Mr. Speaker, I should just like to furnish certain information in regard to the business of the House for next week. After the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Defence Vote have been disposed of we shall proceed, on Wednesday, to deal with legislation as it will appear on the Order Paper. On Thursday the Transport Vote will come up for discussion and on Friday the Agriculture Vote. The discussion of this Vote will continue on the following Monday. Later the same day the discussion of the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote will commence. The necessary arrangements will be made for the discussion next Friday and the following Monday, of the Mines and Labour Votes in the Senate Chamber.

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with what I believe is the most important aspect of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, I just want to refer briefly to two events, both close to my constituency, which have attracted public attention in the Press. The one event is the shooting at my residence the other night. Because there is a court hearing on this matter I can say no more except to express, as I did to the hon. the Minister of Police my appreciation and congratulations to the police for the very efficient way in which they followed up this case and the early arrest which they have made. [Interjections.] It was a truly remarkable performance. I believe all hon. members in this House—and this has been expressed by hon. members on both sides of the House—would agree that it would be a sad day for South Africa if parliamentary politics was having to be conducted under threats of violence. We believe that this matter should be brought to an end when this case comes before the court.

The second event is the report in this morning’s paper of the murder of a young nine-year-old child on or near Rocklands beach, in Green Point and adjoining my constituency. I know the Mervyn Smith family and I think that all of us were shocked, and those of us who know this family will have expressed their deep sympathy in the grief of the family concerned. What it does show, is that there is no absolute protection, but to the extent that protection can be given to individuals and innocent citizens, there should be the maximum amount of effective patrolling by the police in all the built-up residential areas of South Africa. [Interjections.] Social conditions should be improved to minimize the anti-social behaviour and the criminal element. Once again, I believe an arrest has been made within two or three hours, and there is no doubt that the police, once a crime has been committed, acts diligently and in the interest of the prosecution of justice.

I now want to refer to what I believe is the main thrust, the most important element, of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, viz. his statement dealing with South Africa’s position in relation to the rest of the world. It was a policy statement which in essence declared that South Africa would tend to be non-aligned in the East-West conflict, would not be politically entangled and would trade with whatever country that suited us best. This is a fundamental reassessment of South Africa’s foreign policy, and it is perhaps appropriate, in view of the events and the changes which have taken place in Africa and in the world over the past few years, that such a reassessment should have taken place. Previously it was possible for South Africa to claim that it wanted to be the link between an emerging Africa and the Western World. Previously it was possible to put forward a case that South Africa was an important link in the total Western strategy. We were a country that saw itself essentially as a link between the West and the emergent States of Africa. There has been an understandable frustration with the West in recent times. There have been some Western leaders who, either because of internal politics or because of the requirements of global strategy as they have seen it, have adopted attitudes and have made statements which have hardly been the kind of statement one would have expected from political leaders of countries friendly towards South Africa. There have also been other factors. Ever since the West was rocked back on its heels by the oil crisis in 1973, the West appears to have lacked a consistent and collective strategy in the field of international politics. That event of late 1973, the change in the balance of power between the fuel-consuming and fuel-producing nations, seemed to have rocked the West back and they have not yet defined for themselves a collective strategy to deal with the new situation. The international power structure has also changed. The Opec countries are now in a powerful position in so far as the control of sources of energy is concerned. Not only are the industrialized countries of the West even more dependent upon the Opec countries until they can find alternative sources of energy. They have also reached the maximum of their internal economic development and now rely for their future progress on the markets and opportunities they can find in the underdeveloped countries of the Third World. The conflict between the East and the West was a factor in international politics before and added to that there is now the critical importance of the oil-producing countries and the rising political importance of the underdeveloped countries of the Third World. So South Africa no longer has to define its position only in respect of the East-West conflict, but has to define its position also in relation to East, to West, to Opec and to the underdeveloped countries of the Third World. As far as the West is concerned, I believe it is appropriate that South Africa should make it clear that it simply cannot be taken for granted. We are, after all, an independent country, we have certain interests which are peculiar to ourselves, from an internal point of view and because of our location at the southern tip of Africa, and therefore the concept that we should not be taken for granted is a sound and a justifiable one. We also have to defend our sovereignty and we have to defend our national integrity. To do this we have to be as self-reliant as possible. These are axiomatic attitudes to adopt in times of international strain and stress.

Having said all this, I believe it would be in the interests of South Africa, against that background, to try to have as good relationships as possible with the West. I believe we should not link or commit ourselves or find ourselves tied to the apron-strings of any power block, but it is nevertheless in our interests to endeavour to have good relations with that sector of the world in which we find our chief trading partners, which provide our basic capital markets and which are the leaders in world technology. I therefore hope that whatever the Government’s temporary annoyance with the West may be—temporary on certain issues and perhaps long-term on others—that it will not under this Prime Minister repeat the damaging, secret and clandestine operations which were conducted in Western countries by the former Department of Information. There is no doubt that this was one of the factors which soured relationships, and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a speech at, I think, Worcester, made it very clear that this was indeed a factor. We would like the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us that at least in his pursuit of better relationships with various blocks and various power groups, he will not conduct the kind of operation which was conducted under Dr. Eschel Rhoodie in those States in the past. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should also bear in mind that, while there is a general trend that has developed in international politics, in Western countries there are changes of Governments and changes of personalities and that these bring changes in style and emphasis. If we are going to adopt this non-aligned stance and if we desire to relate closely to what the hon. the Prime Minister sees as a community of States in Southern Africa with a common interest, then I believe that this places a new emphasis on the need to resolve our internal problems. We will not be able to face external dangers from some other power block, in isolation if we are not united internally. Secondly, we shall not be able to relate, in a meaningful and constructive way, to the Black States of Southern Africa if, within the borders of South Africa, we still discriminate on the grounds of race or colour against the Black citizens of this country. This lesson should have been learned a few years ago. A well-intended effort was made by the former Prime Minister at what was known as détente. Starting way back in October of 1974, there was an outward move. Expectations were raised. There was the dramatic speech of the then Ambassador to the United Nations, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, who gave a categorical undertaking, in a public, international forum, that we would do whatever we could to move away from race discrimination. That was an essential part of the detente move, a statement of faith which enabled openings to be found for contact with the Black States in Africa. What was shown, however, was that expectations were created and statements were made, but were not followed through. As a result of that, there was disillusionment and a virtual collapse of the whole détente exercise. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to afford the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Whip. We believe, very strongly indeed, that South Africa has a pivotal role to play in Southern Africa. We believe that from a military point of view we can provide protection from aggression to many smaller States within or near our borders. We believe that we can help them economically and in the agricultural and health fields. We also believe that we can help them in the whole field of education. One wonders whether the time has not come to have what is virtually a Rhodes scholarship in reverse so that Africa may be enabled to come to the universities and colleges of South Africa in order to study and to learn modern technology, which they can gain from the South African community, which is ahead of the rest of Africa in this respect.

The hon. the Prime Minister has given us this vision of a group of States in Southern Africa co-operating one with the other. He has identified that part of the vision, but what has become necessary, as a result of this statement, is his vision for South Africa itself. We hope that in the course of this debate he will develop, more fully than he has to date, his commitments to removing race discrimination. He made a statement on the steps of the Senate on 28 September and he made an amplifying statement in the no-confidence debate, but against the realities of his statement yesterday we must place the fact that the actions of the Government in removing discrimination are, in reality, too slow.

They are non est.

There are still too many ugly incidents of race discrimination.

Like phoning McHenry.

There is also too much confusion in the ranks of the NP about what is actually meant by this. I can only refer to the two streams of thought: the Koornhof philosophy of getting rid of race discrimination and the Treurnicht philosophy of not getting rid of race discrimination. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister must give us his vision. How does he see the people of South Africa, as individuals or as groups, living together in South Africa in the future? [Interjections.]

Order!

How does he see the removal of race discrimination? Critical in this whole matter, however, is obviously the question of political participation, because until there is meaningful political participation by all individuals and elements in our society, one is still going to have the imbalance between the social and the economic haves and have-nots.

The hon. the Prime Minister has taken the first step, and we have welcomed it. He has moved for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses to examine a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa. Implicit in the appointment of this committee prior to the Second Reading of the Bill, there is an admission that after 31 years of apartheid and NP separate development, the constitutional vision which was moulded by Dr. Verwoerd and seen by the hon. the Prime Minister’s other predecessors, has failed. That is the essential feature of the appointment of this committee.

We should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to develop his political vision for the people of South Africa further. A draft Bill has been published and will be referred to this committee, but this draft Bill deals only with three elements of our community, viz. the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites. We want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister at this stage what is negotiable. Is the situation going to be the same as when Dirk Mudge went into the Turnhalle, namely that all options will be open, or are the members of the NP going into this with a total commitment to the policy of separate development as far as the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites are concerned? What is negotiable as far as the NP is concerned? I want to put three points to him. What about the urban Blacks, the rural Blacks and the homeland Blacks? Can they be included in a new political dispensation together with the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites?

No.

An hon. gentleman on the other side says “No”. Yet the hon. the Minister of Health has said there will always be Black South Africans. Are we then to understand that, although we are going to be interdependent and there is going to be no discrimination in our Defence Force, that although there is going to be less and less discrimination in our economic enterprises and in sport, when it comes to political decision-making there can be no meeting between the Coloureds, Asians and Whites on the one hand and the urban, rural or homeland Blacks on the other side? We want to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister envisages, and whether the NP is bound to the concept, that there can be no common political institutions between the Blacks on the one hand and the other groups in South Africa on the other. Secondly, what about the control of the common areas? The scheme at the moment envisages separate Parliaments and a Joint Cabinet Council. But the hon. the Prime Minister must realize that, once one moves in this direction and creates common areas and conceives common areas needing common control, one is going to need a common executive and a common legislature. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether that is an option which the Government envisages for the future of South Africa. Thirdly, I think the lesson of Africa, even the lessons of the last few months, as far as the Government’s plan is concerned, is that if a new constitution is to be adopted, it must be seen to be the product of negotiation and discussion by all the people affected by that constitution.

So, while the appointment of this committee is a step in the right direction, we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is prepared, when this committee is converted into a commission, to expand it to include members of other racial communities, whether he is prepared to allow such members to be co-opted so that that commission will not just be a commission of Whites, but one that will be more representative of all of the people of South Africa. However good the constitution that is evolved is going to be, we believe that, if it carries the imprint of Whites only, it is not going to be acceptable in the eyes of the other racial communities in South Africa. It is for this reason that we put to the Government, as we have done before, the concept of bringing into being a committee, a commission, a Turnhalle, a convention—call it what you will—in which the people of South Africa, collectively, can decide on their future. What is absolutely critical is this: If we are going to face the world alone, if we are going to try to bring South Africa into the context of Southern Africa, of the Black States of Africa, it is imperative not only that we have policies that are acceptable to the Black people of South Africa, but also that in designing the constitution, in designing the framework in which South Africa is going to survive and play its politics, all sections of the community should be involved. We put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that we should like from him today an undertaking that, before any constitutional policies are introduced which will affect all the peoples of South Africa, all the peoples of South Africa who are going to be affected will be involved in the discussion, the negotiation and the formulation of what is going to be a new charter for peaceful co-existence here in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in connection with co-operation between the White Government and the various peoples here in Southern Africa, that we should first do certain things in South Africa as a condition for good co-operation. I shall come back to that presently.

At the end of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the concepts of a national convention, liaison and negotiation with the Black peoples in Africa, more specifically in Southern Africa. He asked what our intention and line of thought were. Now one finds it interesting that the principle of liaising, negotiations and consultations with Black peoples and Black leaders in South Africa, is a principle which was initiated a long time ago by the NP on the basis of its own policy. The NP policy of liaising with Coloured, Indian and Black communities, implies a type of perpetual convention. However, we do not use the word “convention” as it is used in the liberal world which says that we want to destroy the idea of a “convention”. We use it in the spirit and attitude in which we intend it. Our intention is, to be more specific, to conduct sincere, honest, frank and sober negotiations with Black people and Black leaders.

I do not want to leave it at that, however, and I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that we on this side of the House are asking ourselves what we want to achieve by means of the debates we conduct in this House. I say to him that I, together with every one of my colleagues and the hon. the Prime Minister, want to achieve one thing in debates in this House and that is that we want to go on striving at all times to bring the Opposition to their senses with regard to their role in our relations with the non-White peoples in South Africa and with the rest of the world. Those people have created a caricature of the Government and of the White man in his relations with Black people and other nations in the world, an image which we shall annihilate altogether. We are not going to leave it at that.

During the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill I said that on 30 August 1977 Prof. Lawrence Schlemmer of the University of Natal had published a report in which he said that the PFP’s image was being questioned by the public of South Africa on the basis of the PFP’s radicalism and its lack of patriotism. We shall keep on rubbing that in until such time as they remove that radicalism and that lack of patriotism from their minds. I tried to indicate to them that there was an absolute division in that party.

Now I want to tell them briefly that that image of that party’s lack of patriotism and radicalism, has originated with the public for many reasons, inter alia, because its ally, the English-language Press in South Africa, has tried to cloud race relations in South Africa from morning till the night with continued and shameful reporting. That, the English-language Press, is its ally as far as race relations in South Africa are concerned. The people reject the PFP because it is radical. They have friends throughout the world.

The hon. member for Houghton thinks that South Africa is extremely proud of the fact that she received an award from the UN. The people in South Africa are not proud of that. I think that the public of South Africa are ashamed of that. How did she achieve it? She achieved it by means of sustained slandering over the years of all the steps taken by this Government in an attempt to bring about peace and order and by representing us as a lot of villains trying to suppress people.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the public reject them as a lot of radical people. If he looks at his speech as reported in column 46 of Hansard, 5 February 1979, he will read how that Opposition party continually alludes to the fact that there will be violence if we do not do certain things. In that speech of his he said that if we did not reject the structures of discrimination, we would not be able to find a peaceful solution. In column 399 of Hansard, 9 February 1979, the hon. member for Pinelands stated that the greatest scandal in South Africa was not the Information scandal, but, in fact, the discrimination surrounding us, and that if we did not get rid of it, we would not have peace. I say to him that I reject that with contempt. The public of South Africa are sick and tired of those people representing the danger of violence to them if we do not do away with this or that. The public and we ask them whether or not they want violence. If they do not want it, they should always speak frankly, clearly, succinctly and constantly against it. [Interjections.]

Slow down so that I can hear you.

Order!

Sir, for the sake of the hon. member for Pinelands, I shall speak a little more slowly. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that if we wanted to co-operate with Africa, we should have to rectify our internal relations position. The position is not only that the official Opposition’s radical standpoints are rejected by the Whites, but also that they are bedevilling the attitude of Black leaders towards the Government with their radical standpoints in which they hint at discrimination, suppression and the violence which will arise from these. It was only the other day, 25 February, when one of the most illuminating articles ever relating to Black/ White relations, appeared in South Africa. That article appeared in the Sunday Times. In it Bishop Desmond Tutu said with regard to those liberalists to whom he was referring—

On 22 February this year Chief Gatsha Buthelezi wrote another illuminating letter in The Cape Times in which he attacked South African liberals.

With their standpoints, their conduct and the things which they do outside and say in this House, those people have managed to create tension between Whites and Blacks in South Africa, which is not in the interests of peaceful co-existence of the population groups and people in this country. There is no point in their reproaching us continually with discrimination. The Government declared—these are its stated objectives—that within the framework of our policy of peaceful coexistence, we want to move away from discrimination which affects people. [Interjections.] If the official Opposition now says that we should move away from discrimination, I want to know from the hon. member for Pinelands whether they mean by that that all separation should be abolished.

Yes.

He says that all separation should be abolished. Does he mean by that that we should also tell the people of Pinelands that with an eye to good relations, the hon. members for Pinelands and Sea Point said in this House that the PFP would never be prepared in this Parlbament to accept legislation entrenching the rights of White communities to maintain their identity, for example, in separate residential areas and separate schools? If one does not have such legislation, surely one is leaving the whole country and all the communities in Southern Africa wide open to everlasting tension and conflict.

I am quite prepared to allow an open society in Pinelands. I have said so on public platforms and you know it.

I say to hon. members of the official Opposition and, therefore, to the hon. member for Pinelands as well, that one cannot play guitar in the Black Power band and think that you will let the Whites of South Africa hear “boere-musiek”. We reject that band and we reject the guitarist. We reject everyone who is a member of such a band.

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

No, Sir. If I had the time, I would categorically indicate to this House how the hon. member for Pinelands and other members of that party who are radical—thank heavens they are not all radical; but we shall try to convert them—have assisted in disturbing relations between people in South Africa from place to place. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should realize that if we want to co-operate with Africa, if we want to co-operate with the peoples in Southern Africa, it is imperative that we as Whites should not slander one another. We could take the PFP’s policy and we could muster the Blacks in absolute hostility towards the Whites as a result of that party’s policy, but what would we gain from that? What benefit does the official Opposition derive from trying to discredit us? They have become totally irrelevant. They cannot come into power and they will not come into power. Their policy is, therefore, totally irrelevant. What is relevant, is the Government’s policy and its actions. Let us in this Parliament be so unanimous in our intentions that we shall show the whole of Southern Africa as well as the whole of Africa that the NP’s recipe which has been tried, is the recipe in accordance with which we want to co-operate with one another in harmony.

I am absolutely convinced—I want to say this frankly—that if we look at the potential for revolution in South Africa—and it is an alarmingly great potential—every member of this House should call himself to account in what he does and says, so that we as Whites may jointly bring about peaceful co-existence among the peoples by not casting suspicion on one another’s bona fides in the eyes of the enemies of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to address myself this morning mainly to the hon. the Prime Minister, but before I do so, I should like to refer briefly to what could be called the Eglin-McHenry affair. As hon. members know, I was one of the five hon. members who were briefed by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the delicate situation which existed in South West Africa in February this year. I also wish to state that during the last week we have had discussions with Mr. Eksteen and also with Ambassador Sole. I want to take this opportunity in this House of publicly and unequivocally associating myself with the remarks made by my hon. leader in the House at the time when this affair first arose. My only regret, however, and I believe this is also South Africa’s regret, is the damage which has been done to South Africa’s relationships with the United States. Here we have the rather remarkable situation of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs calling Mr. McHenry an enemy of South Africa, while at the same time we have the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who in the light of Mr. Eksteen’s discussions with my hon. leader and myself, is making statements which imply that Mr. McHenry is a liar. I believe that this is indeed a sorry state of affairs for South Africa. This state of affairs was caused initially by the telephone call which was made. I believe that the PFP has done so much damage on the South African political scene that the sooner they disappear from the scene, the better. [Interjections.]

I should now like to address my remarks to the hon. the Prime Minister and say to him that much of what he said in his speech yesterday was very positive and very good and a lot of what he has said has been asked for by hon. members in these benches over the years. So we are very pleased to see that he has started off in this new direction. However, the situation in which South Africa finds itself at present, does require more from the hon. the Prime Minister. We in these benches agree that there are many dangers facing South Africa and we agree that in their dealings with Africa many of the world powers are motivated only by their own self-interest. We agree that South Africa must seek its own salvation and we believe that our destiny lies primarily in Africa. However, as my hon. leader said yesterday, real South African patriotism today requires courage to face the real challenges facing South Africa. This requires a new dynamic in South African politics. It requires new political thinking and new political attitudes. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that the old discriminatory, sectionalist and separatist apartheid policy of that Government now lies in ruins. Only a fool will deny this and only a stubborn fool will ask that we should retain these policies. We in these benches believe that in its place must come the spirit of reconciliation to which my hon. leader refers, a spirit of unity amongst all the people of South Africa, a spirit of renewal and of building South Africa. This is the call of the hon. leader of the NRP. I believe, this is the political soul of the NRP. This is the challenge which South Africa and the NRP now present to the hon. the Prime Minister. The question is: Has the hon. the Prime Minister the desire to do what is right? Does he have the commitment to get on with the job? Does he have the courage? I also ask him whether his party bosses will allow him to do what is right in order to unite all the peoples of South Africa. Here I do not only refer to the Whites. I refer also to the Brown and the Black people of South Africa. To do this and to achieve this does not imply integration as does the policy of the PFP. It does not imply the swamping of minorities. It does not imply the destruction of group identity, or for that matter, the destruction of the Afrikaner people, a matter which concerns so many hon. members opposite.

As a pluralist, as a person who belongs to a party whose political soul recognizes the right of groups to their own identity, which insists, in fact, on the right of groups to freedom of political domination by others—that is why we propose a federal and confederal constitution—I and other English-speaking South Africans who feel as I do are, I believe, the Afrikaners greatest allies, not only within South Africa and Africa, but also in the outside world.

Do you believe in an English-speaking group and an Afrikaans-speaking group?

We are allies, not only of the Afrikaner, but also of all other groups, regardless of colour or race, who seek and who desire their own self-respect and dignity as we do, and who seek the preservation of their culture and identity. I want to put it to the hon. member for Simonstown that I believe I can stand here and say unequivocally that in the NRP there is no place for English jingoes. I state that categorically. I have stated this on public platforms as well. That is the stand that I take. It is also the stand taken by my party. I was, therefore, particularly pleased with what the hon. member for Durban Central said yesterday when he addressed his remarks to his fellow Afrikaners in the Government benches.

The hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues should search their souls. They know the political advantages which they have scored at polls throughout the country over the years by exploiting sectional nationalistic Afrikaner sentiment.

You are talking absolute nonsense!

This is an absolute fact of life. The hon. member for Von Brandis says I am talking nonsense, but the hon. the Prime Minister himself knows how he has personally, over the years, used this tactic to gain political advantage in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that for the sake of unity within South Africa, this practice has to be stopped. I believe it is the hon. the Prime Minister’s duty to see to it that it is stopped. We have young South Africans of all race groups, of all language groups, defending South Africa and defending the borders of South West Africa. Therefore, this type of action just cannot be tolerated, whether it is done by English jingoes or by Afrikaner jingoes. [Interjections.]

As the hon. the leader of my party has said, South Africa today needs men of courage. I want to compliment the hon. member for Aliwal North on the speech he made here yesterday. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into it now. However, it takes courage for politicians today to take a firm line on homeland consolidation. There are many other similar cases in which, for the sake of political expediency, politicians can easily forsake the ethics of pluralism in South Africa to the detriment of the best interests of our nation. This is the challenge which the hon. leader of my party has put to the hon. the Prime Minister. South Africa is full of loyal, stouthearted men and women of all race and language groups, who are prepared to work for South Africa, and to make sacrifices, to fight for, and to defend and to build South Africa. What they are looking for today is leadership, courageous leadership from all hon. members in this House, leadership which will urgently get on with applying the essential principles of pluralism, with applying these to our political life. That leadership has to start here in this hon. House.

The ball is in the hon. the Prime Minister’s hands, and I ask him today what he is going to do with it. Is he going to fumble it for the sake of his own political party, for the sectionalism and narrowness of his own party, or is he going to take up that ball together with all South Africans to build a greater South Africa and a greater South African confederation? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member that has just sat down, has half-heartedly supported what the hon. the Prime Minister has said. I would like to give him just one piece of advice, namely that when one is leaping onto bandwagons, one must complete one’s leap. One cannot do a half-hearted leap only. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. His response to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will go down in the annals of South African history as the most disgraceful political exhibition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has however not landed on his feet, he has egg on his face and even in the very brilliant column of this mornings Cape Times written by Mr. John Scott…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to insult the hon. leader of the PFP by saying that he has egg on his face?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had egg on his face. It is a normal English expression.

The hon. member may proceed.

You are an English jingo. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a ruling on this point of order.

I said the hon. member for Maitland may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for me to explain the deep pride that I experienced when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke yesterday in the House. He showed us and demonstrated once again that it is hon. members on this side of the House who are the cause of dynamic renewal in South Africa and Southern Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister showed us a new vision, and we know that where there is no vision, the people perish. In conformity with that vision, we have seen that internationally countries are breaking up into smaller and smaller autonomous political units and are arranging themselves into fewer great areas of economic co-operation because of geographic and economic realities, prominent military and other challenges. All these steps have become the common denominator which tend towards creating such economic unions world-wide and is present also in Southern Africa at the moment. Hon. members of the PFP fail to see this reality in Southern Africa and has failed to be fired by this new inspiration that is now entering this part of the world. It has also failed to perceive the new perception that has slid into the soul of Southern Africa and it has failed to see that there is an imperative to build a constellation of free and independent peoples in Southern Africa.

The NP, that long ago came with the cry “South Africa first”, a cry that unleashed into this nation a concentrated purpose and unlocked tremendous life forces and has made South Africa the engine of Southern Africa, is now providing the complimentary ideal, i.e. the ideal of Southern Africa first.”

The hon. the Prime Minister has cast his gaze upon Southern Africa. On other occasions he talked of the land of the Southern Cross and he has, indeed, thrown out a new challenge for the peoples that live under the Southern Cross. This party, that gave definition to South Africa originally, that has created a constitutional framework to unlock freedom for Black peoples and people of other race groups in South Africa, has now brought to this House also new constitutional proposals to create a broader South Africanism in respect of the Coloured and Indian people and also a new sense of nationhood. The Prime Minister has snatched Southern Africa from the gaping and ugly jaws of the monster that foreign ideologies, in their wish to wage war across the subcontinent of Africa, have created. For all those that have eyes to see, there is a new alignment of peoples: fiercely free, politically independent, maintaining their own cultures, their own values and their own identities, but pooling their skills and their resources and their markets in Southern Africa. In all of this, South Africa has a decisive role to play, as catalyst in the first instance and as the engine in the second instance. The Opposition cannot see this. They are usually better at breaking windows than at building houses.

You should be careful in saying that.

It is ironic that it is the ideological threat on the part of the Russians and other groups from outside the subcontinent to harness the geostrategic resources of South Africa for themselves that have provided further impetus to the reality of co-operation in Southern Africa. If we look around us we see this taking shape everywhere. We see new rail links being built and opened with Swaziland, Mozambique and Zambia. On the communications front there have been exciting developments. There has been regional co-operation which is ushering in a new era in respect of communications. We see that Bophuthatswana and Transkei have joined the Customs Union. When we listen to Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Sithole, Smith and the leaders of South West Africa we see a new mood of co-operation. There are power-lines which are being fed into the South African grid from Cabora Bassa and redirected to Mozambique and other Southern African countries. We see training facilities being opened in South and Southern Africa to peoples of the different countries. We see prospecting and mining making new friends as we unlock the resources of Southern Africa. We see water schemes that are being planned and are under construction for the benefit of the regions of Southern Africa. We see factories under construction in small countries such as Swaziland, not only to feed their home market, but also to feed into the markets of Southern Africa, as typified by the building of a television factory. We find ourselves holidaying in each others countries. We see this with Holiday Inns all over the place whereby the various peoples of Southern Africa can spend their holidays in each other’s countries. We see heads of State and children from neighbouring States being treated in our hospitals.

We see active goodwill all the time, as we saw recently in the case of one of our fire-fighting teams which went to Beira. We also saw an example of this with the help given to the coal mines in southern Mozambique as well as people like Harry’s Angels and others doing work in Southern Africa to create further goodwill. This whole force is unstoppable and inexorable. It is in a sense beckoning the brave in Southern Africa. Yet the hon. members of the Opposition and especially hon. members of the official Opposition fail to see this.

The hon. members of the NRP talk about a confederation. They share some of our dreams, but they talk about a confederation.

Yours is a nightmare, not a dream.

Looking at the NRP pamphlet entitled “Walk Tall”, in which they describe themselves as the official Opposition of South Africa… [Interjections.]… they say—

[Interjections.] Their party is a confederal arrangement. They are loosely knit together. Even their candidate in Beaufort West, Mr. Van Schalkwyk, is quoted in Die Burger of 11 April 1979 as saying—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Maitland while he was telling us about the imaginative things that had been happening in Southern Africa and how the vision of the hon. the Prime Minister of a constellation of Southern African States, which would be dependent on one another, was evolving before our eyes. However, the hon. member must pardon me if I do not react any further to the great and distant things that he spoke about and now deal with the small and near things that have been causing so much commotion in recent months.

For six months now our Ministers and our leaders have been exposed to the sharpest spotlight which could possibly have been directed at them. Apart from a judicial commission, before which these Ministers had to testify under oath, and apart from the fact that their activities from December have been placed under a magnifying glass in Parliament, the Ministers have been tried by the Press, found guilty and summarily condemned.

By Connie Mulder. [Interjections.]

The hon. Opposition left no stone unturned in creating a psychosis in this country as has never been experienced before. By innuendo and insinuation leaders’ integrity has been called into question, authority relationships in this country have been broken down and honourable Ministers have by implication been accused of having told lies and having committing perjury. In a reckless way honourable people’s reputations have been rolled out into the streets in this country for Dick, Tom and Harry to trample them underfoot. Character assassination has been committed with ruthlessness and on a scale unknown in our public life in this country. The person who stood at the head of this whole attack, was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He set about this task with so much enthusiasm and with such a spirit of persecution, that it seemed as if he were being driven by a primitive urge. The hon. member had tasted blood and nothing could stop him in the process. Like a battering ram he was inspired by a spirit of iconoclasm with which he simply wanted to sweep away everything before him. He wanted to destroy the NP and the Government and did not mind that South Africa had to suffer in the process. [Interjections.] Now, however, the tables have been turned and the chief prosecutor is standing in the dock. Yesterday he said with utmost piety that we should trust one another in this country. “Heaven help South Africa,” he said, “if we do not trust each other”.

However, I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Where was that trust when the hon. the Prime Minister looked him squarely in the face and said that his Cabinet did not know about The Citizen? I also want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where that trust was when the hon. the Minister of Finance said that he had stated under oath that he had not known about it. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on and on and on with the one refrain in his speech: “It will not go away.” Now, however, the tables have been turned.

Now he has been stripped like old Amin. Naked!

It is almost morbid humour that the hon. member himself is tainted today and that the taint does not want to go away because the hon. member does not want to take the necessary steps to remove that taint. It is very clear that he cannot take the medicine which he has handed out so generously to others. It is clear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is cracking under pressure. He is becoming quite hysterical. Let him go and examine once more his statement with reference to the shooting that had taken place.

I would not even shoot him with a catapult.

The spotlight which has fallen on our leaders over the past six months, is now falling on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is only good and proper that this should be so. He is, after all, the alternative Prime Minister. [Interjections.] One should know that South Africa makes very high demands on its Prime Minister. One is entitled to know whether that person has the nerves for that job and whether one can depend on the reliability and loyalty of one’s Prime Minister at all times. Most important of all is that one is entitled to know whether the Prime Minister has a policy which can solve the problems of the country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not have the nerves for that job. He cracked under pressure. He performed an egg dance and contradicted himself. He declared here very piously that we should have confidence, but he spoke of a selective confidence which amounted to: Trust the Eglins, do not trust the Horwoods. In each clumsy action of his he was simply the victim of his own inadequacy.

I am going to be less sharp in my judgment of the loyalty and reliability of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because I only have circumstantial evidence. The hon. member does not want to take us into his confidence and tell us what he said to Mr. McHenry. We should like to trust him and we should like to react to his pious call to trust him, but then he should make it easy for us to trust him. He must give us a better reply to the question why he phoned Mr. McHenry. There are 200 million people in America, but he phoned the very person whom he had discussed the previous day with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Why that very person? His reply does not satisfy us. He said that it was a natural thing to do to phone Mr. McHenry. He said that he had phoned because he wanted to help. In a sudden surge of patriotic love he did the natural thing and phoned Mr. McHenry.

The question that arises out of this is the following: If the hon. member who so much likes to do the natural thing… [Interjections.]… is overflowing with enthusiasm to be of assistance, why is he so modest about the assistance that he is rendering? Why did he, after the high point of having made that call between his first and his second visit—it is not an everyday occurrence to phone America—keep silent when he went to see the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs the next day? Surely it was a high point? Surely he is not going to come forward with the new piety that in his benevolence he does not want his left hand to know what his right hand is doing? If ever there was an occasion when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to demonstrate his patriotism and assistance, if ever there was an occasion when he could not afford to hide his light under a bushel, it was this very occasion. He should have told South Africa: I am helping the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs by phoning Mr. McHenry. But, he kept silent about it. When the question was put to him in this House whether he had phoned him, his clear, categorical reply was “No”. The hon. member is making it very difficult for us to trust him when he acts in such a way. Most important of all is probably that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs challenged the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to deny that he had taken steps to cover his tracks. I do not know on what grounds the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs put that question to him—I just want to repeat that it would assist us a great deal to have confidence in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he could deny categorically that he had taken steps to cover his tracks. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one always envies the hon. member for Port Natal the strength of his voice and the richness of his vocabulary. He has utilized both of these today to charge the Opposition with being responsible for the fact that for the past six months, a debate has been carried on in the House on the Information affair. It really seems to me that if the hon. member and his kindred spirits carry on like that a little longer, they will reach the stage where they will believe that a PFP Government was in power when the Information scandal was taking place and that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, Dr. Connie Mulder and Gen. Hendrik van den Bergh were agents of this party. At a later stage I shall have something to say about a related matter.

I just want to react first to one aspect of the important statements the hon. the Prime Minister made here yesterday. It is a good thing that the hon. the Prime Minister covered a wide field of policy. That has given us the opportunity of having interesting discussions here. I think that as other speakers have already stated, the proposed overhaul and streamlining of the Public Service will be welcomed by all and sundry. Perhaps the most important thing the hon. the Prime Minister has stated, concerns the shift in the emphasis in our foreign relations from the West to our neighbouring States, as I understood him to say. Then, it is necessary to devote attention to all aspects of that shift in emphasis. However, all I want to do is briefly to say something about the economic aspects. There are indeed possible economic benefits to be derived from closer relations between us and our neighbouring States. I am thinking in particular of transport, communications, harbours that can be used, the obtaining—in one particular case—of hydro-electrical power from those areas, and perhaps in other cases in the future, and of course the fact that they can offer outlets, albeit limited, for certain products South Africa can offer. In the light of the fact that we are a manufacturing country, whereas our neighbouring States have not yet reached that stage and therefore have a need for manufactured goods, trade is possible, and that trade could develop. The fact is also that some of these neighbouring States have traditionally been and are still sources of labour for certain South African industries. Whether it will still be possible in future to make use of these sources of labour on the same scale as in the past, is something that will have to be looked into later on. Our first economic priority is, however, to create employment opportunities for our people. In order to create employment opportunities, we have to achieve and maintain a growth rate of between 5% and 6%—a fact that has also been emphasized by the economic adviser of the hon. the Prime Minister—while the highest growth rate that can be expected from the stimulatory budget that was introduced here recently, is only approximately 4%.

If we are going to increase that growth rate from 4% to 6% to enable us to provide employment opportunities to all those in South Africa who need them, a higher rate of investment is also going to be necessary and the most urgent need will be one of capital inflow. It is in this regard that our traditional friends and allies in the West can assist us, whereas with the best will in the world, our neighbouring States will not be able to help us. Since capital is the highest priority for ensuring further economic development in our country, we simply cannot afford to ignore our traditional friends in the West, no matter what good relations we might establish with our neighbouring States. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister has nowhere stated that he is going to adopt an attitude of hostility to the West. He took care to state that he still had admiration for the Western nations, etc., but I think it is necessary to remind hon. members that if we are going to maintain, extend and accelerate our growth rate, it is primarily to the West that we shall have to turn, because assistance in that respect cannot be obtained from our neighbouring States.

†It is now my task to return to a matter which has been raised several times, but which has not yet been dealt with. I raised this matter before the recess during the budget debate and when it was not dealt with by the Government the hon. member for Musgrave returned to it. Then, when again it was not dealt with, the hon. member for Bryanston returned to it. There were various Press references to this matter throughout the recess, and when we returned to the House this week, while the hon. the Minister of Finance was replying to the debate the hon. member for Musgrave interjected and raised once more the matter of $10 million that went to Switzerland for the purpose of spending in America in September 1974. At that point the hon. the Prime Minister interjected and said that he was going to deal with this matter. About half of the debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote has already gone by and I think it is time that the Opposition bring this matter up anew and once more request the hon. the Prime Minister to deal with it at the first opportunity. I do not want to go over all the evidence again that has been put before the House by myself and by other speakers who have raised this matter, but I am referring, as hon. members will by now know, to the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Durban North on Friday, 8 December 1978 (Hansard, col. 420) when he said—

The matter was left there on the basis of the assurance that it was not true, until the Erasmus Commission reopened the matter in its report recently when it said in paragraph 57-

The evidence goes on to say that the transfer was made. The commission’s report then goes on to quote other witnesses in support of the story, including Admiral Biermann, Mr. Gerald Browne and the hon. the Prime Minister himself. The hon. the Prime Minister has undertaken to reply to this point. I suppose he is going to do so soon and we look forward very keenly to this explanation. On the face of the documents which I have quoted once more, an explanation is clearly necessary and this is clearly the right parliamentary opportunity to make that explanation. As I have stated before, there is one discrepancy between what the hon. member for Durban North said, which was described as an outright lie, and what the commission says, i.e. that the hon. member was under the impression that the amount was R10 million whereas in fact, according to the commission, it was $10 million. This is not a major discrepancy, because at the rate of exchange obtaining at the time, I think $10 million was equal to R8,7 million. This would hardly be justification for describing the incident as an outright lie. We look forward very much to hearing an explanation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown put certain questions to the hon. the Minister. I believe he will get his answers. It was noticeable that he made no attempt whatsoever to come to the defence of his hon. leader. I can understand that if his hon. leader were removed from that position, he would get an opportunity, and I do not blame him for it. In any case, I think that it is in fact impossible to defend his hon. leader.

Before I discuss that further, I want to say that the people of South Africa have become accustomed to expect that when the hon. the Prime Minister’s vote is debated, the country will be given guidance with regard to the course to be adopted in the future. At this time of uncertainty and treachery, it is more necessary than ever, and the people feel more than ever, that they want strong leadership in the course they are going to adopt. The hon. the Prime Minister gave us that strong leadership in full measure and said that South Africa would adopt a certain course in this treacherous world. He told us that we in South Africa shall have to remove ourselves as far as possible from the disputes between East and West and that we shall have to avoid their conflicts, because it is in the interests of South Africa to do so. We are a proud people. We will not be trampled upon. The hon. the Prime Minister expressed that feeling of ours. The approach of the hon. the Prime Minister and his leadership is in line with the golden thread of the philosophy recognized by the NP for all these years. Therefore it is even more worth following and we can support it. When I think of the mottoes of our former Prime Ministers, Gen. Hertzog’s “South Africa first!” comes immediately to mind. Dr. D. F. Malan also said: “Believe in your God, believe in your people, believe in yourself.” We must not put our faith in overseas sources. Our previous Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, also said: “Fulfil your calling!” That is a positive and rousing call to carry on and to fulfil our calling. At the present time, I believe, the hon. the Prime Minister has added something to these three utterances. That is the word “now”. The hon. the Prime Minister says: “South Africa first—now!” He also says: “Believe in your God, your people and yourself—now!” Furthermore, he says: “Fulfil your calling in South Africa and in Southern Africa—now!” This attitude deserves the loyal support of every South African.

We should like to assure the hon. the Prime Minister of the fact that we support him and that we are behind him unconditionally as to his attitude that now is the time to fulfil our calling. When we take into account the political morality, the honesty of the Government, its honesty in its aspiration towards a clean administration, we state unconditionally that we support the Government. When I say that, it is also important to take into account what the political morality of the West in fact is today. I cannot do better than to quote from the report in the Sunday Times of 18 February of this year. The report appeared under the heading “Beware of the perfidious West”. Since I deem it necessary, I shall read an extract from that report—

The report further states—

When one takes this into account, the action of the hon. the Prime Minister at this stage is of the utmost importance, it is of the utmost importance that South Africa should not allow itself to be led, as other peoples allowed themselves to be led to their own detriment. I am not angry with the West. I only want to plead that we should go through life with open eyes.

The fact of the matter is that we are here dealing with, among other things, an espionage aircraft. It happened here in South Africa. For those who know, it is simply necessary to use the correct lenses and films in such a camera in order to obtain quite a lot of data. If one uses infra-red film, for example, one can detect high-temperature areas in buildings simply by sending up an aircraft fitted with such a camera. When one comes to a uranium enrichment complex where heat is given off at certain points, one is able to identify such high-temperature areas and to determine how the process works, by making use of such an aircraft. There are other methods as well which can be applied. What all this means is simply that this act of espionage is serious, for it has the same effect as if a spy had entered the building himself to find out what was happening there. I do not say that it has in fact happened, but it could happen. Under the circumstances, we cannot continue in this way.

When I look at the political morality of America and the rest of the West, I also wish to take a look at the political morality of the official Opposition. I ask myself with whom that party identifies itself and who the people are that are regarded by that party as their kindred spirits. If time permits, I wish to refer to two instances on the basis of which to find an answer to this question.

The hon. member for Parktown was also involved in the first case. I am referring to the case of Dr. Motlana. He is the chairman of the Committee of Ten in Soweto. He made use of the platform the PFP had created for him last year where members of the official Opposition were also present—their leader, for example. Dr. Motlana said on that occasion—

Thereby he implied that he stood for Black Power.

What did he say this year in the presence of the hon. member for Parktown? Once again the PFP created a platform for him from where he could say what he wanted to say, and say it more clearly.

Incidentally, it was not a PFP platform.

I quote from a newspaper clipping—

Did the hon. member for Parktown also applaud him? [Interjections.] It is a shame. They—the PFP—identify themselves with Black Power movements against the wishes of their own White voters.

The second instance to which I want to refer, shows that the PFP identifies itself with terrorists. I shall prove this statement. The hon. member for Houghton said in respect of the people who are detained in terms of our terrorism legislation—

Can you believe that? She despises our legal system, the “administration of justice” in South Africa, but she still wants me to believe that she defends this “administration of justice” when she appears outside South Africa. If she despises it in South Africa, how am I to believe that she defends it outside South Africa? I find it difficult to believe that.

However, it goes further than that. It also has to do with the execution of a certain Mr. Mahlangu. The hon. member for Houghton says that she is against the death penalty in principle. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member for Houghton and the PFP to show when they have ever felt pity for a prisoner, unless he was a Marxist terrorist. I challenge her to tell when she has opposed the death penalty, except in the case of terrorists with Marxist inclinations. I challenge her again. What we are dealing with here, is a selective opposition to the death penalty. This phenomenon should be made known to the electorate in South Africa and the attention of the electorate of South Africa should also be drawn to the fact that the PFP identifies itself with the enemies of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to return for a moment to the article by the hon. member for Sandton published under his name, David Dalling, in Punch of 3 January 1979. It is the story about “The Orderly”. As an Afrikaner, I wish to say this morning that I object to that story in the strongest terms. It is despicable that an hon. member of this House can write such an article in a foreign magazine which has a tremendous circulation and a tremendous number of readers. Anyone unprejudiced person reading this article can come to only one conclusion, viz. that it is aimed at placing the Afrikaner in a bad light. Why is a person called Kotze mentioned in this article? [Interjections.] I dissociate myself completely from what is ascribed to Kotze in that article. However, that is not the point. The hon. member for Sandton did the PFP, himself and South Africa no good by that story. [Interjections.] In fact, he besmirched the Afrikaner abroad.

He is a terrorist.

This action forms part of the broader strategy of the PFP to humiliate the Afrikaner. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I heard an hon. member on that side of the House call the hon. member for Sandton “a terrorist”. Is he allowed to say that? [Interjections.]

Did an hon. member say that the hon. member for Sandton was a terrorist?

Mr. Chairman, I said that the hon. member was a political terrorist.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

If it had not been meant like that, why did the hon. member not take someone called Dalling, Raw, Wiley, Eglin or Suzman as an orderly? No: it had to be an Afrikaner surname, viz. Kotze. [Interjections.] I think this is a despicable reflection on the Afrikaner and that is what that hon. member meant by it. Surely he knows that that type of treatment is not only to be found among the Afrikaner, but that it can be found among all sectors of the population and among all language groups. I can give him sufficient examples of that.

All the beautiful, noble and uplifting things and deeds done by the Afrikaner are suppressed, while this type of story is sent abroad to humiliate the Afrikaner. All that is precious to the Afrikaner is systematically cost under suspicion and undermined by the PFP and the English-language Press. The Broederbond, the Afrikaans language, culture and traditions are criticized. The Afrikaner has to be shown to be an oppressor and one who tramples others under foot.

Who is at the forefront of this agitation? It is the PFP and the English-language Press, and it is being done here in our country and abroad. As has again been proved, the PFP is at the forefront. Furthermore, they take the initiative to publish this type of story in foreign magazines. That is an outrage. They drag a place that is sacred to the Afrikaner, viz. the Kruger monument, into this as well.

I wish to ask whether the hon. members in the PFP who are Afrikaners, are satisfied with this sort of conduct. [Interjections.] I want to address myself directly to the hon. members for Johannesburg North, Constantia, Wynberg, Green Point and Bezuidenhout. I wish to ask them whether they are satisfied with this article. In his time, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was an important cultural leader in this country. He was a champion of the language, culture and traditions of the Afrikaner. Have his soul and his feeling for the Afrikaner been cauterized to such an extent that he agrees with this sort of conduct?

Is this the way in which the PFP and the calibre of people in its ranks, like the hon. member for Sandton, would deal with the extremely delicate situation concerning relations between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people in this country if they were some day to come to power? Would they allow their representatives to publish abroad such disparaging articles about the Afrikaner? Do the various Opposition groups in this House not have a duty and a task to solve the petty political disputes and see to it that we get a responsible official Opposition in this House? Should the conservative elements in the official Opposition not also consider their position and stand together to get rid of the present official Opposition? Can South Africa tolerate an official Opposition under the leadership of the hon. member for Sea Point any longer? Is an official Opposition such as the present official Opposition worthy of South Africa?

[Inaudible.]

When I think what this House was like in the past when there were patriotic Opposition leaders …

[Inaudible.]

Order! Lately the hon. member for Orange Grove has developed the habit of constantly talking to himself.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Orange Grove is hurt by what I am saying. I want to challenge the hon. member to come and oppose me in Edenvale in the next general election; if he did so, I would settle his hash well and truly, and I should silence him for ever because he would never return to the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] I have put a bigger and a stronger man than he in his place before today.

Can South Africa tolerate an official Opposition such as this one any longer? The hon. members for Durban Point and Simonstown, and the conservative element within the official Opposition, have a duty to reconsider matters and ask themselves whether something cannot be done to remove the official Opposition under the leadership of the hon. member for Sea Point and in that way create a proper Opposition which would at least be able to adopt a patriotic attitude in the House. Surely we cannot be expected to govern the country and at the same time see to it that there is an Opposition. However, I think that the hon. members to whom I referred, should assist in getting rid of the present official Opposition. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Edenvale will forgive me if I do not react to the speech he made, but I should like to trade a few punches in other areas by referring to a few other matters.

The hon. the Prime Minister, in a commendably restrained introductory speech, gave us some glimpses of change as far as his administration is concerned. He said that whilst he was not being over-critical of his predecessor, or the previous administration, he believed that there were policies for yesterday and that there are approaches for today and tomorrow. That is what he said, if I understood him correctly. The hon. the Prime Minister’s comments might, in general, have encouraged optimism about our possibly moving towards greater reality in government in South Africa. I want to say this morning, however, that I believe that it is necessary for the hon. the Prime Minister to define far more clearly what changes he intends making in a number of spheres. We are not interested, in the situation in South Africa at the present time, in changes that are of a mere cosmetic nature. I believe that what is necessary is for the hon. the Prime Minister to give us a definitive answer on a number of very pressing matters in South Africa.

I want to deal specifically, in the limited time at my disposal, with the very vexed question of land consolidation and apportionment. The history of land allocation to Blacks in South Africa is a long one and, in the very nature of things, a controversial one. One can go back to land apportionment before the advent of Union, one can think of the 1913 Act, the Beaumont Commission and, of course, one also thinks of the 1936 legislation. For practical purposes, however, I think that we are more concerned now with the implementation of the 1936 Act and the Government’s consolidation plan, in terms of which 1,25 million ha of land have still to be acquired. The 1936 Act is important in itself, and the quota of land for Black occupation has to be acquired. I think there is general consensus on both sides of the House about that.

The whole question was, of course, given a totally new dimension when the Government, in the late ’fifties and early ’sixties, indicated that its policy of separate development was designed to bring about Black areas which would eventually become fully independent sovereign areas in South Africa. At the present time the Government’s policy is still tied to the 1936 Act, although the hon. the Prime Minister has given an indication that he might be prepared to think of going beyond the confines of the 1936 Act. I shall come back to that question later.

In the censure debate the hon. the Prime Minister, with some pride, gave figures to indicate that up to 31 December 1978 the South African Government had spent some R350 million on land purchases in terms of the 1936 legislation. This involved the purchase of some 4 million ha of land. The present position is that 642 000 ha of quota land have yet to be purchased in addition to 564 000 ha of compensatory land and 250 000 ha of State-owned land. So 1,25 million ha have yet to be purchased in terms of the 1936 Act. Let me therefore repeat that at the time that Act was passed there was no question of these areas, which were being set aside for Black occupation, becoming the basis of independent Black States. This was an important new concept introduced by the late Dr. Verwoerd in terms of the separate development policy after the Tomlinson Commission had met in the 1950s. It is against the background of this concept that the reality or the unreality of Government thinking has got to be measured. It is also against the background of this concept that we want some reassurance from the hon. the Prime Minister, at this stage, that there is some move towards reality, even within the confines of NP policy, when it comes to the question of the consolidation of the homelands. The Government is, after all, still committed to the notion that the aspirations of Blacks in South Africa can be met through the development of independent homelands. That is their policy, and I want to look at the whole matter in terms of the Government’s policy in this regard.

I think we have to ask how practical this concept is, how earnest the Government is in giving meaningful effect to it, what the time factor is and what the cost of the implementation of this policy might be. These are all questions that urgently need replies. It has, after all, taken 43 years to acquire some 5 685 000 ha of land in terms of the 1936 Act at a cost of R350 million. It is interesting to note that in 1936 the estimated cost of implementing that Act was between R20 million and R30 million. So much for the change in the value of money. According to a Benbo survey in 1976, the estimated cost of acquiring an area of 2¼ million ha was R417 million at the prices that were then current. The 1977 budget provided some R50 million for this purpose, the 1978 budget a further R30 million and the budget we are discussing at present provides some R40 million for land consolidation. At this rate, allowing for increased costs, it could take at least another 15 years for the full quota of land to be acquired in terms of the existing proposals and within the confines of the 1936 Act.

I have dealt only with the cost of the land. There is in addition the all important and sensitive matter of population movement and resettlement. Again, according to surveys that have been done, to implement the consolidation proposals, some 175 000 families consisting of some 1 million people will have to be moved at a cost of some R380 million. This is in terms of a survey done in 1976. Apart from the cost, apart from the compulsory removal of people, one must realize that the whole issue of the moving and resettlement of people is a highly sensitive one which can encourage a very dangerous situation.

It is primarily the Blacks who are affected by these moves, but I want to join with the hon. member for Aliwal, who spoke yesterday, and say that, although the Blacks are primarily affected, there is also a great deal of uncertainty in South Africa amongst the Whites who are affected by the whole issue of land consolidation and land acquisition. Whites who own farms in areas contiguous to Black homelands feel that they are in a totally untenable position. Their entire farming operations and investments are constantly under threat and they find it impossible to plan for the future. It is therefore very important indeed that there should be some form of certainty on this whole very important issue.

What concerns me most is the question of what we will have left at the end of this pursuit of Government policy. After the expenditure of millions of rand, after the acquisition of millions of hectares of land, after the removal of 1 million people and after the creation of all the uncertainty and instability, we will end up with homelands that are totally inadequate and hopelessly fragmented, homelands which can never satisfy the political aspirations of the Black people of South Africa. This brings me to the question whether the Government is really going to be willing and able to move beyond the confines of the 1936 Act in respect of land allocation. It also brings me to the question whether the Government is still serious and fixed in its view that only one race group can be contained in each of the homeland areas they are seeking to create. Why not allow White farmers the option of remaining in the areas to be consolidated? I want the hon. the Prime Minister to answer these questions. Why not include so-called White towns in these areas? Leaving aside the question of independence, if one looks at this question of regional administration, it would seem to be the logical course of action to follow.

I know there has been a heated debate on these matters at various caucuses of the NP. The hon. the Deputy Minister has on a number of occasions, even as recently as November last year, been totally emphatic that they will not move beyond the confines of the 1936 legislation. He said—and I use his own words—“die grootste twis in die geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika” would result if this were done.

I want to test the sincerity of the Government in regard to this whole matter. The hon. the Prime Minister yesterday indicated, for example, that the commission would be extended in its size. He cited the fact that representatives from industry, commerce, etc. would be included in the commission which was therefore going to have a widespread representation. However, one very significant fact emerged from the announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, and that is that we find excluded completely from the membership of that commission any single Black man. While the Black people are most concerned in the whole question of land allocation, a commission is set up which includes all other interests, but the Government does not see fit to include a single Black man. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. member for Musgrave referred to the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the Standing Commission on Consolidation. This is a subject that is sub judice and consequently he can hardly expect directives to be issued to such a commission at this stage. As far as I am concerned his entire speech, like the question he asked, was premature. That is typical, because they are trying to evade the real problem.

I should now like to address myself to the hon. the Prime Minister and tell him that having listened to his introductory speech on his Vote, I asked myself on the basis of what formula and standpoint the leader of our country and our party approached the problems of our daily existence. The reply which I myself was able to find to this was that in the first instance, the hon. the Prime Minister told us what his target was and what aims we were striving to achieve, namely the way of peace and the recognition of the existence in international law of independent peoples and the recognition of the honour and respect to which each population group within the borders of our own country are entitled. This is the principal aim and target.

Apart from that the hon. the Prime Minister indicated, in my humble opinion, that he was prepared to adopt a sound rational basis of allocation of work in striving for this ideal. He announced his intention of reorganizing the Public Service and announced that several committees would be appointed. He expounded in a scientific and rational way the policy and the second leg of his formula, namely that he wanted to streamline the work to make it easier, better and safer. This is a sound approach and a standpoint which holds out hope with regard to the new dispensation.

The third leg of his formula is that he will exercise control regularly with the aid of the Commission on Consolidation, which has been at work for some time now and about the aims of which we have not yet reached a final decision.

He also envisages the re-organization of the State machinery. He wants to know to what extent our progress is in line with the needs of the times. We shall wait a long time before we are able to find a better basic formula with regard to the approach to the problems of our times and the Government of this country. I can only congratulate the hon. the Minister on that, wish him all of the best and give him the assurance that this formula will ensure him the loyalty he requires in performing his difficult task.

Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me, I would give the hon. the Minister an ovation which would resound from the cool shadow of Table Mountain, across the dry bed of the Limpopo, past the Matopos to the snow-capped tip of Kilimanjaro. It has already found favour among the responsible and balanced leaders to the north of us. They have already sent him the message. When it comes to peace, striving for peace and the service we render to our communities which we are called to lead and to serve, we cannot do this without the co-operation of the whole of South Africa.

The other facet of the matter we are dealing with today is unfortunately somewhat negative. I should like to deal with a few aspects of what I want to call a strange if not questionable alliance which we have alongside the standpoint, the leadership and the sober and clear vision of the hon. the Prime Minister. It is an alliance which is bedevilling the whole matter. In this regard I wish to put a pertinent question to the hon. the Prime Minister too. I hope he will do me the honour of replying to it. My question is: For how long can this country and the countries of Southern Africa afford to allow this forum to be used to feed those alliances which are specifically aimed at placing stumbling blocks in the path of our development? They are alliances that are proved by the contrasting standpoints we have seen here. Listening to the official and non-official Opposition has reminded me of the Biblical story of the two women who gave birth to two children in the same room. It was during the great drought in the time of David. As a result of the drought and famine the two mothers decided that they would eat one baby. A dispute then arose between them and they told David that they had a problem. The one wanted the remaining baby and the other said it was her baby.

That was not David!

Then it was Solomon. Solomon told the mothers that they had to cut the baby in two but the natural mother said: “Oh no!” Then Solomon knew whose baby it was. I saw what went on here. Speeches were even made against “jingoes”. When the baby got its name of patriotism, it was everyone’s baby. When there was talk of jingoes here, I had to listen carefully to be sure I was not making a mistake. Reference was also made here to loyalty and patriotism by people who had contradicted themselves the previous day in this House. First a phone call had been made and then it had not been made. Then apologies were made but no apology was made to one of the embassies in this country. What blundering confusion, and what illogical, inconsistent conduct, just to get hold of that baby because its name is patriotism or compatriot.

It is absolutely pathetic to have experienced an affair such as we have experienced over the past two days. They want to outbid each other in respect of loyalty and patriotism. I ask: What about the foreign alliances? As evidence of these foreign alliances and clandestine action, I should like to refer hon. members to Hansard of 4 April, col. 3983. The hon. member for Houghton stated her standpoint concerning the father of the patriotic baby who expressed himself as follows in The Argus of 4 April 1979, the same date—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with the ideas expressed here by the hon. member for Witwatersberg. Therefore I shall not comment further on them. However, I should be neglecting my duty if I did not react to the speech by the hon. member for Musgrave. For example, he made two statements concerning consolidation, statements which revealed his absolute ignorance of the facts. For example, he said that the Prime Minister did not intimate that the 1936 legislation concerning consolidation would not be taken into account. In his initial statement the hon. the Prime Minister said expressly that the provisions of the 1936 legislation would not necessarily be complied with as far as the extent of the land was concerned. Then, too, the hon. member made the statement that no Black people had been appointed to the central consolidation committee. This again shows the hon. member’s ignorance. It also shows that he does not listen when things are announced in this House.

He does not read what one says either.

The Prime Minister says quite correctly that the hon. member for Musgrave does not read what is said. This central committee is only a committee called into being to lay down certain guidelines. Then, too, regional committees will be appointed, and on each of those regional committees, representation will be given to Black people as well. However, it does not suit the hon. member’s book to take cognizance of that. He is another of those people who imagine that they have a monopoly on discussions with Black people. Those days are past, however.

It is with some appreciation that one notes that the Information debacle is no longer dominating this debate. The general public are sick and tired of this matter being discussed endlessly in and out of season. The public expects of us in these times, when threats and onslaughts are being made on us, that we govern the country effectively, that we maintain law and order and that we should not concern ourselves with matters which will in any event only be settled in about a month’s time.

In his statesmanlike speech yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly stressed that South Africa would have to seek its salvation in Africa, that we could expect nothing more from the West and that we should fight Marxism with might and main, not only in South Africa but, if the opportunity is afforded us, in Southern Africa as well. South Africa has much to offer Southern Africa. We can assist the states around us in solving a number of their problems. I have in mind a few examples of spheres in which they require assistance. There is their lack of technological development, the risk they run of being overcome by Marxism and many other problems. We could possibly help them to solve all those problems. When we consider what is happening in the rest of Africa and elsewhere in the world, it is very clear that Russian imperialism is expanding and increasing tremendously in extent.

A constellation of Southern African States as envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister could form a mighty bulwark against Marxist penetration into the southern tip of Africa. It has often been said that there is no significant alternative form of government to the policy of separate development, which is the policy implemented by the NP. That is the only way in which this country may be governed because this policy gives effect to the philosophy of the Afrikaners in particular but also to an increasing extent to that of the English-speaking people. The policy is based on the realities of the situation of South Africa with its heterogeneous population. The policy is based on the realities of South Africa. It makes provision for the fact that there are a number of peoples here, each with its own character, its own language, its own culture and traditions, and with its own ambitions as well. The policy provides for the recognition of the human dignity of everyone in this country, White, Black and Brown. It also makes provision for the fact that every person has human dignity. Inherent in this recognition of human dignity is the fact that because he is human, he wants to have and has links with a group and a nation.

In recent times ethnicity has become a swearword in the vocabulary of the PFP. They try to tell us that the Black man in the cities in particular has lost his ethnic links and wants to have nothing to do with his homeland. This is purely a myth and is without foundation. In recent times we have often had the opportunity, through the Commission for Plural Affairs, of speaking to Black people and Black leaders. I still have to meet one who says that he is not proud of being a Xhosa, a Zulu, a Venda or a Tswana. Each is eager to maintain his links with his homeland.

The PFP refers to the urban Black people as if they form a homogeneous Black nation, a nation for whom a place has to be found in South Africa’s political dispensation. This is in consequence of their basic error, viz. that the Black man in the White areas in South Africa does not wish to retain any ethnic link and that he wants to be known as a Black South African.

That is not so. They want to be known as Xhosas, citizens of the Ciskei and as Zulus. National consciousness is just as much of a reality for the Black man as for the White man. Black nationalism is a reality and cannot be denied or ignored. It exists, and in my opinion it is in the interests of all that it be encouraged, upheld and developed. Indeed, Black leaders with whom we have spoken recently speak with great pride of “my people in your White areas” and each and every one of those with whom we spoke looked forward longingly to the day when his State would have developed to such an extent that he could find himself a house and a job opportunity within his own homeland.

Therefore a government system in South Africa such as that advocated by the PFP, in accordance with which the Whites, the Black people and the Brown people would be established in a political unitary State, would be doomed to failure and chaos. It must be borne in mind that the dilemma in our South African politics is specifically that of minorities. There is no single nation in South Africa which is numerically stronger than all the others together. In a system such as that proposed by the PFP it is the easiest thing in the world to form blocs and alliances with each other to the detriment of minority groups.

In conclusion I want to quote from a work by Dr. Cas de Villiers in which ethnicity is discussed. He states, inter alia—

There is no denying the fact that when a person’s ethnic links are ignored so that he is unable to live his life in the context of the language and traditions of his own people, he becomes frustrated and a candidate for communism and Marxism.

Mr. Chairman, virtually the entire speech of the hon. member for Cradock will be answered by my speech, except perhaps for one remark he made when he said he was glad that the Information debacle had died down a little in this House and that people were sick and tired of it. I am also sick and tired of it, but I do want to add that we must keep in mind that the Information drama was written by the NP. All the principal actors belong to the NP. The drama was directed by two Prime Ministers, whilst the Opposition and the Press were only reviewers looking on in surprise as the drama unfolded. [Interjections.] However, I do not want to say any more about that.

I want to come back to the point raised by the hon. member for Cradock in reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave. This is in connection with the question of the Consolidation Commission. The hon. member for Cradock objected to the interpretation of the hon. member for Musgrave and indicated that he had misunderstood it. As I understand it—I have checked the Hansard of the hon. the Prime Minister—there is a Plural Affairs Commission. The purpose of this body is to co-ordinate and make recommendations to the Government with regard to the whole problem of consolidation. Under this commission there is a Consolidation Committee.

It goes together with the commission.

Yes, it functions together with it. The body consists of approximately 30 members and their function is to lay down guidelines. These first two bodies have no Black representation. Below them are four regional committees, and on these there may be…

There will be!

… and there will be representation of Blacks. The function of the four regional committees, however, is only to carry out an in-depth investigation. They cannot make any recommendations and it is not their task to lay down guidelines. That is the important point which is at issue. When it comes to laying down guidelines and making recommendations, there is no Black representation.

This brings me to another problem, and that is that we actually have three bodies on the Government side at the moment which are conducting constitutional investigations. The first body I have just outlined, and the second body is a Cabinet Committee which is investigating the position of the urban Blacks. I am referring here to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development during the no-confidence debate, and I quote (Hansard, 1979, col. 301)—

The hon. the Minister went on to say (col. 302)—

How is one now to understand the argument of the hon. member for Cradock, who is unfortunately not here at the moment? He says it is nonsense to speak of the urban Blacks, as the PFP does, as people who are independent or constitutionally different from the homeland Blacks. However, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development refers here to the Cabinet Committee whose task it is to examine the constitutional position of the urban Black man. [Interjections.] I am only quoting from Hansard. However, this is to a large extent a contradiction of what the hon. the Prime Minister said during the no-confidence debate. I quote the hon. the Prime Minister from Hansard (col. 243)—

It would seem to me that there is a contradiction.

Do you say that they are different, then?

Yes. I say that the circumstances of the urban Black man…

I ask whether you say that they are different from their compatriots?

But I am trying to answer the question. My answer is “Yes” and I am trying to explain why this is so. Because of the circumstances in which the urban Black people find themselves, they are different, as a political reality, from the homeland Blacks. [Interjections.] This has been proved over and over again by research.

However, that is not my dilemma. I ask what the Government means by talking about a Cabinet Committee which is examining the constitutional position of the Black man in the cities. They are the ones who must furnish the reply and not I. After all, the dilemma arises from what they say. I want to suggest that there is a contradiction or, at the very least, a confusion here about the terms of reference of the Consolidation Committee and the Plural Affairs Commission on the one hand and the Cabinet Committee on the other hand in connection with the constitutional position of the urban Black man.

There is also a third constitutional body, i.e. the Joint Committee of the House of Assembly and the Senate, which has the widest possible terms of reference. It may investigate the introduction of a totally new alternative constitution for South Africa.

So we find here three bodies, each one with terms of reference which have direct constitutional implications. To me there is one dilemma to which I want to come back later. As far as the one dilemma is concerned, the question arises of whether there may be conflict, duplication and confusion as a result of these three bodies which are conducting constitutional investigations.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended, I was making the point that there are actually three bodies on the Government side at the moment, each of which is charged with an investigation which has constitutional implications. The first one is the body charged with the consolidation of the homelands. The second one is the Cabinet Committee, which has to examine the constitutional position of the urban Blacks, and in this connection I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, with reference to his statement yesterday that some of the Cabinet Committees were going to disappear, whether this committee is one of them and whether it still exists with the terms of reference outlined to us by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations. Thirdly, there is a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Assembly which has to consider a totally new constitutional dispensation. It has an entirely free hand in this connection.

We know that a draft Bill is submitted to this Joint Committee by the Government, and in this draft Bill, no account is taken of the urban Blacks, or, for that matter, of any Black population group, in the alternative dispensation.

What, therefore, is the state of affairs we have here? There are three committees or bodies which have been instructed to examine aspects of the relations between our population groups. All three have direct constitutional implications. There must be clarity about these three bodies, because I foresee two basic implications. The one is that contradictions and confusion may result from the findings of the three committees; and secondly, these three committees may infringe upon one another’s fields of activity, giving rise to even more confusion. I want to give an illustration of this. Suppose the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Assembly began to consider an alternative constitution and they wanted to examine the position of the urban Blacks. It could then be argued that there is already a Cabinet Committee which is investigating that very problem. Suppose the Cabinet Committee wanted to consider a more meaningful consolidation of the homelands. Then it could be argued that there is a consolidation committee which can do that. Very great confusion could be created, and in this way the activities of all three committees could be hampered. The hon. the Prime Minister must give us clarity about the mutual relationship between these three bodies and what their powers are.

As I understand it, the terms of reference of the Joint Committee of the House of Assembly and the Senate are so wide that it can move into the fields of the other two committees in any case. If it is true, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior and Immigration told us, that the terms of reference are so wide that we can actually examine a completely new constitutional dispensation, then we are in a position where the terms of reference of the other two committees are actually subordinate to those of the Joint Committee. If this is not so, however, then it really means that the Government has in any case decided in advance what the nature of the terms of reference should be, because only Whites will serve on all three committees and the representatives of the NP will be in the majority on those committees. That means that we have a secret agenda for these committees and that we are going through a long process of so-called constitutional development here, while in fact the nature and scope of the terms of reference of each of those committees have been determined in advance. This is a very serious charge indeed. We cannot have a situation where we profess to the world that we are really conducting in-depth constitutional investigations, and then the situation arises where the various committees may act in conflict with one another.

†The dilemma which we face here is one central to the constitutional crisis of South Africa, and that is…

What crisis?

Mr. Chairman, we have a constitutional crisis. The Government itself has acknowledged that we have a constitutional crisis by virtue of the fact that they have appointed a Joint Select Committee. The Government therefore say by implication that the existing constitution is not viable and does not cope with the problems confronting South Africa. Why is this so? The reason why this is so, is quite simple. Up to now, whichever White Government has been in power, we have had unilateral decision-making as far as constitutional development in South Africa is concerned. Now for the first time, the Government appoints a Joint Select Committee of Parliament to investigate an alternative constitution, but it still does not escape the dilemma.

With the consent of the Opposition.

Of course. The terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee are so wide that the Government may even end up accepting the PFP’s constitutional plan. [Interjections.] Then we will genuinely solve the problems of this country. However, the major dilemma we sit with is, if this is not possible and those terms of reference are not as wide as is implied in the original proposal of the hon. the Minister, then we are deluding the people of South Africa with unilateral decision-making. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any need for the hon. member for Rondebosch to see crises wherever he looks. Surely there is no crisis. We are dealing with a developing situation and we are handling this situation in terms of the guidelines of a policy and a philosophy, and in terms of this policy and philosophy we recognize the ethnic diversity in South Africa for what it is and we provide a political dispensation of its own for each element in this ethnic diversity in South Africa. It is a programme of development, and as this development takes place, as it has been taking place over the past decades—more than 30 years—we are concerned with the fruit of our own development mechanism, and the fruit of our own development is the people who are developed. With the people who are developed one then negotiates in a different way or on a different level from the one applicable to people who are not yet emancipated. Therefore there is no crisis.

When we come to a new Constitution, there is no crisis either. We have only taken the initiative as we have gradually recognized that various nations living within the borders of South Africa cannot exercise their politics or express themselves politically within the typical stereotyped British parliamentary system. Surely we have perceived this, and we have taken the necessary steps. We do not find ourselves in any crisis. It is the hon. members on the other side, with their idea of a national convention—which will not be national in any way and possibly much less a convention—who find themselves in a quandary.

I think, however, that one must give the hon. member for Rondebosch credit for being attuned to the reality in South Africa in one respect at least. He is at least attuned to the fact that all ties have not been severed between the Black people who live in the urban areas in the White area and their compatriots in the Black States. Am I right in understanding him to say that?

Not quite.

Not quite. All I infer from that is that the hon. member for Rondebosch is not quite right in his view of the matter. I therefore credited him with more wisdom than he himself now implies that he possesses. Let us consider the facts of the matter, and if he disputes them now, perhaps I should first refer to the point he mentioned concerning the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations during the no-confidence debate, since the hon. member meant to score a point by pretending that the hon. the Minister had contradicted the statements of the previous Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister. I think one can understand their anxiety to score a point, because the problem which faces the leader of his party with regard to contradictory statements is almost unprecedented in the history of this House, I believe. I can therefore understand that he would make a very brave attempt as a colleague to distract attention a little from contradictory remarks.

It was an honest question.

I see the hon. member is very humble now, but let us go a little further. In the no-confidence debate, the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized the following points, inter alia, in his speech (Hansard, 7 February, col. 242)—

In saying that, he took up exactly the same attitude and expressed it even more forcefully than the previous Prime Minister did when he said that we were not making territories independent; we were also making nations independent. Those nations do not live only in the Black States. The citizens of that State, the members of that nation, live in a variety of Black residential areas within the White area. The hon. member tried to make the point that this was not quite in line with what the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations said at the beginning of the year, i.e. that we should be able to make recommendations about where these Black people fit into the constitutional frame-work of South Africa.

The urban Blacks?

These are the Blacks outside the Black States. I want to point out to the hon. member—and I think he will agree with me on this—that words—and his hon. leader is familiar with the use of words—can be interpreted in various ways. When it comes to a concept such as South Africa, there are certain people who speak of South Africa as a whole, and virtually still include the independent Black States in that concept. If they do not mean that, South Africa still includes the White area and the self-governing Black States. These are all still part of South Africa and it still applies to the citizens of those Black States, whose position, being in the White area, must not be determined only formally. Consideration must also be given to the practical ties or links which the Black citizen in the White area has with his Black State and with the whole Government machinery of that Black State.

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

Perhaps we can take this matter a little further when the relevant Vote is under discussion. I just wanted to draw the hon. member’s attention to this point.

Will there be Black South African citizens?

I could send the hon. member something to read. Then it would not be necessary for me to spend my time on that. The question of the citizenship of Black people is beautifully explained in it.

Will there be Black South African citizens?

If there had been time for that, I would very gladly have explained it. However, there is another point I want to emphasize.

It is a very simple question.

The hon. member need not be afraid that I shall run away from it. The answer is quite clear. Let me say briefly that as long as there are Black States that are not yet independent, the citizens of those Black States will be citizens of their Black States and of the Republic of South Africa at the same time.

And after that?

We are not forcing a single Black State to accept independence, and as long as such a Black State has not accepted independence, the citizen of that Black State really has a double citizenship, because he remains a citizen of the Republic of South Africa as well. However, the citizen of Bophuthatswana or Transkei ceased to be a citizen of South Africa when those nations accepted independence. That is quite clear. Is the hon. member still in the dark? If he is still in the dark, it must be Egyptian darkness in which he finds himself, such as prevailed shortly before the tenth plague.

That plague is sitting next to him.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take the interjection of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations any further by saying that the tenth plague is sitting immediately to the right of the hon. member! I am not saying that!

When we come to this truth about South Africa, i.e. the ties of the Black man in the urban area with his people with a political base in their own territory, I want to say that this is a truth which we as Whites and as Nationalists have not forced upon those people against their will. In fact, we are increasingly being told by the Black leaders themselves that they do not want to be divided into so-called rural and urban Blacks. Take Chief Buthelezi. On 7 February 1979—very recently, therefore—he said at the University of Natal—

He goes on to say—

It is quite clear—I do not always agree with the Chief Minister of kwaZulu—that he is talking the language of a Nationalist here, a language which runs parallel to the language which this side of the House has consistently talked through the years because we know what this language meant to the White people in South Africa, what it means to the Afrikaner and, parallel to that, to every Black nation and even to the Brown and Asian communities. [Interjections.] I could quote further. I have here a quotation of Mr. Tshabalala, the deputy chairman of the Swazi Legislative Assembly…

Quote an urban Black. [Interjections.]

He is an urban Black. He is the chairman of a community board. He was asked—

Mr. Tshabalala, an urban Black, then replied—

There we have it again: The concept of nationhood. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, now that the hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt with the arguments of the hon. member for Rondebosch, little remains for me to reply to, except three matters to which I want to refer. In the first place, the hon. member for Rondebosch referred to the Central Consolidation Committee. He will find all the answers in what I announced earlier during the no-confidence debate. He will also see that it does not say there that members of the Central Committee will not be able to serve on the regional committees as well. In fact, members of the commission are going to serve on the regional committees. The regional committees are the bodies which are going to do the practical work. The other committee is an umbrella committee for ensuring co-ordination. It is much more practical for the Black leaders to serve on the regional committees than on the Central Committee, because their interests are confined to the regions for which the regional committees have been established. In the second place, I want to tell the hon. member that when the investigations have taken place, the Cabinet still has to take the final decisions. In that sense, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Plural Relations and his Deputy Ministers will consult with every one of the Black leaders who are affected. That is the answer. The hon. member ought to know these things. One can understand it if other people do not know them, but he ought to know.

I want to thank hon. members for the approach they have followed in this debate up to now. It has been in accordance with my own wishes. I think that we should discuss matters of this nature on the highest possible level. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for this. First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Piketberg for his very illuminating speech on consolidation, the hon. members for Benoni, Von Brandis, Krugersdorp and Eshowe, who raised the question of the Press, the hon. member for Aliwal, who discussed the question of consolidation in the Eastern Cape, the hon. member for Port Natal, who spoke about the question of the trial by the Press, the hon. member for Pretoria West, who made a very strong speech, as well as the hon. member for Witwatersberg and the hon. member for Maitland. I shall come back later to the matters emphasized by these hon. members. Meanwhile, I want to thank them for their support and their enthusiasm in stating the Government’s case.

Before I go any further, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Aliwal, because he referred more specifically to a matter which is of particular importance to his constituency and to the Eastern Cape. I am told that land is being bought in the Eastern Cape on a large scale at the moment, more than in other areas. However, it is not possible to make more funds available to the Eastern Cape at this stage. As far as Transkei is concerned, good progress has been made and the purchase of land in the Bolotwa-Gwatya area has been concluded, with the exception of the land of one owner. Purchases in the Ongeluksnek area commenced last year and I expect them to be completed this year. Land is also being purchased in the Port St. Johns area at the moment. Furthermore, the hon. member referred to the terms of reference I had given this committee. I may inform him that there have been talks between us and the Transkei authorities, as recently as a few weeks ago, and that this matter is receiving the necessary attention. I thank him for having raised this matter, because I also regard it as important.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition discussed the question of consolidation and the purchase of land, as did the hon. member for Musgrave. In connection with this matter I want to make one thing very clear. In fact, I think it is time we all put this matter in the right perspective for the sake of South Africa’s good name. The fact is that the failure of the British Government in the past to hand over the former protectorates to South Africa, as had been supposed would be done at the time of Union, has created problems for South Africa when it comes to the allocation of land. Surely we cannot deny that. Surely that is so. At the time of Union there was a clear gentlemen’s agreement between Britain and South Africa that the protectorates would be handed over to South Africa for further development. That agreement was broken. In fact, the matter was debated in this Parliament.

The late Dr. Malan, when he was still Prime Minister, drew up a petition in an attempt to set this matter right. However, the British Government failed to honour that gentlemen’s agreement. I do not want to go any further into this, but as far as land is concerned, that is a very important factor in the history of South Africa. It is a very important matter and it must be presented to the world as such. After that, the British Government proceeded to grant independence to the former protectorates. However, when one looks at the development which took place under British guidance and the development which took place under South African guidance as far as rural areas are concerned, can there be any comparison? A Lesotho leader once said, “The only thing the British left me was a flag.” Surely that is so, and I do not say that with any intent to humiliate. The fact is, however, that nothing was done under the British period to develop the protectorates or to try to make them self-supporting. They were given to the people in an impoverished state. This, in my opinion, was the second wrong committed in the history of South Africa. It created problems for us, of course, because many of these people are connected by family ties. I do not want to anticipate the future, but I just want to say that I cannot see anything to prevent an eventual greater unity between some of these South African Black nations and their relatives. However, let us take this matter further. I take it amiss of the Opposition that they do not help us to set this matter right in the eyes of the international community. When the subject of land is discussed, they keep harping on the 13% belonging to the Black nations of South Africa, compared with the vast tracts of land owned by Whites. Surely the fact is that of the land owned by White South Africa, only between 12% and 15% is suitable for agricultural purposes. And we know that. Why then do we not say so to the world? Why do we not tell the world that the Whites must practise their agriculture on 12% to 15% of the land available to them? And why do we not tell the world that the 13% belonging to the Black nations comprises 50% of the agricultural land in South Africa? Why do we not say, too, that these regions are among the ones with the highest rainfall, and that they are among the most fertile regions? Why do we not put South Africa’s case? Why is the Opposition always using arguments which present South Africa in a bad light? I shall try to bring this matter home to the Opposition once again this afternoon, and at the same time I want to appeal to them to reveal the truth to the world. After all, they are truthful people and they always want the truth to be revealed. I referred to the report of the Dallas Investment Corporation in my speech yesterday. This company published a bulky report on South Africa, and I want to recommend this report to hon. Opposition members. We now have the situation that an enterprise such as the Dallas Investment Corporation, which came to conduct an objective inquiry into American investment potential in South Africa, drew up and published a report which contains a concentration of facts about South Africa, while one has to listen to the Opposition advancing arguments in one’s own Parliament which attempt to neutralize what is said in this objective report. What have we come to?

In what respect are our arguments against the report?

I am very glad that it is the hon. member for Yeoville who has spoken. I do not expect it from him and I respect his South Africanism…

Answer my question.

Do not worry about that; just answer the question.

I shall give the answer. The hon. member for Groote Schuur should just not get rebellious. [Interjections.] I am now talking with sensible people and not with agitators.

You are talking to South Africans. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is one of the people who mentioned the question of 13% of the land ownership on the German radio. Is that correct? Why does he not also give the outside world the facts I have just furnished?

Ask your own people.

Why does the hon. member not say, when speaking in Germany, that it is not only 13% of the land which is involved, but 13% of the best agricultural land in South Africa.

Ask your own people.

What is more, it is 50% of the available agricultural land…

Three per cent of it…

I am coming to that. However, go and look at the potential of that land.

I cannot say things which are not true. [Interjections.]

If that hon. member has calmed down, I shall continue.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now informs me that in order to come to an agreement with Southern Africa, we must “unite internally”. Those are the words he used.

If we are going to face dangers from outside, we have to be united internally.

I agree with the hon. member, but I want to ask him this afternoon, and I want him to think carefully about this: If he takes a look at Southern Africa—forget for the moment about the rest of Africa—and he sees the rich State of Angola, Zaïre, Zambia—the latter was a fairly developing country as a part of the Central African Federation—and if he looks at Mozambique, a country which was exporting food until a few years ago, he will see where the major powers had their way. After all, the hon. member is a globe-trotter, and he ought to know that. These are territories where the kind of policy advocated by that hon. member was implemented.

That is not true at all.

But of course. [Interjections.] Of course.

It was not in Zambia. What do you mean?

No, Zambia was held up to us on this side of the House—when it was a member of the Central African Federation—as an example to be emulated by us in South Africa. However, I can understand that the hon. member for Pinelands does not know. He was still doing other work at that time. [Interjections.]

Order!

When the hon. member looks at those countries now, does he believe that we should take our foot off the brake in South Africa and allow conditions to develop which would have similar consequences?

No.

Very well. Then I say, in the first place, that South Africa must always conduct itself in such a way that it will be able to attract the investor who is looking for security for his investments. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must realize that he is not the only one who talks to these people. From the nature of the case, these people come to call on me in South Africa in their dozens.

He only speaks on the telephone! [Interjections.]

Order!

They come from America, from Europe and from other countries, the names of which I do not even want to mention here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be surprised to know where they do come from to look at “bad” South Africa. I can confirm that not one of the people who have visited me in my office during the past six months—and there have been many of them, dozens of them; prominent people—told me that they would go back and advise their people against investing in South Africa. On the contrary, they all said they were looking for stability, security for their money and a strong Government. They all expressed the conviction that South Africa was a field of investment for them. Moreover, it says so in this report from which I have quoted, a report which I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to read. It says so in this report. They say that when one has separated the chaff from the wheat, one thing can be made very clear: South Africa is a safe field of investment, and they advise people to come here with their money.

But we do the same. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is not following my argument. If the hon. member wants to talk to himself…

I am not talking to myself; I am talking to you.

… he must please withdraw. We cannot both speak at the same time. It is not possible for us both to speak at the same time. We can sing together, if the hon. member does not sing out of tune. What South Africa has managed to do under this Government has been to make and to keep it attractive for people to invest their money here. If one ensures that money is safeguarded, that investments are safe, surely this is one of the ways of providing work, and when one provides work, surely this is one of the ways of raising the standard of living of one’s people, and when one is able to raise people’s standard of living, this is one of the ways in which one can make people happier as families and as communities.

In the second place, when one compares South Africa with the rest of Africa and even with certain European States, it is much better off in respect of the care and housing of families and the social circumstances in which they live. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that our conduct at home should be such that we may gain the goodwill of the people, and I agree with him. However, one does not obtain goodwill in this way only. There is a new development taking place in Southern Africa, and that is that responsible leaders are saying that they do not want to have a repetition, in South West or in Rhodesia and in other Black States of Southern Africa, of what happened beyond our borders. They are beginning to say openly that they will co-operate with South Africa because it is in the interests of their respective countries. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not urge me to mention any names. He knows whom I am referring to. He knows that only last week, one of these leaders appeared on the South African television. I happen to know how that leader feels. I also happen to know how other Black leaders feel, because I also talk to them, and I talk to them by putting my own policy to them. I do not run away from my policy.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now asks me what my vision of the future is. We must not have too many visions, because it is a very dangerous thing to start having visions. One ends up by living in one’s own dream world, as in the case of hon. members of the PFP. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the PFP dream their dreams, but they remain in the Opposition.

We have beautiful dreams while you only have “Nat” dreams. [Interjections.]

That charming hon. member is always dreaming that they are already governing the country. If he wants to keep on dreaming that, he is welcome to do so. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti was very excited during his speech this morning. He said that the Government’s policy was in ruins. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that I should explain my vision to him. Under this Government, two Black States have become independent without a shot being fired. What is more, the rest of the Black nations in South Africa have all obtained self-government under this Government without a revolution. Is that not an achievement? The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, however, tells me that our policy is in ruins. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what my vision was. I want to tell him that one of the visions we have already realized is for people to become free without revolution and war.

To resolve the conflict in the country?

Of course. After all, there is no conflict between the leaders of the Black States and the Government.

Why did Transkei then break all diplomatic relations with South Africa? [Interjections.]

There he starts harping on his old string again! [Interjections.] This hon. member is permanently pessimistic. We talk to the leaders of Transkei when we want to communicate with one another.

Why then did they break all diplomatic relations with South Africa?

Because they had been misled. [Interjections.] However, they have dealt with those who misled them. [Interjections.] Or are they also friends of the hon. member? [Interjections.] The hon. member should not repudiate his friends like that.

In the second place, it is my vision that every nation that lives in the Republic of South Africa and that lived here before Transkei and Bophuthatswana became independent is a minority vis-à-vis the rest. This is a fact which the Opposition cannot deny and which we cannot deny either.

We accept that.

Therefore the rights of minorities are fundamental to our problem in Southern Africa. It is not a racial problem in the first place. It is only by chance that it happens to involve race as well. Our fundamental problem, however, is that of minorities, and the only way in which one can deal with such minorities is to accept the second principle, i.e. to allow them to exercise their right to self-determination as far as it is within one’s power. The NP was founded on the principle of self-determination. As long as I am the leader of this party and as long as it is controlled by the congresses which control it at present and by like-minded people, the principle of self-determination for minority groups and for nations in South Africa will not be relinquished. That is the second leg of my vision.

The Republic of South Africa is not a nation of 20 million people without any differentiation, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has on occasion implied and as we have been told from the Opposition benches. We are a group of nations, and we must take that into account, because each of these nations has its own language, its own traditions, its own ideals, to a large extent its own way of living and its own codes of conduct as well.

What about the two White groups?

Oh, please! Do give me a chance to speak. Within the ranks of White South Africa there are minority groups whose interests must be protected. The hon. member knows that, after all. Therefore our challenge is the challenge of minority groups. The hon. member now asks me what I stand for and what I believe in. I shall be frank with him. Firstly, I believe in nationalism, but in a nationalism which is not imperialist. Secondly, I believe in a nationalism which does take into account the existence of an international community. Thirdly, I believe in a nationalism which is balanced, which recognizes the rights of others, and if there is one thing which is characteristic of the NP’s history, it is the fact that it recognizes the rights of others.

Have you ever heard of the Group Areas Act?

Mr. Chairman, if I had not known that hon. member so well, I would have taken him seriously.

That is not an answer.

Order!

Let me give him examples of the recognition of rights. The NP has been governing this country for 30 years, and have there ever been fewer complaints among the various minority groups in White South Africa in respect of their language rights, cultural rights, spiritual traditions and religious freedom than there are today?

If you believe that, you will believe anything.

Has there ever been less bitterness between the various White population groups than at the moment? The proof of this is the unity which we have in our armed forces in respect of the protection of the sovereignty and the security of South Africa. I am also privileged to attend gatherings of minority groups among the White population, and I say there has never been the measure of goodwill between various language groups, no matter how small, that there is today in White South Africa.

Finally, it is my belief that as far as possible, we should give every population group—the Black, Brown and South African Indian population—the opportunity to have machinery made available to them through which they can maintain, carry out and give expression to those things that are theirs. That is the nationalism I believe in.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we had established a Joint Select Committee and he wanted to know from me: “What is negotiable?” Why does he ask me that question? After all, he is on that committee as well. I could ask him a better question, and that is: “What is negotiable in your policy?”

We have already said that.

I thought we were going to this committee—that is why the Government took the step it did—to tell the country that there is criticism of our proposals, that there are questions which are being asked, that there is opposition from the Opposition ranks and that we are therefore prepared to argue our standpoint round a table and to listen to the representations people may make. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now want to anticipate the work of the Joint Select Committee? Then I need not have established that committee. Or is he perhaps looking for an opportunity to get out of it?

I will enjoy taking part in it.

Of one thing I can assure him, and I shall tell him now what that is: Nothing will happen in the future which deviates from the principles I have just outlined here.

The hon. member for Durban Point tried to make his speech interesting with words. In the first place, he spoke of federation, although that is not his party’s policy. He says they stand for confederation. Now he seems to stand for both, i.e. for a federal confederation.

Federation in the common area and confederation in the national sphere.

I now want to put something to the hon. member. In South Africa, not far from Cape Town—one could get there in a day, if the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs were to relax the speed limit a little—two sovereign, independent countries lie next to each other: Lesotho and Transkei. Nothing prevents them from merging. Nothing prevents them from becoming a federation and nothing prevents them from becoming a confederation. Why do they not do it? [Interjections.]

Order!

They would if there were a strong motive for doing so.

What is more, there are yet other independent countries in Southern Africa, countries over which we have no control. Why do they not found a federation or a confederation?

We hope they will.

They will not, because they are different.

No way! No one has taken the initiative.

My predecessor, Sir, said in public that he would have no objection if the Black States of South Africa were to found a federation. But to this day they have not done so.

Transkei has only been independent for two years. Give them a chance.

My trouble with the hon. member for Durban Point, with whom I get along fairly well in life, is that he wants to do something about the end of the road before the road has been completed.

What do these people need? Let us be frank with one another, without using a lot of figures or other things. The fact is that generally speaking, the Black man lags behind the White man. Surely that is so, and surely it is not the fault of this Government that it is so. It is an historical fact, and the situation of the Black man can only change for the better when he has learnt to do certain things which the White man has been doing for a long time. I do not say this in a humiliating sense and I hope it will not be so interpreted. Let us take Zambia as an example again and prove, with the aid of a small illustration, what I want to say. When I was in Caprivi a few weeks ago, I asked the Chief Minister there: “The people on the other side of the border are related to you, aren’t they?” He said: “Yes.” Then I asked him: “Do you still visit each other?” He said: “Oh, yes, on many occasions we visit each other across the border, but they come here more than we go there.” Thereupon I asked him: “Why?” He replied: “Because they come to our shops to buy. They have no salt on the other side; they have no mealie-meal; they have no soap. They need the ordinary necessities of life and they come to buy them in the shops of the Caprivi, because they do not have them any more and their money is worth nothing.”

Can you understand now, Sir, why the people in Caprivi and in the rest of South West want to preserve the ties of friendship with South Africa, “bad” South Africa which is so reprehensible in the eyes of the Opposition? The people from beyond our borders come here in search of a livelihood. 500 000 of them, aliens, come to work here illegally. We cannot get them out of the country. And when the people beyond our borders flee, they do not flee north, west or east, but south, to this “country of evil”.

Therefore, if we want to do something for the Black people of South Africa, the Black States, we must begin by teaching them to use the facilities that exist for them to be trained and to help us to improve those facilities; secondly, to make better use of the in-service training in respect of which the hon. the Minister of Finance has again made money available; thirdly, to utilize the housing facilities that exist for them and to make a home for their families; and, fourthly, to use the administrations we are helping to create for them in such a way that they may learn to administer and to govern a country. When we have helped them do all this and they have attained self-government, they will be better able to exercise their freedom. Meanwhile, we can provide valuable services for them in the field of agriculture and health, in the technological field, in the combating of animal diseases, locust plagues, etc., which are on the increase in Africa again. Then, however, we must stop shouting at one another across the floor of this House and we must do those things that are obvious and map out the road from here to the final destination. Leave the creation of that federation, or confederation or conglomeration, which the hon. member wants to found, to the future.

†I want to tell hon. members that I believe that if one wants to make a success of this, one must first of all try to make every one of these peoples independent, and when they have become independent, we can meet around the table as equals and discuss one another’s problems and say: “In this respect I can help you, but in that sphere I cannot help you; there you must help yourself.”

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the homelands which have not yet accepted independence, are prepared to accept independence at the present time and, if not, why not?

The trouble is that although I have been telling the hon. member for the past 20 minutes why this is not the case, he seems not to have listened. Let me tell him again that two homelands are already independent and that Venda wants to become independent this year.

What about kwaZulu?

I have had talks with the Venda leaders in the most cordial atmosphere on two occasions during the past two or three months. I have told them in what respects we can help them and in what respects we cannot help them. Now the hon. member asks: “What about kwaZulu?” KwaZulu is not yet independent, but it can become independent tomorrow if it wants to. However, I think one of the reasons why they are not yet independent has to do with consolidation. For that reason, I have said in this House that we should reconsider the whole question of consolidation. Why? After all, we did not fragment kwaZulu. We have already consolidated kwaZulu to a large extent. It was under British rule that it was fragmented the way it was and still is. The Natalians are the ones who did it to kwaZulu, after all. Now those hon. members ask what my vision is. I say that one can found as many confederations and federations as one likes, but if one does not pay attention to these elementary aspects of the people’s national life and if one does not help them to help themselves, one’s attempt will come to grief, as all the other attempts in the rest of Africa have come to grief.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: When he talks about consolidation, how does he see the urban Blacks in relation to consolidation?

I am coming to that. I understand that the hon. member means well, but I want to answer him in language he will understand and say that he must not be in such a great hurry, because the road to heaven is a difficult one! [Interjections.] We believe that we should in the first place give our own people, the Black South Africans, who belong to various nations, a basis from which they can proceed along the road of their constitutional development and the growth of their nationhood. We have been in power for only 30 years. However, when one goes back in the history of South Africa, one will find that National South Africa, Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africa, has been in control of the country’s destiny for a very short time in the period of 300 years. For the rest, the country’s destiny has been in the hands of two empires. In the first place, there were the Dutch, the ones who are the most strident in their condemnation of us today, but who made the biggest mess here, and secondly, the British, who wash their hands of every problem. I say that if blame has to be apportioned—which I am not always prepared to do, because other circumstances also contributed—the blame must not be laid at the door of National South Africa, but at the door of the super-powers that wanted, from outside, to cast South Africa into their mould, and left South Africa in a sorry plight in many respects. Surely the hon. member knows that that is the truth.

Did they pass the Immorality Act?

There he is on the subject of immorality again. That hon. member has only one idea in his head, and that is immorality.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to unemployment and I am grateful to him for doing so. He made a contribution which was worth listening to. He spoke about the dangers which may arise from unemployment I agree with him. I share his concern about it. The Economic Advisory Board has submitted a very well-considered report to the Government on this subject. There are several ways in which we can combat unemployment. One of the ways in which unemployment can be combated is to boost the economy of the country, and this the Government is doing. Surely the hon. member agrees that the Government is doing so. Secondly, the development of the Black States—that part of the country where the Black nations have their home—is of the utmost importance. And what happened through all the years when this Government was struggling to get border industries started and to attract capital? Then the resistance came from those benches. They tried to cast suspicion on it all, yet jobs were created for hundreds of thousands of people from those Black States. We are also establishing and developing tens, hundreds of towns in the Black homelands. This must be done on an even larger scale because the machinery must be set in motion there so that their economy may become self-supporting. Are those hon. members going to help us with that? Fourteen days ago, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations held a conference in Cape Town which was attended by Black leaders and more than 30 prominent industrial leaders of South Africa, including people such as Dr. Willem de Villiers, Dr. Anton Rupert, Mr. Punch Barlow, Siemens and others—all prominent people. These people held consultations with the Black leaders and with the development corporations about plans and practical methods for getting things off the ground there. However, hon. members opposite always want to belittle these things. If they do not want to belittle them, they must rise and tell the world that there is an opportunity here to give people new hope, new forms of expression, new opportunities, new housing possibilities and a new family life. Instead of criticizing us, they should rather help us financially so that we may develop those territories.

We have often done that.

I shall tell hon. members what I told the five Western powers in this connection. I told them that instead of wasting R200 million or R300 million on Untag on the borders of South West, they should rather make half of that available to us for developing our Black territories.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked me a second question. He wanted to know whether leaks about possible strikes against terrorist camps did take place.

†My reply is that it is a matter I should not like to discuss in public, but I am prepared to discuss it with him privately.

The hon. member raised another matter when he said that he welcomed my proposal to rationalize the Civil Service. He used the words: “The time has come to lift the carpet and clean up the mess underneath.” I am very sorry that the hon. member used those words…

I did not use the words in relation to the Civil Service. I used it in relation to our problems.

I have read the hon. member’s speech, and I hope he will get an opportunity to say what he did in fact say.

We dissociate ourselves with that statement. [Interjections.]

What did I say? [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Houghton only laughs at South Africa.

What did I do now?

However, if one wants to see her in a serious mood, one should go and look at her in the front rank who plead for the lives of terrorists who have been condemned. [Interjections.] She does not even phone; she simply finds herself in that despicable company all the time. [Interjections.]

Take your tranquillizer.

That hon. member probably needs three tranquillizers to be able to think clearly.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Durban Point today: I shall not allow the Public Service Commission or the Public Service to be slandered.

Nobody did that.

Very well, then I accept it This rationalization is not an attempt to clean up a mess.

I did not say that. I said it was to clean up a top-heavy administration.

It is an attempt to place the Public Service on a proper and modern footing. I expressly stated that it was not a reflection on procedures followed up to now.

It is top-heavy.

No. That is not correct. It is not because the Public Service is top-heavy; that is absolute nonsense.

Read my Hansard…

I have already said that I accept the hon. member’s word, but I just wanted to make it quite clear that we should not confuse these two matters. The Public Service of South Africa is a fine organization, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to our officials.

The hon. member went on to say: “The hon. the Prime Minister must not say that the West is rotten.” But I never said the West was rotten. What I did say was “We are disillusioned with the West”, and I believe the hon. member for Durban Point is too. What has happened here? Every Black leader in Africa with whom one talks today tells one that the one great grievance they have is that they do not know where they stand with the West. When one talks to those Eastern nations which stand for freedom and which want to remain a part of the Free World, they also say that they do not know where they stand with the West. South Africa also has that experience. I do not say they are rotten, but we are disillusioned with them. When the West has regained its sense of direction and is prepared to fight for Christian civilized standards, it will find South Africa on its side, because we are a Christian and a civilized State.

With that character, which is our own, we shall align ourselves with those who also stand for it, and we shall do so with all our human frailties. By that we do not wish to imply that we are little angels. The West, however, has run away from its own values.

That is precisely what I said.

The hon. member for Durban Point put another question to me as well, a question on the future of the Black people in the country, the Black people outside the Black States. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to him very effectively on that question.

Do you agree with him?

Of course I agree with that.

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member for Bryanston find that strange? [Interjections.]

The question of citizenship has been regulated by laws of this Parliament. The hon. member is fully entitled to move that a law be changed. As long as those laws exist, however, Parliament and the Government of the country are obliged to implement them. The laws provide that we not only liberate territories, but that we liberate peoples as well.

Against their will. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister made it very clear that as long as a Black State is not free, dual citizenship exists. But I now wanted to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition… I almost referred to the hon. member for Durban Point as the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

One of these days!

Yes, I would prefer that. [Interjections.] Then, at least, I would be sure that no inadmissible overseas telephone calls would be made. [Interjections.] I want to remind the hon. member for Durban Point of one thing. I wonder whether he knows that when a foreigner is living in Switzerland and his child is born there, that child does not automatically become a citizen of Switzerland. It still takes the best part of 12 to 14 years to acquire Swiss citizenship, if it is granted at all. This is the position in one of the most civilized countries of the world.

The hon. Minister of Health—I read through his speech—was correct. I agree with him. As far as I can see there will be Black people in this country. The hon. the Minister of Health spoke of Black South Africans, and said that their rights, as the hon. member wishes to imply, will not be jeopardized. When they become independent, responsible and proper arrangements will be made by way of agreements between the two Governments.

The hon. member is terribly concerned about the urban Black man. I want to quote to him again what a person who is in fact an independent thinker on political matters in South Africa and who is not sitting on this side of the House, Prof. Hennie Coetzee of Potchefstroom, wrote in a very interesting article. His approach to the Government is more critical than positive. He said—

He is supported by other scholars who have also examined and thrashed out this question in a country such as America. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point something this afternoon, which will at the same time serve as a reply to the complaint raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch about the inquiries which the Government is at present instituting. The fact of the matter is that these Black people are in our urban areas, and that the Government has already stated that it will grant them powers of local government. But we went further and told them that we would allow their powers of local government to develop further than the ordinary municipal level. This cannot happen overnight. The Government also took certain steps in regard to housing facilities, which means progress for these people. What we are investigating is to couple their further political aspirations with their Black States. In my opinion there are various ways of doing so, but we must allow ourselves to be led by expert investigations. For that reason a Cabinet Committee has been established under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. That Cabinet Committee has now recommended to the Government that six regional committees be appointed to provide this Cabinet Committee with advice on this matter of Black people who are living outside their own States. This is a further development. We have not even reached this greater development beyond municipal status yet, and we are still coming to that. However, we are already beginning to make preparations in an effort to develop a future concept. These regional committees have been appointed, one for each of the five principal metropolitan areas in South Africa. Provision has also been made for one regional committee for the rural areas, since many of these people live in the rural areas. In this way the entire spectrum of Blacks who, for some reason or other, find themselves outside the Black States, is being covered. Apart from several State representatives, the Governments of the Black States have appointed quite a number of their own leaders to serve on these committees.

These regional committees, which are working under the supervision of the Cabinet Committee, are consequently, with the cooperation of Black leaders from the Black States, going to investigate the aspirations and practical problems in connection with this matter. Opinions will be heard, and there will be an expert investigation into what these people want. Do they want to be detached from their people? I do not think that is the case because I spoke to all the Black leaders and I did not find one who said that the Black people in the cities and in the rural areas were any different to them, as the hon. member for Rondebosch is surely alleging. He is the only person who says so. The other people who feel as he does have all been tinged with the liberal brush. [Interjections.] I want to tell the liberalists that they should look at the mess they have made in Africa. People should look at Africa if they want to see what the liberalists have done to those countries.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ascertain very clearly from the hon. the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee on the urban Black man is also investigating a constitutional dispensation for the Black man who is independent of the homelands.

They are investigating far more than that.

I just want clarity on this one point. [Interjections.]

It is investigating far more than that. The hon. member has also inquired now about the functions of the Cabinet Committee now. It is my business and not his. The hon. member should stick to his own last.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we shall make a proper survey of these people in an expert manner, and that we shall see how these people and their compatriots may be linked together on the basis of ethnicity, traditions, language and ideals. If greater political powers have to be given to those people who have to be linked in some way to their Black States, we shall do so. But that is a consideration for the future. Now, however, the spade-work must first be done. We cannot put up the roof before the walls have been completed, for then we would be a lot of fools.

The hon. member for Simonstown raised certain matters which I now want to deal with. He asked whether I would table the report of the Erasmus Commission. Yes, as soon as it is available. He went on to ask about the evidence, but I have already made a statement on this matter to the House. I did so when I replied to the motion of the hon. member for Parktown.

The hon. member for Simonstown also referred to the question of the language medium. I hope that this matter is not going to be turned into an issue in South Africa again for most people in South Africa are advocates of mother-tongue education. There are hundreds of parallel-medium schools, and there are single-medium schools. Each language group has the right to have its single-medium schools, and I think we should allow these people to have them. But I hope that we will not reopen this issue—which was settled a long time ago and was a provincial matter which was thrashed out very thoroughly. I have been informed that this is the correct pedagogic approach and that there is nothing to prevent the establishment of paralle-medium schools.

The hon. member went on to raise the question of the Press. During the debate several other speakers also referred to relations between the Press and the Government. There is constant speculation on what the Government wishes and does not wish to do in connection with the Press. That is why I feel that I must, with the best intentions, adopt a well-considered standpoint here today in connection with the relations between the Press and the State. I think it is time the Government stated its considered opinion to the country. In the first place I hope that the various Press companies in South Africa will furnish the names of all their share-holders so that we can know who controls them. If they do not do so, the Government will have to make it its task to establish that. However, I commit the Government to striving even harder than in the past for the best possible relations with all sections of the South African Press, pro-Nationalist as well as pro-Opposition, White as well as Brown- or Black-orientated. Since I was elected Prime Minister six months ago I have tried to play my part in this connection. On two occasions my colleagues and I have consulted with the Press Union. I have consulted individually with chairman of companies. I have granted interviews jointly and separately to political correspondents, and I still do so. We have frank discussions.

As far as this matter is concerned, there is no lack of goodwill on the part of the Government. Under the dangerous conditions we are living through, sound relations must naturally receive a higher priority than under normal circumstances. The printed word is still the safest and most reliable means of communication between government and people. I see the Press as a vital conveyer of the correct information, not only from the authorities and other public bodies to the population, but also from the population to the authorities and the leaders of the community. It goes without saying that the channels of the Press, to be able to fulfil their function, should be kept as clean and untrammelled as humanly possible. To this end all three parties—the authorities, the public and the Press—have certain obligations. All our authorities—besides the central authority, also the authorities on all other levels, local and provincial—are in duty bound to be absolutely frank with the public, and consequently with the Press as an important channel of information, as far as is reconcilable with the ordinary rules of confidentiality and with the security and order of the State. What the public have the obvious right to know, no authority may withhold from them. Secrecy for the sake of secrecy, or to conceal incompetence and corruption, will not be tolerated by the Government at any level of the public administration. On this point we have in recent months been tried as never before. We are prepared to stand or to fall in the light of the ultimate public opinion, when all the processes of investigation which are still in progress now have been disposed of and when relevant steps by the State, as prescribed by its laws, have been finalized. I give the undertaking, on behalf of the Government, that we shall strive untiringly for sound, functioning relations between the officials of the State and the organs and the people of the Press who now have to perform their task of information and guidance in more difficult and more complicated circumstances than their predecessors.

I believe, in this connection, that I can lay claim to a certain confidence, on the basis of the extremely sound relations which have been developed and maintained over the years between the Press and the department which I control, the Department of Defence. These have in turn contributed greatly to the ever-improving relations between the Defence Force and the public, and that is after all our eventual patriotic goal. I have personally endeavoured untiringly to create a relationship between the S.A. Defence Force and the South African Press, a relationship which is today welcomed by the Press itself.

When I commit the Government to striving for such relations in all spheres of State activity it does not in any way mean that I desire a subservient, servile Press in South Africa. I have never been afraid of justified, well-founded criticism on the part of the Press, whether political friend or foe. It would be an exaggeration to say that my colleagues and I have always enjoyed it. It has benefited us over the years, for some of the criticism was the main cause of our sitting here today. It has contributed to sound government of the country, and without a sound, alert and critical Press no authorities can give of their best. To curtail that role of the Press is a certain road to great disaster for the State. Consequently it has no place in the Government’s intention and aims.

Today we have the right to be proud of the high measure of freedom which the Press continues to enjoy, despite the struggle for survival which is being forced upon the civilization in Southern Africa. It continues to amaze the open-minded outside observer. Many people have told me that they were astonished at the measure of Press freedom which exists in South Africa. We count among a relatively small number of countries in the world in which the Press may in any way be called free. We wish to remain in that company.

However, I would be misleading the hon. members if I did not also admit that a great danger, an acute danger, is at this very juncture threatening the relations between the authorities and the Press and between the Press and the public. I have pointed out the obligations of the authorities in this matter. I am profoundly convinced of the fact that we have, particularly in recent months, tried to comply with them to the best of our ability, and we wish to persevere in that. However, sound relations and Press freedom also imply obligations for the Press, obligations in the first place to the country and the public that has to be served by the Press as well as the Government.

My complaint is that in recent times Press organs and some members of the Press have been disregarding those obligations to an unprecedented extent. The freedom of the Press, as with all splendid and good things, is susceptible to gross abuse, with disastrous consequences. There are tragic manifestations of such abuse and such deterioration in a part of recent South African political journalism. To the disclosure and the healing processes of certain pathological conditions in the administration of the country there was a reaction in some Press circles which assumed forms which I cannot but term utterly sick. I am not going into the underlying causes now, but for months now the public has been subjected to an unbridled campaign of insinuation, suspicion, mistrust and disparagement without precedent within my recollection. It is as though a devil of political destruction has possessed the pens of some writers who wish to spare no individual, no State organization and no public process. It seems as though the participants in this campaign wish to pull down the pillars of respect, confidence and faith on which, when all is said and done, our society and its confidence rest in the shortest possible time, regardless of the consequences, also for those newspapers and their people themselves. I shall avoid mentioning names today. Hon. members and they themselves know who they are. So perverse have they become in their views that they eagerly seize upon honest criticism and indignation at their conduct as evidence that they are on the right track. Annoyance at their behaviour they accept as commendation, and rage as the greatest praise. They are the victims of a journalistic philosophy which is also causing increasing concern in other countries with a free Press, that is, the philosophy that the Press and the authorities are sworn and irreconcilable enemies and must be in a situation of constant confrontation and war with each other. What is to become of such an attitude towards the role of the Press as servant of the people and as public two-way channel between electorate leaders and the public, goodness alone knows.

I want to emphasize that what is essentially at issue here is the negative, destructive and anarchistic attitude in part of the Press. The issue is not in the first place some or other untruth or distortion, is not this or that contravention of written or unwritten rules. That is also there, but in the kind of journalism to which I am referring, these are merely the symptoms. Such an attitude among parts of the Press is irresponsible and will bring about the downfall of the democracy.

On the part of the Press Union the Government is being urged to make better and more frequent use of the machinery of the Press for self-discipline, as embodied in the Press Council. We take cognizance of that, but with all due respect to the Press Council, I want to say that the letter of the excellent Press Code under which it functions can hardly be effective against people and bodies who despise the spirit and essence of that code and operate outside of it. The question must also be put whether the Press Union has control over all the newspapers which are being published in this country. There are many of them which are not even members of the Press Union.

Like The Citizen.

Oh please, somewhere a needle has become lodged in the brain of the hon. member.

Is it true or not?

There is one ray of light in this sombre scene, and that is the increasing measure of resistance to and repugnance at what is being committed against South Africa in the sacred name of Press freedom, a repugnance which fortunately is not limited to the supporters of the Government.

This is the case throughout the country.

It is not confined to one language group or even to one colour group. It cuts across party dividing lines and is even gaining momentum within the Press itself, also to within the ranks of the guilty newspapers. That feeling of concern and rebellion is being conveyed to a greater extent to the Government in the form of the demands that it should intervene, whether by way of new legislation or by way of administrative action. These are demands which the Government cannot ignore and which it is conveying with increasing urgency to the Press organizations in question.

The feeling of fairness and decency in our people has led to their rebelling against what is rightly seen as a pernicious spirit in part of South Africa’s public information organs. I shall only like to take all steps which may be deemed necessary on the part of the Government after proper consultation with the leaders of our responsible free Press. We do not wish to pull out the weeds to the detriment of the healthy plants, but the situation cannot simply be allowed to deteriorate even further.

In the utmost seriousness now I am making an appeal to those who, with me, value sound, working relations between the public, the Press and the authorities in South Africa, to unite in helping to put an end to a situation which has become unbearable. It is the obligation of the public and its non-official opinion-formers to demand clearly and collectively: “So far and no further” and this must point the way to a sensible solution, which has now become a national necessity. I sincerely hope that this standpoint of mine, of the Government, will receive the necessary attention. I hope that a positive reaction to it will follow. I shall leave it at that for the moment.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised the question of a Government for South West Africa. I do not wish to elaborate any further on this matter, except to say that if South West Africa is to succeed in its struggle, it cannot do so only with the aid of a military operation, but also by means of good and effective government. The decision as to whether an effective Government should be established in South West Africa, however, rests with the elected leaders of that country. We shall to a great extent allow ourselves to be led by what they recommend to us. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have spelled it out to them. I shall leave this matter at that. We appreciate the seriousness of the matter. South Africa is not to blame for the delays which have occurred.

The hon. member for Durban Central had a lot to say about the Afrikaner and the use of the Afrikaner nation in politics. His first objection concerned me. His objection was that I had been a good Nationalist for too long. It is a good thing he is not a clergyman, for then he would perhaps have told the congregation that they had been Christians for too long to go to heaven. Surely the hon. member cannot reproach anyone for having tried to be consistent all his life.

He said you were a Nationalist of yesterday.

No, I am not a Nationalist of yesterday, because no Nationalist belongs to yesterday alone. He belongs to the dynamic strength which a nation has to prepare itself for the future. It is such a long time since the hon. member last felt that that he does not understand how splendid it is. Let me tell the hon. member this: No one wants to misuse the Afrikaner nation in this country. With all the faith I have in me I want to say, however, that the Afrikaner nation in its finest form, a form without the outgrowths which we find in every nation, is a stronghold of hope for many minority groups in this country. As long as all goes well with the Afrikaner nation, all will go well with other language groups and peace will prevail, but if one begins to demolish the Afrikaner nation in its finest form, its splendid history and its splendid traditions, one is chipping away at the cornerstone of the South African structure.

Who wants to do that?

I am not speaking in reproaching terms. That hon. member has been very rebellious since this morning already. I do not know what is wrong with him today. Has he ever heard this side of the House, responsible people, saying unsavoury things about the finest institutions of the other language groups in South Africa? We refrain from doing so. I, personally, refrain from doing so. Throughout my political life I have refrained from doing so, and the few occasions on which I may have transgressed were unforgivable indiscretions because the God who created my nation also created those people. I do not consider the Afrikaner nation to be a chosen race, but I do consider them to be a nation with a calling. In fact, I believe that every other nation on earth has been called to perform a specific task. I take it amiss of those people who commit excesses such as tarring and feathering in the name of the Afrikaner nation. I cannot associate myself with that. However we must not fret about these things too much, because such people will not make any progress among the Afrikaner nation. It has an inherent decency in it which repels such things. I want to add, however, that there are certain people in this country who think that they can get publicity by making onslaughts on the fine things which belong to the Afrikaner nation. Those people must also be warned. South Africa’s road and the road of the Afrikaner nation is littered with the bones of people who tried to be funny.

I want to make an appeal today from this responsible position. I shall not offend the spiritual heritage of English-speaking South Africa, but shall help to promote it. I demonstrated this in the Defence Force. I am not talking about what I want to do; I am talking about what I have already done. In the South African Defence Force I have guided English-speaking South Africa on the same course as Afrikaans-speaking South Africa. On the basis of what I have already done, I declare today that I shall not offend the cultural and spiritual heritage of other people. But do not present every rapscallion to us as a saviour of our nation when he begins to curse our people. I have nothing further to say about this. I hope the hon. member and I understand one another very clearly now.

I think I have already dealt with the statement by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that “this Government’s policy lies in ruins”. I shall help him to obtain a passport to go to one of the ruins and be received there.

I have already referred to the matters raised by the hon. member for Parktown on employment opportunities and the matters on which I agree with him. The hon. member put one other question to me, and I think I should deal with it now. It is the “million-dollar question”. In the midnight hours of the debate on 8 December of last year an altercation took place between the hon. member for Durban North and myself. But before I come to that, I first want to refer to the interim report of the Erasmus Commission, which also referred to this matter. The hon. member quoted from it. I do not wish to disparage Gen. Pienaar but I believe that his memory left him in the lurch a little. That general left the Defence Force for reasons which I do not wish to disclose now. However, he could not help dealing a blow to the Minister of Defence with his evidence. He is now in the employ of other people. If he wants me to disclose why he left the service of the Defence Force, I shall do so. However, I shall leave the matter at that.

The findings of the commission.

No. I am referring to the evidence which was quoted in this connection…

Are you suggesting that he committed perjury?

I am suggesting that he was talking nonsense…

Or perjury?

Why does that hon. member wish to defend him? Is he his brother or his cousin? The hon. member for Rondebosch is really an unpleasant person…

Groote Schuur.

I apologize to the hon. member for Rondebosch.

In my introductory speech to the debate of 7 December of last year, I explained my personal position in regard to these matters. I am quoting from Hansard (Thursday, 7 December 1978, col. 15)—

What happened then? In 1974, while I was discussing the Defence Vote, Admiral Biermann sent me a message on a piece of paper, the gist of which was that the Minister of Finance wanted R7 million from me—not R10 million—because at that stage my department was the only one that had such large funds at its disposal. Admiral Biermann and I both testified to that effect before the commission. I then sent Admiral Biermann a note, who was then Chief of the Defence Force, and said “No”. This was consequently borne out by Admiral Biermann’s evidence. Subsequently the Minister of Finance came to sit in the bench behind me here in Parliament—this was while the discussion of the Vote was in progress—and said: “Man, I hear you do not want to give that R7 million.” I then said: “No, I do not want to give it.” He then said that they needed it and that they would reimburse me. I then said that they could draw the money on condition that they reimbursed me. I then informed Admiral Biermann that he could give them the R7 million on condition that it was refunded to us. I have proof that we followed this up immediately with a letter to the Treasury to say that we wanted the money back. I also have evidence that we did in fact get the money back. What they did with the R7 million I do not know.

In the second place I want to remind the House of what I stated very emphatically on 7 December and I want to emphasize it again today. I was never opposed to the principle of making secret funds available to the Department of Information. I said so at the time, and I am saying it again now. But I was opposed to the way in which these funds were being budgeted for. I opposed it until it was changed. If I had known that the money was being spent in an irregular way, I would have fought harder against it from the first day. That is what this entire matter amounts to.

I now want to come back to the interjection which I made when the hon. member for Durban North was speaking. After the short session last year I had to devote my attention to other more important matters, among others the South West Africa question. I also took a short holiday over the Christmas period, and on my return I scrutinized the Hansard. I am in the habit of reading through the Hansard after a debate in order to determine what I did not reply to, so as to react to it. Hon. members know that it is a habit of mine. In so doing it came to my attention that apparently there was a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Durban North and myself which had to be cleared up. On 17 January 1979 I wrote a letter to the hon. member which, with his permission, I am now going to quote. I wrote to him—

†These were the words used by the hon. member—

Thereupon I received a letter from the hon. member which I am also allowed to read out. In this letter, dated 24 January 1979, the hon. member stated—

*So I have dealt with this interjection now. Subsequently the Press repeatedly questioned me on this matter. I furnished individual journalists with the facts. With that I believe the matter is settled.

I did react strongly. That is true, but I did so because I set great store by one thing and that is that defence funds should not be irregularly utilized.

Now I want to come to a further aspect From the first day when I was requested for the second time to make funds from the Defence Account available, I refused. I have proof of that. Moreover, when I was forced to make provision for it on that account, I specifically insisted on it not being appropriated as part of the defence funds. I also have written proof of that. I have proof of the Treasury’s promise to me that it would not be taken into account as defence funds. Thereupon I acceded.

I have already cleared up this point with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in previous debates and spelt out my standpoint on the matter. I also said that I was not prepared to break with the Government on a technical aspect. I did, however, keep on speaking to the present hon. Minister of Finance, after he took over that post, and told him that we should put a stop to it. He then began to prepare the legislation which forms part of our Statute Book today. So we did take steps to eliminate any irregularities which could have existed. I want to add that not a cent of defence funds appropriated for defence purposes for the Department of Defence was spent on these undertakings. There were separate appropriations for them and they were merely placed as an item on the Special Defence Account.

We were under the impression that…

Your impression and what I know are two different things.

Parliament thought that that money was going to defence.

Parliament could not have thought that.

I want to mention a further argument. There is a provision in the Defence Act which allows the Minister of Defence to do everything which in his opinion is in the interests of the defence of the country. I was in favour of making secret funds available in so far as it affected the defence of South Africa, because if, with good propaganda, I could succeed in keeping the wolves, the friends of the hon. member for Groote Schuur, away from the door, I would have done so. [Interjections.] After all, the hon. member knows on what friendly terms he is with the wolves. Those are the wolves who are trying to tear strips of flesh off South Africa. Yet those are his friends. Those are his friends and he is even beginning to look like them. [Interjections.]

Now I want to issue a challenge, something which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to do: Propose that a Select Committee institute an inquiry into whether one cent of the money appropriated for defence purposes was utilized for something else. I challenge you. I shall have such a Select Committee appointed at once.

What was the money appropriated for?

Because it is full moon for you now, I challenge you to request that a Select Committee be appointed to institute an investigation into whether one cent of the money appropriated for defence purposes was not utilized for that purpose.

I think that is a reasonable request… [Interjections.]

I have written proof from the Treasury in my possession. I also have in my possession written proof under my own signature to the effect that I fought against this whole thing from the first day and that I did not allow one cent of the money appropriated for defence purposes to be utilized for other purposes.

Were you interested in what it was being spent on?

I have nothing more to say to this House, but since I am being treated in this manner by the official Opposition I should now like to put two questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have now given a factual account of my standpoint and I can prove it with documents. I also had the courage to appear before the commission. The commission is still sitting, and now I ask hon. members of the official Opposition whether they are prepared, under oath, to allege and prove the opposite to the commission. If not, they have to accept my word.

I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he accepts my word this time.

On what?

That I have acted honourably in this matter.

If you say across the floor of the House that you have acted honourably, I accept it.

Very well, now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must reply to two questions I want to put to him. I want to put two questions on his travels in Africa to him. The first question is: Did you travel through Africa with facilities of the CIA? [Interjections.] You can tell us that right now.

No, but I shall elaborate on that.

Then I want to ask you: With whose facilities did you travel where you could not travel with South African facilities?

I travelled on a South African passport and South African facilities.

Throughout the whole of Africa?

Throughout the whole of Africa.

Very well, I accept that. Now I want to ask the hon. member a further…

This is already the third question.

No, it is the second question. The second question is: Did you intimate to a leader in Africa that, in the struggle for South West Africa the organizations which are opposed to Swapo are all “creations of the South African Government”?

No.

And if I tell the hon. member that I have a witness who is prepared to confront him with this, i.e. that he left impressions in Africa that he, like those leaders, was in favour of Swapo?

Nonsense!

I now say to you that I have evidence from Africa, evidence of a man who is prepared to confront you with it. [Interjections.] I shall ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again whether he is prepared to state now, here in Parliament, that he has never tried in Africa, or outside Africa, to create any impression that the other organizations were merely “a creation of the South African Government”.

I have never said that they were “creations of the South African Government”.

Have you never said that?

No.

In other words, you reject Swapo? [Interjections.]

I am opposed to Swapo’s philosophy…

Do you reject Swapo as being representative of the people of South West Africa?

Yes, it is not representative.

Did you say this in Africa to the Black leaders?

I said there should be an election.

I ask you whether you said in Africa to the Black leaders that the “other organizations…

Do you accept his word, or not?

First of all I want the facts, because I am now going to give you the name of the witness. Advocate Kozonquisi of South West Africa says that he is prepared to confront you with the fact that you created this impression in Africa.

Who is he?

He is a Black advocate in South West Africa. You know as well as I do who he is.

I have never met him.

I am not saying that you said it to him. I am saying that you said it to Black leaders, and he is prepared to confront you with that. [Interjections.] I shall now give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to rise and say that he did not say in Africa that these organizations were “creations of the South African Government”; in the second place, that he rejects Swapo with everything it stands for, also as allegedly being representative of the majority of the people of South West Africa, and in the third place that he rejects the standpoint of any leader in Africa who claims that he said the opposite.

I think that I have now replied to most of the issues.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to come to the serious part of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, but I first want to react immediately to what he has just said by stating that I do not know the gentleman is whom he was referring. My attitude inside South Africa and outside South Africa is identical. I do not believe that parties in South West Africa are the creatures of the South African Government. There are various parties, a whole range of parties, which arise out of the body of the South West African people.

But did you say so?

I am saying that my attitude inside and outside South Africa is the same. Secondly, I do not accept that Swapo is representative of the people of South West Africa I happen to disagree with Swapo’s basic Marxist philosophy. I do not know to whom the hon. the Prime Minister was referring, but I must repeat that I have found that in Africa, because of the election that had taken place from the 4th to the 8th—whether it was correct to hold that election or not—there was a grave suspicion, in the minds of the people that I met, about South Africa’s bona fides in the implementation of this plan. There is something I must now state quite unequivocally. Whether in Britain, America or the five African countries I, as Leader of the Opposition, said that while I disagreed with the Government on many issues, I had to make it quite clear that I believed that one should start from the assumption that the South African Government is genuine in wanting the settlement plan to proceed. That was my point of view. That was the basic thrust, and wherever I went in Africa, that was the message I tried to get across. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know that I had to do this in difficult circumstances because there was suspicion. I make no apology for stating that where the Government deserves criticism, it will get it, but in an issue like this, after the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had gone to Windhoek—I think it was on 21 or 22 December—and persuaded the Constituent Assembly to accept the concept of a second election, having just had the first, I personally believe the Government to have been genuine in its intentions. I say across the floor of the House that I believe that in my short mission to Africa I did some good in trying to get militant African leaders to accept a degree of bona fides. [Interjections.]

Order!

Tell us about them.

That was my attitude and that was my genuine attempt.

Tell us what you said.

Order!

I do not want to deal in detail with the issue of the $10 000 that was raised. The substance of what the hon. member for Parktown said was not what perplexed us. What perplexed us was the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said it was an outright lie. The hon. the Prime Minister has given an explanation. He said he wrote letters to the hon. member for Durban North, and we accept all that. What I do believe, however, is that, difficult though it may have been, he should have come back to the House and corrected the matter before the House itself. A private correction to the hon. member for Durban North is laudable to an extent, but since the issue was raised in the House and was the focal point of public comment and controversy, it is a great pity that the hon. the Prime Minister did not volunteer to come to the House, but rather waited until the pressure came from the Opposition. I leave that matter for a moment.

He is not listening to a word you are saying.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with a number of important issues relating to the general debate in South Africa.

What about the CIA allegation?

I have already denied this, and the hon. the Prime Minister has said that he accepts it. I doubt whether there is a problem. I am quite happy to discuss the circumstances of this rumour that has been floating around with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I discussed it, in fact, with his predecessor, Dr. Hilgard Muller. I discussed the circumstances and, in fact, brought back a message, at that stage, from President Mobutu to Dr. Hilgard Muller. I am quite happy to discuss the circumstances in which that occurred in 1975. I went of my own accord, as a South African citizen on a South African passport, and I have nothing to be ashamed about.

Who paid?

The hon. the Prime Minister once again got the debate onto the issue of race relations and the future pattern of constitutional development in South Africa. If I compare the vision he has presented today with the vision we were faced with way back in February 1959 when the late Dr. Verwoerd first came with a vision for South Africa on the basis of separate development, I must say that the vision we have had today is a little more encouraging. It is more encouraging to the extent that it seems to be more pragmatic. The main thrust was nevertheless still the Verwoerdian thrust. The key element was: “Selfbeskikkingsreg sover as wat dit moontlik is.” When it comes to the concept of “selfbeskikking” in South Africa, we are now going to find that “sover as wat dit moontlik is” is going to be the key element. We were to have had “selfbeskikking” as far as the Coloured people were concerned. It was Dr. Verwoerd who said it should be total in regard to the Indian people. Now the present Government has realized that “selfbeskikkingsreg” for the Coloured and Indian people involves their being included in a single constitutional structure with White people in this country. I believe that in exactly the same way the next element of the community which the Government is going to find it is unable to accommodate on the basis of complete political separation are the Blacks who live in the urban areas and the Blacks who live in the non-homeland rural areas of South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to indicate that it was, to an extent, the Opposition which was denigrating the efforts of the Government to promote development in the homelands and in the border areas. He mentioned the conference that had been held. He said that for 30 years no support or encouragement had been received from the entrepreneurs for the development of the border areas and homeland areas. On the facts this is wrong. The hon. the Prime Minister has forgotten Dr. Verwoerd’s philosophy and what arose out of the report of the Tomlinson Commission. He said he rejected two things. He rejected what he called White capital being injected into the homeland areas and he rejected the concept of White entrepreneurs going to the homeland areas because both of these would amount to integration in reverse. It was only some 15 years later, when the agency system came into being, that it became a practical reality to inject any so-called White capital into the homeland areas. As far as the border areas are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister is forgetting the economic realities such as the capital cost of providing jobs or creating new jobs in areas which are not natural growth points for economic development. So it was a question of capital, a question of costs. It is only when capital becomes available, and costs are reduced, that it is going to be possible to develop the homelands and the other areas to the extent they can.

Let me make the attitude of this side of the House quite clear. We do not believe that the political dilemma of South Africa is going to be solved by creating independent homelands. We believe, however, that the healthy socioeconomic and even political development of the homelands is plus factor in a future solution to our South African problem. Therefore we want to see the homelands developed. We want to see border industries grow where it is possible to develop them. We believe that that work which may be done by the present Government, while it will not lead to a solution along their lines, is going to make possible the federal arrangement which we envisage for the future of South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister raised a few other cardinal issues in terms of overall political philosophy. He said, first of all, that he believed in “vryheid sonder revolusie en sonder geweld”. I think that that would be a common view. We do not want revolution or violence in South Africa. There may, however, be different views on what constitutes freedom. Freedom for any citizen must involve not just the fact that he can say he is a South African, but that he can live as a South African, that he can have freedom of movement in the country, that he can have equal access to the Civil Service, that he can have the right to take part in the political processes, that he can have the right to negotiate with his employer—that he can have the right, in other words, just to be a full and equal South African. This is what we are striving for. We also want freedom, but we want freedom for all South Africans within the context of a single South Africa.

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the issue that every “volk” is separate to the extent that we do not have the majority-minority situation in South Africa but that we actually have, in South Africa, a series of minorities. That is taken straight from the report of the Slabbert Commission of the PFP. That is the underlying philosophy, viz. that in South Africa there is not just a Black-White relationship and an attitude of winner takes all and loser loses all, but in South Africa, in fact, through voluntary association, we have a plural and diverse society in which we want to reconcile both the fears and the aspirations of the groups of minorities who form our South African people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the matter raised by the hon. Leader at the beginning of his speech. In the nature of things, we are not usually concerned about the image of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because the weaker his image, the easier it is for us to gain the support of the voters, but when he travels in Africa and can put in a good word for South Africa as the only one who, it is alleged, has access to certain countries and leaders, it is very important to us that he should have a sound image, as someone who will make use of Government institutions and facilities, etc., and will not have ties with another State, because in that case he cannot be a representative of this country, let alone the alternate Prime Minister. What credibility will he have then? For that reason it is very important that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should take us into his confidence, and that he should do so before the end of this debate. He does project a certain image in Africa, as he says. For that reason we should come back to the question of what facilities the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used during those travels, although perhaps we need not go back as far as 1977. According to certain Press media, the countries he visited that year included Senegal, Gambia, the Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Kenya. He says that he travelled on a South African passport, but what other facilities did he use? Did he, for instance, travel with the South African Airways?

[Inaudible.]

Did he parachute from a S.A. Airways aircraft into Senegal, Gambia, the Ivory Coast and Kenya? Why has he not explained this matter fully? He said that he would inform us fully on the facilities he had used, but he has not done so. We want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who made the arrangements for him and which airlines he used when travelling to these countries. He owes us a reply to that. At the beginning of his speech he stated that he would deal with the allegations and the stories which are going around that he had been assisted by the CIA during his travels through Africa. He must inform us about that. He must tell us exactly who made the arrangements for him with regard to his travels to countries where we do not have landing rights, with which we have no relations and in which we have no representatives. He owes us a reply. He must also tell us who travelled with him. He must take us into his confidence. Will he admit that his party’s policy was rejected and found unacceptable in Nigeria, for example?

To some extent, yes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admits it. It was reported in the public Press. In fact, he was described by that country’s Sunday Times as “jerky”. If the political policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is rejected there, on what grounds did he obtain the good connections, contacts and credibility in Africa which we, according to him, cannot obtain? We are not saying that we do not have them, but he alleges that we do not.

I am not saying so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has time and again said that our contact and détente policy has not succeeded. That is what he is blaming us for. He says that we will never be able to get contacts there. I want to ask him what happened. He must take us into his confidence about what he discussed with those countries. Furthermore I want to say that according to a West African newspaper, The West African, he had an interview in a certain country, an interview in which he did not inform the people of the situation with regard to South West Africa, but of the situation in the Republic. Does he admit that? What did he tell the people? Every Prime Minister who has discussions with an African leader reports to this Parliament afterwards. He himself said that Dr. Hilgard Muller had reported back in 1977 on discussions he had had with Maputo. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition report back to the hon. the Prime Minister on every discussion he had had with leaders he met in Africa? Did he explain to him what their standpoints were? Did he give him the assurance that he had been able to render a service to the Government? If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not do that, his credibility as a leader, as an alternate Prime Minister, is non-existent.

Nonsense! You are a despicable little man and are distorting the issue.

It is nonexistent. I put it categorically to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know whether the hon. member for Orange Grove is entitled to say: “You are a despicable little man and are distorting the issue?”

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “despicable”.

I withdraw the word out of deference to the Chair.

The hon. member must withdraw the word unconditionally.

Leave the Chamber out of deference to the Chair.

The hon. member must withdraw the word unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

Sir, is it permissible to say that he must stop his smearing?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes it to us to tell us on what grounds he met with a response and gained credibility in Africa, if his policy is unacceptable.

Now I want to come back to the report, which could not be substantiated, but which indicates, according to a reliable source, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not only sympathizes with Swapo, but is also hostile towards the other democratic parties in South West Africa. I shall say why this is of the utmost importance. It is because this reliable allegation against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fits in with the McHenry episode.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to suggest that a member of this House is untrustworthy?

I did not use any word to that effect.

Order! It is unparliamentary to refer to another hon. member as being untrustworthy.

Mr. Chairman, I did not say the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was untrustworthy.

You did.

I did not say so. If the hon. member feels that way, it is not my fault.

You did say that. [Interjections.] We shall look at your Hansard because you are now lying.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that point?

The hon. member must first withdraw the words “You are now lying”.

I withdraw the word “lying” unconditionally and I say that he is telling untruths. [Interjections.] May I address you on this point, Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has just denied that he suggested by his words that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was untrustworthy.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to repeat what he said?

We shall check his Hansard.

I did not use the word “untrustworthy”. I referred to the necessity for trustworthiness…

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister say that the hon. member was untrustworthy?

No, I did not use the word “untrustworthy”. I shall check my Hansard, and if I did do so, I shall withdraw it. I stated that the charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was of the greatest importance because it was perfectly in line with the McHenry episode. The McHenry episode amounts to a departure from the Waldheim plan, which favoured Swapo. If this is true, then it means that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition favoured Swapo by his co-operation with Mr. McHenry.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: When an hon. member, in this case the hon. Leader of the Opposition, has denied a statement, but that hon. Deputy Minister still doubts his word, is he not suggesting that he is being untrustworthy?

The hon. the Deputy Minister must accept the hon. member’s word if he was referring to the same statement. Was the hon. the Deputy Minister referring to the same statement or to another statement?

Another statement as to what?

As to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said. In any case, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to make a different kind of maiden speech in this quiet afternoon hour. I hope that I shall cause the Chair less trouble than has been the case over the past 10 minutes. We are living in very interesting times today, times in which new values apply in the world, in which new alliances are being formed and in which new threats are developing for us in South Africa. We are also living in times in which new friendship possibilities are available to South Africa from time to time. If we look at the world around us from a negative viewpoint, we want to say that we are living in times of crisis. However, if we look at the world around us from a positive viewpoint, then we want to say we are living at a time presenting an enterprising nation here at the southern tip of Africa with new challenges. In this time of new challenges, the spotlight undeniably falls on the leaders in South Africa. The question being asked inside as well as outside Parliament these days, is: To what extent are our leaders capable enough, qualified enough, young enough, enthusiastic enough and devout enough to be able to lead South Africa in these times?

Today we are discussing the Prime Minister’s Budget Vote, and it is true that the spotlight is undoubtedly directed at the hon. the Prime Minister himself, at the way in which he is leading South Africa, the way in which he is handling his budget Vote and the way in which he is holding his own as the leader of this country. Because we are in Parliament and because the parliamentary traditions apply, the spotlight naturally falls on the alternative to the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well. I should like to say a few words about this spotlight on this occasion.

In the first place I should like to refer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We know that he has been under heavy fire. His judgment as well as his integrity have been called into question and have suffered. There is no doubt that the most difficult hour for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come. I am not going to analyse the arguments against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, nor am I going to analyse his replies, because one need not do so if one seeks to assess the matter. However, we must examine what has happened here in Parliament. I, who am now sitting in these benches—in this bench; perhaps my membership will increase. One never knows—can clearly see that over the past two days the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has either not been defended by his colleagues at all or, when they have done so, it has been done in a halfhearted way. I have listened to speeches by prominent members of that party, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Musgrave, and it struck me that not one of them has uttered a single word in his defence, in this difficult hour in which their leader finds himself. If I had to sum up the position of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I could do so in one word. He is isolated in his own caucus.

Not at all.

This means that his ring of confidants has shrunk. Someone who wants to act effectively in politics, must have a power base from which he can act.

Look who is talking.

His power base has crumbled.

Where is yours?

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands here and now why I am able to judge the position of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so correctly: I know how he must feel today. I know what I am talking about, when I say that when one is isolated in one’s party, and when one is isolated from many of one’s colleagues, it is a very difficult matter for one personally. This type of isolation is sometimes justified. Sometimes it is unjustified. However, one thing is true. It is a political reality when one is politically isolated. It is a fact, and politically it is irrelevant if such isolation is justifiable or not. I know better than anyone else how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition probably feels today. On a personal level I want to say to him today that I hope that he will be able to accept personally what happens here, and can perhaps make a very good and useful contribution as a South African citizen in another sphere. I know that his isolation must undoubtedly be a matter of sorrow to him.

When, in the second place, we examine the position of the hon. the Prime Minister, a few things are clear at once. He took over the position which he occupies today in difficult times—no one will deny that. We know about the problems surrounding the old Department of Information. We know that he took office during a time when cynicism was developing towards leaders in general. We know that he became Prime Minister in the midst of talk of a crisis of confidence in South Africa. Today, six months later—and six months is a short period in the life of a person, in the life of a nation, in the life of a country—his Vote is being discussed here—and the Information affair seems to be fading into nothingness. We have reached a situation in which greater peace now exists in South Africa than has probably been the case for a long time.

However, at this time it is noticeable to the objective observer that the hon. the Prime Minister has not only succeeded in bringing about a high degree of calm with regard to the Information affair, but that he has also taken certain leadership initiatives. He has taken the lead with regard to several matters, leadership which must give rise to certain changes in South Africa Today I want to state frankly that when we speak about change, we have to be careful. Change can be counterproductive. Change can be worthless when it has to be coupled with the surrender of principles. There has been change and there have been initiatives with regard to matters such as consolidation. There have also been efforts to get the whole constitution issue off the ground, with an open door policy, something for which we have appreciation. There have been new perspectives on the Southern African situation. Again today, I think, we have had definite, clear and strong standpoints on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister.

The changing times in which we are living, create new challenges for the peoples of South Africa, and it is necessary that, in this time, South Africa should have a leader who can take vigorous action. If we have to change today because we have a guilty conscience, or if we have to change merely for the sake of change, such changes will be unacceptable. We have now seen initiatives which must lead, not only to changes for the sake of one of the negative reasons to which I referred, but to changes which, I believe, will give rise to renewal in South Africa. I believe that renewal in policy, renewal with regard to our premises, is a prerequisite for growth. Growth in the life of a nation, in the life of a country, is a necessity to acquire power, to be strong and to remain strong.

In the times in which we are living, strength and power are also necessary, in a world in which no moral or ethnic values apply any more, for the continued existence of a people and of a nation.

I want to conclude with the following thought. From the position in which I find myself today, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that his leadership of South Africa in recent times has been such that he has grown in stature. I am convinced that with the passage of time, the hon. the Prime Minister has instilled more and more confidence by way of the strong, purposeful leadership he has given South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one cannot help but feel sympathetic towards the hon. member for Pretoria Central, the first victim of the infighting going on being within the National Party. I can understand that the hon. member is now praising the hon. the Prime Minister. However, I should just like to say to him that the same dagger which cut his connections with the National Party will come between the hon. the Prime Minister and the aims which he as the Prime Minister strives towards, and that he will also find that in order to achieve the aims he has set himself, he will have to strive to achieve them in a different political party.

†Before coming back to the real issues which the hon. the Prime Minister has raised, I just want to get out of the way his claim that I insulted or called the Public Service a mess. Referring to the actions of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I said according to my uncorrected Hansard—

Only later, when I was again dealing with the administration, I referred to lifting the carpet and clearing out the mess underneath. I want to call a witness to what I said. I quote the hon. the Prime Minister, who said on 7 December 1978 (Hansard col. 17)—

I therefore believe that in as much as the hon. the Prime Minister was not insulting the Public Service, neither was I in my remarks.

I think that this afternoon, for the first time in many years, this Parliament has started to perform its fundamental function. We have heard the hon. the Prime Minister’s vision for the future of South Africa. We have not had it as fully from the official Opposition. We now have an opportunity to test vision against vision. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister’s vision is to see South Africa broken up into a series of independent states which, at some future date, can be brought together in a “constellation”. He takes pride in the fact that three of those states are now or will become independent. He said that one must first build the road—and he set lofty ideals, all of which I accept—and only then talk about the future. He asked why Lesotho and Transkei have not entered into a federation or a confederation. However, he gave the answer to his own question when he referred to Caprivi and Kavango and the immigrants to the north of South Africa who come to South Africa because they seek economic opportunity. It is a stable base that draws them here. The Transkei has nothing to offer Lesotho, and Lesotho has nothing to offer Transkei as a sheet-anchor around which to build a confederation of Southern Africa For us to have a confederation of Southern Africa, South Africa must be the leader. South Africa must be the base. South Africa must have the vision which draws into its orbit all the States of Southern African, with South Africa becoming the leader. One cannot expect the impoverished, underdeveloped States to give the lead, and this is where we differ.

The hon. the Prime Minister wants to break up South Africa and then talk about a constellation, agreements and non-aggression pacts, but he sees that as something to consider at the end of the road and does not set it as the goal itself. He does not create a vision for the end of the road. We do have a vision. We see this vision as a confederation in which—and let me get this straight with the hon. the Prime Minister—the Whites, Coloureds and Indians and certain urban Blacks within the common area of South Africa which they share, will be a federal entity forming one of the units of the wider confederation of Southern Africa. This is the vision we have for South Africa, and it is not a vision of breaking up South Africa, following a road and then, one day in the future, talking about its end destiny.

What is, in the meantime, happening on this road the Prime Minister is following? I want to tell him what is happening. Transkei has broken off relations with South Africa, has repudiated the non-aggression pact with South Africa, has banned South African naval ships from its territorial waters and South African Defence Force aircraft from its air space. Botswana has accepted and welcomed a Russian embassy. Lesotho shows strong Chinese influences. Zambia gives a home to terrorists who are killing South African youth on our borders in South West Africa.

The reason for all this is that these countries are out of the orbit of the constellation of Southern Africa where we should be giving the lead. This is because the Government does not have a clear vision for them. Because it does not have an objective, it does not provide the nucleus around which we believe Southern Africa should revolve—the nucleus of South Africa. The other states must therefore seek and orbit around other nuclei. This is the fundamental difference between the ad hoc vision of the hon. the Prime Minister, which seeks to break up South Africa, and the vision of this party which creates an ideal to strive for. It may take a generation, but that is the end of the road, a confederation of Southern Africa which will be in the orbit of a Western democratic, peace-seeking and peace-loving conglomeration or constellation—or whatever one would like to call it—of States…

Why Western?

It Will have Western principles, Western ideals with an African culture…

What about civilized?

I use the word “Western” in the normally accepted sense as embodying the standards on which our civilization is built. The other aspect, which I do not have time to develop now, is how the hon. the Prime Minister’s vision differs from our vision. In our vision there is also a place for certain urban Blacks who do not identify with any homeland, and on a later occasion during this debate I shall deal with that more specifically. It was the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training who both avoided the essence of my challenge to them. I asked whether there would always be Black South African citizens, and they replied that that would be the case as long as there were non-independent homelands. That is not an answer, however, because the hon. the Prime Minister’s vision is that all those homelands will eventually be independent. I want to know what the situation will be after that, otherwise the hon. the Prime Minister does not have a vision; he only has an ad hoc policy for the present. What is his vision for the end of the road? Will there be Black South African citizens at the end of his road? This is what I am going to continue to come back to again and again because it is one of the key differences between…

You want me to take over the task of Providence?

Well, you are taking over a lot of our policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point need not concern himself about the NP’s internal affairs, because I do not think there has ever been greater unity within the ranks of the NP than there is at this very time, under the leadership of our new hon. Prime Minister. The hon. member elaborated on visions and the homelands policy, and in view of that, I want to inform him that the NP’s great vision, our homelands policy, is succeeding. Moreover, this is the only policy which can succeed in this multinational country. I am not going to give further attention to the hon. member, because I want to deal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I cannot recall an Opposition party in this country ever having found itself in a greater crisis of confidence than the one in which the official Opposition finds itself at the moment. It is completely unprecedented in the South African political scene that an Opposition leader should plunge his party into such a crisis as that into which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has plunged his. Never before has an Opposition leader in this country been under greater suspicion as regards his activities and his motives than the present hon. leader of the Opposition. To my knowledge, it has never happened in this country that the honour and credibility of a leader of the Opposition has suffered as much as now. The honour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is shattered and he will never be able to survive what has happened to him. It even caused a flap in his own party. It is very noticeable, from these debates, that the members of his party have offered him no assistance with regard to this matter. It is noticeable that they are shying away from doing so. I see no honourable alternative for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition other than to make way for another leader in the official Opposition. If he does not want to do this, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should request a Select Committee which can clear the air around him, if that is at all possible. Never before has an official Opposition been so discredited in the eyes of the public as at this very moment. It is unique in the annals of this country that a party stands accused in this way before the nation for unpatriotism. This Opposition has a damning record of mistrust and suspicion against it. In a country in which great store is set by loyalty and patriotism, in a time in which we have to fight for our survival, there is dismay throughout this country after the revelation of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had given away national secrets to a foreign diplomat. There has been a sharp reaction and we have seen it in this House, where hon. members of the Government, as well as hon. members of the other two parties, have reacted sharply to the blunder of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Outside this House the reaction is still greater. The reason for this is obvious. For a long time now the nation has suspected that the official Opposition cannot be trusted. The nation suspects that the official Opposition is plotting and scheming with leftists in the outside world, and that they are making common cause with external pressure against South Africa. The image of the official Opposition is not a pretty one. If one takes the time to peruse the annals of its short-lived existence, it is surprising to see how heavily the scale is already loaded against these people. They are the people who, during the last election, and even before that, called in the assistance of the Carter administration to apply pressure against South Africa in order to try to force change in South Africa in this way. It is they who have consistently been feeding the tiger of external interference in South Africa. There is evidence that during visits to America prominent members of the PFP, and their cronies, asked policy-makers of the Carter administration to turn on the screws against South Africa. What a damning thing!

That is untrue.

The hon. member for Parktown says it is untrue. He can stand up and prove it.

No, you can prove what you are talking about.

I shall prove it. There is the hon. member for Houghton. She is continually consorting with the enemies of South Africa in the outside world. She is hospitably received by those people who are the enemies of South Africa. She is even honoured by them. The United Nations granted her a very high award, viz. “The Human Rights Award” of the UN. She is very proud of that award. She is proud of an award which comes from the enemies of South Africa. She is a person who openly welcomes the Carter administration’s interference in South Africa’s affairs. She stated that the Carter Government was a good ally of her party because they would maintain the pressure on our unyielding Government. It was this same hon. member for Houghton who has just played along happily with the Carters by again joining the chorus of leftist protest against the execution of the Goch Street murderer Mahlangu. She also sent a telegram of protest to the State President. Her leader is dead quiet about this matter, and allows her to do as she wishes. He has not said a word against it yet; in other words he also agrees with it.

Are you in favour of capital punishment?

Will no one in that party stand up and object to the actions of the hon. member for Houghton? Do they agree with her that terrorists should be acquitted, or are they scared of the hon. member? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, there is a chorus of interjections by hon. members opposite. I cannot listen to everything. [Interjections.]

Surely the hon. member for Yeoville is not scared of the hon. member for Houghton. After all, we have seen how he has spoken out against her at the PFP’s party congresses. Can he not tackle her in this matter? [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to be tackled. [Interjections.]

Let me rather put it in another way and say that as far as this matter is concerned, I think the hon. member for Yeoville would do well to keep a tight rein on the hon. member for Houghton, as he did at the party congress. [Interjections.] There are those who try to draw a parallel between the embarrassment caused the Government by the Information scandal, and the Eglin scandal.

We are aware that a few men in the former Department of Information did things which were inexcusable. They have already paid a high price for that. They could advance the excuse that they committed an offence while trying to serve South Africa. However, there was no question of their trying to make common cause with the enemies of South Africa, while they were still in the service of South Africa. But the Eglin-McHenry affair is completely different. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after recent events the temptation is, of course, very strong to make a target of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But when a man is already staggering around the ring in such a punch-drunk way, and if one still has any feeling of sportsmanship, one does not begrudge him a little rest and a chance to recover.

This afternoon I should like to point out what I regard as an important new, subtle and dangerous nuance in the PFP’s party politics. Last year during the same debate I said that the PFP had become politically impotent, and I do not want to elaborate on that However, I just want to say that events over the past year have proved my statement correct, because—and I say this with all piety towards childless couples—if one is impotent, in other words cannot reproduce, one follows the only other way open to one, and that is to adopt a baby as a substitute. But since party political policy babies are not readily available, the PFP has had to adopt something most closely resembling a human being without damaging their own image. Therefore, they have had to adopt something resembling the National Party’s policy as closely as possible, without frustrating their ultimate objectives.

I shall prove what I have just said. I shall prove that the PFP is subtly creating an image, the outward appearance of which allows their policy to move very close to that of the National Party. [Interjections.] In the first place I want to mention that up to last year they spoke of a unitary system and a unitary State in South Africa. In imitation of the philosophy of the National Party they are speaking of a plural community this year. In the second place I want to mention that up to last year they spoke of a unitary State with qualified franchise for people of colour in South Africa, while this year, in imitation of the National Party’s policy, they speak of a federal system with general franchise for adults, in imitation of the National Party’s policy of general franchise for adults in their own States, with an ultimate Commonwealth connection. Up to last year they clung to the Westminster system, whereas this year, in imitation of the National Party’s policy, they are moving away from that, because they say that they are opposed to this system of “the winner takes all”. The fact of the matter is, however, that the winner can only take all if the loser does not exist, for all practical purposes, as is the case in South Africa at present. What makes this so interesting, however, is that their own Press is subtly spreading this question among the White electorate. What is interesting, is that they say that the party’s politicians will possibly deny this, but that they are, in fact, moving much closer to the National Party. I quote from The Evening Post of 22 November 1978. In this article they discuss the many points of similarity existing between these two policies. Then they say the following—

I shall come back to this aspect later.

It is interesting that even a political scientist of the stature of Prof. David Welsh—and to my mind he summed it up very tersely—said of the consensus and of the veto system of the PFP—

Surely this is the truth. This is a policy which will veto South Africa to a standstill. This is a policy which will veto South Africa to stagnation and eventual chaos. There is no doubt about that. I shall come back to the veto system at a later stage.

I want to continue by making a further quotation from the Rand Daily Mail, a newspaper which is so biassed in favour of the PFP that it usually waxes lyrical about their policy. In an editorial on this new policy of the PFP’s the newspaper says, inter alia—

This “most important feature” is “hope”! The newspaper goes on to say—

The newspaper then comes to this important conclusion—

The newspaper does not say “it will be the solution”, but “it could be the solution”.

In the world of political realities the PFP’s policy is to surrender the Whites of South Africa to a policy which its own media describe as “it could be the solution”, and of which the most important characteristic is hope; not certainty, but mere hope. I want to continue by indicating what The Evening Post wrote about the similarities in this veto system. They were looking for a similarity where in actual fact no similarity exists. The NP’s policy makes provision for Whites maintaining control over their own affairs at all times, whereas the PFP wants to use the veto system to entrench itself. The hon. member for Yeoville—unfortunately he is not in the Chamber at present—said of their previous policy that the constitutional guarantees contained in it, were mere “paper guarantees”. I should like to know what he has to say about this new policy.

Without my offering any apology, I want to tell the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission that the people who produced this policy paper, this baby that has to resemble the NP’s policy as closely as possible, are not really in earnest as regards the Whites’ vision of the future in South Africa. They are merely political speculators. I want to continue by making an in-depth examination of this veto policy in the PFP’s new policy. This is a very dangerous system which they envisage, because the veto is not applicable to the choice of a Prime Minister or to financial affairs. It implies, in the first instance, domination. There is no doubt about that. There are further inherent dangers. One can foresee that the majority which they are going to have in the federal Parliament, will be a majority consisting of the traditionally less privileged, since the less privileged do not have the patience to wait for the normal economic progress of the have notes to take place under a enterprise system of their own. One can foresee that they will become impatient and try to accelerate the process by the nationalization and socialization of industries. This will not be a new line of thought among these people. It will not be something which they themselves will initiate. It has been inherent and part of the Prog philosophy over recent years, i.e. that there should be a redistribution of wealth in South Africa. Surely hon. members know that idea. It has repeatedly been raised in this very House.

In conclusion I just want to say that the national convention idea of the Progs really gained momentum only after Nationalist inspired thinking had implemented the idea at the Turnhalle in South West Africa. Only then did it start to gain momentum. Without my shocking anyone, I want to make the statement that the NP is in favour of national conventions. The hon. the Prime Minister spelled this out today. He is continually engaged in holding national conventions, but he is in favour of a national convention only if it involves the development, the evolution and the implementation of the only workable policy in South Africa, viz. the policy of separate development and separate freedoms.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon with regard to the Press, particularly that part of the statement in which he intimated that the shareholders in the Press would be made known. I have a strong suspicion that before long everyone in South Africa will be amazed who the actual controlling shareholders in certain newspapers are. The hon. the Prime Minister said that newspapers had certain obligations, obligations which had, however, been disregarded to such an extent in recent times that the situation had become intolerable. Without any fear of contradiction I want to say that moderate people throughout the Republic are in full agreement that the situation has become absolutely intolerable and that any reasonable steps taken to keep the Press in check, because of its irresponsible conduct, will be welcomed by the people of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pinetown made a proposal in this House the other day.

†His proposal was that at the end of each week corrections, necessitated because of errors committed by various newspapers, should be broadcast on television. I want to say that I have great sympathy with this view. I think it is worthy of consideration and I commend it to the Government. I think that many people in South Africa will wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that the time has come for the Press to be controlled in some way, and there is no better way, for example, than by having their errors and omissions corrected, in full public view, by way of television broadcasts.

*I do not want to argue with the hon. the Prime Minister, particularly not about education and education policy, but I should just like to tell him that I am an advocate of mother-tongue education in primary schools. I think, however, that we should take a new look at the position in the high schools, including the private high schools. I am afraid that young boys and girls often leave high schools without their having any proper knowledge of their fellow citizens in South Africa. I think that something should be done about this. Attention must definitely be given to this matter.

†I now want to come to the question of the United States’ relations with us. The spyplane incident was no surprise to me at all. I only hope that this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back in the sense that the Government will now take measures to combat the United States’ attempt to subvert South Africa. There are two alternatives. Let us make no mistake about that. Either the USA have embarked on a deliberate path of confrontation with South Africa, or else it is wholly contemptuous of South Africa’s will to hit back after it has been insulted. I have referred to the United States Information Offices before. Some of them are now called cultural centres. They are hot beds of sedition in South Africa. They distribute inflamatory literature, and I ask again today why there is a United States Information Service reading-room in Soweto. [Interjections.] They also have such reading-rooms in Cape Town and Johannesburg, apart from the one in Soweto.

And in Durban.

There are also reading-rooms in Durban and Port Elizabeth, if hon. members really want to know. I want to refer to the speeches that have been made from time to time by the United States Ambassador. These have been provocative speeches. They are not in accordance with normal diplomatic usage and I would say that the time has come for the Government to consider whether this man is not persona non grata in the Republic. Hon. members will remember a recent visit by Mr. Andrew Young. He was entertained in the Carlton Hotel where he spoke to the Progs of Johannesburg in the most moderate fashion. The next afternoon, however, just before he left, he spoke, at a mixed meeting in the Information Offices in Johannesburg, in the most immoderate way and used the most inflammatory language to sweep up people here in South Africa, Black against White.

Let us now look at the question of the bomb. In 1977 pressure was brought to bear on our Government to make a declaration about the production of a nuclear bomb. I am quoting here from the Rand Daily Mail of 18 April which stated that President Carter issued a statement, after negotiations with the South African Government, that there would be no explosive tests taken in South Africa, now or in the future, and he added, as a rider, that they would continue to monitor the situation—obviously in South Africa—very closely.

The spy-plane incident is simply a continuation of this monitoring process which is taking place under the auspices of the various diplomatic representatives of the United States Government. Mr. Vorster was moved, at the time, to say—

It is regrettable that a great country like the United States should take up this attitude against a smaller country like the Republic of South Africa, which has manifested nothing but feelings of goodwill towards the peoples of America for many, many years. I believe I am speaking for many people in South Africa when I tell the Government that it must take a look at the United States’ diplomatic representation in South Africa at the moment to see if its actions and its numbers conform to normal diplomatic practice or whether they constitute, in effect, an interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

I also welcome the hon. Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that South Africa will concentrate all efforts on the solution of South Africa’s problems and, in particular, will go out of its way to find common ground with friends in Southern Africa, instead of relying, in my words, on the false friends on whom we have so far relied in the West. Even Mr. Harry Oppenheimer has recently gone on record as saying that he cannot understand the attitudes of the West towards South Africa, nor what they seek to achieve, and he has called on the West to come to its senses.

In conclusion I should just like to make a brief reference to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think his performance in this debate has been pathetic, that his explanations have been unacceptable and that he has even lost the ear of his own party.

Rubbish!

I do not think there is much need for us to waste much time on him. The people of South Africa can read what he has said. However, in his own party there are certain experts who have been able to get rid of the leaders of the parties to which they belonged. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville and his henchmen in the Progressive Reform Party have had some experience in another party.

They even got rid of you.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, on his own, is quite capable of undermining any leader of any party to which he belongs. I have complete confidence that they, in their own inimitable way, will deal with the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his own party within the very near future. They do have some allies in the Press. They have a very close relationship with the Press, as hon. members know. The first shot has indeed been fired today, because to my amazement I read in the John Scott column nothing that cannot be called an utterly damning publication of what transpired in the explanations of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. This is the first shot that has been fired. However, what I cannot understand is why the Government should be shocked at what happened in the incident involving the hon. Leader of the Opposition. They should have known better!

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.