisions are subject to the permission of the Minister, a permit of the Minister or the discretion of the Minister. Why we have opposed this Bill is because it is a well-known principle of the NRP that powers should, to the maximum degree, be devolved to the authority closest to the level at which matters are dealt with. In that light alone we cannot accept the principle that the Minister should take the decision. The university council is the board at authority level closest to that situation, and to us it is as clear as anything that that university council should decide whether they wish to admit people of other races.

If one refers to clause 5 of the Bill one notes that it does not refer to permission being given only to people who are lecturing at these universities and who may be White. It refers to the admission of any person who is not a Black. We understand the legislation in those terms. “Any person” certainly means “any” person. Just to reinforce our feeling that there was a measure of holding back in the speeches of hon. members of the NP, the speakers who have spoken for the governing party made it quite clear that the intention is only to make a provision under that clause for the admission of White lecturers who may wish to …

That is right.

Then it makes nonsense of this provision.

Why is it the Minister who has to give permission?

Why has the legislation been phrased in this way, with the specific use of the words “any person”, if the clear intention, confirmed by the hon. member for Virginia, and apparently by the hon. the Deputy Minister, is that it should only apply to White lecturers who may wish to do postgraduate study at these universities? I believe that this wording should be cleared up and that they should state quite clearly what their intention is, and if it is not to be “any person” then the word “any” should be deleted and a proper qualifying phrase be inserted in its place when we discuss this clause in the Committee Stage. I believe it is incumbent upon the hon. the Deputy Minister to make this point absolutely clear when he replies to this debate. I do not think anything else needs to be said to motivate the reason why this party declines to pass the Second Reading. I cannot buy the argument of the hon. member for Houghton or that of the hon. member for Musgrave at all. We listened to the hon. member for Musgrave with some interest yesterday. My mind also went back 20 years to the debates of that time, but let me say that we are tired of being subjected to debates which took place 20 years ago. We are now living in 1979, yet we were regaled with large-scale reading from Hansard of 1959. Those matters are irrelevant today.