Mr. Speaker, last night I concluded by referring to the fears of the Opposition. I just want to round that off by telling them that they must not believe, but only have fear!

The leader of the Government, the leader of the NP, is leading the nations of this country on a path that is wider than a mouse track. It is a course of development for the nations, and in this space …

It is a cul-de-sac!

In this space, this path of development, there is opportunity for dialogue, opportunity for differences, opportunity for clashes, because it is disparate nations, different peoples that are involved. There are, however, more opportunities for co-operation.

Allow me to elucidate just three single concepts of leadership. I am referring now to the statesmanlike leadership under the present dispensation in our country. In the first place it requires a rational grasp of reality. Let us test that in the first place. One of the components one then finds is that we should be aware of the reality of the onslaught on our country in its totality. Now we can ask the Opposition who is more aware of, better informed of this fact and these facets, who pleads more eloquently for preparedness across the entire spectrum of our national activity than the hon. the Prime Minister.

That brings me to the second component. There has to be knowledge of, and sympathy and understanding for the problems of the various nations of this country. By that criterion we find that our own Prime Minister and his Cabinet members are reaching out their hands to the various nations, paying visits to them, conferring with them, creating opportunities for them. What more could we ask?

For the rest, leadership requires a particular love for and loyalty towards one’s own as a point of departure. In that way it can be ensured that our own people are with us on this path, are sharing this development with us, are enjoying with us the prospects of a fine future. Furthermore, statesmanlike leadership on this southernmost point of Africa with its diversity of peoples also requires flexibility on the part of the leader, since the element of flexibility has to be present in the rush of nations on the road to maturity. For that reason there is the ambitious task of constitutional changes. That is the reason for the Riekert and Wiehahn studies and the resulting decisions. That was the reason for the bringing together of Government and business leaders on 22 November 1979. There were people from the ranks of the entire diversity of nations present.

I could quote in detail what the hon. the Prime Minister said on that occasion, but content myself with one brief sentence—

He uses the word “our”, and thereby includes all the nations of this country. We could also apply the test with regard to those who attended that conference.

It is summarized for us here in positive comment, in views and assessments. Our leader possesses the pliability, the vitality and the growth potential of a noble tree from the George and Knysna area—the yellow-wood tree. He can brave storms. He is strong and he survives because his roots are anchored in the good earth, the firm foundation of his own nation. He does not grow in the morasses of another party. He is being nourished from the strength, the abilities and the thinking of his people, he is being supported by their faith, ideals and aspirations. Obliquely behind that noble tree we can also point out another tree, the tambotie of Waterberg. As a person with knowledge of tree species, I can point out that the wood of the tambotie can be polished to a high gloss. In truth, it responds to polishing like rosewood, but then one must not work against its grain. If we were to consider the Opposition and identify tree species, I could only see a tangle of “kokhedêr ” trees. [Interjections.] To me, the hon. member for Durban Central resembles a banana tree. The hon. member for Houghton is not even a tree; she is a khaki-bush. Looking at the hon. member for Germiston District in our ranks, I say here is a fine protea, the national flower of South Africa.

I come to the final criterion I wish to apply with regard to our leaders in this particular country. I cannot but express my disappointment in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who spoke yesterday. His speech was fine, but his entire proposition has the defect that he suggests nothing to our young people on which they could build their future. He wants to conduct a debate on a few statutes that were placed on the Statute Book and on which we could still conduct major debates. He has referred to the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, etc., but what is he proposing to our young people?

There sits our leader who gives our young people the morning star of hope, the bright morning star of idealism. Furthermore he gives our young people the red glow of daybreak that permeates the skies like a warm feeling of co-operation among the various peoples of the country. Let the eyes of our young people be directed at that great horizon of a co-existence of nations, for then it will go very well with us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Standerton spoke about trees and compared various people in this House with trees. I think that is a fair comparison, except of course that one has to choose the trees that one wants the same way as one chooses one’s friends. What perhaps is more important is that when he likened the hon. the Prime Minister to a tall tree and magnified him as a tall tree, he forgot to say that in his own party and in his own province there are people gnawing at the roots of that tree in order to bring it down. [Interjections.] When the hon. member talks about the hon. the Prime Minister needing loyalty, I tell him that he must search his own heart up in the Transvaal.

*He must search his own heart when he talks of loyalty, and he must listen to the stories that are being spread about Piet Promise. He must listen to what they are saying about him behind his back. He must also listen to the stories being told about the hon. the Leader of the House. Who are the people sitting there …

Order! I request the hon. member to adhere to the good parliamentary custom of referring to hon. members by their constituencies or their official titles.

As it may please you, Sir. I shall do so. I should like to address the hon. the Leader of the House. How many people are there in his own party in the Transvaal who agree with what Arrie Paulus says about him? I shall read it out—

Let us get back, however, to the reality of this debate. We came to this House and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presented the case of the official Opposition. He presented it in a statesmanlike manner, yet what did we have in response? We had hoped that the response would be a message of hope for South Africa, but we had exactly the opposite. We had the situation that three hon. Ministers participated in the debate yesterday. The train of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs was, however, in reverse for some reason. He therefore could not go forward. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who followed him was so concerned with the book of the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he could hardly devote time to the real issues or to anything else. As far as his colleague who sits behind him was concerned, the amount of back-pedalling that I saw in this regard is quite remarkable. The question that has to be asked today, and has to be asked absolutely freely, is who is actually winning in the NP. [Interjections.] Is it the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who supports the hon. the Prime Minister, or is it the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs whom I thought was supporting the hon. the Prime Minister until yesterday, or is it that hon. Minister of Tourism who sits at the back of the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs? Who is winning in that party? [Interjections.] The truth of it is that yesterday we had all that back-pedalling. The engine was put into reverse because the truth is that Oom Andries, the hon. the Minister of Statistics, is keeping a very careful check on his figures in the Transvaal, and it seems as if he is winning in this fight in the NP. [Interjections.] This is the tragedy. [Interjections.] A question one therefore wants to ask is whether it is not, in fact, some of the hon. members of the NP who have found the water too cold and are not going to swim with the hon. the Prime Minister. Are they not, in effect, putting pressure on the Cabinet, something which is going to have a retarding effect? I do not say this with any sense of pleasure or jubilation. I say it with a sense of sadness because what is again happening in South Africa is that the fear of splitting the NP is making the Government of South Africa fail to put South Africa first. [Interjections.] It is the unity of the NP that is so paramount to them that they will not allow South Africa to be placed first.

Let me, however, put forward a different point to the hon. the Prime Minister. He has repeatedly said in this House that there is a total onslaught for which we need a total strategy.

Do you believe that?

He said it and I accept it. I do not dispute it at all. I believe there is a total onslaught against South Africa. I believe South Africa has real problems, but the question that needs to be posed today is what the total strategy is that has been designed to meet that problem. When it comes to defence there is no disputing that South Africa needs to be strong, that we need to protect ourselves against aggression and that we need to protect ourselves against terrorism. Physical security has to be ensured, and there is no disputing that. That is not an issue between us. In addition, however, there must be a strategy to solve the social, economic and political problems of South Africa, and it is this strategy that needs to be clearly stated by the hon. the Prime Minister. Merely to have announcements from time to time about ad hoc changes, without a master plan, is no real strategy and provides no real solution.

There are two matters that cry out for action. Firstly, while the Black community and the Western World believe, rightly or wrongly, that apartheid under any other name remains the Government’s policy, an insurmountable obstacle to any solution remains, and I think the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development agrees with me. Not so? [Interjections.] Now, he is also afraid. I think, however, that he does agree with me. [Interjections.] There is something I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Merely to say that apartheid is dead will not be believed. It is not enough for apartheid to be said to be dead. It has to be seen to be dead, and to this end some dramatic action by the Government to symbolize the demise is, in fact, required. The hon. the Prime Minister can do it during this session.

He can even do it in this debate if he has the will and the guts to get up and kill apartheid stone dead in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] He can demonstrate, not only that, but also that he means what he says when he talks about removing discrimination. He can demonstrate to South Africa and to the world that the wealth of this country is not the prerogative of a few, but is available, in large measure, for the benefit of the country and its people as a whole. He has that opportunity now. South Africa has that opportunity. Sir, there is a gold bonanza—there is no question about it. That gold bonanza should not be frittered away, but it should be used for this purpose. It should be used to ensure South Africa’s security for the future.

I want to suggest that there are two particular ways of using it which will ensure security for South Africa. Firstly, it should be used for the youth and, secondly, for the aged. More money should be made available for education on the one hand and for pensions on the other. I want to say here and now that if discrimination in pensions were removed by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government, it would in a most dramatic manner demonstrate that there is a process of change under way which will bring benefits to all and will bring them immediately. It will bring benefits to the people of South Africa. It will bring benefits to the underprivileged which no Marxist can ever bring. By one act millions of people in South Africa would in a material way feel the benefits of the abolition of discrimination. Not only would the elderly themselves feel the impact and feel that discrimination had been removed in a major and meaningful way, but as most elderly people receive assistance from their families and particularly in the Black community live with their families, almost all people would feel the benefits through the alleviation of their financial burdens. The economy, too, would benefit in that there would be a greater consumer demand in fields which local production can satisfy. This one act alone would prove that the hon. the Prime Minister is serious when he says discrimination will go. It would deal a blow to hollow Marxist promises. It would show the world that a new society is being created. It would demonstrate how wealth gaps can be closed in a peaceful manner. It would help the economy and it would help to ensure security for all the races in South Africa. Nobody can argue today that the money is not available, because it would not be true as the amount required to close the pensions gap is substantially less than the increased revenue from gold during the current year, even taking gold at a very conservative price level.

The other issue is that of closing the gap in education. This, too, would not only produce immediate benefits, but would also ensure long-term advantages for South Africa. There are again rumblings in the schools and nobody should ignore these rumblings. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development that he should not ignore them. There is no doubt that there are fertile grounds for emotive disaffective action. Not only should children be kept at school while they are capable of receiving material benefits from education, but they should be kept there in a state of contentment. The scholar and the student, together with the unemployed, are the major sections where impatience takes root and preachers of violent means of change can find receptive ears. By closing the gap between what is spent on the education of children of different races, not only is discrimination removed and the quality of all that is connected with education improved, but fertile grounds for the agitator advocating violence are eliminated and more skilled and trained people would become available to solve bottlenecks caused by a shortage of skilled people. It would help race relations and it would help the economy.

While we are talking about discrimination, may I just make the very simple point, Sir, to the hon. the Prime Minister that, if the concept of removing discrimination is accepted—leaving aside whatever differences there may be about the definition of this—this must be undertaken courageously, openly and in a definite fashion. Let us then change the laws that entrench discrimination. To deal with human rights by grace and favour is both wrong and degrading. The tragedy is that, unfortunately, there is still the fear of antagonizing the fringe elements on the right. We believe the hon. the Prime Minister will take the necessary action. We still hope the hon. the Prime Minister has the courage to deal with it. It means, however, that one must not do it by means of grace and favour, but by changing the laws of South Africa.

Let us take the simple example of a restaurant. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development whether he thinks it is right that if one takes a guest of a different colour to a restaurant that the guest’s ability at cricket or his status in business or his position in a profession should have any bearing on whether one is able to take him to that restaurant. I do not believe that it should. I want to ask what the decision of the person on the other end of the line depends on when he is telephoned. Will the hon. the Minister of Justice tell the House what that decision depends on? I can give a further example. I read the other day again in a newspaper that a Black American lady who had come to South Africa had been to an hotel in Johannesburg. This hotel is classified as an international hotel. She alleged that she was sitting at a swimming pool and was told she could not swim in the pool. I, for one, cannot understand this situation. Surely, when amenities are open, they are open, and one cannot have a humiliating situation where somebody is allowed in the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg but is not allowed to use all the facilities in that hotel. What is more, the person in those circumstances was not even a South African Black. The issue, however, is not whether it is a South African or an American Black. The issue is that it is a human being, and there are basic fundamentals that need to be accepted in regard to such a situation. As long as hon. members opposite do not understand that the world will not accept the situation in South Africa while this kind of farce goes on we can never agree across the floor of this House, because the reality is that neither the world nor ordinary individuals in South Africa can understand this kind of value standard that is being applied in this regard.

What do we really want to achieve in South Africa? The issue is what the total strategy is directed at, and the hon. the Prime Minister will have to tell us. One of the major factors is that we are in a period of change. There is no question about this. Whether the hon. the Prime Minister wants it or whether the hon. the Minister of Statistics wants it, we are in a position of change. In that position of change one finds that there is a degree of instability, and in a period of instability one has to be careful to maintain that stability, because it is easier to maintain stability than to restore stability once it is lost. I would like, with respect, to put to the hon. the Prime Minister matters which relate to the stability of South Africa and which I believe he should be dealing with.

Firstly, he should make changes because he himself believes they should be made. He should not make changes under pressure. If one makes changes under pressure one encourages more pressure. One must always negotiate from a position of strength on equal terms. Secondly, if he has a grand strategy for South Africa, then he should make the plan available to show what our society will be like at the end of the road and not make ad hoc concessions from time to time. Thirdly, he should give some immediate benefit to the affected persons by the process of change, because a benefit now is an answer to the agitator who promises all, but really gives nothing. That is why I made the suggestion with regard to pensions. Fourthly, he should allow the affected person to participate in the process of finding solutions and ensure that those who do participate are the respected and recognized leaders of the people concerned. Fifthly, he has to act swiftly to remove the fertile ground for violence by dealing with just grievances speedily, by combating unemployment and by removing points of friction. There are many other things that can be said and I would like to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should say specifically in regard to his strategy what, firstly, the political objectives are, because these need to be stated as we do not know what his party’s policy is because his party is unable even to put a plan before its own commission. Secondly, he should tell us what the social objectives are and, thirdly, what the economic objectives are. We need to know where we stand in that regard.

While we are talking about the economy, it is perhaps not out of place to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that clearly in one respect this Government has let the ordinary man down. At a time when things are going well economically in South Africa, this Government has failed many South Africans. It has let the pensioner down, as it has the elderly who relies on fixed income from savings, the housewives, those in the lower and middle income groups and the unemployed. Inflation has been allowed to run rampant in South Africa. State administered prices have been increased again and again. Sales tax on the essentials of life have been maintained when it should not have been. The rand has been managed at levels which have caused prices of imports to increase. An obstinate policy in respect of subsidies on basic essentials, of which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is the greatest opponent, has been pursued and inadequate steps have been taken to control profiteering and exploitation. The consumer, particularly those in the lower income group, and the elderly have been the casualties in the current economic upswing. The present rate of inflation endangers the savings and the fixed pensions of people, and by its impact on currency creates instability and fears for long-term prospects of the economy. Not all of us in South Africa can buy gold shares and Kruger rands and have the expertise to sell them at the right time. Banks, building societies and fixed interest spots are the repositories of much of the nations savings. Inflation and low interest rates have destroyed the confidence of the saver who is so necessary for capital formation. Inflation is a major Government failure and the hon. the Minister of Finance has failed to act on that. Therefore we ask the Government as a whole not only to take responsibility for what has happened, but also to take action in order to remedy this situation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville resumed his seat so quickly that I did not quite realize that he had stopped speaking. I had really hoped that he would furnish a few figures and facts to substantiate those wild statements of his. I think that this House can expect that, especially when an hon. member on the opposite side attacks the Government as the hon. member has done. In a few minutes I shall come back to the speech of the hon. member.

First of all I just want to refer to the speech of the new hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think that this House as a whole listened to him with interest. I really want to express my appreciation for the restrained way in which he delivered his speech and put his standpoints. Of course we shall conduct a considerable number of discussions with him over the next few months and I think that we shall continue to differ with him considerably. I also want to thank him for that fleeting, but appreciated reference to myself as Minister of Finance, a reference differing somewhat from the vein of the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville. However, I do not want to become too serious about that matter now.

Having said that, I must tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there is a great deal in his speech on which I differ from him. In particular I just want to refer at the outset to his motion of no confidence. It was motivated in three parts. In the third part he said that the Government had neglected to make adequate provision in its economic and social planning for the effects an increase in population can mean in respect of the standard of living of and opportunities for all our people. Then, at the end, he expressed himself as follows—

As far as this is concerned, I think that the hon. member could at least have furnished us with a few facts in this regard as well. It is a very serious generalization. It would seem that the implication of the criticism of the hon. member in this sphere is that we, on the Government side, are trying to govern this country with the Whites only. I think that is what it amounts to. I really want to differ with him very sharply. I just want to quote a few figures to place this whole matter, the socio-economic life of South Africa, in a certain perspective.

Firstly, I shall deal with housing and quote only the past five years’ figures. The further one goes into the past, the better the present situation looks by comparison. The amount being spent on housing by the central Government, in the homelands as well, is R138 million for the 1975-’76 financial year and the comparative figure for the current financial year is R327 million. This is far more than double. The total amount over the five-year period is approximately R1 500 million. This is what the Government is spending on housing. I think this is an achievement. Then hon. members should also note how much of this amount is being spent on Black, Indian and Coloured housing. Proportionately, the figure for the non-Whites is rising annually.

Secondly, I shall refer to health. For the 1975-’76 financial year the amount was approximately R572 million and for the current financial year, R930 million. Over the five-year period the amount spent on health is R3,8 billion. Once again one must analyse the figures to determine how much of this amount was spent on non-Whites. This is once again a proportionally increasing amount.

Let us now examine food subsidies. For the 1975-’76 financial year, the amount was R134 million and for the current financial year the amount will be R174 million, with a total amount of R709 million over the five-year period. I believe my hon. friend will concede that our non-White population groups are deriving considerable benefit from this.

Now I shall refer to transport, to bus and train services. In the 1975-’76 financial year, the subsidies amounted to R32 million and this year to approximately R140 million. This is to prevent tariffs from rising too high for the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in particular. I believe these are figures of which any Government could be proud, particularly this country where we have to earmark so much of our revenue for defence and security purposes. I believe this is something of which we can be proud.

One can also refer to pensions. The hon. member for Yeoville said “The Government has let the pensioners down”.

†I think that was a very unfortunate choice because I think the Government has not let anybody down. Least of all, probably, has it ever let the pensioner down. I have the figures, but I do not want to clutter up my speech with figures. If you look at the amounts which are paid out year by year, without exception, to pensioners and you take it over any period since this Government has been in power, you will find that they exceed year by year the increase in the cost of living. The longer the period over which you take it the better the comparison appears. The hon. member for Umbilo, who takes a very responsible attitude in these matters, will bear me out. He knows the figures. I can quote other figures too, but what I want to say is that all this has a direct bearing on the criticism of this Government that on socio-economic grounds it has not fulfilled its responsibilities. That has been an important part of the gravamen of the charges of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against us.

If we look at the economy as a whole I think we can say that the last year has really been an eventful year for this country. At this moment practically every country in the world is adjusting its projected growth estimates downwards. The OECD, an authoritative organization with its headquarters in Paris and which studies the performance of the 24 leading industrial countries of the world, have again had to adjust their latest estimates of growth in these 24 countries downwards and they feel the average for the year ahead will not be much more than 1%. That is a very sad state of affairs. I happened to be at the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank in Belgrade at the beginning of October and if ever there was a pall of gloom among that representative authoritative gathering it was on that occasion. Against this background South Africa’s growth rate is increasing. I happened to say a year ago—I am not sure whether it was in this debate, but if it was not, it was about this time last year—that I thought that by the end of 1979 or at the beginning of 1980, our growth rate could be about 4%. I was then ridiculed by some people in this country. But the facts are there. I am not saying that I am perhaps more often correct than anybody else, but on that occasion I was. We had the facts and the confidence that this would be so. It so happened that the growth rate at the end of the year was just about 4%. If things continue as they are I think there is a very good chance that towards the end of the year it might be 5%. I sincerely hope it will be.

It is not enough.

Of course it is enough when you think that some of the most powerful economies in the world are struggling with growth rates of 0,5% and 1% at the moment. How can 5% then not be enough? What sort of argument is it to say it is not enough when it is 5% and other economies, which a few months ago were expecting 3% and 4%, are now not sure they can reach 1%? Of course some people will say that the gold price has increased. Of course the gold price has increased. But our exports as a whole have performed extremely well and they still are. It is not just gold. We have a powerful economy and we have said it. In fact, I had the confidence to say in my budget speech last March that we were proceeding from a position of “growth from strength”, and I gave my reasons. When the gold price reached nearly $200 after 1974, which was very high at that time, many of us tended to live above our means. It became the fashion to spend money wherever possible throughout the economy. We very soon got into the most serious financial difficulties. One of the most serious symptoms of that was of course the big deficit which emerged in the current account of the balance of payments. But this Government did not simply sit and look at the position as, with respect, country after country has been doing in the last two years and is still doing today. We took the necessary remedial steps. The Government took these steps, and embarked upon a pretty austere policy, a policy based upon conservative fiscal and monetary measures, a policy of financial discipline. I am very happy to say the policy worked. In this way we were able to convert the very big deficit in the current account into a substantial surplus before ever we obtained the benefit from the higher gold price. Subsequently that improvement has been further strengthened, and one is very glad to be able to say that.

To say therefore that the Government, under these circumstances, has let the country down, has let pensioners down or has let whoever else down, as the hon. member for Yeoville so glibly stated without giving any supporting facts at all verges, I submit, on the irresponsible.

Talk to any housewife in the country.

If we had not taken these measures that we did take. We were conspicuous in that we were virtually the only country in the world to do so. Practically every leading banker we meet, and also industrialists in the world at large, tell us this. They point to this and take this as an example of what should be done under these circumstances. If we had not done that I dare say the hon. member might have been able to ask why we had not done those things. However, we pulled the economy straight under very difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Yeoville will remember that towards the end of 1975 we had to devalue by virtually 18%. No country likes to devalue its currency. However, what is the position today? Today the rand is one of the strongest currencies in the world, by any standards. Those are the facts. It is in fact said in some quarters that the rand should be allowed to appreciate because there may be a tendency to undervalue a very strong currency. Well, there is much to be said about those matters and we bear them very much in consideration under our present system.

The point I should like to raise with the hon. Opposition is this. It is all very well to say we should be spending more on socio-economic services and that we should not let this or that group down—which we have not done—but who among hon. members opposite has really talked about national security and the need to keep this country safe in an increasingly dangerous world? [Interjections.] What option do we have? We are thrown back on our own resources, and we are quite happy to rely on our own resources, because we will stand firm. We are not going to give way, but we have to be prepared. The result is that every year we have to provide more for defence, for police, for national security.

During the last five years the amount for defence has increased from something like R600 million or R650 million, in round figures, to R2 000 million, or R2 100 million today. Imagine if conditions—over which we have no control—were different. We are doing our utmost to hold the line and to improve those conditions, but imagine if things had been more normal and if we could have said that over this five-year period we could allow defence spending, for instance, to double, because we obviously have to make allowance for an increasing population and for the responsibilities of maintaining security. Let us say—for the sake of argument—we had doubled that amount over five years, which in normal times would be a fairly substantial increase. Then on today’s figures, if we took today’s budget as a rough indication, we would have between R700 million and R900 million which we could spend on other things, or reduce taxation still further and more substantially. That is the position in which we find ourselves. If people do not take that into account, how can one possibly conduct a debate of this kind?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says in this House that this Government is deserving of censure. He feels it incumbent upon him to move a vote of no confidence in the governing party. It is an irony of fate. [Interjections.] At this moment—and this is one of the oddities of the world we are living in—few countries would admit it in public, but what does one after the other of them tell us through the medium of responsible spokesmen? They tell us that they have more confidence in us today than they have had for years. They have confidence in South Africa, and where is there a better index of that, a really important index of a person’s confidence in another country, than that he is prepared to invest his savings in that country? That is what is happening in this country. We are in the fortunate position today, and I say again that we can only be thankful for it, that we are being offered good money for investment on better terms than we have seen for a long time, to the extent that as far as we in the public sector, the Government and the Reserve Bank, are concerned, we are unable to accept all that money. I believe it is a great cause for gratitude on the part of anybody who has the interests of this country at heart. Yet under these circumstances the hon. Leader of the Opposition moves a vote of no confidence and then motivates it under these three headings, which I do not have to repeat again. The one which particularly interests me is the heading under which he states that, having regard to the increasing population, we are not making proper long-term provision in the form of long-term planning for the needs of all sections of the population. I have given the figures for five years. I could give the figures for 25 years. They would be just as persuasive and just as impressive to refute that statement, an important part of his whole argument. In fact, it is so important that I venture to say that unless the hon. Leader of the Opposition can substantiate those serious allegations, his motion falls to pieces.

As far as gold is concerned—we shall have more opportunity to talk about that later—it obviously is another cause for great satisfaction to us in this country that our most important export item, the product of our single most important industry, has performed and is still performing so well. Those of us who have been expressing our confidence in gold year after year, even when conditions seemed to be turning against us, will obviously derive some satisfaction from this position.

However, what I think is perhaps the most important source of satisfaction, is the fact that despite the sustained onslaught on gold in the shape of the efforts to demonetize it, to phase gold right out of the world’s monetary and payment system—and here, of course, the Americans took the lead to the extent that even today official statements by the American Treasury still state that gold has been demonetized—it is in fact being remonetized before our eyes, I would have thought that at least some of the spokesmen for the more important countries at the International Monetary Fund would have had something to say about gold and the important role which I am quite sure it can play in the kind of currency turmoil which the world is witnessing today. Yet I was the only spokesman who dealt with gold, albeit briefly. One other Minister of Finance made a fleeting reference to it and meant to say that Keynes had said it was a barbarous relic. He misquoted him, but that was apparently what he meant to say. However, be that as it may. The fact is that everybody shunned gold, but when I had spoken and went out of the plenary session, I was submerged by the Press and the media. They wanted me to organize a Press conference as soon as possible, which we eventually did. I believe that that was the biggest Press conference they had there. That was what they told me themselves. For an hour and a half leading financial editors of the world spoke of nothing else but gold. It was really an experience to be present there.

You wowed them, did you?

So when we talk of no confidence in the Government, let us take this question of gold into account Hon. members who were here will remember how, a few years ago, the then hon. member for Johannesburg North criticized me on this score. Gold was under pressure then. It was not performing nearly as well as it has been performing lately. At the time I made a considered statement saying that I believed that the gold trend was an upward one and that the price would improve. I gave various reasons and also said what I thought gold could do in a monetary sense. He then tackled me and said I must not be too optimistic about gold. He was telling the House that I was being too sanguine. I, in turn, subsequently tackled him. That is a member who, one would have thought, would have been extremely well informed since he represented big mining interests. Throughout the last session, in the debates, how many times did I not ask: What does the hon. Opposition think about this all-important commodity in our economy? I think hon. members will agree with me that they were almost completely silent on the subject.

Remember how you objected when we said it would reach $200 per ounce?

Well, well! Gold is in a very interesting position today. Fairly soon I shall have to make certain estimates of what is going to happen in the year ahead, and obviously a very important factor is the view we take of gold in relation to mining costs, etc., so that we can get some idea of mining revenues. I am therefore asking my hon. friends opposite, in a very friendly way, to tell us what they think would be a reasonable expectation for the price of gold six months hence, perhaps also 12 months hence. [Interjections.]

You should tell us.

If the hon. member who is interjecting here would like to engage in the same little debate, I should be delighted because I have never heard him speak on the subject. [Interjections.]

*I have never heard him speak on this matter. Perhaps he will do so now.

Why do you not tell us what you think it will do? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, that is a really remarkable interjection from that hon. member, because I think that in the past six months I have said in public 14 or 15 times precisely what I think gold is going to do in the period that lies ahead.

Well, tell us. Do not keep us in suspense.

Does that hon. member not read the newspapers? Does he not watch television?

[Inaudible.]

I have never changed my view. I have said that the underlying demand factors in relation to gold are so strong, in relation to a comparatively stable supply, that despite the fact that the gold price will obviously fluctuate in the short term—for one thing because there is such large-scale speculation in an article which creates as much interest as gold—the long-term trend will be an upward one. I have never changed my view on that.

So what will the price be at the end of the year?

I do not know what is worrying the hon. member. I have asked him a question. I have to make certain estimates and I thought it might just help me to hear his views. [Interjections.] Obviously, however, I shall have to do this solely with the help of my friends on this side of the House.

*We shall get nothing from the other side. I put a friendly question to them and leave it at that. [Interjections.]

Order!

What I think is extremely important—and I have said this at the meeting in Belgrade, subsequently in America and also in Britain and Germany—is that I do think that the time has arrived for countries that really mean something in the world, and can play a part in trying to reform what is a very seriously disorganized currency and payments system, to get together with us around the table. After all, we just happen to be by far the biggest producer of this thing called gold and have always adopted the most responsible policy on gold. Nobody can ever argue with me on that. I think we should all get together. I have said it before and I should like to say it again today. Let us sit down together and see, not how we can try to denigrate gold and criticize it adversely, but how we can use gold, this commodity the whole world is wanting, to best advantage to under-pin our currency system, strengthen it and reform it, as I think every responsible person would like to see done. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the great hope lies in gold. If we do not make use of gold in that constructive monetary sense, I think we are simply going to go on in this way from month to month and year to year with these enormous disorganizations in the world’s currency and monetary fields. That is my request, and I am glad to say that, although officially countries tend to be very quiet on this, in important and influential circles I have had a considerable response to this and have noticed a great deal of interest in it. One hopes therefore we will be able to achieve this kind of discussion. I think it would be of benefit not only to South Africa, but to the world generally, which has been saying year after year that it is time to improve world trade and world payments arrangements.

I should like to conclude by saying that I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has caught the imagination not only of this country but of the whole world with the tremendous initiative he has taken under the guise of the concept of a constellation of States in Southern Africa. I believe this is a tremendously exciting thing. I believe it is a practical concept. I believe that the interest that is already being taken in this part of the world in extremely influential circles, in Government and outside Government, is one of the best indicators for the future, one of the best assurances for the future. I, for one, should like to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on this vision and …

It went up in smoke yesterday.

… on this confidence in his country in saying to the whole of Southern Africa: “Come forward with us. Let us work out our destiny together in a peaceful, decent and responsible manner …

He will rank with Napoleon and Alexander the Great.

Let us also, if necessary, forget about those little people, like my hon. friend opposite who keeps on sniping. This great concept does not depend on his support if he does not want to give it. It depends on the support of millions of other people who have the welfare of this part of the world at heart. So I am sure we can achieve this aim.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by congratulating the new hon. Leader of the Opposition on his election to that high office and wishing him success in the task resting on his shoulders. I sympathize with him in the task awaiting him. I have also experienced problems on occasion, but they were very small in comparison to his. Later in my speech I shall be returning to certain aspects of the matters the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has raised, but first I wish to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

†What I like about the hon. the Minister of Finance is his modesty. In fact, we often talk of him as “Modesty Blaise”. He stands up at conferences and the price of gold goes shooting up! I do not begrudge him that. What I do begrudge is when he stands up at a public meeting and says I am talking nonsense when I say the Government will have a bonanza of R3 000 million this year. He repudiated it and said it was utter tripe.

Where was this?

In Eshowe. Does the hon. the Minister not read his own speeches? He has a very weak memory, Sir. [Interjections.] He could not have been looking at his notes. I should like to say to him that, while he may enjoy himself, it does not improve his stature when he makes accusations of the type he made there. Let me ask him whether he is going to have a R3 000 million bonanza or not.

What do you mean by that?

That is the amount more than he counted on when he budgeted.

R3 000 million?

Yes.

It is complete and utter nonsense.

I am referring to the total benefit to the State. However, we will come to that.

It is complete nonsense.

We will see when the budget is introduced.

I would like to refer to one or two other matters. One is the goal that the Government has set itself, according to the hon. the Minister of Finance. He is perfectly satisfied with a 5% growth rate and yet he accepts that it will take a growth rate of more than 6% merely to stabilize unemployment.

Where do you get that?

Well, the hon. the Minister’s Government has accepted that, or does he not accept collective responsibility?

You should be a little bit more careful.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister knows that a growth rate of 5% will not even deal with the unemployment situation in South Africa. Yet he is satisfied with a growth rate of 5%. I think, however, that perhaps his most significant statement was made at the end of his speech when he spoke of the hon. the Prime Minister’s imaginative initiative, under whatever guise the hon. the Minister said it was being undertaken. I want to return to this particular issue. “Imaginative” is perhaps a good word; “imagination” is perhaps better and “guise” is perhaps the best word that he used. We will have to deal with and get clarity on this initiative—its real meaning and import for South Africa. One doubt this debate has raised is whether the initiative is in fact imaginative or whether it is imaginary. Are there in fact expectations aroused in the hearts and the minds of the people of South Africa or are there not expectations aroused? I say this because it is of cardinal importance. We heard from the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs yesterday that the expectations were being overplayed and that it was the Opposition which in fact was creating expectations. Am I misquoting him?

No.

So, it is not the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government who are creating expectations, but it is the Opposition who are creating expectations. Are there grounds for expectations or are there not grounds for expectations? That is what I would like to know.

Of course.

The hon. the Minister says there are grounds. They started the initiative? Therefore how can the hon. the Minister accuse the Opposition of arousing expectations when the initiative is being taken by the Government? I do, however, now have it on record that there are expectations.

I said that some were justified and some not.

Then we have to establish which of the expectations are justified. This is what we have to do in this debate, because South Africa has heard about this new deal, this new vision, and wants to know what it is all about. Hon. members on the Government side know that under the surface of the public debate new political lines are being drawn in South Africa, particularly among hon. members belonging to the NP. New political lines are being drawn, and we find even that hon. members of the NP report each other to the Security Police as security risks. So we have already got to the stage where one person reports another …

To which party did the hon. member concerned belong to last year?

He belonged to the NP and yet he was reported as a security risk. That is the depth to which the drawing of lines has descended in the political scene in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to deal with those issues that will determine the future of South Africa in the realpolitik. These are the issues, the attitudes and the thinking that are going to determine the shape of the new Republic of South Africa in time to come.

Because of all the interjections this is perhaps an appropriate time to say a passing word to the wishful thinkers. I want to tell them that their obituaries about the NRP are a bit premature. They have been writing them for two years, but they are still premature and they will continue to be premature. I shall give the reason for that. The reason is that this party represents a sector of South African opinion reflecting the central core of the South African character. [Interjections.] It rejects radicalism in politics, whether it be to the right or to the left. In that sense this party reflects conservatism in its true meaning, in the true sense of keeping what is right and good for the country and changing what is wrong. I want to warn that, if one destroys the moderate centre in South Africa, one destroys any hope of stable change and one condemns South Africa to a polarization which can only lead to confrontation, apart from the fact that hundreds of thousands of people would then find themselves with no political home in South Africa.

In this debate I do not want to waste time … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are making too many interjections.

… on superficialities, dog fights and personalities. I want to look at the real issues which are going to determine South Africa’s future. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and others have dealt with what they see as wrong. Their condemnation has been comprehensive in a number of fields. I agree with a great deal of what has been said about the things that are wrong, the things that have been dealt with in this debate. I do not want to merely repeat criticisms.

Do you feel closer to him?

I want to deal with positive issues from a positive starting point. It has been touched upon in this debate and it was dealt with last year and now I want to get it quite clear whether old apartheid is finally dead. Every time anybody asks this question, one gets an evasive answer. I want to put it that old-style apartheid is finally dead.

Your interpretation of it is dead. [Interjections.]

It seems that apartheid is not dead and that only our interpretation of apartheid is dead. [Interjections.] One cannot have it both ways. Either apartheid is dead or only our interpretation of it is dead.

The enemy’s interpretation of it is dead.

Well, I am not an enemy. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that. I am a political opponent and I want to establish whether in fact apartheid is dead or not, because this is the starting point. With it goes its twin brother of separate development, which I submit has failed as a solution to South Africa’s problems and which lies in ruins. This is a new phase into which we are embarking. Whether we are going to have “expectations” or not, we are moving into a new phase in South African politics. I want to ask if the National Party, the Government, will dispute it if I say that the old book is closed … There is no dispute. They accept that the old book is closed. Let us now look at the new book. It has a nice dust cover. It has a pretty picture and lots of blurb on the cover. It has a nice title page when one turns it over: the Prime Minister’s initiative for a total strategy. It has a prologue and then, when one turns the page, it has blank page after blank page. That is what we want to know in this debate: What is going to fill the blank pages in the new book which replaces the old book of apartheid? This new baby has been 18 months in gestation. We want to see what the baby looks like. We cannot judge it unless we can see it. We want to see the picture of the baby in those blank pages of the book the hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned. But, instead of giving us that picture, what is the Government doing? The Government is chipping away at the ruins of the edifice it itself spent 30 years building. Nobody else created this structure. Nobody else created it—call it apartheid, separate development, what you like. It is their baby. They built it. They spent 30 years building it and now they are chipping away at it, at their old baby, the one that is dead. The only difference is that there are some members of the Government, like the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who are picking away at it with pickaxes; but there are others who are picking away at the ruins with toothpicks, making sure it does not collapse. I am entitled to say that, because of the dichotomy that exists over this issue of whether apartheid is dead or not. The Government ruling South Africa today, is busy discarding and repudiating its own structure which it spent so long building. It has no policy and does not know what to put in the place of the old structure. [Interjections.] If anybody can tell me what the Government is putting in its place, please let him tell me in simple terms, because that is what South Africa is waiting to hear. Whither South Africa? Whither now? Everybody knows that there is change.

*People want to know where that change is leading to. That is the question being put by South Africa, not only White South Africa, but all South Africans of all communities; Whither now? There are people who have been lost in the search. That will always be so. There will always be people who get lost.

I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and I differ as to his total onslaught, his total strategy, in the context of the military, strategic aspect of our national life. We are on record, and it is unnecessary to repeat it, that we have given our full support to that aspect of a total strategy. It is equally true that we have totally rejected any strategy reducing, limiting or neutralizing criticism or opposition to the political government in power. We must make that distinction very clear: The strategy to safeguard South Africa, in contrast to the strategy which seeks to prohibit criticism of the Government. Our position in this regard is very clear. We believe that true patriotism means that one has a duty, where things are wrong, to try to rectify those things which are wrong.

I should like to place on record briefly the attitude of this party in respect of certain specific matters. In the first place, with regard to Rhodesia and Beit Bridge I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we lend our full support and approval for what has already been done. We believe that all possible assistance which an official Government of a friendly neighbouring state asks of us, should be given. In this regard our attitude is unequivocal. We support South Africa’s participation in the safeguarding of Beit Bridge and also the steps taken subsequently.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, I should like to say that I trust neither Swapo nor the UN. In spite of my distrust, however, I believe that we have a duty towards the peoples of South West Africa to try and find a peaceful and acceptable solution, acceptable as far as the West is concerned. Therefore I believe it is right that we continue to guarantee the safety of the population of South West Africa.

†Similarly, with urban terrorism there is no equivocation in the stand of this party. I have said it publicly. There is no compromise with terrorists. You cannot appease them and you cannot stop them by concessions. I suggested to a German once: If South Africa gave the Baader-Meinhof gang weapons would they then seek a political settlement with these people? He did not think it was funny. I do not see any other alternative than to deal one way only with urban terrorism and that is to wipe it out.

As far as Dons and the investigation into politicians are concerned, we in this party are naturally opposed to any such action. Any interference with the right of any person to indulge in legitimate politics is unacceptable. But like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I too shall wait to hear the explanation before giving final judgment. We have heard enough, however, to know that there was something seriously wrong here.

Let me return to the stewardship of this Government, which is a different matter from the things I have been talking about. I am not intimidated by the Government’s newspaper over this weekend which said that to dare to question the hon. the Prime Minister’s actions or even the tempo, would be disloyal …

Which newspaper?

Rapport. I have the cutting here. It is a paper supporting the Government and the column was written by the chief editor of the official mouthpiece of the NP in the Transvaal. He said that to criticize or question even the tempo was disloyal and unpatriotic. I am not going to be intimidated by that. I agree with him only on one point and that is that the Nationalist Government has not taken over New Republic Party policy. That is absolutely clear and I agree. Therefore I want to confront the hon. the Prime Minister on certain specific issues. I hope he can prove me wrong on facts and deeds and not just on platitudes, because I do not share the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s expectations regarding the Prime Minister’s changes which he is going to bring about. He handled the Prime Minister very gently. I can understand that. I do not have a fairy godfather who has been lauding the hon. the Prime Minister for a couple of months now for his private enterprise initiative. I have no inhibitions. The hon. the Prime Minister and I know each other. I respect his sincerity and his honesty, but I challenge him on the factual situation on certain specific issues.

The first is the Natal agreement which brought about agreement between White, Coloured and Indian in regard to local government. The hon. the Prime Minister has pleaded for co-operation. That has been achieved and an ordinance has been passed which will enable further steps to be taken. It is purely a first-step ordinance, an enabling ordinance. But the Government has vetoed that ordinance. The consequences of that are that this afternoon the president of the Association of Local Affairs Committees in Natal has given notice that they will probably withdraw from all participation and will resign from all local authorities. It is going to create a crisis in local government because the Government refuses to implement what has been agreed upon between the official representatives of the legitimate authorities of the Coloured and Indian communities. This afternoon their chairman said—

Now, my plea to the hon. the Prime Minister is to withdraw his veto, to prevent this confrontation …

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

No, I have no time and I know what stupid question is going to be asked. [Interjections.]

This is going to create more friction, and I plead with the hon. the Prime Minister to let this experiment, this agreement, go forward.

But the NMA rejected the proposals. [Interjections.]

They did not reject all of them. However, I am not going to waste time on that false argument. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to charge the hon. the Prime Minister with following a direction which is circumventing and subverting the status of this Parliament. Instead of amending or repealing outmoded legislation he has embarked upon a course of government by permit and exemption. I urge him to realize the implications of this, and if he wants to show the genuiness of the new dispensation I ask him to attack those laws, to repeal them or to amend them and not to allow South Africa to be governed by permit and by ministerial exemption instead of by laws passed by this Parliament. [Interjections.] What is happening is that the public does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha. The law states one thing. Some people obey that law while others do not—but nothing happens to them. However, when somebody else does exactly the same thing he is arrested or charged. One cannot have respect for the law if it is treated in this way.

The other aspect of the hon. the Prime Minister’s strategy, I believe, is a camouflage for keeping intact the structure of separate development and apartheid. It retains legislation which preserves the structure while trying to ameliorate its consequences. As long as one keeps the structure in the form of legislation no amelioration of the consequences is going to help. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister straight out whether or not he is prepared to destroy the structure on which it is based.

Then I put to him two fundamental evasions which cannot be continued any longer. Does he stand for consultation or for joint decision-making? There is a difference. The hon. the Prime Minister talks of consultation but avoids joint decision-making in all his statements. I challenge him now to state categorically whether he accepts joint decision-making between the various communities of South Africa or whether he stands only for consultation.

The other issue on which we cannot get an answer—and it must be answered—is the question of whether non-homeland Blacks will keep or lose their South African citizenship. This must also be answered.

If I had time I should like to go on with other examples but I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that what he is doing now is trying to buy time. What he should be doing is use the time he has. He should be using the breathing space when the international spotlight is on other trouble spots in the world. He should not be looking for more time to buy more time. He should, now, at this moment, be using the time we have. He should grasp the nettle and get on with it, because he knows that the 1977-draft Constitution—and it was his own baby too—he was one of the architects thereof—is today just a relic for students of Africana. It is no longer realistic. Nobody talks about it as though it were a practical proposition. [Interjections.] Nobody talks about it. It is over and done with. It is finished. I have not heard a single person say that it has any possibilities of working. [Interjections.] What we are doing now is to look for ad hoc policies to put in its place.

I want to compliment the hon. the Minister of the Interior, in his absence, on the fairness and sincerity with which he is handling the commission which is looking for a new constitution. The NRP has put its proposals to that commission clearly. I call on the NP, the PRP and other parties to present their proposals to that commission, under the spotlight of questioning. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may laugh. Come and face that commission and then let us take not the final decisions on blueprints, but draw up a declaration of intent, which will then be followed by a mechanism for negotiation with the different communities. That negotiation can itself deal with the details.

Whatever the constitution turns out to be, it is quite clear that public thinking is moving more and more towards the concepts of this party, viz. of a federal confederal solution for South Africa. More and more it is becoming clear that the only hope for a negotiated consensus will come through the acceptance and accommodation of ethnic identities within a structure which binds them in one structure, one State, one citizenship, one loyalty, one economy and one patriotism, a system which will eliminate the counting of heads and will eliminate elections which could create majority rule. It will be a system which accommodates community identities within a broader superstructure.

This is the way South Africa has got to move, and if for no other reason, this has justified the existence of the NRP. We pioneered this concept of a parallel federal/ confederal system for South Africa. The more I read and the more I hear the opinions of people who should know, the more I realize that ultimately this is where responsible thinking is crystallizing. We will therefore go on in this party with the next step, which will be to seek dialogue with other communities and other political parties because we believe we have got a basis on which a real future for South Africa can be negotiated. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will indicate in this debate tomorrow that in fact he is going to act and that the expectations are real.

As we too have no confidence in the Government, we support the motion before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the leader of the NRP. He touched on a vast number of matters, but there are a few things that he must put much more clearly, otherwise he will continue to proceed crab-fashion, as his party is already doing. As regards the general train of thought concerning a federal/confederal setup, there is a world of difference between federation and confederation. One cannot have both. The leader of the NRP must work out for himself which of the two he wants. He must not come along with such a broad train of thought intending to satisfy everyone but ultimately satisfying no one.

Then I want to thank the leader of the NRP for his praise of the chairman of the Constitutional Commission which is at present engaged in its task, and with which everyone is co-operating. I think it is a very fine thing to have this spirit of co-operation. At the same time, however, I want to tell the leader of the NRP that he must not refer to this commission and then in the same breath to the ordinances in Natal, where they want to adopt a certain approach at the local Government level which has not yet been settled by this commission. One cannot have one approach at the level of local government and another at a higher level of government. To my mind, therefore, it is very necessary to study these things in an objective, balanced way. It is being said here that a spoke is being put in their wheel. It is quite obvious, however, that they are now trying to find local solutions to something for which a model we have not yet developed for the country as a whole.

We have found them. We have a model and it works. [Interjections.]

He wants a very clear reply from the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. He wants the hon. the Prime Minister to say whether he advocates “consultation” or “joint decision-making”. However, “joint decision-making” is a sharing of power. Is that what that party advocates? Surely they want to share power on a federal basis?

Federally and confederally.

And confederally.

[Interjections.]

Federally in the sphere of common interest and confederally with the homelands.

I want to try to conduct the debate on a high level because I think it is necessary to do so. To my mind, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition set a good example here. He tried to put his case in a calm, reasonable way. There is one thing, however, to which I take exception, and which I feel is being exaggerated. This is something which the hon. the leader of the NRP also stressed once again. I am referring to the question of raising expectations. I want to ask those hon. leaders: Who is raising most expectations?

Piet Koornhof.

An hon. colleague of mine answered that yesterday. He said that there is nothing that he had held out in prospect, which this Government cannot put into effect. Consequently, that was answered very clearly. However, who is raising expectations amongst various communities?

The Messiah of Palm Springs!

Not a single member of those two parties which have such a small representation in this White Parliament, can envisage taking over the government of the country in the near or foreseeable future, and that is why they must please realize that they should be moderate in the expectations they are arousing, because they do not have the support of the White voting public for those things which they hold out in prospect. They must be more moderate. I therefore want to throw this question of raising expectations and the accusations that have been made in this regard, back at them and tell them: Be more circumspect yourselves. I am saying this because it is very clear that both of them should display much more circumspection in order to solve problems in this country and not arouse emotions.

Now I want to refer to the policy of the PFP under its new leadership. The Leader of the Opposition said—I agree with him—we must try to conduct a level-headed, meaningful dialogue in order to solve the problems of this country, because we are living in grave times and we must all make a contribution and take a look at the problems once again. However, I want to add something right away. Reference was made to apartheid as being either dead or not dead. There are two possibilities: One either divides power or shares it. There are no other possibilities. To be sure, there are variations on that them, but one either shares it with other groups or one distributes it and gives each group a say in its own affairs. Then one can deliberate on matters of communal interest in another governing body. There is no alternative. I hope those hon. members will agree with me on that.

Apparently, the premise of the official Opposition is that one must share power with other groups, and they are seeking a formula to make this succeed, in contrast with the NP policy which states that one must grant every separate group self-determination and control over their own affairs because this is the fundamental right of each group or nation. That is why division of power is fundamentally correct; otherwise one is tampering with the right of groups to decide on their own future. I want to advance this argument: Power sharing is not the fundamental right of any group or individual because it tampers with self-determination. If one group demands that another group should share its power in respect of basic matters, then it is tampering with the self-determination of that other group. This should be very clear. Our problem and our dilemma is to satisfy every group.

I want to refer to the book written by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition together with Prof. Welsh. First of all, I should like to quote the following on page 41—

I think we agree on this. Having said this, however, he forgets about the interests of the Whites in this book of his and in his approach. Throughout his entire speech yesterday, he failed to refer to the Whites and their interests. This creates the impression that his whole premise is that the Whites here should merely play a subordinate role and that one should try to find some formula or other which would at least satisfy the Whites and make this acceptable to them.

Then there is another weakness to which I should like to pay particular attention. As the title of the hon. the Leader’s book indicates he pays no attention to partition. He has not even given it proper consideration.

No, it is there.

To be sure, it is referred to on pages 94 and 95, but I am still coming to that. I first want to put this matter very clearly and dispose of it. First of all he deals with the importance of ethnicity. Then he goes on. I quote from page 95—

Sir, surely there is an incorrect connotation here. After all, the Blacks have been given a say in many affairs which concern them. I shall leave it at that.

I just want to put one question to the hon. the leader before I continue. Does he consider this book which he has written together with Prof. Welsh, as having a scientific foundation?

[Inaudible.]

They quote a wealth of authorities or quasi-authorities. In any event, the hon. leader considers that it is based on scientific facts.

I want to point out what else he said in this regard—unfortunately I cannot quote everything, because my time is rather limited. He alleged that the Black people are not interested in the Government’s approach. Then he tried to motivate this. I quote—

I want to ask the hon. the Leader what ties those people have who do not accept the homeland concept. He says that they do not have ties with the homelands. Do they then have ties with the Whites, with the Coloureds, with the Asians? What right does he have to want to include them in a constellation, whilst saying that they have no ties with other Black groups in the homelands?

They have ties in Soweto.

But they do not have any ties with other population groups either. Surely then he has no moral right to say that they belong anywhere but in the homelands.

Let me continue. On the same page—the hon. leader may take another look at what he has written—it goes on—

He has just said that these people want nothing to do with the homelands. Now he says that Chief Buthelezi’s power base is vested in 5 million Zulus. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where the Zulus are. Are they in kwaZulu?

Many of them.

Then why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition include those whom he says want nothing to do with the homelands? I want to go on and take a good look at this matter. I must say that when one reads that book, one discovers that it contains several contentious statements. However, let us now carry on and take a look at these 5 million Zulus. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition argues that his entire policy is aimed at putting ethnicity in a position secondary to the interests of the whole, but here he is adopting the premise that Chief Buthelezi’s power basis is an ethnic one.

So is the NP’s.

Yes, but surely the fact that the power basis is an ethnic one must then be taken into account and pointed out. The entire premise of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he ignores ethnicity, makes it subordinate and not dominant. This is the difference in approach. The NP contends that the ethnic ties, ideals and objective of these groups must not be subordinated to an umbrella body.

What about the English-speaking people?

The English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people form two cultural groups that run parallel to each other. It has been like that over the years. They have the same level of civilization, the same approach, etc. One does not find that great difference between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people that we find between Whites and Blacks. Those differences are totally absent.

What about the Coloureds?

The Coloureds are closer to the Whites than to the Blacks and that is why a commission was appointed under the chairmanship of an hon. Minister, specifically to consider how we can accommodate them, and the Opposition has been asked to co-operate positively in this regard.

I want to go on now, to take a look at another matter which is mentioned and to quote once again from the book by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. To my mind, the question of partition is very important. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition states the following in his book—

However, he goes on—

He then goes on to say—

In this regard I want to say that as far as I am concerned, and on behalf of the Government, I reject that approach. The hon. the Leader says that his book is a scientific work and McMillan, this authority to whom he is referring, wrote a book called Complex South Africa. This was published in 1930. On page 120 he says—

What does the word “lately” mean? “Lately” means “recently”. I do not know whether he agrees with that. This is the authority that says that they “lately” had five times as much land. Let us take another look at this scientific source, this McMillan, whom he consulted, motivates the matter. I quote—

I now want to establish where the “great plateau of the Highveld” is. This man wanted to give an approximate idea of where the Blacks lived. This is the authority that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quotes. One may assume that the plateau is approximately 1 200 metres high, but he referred to the “fringes of the plateau” and therefore one must assume that it was a little lower down. What division of land does one have then? If one approaches it in this way and looks at the areas inhabited by the Blacks, one finds that 90% of the Transvaal, 90% of the Cape, because the Fish River was it’s border then, 50% of Natal and the entire Free State were not inhabited by Blacks at all. One reaches this conclusion if one accepts that type of approach. This is the scientific work which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition publishes, a book which he wrote in collaboration with another learned person. I want to continue.

Pietersburg.

He went on to say—

This is the type of accusation being laid at the door of the Whites, an accusation which, to be sure, has no motivation. These people, Black and White, met one another at the Fish River approximately 200 years ago, and that is where the conflict began.

I want to give a simple example. Most probably there were transgressions by both parties. However, we do know that the Blacks were accustomed to taking other people’s cattle when they wanted more. Hon. members know what happened and they are in agreement with it. Conflict occurred because of that attitude. Then, a simple thing happened. Some Black people fled and the Whites who settled there, told them: “You need not steal and plunder. Come and work for me and I shall give you food and guarantee you a future.” The present setup in South Africa is a result of that process in which White South Africa created stability and employment for millions of Blacks, not only those in this country, but also those in some of our neighbouring states. There can be no doubt about this. Let us draw some comparisons. First of all I must ask whether it is my fault or the fault of hon. members that the Black man did not tell the White man that the latter need not steal his possessions or plunder, but that he should work for him and that his future would be guaranteed. It is not our fault, to be sure. There were two different civilizations and approaches.

Now I want to take another look at this question of the division of land. I want to refer the hon. member to an authority which he must consult. I should like to go into this in more detail, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so. I want to refer him to an authority that he must consult in connection with this matter. Some time ago, when I was involved with the consolidation of land, I gave a great deal of attention to the historical background of the division of land. I want to refer hon. members to kwaZulu in this regard. KwaZulu was annexed by the British in 1897 and if the British had not annexed it and had not retained it together with Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho in 1910, kwaZulu would have been much smaller than it is today, and we are not yet finished giving them land. Surely it cannot be laid at the door of the Whites alone, because the Whites created this development and are still doing so.

But more demands are being made; including those by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday and by those hon. members in general, via their Press. They say we must provide those people with a higher standard of living. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to that again yesterday, and we want to do so. He told us how many millions are going to enter the labour market.

Now I ask: What is the basic problem that we are faced with? Is it not the question: Why are there so many millions on the labour market? Surely this is the basic question. We on this side of the House are doing everything we can to try to provide these people with work. However, it is the duty of hon. members opposite, and my duty too, to tell the Black people in this country that they cannot reproduce as they are doing at their present rate and then expect to make a living. It is simply impossible, and no country in the world can provide employment for people under those circumstances. The basic problem, therefore, is that we must agree and approach the Blacks in a friendly manner for the sake of their own welfare and progress. We must not simply come along and tell them that the Government must provide employment. After all, hon. members opposite know that the Government cannot provide employment for millions. We cannot bring them all to a level of training and productivity which will provide them with a decent living.

I want to leave it at that. I should have liked to expand on this …

What is the authority to which you referred?

The authority to which I want to refer the hon. member, is Pierre von Biljon, Grensbakens tussen Blank en Swart in Suid-Afrika. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should read it; there is a wealth of detail in it. Having done so he must stop making such statements.

In conclusion I just want to emphasize that I reject the accusation that we simply took the Black people’s land away from them and that they are legally entitled to what we have.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Rondebosch on becoming leader of the Opposition. He starts off with many personal advantages and I wish him well. I would point out to him, however, that, unlike what was said, not so long ago in this House, of America being the leader of the West and thus being South Africa’s leader, the hon. member for Rondebosch, although Leader of the Opposition, is hardly likely to find in me a follower.

He is hardly likely to want to!

We have fundamental differences with the principles of his party and with the outlook of its members, but we are not altogether alone. Many in his own party certainly do not share either his outlook or agree with the new set of principles adopted by that party …

Like who?

… since they are old fashioned enough to abhor political expediency!

I should like to spare a thought too for the deposed Leader of the Opposition. I did warn him when his close friendship with a certain gentleman overseas came to light in this House that his days were numbered. That was not very hard to predict because he had sitting around him and also looking down upon him in the Press Gallery experts par excellence at destroying political leaders of whom they disapprove, as Dr. Jannie Steytler and Sir De Villiers Graaff can testify. I mentioned the hon. member for Yeoville and his henchman sitting next to him. I also referred to the versatile and ubiquitous member for Bezuidenhout. I must say, however, I forgot to add the magnates of 44 Main Street, Johannesburg! For this I am sure I can be forgiven. After all, they are better known for holding the reins of power in their hands through nominees and secret trusts than for playing open cards and being honest with the public. However, they have become so sure of themselves these days that they have appointed one of their board members as managing director of their party, the party they keep alive with their money and their patronage. Against such a team the poor hon. member for Sea Point had absolutely no chance. But at least he has one consolation. Freed of the cares of the front bench in this House, he can now ponder on the practical results of Prog policies which he sees around him on the beaches and in the streets of Sea Point, if his eyes are not too dimmed from weeping about man’s ingratitude to man. Lastly, my very special sympathies to the hon. member for Houghton who no longer has any say in the selection of candidates on the Witwatersrand. One of these days even she will have to beware of the “Schwarz Hand”.

The Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion of no-confidence in the Government. We are not prepared to support a motion of no-confidence, for the reasons I shall now give. First of all there is a new Cabinet. Secondly, many of those things of which we have been critical of the Government for many years have been rectified by the new Government. We do not oppose just for the sake of opposing. We regard that as being negative and unconstructive. I am glad to say that in the person of the Leader of the Opposition we found a convert to those views yesterday! We called for the resignation of the former Minister of Justice, to mention just one example. He has now been sent to another place. We also called on the Government to streamline the Public Service and the Government has reduced the number of Government departments and streamlined them administratively. We think this is for the better.

In addition the Prime Minister has visited all the homelands and has consulted with the leaders of those homelands. He has also visited Soweto, and has had talks with the leaders of the Indian and Coloured communities. I would have thought that these steps alone would have resulted in ecstatic noises from the Leader of the Opposition and people around him. [Interjections.] He even consulted with South Africa’s foremost businessmen and explained his intentions to them, apparently meeting with some success. We think that these have been wise steps and that they have undoubtedly brought about a lessening of tension and an easing of race relations, something for which we have long pleaded. All of these steps we applaud and encourage. To think that they have not been undertaken before, at any time during the existence of the NP as the Government of this country, is to us a terrible political indictment.

There are a number of other matters for the handling of which we feel the Government should be censured. The first of these concerns what we call essential public services. Here I want to refer to the Security Police. Every country has its own Security Police Force. Where would we be in South Africa today had we not had a vigilant Security Police Force to monitor the subversive activities on university campuses, in the Black nationalist movements and communist-led organizations in the 1960s? Who could possibly argue, in this House, against South Africa having an effective Security Police Force to guard against subversion and revolution wherever it may be? What cannot possibly be condoned, however, is misuse by a political party in power of the State Security Police to further its own political activities and to keep itself in power. If political parties fight their political battles inside the Republic of South Africa against the party in power, no matter how bitter and how mean their tactics may be, it is part and parcel of politics in South Africa and under no circumstances should their telephones be tapped or their mail interfered with. To do so is a gross abuse of the political process. If this is happening in the Republic, then it is a disgrace. I call on the Government today to allay the disquiet that exists and to state unequivocally whether these allegations are true or false. On the other hand, if some student leaders and certain politicians, Black Power advocates and regrettably also some churchmen and Pressmen have very close links with foreign embassies, with foreign politicians—indeed, I should call them indecently close links—to say nothing of foreign organizations and foreign groups openly hostile to South Africa, why ever should their telephones not be tapped and their mail not be opened? [Interjections.]

If that is the situation, they have only themselves to blame and have no reason to squeal. We in these benches heartily congratulate Capt. Williamson on his successful infiltration of organizations, both in the Republic and overseas, organizations whose activities, we believe, should be monitored. Like both Ludi and Morris before him he will never be forgiven by the leftist Press and politicians for what he has done. However, he will also never be forgotten by decent South Africans who do not want to see political anarchy in the Republic, anarchy such as has followed upon revolutionary change in many, many other countries, always after their Security Police have been subverted and brought into disrepute by so-called liberals in the newspapers of those countries. [Interjections.] I want to call on the Government to protect Capt. Williamson from any reprisals now that his cover has been blown.

I should like to congratulate members of the Police Force generally on the effective way they have dealt with crime and with terrorism, and more particularly for their refusal to be intimidated into negotiating with the terrorists in the bank at Silverton. The members of our Police Force are constantly in danger, something the public only too seldom realizes, and usually only when a policeman has been wounded or killed.

We have a new hon. Minister of Police. I for one believe that he is going to try to improve the lot of the serving policeman. A thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs has existed for far too long in the Police Force. Ridiculously low pay, long working hours and inadequate working conditions have resulted in large numbers of resignations, something we can ill afford. I repeat my call, made on previous occasions, that the police, as well as the armed services, be taken out of the empire of the Public Service Commission. My argument is that uniformed men and women, in the hours that they work and the risks to which they are exposed, should not be treated on the same basis as a civil servant who works from 08h00 to 16h30.

Not only are we highly critical of conditions in the Police Force, but we are equally dismayed at the dissatisfaction with salaries among thousands upon thousands in the nursing services in the Republic. Like the police, they very often perform unheralded vital services for us and work long hours, and there has been a high rate of resignations among them, something which is very disturbing, especially at this time when we need a large, well-trained and contented nursing corps in our hospitals.

Apart from dissatisfaction in the police and the nursing services, there is equal dissatisfaction among the teachers. However, we shall deal with that on another appropriate occasion. On account of the said dissatisfaction in the Police Force and the nursing services—to mention only two paramilitary services of great importance—and in the teaching profession, the Government is, in our opinion, deserving of censure of the strongest kind, because these are public services calling for the highest standards of efficiency, and certainly not one deserving of a large-scale resignation rate.

Now, I referred earlier to a statement made not long ago by a former Prime Minister, who said that as America is the leader of the West, she is, as such, the leader of South Africa. I sincerely hope that no hon. member in this House today still maintains that belief, because that belief implies that there is, or that there should be, some special kind of common ground existing between the United States and the Republic of South Africa. Those of us who went overseas on an official visit and met State Department officials—and I include here the hon. member for Sea Point’s close friend as well—should be under no illusion whatsoever.

Make him ambassador in Washington.

That is the same remark you made last year. Can you not change your tune? [Interjections.] Their national interests are not the same as ours. Let us take a look at America’s national interests. It is understandable for them to differ from ours. First of all, America is desperately desirous of the support of the countries of the Third World. If America were seen to have any form of alliance with South Africa, she would forfeit all possibility of getting support from the Third World. One only has to read the newspapers today to see what has happened to Muhammad Ali and his visit to drum up support against the Moscow Olympics. America regards the goodwill of, and the trade—more particularly in oil—with Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia as being of more importance to her than the trade with us. Thirdly, America believes that by backing Black nationalist movements in Southern Africa, she will be backing the ultimate winners. Lastly, American Blacks with considerable voting power identify with the Black nationalist movement on the African continent and are determined that White rule in a Black continent must end.

I think our Government cherishes the hope that by being accommodating, by being co-operative and by being reasonable, we may be able to influence the American administration sufficiently for it to adopt a more benevolent attitude towards us, and perhaps even to stave off international sanctions. If this is indeed the Government’s view, I would suggest that it is high time the Government took a look at its advisers and chose another team of advisers, because nothing can be further from the truth. America decided long ago that there would ultimately be Black national rule in Southern Africa.

Kissinger thought it could be confined to rule by moderates, but even he has recently stated that the Carter administration is seeking to encourage the most radical of terrorist movements and has no concern whatsoever for White minorities. [Interjections.] The Carter administration, under the leadership of Mr. Young, embarked on a policy of support for the Patriotic Front in Rhodesia and Swapo in South West Africa. It, and the frontline presidents, are hand-in-glove with the terrorists, and the results of their efforts will, I fear, shortly be seen in Rhodesia and in South West Africa if UN-supervised elections are allowed to take place in those territories, with foreseeably predictable results. As if it were not bad enough that this is taking place in neighbouring territories in which we are vitally interested, sustained American pressure here in the Republic is being exercised day after day. This is what we particularly object to. It takes the form of blatant interference in our domestic affairs and cannot be tolerated by a self-respecting, sovereign and independent State.

I previously referred to the activities of the US Information Office. I referred to them as being hotbeds of incitement to revolution here in South Africa. We had the spy plane incident. We had the incident of the alleged nuclear explosion which was blown up into banner headlines. We had the mightiest aircraft carrier afloat allegedly being “harassed” by a tiny South African patrol boat, and this was blown up into an international incident Mr. Edmundson, the ambassador, known for his hostility to Whites in Southern Africa, actively carries out anti-South African campaigns, the latest example of which, small as it may be, is to arrange for a scholarship for a man called Maree, who is a radical lecturer at the University of Cape Town and a former Nusas conspirator.

Let us take a few further examples. We have the Consul-General of America, Mr. Lukens, who recently spoke at the conference on race relations in East London. He said: “America did not stand in the way when the Shah of Iran was overthrown.” This was an example of their attitude. “We feel”, he said, “we must support the majority of a people in a country when they have a need.” That is typical of their policy of trying to pick winners in advance.

There was also the case of Jesse Jackson who came to South Africa in July. I quote a US congressman about his fellow-countryman—

To do so he would lose all his radical support. In the Republic he had an interview on radio and television. He referred to the Government as being a “terroristiese diktatorskap”. He addressed the people of Crossroads. What could be more inflammatory to the people of Crossroads than to be addressed by a man of the calibre of Jesse Jackson? He also addressed the United Autoworkers Union in Port Elizabeth about conditions in the Ford factory, and at the conclusion of his visit he said that he planned, not only to come back himself, but also to bring a team of labour leaders with him. On his return to New York he went immediately to Carter and demanded that the Ford Motor Company in Port Elizabeth reinstate 700 dismissed workers involved in the labour dispute, or possibly face action from America, and he demanded supervisory positions to be made available for Blacks in the company.

Jaap Cilliers, the Secretary for Labour, was moved to say—

It is all very well to say this after the horse has left the stable, because by that time this man was overseas. He is not, however, the only one. Let us take the Assistant Secretary of State, Moose. He was here recently. He goes to Port Elizabeth and visits the Walmer location and the New Brighton township. He also visits General Motors and deals with the Pebco officials and the dismissed Ford workers. Now listen to this. According to the Herald—

I now want to put a question to the hon. member for Newton Park. Was he there and was he asked? I want to ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North whether he was there and whether he was asked. I know that my two colleagues from Port Elizabeth were not asked. So, who were these political, business and civil leaders? The people he consults with are Black Power advocates, dissenting strikers of the factories and Progs. [Interjections.]

Moose is not the only one. Tsongas was also here recently, and he was described as an arch-enemy of South Africa coming to visit us. His closest adviser is Donald Woods and his best friend is Dicky Clarke, whom the hon. the Prime Minister knows something about in connection with the withdrawal of our forces from Angola. He also has a close association with Senator Edward Kennedy. He was described, even in the Rand Daily Mail, as South Africa’s most devastating critic in the United States and the architect of the disinvestment campaign against the Republic.

Those are the people who are coming to visit us, so my plea to the Government is to stop letting those people into the Republic. If these are not examples of provocation and interference in our domestic affairs, I do not know what they are.

Visits by foreign cricket and rugby administrators to the Republic during the past year, to see to what extent the policies that they have laid down for us are being carried out by us, is to my mind humiliating. Surely we do not have to satisfy foreigners about how we conduct our sporting activities. We have to satisfy ourselves that our sportsmen and sportswomen are fairly and properly afforded an opportunity to play sport in the Republic and, if possible, outside the Republic too, subordinate to the national interests. Sport has become a weapon to be used against us to our detriment, and by co-operating, by allowing the Killannins and others of that kind to come to South Africa, we contribute to our own humiliation. I believe it is time that we asserted ourselves. In Rapport yesterday Mr. Tommy Muller of Iscor showed the extent to which we could embarass countries of the Western World by delaying, or even stopping, the supply of essential raw materials to their factories. This we should consider. I want to tell the Government that each and every example I have given here today is an example of interference in our domestic affairs contributing to the breakdown of the morale of our people on the one hand and the creation of expectations that cannot, and will not be fulfilled, here in South Africa on the other. In all seriousness, the morale of the White man, as well as that of moderate non-Whites throughout the length and breadth of the Republic, has been grievously harmed by events in Rhodesia and South West Africa. I say to the Government, “For heaven’s sake, by your own actions and by your own inaction do not play into the hands of our enemies and contribute to our own downfall”.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) to stand consistently upon the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa;
2. (2) to abolish the means test, to protect fixed-income earners from the ravages of inflation and to combat unemployment; and
3. (3) to bring about satisfactory working conditions in the essential public services.”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown, as leader of the South African Party, has delivered a good, balanced speech, as usual, and made a valuable contribution. [Interjections.] The matters which he raised with regard to foreign affairs will be replied to by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he enters the debate. I am sure that the other matters, including the idea that the police should be removed from the Public Service Commission, will be discussed by the Ministers concerned in due course.

I should like to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to congratulate him on his election to that high office at such a youthful age. Although the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is young, I must say that he is also politically inexperienced and shows a lack of political insight. I say this because of certain remarks which he made in his speech yesterday. He said, firstly, that the quality of life was not improved by arresting people who were looking for work and people who were providing work. He was referring to influx control. Does he not realize, then, that if influx control were not exercised, the very quality of life of the Black people who have permanent jobs at the moment would very definitely be adversely affected? That is what would happen if there came to be an over-supply of labour because of a discontinuation of influx control; and if there is an absolute over-supply of labour, people will be prepared to work for starvation wages. Then there will be gross exploitation and the quality of life of all those people will decline.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that we should not buy out any further productive agricultural land and transfer this to national states, because it would cause a decline in agricultural production.

I was talking about the way in which it is being done.

The hon. Leader implied it, in any case. He is concerned about the fact that we are transferring agricultural land to Black people, but he wants to share the government of the country with them. What is more complicated: to be a farmer or to govern and administer this country?

Ask the farmers.

This brings me to the subject of discrimination, to which the hon. Leader devoted virtually all the rest of his speech. Surely the mere fact that he wants to discriminate against the Black man in favour of the White man in respect of further agricultural land is absolutely contrary to that party’s policy of non-discrimination. How can the hon. Leader make such remarks without leaving me no other choice than to say that in my opinion, he shows a lack of insight?

Sir, the day after the hon. the Prime Minister’s sensational Carlton conference on 22 November 1979, on the basis of which he was unambiguously credited with great vision, statesmanship, personal honour and triumph arising from his conduct and his initiative, in the midst of banner headlines, the proverbial mountain was quietly, almost without being noticed, delivered of a squeaking mouse. I am referring to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Quite contrary to public opinion, he made the following statement in the Volksblad of 23 November—

With this remark, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition greatly upset and disappointed his masters. They were quick to react. The first reaction came from the Sunday Times and Mr. Oppenheimer, who are the true masters of the PFP. In the Sunday Times of 25 November 1979, the following appeared—

Mr. Speaker, to whom is he referring? He is referring to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and he is giving him serious dressing-down. This was the first time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was publicly reprimanded by his masters themselves. He went on to say—

Along with this cynical question by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about the way in which the laudable things envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister are to be achieved, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a statement of policy as well. In this connection I want to quote again from Die Volksblad of 23 November. He said—

On this Mr. Oppenheimer answered the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as follows, in the Sunday Times of 25 November—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is given a serious dressing-down here by his master, of which he should take cognizance. His first remarks as hon. Leader of the Opposition, after a great event, were such a disappointment to his masters—and I am sorry to say this to him—that in its first subsequent edition, the Sunday Times devoted no space to him as the Leader of the Opposition for comment or a statement, reserving this for Mr. Oppenheimer, in an attempt to repair the shabby image of the PFP created by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In this way, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lost his first great opportunity. His masters themselves moved a motion of no-confidence in him; in spite of this, he is the man who has introduced the nonsensical motion of no confidence in the Government in this House, at a time when all the leaders of all the nations, not only in South Africa, but all over the world, have a high regard for the initiative and behaviour of the hon. the Prime Minister. The planning of the Government and the conduct of the hon. the Prime Minister are calculated to prevent anarchy and chaos in South Africa. I now wish to advance another argument in a very calculated way, Mr. Speaker, so that even you as Speaker will not take offence at it. This is that the official Opposition also plans, but that their planning is not calculated to prevent unrest and even riots in South Africa. On the contrary. I say “on the contrary” because I read in Die Volksblad of 27 December 1979 that Mr. Oppenheimer had said the following about the conditions in South Africa in an interview with the BBC—

Just listen to what he says! He says he never believed that matters would come right without unrest and even riots. We on this side of the House believe that everything which has to be corrected will be corrected without unrest and riots; except if unrest is deliberately instigated, and if riots are deliberately planned in order to create chaos in South Africa. If one believes in unrest and riots as methods of change, one plans for them. The opposite also applies. If one believes in peaceful change, as this Government does, one also plans for it.

On the basis of what I have said, I now wish to paint a picture of the PFP for hon. members so that they may judge for themselves. I want to do it with reference to a vision which appeared to the hon. member for Sea Point when he was still leader of the Opposition. In the Sunday Times of 22 July 1979, it is written in big black letters: “A new political alliance for South Africa. Eglin foresees grouping of moderates.” In this vision he saw the following—and I quote—

The PFP as a leftist, liberal organization does not have the ability to play a key role in the so-called middle ground of South African politics. That party makes an absolute mockery of the word “moderation”. However, he had a further vision and said—

Now I wish to ask him: Are these moderate South Africans the hon. members for Pinelands, Groote Schuur and Houghton, or are they the Rev. Mr. Hendricks, Mr. Motlana or Mr. Mandela? After all, they are all spiritual associates and angels of peace. Mr. Speaker, I do not hear you say that I am being unparliamentary because I have said they are angels of peace. Is this not perhaps unparliamentary?

The hon. member for Sea Point also saw the following vision, and I quote—

I want to ask him whether those groups who want to share power are the Group of Ten of Soweto, the Black Alliance, Inkatha or the ANC and its leaders on Robben Island, for whose release those hon. members are continually pleading. However, the hon. member’s vision went much further than that. He also said that—

I now wish to ask him whether such a common loyalty and patriotism to South Africa are to be found in the conduct of the hon. member for Sea Point himself, when he was still Leader of the Opposition, in betraying South Africa’s position, at a very delicate stage of the negotiations, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Don McHenry? Or does it take the form of defending expatriates, suspect organizations and enemies of the present political dispensation and secretly collaborating and intriguing with them? A former Minister in this House—this is recorded in Hansard—was forced to call the hon. member for Pinelands to order because of that conduct of his.

What conduct? [Interjections.]

Is that patriotism? Is that loyalty? Still, this is the image which is created by some of the most prominent leaders of the PFP. That is their contribution to South African politics, and to me it points to nothing other than revolution.

You are being ridiculous.

Or does patriotism take the form of creating such an impression, in an authoritative foreign financial magazine, of the hazards of South Africa and the great risk attached to investment, that overseas investors are discouraged from investing in South Africa, as the hon. member for Parktown once did? Or does patriotism take the form of writing an article in an overseas magazine, as the hon. member for Bryanston did, and to receive money for it, an article in which South Africa is presented as the worst and most inveterate police state, where the greatest sadism is practised upon Blacks by Whites? Is this patriotism towards South Africa?

Never!

I have painted a picture which I should like to complete. In the Sunday Times of 23 September 1979, under the heading “Testament of a South African Jew” by Harry Schwarz, I read the following, among other things—

What a splendid profession of faith from the soul of an Israeli nationalist. It is beautiful. It is moving. I like it, and I do not begrudge the hon. member for Yeoville his sentiments and his longing for a Jewish State, where a Jewish nation can feel itself at home, where it can practice its culture and its religion, so that it may become the centre of its faith, a spiritual centre, an inspiration for eternity. I understand what the hon. member for Yeoville wants to tell me, because the same sentiments flow in my Afrikaner blood when I think of South Africa However, what I cannot understand about that hon. member and his party is that they begrudge me such a State, such a particular domain, with an almost magical power, which will give me, too, the opportunity to practise my faith, culture and language there, and which can be an eternal inspiration to me as well. That which the hon. member for Yeoville longs for is the very thing which is to be destroyed in South Africa by a Black majority Government in a unitary state. And when it has been destroyed, as happened in Angola and in Mozambique, what then? Then the hon. member for Yeoville goes back to his sacred destination, to the supreme symbol of his Jewishness, to Israel, the purely Jewish State, where his language, culture and religion are waiting for him. “Jerusalem is the centre of our faith,” he said. Then it is unethical to propose a Black majority government and a unitary state for South Africa. Then it is unethical to try to defend that and to try to justify one’s dual loyalty towards the State in which one lives and the State which contains one’s cultural heritage by saying the following—

Mr. Speaker, is this really so? Can we still believe it? Is this the kind of loyalty which the hon. member for Sea Point saw in his vision for South Africa? There are far too many people of other nationalities in South Africa—and I do not number the hon. member for Yeoville among them—who keep back doors open for themselves, so that they may flee if things become too hot. Then they will shamelessly desert their so-called and much-vaunted fatherland. Meanwhile, they are just as shamelessly living on the fat of the land without making any sacrifice for this country and its people. In fact, they are often the instigaters of evil in South Africa, as Moumbaris showed us.

In conclusion, I just want to take a brief look at the future of the PFP in 1980, and I want to say that they have no future at all, because their hon. Leader was not chosen on merit, but merely because he is an Afrikaans-speaking Prog. The PFP makes the mistake of thinking that if they elect an Afrikaans-speaking person as their leader, they will gain enough Afrikaner support with a view to power. [Interjections.] They are living in cloud-cuckoo land, and I am not the only one who says so. A political commentator of the Sunday Times wrote as follows on 16 September 1979, under the heading “The Heirs of Rhodes Decline into Impotence”. My time has almost expired. They can go and read the quotation for themselves, therefore. It will be a great joy to them to read it.

A leader and a party that the English press cannot get excited about have no chance of success in this country’s politics, especially not with a person such as the hon. Mr. P. W. Botha at the head of the National Party and the Government, a person who will continue to plan this country’s destiny, so that it may be to the advantage of all those who live here. Those people know this and they will support the National Party and always reject the PFP.

Mr. Speaker, the penultimate speaker on Government side, the hon. the Minister of Forestry, said something which calls for comment. He referred to the two concepts “power-sharing” and “division of power”. He was right in saying that the Government likes to refer to its policy as a division of power and that we on this side like to refer to ours as power-sharing. There are problems attached to power-sharing, and we all know this, but the division of power has this problem that it is and will be impossible to implement. When one has a division of power in the economically integrated community which South Africa is today, who is then going to decide on taxation? Who is going to decide where the railway lines are to be built? Who is going to decide who may belong to trade unions? Not one of these questions has ever received a reply. At its best this idea of the division of power is a chimera, and at its worst it is nothing more than a fig leaf to disguise a policy of “baasskap”. [Interjections.] Everyone always says quite justifiably that a viable economy is a prerequisite for South Africa, not only for prosperity in future, but for political stability. It is seen in particular by everyone as the foundation for the idea of a constellation of States, which the hon. the Prime Minister is holding out to us. As I understand the constellation concept, it really amounts to a situation in which the Republic offers surrounding States economic aid in exchange for a measure of political co-operation. It is therefore a good thing that the hon. the Prime Minister had consultations with business leaders on 22 November last year, and I trust that he will do so again in future.

I should just like to say a few things this afternoon about economic requirements for lasting prosperity and the implications of this. Everyone says that we believe in the free-market system as the foundation for our economy. Although it has, of course, always been the case in South Africa that we have a mixed economy, with elements of State ownership and State control, and thus of socialism, which amounts to a mixed and therefore not a pure, or even a reasonably pure free-market economy, it now seems to be the case that the Government is completely in favour of the greatest achievable measure of free enterprise. I think we can all support this and trust that this attitude will form the foundation of policy. Let us examine a few of the requirements for an effective free-enterprise economy in our country. Firstly, there is the need for access by workers to a free, mobile labour force. From the Wiehahn and Riekert Reports it is very clear that this requirement is clearly understood by the Governments’ advisers, but even today laws remain on the Statute Book that will either have to be removed or drastically amended before this ideal can be realized. There is, for example, the Physical Planning Act. This Act determines and places restrictions on the number of Black workers who may be employed by any undertaking in the urban areas. This is a serious obstacle to effective development and incidentally, it also has the further disadvantage of being able to compel the employer to apply capital intensive methods where they would otherwise have been unnecessary, which could consequently aggravate unemployment.

The second group of statutory provisions to which I want to refer are those containing influx control measures. There is no doubt that the mere existence of influx control already curtails free economy by preventing free competition in the labour market. If the Riekert recommendation to allow Black workers with section 10 rights greater mobility is in fact implemented, it will afford a measure of relief, but only a measure. I have been informed that in this respect, too, an impossible amount of administrative red tape is delaying the process of emancipation.

The second matter to which I want to refer as being of major importance to our progress is the provision of adequate housing and related services to our urban Black labour force. Of course, I am aware of the figures quoted earlier this afternoon by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I am not suggesting that nothing is being done. I am suggesting that the need is so great that what is being done is hopelessly inadequate. This was confirmed by no less a person than Mr. Louis Rive, who is now responsible for Soweto, when he pointed out in Pretoria the other day that, while there is an estimated population of between 1,2 million and 1,5 million people in Soweto, housing is in actual fact available for just over 500 000. I am not denying that the Government has now developed a praiseworthy awareness of these necessities. However, what has been done is in actual fact still hopelessly short of the mark in view of the true needs. The other evening we saw the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation on the television screen, appealing to the private sector to do more in assisting to accommodate the labour force. The private section is eager to help. The existence of the Urban Foundation, for example, is already adequate proof of this. However, since the hon. the Deputy Minister is soliciting aid from the private sector in such a pious way, one must nevertheless wonder whether he has acquainted himself in any way with recent history. For example, does he know that the electrification of Soweto could have taken place years ago already with the aid of financing from the private sector, and at approximately half the present estimated cost, and that his department placed one obstacle after the other in the way of the project, so that Soweto still does not have electricity today? [Interjections.]

To discuss housing specifically now, I want to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister does not realize that there is unending red tape attached to the sale of houses to Black people and the right of employers to obtain houses in the Black urban areas? While the Government is geared to rationalizing and streamlining the national administration, it would be well-advised to begin with in-depth examination of the Department of Co-operation and Development. The department now has a fine, positive name and its Minister has fine, positive ideas, and yet it would often seem that a large proportion of the officials of the department have made no progress at all since the days when it was still the Department of Native Affairs, and when it principally acted in a negative way towards the Black population.

I want to come to a third vital matter, viz. the training of the labour force. Owing to a lack of time it is impossible for me to go into this matter in full. However, I shall mention two important aspects that remain unsatisfactory. The one is the dilatoriness—not to put it more strongly—of some White artisans and trade unions in training Black apprentices. If this does not improve, the Government will simply be compelled to re-examine the whole system of training to find other methods of training the necessary artisans. We dare no longer allow the bottleneck of our shortage of skills to threaten our entire economic progress. The second constraining factor, which will emerge more prominently as we free our labour practices, is that the quality of basic school training among our Black people has been so poor during the past few years that it is often extremely difficult to find suitable candidates for training or promotion. In fact, if I have to mention a single prerequisite for our future economic progress, it would be that there should be an urgent and radical improvement in the education system for Blacks. Here I am not belittling the efforts which have recently been made. However, these are by no means adequate yet. Until such time as there is one education system for all our children, with the same standards for everyone, and under the auspices of one department, our country shall continue to suffer economically under the shortage of skilled and trainable labour.

†Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something now about what is perhaps the biggest problem of all in the economic sphere today. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion, because I am referring now to our very serious state of unemployment. Nobody quite knows how many economically active people are out of work. I have seen it put at less than a million, and I have also seen it put at more than two million. It is causing very great human misery and it constitutes a very real threat to socio-political stability. The remarkable thing about this unemployment is that it is confined to one economic class only. It occurs only among the unskilled workers. What that means, is that this is not to be seen as a cyclical unemployment. In a cyclical unemployment one will get unemployment in the skilled and in the unskilled categories in roughly the same proportion in which those workers occur in the economy. This is different. As everybody is aware, at the same time that this huge unemployment of unskilled people has been building up, we actually have had shortages of skilled people in many categories. What is this that we are dealing with? I believe that we have allowed a serious and a fundamental imbalance to develop in our society. We have allowed technological advancement in the economy to outstrip the educational development of our people. To oversimplify: We have given ourselves an advanced economy with a backward population. Many authorities have been proclaiming that the time has now come to stimulate the economy to produce an upswing and to combat unemployment. Provided that this is done with the proper caution, I do not disagree, but everyone should realize that even a limited upswing at this stage will immediately run into bottlenecks in the form of a shortage of skilled labour and management. The effect of those bottlenecks would be wasteful and inflationary, and as we heard in the State President’s opening address the other day, inflation is the other great threat to our prosperity. In the long run, we shall only have a healthy, balanced economy when we have greatly improved the quality of education and training among the mass of our population. We are at present paying a dreadful price for the Verwoerdian Bantu education policy which was aimed at educating Black people only for unskilled work. Until we have eliminated every trace of that, we shall not prosper. [Interjections.]

In the meantime, there is, not unnaturally, a demand for importation of skills by means of stepped-up immigration. In a no doubt well-meaning, but extremely ham-handed declaration, the hon. the Minister of the Interior proclaimed a week or two ago that he was going to make immigration easier, and he has earned quite a few well deserved brickbats for his statement. In strictly economic terms, I have to say that it is at przsent necessary for us to try to import skilled people. It is tragic that this should be true, for the reasons I have given, but it is true. There is no way in which we can train highly skilled artisans overnight, even if we had the candidates and even if the trade unions were willing, as some of them are, to take on Black apprentices. In the short term, we may have to get some skilled workers from abroad, but let nobody underestimate the hurt this is causing among our Black population. I do not know how many hon. members saw the Sunday Post of 27 January. I do not have enough time now to read through the 11 points that were made about the rights which an immigrant worker enjoys which are denied to a South African worker who comes from the homelands here in South Africa: The right to live where he wants to, the right to move where he wants to, the right to seek work where he wants to, the right to become a citizen, the right to get the vote—all the things that we deny our own Black workers, we offer to immigrants that are brought here by us. Then we still think that that is conducive to harmony and to good racial relationships. The importance of that approach, is that it brings home to us the fact that our Black people see their economic interests as indissolubly linked with their social status and with their political position. They speak of the system, and they regard the system as one and all-embracing. That is the reason why anyone who thinks that he can maintain stability in our country for any length of time by improving the economic lot of the Black people without giving them effective political rights, is deluding himself most dangerously.

There is also not enough time left to me to discuss the question of industrial relations, the Wiehahn Report and the Industrial Conciliation Act, but I just want to say that when the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization brought his legislation to the House last year, we opposed it on two main grounds: Firstly, that it absurdly limited the number of Black workers who could obtain trade-union rights and, secondly, that it maintained the principle of apartheid. It would not allow Black and White workers to belong to the same union, except by ministerial exception. In both these aspects, the hon. the Minister was in conflict with the Wiehahn Commission, as well as with us. The hon. the Minister has substantially altered his position during the recess in regard to the first of those two matters, namely the question of who may belong to a recognized trade-union. He is now going to permit the vast majority of our workers to do this and while I still regret the exceptions he makes, I want to say that this is a most important improvement and that the country should be grateful to the hon. the Minister for it.

There now remains the second matter, the principle of freedom of association, as the Wiehahn Commission correctly calls it. If the hon. the Minister and the rest of the Government want to win the confidence of the business community, and of the country at large, they must implement this principle within the context of the labour force without delay. Freedom of association is the right of workers to belong to the unions that they choose, either Blacks and Whites together or otherwise, as they themselves may select. I am going to state just two reasons for this. The first is eloquently dealt with by the Wiehahn Commission, and is simply that the right of free association for workers is basic to the free enterprise system. Since the NP is now firmly committed to travelling the free enterprise road, they had better get this message, and that is that “free enterprise” means “free” for the workers as well as the bosses. Free enterprise does not mean that only management decides how to buy and sell its products. Free enterprise also means that the workers decide how to sell or withhold their labour.

My second reason for saying that the hon. the Minister must now grant freedom of association is simply that in our country, with its system of White domination and White privilege, separate unions are a recipe for certain disaster. If the Government wishes—and I do not say it does—to accelerate and aggravate race conflict, one of the surest ways to do so is to create separate racial unions in the same industry. It can only be a matter of time before those separate racial unions will compete, conflict and clash.

In the Western World common man has moved forward during the last two or three centuries. In economics he has moved from serfdom to the dignity of being a free workman, free to associate with his fellows and free to bargain with his employers. In politics he has advanced from voiceless subjection to the status of a citizen, a voter, a man whose consent must be obtained by his government. The process of advancement in politics and economics is quite inseparable because politics and economics are inseparably linked, something that side of the House continually attempts to deny.

* Since we have now begun to make important progress in the sphere of industrial relations, we shall have to do the same in the political sphere, otherwise we shall face the certainty that people will use their industrial rights to achieve their political objectives. Since we are seeking a new political dispensation, it must be based on mutual agreement. I should like to remind hon. members of what such an esteemed Nationalist as Mr. Willem van Heerden wrote recently on 20 January. He said—

It is precisely that “in oorleg geskep” with which this debate is concerned. It is that to which my hon. leader was referring and I trust I am not quoting him incorrectly when I say that the hon. the Minister of Transport said that this is precisely the difference between us and the hon. members opposite, i.e. that we want to do these things in consultation.

No.

There is sufficient time. In that case will the hon. the Minister quickly tell me what he said?

I spoke about the methods by which you want it done. You want to do it by means of a national convention, i.e. two Parliaments.

We want to have consultations by way of a national convention. The hon. the Minister wants one Parliament which will graciously go and talk to the people in the outer reaches and then force upon those people what this Parliament wants, but whom does this Parliament represent? The hon. the Minister wants to work with the one Parliament. This is the very point with which I commenced this speech.

But with all due respect, surely this Parliament has to pass any legislation which is to bring about a new dispensation, not so?

That is correct. This Parliament can pass anything it wants to, but if there is not sincere consultation between equals, people of equal standing, consultation between the people of the various groups, nothing remotely resembling “Government by consent” is going to come of it.

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

No, I cannot reply to any questions now. “Government by consent” and “oorleg met mekaar” are the concepts which will have to apply if there is to be stability and progress in our country, whether in the economic, or the political sphere—free trade unions, freedom of association, free negotiation of conditions in the economy, consultation between free, equal people and political power sharing. I say this because, as I indicated at the outset of my argument, a political division of power can be nothing but a chimera.

Mr. Speaker, just like the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Parktown has fired a shotgun this afternoon. It is not possible, in a limited time, to reply to or comment on all the points he has made. I have not much fault to find with the tone of his speech, except for a few of his remarks. What we on this side of the House find extremely unfortunate, however, is the repetition of a quotation of so very long ago, a quotation that has since been belied by everything the Government has done with regard to Black education. You will remember Sir, that at the time when that quotation appeared, Black universities were being established. But the hon. member for Parktown did not consider it expedient to add that. You will also remember, Sir, that since that quotation …

I was not quoting with regard to education.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted that Black people should be trained only with a view to the provision of unskilled labour.

I was referring to the policy as it was years ago.

I want to ask the hon. member again whether everything the Government has done during the past years, and particularly during the recent past, does not give the lie to the statement of that time.

I said we were paying the price for that today.

That is true, but since the outside world is waiting for those old skeletons in the cupboard, I want to ask the hon. member whether it is necessary to record that type of sentiment, while this year, among other things, a technikon at Mabopane, a technikon that cost R34 million and can accommodate 5 000 students, enrolled its first students.

It is a very easy matter to say that we must improve Black education. But I wonder whether the hon. member has ever had a chat with the principals of our Black universities. Every year, those principals experience the utmost frustrations when graduates prepare to enter Black education. The sleek black motor cars of the major industries turn up there and enrol an entire class of graduates as apprentice salesmen, apprentice personnel managers or assistant personnel managers, etc. It happens all too often that the principal has to go and ask such a man: “But good heavens, what are you doing? Do you realize that you are dealing Black education a grievous blow?” We should always retain our perspective and realize that in a developing country, and even in the White community in South Africa, it is extremely difficult to handle education in a balanced way. Is it not true that there are not enough teachers today in certain subjects even in the White community? How much more does that not apply in the developing society of Black people? Often, the people of that community are allowed up by the private sector.

There is only one further statement by the hon. member for Parktown on which I wish to comment. He mentioned that the training of Black people was also being handicapped by the reluctance of White trade unions to train Black people. That may be true, but I think it is an extremely thorny and sensitive matter that should be handled by the employers. There are many White workers who have fears about their work and their future, and not without reason. If an employer misconstrues matters such as the opening of doors to Black workers and the recognition of Black trade unions and he behaves insensitively towards his White workers, we have something that could spread like wild fire. It could cause serious unrest among the White workers. In this respect there is an immense responsibility resting on the private sector, and it is even more appropriate that the private sector should be involved in the South African society on a larger scale, as indeed happened in November last year.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to devote most of my further comments to the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to tell him that I am personally disappointed in the speech he made today. I do not think it behoves a member of his status in this House and in his party to make the kind of speech he made today, because his speech did not even satisfy the basic requirements of academic responsibility or even accuracy or completeness. He did not substantiate a single argument of his by quoting the relevant figures, because he knew full well that if he had started quoting figures he would not have had the nerve to carry on in the way that he did. I want to refer to the fact that the hon. member challenged the Government to spell out its strategy in the economic and socio-economic spheres of life in South Africa. I want to remind the hon. member that we are still waiting for the official Opposition to spell out to hon. members on this side of the House what they mean when they talk glibly about the redistribution of wealth. The hon. member today referred again to the redistribution of wealth. I want to warn him that, if he does it as glibly as he did today, without spelling out exactly what he means by it, there are many people in South Africa who will develop expectations far beyond those which our economy can satisfy. That is why I think it behoves responsible members of Parliament, and the official Opposition in particular, to spell out during this session exactly what they mean when they talk about the redistribution of wealth. Do they include present wealth or are they only talking about wealth generated in the future?

Do you disagree with equal pensions?

During the course of my speech I shall still comment on equal pensions. The fact is the hon. member will have no case if he should try to argue his point with regard to the Government’s direction in terms of the future redistribution of wealth, since the future redistribution of wealth will be based on merit and not on the colour of a person’s skin. Why did he not attack the direction the Government is taking? Why does the hon. member only attack some malpractices and imbalances which persist in our economy today and which have a long and difficult-to-explain history?

I also want to tell the hon. member that I did not expect him to climb onto the bandwagon of the gold bonanza as irresponsibly as he, in fact, did. In true Opposition fashion, he immediately found something on which to spend all the money. He did not quantify the magnitude of the gold bonanza He also did not make mention of the fact that those advantages which will accrue to the State will do so over a period of time, as the financial years of mines and companies end. He also did not mention that when there is a high gold price marginal gold-bearing ore is also mined. In other words, a higher gold price is also accompanied by a higher cost of mining. The eventual benefit, therefore, to the fiscus is not as great as is implied by the vague kind of statements the hon. member made.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he suggested that the entire bonanza should be spent on Black pensions. That reminds me of a person spending all the money in his budget on drink, for instance, and on nothing else.

You are a disgrace!

If one wants to spend a bonanza such as that it is necessary to take a balanced view and it is also necessary …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw the words “You are a disgrace”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words “You are a disgrace” and I say that what the hon. member is saying is a disgrace.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall be granted injury time in consequence of the hon. member’s uncalled-for interjection. I may have used the wrong example.

What you are saying is disgraceful.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has already made a considerable number of interjections during the speech and he must restrain himself somewhat.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I think it is an admirable ideal put forth by the hon. member for Yeoville to suggest that we should all at once close the gap between the pensions of the various peoples in South Africa. I think it is an admirable thought, but what are the practical implications of it? Is it wise to spend the entire bonanza which we will get, in some small measure, unquantified as it is? Is it wise to spend it all in doing that particular matter? Is it such a high priority at this particular stage? Are there not hardships also being suffered by White pensioners? Are there not also disabled White people who might benefit from a gold bonanza? Furthermore, the hon. member has not told us what the implications would be in regard to future budgets if we should spend that entire bonanza now on the closing of the pension gap. The implications will be absolutely enormous. Is it not true that in last year’s budget the Government, true to its declared policy, went ahead and increased the pensions of people and gradually tried to close the gap between the pensions of the various population groups? I should like to remind the hon. member that White pensions were increased by 10,2%, Coloured and Indian pensions by 13,1% and Black pensions by 15,8%. We know the old story that in real terms the gap is still wide, but the fact is that if that hon. member persistently ignores the trend in Government thinking, the fault lies with him, and if he is incapable of understanding it, I do not think he is qualified to comment on it.

I think that in South Africa we need many bonanzas. I do not think we only need a one-time gold bonanza. I think that if there is one bonanza we can well do with, it is a bonanza of scores of well-qualified teachers, particularly Black teachers, to upgrade the standard of Black education in this country. I think it would be a wonderful thing if overnight we could build all the schools we require. Even if we had a greater gold bonanza, we might have been able to build all those schools, but we cannot overnight fill all those schools with adequately qualified teachers. I should like to hear the comments of hon. members of the Opposition about gold and other bonanzas when we talk about matters such as this. I think we could do with a little bit of understanding in respect of the drawn-out process which takes place in developing countries when it comes to education.

*As far as elderly people are concerned, I want to make the point that we in South Africa should keep in mind, after all, that it is the responsibility of every citizen to make provision himself for his old age. We cannot deviate from that principle. If we boast that we want to enjoy the benefits of free enterprise, we must also shoulder the responsibilities thereof. One of those responsibilities is that one must oneself make provision for one’s old age. It is all very well that the State should make provision for compassionate and other cases. That is indeed true. But I think that with regard to the care of the aged, the Whites in South Africa could learn from the Indian and Black people. One can talk to the Indians. Those are people who do not want old age homes. I wonder how many, if any, old age homes they have in South Africa Each family cares for its own old people. I think as far as Black people are concerned, particularly in these times in which there is such widespread unemployment, history will give credit to those Black people who helped their own elderly people through these difficult times even when some of those Black people were themselves unemployed. I think we could go and learn from them. As far as our elderly people are concerned, something wonderful was done last year. The hon. the Minister of Finance went so far as to grant them a bonus. It is true that it was a small bonus, but we must keep in mind that the Government’s total account for the improvement of pensions and allowances amounted to R98 million last year. One cannot simply say pensions should be increased by some specific amount. We must remember that the population gets older. The percentage of elderly people in each population group is increasing steadily. We cannot impose an unnecessary burden on future generations by simply increasing pensions and not upholding our basic principle that every person should make provision for his own old age.

As far as the matter of food is concerned, I think it is extremely important that we should take cognizance of what the Government did last year with regard to problems being experienced in the lower income groups, people whose staple food is bread. Hon. members will remember that an amount of R40 million was voted as a bread subsidy in last year’s budget. Later, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture announced that the price of bread would be increased, but at the same time a further R50 million was appropriated for a bread subsidy. During the NP congress in Pretoria in September last year, the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that a further R20 million would be appropriated for a bread subsidy. That means that a total of R110 million was appropriated in a single year.

With regard to inflation, the hon. member said “inflation is rampant”. I think we should keep a few things in mind as far as South Africa’s rate of inflation is concerned. Is it not true that we have a cost pressure inflation? If we want to counter inflation therefore, our first step must be to look into the cause of that cost pressure inflation. In seeking long-term solutions to inflation we must, at the same time, counter the adverse effects of inflation on people in the lower income groups in particular. That has indeed been done. Hon. members will remember that by means of last year’s budget, R516 million was returned to taxpayers by way of tax concessions to put money in their pockets so that they could cope with the adverse effects of inflation. Hon. members will also remember that many other allowances were increased to enable people to cope with inflation.

As far as the combating of inflation is concerned: Is it not true that owing to the fact that we had a low rate of expenditure by private consumers during our recessionary period in South Africa, the marginal production cost of items was very high and that the very fact that economic growth is taking place, will cause a drop in the marginal cost? I should like to hear the comment of the hon. member for Yeoville on this at some time or another. Perhaps we are not going to have a reduction in prices, but we shall at least have a pegging of costs for a longer period.

Consequently, the solution, for this economy, lies in growth. We have to take every possible step to stimulate growth in the economy. This requires greater co-ordination between the Reserve Bank and the financial authorities in terms of rates of exchange, the supply of money and other things so that we can obtain the maximum impact and maximum benefit from the economic upswing. What is happening today? We are faced with excessive liquidity in the banking sector and in the money market, but John Citizen is not feeling the benefits of the gold “bonanza”. Businessmen are still reluctant to invest that money, on the one hand owing to the fact that there is still uncertainty in the economy and on the other hand, because consumer spending is not yet at the level it ought to be. If we can effect the necessary growth, therefore, we shall utilize capacity as yet unutilized. We shall obtain the employment opportunities, but then the gold “bonanza” has to be applied effectively in order to stimulate growth and we should spend it all at once not as the hon. member for Yeoville suggests.

In conclusion, I think the Government has done the maximum during the recess to alleviate the plight of our people. If we had had a situation where the Government had exceeded its powers, the hon. member for Yeoville would have been the first to get on his feet and state “The Government has exceeded its powers.” I wish to remind him that Parliament will decide what the Treasury does. The revenue of the State is under the control of this Parliament, and Parliament will decide on the expenditure of that revenue. To the extent that the Government was able, during the recess, to alleviate the position of the consumers, the elderly and all others who suffer hardship—and the Government has indeed done so—it deserves the praise of this House and of the public at large. That is indeed the case. To charge the Government with having been able to do more than it has indeed done, attests to ignorance and borders on irresponsibility.

The “countdown” for the budget is at hand, and not a great deal can be done now, but I do think we can all wait patiently for the hon. the Minister of Finance. We can definitely expect that he will stimulate a revival of the economy, led by the private sector, and that it will be a sustained revival of the economy. Hence his method of giving the economy an injection at short intervals to keep the momentum going.

We can expect that consumer spending is going to be further stimulated. We can expect that wherever possible the hon. the Minister will put money into the hands of the consumer. We can expect that the Government will not forget the underprivileged or the elderly and that it will delve deep into its pockets to alleviate their position, just as it did last year.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville talks about the rentiers. I want to ask him a straightforward question today, and he must give his reply during the budget debate. If he blames the Government for the low rate of interest—in other words that the income of rentiers is lower—he must state today whether he wishes the money of the taxpayers to be used, under circumstances such as the present, to subsidize the interest being earned by pensioners and other people. Is that what he has in mind? That is the unavoidable implication of what he said. There is only one way in which to increase interest rates under those circumstances, namely by means of a State subsidy. Is that what he wants? Is he asking for greater State interference in the economy? If that is the case, he must say so.

I take pride in associating myself with the financial and economic policy which this Government has followed since last year’s budget. I am eagerly looking forward to the budget that is going to be presented, because I think the Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance, with his policy of discipline have demonstrated admirably that they are going to lead South Africa through difficult times into times where we are going to enjoy economic growth that will be out of all proportion to that of our trading partners, and that is really something unique in the world economy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Florida who has just sat down directed most of his speech towards the pensioner and he stressed that the Government was looking after the less well-off in this country extremely well. He also criticized the Opposition for daring to attack the Government on this subject, but I want to tell the hon. member for Florida that, as long as this Government continues to use a means test that was set in 1972 as a level for pegging pensions in this country, they are laying themselves wide open, and deservedly so, to attack. A means test set in 1972 is totally ludicrous in the face of inflation since that date and the rise in the cost of basic foodstuffs since that date.

Unlike the hon. member for Simonstown I have no confidence in this Government. I believe it behoves somebody in the Opposition benches to react to the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown. The quality of that speech was such that it can actually do damage to South Africa I believe it was irresponsible in the extreme. In his speech the hon. member for Simonstown attacked a foreign country and its ambassador, while that foreign country is a country with which our Minister of Foreign Affairs is locked in extremely delicate negotiations over the future of South West Africa. To attack so virulently such a country at such a delicate stage of negotiation I believe is not all a wise thing to do. I certainly do not believe that that hon. member would in his attack have the support of any of the members in these benches.

Speak for yourself.

I would like to appeal to the voters of Simonstown, Walmer and Port Elizabeth Central please to let us have some Opposition spokesmen from their cities in this House in the future. [Interjections.] It is interesting to note that hon. members on the benches opposite leap to the defence of the SAP just as the SAP leap to their defence.

Today we have a Republic of South Africa. This Republic of South Africa is in fact not the first South African Republic that has existed in Southern Africa. There was an ill-fated South African Republic whose decline and fall was frankly a tragic event for the Afrikaner. For decades after the fall of that Republic the Afrikaner struggled to regain a place in the sun. I believe that the NP should read their history and in fact should learn the lessons of the South African Republic that existed all those years ago. They are very important lessons and I believe they are lessons which can stand this country in good stead. I want to outline a few of the things that led up to the decline of that Republic and compare them with things that are happening in this day and age in South Africa, because the similarities are amazing. First of all, at the end of the last century the Transvaal Republic found itself surrounded by areas that were Coloured red on the map. That was the colour of an imperialistic, expansionist State, the colour of Great Britain. At that stage Britain was imperialistic. It was also, in fact, expansionist. Today we are also surrounded, to a large extent, by States that are coloured red, not on the map, but in view of their policies. These States are increasing day by day and their sphere of influence is getting wider. At the same time gold was discovered in the Transvaal Republic. Let us again take the similarity with today, where gold is playing such an important part in the economy of South Africa, as the hon. the Minister of Finance himself has said in this very debate. Gold has become of more and more importance as time has gone by. Now, fairly obviously, in those days the imperialist power had designs on that gold. Today, I believe, the powers that surround us have designs, not only on our gold, but on our strategic minerals as well.

Who are these powers?

These powers are obviously communistic and Marxist powers—Angola, Mozambique and other countries surrounding us, including Zambia, who has just bought a number of MIG aircraft from Russia. This whole thing is escalating. They are after us, and what they need is the excuse to come in and to take over what they want, just as Britain, all those years ago, wanted the excuse to walk into the South African Republic as it then existed and to take over the gold because they wanted it.

Now, what was the issue that they used? All those years ago the issue was predominantly the franchise question. That was what made the difference. In 1894, Cecil John Rhodes said President Kruger would have to consider whether a system should continue which refused 90% of the population under it the franchise. Do we not have a parallel today? What is the argument in South Africa about today? It is about full citizenship for the Blacks. It is about the franchise. In those days, of course, the situation did not relate to the Blacks. It related to the “uitlanders”. All nationalities were part of those “uitlanders”, and in the mid-1880s “uitlanders” could obtain full citizenship after five years’ residence and the payment of £25. However, in 1888, President Kruger evolved a scheme whereby “uitlanders” would have their own Volksraad, which had no political power. This Volksraad was a subsidiary Volksraad and all the legislation which was proposed in that Volksraad had to be authorized by the main Volksraad. This, of course, reminds me of the situation in South Africa today, where the NP produced a Bill to introduce a new Constitution for the Republic of South Africa. On page 19 of that Bill the following is stated—

In other words, it is the White Parliament which will continually retain all power, and the Coloured and the Indian Parliaments, which they propose, will only be able to act under the authorization of the White Parliament. That is exactly what they did in the Transvaal in 1888.

Then they created a situation in which the “uitlanders” could only get the vote after 14 years’ residence and over the age of 40 years. An “uitlander” under the age of 40 years could not get the vote under any circumstances.

Louis, no vote for you! [Interjections.]

This Government is making those same mistakes today. They are denying the franchise to South Africans, and because they are denying it we are providing an excuse for the communistic powers around us.

Are you an “uitlander”?

No, I am not an “uitlander”. I had a forefather who fought with Piet Retief against Dingaan, and was killed with Piet Retief. [Interjections.]

On whose side did he fight? [Interjections.]

What I want to point out is that with all the “verligte” statements that the hon. the Prime Minister has made … [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister has made many “verligte” statements and I congratulate him. However, not once has he ever said that he will give a Black man full citizenship in South Africa That is the crux of the matter. Another issue in the old Transvaal Republic was the language issue. The official language was Dutch. All public business had to be transacted in Dutch. The Volksraad decreed that all State-supported schools had to use Dutch as their medium of instruction, and yet 50% of the population, and I include the Afrikaans-speaking people, spoke no Dutch. Initially this was not strictly enforced. In 1891 Prof. Mansvelt strictly enforced it and it created tremendous problems. I only have to point to the parallel today of Soweto and the riots we had there in 1976, riots which, according to the Press, took place because of the language of instruction in the schools.

It had nothing to do with it.

You say it had nothing to do with it I hope we get the Cilliers Report later on in the session, because then we will see whether, in fact, the language issue was important or not. I believe that it was. One can go even further. I now quote J. S. Marais who wrote The Fall of Kruger’s Republic. He said—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Health will tell us, when he gets an opportunity, perhaps in this debate or at a later stage, what qualifications Mr. Jan Haak has to head a medical commission when he is not a doctor. I look forward to hearing …

You carry on with your Boer War. I am waging my own war at the moment. [Interjections.]

With all the boards and commissions that exist today, the opportunities for this type of malpractice are almost unlimited. Let me also quote something which is reminiscent, to me at least, of the Information affair of the last year or two in South Africa I quote again from the book by J. S. Marais—

Does that not ring a bell, the words “irregular disbursements from the Treasury”, perhaps covering up documents and signing them so that one would not see what they were all about? There were liquor concessions, dynamite concessions, railway concessions, and many of these were virtually licences to print money. [Interjections.] So the Imperial power had its excuses, the franchise, the language, the bad government, and it was able to use the discontent of the local population to further its own interests. This is precisely what is happening today. The members of the Government obviously think this is a laughing matter. Perhaps they think it is a laughing matter that we should have had urban unrest at Silverton. I am trying to point out what is causing the sort of situation we find ourselves in today, in the hope—and I believe it is probably a vain hope—that the Government will learn something from it. The Government is inviting intervention, and I appeal to the members on the other side of the House: Let us please share power in South Africa; let us give the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians a political say in this country which is after all, as much their home as it is ours. I believe that another hangover from that Boer War, all those years ago, is that it divided politics basically on racialistic lines. It divided politics into Afrikaans-and English-speaking groups in South Africa. I believe that if we want to get on an even footing in this country, we must have a political division rather than a racial division within our politics. I believe that division should be between those who wish to share power with the Blacks in South Africa and those who wish to push the Blacks out of the political boundaries of South Africa into their own States, in other words those who want to share and those who do not. I believe that the sooner those who wish to share can get together under one umbrella, and with one objective, the better it will be for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

Having now dealt with general issues indicating why I have no confidence in this Government, I want to turn to a few more direct issues that have manifested themselves recently. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Justice is not here at the moment because I want to refer to the resignation of two judges from our Bench in recent months. [Interjections.] In normal circumstances the resignation of two judges is not a pleasant situation, but when one of those judges was a judge who had had a disagreement with our Prime Minister, a judge who had become nationally and even internationally known because of the part he played in the Information affair, it is a somewhat more serious affair.

Tell us, why did they resign?

Why? If the hon. the Deputy Minister will just possess his soul in patience for a minute I shall tell him. I shall give him the answers. I do not know, in any shape of form, why they resigned. [Interjections.] What I will say, however, is that their resignation has raised the question in the minds of many South Africans about the reason why, because they would not give it and I, as I have said, certainly do not know it. Yet why did they resign? [Interjections.] That question needs answering because I believe that their resignation has raised a question, and that question is whether they resigned for political reasons. [Interjections.]

Who must answer that?

Order!

If the judges themselves are prepared to make a statement about their reasons, I would be very happy indeed to accept it, but if they do not…

You will give the answer.

No, I will not give the answer.

You are absolutely ridiculous.

I believe that a commission of inquiry should be set up by this Government, by this hon. Minister of Justice … [Interjections.] … and I believe that that should be an all-party commission.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to finish his speech.

Those hon. members opposite are sitting and laughing about justice in South Africa … [Interjections.] … and they have done it before. They showed absolute disregard for our judicial system in this country …

Nonsense!

That is not nonsense. Did the National Government, or did it not, create a High Court of Parliament which was the laughing-stock of South Africa? They created a High Court of Parliament to overthrow a judicial decision taken by judges in this country, and the attitude in this House today is, I believe, indicative of the fact that that attitude still exists amongst members of the NP. They are prepared to treat as a laughing matter one of the most serious of issues. Let me quote one of their own newspapers, the Transvaler. I quote this translation from the Transvaler contained in Comment—South African Digest, the issue of the weekend of 25 January. This is a translation, from the Transvaler, of Comment and Opinion—

Do those hon. members agree with that viewpoint? [Interjections.] The article continues—

[Interjections.] It goes on to say—I do not agree with this—that they do not have a chance like this every day to put the Government in the dock. I submit that the Government is in the dock. The article says further—

Do the hon. members find that a laughing matter? Or do they believe that the Bench must not only be independent, but also must be seen to be independent? These resignations have raised questions about the independence of our judiciary, our Bench. These are questions … [Interjections.] These are questions raised by the NP’s own newspapers, and the only way these questions can be answered is by an inquiry. Does the Government believe that they can sweep this one under the carpet as well?

The next subject which, I believe, we in these benches need to react to is the situation with regard to the Department of National Security. I do not intend speaking for very long on this subject. Once again, it is a subject which is of great importance to South Africans generally.

A question which needs to be answered is whether the Government is using its security personnel for the security of South Africa or for the security of their own party and their own seats in those benches. I believe that the Government will have to answer the questions that have been raised in the minds of the public, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will see to it that before the end of this debate he confirms or denies the reports in the newspapers and states to the House and the country what steps he intends taking in the matter.

When are you going to become a full-fledged Prog?

In brief, I now want to mention two matters affecting the economy. My Whip tells me I have only two minutes left to speak, so I must give him …. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that, if nothing else, I have at least kept the members on the opposite benches entertained.

I want to touch on the recent issue of shares in Sasol. At this stage, thanks to the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs—then Minister of Economic Affairs—we are paying a fantastic sum of money every year into the State Fuel Fund by means of the levy on petrol. This money is to be used predominantly for the purposes of building additional equipment and machinery to produce petrol from coal in South Africa.

What is wrong with that?

This is a noteworthy objective, but what is wrong with it is I believe that he is forcibly taking people’s money out of their pockets whereas in fact this money could be obtained on a voluntary basis. We have seen the Sasol issue was over-subscribed some 31 times. Will the hon. the Minister deny that the Sasol issue was vastly over-subscribed? The Government, or Sasol, raised some R17 million by means of shares in Sasol. We should call on the Government to extend and expand this type of operation. Why should the Government not issue more shares in Sasol than they have issued already? Why should they not have a further issue? If people are prepared voluntarily to give money to the Government, admittedly to spend for the benefit of this country, then why not utilize the situation to reduce the tax burden on the taxpayers?

I believe that if one did this we would be seen to be furthering what the hon. the Prime Minister said on the 22 November of last year, namely that he believed in the free enterprise system and that he wished to have the support of the business community in expanding free enterprise. I believe that a small step of that nature would go a long way towards convincing the public that he means what he says.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to dwell in detail on all the fuss made by the hon. member for East London North, but I do think that there are a few points in regard to which one could perhaps come to some accord with him. Personally I feel that one specific matter does deserve attention and I take it that it is indeed enjoying the attention of the Minister concerned. I refer to the resignations from the Bench of two young judges. This is cause for some concern if one is an outsider lacking any further information about the matter. I think that everyone in this House who is not possessed of all the facts will want the matter to be given attention so that the dignity of the Bench is not undermined. However, to demand a commission of inquiry into the reasons for the resignations is, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous. I should like to see the hon. the Minister of Justice entering into discussion with the two gentlemen concerned, if he has not already done so, and perhaps clarifying this aspect for the benefit of hon. members. The second matter about which the hon. member for East London North made a big fuss, is the situation relating to national security. It is indeed true that one has to guard against confusing party-political interests with the security of the State. However, I think that what is more important for the Opposition at this stage is that they do not perhaps overlook the interests of the State or see them as party-political interests. I think it is important that peace, order and stability should prevail and also that it is imperative that there should be a properly informed security service which should keep itself abreast of the thinking in our country. That does not include only the actions of radicals and revolutionary persons, but also includes the ideas and ideologies of the opinion-formers in our country. In that sense the Department of National Security ought to keep abreast of what is going on.

I also want to associate myself with what has already been said here about the question of telephone tapping. I have not the slightest objection to my telephone being tapped if a person who is a recognized enemy of the State or a possible enemy of the State—and this regard I refer to an enemy of the State and not of a party—were to converse with me on the telephone. I should have no objection whatsoever to that.

Do you have no respect for privacy?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton asks whether I have no respect for privacy. I have respect for privacy, but the hon. member must bear in mind that if these things are not done, she would have no privacy, if the peace and order that prevail at present were totally destroyed. I now want to address myself to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think that from his point of view he made a good speech. I think, too, that we are all grateful for the temperate manner in which he launched his attack on the Government, and, in a certain sense, for his academic analysis of the problems we are faced with. Indeed, I think the fact that he has to move another motion of no confidence, on the one hand in history and on the other in deficiencies he sees in the future, without referring to what is supposed to be wrong in our country now, is disappointing. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate him on his election and hope he will have the opportunity to lead his party into becoming a worthy Opposition. I think he is going to encounter problems, however. The hon. member for Yeoville has already made his noises. At this stage it seems to me, too, as if an adjustment will have to be made somewhere with regard to seniority, because if I am not mistaken the hon. member for Yeoville ought to sit alongside the hon. member for Sea Point in the normal order. I do not know at whose request it is that this arrangement has been made. Was it at the request of the hon. member for Yeoville, or at the request of the hon. member for Sea Point, or did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition perhaps arrange it himself? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in somewhat strange language, language which does not suit him as an academic, refers to the concepts “apartheid” and “discrimination” in the same sentence. Subsequently he again referred to the concepts the other way round.

It is the same thing.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition equates discrimination and apartheid, there is no problem. Then we do not believe in apartheid either. We have said for a long time that we do not believe in discrimination and therefore we do not believe in the apartheid to which he refers either. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition uses the concept “apartheid” in a different sense to that in which it is normally understood. His concept of apartheid includes the total plan of the Government, including its non-discriminatory measures. Indeed, while the Government is devoting its energies to removing discrimination within the framework of self-determination, the maintenance of identity, peace and order, which form the basis of Government policy, that is also, quite paradoxically, described as apartheid and therefore as discrimination per se. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should take another look at that. He also made mention of the projection into the future put forward by the Minister of Co-operation and Development and embroidered on his “statement of intent” in Palm Springs in June last year. No one wants to argue with him about what he said here. [Interjections.] A fuss was made about that, but there is not a single member of this party who is opposed to the concept that every person whose interests are affected in the decision-making process should be given a hearing. There is no hon. member in this House who does not endorse the creation of equal opportunities for all. Nor is there a single member in this House who does not believe that we should try to achieve the ideal of full citizenship for every individual in this country.

In South Africa?

Yes, in South Africa. When I speak about full citizenship, I mean full citizenship within the framework of a system in which we can in fact live in terms of everything that we believe in, but at the same time need not forfeit aspects such as peace and order, ample provision for the preservation of identity of everyone and together with that, the opportunity for self-determination. Indeed, the official Opposition themselves built a right of veto aimed at self-determination into their official plan, of which we have as yet heard nothing this session. Surely, then, they must not argue with us. If they do not like our method, they should not shoot down the principle as well.

What does this Government stand for?

That is a good question.

That remark speaks volumes, because the hon. member for Yeoville does after all know a great deal better than he wants to give out.

What do I know?

At this stage it is perhaps better to say nothing about the hon. member’s simulated ignorance. This Government believes that we should indeed plan and act within the framework of peace and order, within an ample provision for the preservation of identity and the preservation of the right to self-determination where it affects one’s own future. Moreover, we must act within the framework of dialogue, viz. listening to each other and a joint search for agreement—where interests of larger groups are affected. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt that out very clearly. The newspapers were full of it. With reference to an official document, I should like to quote to hon. members a resolution passed by the Transvaal NP congress after a discussion of the constellation of states. The resolution reads—

In the course of the discussion—and this is on record and the newspapers gave it comprehensive coverage—the hon. Prime Minister spelt out very clearly that this constellation of States would be a drawn-out process and would not be something that we could establish tomorrow and then say that we have a new constitutional dispensation. I quote further from the record of what the hon. the Prime Minister said—

Thereafter the territories are defined. It is clear from this that it is not a question of an immediate constitutional model, but that we are in fact seeking co-operation at the interstate level as equals, yet at the same time, co-operation on the basis of a mother country towards non-independent States.

I also wish to refer to another short extract from a resolution—it came under the discussion of a draft resolution on co-operation and development—also in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—

What does that mean?

What does this mean? What it means is just that it is a process of dialogue. The hon. members of the official Opposition—and specifically the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—have said that we must lay down a grand strategy. We must now establish a final plan and we must carry it out. But then they argue with us and say that we decide on our own without conducting discussions with other interest groups. What do they want? Must we decide, spell out and carry out our final plan, or must we conduct a discussion? Surely it is clear that the discussion is being conducted. Surely it is clear that that discussion has already been initiated by way of the commission which is sitting at the moment. It would be inappropriate to try to pronounce upon the possible outcome or the finding of the commission, but it is surely clear that the direction is along the lines of what is being outlined.

Are you prepared to negotiate and consult with them?

Of course we are prepared to negotiate; indeed, to negotiate and to come to an agreement. However, we are not prepared to negotiate outside the framework of the constitution under which we are operating at present. We must negotiate from this point. It is out of the question that we would be prepared to grasp at the national convention idea and to create or magnify the so-called “legitimacy crisis” to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refers in the book he wrote with Prof. Welsh, by looking beyond the existing system for development for the future. That would be fatal. However, what do these people advocate? In the first place the hon. members advocate a national convention, and would submit to it for negotiation there, a consociative model in terms of which they want to give the total executive power to people who do not have the final power at present, because it is generally accepted that the executive power would rest in the hands of Black office-bearers—surely that is correct—by way of the process of political party formation, proportional representation and a majority of non-White office-holders in this total new dispensation they advocate. Is that correct or is it not correct? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville says I am talking nonsense, but the Leader of the Opposition must tell me whether I understand him incorrectly.

You understand “wrong”. You are talking nonsense.

I deeply regret that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not have the opportunity to spell that out for me at this point. On a former occasion, when we were debating this matter last year, he said by way of interjection that my argument in this regard was quite correct. I think his interjection to that effect is on record. Formation of political parties along ethnic lines would probably occur, if one considers all the examples we have. As a consequence, proportional representation would mean that in the South African situation, the majority would be Black representatives.

That could be so.

Not “could be”, but will in all probability be. That is what the hon. the leader said on a previous occasion. But what more are we doing? The official Opposition now places the total power in the hands of a group of people who have been frustrated over a long period—I say it on the basis of their own view of the situation. At the same time they have a fixed, rigid constitution, a “Bill of Rights” and a right of enforcement by the courts and at the same time a right of veto with which they will frustrate entirely this power placed in the hands of the elected representatives by way of proportional representation. People will then have power which they may not exercise. If that is not the recipe for chaos and revolution then I do not know what it is.

There are different levels of government.

Agreed, there are various levels, but the formula is the same for each level, after all. This is going to take place at all levels. I think he should take another look at the submission of the Slabbert Commission.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made a flagrantly untrue statement in his speech when he said that the position in South Africa and the policy of separate development had resulted in the people of South Africa not being prepared to defend South Africa.

I was quoting the hon. the Prime Minister.

No. I want to refer the hon. leader to the unrevised edition of his speech. He quotes the following statement by the Prime Minister—

That is the statement by the Prime Minister which the hon. leader quoted and that is where it stops. The hon. leader goes on to say—

Apparently, to him, apartheid and separate development are different concepts—

Surely that is not true. Are there at present fewer or more people of other population groups and interests groups in our security services and our Defence Force than in the past? Are there more or are there fewer? [Interjections.] Surely then, that statement is not correct.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the NP of South Africa is not prepared to seek any formula which will give rise to chaos. We are not prepared to be experimental, while history teaches us that specific formulas, such as that proposed by the official Opposition, among others, are not workable anywhere in the world. At the same time, however, we are not married to existing methods. Things which do not work will be changed, and this is in fact being done from day to day. The Prime Minister spelt out very clearly where he is heading. In this debate there will be even greater clarity for hon. members who are apparently not prepared to take cognizance of what the hon. the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, as has been clearly reported in the Press from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on his being elected leader of his party and wish him luck. He needs it. It was said from his side of the House that I am not very certain of my following, but I think, in view of his small following, that the position for him is far worse. I am watching the hon. member for Yeoville very carefully. Probably he will still tell us about the clique during the course of the session. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. the Leader of the Opposition everything of the best and I want to say at once that if he, as Leader of the Opposition, puts South Africa’s interests first, he will receive goodwill on my part and I shall take him into my confidence on matters in regard to which I think he should be taken into my confidence. I am making this offer to him now, but I am very exacting in the demands I make on people whom I take into my confidence. I realize there are radical differences between us; we must have no illusions about that. There is an unbridgeable gap, as far as certain standpoints of principle are concerned, between his party and this side of the House. We shall discuss this with one another, but I am prepared to move forward with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a spirit of goodwill.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had kind things to say about me. He put me in mind of Balaam. Balaam was called by the king of Moab, Balak, to come and curse Israel. But then a few things happened on the way, for Balaam came and praised Israel. [Interjections.] It would almost seem to me as though his party decided that his predecessor could not curse me enough. Then they chose him to come and do it, and here in his first speech he praises me!

I want to pay the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a compliment. He concluded his speech with a quotation from a poem by one of the greatest poets South Africa has ever produced. I also want to quote from N. P. van Wyk Louw today. I want to quote to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what N. P. van Wyk Louw said about the development of a South African national character in one of his speeches which he made before a body that had invited him to speak on this subject. I cannot quote the entire speech, but, inter alia, he did say the following (Deurskouende Verband, p. 110)—

I want to suggest that he reads this speech by Van Wyk Louw, since he is so fond of quoting him. He will then see that the premise, the basic argument from which he as party leader proceeds, is incorrect if it is tested against what, inter alia, Van Wyk Louw as well laid down as absolute axioms.

He referred to English-and Afrikaans-speaking people as being separate.

We are talking about great spirits now, not ghosts. [Interjections.] I want to quote further to the hon. leader from what Van Wyk Louw said, and inform him, just in passing, that I share his admiration of Van Wyk Louw.

How many Cabinet Ministers were at his funeral?

I share his admiration.

Were you there?

He said—

These are the opinions which Van Wyk Louw expressed in his day, and unless we take these realities into account in public and political life, we will be committing a fundamental error in our future reasoning. And now it vexed me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is a highly intelligent person and who has come a long way, could quote what Van Wyk Louw, an Afrikaner poet said, while he, in this time of storm and stress, a time in which the White man and his own people in South Africa are being placed in jeopardy by outside forces, did not utter a single word to say that he would take them under his protection, and simply proceeded to make demands as though his own people and the White man in this country did not exist. With reference to what Van Wyk Louw said here and in the spirit of what Van Wyk Louw said, I accuse the hon. the Leader of having done an atrocious thing by omitting to take up the cudgels for or offer protection to those whom Van Wyk Louw called the “highly developed” section of this population, which has done so much for South Africa’s development, for its prosperity and its happiness. That I am taking amiss of him this evening already. I want to tell him that he will not come into power if he forgets this important thing, for then he will remain the leader of a small group of liberalists who have never really attached any true significance to the realities of South Africa.

I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will help to return politics to these fundamental things in South Africa, for as long as this Government is in power … I shall prefer to return to that later. During the past few months I have gone out of my way to plead with my own people for sound ethnic relations. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is describing this as promises. I went out of my way to tell my own people, some of whom are obstinate, that in this country we must have reasonable relations with one another, relations which are built on a Christian foundation. I shall return to that point later. However, I very seldom see leaders of other groups in their turn making an appeal to their followers to display the same spirit towards this established section of South Africa’s population, viz. White South Africa, the Afrikaans-and English-speaking people. We cannot merely make demands and not take into account the stable element in this country. Take away the stability and certainty which White South Africa has created in this country, and chaos will arise in South Africa, as it has done north of our borders. Surely that is the case.