announced that he had appointed the following members to constitute with him the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Manpower Utilization, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industries, the Minister of Transport Affairs, the Minister of Community Development, the Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Government Whip, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, Mr. W. V. Raw, Mr. W. M. Sutton and Mr. J. W. E. Wiley.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

This is the first time that I undertake such a task, but I am conscious of the responsibility of the position I occupy in doing so. I request your assistance, Sir, and that of the competent officials in bearing in mind at all times the dignity of the House when undertaking my task.

Before we don our gloves and the bell rings for the first round, I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Prime Minister. He is a formidable, experienced and tough political opponent and it would be impudent and foolish of me not to approach him with caution and circumspection. The situation in which South Africa finds itself—I think the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me—demands more than just the attributes of a competent politician. It demands almost superhuman attributes, and that is why I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister two things right at the outset Firstly, at the present juncture in South Africa, the position of the Prime Minister is one of the most responsible, critical and dangerous to occupy, and I appreciate that fact. Failure could bring with it the curse of future generations, and success, unprecedented admiration.

Secondly, our country has to deal with problems that cannot be laid at the door of any Government or party. Here I have in mind, for example, the problems of population density and growth, the problems of colonization and decolonization, the problems of a multiplicity of races and diversity in a common political structure, etc. Any Government would have encountered these problems, and for that reason, as far as these problems are concerned, it is my intention that the official Opposition should make a constructive contribution to dealing with them.

A key question relating to the motivation of my motion of no confidence, is whether, in handling these problems, the Government alleviates or aggravates the situation, and I shall come back to that.

I am making this speech against the background of what is probably the most unsettled and threatening international situation since the Second World War. I believe that international affairs do not necessarily belong in a no confidence debate and should rather be raised at more suitable opportunities. Nevertheless there are certain recent events at the international level that underline very strongly the vital need for internal strength and loyalty in the Republic of South Africa, amongst all its people. The cold-blooded invasion of Afghanistan by Russia showed one thing clearly, and that is that when a large power invades a smaller one, in the end that smaller power has to rely on itself alone, on its own internal resources, whatever the severity of the international reaction.

In Iran we have a reckless and deliberate breach of a golden rule of international relations, viz. diplomatic immunity. Much more is at state here than just the lives of the hostages. Without generally accepted rules of the game there can be no diplomatic communication and the law of the jungle triumphs.

These and similar international developments are reflected in the rise in the price of gold, which has become almost a barometer of international mutual distrust and instability. It is ironic that the rise or fall of this barometer is directly linked to the ability of the Republic of South Africa to pay its debts, to stimulate the economy and to improve the quality of life of all our people. It would almost seem that when the rest of the world begins to get ill, we are afforded a chance to become well. I hope we shall make use of this opportunity.

On our northern border, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is balancing on a knife-edge between chaos and stability. I think it would be inappropriate at this juncture to create tension in this House about that situation. I can only express the hope that we shall allow ourselves to be led by two considerations: Firstly, what contribution the Republic of South Africa can make in bringing about prosperity and stability there and, secondly, how we can prevent frustrated politicians and governments from abusing us as scapegoats for their failures. At this point I do not wish to say more than that.

I have referred briefly to these international matters in order to illustrate two realities important to us. South Africa is, firstly, indissolubly linked to events at the international level and we cannot afford ostrich politics. Secondly, the more solid and unified we are internally, the more able we shall be to survive a difficult and threatening international situation. Consequently it is the internal situation which my motion of no confidence in the Government is essentially concerned with, and which I should like to motivate as comprehensively as possible.

†Before I do so, however, I wish to refer to and ask for clarity on a matter which has enjoyed considerable attention in the local and international news media. I refer to the alleged activities of the former Bureau for State Security, now the Department of National Security. It has been reported and I have been told that the hon. the Prime Minister himself has asked for a report from the department concerning the allegations of a certain Mr. McGiven, a former member of the department. Let me make it quite clear that I do not question the need for a security and intelligence-gathering service where the safety of the State and the maintenance of public order are at stake. This is a normal occurrence in any society.

Certain allegations were, however, made concerning this department, allegations which by the most imaginative use of one’s intelligence cannot persuade one that such activities have anything to do with the safety of the State or with public order. In fact, if these allegations were true it would be a gross abuse of the taxpayers’ money, possibly contempt for Parliament and the parliamentary tradition, and a very bad case of political paranoia on the part of those who govern this country.

What are some of these allegations? They are, firstly, that the prime function of the Bureau for State Security, now the Department of National Security, is to provide information on internal, legitimate political organizations and that all other functions it performed were a cover for this main purpose …

Do you believe that?

I am asking. The second is that the mail of individual members of Parliament was regularly intercepted and that their telephone conversations were tapped, and the third that reports were filed on discussions at and decisions of committee meetings of legitimate political parties and that bugging devices were installed in their committee rooms.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister would become very angry if he found that he was being bugged and spied on and that his mail was being intercepted. He is a former Leader of the House and at present its most senior member. If anyone knows and has experienced parliamentary tradition, it is the hon. the Prime Minister.

Therefore he will appreciate the gravity with which I put certain questions to him and the seriousness with which I ask for certain assurances from him. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he has received a report from the department on the allegations of McGiven. If so, can he give an assurance to every member of the House that his/her mail has not been and is not being intercepted and read by former or present officials of this department? Thirdly, can he also give us an assurance that every member of Parliament could in the past and can now rely on the privacy of his/her own telephone conversations as far as the department is concerned? Fourthly, and more seriously, can the hon. the Prime Minister give me and all leaders of Opposition parties in the House the assurance that they could in the past and can now hold meetings of their respective caucuses in confidence and in private, free from any bugging by any member of the department?

I ask for these assurances because they arise directly out of allegations made concerning the activities of the department, allegations which, presumably, prompted the hon. the Prime Minister to ask for a report from the department himself. These assurances are vitally important because the parliamentary tradition cannot survive at all if there is a breach of confidence, confidence in its members, and their bona fides are consistently questioned. Furthermore, if there is any substance to even one of the allegations I have referred to, the very least we can do is to appoint a parliamentary commission of inquiry to investigate the whole affair in depth and report to the House.

*Sir, my motion of no confidence really covers three areas of Government activity. I am moving this motion of no confidence in the Government for the following reasons: That the Government (a) refuses to consider and decide jointly with leaders in the various population groups about the introduction of a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa; (b) is unwilling and/or unable to get rid of apartheid and discrimination systematically; and (c) is neglecting to make adequate provision in its economic and social planning for the consequences of the increase in population for the standard of living and the opportunities of all our people. I want to discuss these three aspects of my motion in the following sequence: The socio-economic aspect, then the question of discrimination and apartheid, then the problem of constitutional development.

In this period of our history it may perhaps seem strange that one should bring a motion of no confidence against the Government on, inter alia, the socio-economic level, because the gold price does after all incline one towards optimism. The Prime Minister’s conference on 22 November last year clearly captured the imagination of our businessmen. The financial discipline of the Department of Finance is beginning to bear fruit and for that the hon. the Minister and his department deserve to be complimented. It would seem that there is a new enthusiasm for the free market economy among Government spokesmen and that there is a declared desire for minimum Government intervention. In spite of all these aspects I nevertheless move that there is reason for no confidence in the Government on this level as well. I want to make it very clear at once that this part of my motion does not concern fiscal/monetary policy in the short term or the good intentions of some Government bodies. It is essentially concerned with co-ordinated long-term planning in the social and economic sphere with a view to the impact that population growth will have on the people of the Republic. For example, we know with a reasonable measure of certainty to what degree the population will increase in South Africa over the next 20 years. We also know with a reasonable degree of certainty how many workers are going to enter the labour market and more or less what the demand for various categories of labour will be. Consequently, we can also calculate how land will have to be used for residential, commercial and agricultural purposes. That is why I say that when it comes to long-term planning on the ratio between people, labour and land, the Government is setting to work either incorrectly or inadequately, and that we are headed for disaster in the economic and social spheres unless spectacular and dramatic action is taken. Let us begin by examining the factual situation in the various areas of socio-economic activity. Then we can examine the Government’s intentions to deal with these problems as well as the obstacles in their way. The first factual example is the question of what I call the ratio between Soweto and land. We know Soweto comprises approximately 63,6 sq km. We also know that at a conservative estimate, the population of Soweto is 750 000 people. There are people that allege that Soweto has 1½% million inhabitants, but for the purposes of my argument I shall use the more conservative estimate. This gives a population density of approximately 12 500 people per sq km, as opposed to the 1 400 people per sq km in the so-called “White” part of Johannesburg. Consequently Soweto is five times more densely populated than New York, Chicago or Los Angeles and “White” Johannesburg …

What about Hillbrow?

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to that problem. In “White” Johannesburg, the density of population is ten times less than in Soweto.

What about Rondebosch?

The hon. member asks “What about Rondebosch”? It is clear to me that the hon. member has never been to Rondebosch, otherwise he would have known what the population density was there. I mention Soweto specifically because a planning council has been established and a so-called “eco-plan” has already been published. I have read this “eco-plan”. The “eco-plan” of 1979 is allegedly “the greatest Soweto development guidance system”. However, having read it, and having seen the terms of reference of the planning council, I still say the following: It is generally expected that Soweto’s population will double within 15 to 20 years. If the surface area of Soweto remains constant, this means a population density of approximately 24 500 to 25 000 people per sq km. If hon. members read what is being proposed in this “eco-plan”, they will see that there is an awareness of the lack of planning in regard to the whole question of more land. In this regard I quote the following from this plan—

Mr. Speaker, this plan says that if we cannot make more land available, there is only one solution, and that is higher density occupation, at 24 500 people per sq km. I say that such a plan borders on insanity and cannot be valid. Accordingly it is by no means my intention to say that this is a courageous effort to deal with this problem, and what applies to Soweto, applies to all the other Black urban areas in South Africa as well. Now I just want to ask whether the idea is that land for the urban settlement of Blacks is going to remain more or less static; if not, what long-term plans are there? Secondly, by way of illustration, I just want to refer to the White-Black population ratios. It is common knowledge that the White population in the Republic is going to decrease in relation to the Blacks. It is estimated that the Whites will comprise about 11% of the total population by the year 2000. At the moment Whites are the major source of manpower for skilled and professional labour available to industry, the Public Service and the Defence Force. All three of these aspects of our life—industry, the Public Service and the Defence Force—have to depend on this one dwindling source of manpower. It is impossible for the Whites to bear this burden alone.

However, I refer to this dilemma because it coincides with another problem, viz. the degree of inequality between Black and White in South Africa. This also coincides with a tremendous gap between White and Black with regard to economic standards of living. For example, three years ago Whites had a personal disposable income nine times higher than that of the average Black man. In fact, in 1976 40% of the population lived on 6,6% of the total personal disposable income. I am not furnishing these figures to arouse a feeling of guilt or in order to apportion blame. I merely want to illustrate the problem against the background against which we, according to the hon. the Prime Minister, are going to try to improve the living conditions of all these people. How is this to be done? It can only be done if growth is stimulated, and how can growth be stimulated? Well, in the nature of things it can be stimulated by the activities of the entrepreneurial class. The entrepreneurial class comprises 2% of the total economically active population in South Africa. In a Western European economy it is usually 6%.

The argument I am advancing is that it is impossible for only the entrepreneurial class in South Africa to bear, unaided, the responsibility for economic growth. And yet they are the people who demonstrate the success of a capitalist system. How are we to include the Blacks in this success group? Since I am asking this question, it is perhaps as well to bear in mind that in 1978, 59% of the male unemployed in South Africa were between the ages of 16 and 29 years. In view of that, is it not surprising that the young Black man is increasingly questioning the capitalist system? Only the other day we read in a newspaper about the research of Prof. Simpson in this regard. Consequently this system is being questioned increasingly because the young Black man is unable to taste its fruits.

This brings us to the problem of unemployment. I need not say much in this connection; the hon. the Minister of Manpower is fully conversant with this problem. He knows that there is going to be a drop in the demand for skilled labour whereas there is going to be an increase in this type of labour on the labour market. This is the problem of unemployment We, as well as the hon. the Minister, know that if we want to reduce the labour surplus over the next ten years, there must be a growth rate of 5% in our economy. If that growth is 4,5%, unemployment will double, and if it is 3,5%, unemployment in South Africa will increase fivefold. We also know that over the past five years our growth rate has been between 2% and 3%. The hon. the Minister of Manpower himself said that within this period 8 million workers are going to enter the labour market, 80% of whom will be Black.

Not in ten years.

Over the next 20 years. Accordingly, two things are clear to me: There is going to be an increase in the demand for skilled labour, and there is going to be an oversupply of unskilled labour. In other words, with an oversupply of labour there is still going to be a shortage of labour in South Africa, and we are not going to solve this problem by importing technical labour by way of immigration. The hon. the Minister of co-operation and Development said himself that if we want to make our Blacks part of our skilled labour force, then at a growth rate of 5% we have to bring between 30 000 and 40 000 of them onto the labour market annually. This sketches the problem for us. That is why we have to do two things. We have to make unskilled labour skilled on a massive scale, in other words, a programme of technical training …

We know that.

But you do nothing.

I am merely trying to sketch the problem. Secondly, we have to create skilled labour among the Blacks, and even if we create adequate opportunities for them, at the same time we must set in motion labour-intensive economic development I want to repeat this point. We have to do two things that almost sound contradictory. That is, we must promote skilled labour among the Blacks, and at the same time make provision for labour-intensive economic development This economic development cannot take place in urban areas; it has to take place in rural areas. That is why I say that if it must take place in rural areas, we must study the problem, irrespective of whether it is agricultural land within or outside the homeland areas. Now the question arises: Do we still have such land? By 1973, 90% of the cultivable land in South Africa was already cultivated. With a population of 23 million in South Africa, an average of 0,57 ha per capita of cultivable land was available, and it is estimated that by the year 2000, 0,23 ha per capita will be available, which is less than the 0,4 ha necessary for a person to survive. That means that we cannot afford to leave agricultural land uncultivated or unproductive or use it for meaningless political ideologies that are not going to succeed. This is really the problem I have tried to sketch here.

While I was sketching this problem, there were many hon. members on the Government side who said: “We know about that, so why are you telling us about it?” What does the Government really have in mind as far as dealing with these problems is concerned? I suspect the hon. the Prime Minister is aware of these problems, since he has already announced his 12 point plan to get to grips with many of them. As the Defence Force interpreted the 12 point plan, it means basically two things: firstly, to improve the quality of life of the people of the various population groups and, secondly, the constellation of states idea. I shall come to this idea of a constellation of states later. Suppose we want to improve the quality of life of the various population groups. Then I can only say that no one can quarrel with the hon. the Prime Minister if he wants to do so. However, if we are in earnest in wanting to do this, then there are certain things that are very clear to me, viz. that we cannot limit the population groups that are growing most rapidly, to the smallest territories. This is a point of departure underlying an Act such as the Group Areas Act and an Act such as the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. Those Acts presuppose that the population groups which are growing most rapidly, must be restricted to the smallest area of land. This is really why I brought up the problem of Soweto. You can never do that. What is more …

Does that include agricultural land?

Of course it includes agricultural land. That agricultural land is being used, and at a later stage I shall come back specifically to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s question. In the second place, you do not improve the quality of life if you summarily prosecute persons seeking employment or fine persons when they do perform work for others. And yet this has happened, due to the fact that the Government killed the spirit of the Riekert Commission. The Riekert Commission recommended that the restriction of 72 hours should go, and that instead of that a fine of R500 … [Interjections.] No, that is true. The point is that we have an anomaly here. On the one hand we have the hon. the Prime Minister saying that we must better and improve the quality of people’s lives, and on the other we have statutory measures making this impossible. I want to give the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development another example. I refer to the case of Dube in which judgment was passed by judges Didcott and Milne. It dealt with the so-called “idle Bantu clause” of that particular legislation, i.e. the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. This particular man was defined as idle by the commissioner, but had the right of appeal. He was defined as idle by the commissioner because he in fact suffered from epilepsy and could not readily obtain work. He was then endorsed out, but appealed to the appeal court. I should like to read aloud a portion of the judgment passed by these judges. Hon. members must listen to this. If we are in earnest in improving the quality of life of people, we must avoid situations such as these. Judge Didcott said the following—

Hear, hear!

This is the pronouncement of a judge of our Supreme Court about things that restrict the freedom of movement of people who seek work in an effort to improve their living conditions. We can never succeed in improving the quality of life of our people if the consequences of our policy are that rural areas become impoverished and unproductive as a result of deliberate population resettlements. In the long term this simply increases the rate of urban immigration. This will be the necessary outcome of an unimaginative homelands policy. I want to repeat this. If we are going to buy out productive farms and hand them over just like that, we are going to impoverish our rural areas, and once we have done so, the pressure urban immigration is going to be ten times worse than it is now. Consequently we shall not improve the quality of life of people by drawing a few lines of power on the map and withdrawing people’s citizenship and pretending that they are strangers in the country of their birth.

What can we do? This is a dilemma which each of us has to face. I should say that to achieve our aim of improving the quality of life of people, it is necessary, to begin with, that we mobilize all our human resources to plan together and tackle the problem. We must rid ourselves systematically and rapidly of all stumbling-blocks in the way of economic development. If experts such as Dr. Riekert and his associates, or Prof. Wiehahn, make certain proposals, we must accept that they do so with the best knowledge at their disposal and we should not contradict the essence of this Commission’s recommendations in the way in which the Government has incorporated their recommendations in legislation. We also need a large-scale plan to stimulate technical training at various levels amongst our Black population. I know that the Government is aware of this and I realize the problem the hon. the Minister of Mining had in making this point very clear to the Mine Workers Union. However, what is important, is that we shall have to make use of imaginative methods to inform and educate the entire South African population with regard to the nature of these challenges and the sacrifices they will require, inter alia, by means of the mass communication media. We must use television more effectively and must draw all population groups into this debate. Why do we have to read about people such as Poppie Nongena? Why can we not talk to them on television so that the average White can see and experience in his own home the nature of the problems of existing inequalities? Furthermore, we shall have to get rid of obsolete ideological concepts with regard to the effective utilization of all our natural resources. We shall clearly have to carry out planning on the basis that South Africa’s population comprises 26 million people and not merely 4,5 million. All those people form part of South Africa and depend for their living on the same economy. Consequently their quality of life has to be improved by way of that same economy.

It is because I see no long-term planning in this regard that I motivate a motion of no-confidence at this level of Government activity as well.

†I now wish to come to the second leg of my motion. This concerns the whole question of the systematic removal of discrimination and of apartheid. I believe it is fair to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has created more expectations with regard to change on this level than any of his predecessors. He has said things in connection with discrimination that none of them would have dared to say before at NP congresses and, it also seems, to their caucus.

I quote him—

Another quote—

I applaud the hon. the Prime Minister for this kind of courage and I should like to add my own maxim on racial discrimination in South Africa—

However, we need to go further than to simply state or express good intentions. We need to move onto the level of concrete action. A first step would be for every hon. member of the Government to commit himself publicly through a declaration of intent as far as discrimination is concerned. [Interjections.] I wish that every hon. member of the NP had the guts and the courage to go back to his constituency and ask for a personal mandate on the following declaration of intent, in other words to say personally to their supporters in public the following—

1. (a) I believe in the right of every man, regardless of colour, to be heard when decisions are taken affecting his own destiny, in other words, in participation in the decision-making processes.

They must say this publicly to their own constituents. [Interjections.]—

1. (b) I believe in every man’s right to equal chances and opportunities.

That should be said so that everybody can hear it—

1. (c) I believe in the right of every man to equality before the law, to full citizenship.

The latter point I should like to repeat. [Interjections.] I want to know whether these hon. gentlemen will be prepared to go back to their own constituencies and to say there that this is what they believe.

No!

No? [Interjections.] They should also be prepared to say—

1. (d) I believe in full human rights for …

You are not in the classroom now!

Is that hon. member prepared to go and tell his constituency that he believes in full human rights for all people in South Africa? Is he prepared to do that? [Interjections.]

No!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says “no”. I find this astounding. [Interjections.] What is going on now? Some members are saying “yes” and others are saying “no”. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am simply repeating what the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said in such ringing terms on 19 June 1979, at the Hilton Riviera Hotel, at Palm Springs California. May I just repeat what the hon. the Minister said there, because it is very important with regard to this declaration of intent? He said—

This is the Government of South Africa—

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister said he would not rest until racial discrimination had disappeared. I have the original transcript of his speech. I obtained it from his department. He says he believes in equality before the law and full citizenship. After this hon. Minister had gone through all these statements of intent, this statement of belief—for which I honestly commend him—he went further to say that “these are beliefs shared by my Government”. That is what he said. I want to ask whether that is so. Does this Government believe that? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want a simple “yes” or “no”, because the claim has been made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and obviously has the support of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to say that it is a breakthrough and if every Nationalist Party member of Parliament is able to go to his own constituency and ask for a mandate on this, there will be a whole new climate in South Africa. If this happens, we are on the move. Then we will be on the move, because that is what we really need.

The second step on the level of concrete action is to become specific on instances of discriminatory legislation; not only a declaration of intent, but to state that a certain law is bad, that it is hurtful to people, that it should not be on our Statute Book, etc. What better examples do we have of such pieces of legislation than section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act? These miserable examples of human folly and error are a blight on our past and a threat to our future.

However, we have reason for gratitude. For the first time in the history of the NP Government we now have a Prime Minister who has publicly stated that he is prepared to change these laws. [Interjections.]

*According to the NP’s information service, the Prime Minister spoke of “improvement” and not of “abolition”.

†We must have some kind of clarity. I am suggesting that every improvement is a change. However, not all changes are improvements. [Interjections.] It appears to me that there are some hon. members in the House who have a new distinction … [Interjections.]

Order!

… who are now suggesting a new category, that one can in fact have an improvement without change. [Interjections.] I believe that this is a new first for South Africa, viz. that the Prime Minister is now asked by his colleagues actually to improve the legislation without changing it! [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this kind of nonsense to develop in South Africa. I state again: We have a Prime Minister who is on record as saying that he is prepared to change section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. He has had the wisdom to say that. [Interjections.] He said he wanted to change them. What does that hon. member mean by “improve them”? You know, Mr. Speaker, if apartheid was a patient and that hon. member was sent into the hospital to wait for hourly bulletins on the condition of the patient, one would hear statements like “No change”, “Slight improvement”, etc. That hon. member would be quite satisfied if a bulletin was issued in which it was stated that the patient had improved, but that there had been no change. [Interjections.] That is what he is saying. That is nonsense. Let us not create an artificial language, a silly language in South Africa so that eventually we would not even know why we could not understand each other. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that he is prepared to change these laws and he has had the rare insight—I commend him for it—to state that although a mixed marriage in South Africa is not a sin, it is still a crime and that we have to try to take the racial sting out of legislation of this nature.

He said it was undesirable.

It is obviously undesirable. I agree with that. However, the Prime Minister is not alone. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has been placed on record as saying—

I am in full agreement with him. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in reply to a question about this, said …

Count me out. I have enough problems!

You are quite right. They are all around you.

Let me quote the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

*I fully agree with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this respect The hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is back now—I do not want to embarrass him—said—

I am very glad to hear that, because it means that the possibilities exist … [Interjections.]

Order!

However, I want to ask the hon. members whether they have submitted any constructive proposals to the hon. the Prime Minister so far, because that is what the hon. the Prime Minister wants—how can we make constructive improvements to the Immorality Act or the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act?

Do you have any suggestions?

Yes, I have a very constructive proposal and I shall come to it in a moment.

†When I say that he is not alone in his own caucus, I do not say that the hon. the Prime Minister is necessarily in the majority. There are those who do not wish to see this Act changed, and this is also a matter of public record. The hon. the Minister of Statistics and of Tourism has made this very clear and has given a very concise and logical argument for why he does not want to see it changed. The hon. the Minister of Police, according to the Transvaler of 24 July 1978, said—

*I assume, therefore, that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a member of the vociferous minority to whom the hon. the Minister of Police is referring here. So they have differences among themselves and we must have clarity about this.

† Statutory discrimination in South Africa is the most sensational aspect of our international reputation. This is where we hurt, and we know it, having as we do these statutes or laws that cannot be defended by anybody. Take, for example, the Group Areas Act. The cold, clinical facts are more damning than anything else. How many people had been removed by 1979?: Whites, 1 933; Coloureds, 70 560 and Indians, 33 587. The figures are there, and people can misinterpret or abuse them simply because these laws are on the Statute Book and are applied rigorously. So let me ask a question. When the hon. the Prime Minister talks about removing hurtful practices, and when he talks about “discrimination being a system which seeks to maintain a superiority of one man by force at the cost of another man’s dignity”, saying that this is bad and has to change, what exactly has he in mind? As they say in cowboy country: “Talk is cheap, but money buys the whisky.” We therefore have to find out where the hon. the Prime Minister is going to put his money, or assist his party in putting its money.

I ask this because everyone regards 1980 as the funeral of apartheid year. “Apartheid is dead,” we hear. The official Opposition is here because it wants to see the corpse. Where is the corpse of apartheid? [Interjections.]

Order!

If the Government does not want to hold a post-mortem with us, we shall go on telling the world that the terminally ill body of apartheid is being kept alive by the heart-lung machine of the NP.

However, there is a special reason why I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to be specific about discriminatory legislation. I do so because if he does not change or scrap statutory discrimination, he will sustain an army of built-in saboteurs of his good intentions whether he—or they—like it or not. I say this because I am talking about the average, diligent civil servant It is not enough to talk about removing discrimination. One actually has to change laws to bring it about, and unless one does that, the ordinary civil servant doing his job sabotages the good intentions of any Minister by simply acting according to the law. One cannot solve apartheid by means of permits. Every permit simply underscores the rule which has to allow for the exception. A telephone call to Pretoria at half past ten at night to ask permission for Omar Henry to have a steak with his friends in a licensed restaurant, simply reminds us of the millions of unfortunate people who are not fortunate enough to play for the Western Province cricket team. If ever there was a time for the hon. the Prime Minister to prove his mettle and political credibility on this issue, this is that time. He has raised expectations like no one before him. I want to assure him that for every concrete step he takes to remove any form of statutory discrimination, he will have the overwhelming majority of people in this land behind him, supporting him, thriving on a new hope and showing new enthusiasm for the cause of our country. This session is his great and perhaps last opportunity to demonstrate vividly and practically what he means when he asks: “Why should the Government not remove those things which are hurtful and which offend decent people?” There are a lot of decent people who have been asking this very question for many years.

Statutory discrimination is, however, only one part of the problem of discrimination. We all know that, even if we remove all the statutory discrimination, we will still have grave inequalities in South Africa. This is due to institutional, de facto discrimination which has developed over the years in the fields of health, medicine, transport, public amenities, etc. It is this aspect that is most keenly felt on a daily basis by those who suffer under the effects of racial discrimination. This kind of discrimination, Sir, cannot solely be blamed on the Government. Businessmen, industrialists, farmers, housewives, all those who enjoy the privileges of such discrimination, play a smaller or greater part in maintaining this discrimination. Therefore it is the responsibility of all of us, including the Government, to get rid of institutional discrimination.

Let me give just one example, that of medicine. In South Africa medicine is primarily organized upper middle-class people. Yet the bulk of disease and suffering in South Africa occurs in rural areas and not in urban areas. In fact, 80% of all registered doctors live in urban areas where only slightly more than one-third of the population lives. This fact alone stimulates migration to the urban areas whether there are jobs available or not. I mention these figures to show that de facto inequality is not necessarily to be blamed only on the Government. Many other statistics can be furnished to show this.

It is, however, the responsibility of Government to do something about the inequality of opportunity in South Africa. The old and very often valid excuse was that there was no money available to improve the infrastructure for Black living standards. This excuse cannot be used in the year 1980. We have heard the managing director of Barclays Bank and the economic adviser of Volkskas saying that we must use the bonanza of gold to improve the infrastructure.

This session provides the opportunity for the Government to take vigorous steps to close the inequality gap between White and Black in many areas. Here, more than anywhere else, expectations have been raised. I want to say that I welcome the additional money for housing and education the Government has made available. However, we need a great deal more.

Now we at least have a Prime Minister who has declared it as a major goal to improve the quality of life and to remove discriminatory practices. So far the Government has been either unable or unwilling to do so in any systematic manner—unwilling by trying to justify unjustifiable racially discriminatory laws; unable by being immobilized through dissension and tension within their own ranks, of which we had a beautiful example only a few minutes ago.

If the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government, is serious about removing racial discrimination in South Africa, the Government is going to need help and assistance from all South Africans, Black and White. We are not going to crawl away from apartheid permit by permit or by means of ad hoc financial dribs and drabs every now and then. Who better can help the Government than those who suffer under the sting of legislation and who experience daily inequality? Who better can assist than those who have the money and expertise to set up systematic programmes for removing discriminatory laws and de facto inequalities? Therefore I urge the Government to set up an anti-discrimination advisory board to assist and advise the Government on how best to do away with apartheid and discrimination in a systematic manner. This board must be as representative as possible, including representatives from key Black areas where inequality and discrimination is a daily experience. Such a move would capture the imagination of the entire world and inside South Africa would improve the climate between the different races no end. Let this board then use as its declaration of intent those ringing phrases of the Minister of Co-operation and Development which he uttered in June 1979 in the Hilton Riviera Hotel at Palm Springs, California. If the board uses that as its declaration of intent and is a multiracial representative board, it will remove a lot of political heat out of South Africa.

*I come now to the most important part of my motion of no confidence, and that is the question of constitutional development. I have deliberately reserved my discussion of this aspect for the last part of my speech, because I believe that there is a very close interdependence between socio-economic development and discrimination, and constitutional development. There is an interdependence between them, so concentrating on one at the expense of the other, or ignoring the other, would be playing with fire, because it could fan the flames of revolution rather than to extinguish them. In this connection I want to quote what Dr. Kissinger said about the Shah of Iran—

What Kissinger is saying is that the Shah thought he could keep the political structive of Iran unchanged with a strong defence force, while effecting economic and social changes, and that this was the cause of his downfall. In 1976, Iran’s expenditure on arms was the largest in the whole Third World, i.e. $3,2 billion.

He did not know the Americans would stab him in the back.

Therefore, even if we succeeded in our long-term socio-economic planning and even if we successfully removed apartheid and discrimination, if we are unable constitutionally to accommodate the consequences of these changes, we shall have created the instrument of our own destruction. To put it briefly, one cannot give people social and economic privileges in one sphere while at the same time denying them effective political rights. That is a recipe for chaos and instability.

Are they better off in Iran at the moment?

Ask the Ayatollah!

What is going on in the Republic at the moment in the constitutional sphere? It is generally accepted by all parties that the present Constitution is unsuitable and ineffective. For this reason, there are several committees or bodies which are carrying out instructions with constitutional implications. There are the so-called Constitutional Commission, the Central Consolidation Committee, the Cabinet Council for Urban Blacks, etc. All these investigations have implications for a new constitutional dispensation.

A concept or idea which has been widely discussed is one which the hon. the Prime Minister himself revived in our political vocabulary. It is the idea of a constellation of Southern African States. This is essentially a very old idea, with the result that the excitement caused by the hon. the Prime Minister’s use of it leads me to wonder whether he is not perhaps just pouring new wine into an old wine-skin. There is great confusion about this. In 1977, the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said—

This almost reminds one of the hon. member for Mooi River—

Paratus of 3 December 1979 says in less flamboyant language in an editorial—

It goes on to say—

In other words, South Africa’s contribution to this constellation is the final implementation of the policy of separate development. That is the conclusion to which I have come. If this is so—and point 3 of the hon. the Prime Minister’s 12-point plan confirms it—I am afraid that this idea of a constellation is still-born. I want to mention three experts who have laid down conditions for the success of such a constellation. One of them is the hon. the Prime Minister’s own economic adviser, Dr. Simon Brand. I quote—

In other words, what is being said here is that if the Government seeks to impose upon a centripetal economy a centrifugal political structure, this will simply degenerate into a number of impoverished satellite States which will come cap in hand to beg for essential supplies or which will seek these elsewhere.

Dr. Leistner of the Africa Institute has said—

Dr. Willie Breytenbach of the South African Foundation has advanced precisely the same arguments. He has said that it is the responsibility of the Government to move away from apartheid before they can ask other people to join the constellation. For that reason, the idea of a constellation of Southern African States cannot simply be an old policy of separate development dressed up in the summer fashions of 1980. If this is so, the Constitutional Commission on which I serve may as well throw in the towel, for then the Government has unilaterally finalized the constitutional dispensation for Southern Africa and it is just persuading everyone and indicating where they fit into the master plan. All we are doing, therefore, is to drive in the nails and to tighten the screws.

And yet there are stirrings which may indicate that matters are not so simple; that the hon. the Prime Minister may have something else in mind. I quote one of his statements—

He has also said—

Furthermore he has said—

In Soweto the hon. the Prime Minister also said—

To my mind, one of the most important statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister is the following—

Separate development and apartheid have hitherto tended to have the opposite effect Therefore it is of vital importance that the hon. the Prime Minister should spell out what he has in mind with his constellation of States. These remarks of his that I have quoted have raised expectations in myself and in others which can be perilous for us all if they are frustrated. But whatever the hon. the Prime Minister may have in mind, two things have become evident to me personally so far on the Constitutional Commission. Firstly, South Africa’s conflict cannot be resolved on a constitutional basis only. Constitutional change will have to be accompanied by changes in the social and economic spheres. In fact, social and economic changes will have to create the favourable climate in which constitutional change will have to take place. Secondly, a new constitutional dispensation will not be worked out to the last detail by one group and forced upon the rest of South Africa.

Up to now I have honestly tried to identify the points of agreement between us and the Government. I have used the hon. the Prime Minister’s 12-point plan as a guide and I have tried to indicate the areas about which we can conduct a fruitful debate in this House. Such a debate is very necessary, I believe, if Parliament is to make a constructive contribution in the difficult time which lies ahead.

However, there are fundamental differences between us and the Government. It would be dishonest of me not to enunciate them clearly. There are four points to which I wish to refer, and I shall do so briefly, because they are well known, but I made these four points in my speech in which I accepted the leadership of my party, and as long as they remain points of disagreement between me and the Government, there is sufficient reason, in my opinion, for a motion of no confidence in the Government. I shall repeat these four points because they are fundamental to what I honestly believe may be a successful constitutional development.

Firstly, a White Government cannot decide on its own what the final constitution of South Africa should be. It must not tell the rest of South Africa: Here is my plan, this is how you fit in. It should rather say: Help me to work on a plan together, because the practicability of any plan depends of the support it enjoys. I am not the only one who says this. The editor of Die Vaderland recently returned from Rhodesia, and the heading of his article is: “The lesson for South Africa: Involve everyone.” His article reads—

He goes on to say—

The second statement I want to make as a fundamental point of disagreement I want to make by way of a question. Does the Black man remain a citizen of South Africa under the new constitutional dispensation? Yes or no? If the answer is “no”, I really believe in my heart of hearts that constitutional change is doomed. There is not a building, a street or a factory in this country which has not been built by the labours of Black, Brown and White. This is our common heritage which only we can destroy. Just as the blood of our ancestors and their ancestors moistened and fertilized this country of ours, so this will happen again if we try to find a constitutional solution by depriving the Black man of his citizenship. If the White man keeps telling the Black man that he is not a citizen of South Africa, the day will come when the Black man will tell the White man: You do not belong in Africa. Citizenship can become the flashpoint of White-Black polarization or it can become the source of reconciliation and unity. If the hon. the Prime Minister seeks a united South Africa, the secret of that unity lies in this problem of citizenship.

Thirdly, a constitutional dispensation based on compulsory group membership is doomed to failure. We can forget about it. I am not saying this because that is the way I want it to be; it is the lesson we have learnt from experience. I cannot improve on the way this is stated by the editor of Die Transvaler, who put it in a nutshell in Rapport of 13 January 1980. With reference to Blacks he says—

I myself could not improve on the way it is stated here. He then comes to the following conclusion—

As my grandfather would say: “Now you are talking!” I agree with every word of this.

The fourth point is the restoration of the rule of law and habeas corpus. A great deal of sense and nonsense has been talked about this, but basically it refers to the right—I want to emphasize this, because it is of vital importance—of an individual to be tried and represented before being found guilty and/or locked up. In a climate where the court cannot act as arbitrator between the individual and the State or political groups, the law loses its justice and peaceful constitutional development becomes difficult. A review commission is investigating this matter at the moment, and I do not wish to say any more about it.

I am absolutely convinced that these four conditions can create the basis for successfully negotiating a generally acceptable constitutional dispensation in South Africa. On this basis, once we have accepted them, we can negotiate about the way in which we can recognize pluralism in our constitutional law, how domination can be prevented and minorities can be protected. However, they must be accepted as a basis, for without them I cannot see, in all fairness, how we can bring about constitutional development. On that basis, however, there is at least a possibility. These four points are points of departure in our proposals for peaceful constitutional development, the proposals which we submitted to the commission.

At the beginning of the decade of the ’eighties, South Africa is standing at a cross-roads. The Prime Minister himself has read the road signs at the cross-roads, and they tell him and us that South Africa must adapt or die. I am quoting his own words. South Africa is faced with external threats while it is internally divided. I absolutely agree with and support the Prime Minister when he says: “Conditions must be created in South Africa which will inspire every man, woman and child, irrespective of skin colour, to defend his country.” I believe that our nation and our country find themselves in the hour of crisis to which Van Wyk Louw referred. I should like to quote what he said—

†I started by saying that the job of Prime Minister of South Africa at this time in our history demands super-human qualities. It demands statesmanship and determination far beyond that expected of an ordinary politician. Kissinger said of such a man—

I look at my land and all its people and I pray for such a man. I even pray that the hon. the Prime Minister be that man for he is in a position to become that man. When I look at the performance of this Government over the last 30 years, however, I have no option but to move the motion I put before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on his election to this particular position. I wish to add that I understand from the hon. member for Yeoville that he lost his own position within that party as a result of the existence of an internal clique. Consequently I wish to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the task of a leader in circumstances of this nature can frequently be very taxing.

In the second place I also wish to congratulate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the self-controlled presentation of his speech today and point out to him that I do not think there is anyone in this country who does not realize the gravity of the times in which we are living. Furthermore I also wish to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in the British Parliament, which is called the Mother of Parliaments, the Opposition is known as “Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition”. In a time in which loyalty is a rare commodity—I am referring now to the world as a whole, on the international level as well—it is a singular experience when people commit themselves to loyalty, more specifically to loyalty to their country and to the population of their country. Without casting any doubts on the loyalty of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and also without questioning his integrity, I nevertheless wish to comment that loyalty also requires a practical content, and not only a verbal connotation.

I wish to question, seriously, the judgment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and shall I do so with reference to only one example. Not long ago an incident occurred in this country, when a terrorist attack was made on a bank in Silverton, an incident which all right-minded South Africans condemn, an incident which Black leaders in the country condemn in no uncertain terms, an event which, I think, every right-minded hon. member of this House finds abhorrent. But what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do in connection with this specific case? Against what should we test his conduct and statements with regard to this case?

I refer to a headline in The Cape Times in connection with the reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

From the hon. the Leader of the Opposition there was no condemnation in the terms in which we heard it from other people. I am quoting what he said according to The Cape Times—

Mr. Speaker, what do we find implicit in what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said about this specific occurrence? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is really saying that in the set-up in this country, justification exists for this kind of occurrence. [Interjections.]

That is an outrageous interpretation of his words! [Interjections.]

In his comment the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the reason for the terrorist attack was the circumstances in which these people were living. [Interjections.] In his comment the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not really say that he condemned those people, but accused us of creating the circumstances in which actions of this nature occurred. [Interjections.] However, I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but wish … [Interjections.]

Order!

… to say in all fairness that when the Leader of the Opposition—and that is what the hon. member is—reacts to specific circumstances, he should give thorough consideration to the consequences of his reaction and of his comment.

In my opinion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is correct in approaching the hon. the Prime Minister with care. Let me say at once that his viewpoint in this respect is a commendable one, for he has every reason to be careful.

There are three points which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition bases his motion of no-confidence in the Government. I should like to deal with them in general terms. We looked forward to the contribution of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today. Let me say at once that he covered a very wide field. However, he covered nothing more than other people prompted him to come and say today. We on this side shall deal with the particular points of criticism, but I must also point out to him that this debate is not solely intended to subject the policy, the acts or omissions of the Government to critical analysis. I think the hon. the Leader will understand that it is also necessary for us to consider and analyse the alternatives offered by the Opposition, however irrelevant these may seem. We must do so against the background of the options which we have in this country.

There is one important aspect to which I wish to refer at once. The statement was made that the hon. the Prime Minister had created expectations in this country and that, as a result of these initiatives, it would be expected of him to satisfy those expectations. Of course it is true that expectations are being created, but there is this qualification: It must be legitimate expectations which have to be satisfied and not all expectations. I wish to warn against one mode of conduct in this connection and that is that the Opposition, all the Opposition parties and the media which support them, have attached and are still attaching a connotation to the actions and statements of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government for their own purposes, but this has no bearing on what he said.

Are you also back-pedalling now?

No, not at all. I wish to emphasize that one thing which the Opposition and the media are doing in this connection is to create expectations which cannot be fulfilled. By so doing they are not lowering but increasing in intensity the tension potential which exists in this country. I wish to emphasize that it is not possible to consider this society and find solutions on the basis of models which exist elsewhere. However, it is equally impossible to find an answer to the problems of this country without taking cognizance of the intensity of the emotional reactions of those who do not believe.

Like some members of the NP.

That hon. member must please keep quiet. Of course the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government have taken policy initiatives. The best supporting evidence for that came from the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, he devoted the major portion of his speech to citing the actions of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government with approval. In this connection, therefore, we have already made great progress. Of course a revival is taking place. Of course a revival and an adaptation is taking place, which the accession to power of any Prime Minister in this specific connection will obviously influence. That is why I think we can look forward to a period of adjustment, development and initiative in every sphere of South African society.

That is, however, a condition for the continuation of the process of development, the process of expansion, and that is, in the first place, confidence among the people concerned, confidence among those people who elect Governments and place them in that position. There is also the condition of continuity, of stability and also of law and order, and the preservation of law and order is, as the hon. the Leader surely knows, a prerequisite if justice and equity is to exist. Secondly there is the fact that the preservation of law and order changes from one set of circumstances to another. The preservation of law and order in wartime is different to that in peace-time, and for that reason it is no use implying things, as the hon. member in fact did. Is it not true that this has also created a climate for a process of development the constitutional sphere? Is it not also true that we are experiencing and doing things today which were not possible even five years ago?

We must all understand that we are dealing every day with developments and with the politics of development, but I wonder whether we all understand that there are restrictions on the rate of development and that these restrictions apply over a wide sphere. For example there are economic restrictions, financial restrictions, etc. But is it not true that the greatest restriction in South Africa on the development of relations politics in the country has an emotional significance and content? If we do not understand this, we shall not find the answer to these problems, if there is an answer.

There is a further observation I should like to make. Why create the impression—which is frequently done—that the acceptance of new initiatives and the application of new instruments of policy by the Government is a deviation from principle? What I am now going to say, I am saying with great circumspection. If there is a democratic answer to the problems in our society, we shall have to find it, and I am saying nothing new when I say that the hon. member himself in his credo, in which he stated certain options, considered the chances of a democratic solution in this country to be very slender. If that is so, why adopt a pose here as though there were a ready-made answer, in package form, to the South African circumstances? What did the hon. member do? He referred to the socio-economic planning of the country and said that in the long term there was a lack of such planning. However he accepts certain things. He does not express condemnation of an uncontrolled growth of the population. He accepts this as a fact and he says that we have to make provision for it He says that we should correlate the population increase and the land available for the population as a whole. Does he not understand—and I want the hon. the Leader to react to this—that if one over-extends the capacity of the First World, one does not uplift the Third World, but rather drags the former down. Consequently I want to ask him why he is not prepared to point out their duty to other population groups as well.

I want to go further. Surely it is clear—it has been discussed a great deal here—that the policy of the NP for this complex matter was based on four cardinal points, and I wish to enumerate them. The first is the elimination of the domination of one group by another—consequently, too, the removal of White domination of others. I want to ask the hon. member this question: Who in this country initiated the process of developing a constitutional dispensation which could give content to this objective? Who, other than the Government, came to this House with a model, although it need not be the final answer? Who initiated a process, through an instrument of Parliament—an instrument in which hon. members also share—to see whether it is possible, in spite of the restrictions, to find a model by means of which this objective can be achieved? A second basis is that we must eliminate the points of contact which could cause unrest or tension. Now I want to ask why hon. members on the opposite side have for years been condemning this policy of co-existence and individual group existence in this country as suppression of other people. Foreign countries have attached their meaning to apartheid or to separate development and have in that way given it a negative context, but these foreign countries found this meaning in the first place in South Africa itself. The onslaughts from abroad frequently originate in South Africa itself. Consequently, when we talk about loyalty and patriotism, it must also be practised and not merely preached.

The third basis is surely the reduction and the removal of unjustified discriminatory measures. I wish to ask the hon. member whether it is not a fact that the acceptance of this concept is awakening a growing consciousness among the people in this country. Is it, in the fourth place, not also a fact that the basis of what we are trying to do in this country is to afford everyone an opportunity, in a fundamentally unequal society, to develop and achieve their destiny?

Does the hon. member condemn our establishing instruments of development and corporations to enable some groups of our population to participate more meaningfully in the economic life? On the basis of his argument, Sir, surely that is discrimination against the Whites. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the Opposition as a whole, allow the development component of the Government’s policy to be concealed from the outside world? Why are we prepared to concentrate only on the negative, or what we think are the negative aspects? The hon. member will agree with me that more people of the other population groups in the country are participating in the economic life of the country as a result of measures which assist them to do so than would have been the case if we had adopted his formula. Once again the NP and the Government have initiated a development process in the country which is benefiting every population group and every individual. The fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was able to make his speech today is tangible evidence of this process. I wish to sound a serious warning to the effect that we should not harm this process through the creation of expectations which can never be fulfilled. It would be a tragic day if this were to result in radical reactions. It would restrict the progress towards solutions in this country, instead of enhancing it.

In the past the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was a political academic. He has now exchanged this position to become an academic politician. I do not know which role suits him best, but if the former has to be a norm for the latter, I am at least glad that the students have been safeguarded against this. Last night, in a television interview, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicated what he was going to do here today. It was very interesting to note that he said that by virtue of his academic background—and he must correct me if I am quoting him incorrectly—he has an interest in the constitutional development of the country. I want to tell him that I have more than an academic interest in the constitutional development of this country. I cannot live on his theories, and we must devise a system within which we are able to live. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the ideal democratic system which he is advocating and striving for has no viability in this country. I need only refer him to the book which he wrote. He will agree with me that I am not being unkind to him when I say that his academic colleagues dismiss the proposals contained in his book as being merely of academic importance and as having no viability.

Who do you have in mind now?

Prof. De Crespigny, or do you not recognize him as an authority, like your co-author? The co-author of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s book says there is only one authority in the field of political science and that is himself.

Next I want to make three statements. I want to ask what the principal issue in our politics is, and I am certain no one will differ with me on this score. What is the real issue? The real issue is the realization of certain objectives which we set ourselves and the definition of these objectives, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to do today. I am not quarelling with him on this score. Secondly, what is involved is the instruments of policy, the methods which we can use to achieve these objectives. What is involved in the third place—and this is the important aspect—is the capacity of the country. In our case what is involved is the economic capacity of the country, the financial capacity to achieve these objectives. But there is something else involved as well, and that is the emotional capacity of the population of this country to achieve those objectives. We must not underestimate the intensity of emotional reactions in our society.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, please! I now wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he does not agree with me that these capacities imply certain restrictions, economic, financial and emotional. The solution of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to his problem is growth. Surely this is an old, imperialistic concept. Surely a vast redistribution is going to take place in this country, not so? Surely a transfer from one population group to another is going to take place. I want to ask him where in his policy or in any statement he put forward the standpoint of his party on the economic implications of his constitutional models. I want to ask him whether he realizes how it is going to over-extend the economy of this country if what he suggested is done. He referred to the fact that in this specific case we must have labour-intensive industries, but surely that is not a new idea. For years work has been in progress on devising plans and methods of ensuring this very thing in the long term. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not aware of this?

That is not what you have been doing all these years. That is the point.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Pinelands. He must be called upon to answer this question: In whose hands is the major portion of the capital of the country, and who is largely responsible for our industries being capital-intensive? He must not merely sit here and pay lip-service to a specific object, and at the same time reproach the Government in that connection. Who tried to decentralize industrial development, to the rural areas as well? Who tried to initiate a process of employment at great expense? Was it his supporters, or was it the Government? Who took the initiatives in this specific connection?

Let us tell one another on what score we differ with one another, where we want to take South Africa and how we are to get there. All of us wish to ensure—and this is not a new idea—a Christian and civilized society, norms and standards. However, the hon. member will concede that no models exist for us in the constitutional laboratories. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot point to one example of where his model has ever worked in a comparable situation. In fact, the father of the consociational idea himself stated that his model cannot work in such a deeply divided society as South Africa. The second objective which all of us wish to achieve is to establish and, what is more, to maintain a political, social and economic dispensation in which everyone can share and which can stand the test of righteousness and Christianity. However, if the alternative destroys more than it creates—surely the hon. member will grant me this—then change was not a good thing. We should like to have the preservation of law and order as a condition for equity and justice, but why does the hon. member say that the rule of law in the country is being impaired when he knows in what circumstances we find ourselves, and when he knows what is being planned for the country?

Surely the promotion of the happiness and welfare of people is an accepted objective. Not only do I wish to spell it out to him theoretically, I want to test it in practice and he can contradict me if he likes. Surely we are striving for peace within our borders and in Africa. Surely we are attempting here in Southern Africa to create an environment in which the politics of reconciliation can be practised among the various countries of Southern Africa. Surely we are seeking common ground and points of contact with one another. Why does the hon. member label the initiative in this specific connection “the 1980 fashion”?

This list of objectives has by no means been exhausted. However, I want to ask the hon. member—he is still young—whether it is not a fact that during the past 32 years during which this Government has been in office there has been unparalleled growth and development? When I say this I am not referring only to material, economic and financial growth, but to something far more. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question: Is it not true that there has been a fantastic change in the sphere of relations and dispositions in the country? Is this not the basis for the solution of the problems of South Africa? Is this not also a prerequisite for constitutional development? Is it not true that the reason for this is that we have had continuity and stability in South Africa to a greater extent than in any other country in the world? Is it not also true that the educational and productive capacity of the country has been enhanced in an unprecedented way? The expansion of this country’s economic, spiritual and emotional capacity has in fact been made possible by the National Party Government.

However, we must take into consideration that this country has 26 million inhabitants. We must take into consideration that the vast majority of them are still classified as developing people, that our society is deeply divided, intensely divided, and then one realizes the limitations on the achievement of the objectives to which we are aspiring in our society.

What are the restrictions? A hostile outside world. That is a restriction. The fact that we are in the midst of a power struggle between the great powers and ideologies of the world is a restriction. The fact that South Africa can play a decisive role or be a factor in maintaining the balance of power is a restrictive factor. It is also a restrictive factor that South Africa is frequently the price that has to be paid by great powers if they wish to gain the goodwill of other powers.

I want to say in all amiability to the hon. member that his party is an irrelevant party, a party that is a stranger to the truth in terms of its ideological views. Let us put where it stands ideologically to the test. Ideologically speaking, it is left of centre, but economically speaking, it is right of centre. In this connection I wish to mention one example. On the political pages of the newspapers which support it, “one man, one vote” is proclaimed in a unitary State, but in the financial columns of the same newspapers they object to the taxation of fringe benefits. Have they any concept of what it is going to cost to implement their model and aspirations? Does the hon. member realize what the economic implications of his envisaged constitutional changes are?

I want to tell the hon. members something, and I know that he will not contradict me. If he considers our society, is it not a fact that in recent years more policy adjustments have been made at varying tempos and at various times to meet the needs of changing circumstances than ever before? Is that not true? The fact that these were evolutionary and the result of the politics of development did not make them sensational, but this does not make them less real or less important. Is it not a fact that in terms of people’s emotional reactions to other people we extended the limits of the possible?

I wish to warn once again that we should not wittingly over-extend this capacity, for then we are seeking violence and not solutions. From the outset the NP endorsed and recognized self-determination. From the outset the NP accepted that the multi-nationalism of the country should be the basis of its constitutional development From the outset the NP recognized the existence and the place of the geographical component in a developing State. Where did the PFP of the hon. member begin? With “one man, one vote”. But today the hon. member also accepts the multi-nationalism of the country and the fact that geographical areas have a place in the constitutional dispensation of the future.

That is Japie’s influence.

I do not know whose influence it is, but it did help. Is it not true that the results of what we have achieved have brought development and an easing of tension? Is it not true that in South Africa the relations between the population groups have never been more relaxed than they are now? Is it not true, in general terms, that more people are engaged every day in formal and informal discussions on the future of the country? Is it not true that as a result of the policy of separate development leaders have been identified who can talk to one another?

Admit that it is true, really true.

Whether the hon. member wants to admit it or not, he has made it part of his own policy and his own methods.

I conclude with an idea on which I differ fundamentally with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The NP’s premise is that in the co-operative search for solutions for the country, constitutional and otherwise, there is one instrument which is going to be decisive on what that solution is going to be, i.e. Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realizes how much dynamite is concealed in his method of wishing to consult with the various population groups. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to establish another instrument alongside Parliament He wishes to transfer matters to a national convention. I want to tell the hon. member that it requires no prophetic skill to know that this is a formula for conflict and collision.

Let me try to explain. This national convention will not be constituted in the same way as Parliament, will it? There will be other power groups present. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that this national convention will continue to deliberate until consensus has been reached. Suppose, when they have finished deliberating, that Parliament were to refuse to give effect to their consensus proposals, what then? Then all the expectations through which conflict can be stoked have been created. Then we have created circumstances which are unmanageable. [Interjections.]

This procedure is going to entail that there will be a formal and an informal Parliament I can scarcely imagine a more dangerous method than this one. I can hardly imagine more ideal circumstances for the development of revolution than these very circumstances. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopts the standpoint that if he has started with his model and it happens to be unsuccessful, the results would not be detrimental and that we could return to the status quo. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that that is absurd. Surely he knows that if we were to return to the status quo, it would give rise to a worse form of domination than this country has hitherto known. Surely a Black tyranny would then arise in this country.

Then you may as well bring the Ayatollah to this country.

Surely there would then be social unrest in this country. Surely nothing would then come of law and order. Surely none of the fine ideals which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cherishes for this country in which he and his people live will be realized.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition something. If we agree on objectives, agree on what we want to achieve in this country, is it not then essential that we extend the limits of the possibilities in this country, the limits of economic and emotional possibilities? It is not possible to develop a constitutional dispensation for our country without thinking of the intensity of its diversity. When I say this, I am not condoning it, but recognize its existence. It is of no avail toying with constitutional models, of toying with economic and social demands which are not viable within the boundaries of this country. Instead of finding solutions, we are then seeking revolution. Instead of progress, we are then seeking chaos. Instead of goodwill between peoples and nations, we are then seeking division, tension and conflict.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the question will have to be put unambiguously in this House as to whether the people of South Africa and hon. members of this House can continue in 1980 to have confidence in the policy and in the implementation of the policy of the governing party.

†That is the question which must be answered clearly during this debate today and the rest of this week, for the very survival of South Africa, politically, economically and socially, is in the hands of hon. Ministers and hon. members opposite. If one looks at the map of the east coast of Africa, starting with the Middle East, with countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, and now Rhodesia at the southern tip on that map, one will find an inextricable process of the demise of democracy and private free enterprise.

*These are the developments which occurred in the ’seventies, those ten years of evolution and development in the former colonial States.

If one were to draw a red line from the Mediterranean Sea to the Zambezi, one would find that the greatest danger to developing countries in Africa is the destruction of democracy and private initiative. I believe that we are facing a risk as regards the survival of democracy as a result of the history and the actions of the Government.

†The present fight for survival in Southern Africa is the fight for the survival of democracy and private free enterprise. If we are to say that we have confidence in the Government, we must be able to say that the hon. members of the Cabinet will safeguard democracy and private free enterprise. That will require an essential prerequisite which I do not believe to be within the capabilities of the Government. The essential prerequisite for the survival of democracy in our plural, multiracial, multinational society in South Africa, is that the leaders of this group, the elite clique of Government, must be able to find consensus with the leaders of the other groups in South Africa It is in this regard that I wish to point out to the hon. the Prime Minister, with due respect, that if one were to read and understand the dialogue with regard to the interaction and interface between the hon. the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Coloured community, it would seem that the people of South Africa would doubt whether they have confidence in the ability of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to find consensus with the leaders of the other groups. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister may say that he is unable to deal with those people because they are obstreperous, because they are stubborn and because they refuse to answer his questions, but I say we must go back to the roots and the history of the National Party to find the underlying reason why the hon. the Prime Minister could not find consensus with them. We must also examine the viability and the capability of other hon. Ministers in his Cabinet to decide whether the people of South Africa can go forward into 1980 with confidence in the belief that this Government will be able to attend to the prosperity, the security and the survival of democracy in South Africa. The hon: the Minister of Co-operation and Development said at Palm Springs: “Give us 2½ years and we will show you what we can do.” This means 2½ years of further procrastination and an inability to find rapport and understanding with the leaders of the other groups in South Africa.

Vorster said six months.

He said 2½ years, Sir. My colleague, the hon. member for Umhlanga, reminds us that the previous Prime Minister said: “Give us six months and we will show you what we can do.”

It is imperative that we should examine the credentials and the ability of every member of the Cabinet to decide whether we can have confidence in that Government or not. Let us start with the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization who was warned last year by this party, and myself specifically, to start negotiations with the Mineworkers’ Union to allay their fears, to assist them with the introduction of change in the labour pattern in South Africa. What did that hon. Minister do? He procrastinated, to such an extent that now he is going to be threatened and blackmailed by that very organization, the Mineworkers’ Union, which today finds itself to be in the most powerful of positions to blackmail that party. We know what has happened with regard to the increase in the price of gold. We know that that is our security against the increase in the price of oil, particularly crude oil from the Middle East. Now the hon. the Minister is finding himself in a confrontation situation in which I doubt whether he will come off best. It is no use producing television shows, with flickering flash-backs to 1978, to try to convince people that he has found consensus with the leaders of the Mineworkers’ Union. I believe it will take a lot of courage for any member of the population of South Africa to say that he has confidence in the ability of that Cabinet to find consensus with the leaders of South Africa.

Let us now look at the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs who now finds it necessary to postpone the democratic election of Indian leaders for more than a year. This is once again a classical example of an hon. Minister on that side who is unable to find consensus with leaders of the other groups. The new hon. Minister of Health—he has not yet made his first speech in the House so perhaps I should treat him gently—has come up with a draft Bill which is going to undermine the confidence of medical practitioners throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. [Interjections.] Is that the kind of behaviour, policy or practice to instill a single grain of confidence, amongst the people of South Africa, in that Cabinet or its policies?

Let us go a little further. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister of Mines. I am sorry he is not here at the moment. He addresses a meeting of the Mineworkers’ Union in South Africa and tells its members that change must come. That is admirable, but what change does he preach because he refuses to grasp the nettle? He tells the members of that Union that change must come about, but only in the independent homelands. He says that that is where we are going to train Black mineworkers. He does not grasp the nettle and tell those people that change must come about in South Africa. Why skirt around the issue? What is wrong with the courage of those hon. Ministers? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of the Interior is not here at the moment either. He says he is now going to relax immigration requirements allowing workers to come to South Africa, but for a decade already the hon. Government and its members have known that we were going to run short of skilled workers, and the figure projected—a conservative figure—is that by the year 1984 we are going to be short of no fewer than 50 000 skilled artisans in South Africa because this hon. Government sat and dilly-dallied, following ideological policies without looking at the realities of the situation in South Africa, this leading to a deficit of 50 000 workers which the Government now hopes to make up overseas. Whilst that, I agree, is an immediate or short-term solution—and we welcome it—the root cause of the problem lies in the fact that that Government refused to carry out practical policies which would ensure the training of members of all population groups in South Africa. That is the problem with that Government. They preach and preach and preach, but they refuse to practise. That is the problem. They are so concerned with internal dissension in their party, with ideological differences, that they do not know in what direction to take South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what puts us at risk in this country. That is what puts democracy and free enterprise at risk. It is internal dissension in the NP which will prevent the hon. the Prime Minister introducing, during this session, real and meaningful change by way of changes in legislation. I want to forecast that that is what is going to happen during this session. We shall find no real change. [Interjections.] That hon. member at the back there probably agrees with me because he would like to see change, but the hon. the Prime Minister is immobilized by the tensions between his left and right wings, and whilst that is happening South Africa is at ever greater risk as far as prosperity, peace and the survival of democracy and private free enterprise are concerned. That is the lesson of the history of the NP. No innovation, no change in policy, which could be translated into reality and meaningful change on either the social, economic or political fronts.

What country can stand proud in the face of the Information scandal of 1979? [Interjections.] Let me ask hon. members if that is something they would be proud of. Are they proud of the policies which shuttle people backwards and forwards from one area to another, without meaningful change in the status and general quality of life of those people? Where is this Government leading South Africa?

Up the creek.

The other night the hon. the Minister of the Interior said again on television that he has had such a plethora of evidence to the Schlebusch Commission investigating constitutional change that he doubted whether he could find a path through it. He doubts whether he can find a path through it. That is a party that sits without direction and without the capability of achieving positive change in South Africa, and for one single reason only, and that is that the hon. members on that side cannot reach consensus with the leaders of the other population groups. That is why they cannot find a constitutional footpath for the future. It is despite the Government that we have had economic and social development in South Africa. Were it not for the price of gold and private enterprise, free enterprise, I doubt whether we would have had the welfare we are enjoying today. The Government, however, spends the assets of South Africa on ideological impracticalities. They bring in policies which are meaningless for the improvement of the quality of life for any single member of the community who is not White. The problem with the Government is that they do too little too late and that, when they do something, it is totally inappropriate.

I should like to challenge any hon. Minister or hon. member opposite to tell us in what positive direction the NP intends leading the country in 1980. Will we find ourselves in the position of Rhodesia, which is now tottering on the brink and will probably fall on the wrong side of that thin line which is civilization, democracy and private enterprise, free enterprise? There is a danger that this Government will fiddle while South Africa bums. Then we will find ourselves in exactly the same position as that in which Rhodesia finds itself today. Many years ago the then Prime Minister of Rhodesia had discussions on HMS Fearless and HMS Tiger. At that time he had options, he had the initiative in his hands and could have brought about positive change which would have eliminated the misery, the treachery and the disaster Rhodesia has experienced since. This Government find themselves in exactly the same position today. There is still time for change. They still have the initiative in their hands. They can still bring about consensus and find rapport with the leaders of the different cultural groups in South Africa.

When we ask the question whether we can have confidence that the Government will go forward positively and come with a new initiative, I become very pessimistic indeed. We have only to examine the track record of the NP to see what the chances for survival of democracy in South Africa are. I refer here specifically to the continuous attempts, the persistent attempts, to gag the Press. Why does the Government always find it necessary to bring in legislation, or attempts at legislation, to gag the Press in South Africa? Why do they keep on with this? What have they got to hide? What are they fearful of? What is it that gives them this neurotic obsession to gag the Press? Democracy can only survive under a well-informed population. Democracy cannot survive under an ill-informed population. Why then must the Government continuously tinker with the freedom of the Press?

That is the track record of that party over the past 32 years. That is what the NP Government offer the South Africans of all colours in 1980. It is a track record which shows very clearly that they cannot find consensus with leaders of the other population groups, that they have no political direction in terms of constitutional change, that they still persist in their attempts to curb the freedom of the Press and that they will not consult with the people with a vested interest in any economic or social sphere. The tragedy is that the Government believe that it is their right to tell people what is best for them. There we have the Achilles heel of the NP Government. They believe they can tell people what is good for them. It is because of that attitude over the past 32 years, the actions of the Government, dilatory and otherwise, that the people of South Africa of all colours, and particularly the Whites today, do not have confidence in the Government.

What about your party?

If we are to look at a political dispensation in South Africa which will avoid the domination the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs spoke about, the domination of one group over another, it is of paramount importance that the Government must recognize the continued existence of the urban Blacks. One cannot walk around blindfolded in the political spectrum of South Africa and wish that they would all vanish. To suggest to these people that they must follow the tortuous path of first establishing “responsible”—those are the words of the Government—municipalities, is the greatest form of rejection of the integrity and esteem of those people. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government cannot find consensus with the real leaders of the urbanized Blacks …

Who are the “real leaders”?

… and that they then have to bring in restrictive legislation of the most foul kind to prevent protest from those people. Let me say at this very moment that my party rejects …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to refer to legislation of this House as being of a most foul kind?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, may I interpret my statement and say that it has a foul effect on the people? I withdraw the word “foul”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The end result of 32 years of Nationalist practice in South Africa has led to greater and greater confrontation between the Government and all the population groups in South Africa, and I venture to say even within its own ranks it is now unable to find consensus on the direction in which it is going to lead South Africa in the 1980s. This is occurring at a time when greater external pressure and tensions are being brought to bear on South Africa. It is for us a time of survival and is going to become the greatest test for the ingenuity and capability of all people in South Africa. Why is it now necessary for the NP to say that they are going to take us into a new era but they cannot tell us what the means or the end are? They glibly use phrases like “a new era”, “a new dawning era” and “golden opportunities”, but the question is for who and how? When one talks to people outside the NP and within and ask them how they feel about South Africa, they are at their most pessimistic in the 32 years of Nationalist rule. That is the truth. Therefore, when the question is asked whether we can have confidence in the Government the answer must be a resounding “no”, and yet, it is probably the most powerful Government, in terms of numbers, that South Africa has ever seen. Is it not ironical that at the height of their numbers and at the height of their power they are immobilized and unable to come to the people of South Africa and tell them in which direction to go? We must find consensus; instead of confrontation with the leaders of the CRC, instead of having to import 50 000 artisans, instead of having to talk about free and compulsory education for all population groups and instead of having to say “We have suddenly discovered the urban Black.” Why is it necessary after 32 years to now have to ask those questions within the NP, let alone amongst the people outside? When we examine the credentials, the policies and the abilities of hon. members on the other side of the House, collectively and individually, I say clearly that we cannot have confidence in the NP Government.

Mr. Speaker, we, or rather I, know the hon. member for Durban North as a person who has made praiseworthy contributions in this House in the past. I can recall one or two speeches on which I personally congratulated him, because I was able to do so. However, the hon. member must forgive me for telling him that I am, unfortunately, unable to do so this afternoon. I do not think the hon. member made his usual high quality speech this afternoon. In my opinion it was a real pot-pourri, a collection of general statements, quite a number of which were neither really well-founded nor to the point. Accordingly I want to leave the hon. member’s speech at that.

We are on the threshold of a new era in our history. We are beginning a new decade—the adventurous ’eighties which lie ahead.

[Inaudible.]

In answer to the hon. member for Durban Central I want to say that the ’eighties will be marked by renewal, development and initiative which will place a heavy responsibility on all of us. It is not only the Government that is being tested in this debate, but the Opposition, too, particularly the hon. Leader of the official Opposition. I hope that we shall all strive to maintain our standards. There is a great deal at stake for South Africa in this decade. I believe in the saying: “As you sow, so shall you reap.” I hope that we shall sow to good effect. For that reason I was a little disappointed in the speech we have just heard.

As far as I, in my position as Minister of Co-operation and Development, am concerned, I have committed myself irrevocably, body and soul, to developing and promoting good and sound relations between White and Black at all times. This has become for me a glorious life’s task from which I derive great pleasure. I am very grateful to the opportunity granted me for doing so. I believe that in this way we are together building a fine and happy South Africa, not only for me, but also for all our children: the children of White people, Black people, Coloureds and Indians. That is my credo and my confession of faith, upon which I constantly call down the blessing of the Almighty.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke here today as leader of his party for the first time. I want to tell him that we shall take a close look at him. He is a young and personable man. We should like to know who and what he is in his position as Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell him that we shall afford him sufficient opportunities. There is no doubt at all on that score. However, I think that although he presented his no-confidence motion well, and it was good in other respects, basically it fell flat, for the simple reason that we can reply to his socio-economic statements point for point, by showing how the Government is engaged in short, medium and long-term planning in regard to each of those things. That we shall do. Secondly, I shall reply in due course in regard to the issue of discrimination. Thirdly, as regards the proposed constellation of States and the constitutional development as a whole, I want to say that never before in the 300 years of this country’s history has any Government made such an all-out effort to involve all the population groups in a new constitutional dispensation for all the population groups in this country, and by so doing, to build a contented South Africa for everyone here, particularly for our children.

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

If we want to see what kind of man the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is, we must take a look at his book South Africa’s options; Strategies for sharing power, which he wrote with Prof. David Welsh. In that book they reached the conclusion that South Africa is caught up in “siege politics” as against “politics of negotiation”.

One of the two.

One of the two. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we shall take a close look at him. If I may advance my opinion on that score—and I have read the book carefully—I want to say that if one wants to read a book in which many dreams and dream images are conjured up which are as far removed from reality as east from west, then this is the book. In this book, two authors advance one argument and accusation after another against this Government, and at the same time do their best to predict a catastrophic end for South Africa under the present Government on the basis of the concept “siege politics”, without in any way trying, as one would expect of scientists, to ascertain the reasons why South Africa has been able to carry on such a peaceful existence for so many years of Nationalist Government against the background of a continent full of revolution and in circumstances which that young leader and other hon. members of the PFP, together with their loved ones, could all share in this country. I want to know what kind of man writes such a book. Moreover, it may be argued that at present, in those States which operate in accordance with the prescriptions of the authors, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Prof. Welsh, more conflict prevails than in South Africa. I want to ask what kind of leader writes such a book for the people of South Africa, because we must know with whom we are dealing. My son said to me: “Dad, you really must not be too hard on him.” Sir, we do not want to be, and we shall try hard not to be. However we are in a difficult situation; we are on the threshold of the ’eighties and we must take hold of one another and believe in one another.

The authors failed totally in their scientific task because in their analysis—and the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs has already mentioned this—they made no mention of the most obvious phenomenon in South African politics—I do not know whether they did so for convenience sake or whether it was due to cleverness or stupidity—i.e. in this book they totally overlooked the most obvious fact in the South African set-up over the past 30 years, viz. the political stability over a long period in a multi-ethnic community such as South Africa I again ask: What kind of man, what kind of leader or what kind of party writes such a book? I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should ruminate a little about the following. This young leader—he is good-looking, there is no doubt about that; he is friendly and has many other fine and outstanding characteristics—but he must not write such a book, because if he does, then perhaps the whole of South Africa does not know what kind of man they are dealing with here. I do not want to teach him a lesson, but he would do well to listen to what the well-known philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville has to say—

Now, it is futile to create equal participation in those same institutions if that learning process to which De Tocqueville refers, has not yet been completed. The reason for the chronic political instability in Africa—surely we know this—is due precisely to the fact that equal participation in political processes took place more rapidly than the learning of conciliatory attitudes and tolerance. That we do not want in South Africa, after all. We must consider what happened there and take care that it does not happen here. Nor must we write books in an effort to promote it. While this progress towards conciliatory attitudes and greater tolerance is taking place—this is what great minds have written, and what I have to swot up at night in order to know that I have taken the right road and am continuing along it, because we are in a position of tremendous responsibility—there must be order. If there is no order, there cannot be freedom, either. Prof. S. P. Huntington writes as follows—

This is a fact that still has to be learned in Africa. I hope that we in South Africa do not learn it by way of the method indicated in Welsh and Slabbert’s book, because if we were to do so, our goose would be cooked! There is not the slightest doubt about that. Prof. Huntington goes on—

I am very tempted to add—

If they really believe what they write in this book, then against the background of the wisdom of these learned philosophers and intellectual giants such as De Tocqueville and Prof. Huntington, I just want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition seems to me to be something of a lightweight, in fact very much so. In addition, he is on the wrong track. Worst of all, however—and this worries me a great deal—is that in this book he fails entirely to appreciate what is precious, fine and powerful in his own heritage. He and the hon. gentleman Prof. David Welsh—and I have been in correspondence with him, too—can do what they like, but when they make such a fuss about “siege politics” in this country and predict the end under this NP Government, they are writing against their own people and against what is theirs in this book, and that is not a good thing. To me this does not seem to be the kind of leader I should like to follow, however attractive he may look and be as a person. I should like to put a question to the hon. leader. They have a lot to say in this book. I think the hon. leader is an intelligent young man and he is also an academic. Is he really in favour of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State in South Africa?

No. It says so in the book.

He states that he is not in favour of it. I had expected the hon. leader to furnish that answer, but now that he has given that answer clearly and we know it, I should very much like to ask that the hon. leader—I have reams of newspaper cuttings at my disposal in which the other gentlemen and the lady in his party say the contrary—should settle that dispute among them so that we can debate the matter further on other occasions, because it is very clear that there is a dramatic difference in the ranks of the Opposition concerning this most cardinal issue. The man with the broadest smile is the hon. Chief Whip because he knows what he has said on this subject on more than one occasion. Before I have finished with the hon. the leader concerning this point, I want to add that the most important determinants of stability—what we need most and what the world envies us—does not figure at all in this book. They will have to go back to their studies and reconsider their hypothesis. One can say that to scientists, because they can revise their theories, but how does one tell the leader of a large political party what to do when he has led one to catastrophe? Then one does not know that one has already, together with one’s people, come to grief along the way. I wish to indicate that we are not purely a pluralist society, but also a transitional society in which the degree of modernity and acceptance of certain Western values, differ among the various communities. Indeed, at this level there are the widest differences which will not disappear overnight, nor will they disappear in the course of the so-called national convention. Let me just add at once that these hon. gentlemen’s idea of a national convention is a recipe for a caretaker Government in this country. That is at least the recipe for a demise of this Government and the demise of good order in this country. In the setup we have in South Africa, one or other group must play the role of a catalyst. Who is playing this role of catalyst? Surely it is the Whites that have to play this historic role in South Africa. To want to deny all this and make a new start in accordance with the PFP’s proposed policy, is a recipe for intrigue, and would spell the end for South Africa We therefore reject the PFP in this regard. Last night we saw the three hon. Opposition leaders on television. All three of them came over very well, each one better than the next. However, I find it interesting that not one of these three gentlemen uttered a single word about, or made any reference to, the national Black States in this country. That made me realize that we still have Rip van Winkles in this country.

They had too little time.

What a confession! I think they also have too little time to save South Africa! I want to put it very clearly that we on this side regard economic, political, social and other forms of development of our national States as one of the priorities for survival and for a contented society for all the population groups in this country. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I am therefore very proud to be able to mention that the gross domestic product of these national States during the ’seventies amounted to 8%, a figure which compares very favourably with, for example, Zambia’s 3,8% Kenya’s 6,6% and the Ivory Coast’s 6%. Since due to the short time at my disposal I am unfortunately unable to dwell on the productivity of the national States, I just hope that I have stated clearly that to us on this side that is a priority. This is something which must be clearly understood.

In virtually every sphere we have effected the changes which the hon. the Prime Minister held out as a prospect. I also want to sound a warning. Hon. members on this side of the House—I, perhaps, more than anyone else—realize that one must not create expectations among the Black man that cannot be realized. We on this side of the House really make an effort not to do such a thing. Now, however, I want to make a very friendly request to hon. members opposite to ensure that they, too, will not create expectations which cannot be satisfied. I maintain that this could be dangerous.

However, I want to take this further. In my opinion this is the one thing which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can destroy totally, if they should over-emphasize this matter. I mean this sincerely and I am very serious about it. We must take care. We are dealing with a dangerous matter. When people arouse expectations among the masses, expectations which cannot be satisfied, then at the very least it is dangerous. We on this side of the House shall do all we can to avoid this. I ask hon. members of the Opposition to do the same. I request them to ask their news media, too, not to do so. It would not be in the interests of South Africa.

We have already made changes. I want to mention a few of them. I refer briefly to Crossroads, for example, to Alexandra, which is now going to get its own local management, its own town council. Then, too, there is Fingo Village.

[Inaudible.]

There is symbolism behind all those things. The symbolism does not mean that expectations are being created. It means that the Government, by way of great deeds, is committing itself to ensuring that the Black man has a place where he can live and be content. I believe that that is a very important symbolism. What we are dealing with here is dignified, human, friendly nationalism. [Interjections.]

Order!

We shall take it further and we shall continue to take it further. We shall put it into effect. I refer to the partnership of 51:49% in commerce. What is the symbolism behind that? Then, too, there is the narrowing of the wage gap. Do hon. members know that in this country, Black wages have risen by more than 23% over the past few years? Are hon. members aware that the real income of the Whites has not increased?

23% in real terms.

It is 23% in real terms. Surely the narrowing of the wage gap is not merely an expectation which was created, but people are experiencing it themselves. It is true. What is the symbolism behind that? What is the symbolism behind what the Riekert Commission put forward for the Black man in White South Africa? That, too, derives from the Government. What is the symbolism behind that? Surely those are not expectations that are created. They are things that are being put into effect. We have set in motion processes which no one can check. We have done so in order to create a contented South Africa.

I refer, too, to the Wiehahn Commission. I also want to say a little more in connection with the six regional committees. Then too there is the removal of permits for mixed sport, restaurants, and so on. All these things are symbolic. I refer, too, to the consolidation and economic development of the Black States. Then too there is the Council for the Development of Soweto, a council which has already come into being. I refer, too, to the appointment of Messrs. Rive and Knoetze, and the Black Chain, and a Carlton Centre in miniature in Soweto. This is a scheme which has already been approved. Then, too, a factory complex is being built there. We have also called in the IDC to assist with financing. In Soweto alone, more than 2 000 posts have been created which will be controlled by local city councils. Surely these are not purely expectations that have been created. They are expectations which are being put into effect by way of action.

Permit me, too, to point out that as far as the Black man in the White area is concerned, we have appointed the six committees. We have received their recommendations. They have co-operated wonderfully with us. One of the recommendations is that they should continue to exist on a permanent basis. They have made recommendations relating to a wide variety of subjects. The co-operation was absolutely unbelievable. They made 580 recommendations. We are now studying those recommendations in conjunction with other departments. Some of them have already been put into effect while others are still being considered. Some of the recommendations will be submitted to the Committee concerned and subsequently to the Cabinet. The fact is that in the course of this parliamentary session we shall make further announcements in this regard.

I also want to say that my department is engaged in a review of the whole spectrum of its legislation but the priority will be to have a Mr. F. W. Durandt undertake a review of statutes arising out of the White Paper on the Riekert Report and related matters. He will be assisted by a committee that will be nominated. In the process legislation relating to community development for Blacks in the White area will be prepared. Renewal and alteration of the administration of justice will in the nature of things also occur in the process, viz. obsolete, cumbersome and outdated provisions will where necessary be replaced and modernized with a view to the development of good relations. Hurtful, discriminatory measures will be eliminated as far as possible. We are busy doing so. We do not want to create expectations, but this constitutes a realization of what has to be done in this country. Attention will also be given to consolidation so that the system of laws can be made simpler and more accessible.

I should like to announce that over the weekend, as a direct result of the conference at the Carlton Centre on 22 November 1979, the private sector made R7,5 available to us at 3¼% interest over 30 years for the construction of Black housing in a suitable area. I believe that this will be the start of a remarkable example worth following.

As far as influx control is concerned, I should like to say that the Riekert Commission recommended that influx control should only be linked to the availability of employment and approved housing and that the 72-hour provision be phased out. I should like to say more about this but due to a lack of time I shall only say that I take pleasure in announcing in this House this afternoon that the administrative process whereby to implement the recommendations of the Riekert Commission in this regard has already been put into effect on an experimental basis in the prescribed areas of Pretoria and Bloemfontein. Accordingly, we have decided to conduct experiments in Bloemfontein and Pretoria in order by so doing to put an end to the 72-hour provision, to see how it works and then to take it further. As soon as it has been tested for a few months, it will be evaluated and the necessary decisions taken in regard to this matter. I want to put it very clearly that it is my endeavour to implement all the recommendations of the Riekert Commission as soon as possible and to phase out the 72-hour provision where possible.

As far as reference books are concerned, I am committed to replace this system. We have already made a great deal of progress in this regard.

To sum up, I just want to say that discussions are still being conducted with the various Black States in order to achieve an ideal state of affairs. If we can achieve success with regard to the omission of the 72-hour provision, we shall be far closer to an ideal state of affairs in this regard. I have already been granted approval in principle for the purchase of the necessary equipment and material and the incurring of certain expenditures in order to implement a system of influx control and a reference book system, and identification system which is comparable in every way with those of our other population groups.

I want to conclude by referring to the four points raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition with regard to what I allegedly said at Palm Springs. I raised those four points. I do not want to repeat them, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted them correctly here this afternoon. However, he must only add that I also said that we could obtain all those wonderful objectives in this country. Indeed, I believe that we are very rapidly beginning to achieve them under the leadership of our hon. Prime Minister. That is why, with Help from Above, we are able to accomplish a prosperous decade for ourselves. However, I added that they could not be achieved in a system of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. That is not possible. They are only possible in terms of the principles I have mentioned and already spelt out and which I do not have time to repeat. However, they are absolutely in accordance with the principles and the point of view of this side of the House. Therefore I am very proud of those four points, and I am also very proud of the fact that we in this country are able to implement them in such a way.

I must conclude. Towards the end of this decade South Africa will be unrecognizable. I believe that South Africa will be a finer, better and more prosperous place, with good relations between White and non-White, and that it will be a shining example of peace as Switzerland has been in the second half of this century, through two world wars. This is my vision, the vision of the Prime Minister and the entire National Party for the Republic of South Africa. I say that we can do it if we want to, and this side of the House wants to do it. If that hon. Opposition would only stop writing such books as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has written, and if those hon. gentlemen make better speeches than the hon. member for Durban North has just made, then I, too, shall be convinced that they want to as well, and then we shall solve the problems of this country in a wonderful way.

In lighter vein, I want to say that South Africa is engaged in a whole new ball game, and the NP is the leader in that regard.

Mr. Speaker I wish I could join the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in the visionary study he has produced for us this afternoon, but unfortunately the realities of the situation in South Africa are different. What the hon. the Minister said very bravely when he was 9 000 miles away did not, of course, touch upon any of the fundamentals that are worrying the Black people in this country, and for him to present a solution which is evolved in terms of the separate development of the Black States does not, of course, convince anybody overseas nor is it, I am afraid, going to help over here.

I am delighted to hear—let me say at once—that the hon. the Minister intends to get a move on with some of the positive recommendations of the Riekert Commission. Up to now the Government has only implemented what I would call the punitive and negative side of that commission’s recommendations. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister finds it necessary to start off with a little pilot scheme based on the Riekert Commission’s recommendations because obviously what he should do right away is to implement some of those positive proposals throughout the country. Let him be as brave and as bold inside South Africa as he is when he is talking in Palm Springs, 9 000 miles away.

We shall do it quickly and we are doing it.

I am not as impressed, as the hon. the Minister is, with all the changes in policy involving Crossroads and Fingo Village. I welcome them, of course, but the answer is that they should never have been construed, in the first place, as being any sort of solution to South Africa’s problems. To consider moving thousands of people who had settled in the urban areas, either in the Cape or in Grahamstown, and then to reverse that policy, after years of anxiety had assailed the people concerned, presenting that as a triumph of NP policy, is clearly absurd.

I can only tell the hon. the Minister that he had better get a move on because we do not have all that much time before we shall have a number of other ugly incidents of urban violence, because I believe that if he talked to the average Coloured man in South Africa today he would find him obsessed with a feeling of bitterness about District Six and Mitchell’s Plain. He would also find the Indian people obsessed by a feeling of bitterness about the thousands upon thousands of removals in terms of the Group Areas Act. He will find, too, Africans obsessed with feelings of bitterness about the pass laws. So he has to get a move on and he is not going to expect us, I hope, to sit back and relax because he tells us he is now going to introduce some of the changes to set right policies that should never have been introduced in the first place. That is the point I want to make. I also want to say that giving permits is not the answer. The answer is to do away with the system that has resulted in the need for thousands of bureaucrats to sit around in South Africa giving permits to other citizens of this country.

I am not going to deal with his criticism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s book, which he wrote together with Prof. Welsh. The hon. the Leader will reply to that himself. He knows his own book far better than I do.

And better than the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister fastened on one option and ignored all the others. As for his quotation about law and order, I want to tell him that “law and order”, as a British MP said many years ago, “must be preserved, but if order is to prevail, the laws must be just”. That is really the basis of law and order.

And that is the problem on the opposite side.

I want to come back to something the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his speech, viz. the nefarious goings-on, which we have been informed about, as far as Dons née Boss is concerned. We have all read of the highly questionable activities in departments of State. These are now becoming hardy annuals. I believe that the reason why this is happening is, first of all, that Parliament is gullible in accepting ministerial assurances that powers once given, latitude once extended, will not be abused. I believe, too, that it is due to the total lack of accountability to any person or any body—there is no accountability to this Parliament and certainly not to the courts of law—for actions taken under the numerous statutes which give Ministers arbitrary powers, including the power to delegate their powers to other persons. I believe it is due to the growing insolence of the Government which has been absolutely corrupted by absolute power and which now believes, like Gen. Van den Bergh, that it need stop at nothing and that nothing can stop it. I believe, finally, that all these things are due to the ever rising threshold of tolerance of the White electorate who is quite punch-drunk after 30 years of rule by the NP Government.

In the years I have sat in Parliament, law after law has been put on the Statute Book, often with very little opposition, laws which no democratic society would tolerate for a moment. Parliament accepted assurances given by successive Ministers of Justice that, for instance, the 90 days’ detention would mean only 90 days, that unlimited solitary confinement permitted by section 6 of the Terrorism Act would only be used against terrorists in the bush, and so on ad infinitum. Parliament said “Right, we shall trust you”, and never learnt from bitter experience that ministerial assurances are not worth the breath expended on them. So in 1972 when the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs introduced the Post Office Amendment Bill, it was passed with only one dissenting vote recorded against it, viz. my own. That applies to the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and also the Third Reading. Every member of the House on that day, 9 June 1972, accepted the assurances of the hon. the Minister that, in framing the Bill which was going to permit legalized telephone tapping and the interception of postal articles, the safeguards against abuse laid down by the Potgieter Commission had been given close attention. Those safeguards were, inter alia, that it should be made clear that the interception would be restricted to matters which had an actual connection with the security of the State and that there would be no interference with the private conduct of persons, their business activities or political views, except in so far as those were of a subversive nature. So the hon. the Minister told the House that the safeguards introduced included the complicated procedure whereby interceptions were to be made and that reasons in writing, setting out good grounds, had to be given. He went on to say (Hansard, 9 June 1972, col. 9184)—

He also said that what was being done took into consideration what had been done in comparable Western countries. At the end of the Second Reading debate his final words were (col. 9210)—

These were fine, resounding words, which were instantly accepted by the then official Opposition who voted in favour of the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and the Third Reading and I may say that they gave the most specious reasons for doing so. The reasons were advanced both by their spokesman on Posts and Telegraphs, the then member for Orange Grove, and by that ever-eager supporter of measures affecting civil rights, the hon. member for Durban Point, who is now leader of the NRP. He actually told the House that the Bill was a step forward and that it would bring us into line with Western countries. I wonder whether he still believes that in the light of what has happened? Will he have the grace to admit that he was absurdly gullible, that he gave the Government a blank cheque to perpetrate the grossest abuses, and that the warning I uttered that the Government is utterly unable to distinguish between the security of the State and the secureness of the NP Government in office, to distinguish between legitimate dissent and subversion, and that these powers would be grossly abused, has alas been shown to be only too true?

In the nine years since that legislation was placed on the Statute Book something like R65 million has been voted by a trusting Parliament to the Security Services Special Account. I should like the hon. the Prime Minister, under whose Vote this falls, to tell the House how much of the taxpayers’ money has been diverted from genuine security services to pay for the army of shifty snoopers hired to listen in to tapped telephones, to steam open letters, to keep files on legions of respectable citizens and on dozens of legitimate organizations. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us this, because I believe that a great deal of money has been expended on this worthless exercise. I also believe that, instead of devoting its efforts to genuine subversion, the Security Service was busy with legitimate dissenters, including people like young Ilse Treurnicht and young Theuns Eloff. Instead of having its ear to the ground and informing the Cabinet, and in particular the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. Ministers concerned, that serious unrest was brewing in Soweto in 1976, it had its ear, inter alia, to my telephone. Perhaps the one comforting thought I get out of this whole disgusting affair is that over the years when tapping my telephone the Government have certainly heard some home truths from me about themselves, often couched in good Anglo-Saxon terms! The point I am, however, making is that the Security Services were far too preoccupied with Nusas, the Churches, the PFP, the HNP, Harry Oppenheimer, Alan Paton, Nadine Gordimer, André Brink and others to know, apparently, that there was serious unrest brewing in Soweto and that a flare-up was imminent. We have it from none other than the former Police Commissioner for the Soweto area, Brig. S. W. le Roux, who told Rapport on 13 January 1980 that he was not informed of the situation in Soweto by the Security Services. So, the greatest storm ever broke over South Africa’s Black townships in June 1976, with incalculable damage to race relations and to our economy, while the department responsible for the security of this country was playing games called “Knoopsgat”, “Hanslam”, “Rystoel” and “Ompik”. Those were the code names for some of the Security Service operations.

I want to know what efforts have been made to see that Judge Potgieter’s demands have been conformed with. I want to say immediately that, in the light of the McGiven disclosures, I cannot see how the Government can avoid being found guilty of the grossest abuse of power and of the grossest invasion of the privacy of persons and of organizations that have not the slightest connection with subversion. I am going to give incontrovertible evidence that they have no compunction in abusing all the powers given to them under section 118A of the Post Office Amendment Act of 1972. Of course, such behaviour was the inevitable consequence of giving unfettered powers to a Government that has not the slightest respect for democratic practices and has for years abrogated the rule of law. I might say that this is a factor that was blithely ignored by hon. members in this House who were busy making comparisons with other countries. When I reminded them that it was a very different framework into which these powers were going to be fitted, I was told by the then member for Pretoria District to take my passport and go to Israel. That was the reply.

I want to add that if any of these activities that have been exposed had taken place in any comparable Western democracy there would have been the loudest possible public outcry, as indeed there was in the United States after Watergate when the Government indulged in what were known as “dirty tricks” very similar to the dirty tricks that this Government has been involved in with wire-tappings and the interception of mail. Indeed, right now the United States Government is still being sued by citizens who feel that their constitutional rights have been infringed upon, for as Judge Brandeis has pointed out, the American Constitution conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone, the most comprehensive of civil rights and the right most valued by civilized men. In the United Kingdom, the Government would have fallen. There is not the slightest doubt that the Government would have been forced to resign had disclosures, such as the ones we are now having, emerged. In South Africa, unfortunately, the punch-drunk electorate simply sighs and turns to the sports pages of the newspapers. [Interjections.]

I have said that I have incontrovertible evidence that the powers given under section 118A have been abused, and I ought to know, because I am one of the victims of this abuse. I have here three pieces of evidence, all of which indicate quite clearly that the retiring—if he has not already retired—Chief of Dons was simply not telling the truth when he made a statement on 31 December 1979 to Sapa, the day after the London Observer ran the McGiven-exposures, a statement in which he said, inter alia—and I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister is busy listening into his earphone this time instead of to my telephone—

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister knows whether Dons does or does not keep these files. I wonder if he believes that statement to be true?

I have here—and I shall be very happy to let him have it if he has not seen it already and scrutinized it under his magnifying-glass—a document marked “Bronverslag”, under the code name “Knoopsgat”, and it is dated 16 July 1979. It contains a copy of an aerogram to me from an American professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an aerogram containing the dangerously subversive information that the professor and his wife would be visiting South Africa and discussing plans for me to visit the United States later in the year. This valuable document was copied and sent off to the local branch of the Security Police. I am identified by name, and W/V, i.e. Wit vrou, by number 24596, by party affiliation, by occupation, by constituency and more numbers, J42/32/200. “J”, I presume, means Johannesburg.

And statistics? [Interjections.]

What do you mean? Vital statistics? [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should have assessed those for himself. The professor is also identified by name, occupation and place and he, too, has a file number. His wife, the lucky lady, is marked G.L., which I interpret as meaning “geen lêer”. There is no file on this lady.

I have another “Bronverslag” dated 17 July 1979 which contains a letter from me to the Director of the Kennedy School of Government. Now I might say that I have the original of this. That is the interesting thing. I mean if there is no file, how did they get their copy? That is what I want to know. I have the original in my possession. Somebody intercepted the mail coming to me and somebody intercepted my mail going overseas. I must say I make it very easy for the department because I always put my name and address on the back of the envelope. Sir, I am not going to do it in future.

This other little article concerns a letter from me to the Director of the Kennedy School of Government at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University confirming an arrangement for me to visit the Institute and providing a selection of titles for lectures. This was evidently of great interest because a copy of all the titles of the lectures I suggested was sent to the Security Police in Johannesburg. I shall be happy to provide the Security Police with a full set of the lectures I gave.

They might learn something.

They might learn something. That is precisely the point I am trying to make.

They have them, Helen.

No, they have not, because I did not send them through the mail. The same numbers are on the file regarding me, and the Director has no file. This information was also obtained by means of Operation “Knoopsgat”.

I have another file that gives the lie also to the retiring chief of Dons “that the department does not keep a file oon me or any other member of an acknowledged political party”. Other hon. members of this party have been mentioned as well. For instance, the hon. member for Pinelands has been mentioned and also the hon. Leader of the Opposition before he became the hon. Leader.

The third “Bronverslag” I wish to tell hon. members about concerns Operation “H”, and the subject title is “Opkoms van HNP—losstaande feite”. The “losstaande feite op verskillende datums” relate to meetings in Koedoespoort, Springs, Pietersburg, Pelindaba, etc. It mentions Prof. Piet de Vos, Jaap Marais, Dr. Connie Mulder and his new party and so on and so forth. Can the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Prime Minister still deny that Dons was opening and intercepting mail to and from political personalities of recognized political parties where there is in fact no subversion?

He is smiling; that is clean administration!

I also have the original letter from Winston Churchill, MP, which was published in the London Observer and which is typed on House of Commons notepaper. McGiven has a copy of it and he gave it to the London Observer. So these denials are going to have to be extremely deft if the Government thinks it is going to get away with this.

Now, to complete all these dirty tricks there are a lot of other items. I hope that Dons will keep its fat file on me because I have a habit of throwing things away and I want that file when I write my memoirs. I ask them not to destroy that file on me. I want an investigation. I should, of course, like to sue the Government up hill and down dale, but I am informed that the so-called safeguards that were put into section 118A of the Post Office Act are not worth the paper they are written on, because one has to prove male fides and all of us know that that is an absolute impossibility.

I affirmed my loyalty to the Republic when I was sworn in as a member of Parliament. Section 118A, inter alia, lays down that the interception of postal articles and telephone tapping should be authorized only if the official requesting such interception believes it is necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Republic. I believe that the actions of Boss and Dons in intercepting my mail and presumably tapping my telephone impugn my loyalty to the Republic, and I demand redress. I want a Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate what I believe has been a gross breach of Parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate the hon. member for Houghton will receive comprehensive replies to her specific, detailed charges and she will be answered in full. I listened to her very carefully. In a situation in which her leader described South Africa as standing at the cross roads, a life and death situation for the survival of the peoples of South Africa …

And important civil rights.

… she devoted her entire speech on the first day of the no-confidence debate, for which the voting public of South Africa pay her, to expressing her indignation at the fact that a file is being kept on her, as she claims. I listened carefully and in all the time that she was speaking, there was not a single word of appreciation for the important work being carried out by the security forces of South Africa in preserving law and order. She did not make a single concession in respect of the fact that any state must have efficient security forces in order to survive in this dangerous world of 1980. She mentioned America, but she must ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether it paid America to allow people like herself to subvert the entire authority of the CIA in America. She should ask herself why President Carter is now taking steps to bring his security services back to a more effective level once again. [Interjections.]

I do not know whether the hon. member’s telephone was tapped, but an allegation to that effect was made. I want to say today, however, that if people who may be a potential danger to the security of the State were to contact me, I would have no objection to my telephone being tapped, with or without my knowledge, if this could assist in exposing the plans of potential enemies of the State.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask hon. members kindly to obey the Chair when I call for order. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to answer a question?

No. During the period that I was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, I did not receive a single request for a tap on a politician’s telephone. Allow me to say first of all that this power was delegated to the Postmaster-General. Only in highly exceptional cases which he considers contentious will he refer the matter to the Minister, after all the procedures which the hon. member described, have been carried out. One case only was referred to me during the entire period that I was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, but it did not concern the telephone of a politician. As it happened, in that case I gave instructions that the person’s telephone should not be tapped. Apart from that, everything was dealt with by senior officials at departmental level, for the very reason that we want to insure that politicians, who are in the nature of things motivated by political considerations, cannot be accused of making decisions for their own political gain.

The question is whether hon. members want efficient security services in South Africa. There are members in the hon. member’s party who are sensitive about this question and they were ousted from their positions as leaders in the Transvaal. The hon. member will be given replies to her detailed charges.

I want to return, however, to the main theme of the debate and confine myself to the parameters laid down by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, I should like to refer to a matter which the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs touched on very briefly. This is the theme of expectations created by the Government during the Parliamentary recess, expectations which must now be fulfilled. It seems as if a psychosis is developing around these expectations which the NP has created. We are continually having it cast into our teeth by hon. members of the Opposition, strongly supported by the Opposition Press, that if we do not fulfil the expectations that we have created, we shall have to pay the price. If we want to talk about expectations in a meaningful way we must realize that we have to distinguish between two types of expectations. The first are what I shall call valid, realistic expectations. The second are unreasonable expectations.

Let us begin with the negative, the unreasonable expectations.

One for the “verkramptes” and one for the “verligtes”.

When we read the comments of some Opposition newspapers and listen to some Opposition speakers, it is clear that they are trying to create an image of an NP Government which is about to renounce its principles and everything that it has believed in up to now. It has already gone so far that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked us with a straight face here this afternoon—this was one of his four key points—to go ahead and sacrifice our policy.

You will have to do so in any case one of these days.

They are presenting a warped image of an NP Government that is prepared to implement Prog policy on the quiet. An excellent example of this was an interview between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the editor of the Sunday Times. I am not going to quote from this at length. Indeed, the headline says everything that I am trying to prove in this regard—

This is part of the subtle onslaught, the attempt to create the impression that the Government allegedly intends to move away completely from what it believes in. [Interjections.] They say: Beware! We are warning the NP. If it does not do this or that at once, if it does not demolish its policy at once, the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians are going to explode in frustrated anger. Then, according to them, the regeneration of 1979 and 1980 becomes the seed of revolution and the progenitor of hatred and embitterment.

It is essential that there should be no misunderstanding about this. The Government is not going to be answerable for any false expectations created by the Opposition and its Press. This afternoon we saw some neat footwork on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition around a very emotional subject, viz. the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. It was neat footwork, aimed at making it seem as if it was the standpoint of the Government, expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister, to do away with these acts.

What are you going to do with them? [Interjections.]

I do not want to become involved in the semantics of “change” and “improve”.

Just tell us what you plan to do.

In this regard the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to give attention to meaningful proposals, meaningful proposals as to how these two acts could be improved. As regards immorality, he took the firm standpoint that he and the NP are opposed to immorality as such, whether between White and non-White or between White and White.

Does that mean one can ’phone Pretoria for a permit?

As far as mixed marriages are concerned, he said that he supported the formulated standpoint of the D.R. Church, which he then quoted, viz. that a mixed marriage is not sinful. He added at once, however, that in his opinion, it was definitely undesirable in South Africa for social and other reasons. That is why he supported the retention of these laws, but declared that he was open to constructive suggestions as to how these laws could be adapted or changed in order to ensure that the positive, essential objectives of the laws could still be achieved, but in a way which would not cause unnecessary offence and would not create a distorted image of our sound motives in such matters. [Interjections.] If one has read the reports in any Opposition newspaper in this connection, one would think that the Government had committed itself to repealing the laws. This is part of a technique of sowing confusion, of creating a distorted image, of creating false expectations and then confronting us by saying: If you do not satisfy them, you are the cause of the trouble.

That is what you are doing.

No, sir. They are playing with fire by attributing far-fetched interpretations to the statements of NP leaders, without taking proper account of what they know the Government actually envisages. The expectations which they are creating are on their own heads, and we shall hold them responsible. On the other hand, valid, reasonable expectations have definitely been created by the renewal and development which has been characteristic of the past few years. The Government envisages fulfilling everyone of those reasonable expectations. It is committed to fulfilling everyone of those reasonable expectations. The question that arises, and to which greater clarity will be given during the course of this debate, is which expectations are reasonable …

Tell us which those are. Please tell us.

If we want to hold a meaningful debate on what can reasonably be expected on the short, medium and long term …

Tell us, please.

… one of the major improvements which we envisage in the medium term and possibly even in the short term, is to get rid of the hon. member for Bryanston.

Hear, hear!

The answer to the question of what are reasonable expectations, should be a fairly easy one for the objective observer. It is implied in the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve point plan which he spelt out early on in his term of office and to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here this afternoon on more than one occasion. It is implied in a clear, honest view of the unbridgeable chasm which exists between the Government and the official Opposition. The Government believes in the self-determination of nations. The Opposition believes in power sharing in one federal Parliament, as regards the most important matters over which a government exercises control. This is a fundamental difference. Any expectation which is being created to the effect that we are doing anything to undermine self-determination, is an unreasonable and false expectation.

The Government believes in ethnic communities. The Opposition believes in integration in an open community, and any expectation which is being created suggesting that we are prepared to destroy our own communities, is a false expectation. It was clearly stated that this was one of the twelve key points to which this Government was paying attention. For instance, the Government believes in ethnic schools and the Opposition believes in mixed schools. No false expectations must be raised in this regard either. The Government believes that there are specific separational measures which are essential for the preservation and self-determination of ethnic communities, which are essential for the effective protection of the rights of minority groups, and is of the opinion that such separational measures will have to remain. However, the Government admits that there are other separational measures which are offensive and which result in unnecessary discrimination, and that such measures should be judiciously removed.

Give us a few examples.

We have already removed many of them, Sir. Hon. members will simply have to wait patiently, because from time to time serious attention will be given to this matter. After all, hon. members know that at the moment the Government is caught up …

Yes, caught up.

… in a process of rationalization, and surely they know that one of the logical consequences of this is that there must also be rationalization in legislation, that legislation must be investigated and examined thoroughly and in an orderly manner so that, concurrently with this rationalization, statutory rationalization can also be attended to in an orderly manner. [Interjections.] The time has come to pay attention to such an extensive problem in an orderly and effective way, and on an ongoing basis. In the meanwhile, once again on the basis of a properly organized investigation—the best example of this is the Wiehahn Commission—we do not hesitate to take steps as soon as we have equipped ourselves properly and made proper plans.

Please define “necessary discrimination” for us.

The Government advocates the recognition of multinationalism and ethnicity, while the official Opposition in fact advocates that it be disregarded. [Interjections.] Basically, the group must be criticized. “Cross-affiliation” is a favourite word of theirs.

What?

Voluntary association, the cross movement from one group to another, has always been the theme of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He does not argue about that.

We said “freedom of association”.

Order! The hon. member is making too many interjections.

They do attach some cultural value to group membership. Yes, groups may indeed be formed on a voluntary basis in order to protect language, traditions, etc., but group membership for constitutional objectives is of no importance to them. Group membership in the social sphere is of no importance to them. All residential areas are open and all schools are open. Am I right or wrong? Or has their policy changed? [Interjections.] According to their policy, are residential areas open or are they not? [Interjections.] According to their policy, are schools open or are they not?

Of course they are open.

Is there general franchise for all adult voters for the same federal parliament?

Of course.

Then surely there is no manifestation of the effective recognition of group membership in their constitutional proposals.

That is not true.

Anyone who expects the Government to demolish self-determination and to advocate constitutional development which does not ensure the self-determination of peoples, and anyone who thinks that the Government envisages a dispensation which will not recognize ethnic diversity, is labouring under a misapprehension. Everyone must realize that the Government does not intend giving up ethnic communities and ethnic schools, and related matters. In fact, these are considered fundamental for orderly development and peaceful co-existence.

There are so many positive and equally fundamental matters to which the Government has in fact committed itself. Everyone is entitled to cherish expectations, for instance the new constitutional structures which will ensure that justice prevails for all peoples by means of the division of power, aimed on the one hand at the self-determination for all, but on the other hand also aimed at establishing structures for co-operation and consultation in matters of common interest. Everyone is entitled to expect the removal of insulting, unnecessary discriminatory measures.

What is “necessary discrimination”?

Necessary discrimination is recognition of group ties as a force and an active part of reality, and if one ignores this, one is playing with fire. Then group ties will manifest themselves in confrontation and result in chaotic revolutionary conditions. [Interjections.]

Order!

Everyone is entitled to expect the establishment of economic opportunities for all. We are also all entitled to expect effective protection of the rights of minorities, in the social, labour, economic and political spheres. In brief, we are entitled to anticipate a dynamic striving towards the ideal of neighbourliness and co-operation, based on the twelve point plan to which I have already referred. We are also entitled to expect that we on this side will do everything in our power to ensure a fair and just dispensation, fair to the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian, but also fair to the Whites.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say about discrimination. In order to conduct a meaningful debate, we must ask ourselves what discrimination is. I am not going to give long definitions, but once it has been stripped of political polemic, the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition boils down to the fact that firstly, the recognition of ethnic diversity in any form is, in essence, discrimination and secondly, that any measures, no matter how fair they may be, that are aimed at the preservation and development of ethnic communities, are essentially discriminatory. We on this side of the House put it a different way and we spell it out in the twelve-point plan which I have already mentioned. There we say, inter alia—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister specifically adds—

We may differ on this point. I do not want to convince anyone in the Opposition that, when we speak of “discrimination”, our interpretation of it is the correct use of the word. Let us not get involved in semantics and dictionary definitions, etc. What would be useful, however, is that we should obtain absolute clarity about the practical implications of our own standpoints on the matter. I want to do this very briefly by using an example related to one of the four key statements which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made here this afternoon concerning the difference between himself and the NP. He condemns what he calls compulsory group membership which he alleges is being propagated by the NP. On the other hand he advocates—and I quote from one of his speeches—

In the first place, to dismiss the NP’s recognition of multinationalism, in both legislation and constitutional structures, as compulsory group membership, is an unfair, unjustified attenuation of our standpoint.

What does Wimpie say?

If the hon. member had read Wimpie on Sunday, he would have seen that he could not quote him so safely.

In his formulation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes it sound as if the NP creates groups out of nothing with a stroke of a legislative pen and indiscriminately, as it suits them, says: “You are a Coloured; you are an Indian” and doles out membership without any regard for reality.

But is that not what you are doing?

Surely the reality is quite different. The groups are there. They are part of reality. There is a natural pluralism. All we must admit, is that group membership is part of reality. If this is not recognized, we are treading a dangerous and hazardous path.

I want to conclude now. We are speaking of voluntary association, but what would happen if parent A of a certain population group wanted to send his child to a school at which all the children belonged to another population group? A reasonable conclusion is that there would be parents of children at that school who would say that they were prepared to accept that child. This would be voluntary association. However, there would also be parents who would say: No, we do not want to accept him. In the basic, practical way in which voluntary association is dealt with, may that child associate with the other children at that school by becoming a scholar there, or may he not? If he is admitted, then there is no voluntary association as regards the parents who are opposed to it, but there is compulsory association; otherwise the children concerned must move to another school. According to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he is not admitted, that is discrimination.

Sir, what we in South Africa need when we discuss the thorny subject of discrimination, is an understanding which recognizes the fact that no one wants any drawbacks to group membership. That is why we also envisage that group membership as such will not create any drawbacks. Group membership determines where a person exercises his political rights and certain other aspects, such as what school that person’s child will attend. However, group membership does not strip a person of his human dignity, nor does it obstruct his opportunities for development. Group membership does not place a ceiling on a person’s development either. This is the approach we want to adopt. We need not eliminate group membership in order to achieve those objectives. But it is by the very emasculating of group membership which the official Opposition wants to bring about, that we will destroy the foundation for that type of co-operation where everyone has opportunities, and we will cause chaos, tension and crisis.

Co-operation of this type is to be found between the English and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. It is not precisely comparable. Nevertheless, I want to make the following point in connection with our legislation bilingualism: An Afrikaans-speaking person in South Africa who is able or wishes to speak Afrikaans only, is discriminated against. For instance, if he wants to work in the Public Service, he is forced to speak both official languages. If he does not wish to do so, he cannot be employed in the Public Service. He is being discriminated against in this way.

That is necessary discrimination.

Now one can consider this to be either a negative aspect, or, in my view, a positive one. The two population groups have an understanding which is in the interests of all, and this is to be bilingual. As the hon. member for Bryanston quite correctly said, it is a case of necessary discrimination. This type of understanding is also necessary between Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. We must remove the barb of prejudice and mistrust from our dialogue. There is no barb in our approach towards group membership, as a fundamental point of departure, but there are positive intentions. We are prepared to fulfil these expectations which I have now tried to sketch briefly and concisely to hon. members, but we are not prepared to demolish our policy and principles.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Mines, I want to address the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs on two points and then direct my attention to the hon. the Minister of Mines. He is now leaving the House …

I will be back.

Thank you. Firstly, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs quoted the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the terrorist attack on the bank in Silverton, Pretoria. I think it is a pity that he did not read the whole text, because I have the full quotation which appeared in The Cape Times with me. I want to read it for the record. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

From which newspaper are you quoting?

I am quoting from The Cape Times. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

I think it is important that the full text should be placed on record.

The other point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the attack he launched on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the basis of his comments on the use of labour. By way of an interjection I said that it has been the policy of the Government to focus on capital-intensive labour in the urban areas and on labour-intensive aspects in the rural areas. There is no question about it. There has been a definite move in this direction by the Government. Now they have to do a complete somersault because they realize it is not only the big companies that have done this, and I concede immediately that some of them have.

I did not say it.

I am saying it. I am not saying that only the Government did this. I am saying that the Government had it as a definite policy. If the Government is now going to change its policy it is no good disguising the fact. We say: Well done! It is only a pity it has taken the Government so long to see it.

Let me talk for a moment, if I may, to the hon. the Minister of Mines. [Interjections.] I want to say something to the hon. the Minister of Mines. Once again I want to say, as I have said in this House before, that I have always had a real regard for that hon. Minister’s intelligence, ability and debating technique. However, I want to say that his reasoning and his speech today have been remarkably tortuous. I just want to give two examples. In the first instance he has used an example of enforced integration and necessary discrimination in the Civil Service, discrimination against Afrikaans-speaking South Africans who have to learn two languages.

It could be the other way around.

Yes, it could be the other way around, but what that hon. Minister has completely overlooked is that if that person wants to work in the Civil Service, he or she has to meet the requirements and can meet those requirements, because they can obtain the necessary qualifications and become bilingual, but one cannot change the colour of one’s skin. That is the point. If one discriminates against a person on the grounds of skin colour, there is nothing he can do about it. He can do nothing at all about it. That is the one point he has completely overlooked. That hon. Minister has also said that if one has integrated schools, one has enforced integration. I want to ask him: What about post offices, shops, streets, sport or theatres? These are the movements this Government has made, and understandably the hon. the Minister of Public Works is concerned, because it is a departure—and no one can gainsay that—from this Government’s previous policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that we welcome it, are glad to have it. So in Heaven’s name, why must that hon. Minister start backtracking and apologizing? He was very good with the Mineworker’s Union. Why does he not stay like that when he speaks to this House?

He was talking to Arrie then.

Well, he must not worry about him. [Interjections.] I am also very sorry that that hon. Minister did not take the first opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Houghton’s speech. It seemed to me that at least one could take this seriously. I am involved in this as well, and I stand by exactly what she has said earlier on in the debate. I think that we deserve a serious reply to this.

But you will get a serious one.

However, not the kind of reply which tells us that if it is going to help the security of the country, one does not mind one’s telephone being tapped because somebody who is subversive may just phone one, for example Winston Churchill of the House of Commons. [Interjections.] Oh, I see. So why was that recorded then?

I spoke for myself. Speak for yourself.

I am speaking for myself and I say that this Parliament has to hear a reply before the end of this week about the charges which have been levelled.

When the previous Prime Minister was in office, his emphasis was on the total onslaught against South Africa. Now we have had a slight shift in emphasis. The new Prime Minister has focused much more on a total strategy in response to that total onslaught. He is not moving away from it, but has developed a 12-point plan. I want to say that the total onslaught which has been described, very often correctly, is bedevilled by the Government itself, and I want to point out in what way this is being done. For example, in attacking communism and Russian imperialism, quite rightly, this Government then begins, and has done so for over 30 years, to imitate the very methods of that doctrine and of that country. One of the examples was given earlier today. There is this whole emphasis on spying, tapping, following and opening, etc. This is very similar. One does not find it in many other countries, but one certainly finds it in Russia.

And in Britain.

It may well be. I do know that one does find it there. Secondly there is this incredibly wide definition of what a communist is. So any really true opponent of this Government is immediately, by innuendo and sometimes by direct attack, labelled as some kind of communist or fellow-traveller.

By whom?

It is done again and again by spokesmen of this Government and I have heard it for five years in this House, not to mention outside. [Interjections.] No, no. There is just a nice little hint now and again.

Why are they intercepting his mail?

It is because I am subversive, I suppose.

That you must decide.

No, you are the ones who decide. I now wish to refer to something which is much more serious. For 30 years, this Government, with its total onslaught against civil liberties in South Africa, has created such a breeding-ground for the very people whom it is trying to stop on our borders. That is our argument as an Opposition against the Government, and that is why we have no confidence in the Government. It identifies the problem and then begins to imitate, bedevil and confuse it.

Would you have been able to say that in Russia?

I am not sure. I do not know. I have never been there. Probably not.

Why compare us then?

Because again and again there are laws in this country which imitate that. What I am saying is that the total onslaught by this Nationalist Government with its policies over a period of 30 years is nothing but an onslaught from which we now have to try to rescue them from. That is the whole question. [Interjections.] There has been an onslaught on peace and security in this country and, to put it another way, the apartheid chickens are coming home to roost. They are coming home to roost at every point, whether it be the mineworkers, whether it be the Blacks in Soweto or wherever else. We find all this sowing, again and again, and now we are doing the reaping.

The hon. the Prime Minister has focused on total strategy, and I want to say that some of the initiatives that he has mentioned, some of the concepts he has talked about, some of the promises he has made, have been welcomed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I endorse that heartily, but I want to say in all seriousness that the enlightened steps that the hon. the Prime Minister is attempting to make, even those enlightened steps—and there are not many; let us not over-exaggerate—are being sabotaged by some of the Ministers in his own Cabinet, and certainly by many members of his own caucus. The very people who should be supporting him, standing behind him and giving him assistance, are the very people who are making it impossible for him to go as fast as he would like to go. I can give a couple of illustrations. We have had them here in this House this afternoon. We are talking about expectations. Let me say that we did have expectations as an Opposition, but if this is the kind of response we are going to get from the hon. Ministers whom we have heard so far, then I must concede immediately that we have completely misread the expectations we have had.

I am quite sure you have.

The kind of things we have been listening to have been quite disastrous. For example, there is the hon. the Minister of Mines who spoke about the Immorality Act. Then, there is his bench-mate, the hon. the Minister of Police who, when appearing on a public platform in Durbanville, actually stated that the Immorality Act is not going to change and that the Mixed Marriages Act is going to stay on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] One of the very easiest things in the world for the hon. the Prime Minister to do is to repeal that Act. It really is a trifling matter. There are not thousands and thousands of people waiting to take advantage of it. It is no good us saying that we are going to improve this Act. What does that mean? Does it mean that one has to phone Pretoria to obtain a permit? Does it mean that Friday night is international night? How does one improve it?

That is not what I said, be honest now.

No, I am not being dishonest at all. I am raising the question of how we are going to improve that Act.

You know very well that I quoted the hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion, and I said—

That is right. He said there is not going to be any change to the Immorality Act.

Why do you not tell the House?

You cannot improve an Act without changing it. There are the good intentions of the hon. the Prime Minister and, I agree, of the hon. Minister who has just returned, if one is to judge by some of his actions, some of his words and particularly his Palm Springs speech, but I can only assume that they are being held back by some of their own close colleagues. We say to the hon. the Prime Minister: “Do not let them hold you back. Do not let them do a tortoise act and pull in the old head again. Let us move forward. You will get more support on this side of the House than you will get on that side.” That is the point.

The second thing I wish to say about the hon. the Prime Minister’s total strategy is that it is not only being sabotaged by some people who are closest to him, but it is being strangled by the bureaucracy. It is being strangled by a bureaucracy that continues to do its work right at the bottom without any recourse to the enlightened speeches made by some of the hon. Ministers. We have seen this again and again. We get telephone calls about it, etc. But let me take one example. We are going to move towards a change in the technikons in this country. Then some people, believing that because they read about it, apply. Those people happen to be so-called Coloureds or Indians. They then get a reply from a particular rector of a technikon saying: “Sorry, you cannot participate in this, because this belongs to the White group.” They then consult six other Government sources and they get a different reply from each source. The bureaucracy, following the laws of the land and 30 years of being brain-washed that a white skin is going to guarantee one everything in life and even in the hereafter, cannot cope with some of the changes and some of the enlightened statements that are coming from hon. Ministers. The only way we are going to change this is by repealing the laws. We cannot do it by having permits, or suggestions for special nights or days. Not only is the total strategy sabotaged and strangled, but it is stifled by racial legislation. If these hon. Ministers really want to convince this House and this country that they mean business, we want to see changes to the Statute Book. That is the only yardstick and we want to see movement there.

If the total strategy is to succeed at all, it must take cognizance of the key problems facing South Africa What are these key problems facing Black and White people in this country? Unemployment is one of the major problem areas. Then there are the problems of land distribution, rural development, political participation and education on an equal basis for all. Against that background one has the situation at the local levels where people live and where it hurts, in the streets and the houses of our townships, that people do not know about the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions. According to surveys which have been done, all they know is what happens to them in their homes, their buses, on trains and on the roads every day of their lives. Those are their daily problems. What I can only describe as the “monster apartheid” continues with a rapacious appetite to devour its victims. I warn this House that if we do not kill this monster, it will turn on its creators. That is how serious it is overall.

In conclusion I wish to give one example of what I am talking about. The hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization has been in the forefront of some very real steps that have been taken towards having a reasonable industrial relations system in South Africa. I wish to mention one single example of what takes place in this field. I refer to the Ford factory in Port Elizabeth. I think this factory is reasonably enlightened in its attitude, but they have been the victim of unrest and of strikes. The major factor behind this is that one has two competing work forces in a single enterprise. One does not have labour and management trying to reconcile their differences and their conflicts: one has two major work forces, White and Black, and again and again the spill-over from the total environment of South Africa is meeting at the factory level. No matter how good one’s labour legislation might be and no matter how enlightened one’s employers might be, until we get away from that we are going to have this type of competition which is unhealthy for South Africa, for industry and for everyone in this country. I believe that is we are going to move according to some of the hints that we have had from the hon. the Prime Minister, we simply have to change those actions such as, for example, the detaining under the Terrorism Act of three of those young Black people in Port Elizabeth. We cannot have those kinds of action where one has one enlightened step forward and five steps backward. That is the kind of picture we get of South Africa at the moment. We cannot afford that. We must change, and change now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands made a very fluent speech here, as is his custom. He accused the hon. the Minister of Mines of back-pedalling on the concept of discrimination. But surely, the hon. the Minister was merely trying to bring home to the hon. member what the concept means. To us who listened, it was a very fine and lucid explanation. The hon. member alleged, furthermore, that over a span of 30 years the National Party Government had launched a campaign against human rights.

Yes.

The hon. member therefore agrees that this was his point of attack. The hon. member and his party fail to see, however, that under the guidance of the National Party Government, new nations have come into existence and that nationalism has been instilled into their hearts. The Transkeian nation has been created in its totality, with its land, its sovereignty and its form of government. Bophuthatswana has been created, under President Mangope, and Venda under President Mpephu. We could continue to quote such examples. Under the régime of this Government, we have turned the status of the Coloured person into that of a self-respecting human being. What was the name given to those Coloured people in popular parlance during the régime of the Opposition or their kindred spirits? Under the National Party Government, we are enabling these people to become units of respected nations within our national borders. They cannot overlook that.

However, I want to return to the motion of no confidence introduced here today. It is a matter that troubles me personally, because we have to regard it against the background of the circumstances under which this motion has been introduced. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition moves the motion, while day after day he enjoys the security, the peace and the opportunities created by the Government. But he moved this motion on 3 September last year. Therefore he raised nothing new today. We have merely to read the Rand Daily Mail. It contains the four points which he made last year. We expected it, and the first attack which he launches in his motion is directed at the security and the order of the country. The Government is the highest authority in the country, and from there it is extended and delegated to the various authorities of our various nations. Now I want to ask the hon. Opposition—seeing that they do not hesitate to introduce a motion of no confidence—who are the people who, as kindred spirits, are sitting in their company today, grinning about the motion of no confidence in the Government at the southern tip of Africa? If the hon. member for Pinelands does not know, I invite him to go to our borders and to ask our boys who are the men, that, in their opinion, would join him in a motion of no confidence in the Government of this country. If he does not want to believe me, he can go to the military hospital and stand beside the bed of a boy who has been maimed. He can then ask him who would vote with the Opposition today on a motion of no confidence in the Government. It does not require a psychologist of extraordinary ability to be able to analyse what their elementary and basic problem is. Fear lies at the root of their problem. Since they are so very fearful, why do they not request the Prime Minister and the Government, in a well-formulated motion of appreciation, to protect the spineless creatures they are, so that they may live and work here in safety? We want to motivate this.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to us as “spineless creatures”? [Interjections.]

Order! An hon. member in this House may not refer to other hon. members as “spineless creatures”. The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. May I use the word “namby-pambies”?

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally and proceed with his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fourth statement that appeared in the Rand Daily Mail, the mouthpiece of that party, was that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who expressly asked: “Must the Government hold people indefinitely without trial under house arrest to maintain law and order, yes or no?” I want to tell him that in the climate in which this speech was made, and in which this note was struck by those people, he might also have put a fifth question which could have been the following: “Must the Government, by means of the military forces, kill a freedom fighter on the border?”

That is unworthy of you.

That is the type of talk that goes on. Those people direct it against the order of the country. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question. While they are launching this attack on the Government and the policy of the party, they should check whether they are all unanimous on their motion directed at the Government of the day. We cannot say whether they obtained clarity on that in their caucus, but I can tell them that the election of their chief executive and leaders last year was not unanimous.

Go and listen to the tape.

According to their mouthpiece, the hon. member for Yeoville said, inter alia—he said a great many things there, but I do not wish to dwell on that—

Quite right.

That is his charge against them, not against the Government. I think these people cannot escape the accusation brought against them that in the chaos they want to create, they want to survive by rubbing shoulders with other nations. We cannot see how they could emerge from this situation as rulers or as co-rulers, since their target is the Government, in which the authority of the State reposes. The Government, which is the wielder of authority in our entire existence here, is their principal target. We know the problem and the heartache of people such as those sitting there. These are the fears that confuse them and make them want to capitulate. They are afraid to stand up for what they are. They are afraid to state that as White people they also have a right to exist in this country.