announced that in terms of Standing Order No. 17 he had appointed the following members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees: Messrs. F. Herman, H. H. Schwarz, W. M. Sutton, R. A. F. Swart, N. F. Treurnicht and H. J. D. van der Walt, Dr. H. M. J. van Rensburg, Mr. A. C. van Wyk and Dr. P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the business of the House is concerned, I should just like to announce that the Part Appropriation will be introduced on 25 February. The debate on this measure will commence on the same day. The Additional Appropriation will be introduced on Monday, 3 March. The Railway Budget will be presented on Wednesday, 5 March, and the debate will commence on 10 March. The Post Office Budget will be presented on Tuesday, 18 March, and the debate will commence on the following day. The Main Budget will be introduced on Wednesday, 26 March, and the debate will commence on Monday, 14 April.

The Easter recess will be from Saturday, 29 March, to Monday, 14 April.

As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, the House will, from Monday onwards, follow the Order Paper as printed.

Mr. Speaker, since the traitor McGiven sold his story to an overseas newspaper, the hon. member for Houghton had been telling newspapers right and left that she is going to raise this matter here to ensure that the parliamentary authority given to my department, inter alia, is not abused. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Prime Minister for certain assurances on Monday. I have here the unrevised version of his Hansard. I quote it—

He goes on—

The hon. the Prime Minister handled this matter in a comprehensive and adequate manner and gave assurances.

My problem, however, is that the hon. member for Houghton, who spoke after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, used different words. She referred to the Post Office Amendment Act of 1972 and also to the assurances given by my hon. predecessor at that time, Mr. Viljoen, that the authorization concerned would not be abused. I quote from the hon. member’s unrevised Hansard—

Except Helen.

I have a specific problem with this, i.e. that while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Prime Minister for assurances and received them, the hon. member for Houghton says in advance that one can never accept the assurances of a Minister because they are not worth the breath expended on them. I hope the hon. member will listen to me now.

Since these things were said—and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence and National Security also spoke yesterday—the fun has been continuing, in newspapers as well. I have yesterday’s afternoon paper here. The hon. member also gave notice of a motion which I do not wish to discuss now. However, I want to put my problem to you, Mr. Speaker. An assurance is asked for, but is it accepted by the hon. member when it is given, or not? She has also implicated my department outside this House, and in this House as well the other day, and for that reason I intend to give assurances. I think I am expected to do so. However, I have the problem that I do not know whether the hon. member will accept them, because she says in advance that she will not accept such assurances. As far as my department is concerned, I do want to say for the record that when it comes to security affairs, provision has been made in terms of section 118A of the Act, as amended in 1972, for certain procedures to be followed when a person’s telephone calls are bugged or when his mail, telegrams or telex messages are intercepted for security purposes. I do not think it is necessary to read out the relevant sections of the Act in full, except for pointing out that the Act expressly lays down the procedure to be followed. It provides for me, as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, to appoint any person—an official in my department—and to delegate powers to him. The hon. the Minister of Mines recently outlined to hon. members in the House how this was done while he was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. These powers were delegated to the Postmaster-General and by him to the level immediately below him, i.e. the level of Deputy Postmaster-General. The relevant section of the Post Office Act provides that there is a specific procedure on the part of the security authorities as well and that a written request has to be made if it becomes necessary, in the interests of the security of the State, to intercept certain communications with groups or individuals. This means that a written request is addressed to me, or the person delegated by me, who is called the “functionary” in terms of the Act. Not only must a written request be made, but the request also has to be motivated if such an interception is to take place.

I can well imagine how a person like McGiven, who is betraying his country, is going about the matter in order, among other things, to make money out of his treason. I can imagine what went on inside him. The hon. the Prime Minister said after the publication of the McGiven stories that he would order a thorough investigation into the matter and that he would report to Parliament, as he has in fact done. I also requested a report on this matter from my department. I do want to try today, bearing in mind the restrictions that will be imposed on my attempt by the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton, who accepts no ministerial assurance, to put the matter in perspective and to give a version of what is said in the report I requested. The report was presented to me by the Postmaster-General, Mr. Louis Rive, a well-known man in the country, whose credibility will not, I suppose, be questioned for one moment. His report to me states that no request was received in respect of any member of this House for the interception of any means of communication, neither of telephone calls nor of mail.

Then how did they get it?

The hon. member may make his enquiry at an appropriate time. I am now reporting on the involvement of my department. No request was made, nor was any permission granted for the mail of any hon. member of this House, or of a political party, to be opened or for his telephone calls to be bugged. In giving this assurance this afternoon, I want to add that I also give the assurance for the future that neither I nor the persons delegated by me intend to change this in any way, and we shall see to it that no mail or telephone calls of any hon. member of this House or of Parliament are intercepted without complying with the provisions of the Act. I give this assurance here today.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked me how some of these things were obtained. That is no concern of mine. The other matters have been dealt with by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence and of National Security.

Where have they replied?

The hon. member was probably absent. If he did not hear it, I want to tell him that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister have dealt with this in detail.

In the process, it became clear that information derived from mail and telephone calls is not necessarily obtained through the channels of my department. A mischievous person does not have to obtain the permission of my department in order to bug a telephone conversation. This has long been known to most people who are familiar with telecommunications. The apparatus shown to this House by the hon. the Prime Minister the other day, an apparatus which was used to bug conversations at a caucus meeting of the governing party, is only one example of how these things are done by mischievous people.

I should now like to put some specific questions to the hon. member for Houghton, because she is not prepared to accept the assurances given by this side of the House.

You have said that six times now.

I now wish to put some specific questions to her. I think that I am entitled, under the circumstances, to ask these questions. I want to ask the hon. member whether she was previously acquainted with McGiven.

No.

Must I take that reply …

I do not want to be chucked out a third time. [Interjections.]

That is a nice excuse.

I shall write you a note.

Order! I think the hon. the Minister should proceed with his speech. He should not provoke the hon. member. [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Speaker, that was not my intention. I am faced with the problem that the hon. member says that if I give an assurance, she is not prepared to accept it.

But it is worthless, because the police …

I want to tell the hon. member that if she did not know McGiven and was not aware of his activities before he told his stories overseas …

I did not consciously know him. I might have met him as well, but there are many students whom I meet in the course of … [Interjections.] I have had no personal communication whatsoever with McGiven.

Did you meet him at St. George’s Cathedral?

I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s word. I am being more reasonable towards her than she is towards me. [Interjections.] But she is not prepared to do so.

No.

I accept the hon. member’s word as qualified by her. I now want to know from the hon. member whether she has been knowingly and directly involved in an attempt to discredit this Government by means of stories of this kind about bugging.

That is a scandalous question.

Are you a cross-examiner or what?

Mr. Speaker …

It is a scandalous question. [Interjections.]

Order! I am considering the words “to discredit”. The hon. member need not make that remark. The hon. the Minister must proceed.

I shall be reasonable towards her again. I accept that she was not aware of any organized attempt to discredit this Government by means of stories of that nature. I accept that. I now want to ask the hon. member whether she can also give me the assurance that she was not perhaps unwittingly and indirectly involved in such an attempt.

You mean she might have done it in her sleep?

What I am referring to is the McGiven story and the way it was released …

Why do you not appoint a Select Committee which can cross-examine me?

… by certain newspapers in this country, specifically by the Sunday Times of 13 January, in a report which appeared under the heading “Boss Spy on Top Nats”. Hon. members will see what the motivation behind this is. It is to create the impression and the suspicion among everyone that this is a mysterious organization which spies on its own people. And whose story is that? It is McGiven the traitor, who has sold his story for money. What I actually mean by that is this: Can the hon. member give me the assurance today that there were no connections with McGiven from her secretarial circles or domestic circle and that all this forms part of an attempt to discredit the Government in this way?

Appoint a Select Committee and see what they say.

Order!

The hon. member cannot give me any assurances, but she expects assurances from me. However, I can give the assurance today on behalf of my department, on the authority of the Postmaster-General, whose word is not questioned, but the hon. member cannot do the same in respect of the, I cannot say the gentleman, but the McGiven fellow who has betrayed his country abroad and on the basis of whose stories she is conducting her campaign in this House. That is why it upsets me, and I want to repeat that my department and I intend to act strictly in accordance with the Act, with the provisions of the Act, in this particular respect.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard has developed into an argument between hon. Ministers on that side and the hon. member for Houghton, and I do not intend to extend that argument except to say that we in the NRP accept that there are enemies of South Africa whose sole purpose is the total destruction, not only of this Government, but of everything we in this House stand for in South Africa Therefore it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the security of South Africa is maintained at all times. I should like to say that we entrust to hon. members on that side the powers to ensure this. We just hope that they will never lower the dignity which is embodied in those powers.

I would rather talk about the constitutional development of South Africa, because I believe that the greatest security a nation can have is the total support and unity of its people. In a country such as ours, which is a plural nation, that means the unity of all its peoples. As this debate has progressed from Monday until today, I have detected what I should like to call much evidence of political schizophrenia, both in the Government benches and in those of the official Opposition. However, I do believe that in this debate it is the NP which is suffering from the greatest bout of this malady. We see the symptoms especially whenever the question is asked: Is apartheid, is separate development, dead? We get all sorts of answers, but yesterday while I was sitting in this House I put the same question to one of my National Party colleagues and I want to say that I appreciate the honest answer I received from him. He said to me: “Apartheid in practice, no; it is not dead; apartheid as a concept, yes; it is dead.” It is this fact of the reality of the matter which is causing the schizophrenia within that party. It is very clear for all to see. The enlightened leaders on that side of the House.

Which ones?

There are a few enlightened leaders on that side of the House. They know that the political concept of apartheid, as it is reflected in the 32 years of the National Party’s apartheid legislation, legislation which has denied the Browns and the Blacks of South Africa their dignity and their self-respect, has got to die. They know that if we perpetuate this the results which will come from that are, as has been said, too ghastly to contemplate. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister knows this, and I say this because I see it through his very own actions. I see through his actions in recent times that he has already demolished the all important cornerstone, that vital principle of apartheid, of separate development, viz. the essential ingredient of total segregation in the economic sphere. It was Dr. Verwoerd who said: “The ideal of total apartheid gives you direction. The ideal must be total separation in all spheres.” If one studies the history of apartheid, one finds that the all important sphere in which there must be separation for this concept to succeed is the economy, because it is there where its the source of power lies. The hon. member for Mooi River said on Wednesday that the source of power is wealth, and every expansion in the economy means a sharing of wealth and therefore a sharing of power. I believe that Dr. Verwoerd very clearly understood this. It was he who said: “The survival of White civilization in South Africa is more important to me, even more important than expanded industrial development.” He actually indicated that the Whites would not be prepared to pawn their national birthright for the 30 pieces of silver of economic integration. This Verwoerdian principle is the kernel of apartheid philosophy in which so many hon. members on that side believe. That is why there is confusion in their ranks. It was the Wiehahn and the Riekert Commissions that started it and I believe it was the Prime Minister’s own speech at the Carlton Centre which sealed the death of the concept of apartheid. I do not have time to read it, but if hon. members wish to do so, I suggest they read the section on pages 25 and 26, which clearly indicates that the South African economy is now going to integrate at an ever-increasing pace. This talk of the Prime Minister is not apartheid or separate development philosophy; it sounds more like the pluralistic policy which is the political philosophy of the NRP. That is why we in these benches welcome the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiatives. I firmly believe that the battle for the acceptance of a pluralistic philosophy in South Africa has already been won. The philosophical battles between the political parties are quite clear. The NP is the separatist or segregationist party, the PFP is the integrationist party and we in the NRP are South Africa’s pluralistic party. [Interjections.] They laugh, but I would ask of them why it is that it is only the NRP that has been prepared to face 3½ hours of debate before the Schlebusch Commission in putting across its policy. The official Opposition has not done it yet and the Government has not done it yet. We are proud of our policy and have confidence in our policy because we know it is going to be the policy which is going to be adopted in the future.

What is your policy?

Our policy is to reject apartheid and to accept pluralism.

Ask Gerne.

Order! The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark must please not make so many interjections.

I do not have the time to quote, but if the hon. member will read the Sunday Tribune or the minutes of the ASB Congress at Stellenbosch last year, he will see that the Afrikaner students have rejected the apartheid philosophy, as has Gerrit Viljoen, the chairman of the Broederbond and as has also the editor of Die Transvaler. As others have done, the hon. member also asks what our policy is, what the policy of pluralism is. It means federal and confederal Government in South Africa. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Police asked how minorities could be protected in a federation. This is a very important question and one which all minorities in South Africa are asking. We are a minority, as are also the Zulus who are in the majority only in the province where I come from. All groups in South Africa are minorities and they have fear of political domination by other groups, just as this Government has dominated Black and Brown groups in South Africa in recent years.

We therefore have to create a constitution which will allow groups to have their dignity and self-respect. We know that if we accept the PFP’s policy it would lead to Black political power in South Africa, which will deny certain minority groups their self-respect and dignity. Therefore we believe there has to be a division of power. [Interjections.] Yes, we are going to use this model again. Right now the total power is in the hands of Whites. To answer the hon. the Minister’s question, we propose the division of power into four Parliaments, viz. one for the Whites, one for the Indians, one for the Coloureds and one for the urban Blacks. The party to my right has never once been prepared to stand up in this House, before the Schlebusch Commission or anywhere else to try to explain their policy. [Interjections.] To answer the hon. the Minister’s question, we propose to put powers into these group Parliaments, the powers which are required to grant to these communities their self-respect and their dignity. The hon. the Minister may well ask what these powers are. It is all in our submissions to the Schlebusch Commission. Functions by each of these group Parliaments could consist of things such as, for instance, community development and planning, housing, education, social welfare and pensions, training, cultural matters, etc. I refer the hon. the Minister to this particular document.

We realize that we all live within one geographical area. Therefore there has to be co-operation at some levels. We therefore propose the establishment of a federal council. The powers which that federal council will have are those powers which these four Parliaments, these four communities, through consultation and negotiation, are prepared to grant to this central authority. If they ask what these powers are, I refer once again to page 11 of our document submitted to the Schlebusch Commission. It refers there to such things as foreign affairs and information, industrial development and training. So it goes on.

We believe that this policy can work. We believe this. We have tried it to limited extent in Natal through our discussions with the Coloured and the Indian groups. We reached a degree of consensus in what we call the “Natal plan”, the “Natal indaba”. Now we find that the Government, because they are suffering from schizophrenia, are trying to sabotage this plan. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that what happened in Natal was something South Africa should treasure and should build on. That is a situation in which one has different races and different groups sitting down trying to find the answers to South Africa’s problems. I am most disappointed in the hon. the Prime Minister because while he has raised expectations, he has seen fit to frustrate the execution of the “Natal plan”. I should also like to state that the statement the hon. the Prime Minister made here in the House on Wednesday was not correct. He said that the Administrator and the executive of Natal had agreed to delay the execution of this agreement. I should like to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that that statement was not correct. The leader of Exco and the MEC in Natal in charge of local government issued a firm denial that they had agreed to await the Yeld and Browne Reports, and also stated categorically that the object of the meeting with the hon. the Minister of the Interior was to persuade the Government to withdraw its veto and so forestall the threatened withdrawal by the Association of Local Affairs Committees.

Why did you not inform the hon. the Minister of the Interior to be present?

Because the hon. the Prime Minister himself made the statement.

I received my information from the hon. the Minister of the Interior. [Interjections.]

Well, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

I believe the hon. the Minister of the Interior regardless of what you say. [Interjections.]

Be it as it may, the MEC in charge of local government in Natal said that when they failed to persuade the Government he realized he would now have to persuade the Association of LACs to forego their threat of withdrawal.

Ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He was there personally. [Interjections.]

Well, I do not have the time now to begin questioning people. However, I ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development if he was present there.

I do not know what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

Well, there we have it again! [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he has to stop frustrating the efforts to build up goodwill among the races in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe that the races in South Africa have already accepted the pluralistic principles of the NRP. I should like to prove it. When the Inkatha-delegation appeared before the Schlebusch Commission a member of that delegation, Mr. Dhlomo, in reply to a question asked by my hon. leader, said this—

This is the big question in South Africa today, will South Africa’s different peoples be divided into separate states, or remain part of a unified nation? I should like to quote from a speech on the new constitution, recently made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development at the University of Cape Town. He said—and it made the headlines—that South Africa might be the miracle of the world. He was referring to co-operation between the races. Dr. Koornhof said about the work of the Schlebusch Commission: “We are also in the process of inquiring into the adjustments which must be made to the constitution to accommodate all the peoples in this pluralistic set up.” I do not have the time to deal with this in depth, but one finds that President Mangope of Bophuthatswana has said that he is prepared to enter into a federation or a confederation in South Africa. This is the policy of the NRP. I should like to tell hon. members on that side of the House that it is about time they got in with the swing of things in South Africa and got rid of their old apartheid philosophies. [Interjections.] This growing awareness of the principles of pluralism is now starting to catch the imagination of all the peoples in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

I firmly believe that Dr. Koornhof is right, and that South Africa could become a miracle of the world when it comes to mutual respect between races and communities, resulting from self-respect. This would be derived from a constitution such as we propose, by which group identity and rights are protected, but by which groups are bound together for their mutual benefit, free of racism. In order to achieve this, however, the right attitude is required, one that is devoid of the racialism I have been speaking about, or of superiority as we so often see exhibited by the Government, and one which accepts that all groups in South Africa are interdependent. Therefore, I was most concerned by the report in The Daily News of 28 January 1980 under the headline: “Dr. No’s speech triggered clash.” I should like to read to the House what was reported there—

I should like to preface my remark by saying that this was said at a meeting of the Broederbond members of the National Party and Inkatha. My record in this House as to the role that these bodies can play in South Africa, is well known. As a pluralist, I understand the need for such organizations, and I am not someone who condemns out of hand either the Broederbond or Inkatha. I also welcome the fact that they are getting together for discussion. I quote—

In reply to his speech, the Inkatha leader pointed out that they rejected the policy of dividing the country, but at that stage they did not make an issue of it. The next day, however, the Inkatha delegation presented a statement of intent. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members may be afraid to hear this, but I am going to say it anyhow. They, i.e. the Inkatha delegation, produced a statement of intent in which they set out their stand on an undivided South Africa as a non-negotiable aspect of this policy. But the report goes further and states—

The next statement was the one which caused me much concern—

I want to ask who this National Party MP is. Does he come from Natal where we live with the Zulus? I want to ask him whether he knows what he is saying. The people who are living in Rhodesia, like my folks do, understand what is meant by settling issues through the barrel of a gun.

In response to this statement, Inkatha members mentioned that in future negotiations, they might also have to invite a leader of the Frontline States to take part in their talks. It was reported that the members of the NP were clearly shocked by the stand taken by Inkatha. I want to have it recorded that I am shocked as a Natal member of Parliament, that a National Party member of Parliament should say that they will settle the issue through the barrel of the gun. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to grasp the nettle. Unity in South Africa is of more importance today than unity within the National Party. The hon. the Prime Minister has an historic role to play, a role to unite South Africa in this critical and crucial time in our history. I believe he can do it, but he cannot do it as long as he allows this type of person to remain in his party. It is damaging his image, and as long as he is prepared to retain these people, I am afraid that my party and I can have no confidence in this Government and that is why we are supporting this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we have come almost to the end of the debate. I do not have a lengthy dispute with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—only one remark. In the past, before a no-confidence debate began, we were accustomed to reading in the public Press what the Leader of the Opposition concerned would say. Today, however, we have the interesting phenomenon that the midday newspaper tells us what the reply is going to be. This is the first time that this has happened, and I should just like to read what is stated in this newspaper. With reference to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it states—

The newspaper goes on—

The newspaper continues in this vein.

Tomorrow’s news today.

The hon. Leader has every right, of course, to discuss it with the newspaper, but for the sake of good order I should just like to say that it seems to me that he is now competing with the newspaper to see who says it first. However, I shall leave him at that because we now know what he is going to say when he rises to speak. The newspaper has told us.

I do not wish to react at this point to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but I see they have more of those little balls. Are those the same little balls which the other hon. member had? [Interjections.]

We have all got the same balls in case you are worried about that. [Interjections.]

That is interesting. I just hope that the hon. leader of that party will also have a turn to handle the balls. Next time we shall give him, too, the opportunity to handle the balls for us. It was an interesting debate because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his début as leader, and it was also very interesting because the hon. the Prime Minister, in a very wide-ranging speech, said many important things which had to be said. I think I speak on behalf of all of us when I tell him that we are all very grateful that he was so open with the House and that he was able to make so many pronouncements about a variety of matters.

It is tradition that the hon. Leader of the Opposition should introduce a motion of no confidence in this Government. The House, and therefore the country, is supposed to have no confidence in this Government. It is a somewhat ridiculous affair. Must it, then, have confidence in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party?

Certainly.

And if we are not trusted, who, then, is to be trusted? Undoubtedly there is one party that has been trusted over the years. Election results show that clearly. As far as confidence in a party and a Government is concerned, there can be many reasons for it as far as this Government is concerned. The country has every reason to trust this Government but I wish to state that trusting the Government is due in particular to one very important reason, one outstanding reason, and that is that South Africa can entrust the Government with its security in a dangerous time. It is very important that a Government should have the confidence of a country, because it is entrusted with its security. Indeed, in the world we are living in there are very few Governments of which it can be said: You are trusted as regards the security affairs of your fatherland. In my opinion that makes the governing party a unique party in these times. However, I do not wish to elaborate on that. Against the background of the security situation in South Africa, the Government has launched new initiatives in recent times, initiatives which have also been under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, with the specific aim of laying the foundation of our security. We are moving in a situation which makes it imperative that the country should be prepared at all costs and at all times for the future that awaits it. Against the background of the international situation, the situation in Southern Africa and the domestic situation, in my opinion the country is becoming prepared in this way. Wherever the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken in recent months, he has, as you will have remarked, Mr. Speaker, continued, in line with the activities of the Cabinet, to regard the stability of the country as an objective which South Africa must strive for at all costs. The hon. the Minister again emphasized the importance of stability when he spoke a few days ago. There are two predominant reasons why stability is necessary. In the first place, it is necessary in order to develop the total resources of the country. In the times we are living in it is essential that the total resources of the country should be developed. In the second place, its security must be ensured in all spheres.

As far as the total resources of the country are concerned, there is one statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with which I agree. I refer to his statement that when the big countries tackle a small country like the Republic of South Africa, in those circumstances the small country will have to rely solely on its own resources. There I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The question is whether South Africa is doing what is expected of it in these times to make it as secure as possible and to actually have at hand the resources which it has the inherent capacity to develop so as to give the country the feeling that it can rely on them in dangerous times. I am sorry that in the speeches we have had from the other side of the House, we have not had an indication that hon. members on that side also wish to discuss the matter with us in that same idiom. Although that has not yet occurred, I hope that it will in fact occur in the future, because it is necessary that we should all be in agreement with regard to the security of the country.

Since I am discussing the total resources of the country, I just wish to make one remark in passing—I shall say in a moment why I do so—with regard to South Africa’s resources, physical and mental, with which to make it prepared in the times we are living in. I believe there is no one in this House who would not concede that during this year in particular, but also in former years, the Government has really gone out of its way to lay the foundation for a substantial infrastructure on which it can build, for a sound economic situation, which can carry the State’s security account, for a military preparedness able to give the country the feeling that it is now in safe hands, of a state machine which can handle it, and of a situation in which the people of our country can co-operate in one great effort to keep the country secure. I think we shall all agree that this has been the primary task of the Government, and that in performing this task it has acquitted itself with distinction in recent times.

When we talk about “total resources”, what that means ultimately is the resources of the people living in that country. We have the numbers. We know how many Whites, Coloureds, Blacks, Yellow people and Indians there are who can participate in this great process. We know that at present there are 5,5 million people working in the industries of the country. We know that by the end of the century there will be far more. We know that by that time the continent of Africa will probably have between 80 million and 100 million hungry unemployed people. I do not know whether the West, or anyone else on earth, knows how to deal with such a situation. We know that we in South Africa will ourselves be faced with the situation that there will be millions more people who will have to be accommodated. An enormous task awaits South Africa as regards accommodating those people. That is true. The Government is taking that into account, and the hon. the Prime Minister also referred to the fact that we are creating machinery in regard to that point. In this regard I find it necessary to make a few good remarks before the end of this debate. The first remark relates to the issue which has come up over the past few days as to whether, when such development takes place and South Africa achieves a position in which so many more million people have to be accommodated in the economy, the White worker will be endangered under these circumstances? There are bodies and persons who have in recent times been spreading the story that the position of the White worker is in danger. I wish to say today that no White worker need be afraid that he will be threatened in his work situation. In fact, the Government has created the machinery with which to give that assurance. Apart from that, it will be pre-eminently the White worker, in the great South Africa of the future, the South Africa which will have to employ so many more people, who will have to remain employed, as the trained section of the workers’ corps in South Africa, and to assist in training others for the future. Secondly, I feel obliged also to say something about a further statement in recent times, namely that it would be wrong to import immigrants at the present time. If we had not imported immigrants in the decades gone by, South Africa would not have been capable of the economic development it has had thus far, because one aspect which people overlook when discussing this matter is the important fact that trained artisans themselves generate employment, but what is more, they do so from outside.

This means, in other words, that if one artisan is employed, he draws in other people, as it were, and creates services for others who have to fit into the economy below him. If, in the sophisticated world we are living in and in South Africa’s position of having to enter new fields, we do not import people to be the first workers in a field, people who can help with the training process, we shall not get off the ground. That is why it is imperative that we should do so. I therefore want to state that there need be no threat in this regard. Because the Government regards it as imperative that the total resources of the country be developed, it is essential to take the whole country with us in the great process of training and employment on the road ahead.

Consequently I now wish to announce on behalf of the Government that for this very reason we have decided to invite the private sector to take part in a programme which I want to call “Manpower 2000” to lay the foundations for the future. Having said that, there is another leg which relates to security. When we discuss the security situation, a question mark—I do not want to call it a cloud—hangs over this House. The fact is that South Africa and the Government are deeply aware of the situation developing around us. It is a dangerous situation in which the Marxist powers are gathering on the continent of Africa. It is true that an insecure position has been created in certain parts of the world, which affects us too. Nowadays countries have to reconsider their loyalties and the position of South Africa with regard to their relationships. South Africa has to give consideration every day to what it will do if certain options are open to it. It is a situation which affects directly the security of the country and it affects in particular the position of Marxism. Hon. members will recall that during the no-confidence debate in 1977 I asked the hon. member for Houghton whether she could tell this House what her attitude was with regard to the political freedom of Marxists. I put the question to her specifically. In the course of my argument with her, I asked her whether her party would permit the Nationalists political freedom if it were to come to power, and she answered in the affirmative, to which I replied “thank you”. I went on to ask her whether her party would allow Marxists, and she said that her party would allow them too. In the light of the situation prevailing in Southern Africa at present, it is of vital importance to this House to be clear on one aspect.

She is pretending not to hear.

She is pretending not to hear, but whether she hears or not, I still want to put the question to her so that the whole House can hear what I am asking her. Is her reply in 1980 still exactly the same as her reply to the question I put to her in 1977? That is all I want to know. I ask the hon. member for Houghton whether her answer is still the same. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, I was not listening. [Interjections.]

I ask the hon. member for Houghton whether her reply to my question of 1977 would still be exactly the same if I were to ask her today.

I do not know what the question was.

The hon. member was paying no attention to me. I tried to attract her attention when I was speaking to her, but I think she was being wilful. However, I shall have the courtesy to repeat the question. In the light of the insecure situation in Southern Africa and the situation in which this country and this House had to adopt a standpoint with regard to Marxists, I asked her if they would allow the Marxists a free hand if they were to come to power, and her reply was “yes”. All I am asking her now is whether her reply is the same in 1980 as it was in 1977.

As long as they are not preaching violence, they will be allowed …

The hon. member for Houghton is now telling this House that she would allow Marxists, as long as they said that they would not do harm. Do I understand the hon. member correctly?

But you permit it.

I put a question to the hon. member in this regard and this House heard her reply. All that I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is whether he agrees with her.

I shall reply to that. [Interjections.]

Obviously the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to say in this House he rejects it. I do not think that I need argue about that any further here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back at once to the point the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization has just made. Had he taken the trouble to read up on our policy, he would have seen it there, crystal clear. It states …

We cannot hear you.

If you will just be quiet you will hear better! It is written there very clearly that no party that is in favour of subversion and violence will be allowed to exist and to operate.

Why did you not say that you disagreed with her? [Interjections.]

That is precisely what the hon. member for Houghton said. I want to ask that hon. Minister why they changed the Suppression of Communism Act. I shall tell hon. members why they did so. They did so because they arrested people and wanted to convict them of communistic activities, but they could not do so. They discovered that the problem is not whether somebody is a communist or not, but whether he resorts to subversion and violence. We have adopted a standpoint on a principle here. Does the hon. Minister really think …

You opposed that Act.

We opposed that Act because of certain provisions which undermined the sovereignty of the law. What I want to make clear to the hon. the Minister is that he himself realizes that there are enormous problems in South Africa concerning the definition of what are subversive activities and what are not subversive activities. One of our objections to the Government’s attitude in this regard is that they decide in an arbitrary way. We object to that.

I want to return now to the content of the debate in general. We have had a long debate. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister advanced that argument and tried to set a trap, I want to say in passing that there is something on which I agree with him, something I find encouraging, and that is the hon. Minister’s announcement that a new programme, namely “Manpower 2000” will be set in motion in conjunction with the private sector. I welcome that. That is something I asked for when I dealt with the socio-economic aspect of my no-confidence motion. I can appreciate too why the hon. the Minister is so anxious to ensure that no White worker will be under any threat, because we know the delicate problems and difficulties which are encountered in this respect. In fact, I also made this point in my no-confidence motion.

Many hon. members took part in this debate and they responded directly to many of the points I raised. The hon. the Prime Minister also did so in his speech and I am grateful for it because it makes it possible to reply in a meaningful way to the statements that have been made. It is impossible for me in the time at my disposal to reply to the speech of every hon. member opposite who spoke on the no-confidence motion, but I shall try to give a thematic reply by referring to the speeches of a few hon. members to illustrate my reaction to their criticism. I shall do so before I come to the really substantive portion of my reply, and that, of course, is the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister himself.

The first speaker to whom I wish to reply is the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. As far as I am concerned—I think it is a pity—the hon. the Minister started in a rather unsavoury manner by giving a rather reckless misrepresentation of my reaction to the Silverton incident. He alleged—and I have his Hansard here—that I did not condemn the incident.

I did not say that.

I quote (Hansard, 4 February)—

As if I wrote the newspaper headlines! I quote further—

In the terms in which we heard it from other people, yes.

I am now going to show him that that is not true, Sir. The hon. the Minister stated further—

The Cape Times report stated—

Then the hon. the Minister said further—

But that is the position.

I say that that is a scandalous statement for any Minister to make, particularly when he has the facts at his disposal.

I think it is a scandalous statement that …

I am going to use the same report the hon. the Minister used. But I want to go further. The report the hon. the Minister used in this House was a general report which I had had circulated through Sapa. It was therefore sent to all the news media; in fact, it was read correctly on television that same evening. It was put very clearly there. If the hon. the Minister had really wanted to take the trouble, if The Cape Times had quoted it wrongly and he really wanted to find out what my motives were, he could have asked for the report from Sapa to see if the points and the allegations he wanted to make were really as he made them. When we go back to the actual report itself, what does it say? The heading reads: “Bank siege shows ‘need for change’.” At that moment I was not acting as a sub-editor for The Cape Times. I can assure the hon. the Minister of that. That is what they did themselves.

Are you doing so now?

No, not at all. I am trying to say that when one reads a report, one should read the whole of it. This is actually what I said—

I went on to say—

[Interjections.] Now the question that arises to my mind is this: What was behind the speech of the hon. the Minister? Why did he make that sort of statement? That was the first thing he did.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he is insinuating that that sort of thing is one of the methods that will bring about change?

It is really as clear as daylight to anybody that under revolutionary circumstances terrorism will be used by people who believe it is a means to bring about change. I have rejected that. That is what I said. If I did not reject it, what would I be doing in this House? I have rejected it in very clear terms. The hon. the Minister, had he taken the trouble, would have seen that there were at least four or five newspaper articles which did exactly the same, and it was not the English Press.

Yes.

Die Vaderland said the following—

Do you object to the words The Cape Times used?

No, but I object to the fact that the hon. the Minister said that that was my only reaction. Die Transvaler says precisely the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member regard the action at Silverton as an attempt to bring about change in South Africa, or is it action designed to take over the country by violent means?

As far as the revolutionary is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Police himself quoted here what Slovo said when he was asked if he was prepared to kill and why he would do it. His answer was: “In order to bring about change; in order to take over the country.” So there are people who think that way. But that is not the point. The point is that the hon. the Minister alleged that I approved of such conduct, and I reject that statement with contempt.

I can also quote from To the Point, and we all know who pays for To the Point. The following report appears there—

That is not what I said; that is To the Point. [Interjections.] I have made all these quotations because I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s motive in starting the no confidence debate in this way when I sat down. In fact, I think this theme has been apparent throughout the no-confidence debate—the consistent attempt to make insinuations about hon. members on this side. I shall come back later to the insinuation that has been made that we sit here as supporters of people who perpetrate this sort of deed. I reject that with contempt. But I shall deal with that again.

A second theme which was discussed in a lighter vein was the whole question of the book which I wrote together with my colleague, Prof. Welsh. Quite a number of hon. members reacted to this book. I am pleased that they had the chance to read a good book because it always does one good when one can read a good book. However, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs questioned the scientific basis of this book and asked if I regarded it as being scientifically based. I said that I had tried so to base it. To prove this, I asked him who the authority was to whom he had referred. He then said it was a Dr. Van Biljon. I took the trouble of getting that book to check the references. In Dr. Van Biljon’s work there are four references to MacMillan, the person he feels unhappy about, because MacMillan is supposed to have said that the land the Blacks have is only one-fifth of what they had originally. Of the four references by Van Biljon, one is substantive in the book itself and the other three are footnotes. In not one of those references does he reject what MacMillan said. This book was published in 1947, rather a long time ago. In Prof. Muller’s work, Die Oorsprong van die Groot Trek he says the following in regard to Van Biljon—

I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would provide me with this synthesis, by letter if he wishes, so that I can improve my book in this regard.

A second reference to my book was made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He asked repeatedly: “What sort of man is this who writes a book?”

A book like that.

I want to make an offer to the hon. the Minister. I will give him a free copy of my book if he will give me a free copy of his doctoral thesis. [Interjections.] There is just one condition: The hon. the Minister must not tear out the last four pages before he sends it to me!

Then you can publish it together!

The third hon. Minister who referred to my book was the hon. the Minister of Public Works, of Statistics and of Tourism. That hon. Minister did it in such a way that I could agree with every quotation, except the one he quoted incorrectly, and here I do not blame him because it was a difficult passage he was quoting! [Interjections.] But now I want to quote from a book which deals with the hon. the Minister himself, and then ask him whether he still agrees with this verdict. This was when he was editor of Die Noord-Transvaler. On 21 November 1975 he wrote the following—

Then he goes on to say—

Then the author of the book says—

Is that so?

Yes.

Who wrote that book? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister says “yes”. May I now ask him whether he is pleased that the British Lions are to tour South Africa?

Yes.

Is the hon. the Minister perhaps going to watch a test match when the British Lions play here?

I hope so.

Is the hon. the Minister aware that people can mix at Newlands when they watch a match? They can even mix on the playing field there.

And I have to bear with the Opposition in this country! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister should consider writing another book. [Interjections.]

Or perhaps he should found a new party. [Interjections.]

Order!

The lesson is that one should not write a book.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister says the lesson is that one should not write a book. I think he is talking to the hon. the Minister of Public Works. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I come now to another subject.

†One of the issues raised as a persistent theme throughout this debate was the question of expectations that had been raised. A number of hon. Ministers referred to this saying I had said expectations had been raised. It was almost as if they were blaming the Opposition for the fact that expectations had been raised.

Exaggerated expectations.

There were exaggerated expectations, there were illegitimate expectations, there were the right expectations and the wrong expectations. At least certain expectations were raised.

Nobody denies that.

Definitely not. In fact the hon. the Prime Minister himself said that expectations had been raised.

Surely we all know that.

That is correct. I want to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said.

*In Die Burger of 15 September 1979, the following report appeared—

†Then the whole issue became a question of: What trend of expectations? What kind of expectations? This is what I want to talk about. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is in the House. In one of the Black townships in Johannesburg this hon. Minister was reported as saying: “I declare war on the pass laws.”

I said I declare war on the pass books.

Or even the pass book, the “dompas”. The “dompas” only contains all those things laid down in the pass laws.

The hon. the Minister said then: “I declare war on the pass books.” The hon. the Minister is aware that the pass laws reflected in that “dompas” have affected the lives of millions of people in South Africa. He knows that it has been calculated that since 1948 approximately 12,5 million people have been prosecuted, in some or other form, as a result of these laws, at enormous costs, calculated by some to be R112 million a year. When one now goes there, to those people, and tell them: “I declare war on this passbook,” any sound-thinking Black person must say: “The way I understand it this is a legitimate expectation which the hon. the Minister is raising.” It is extraordinary that when the hon. the Minister declares war on the passbook the mayor of Pretoria declares war on him. That is the dilemma which faces us in South Africa, i.e. that we are not going to demolish it piecemeal, that we have to take a position. The mayor of Pretoria is angry because of the concession made by the hon. the Minister, for which I am very glad. Let us take a simple example of what a legitimate and what an illegitimate expectation is. I want to come back …

[Inaudible.]

No, I want to come back to the important issue of us Whites finding some way of understanding one another when we speak of discrimination, because we cannot go on bluffing people. I want to repeat again what the hon. the Minister said at Palm Springs, because this is really a beautiful speech. I agree with almost every word in it. He says—

And then he gives his declaration of faith—

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear? I am glad the hon. the Minister of Community Development says the same. This is an expectation which has been raised, an expectation of equality before the law, and we have to try to understand what this means. I come to the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, No. 49 of 1953, section 3(a) and (b). This particular provision makes it quite clear that amenities can be reserved for other groups irrespective of the fact that they do not have to be—

This law stipulates quite clearly, in the Statute Book, inequality before the law of race groups. Will the hon. the Minister not rest until this law has disappeared from our Statute Book? What does he say to that? How do we understand the expectations?

I said in Palm Springs that we had four targets and that I believed those targets could be achieved within the system operative in South Africa, and I still say that.

Excellent! I know the hon. the Minister says it is not in a unitary system. It need not be in a federal system either. It can be in any system, I do not really care which, but the point is that the law operates for all people and the hon. the Minister is saying that wherever that law operates he believes there should be equality before the law. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he foresees a situation in South Africa when this law will no longer be on our Statute Book. Why I ask this is that we have to find a way of communicating not only with Black people, but also with one another on what we are talking about when we talk about the removal of race discrimination. Otherwise we do raise false expectations, and it is better then for this Government to say honestly to South Africa and the rest of the world: “This is what we mean.” I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s definition later. I understand that better than what the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is saying, because what the Prime Minister says is what everyone in the Western World understands; I too. In fact, it sounds like a Prog declaration of faith. I understand what it means; it is familiar language to me; I can relate it to the Statute Book and I can say in terms of the logic of this language it means X, Y and Z. That is what I meant when I said this Government raised expectations, legitimate expectations. I am quite happy for hon. members on the other side to tell me: “No, that is an illegitimate one,” or whatever. Here I give them concrete, logical examples of what is meant by it, not in terms of what we have said, but in terms of what they have said. Now, what has happened? We now have a process of back-pedalling. Now we are putting on the brakes. I can just see them putting on the brakes of the wagon; they are applying the brakes now.

We are not.

You think you can claim all those beautiful things. We can claim the same things. We can do it within our system. [Interjections.]

If that hon. Minister claims he can do the same, why does he not answer this simple question?

I say it is a target. We can achieve those things and we try to do it … [Interjections.]

Is it a target? Mr. Speaker, this is very important: Is the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development saying that it is a target of the Government to get rid of the separate amenities legislation?

Within the framework of our system we are trying to eliminate hurtful discrimination, and we shall continue to do so. [Interjections.]

Is this an example of hurtful discrimination?

Under certain circumstances it might be.

It might be.

You do not have the holy right to claim that you only have that target, because we also have it. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not claiming it for us. This is a declaration of faith on our part. [Interjections.] No, it is a declaration of faith on our part. We believe in it, and if the hon. the Minister says he is working towards getting rid of this, I can promise him, from this side of the House, that we are right behind him. We shall assist him.

But do not be “holier than thou”.

No, I do not want to be. I would recommend that the hon. the Minister go and read Treurnicht aan die Woord and resolve the differences between them before we can find out what kind of language between us is sensible.

We stand united and we understand each other.

The hon. the Minister says: “We stand united,” and I can see why he uses two fingers. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that if we go around doing these verbal somersaults, participating in this gobbledygook in politics, we are creating a credibility gap. That is where the danger lies. More than that, however, we are making a laughing-stock of ourselves. I went to a dinner the other night with foreign businessmen, and we talked to them. They asked: “What do you think the hon. the Minister of X, Y or Z meant when he said this or that?” Then I had to say: “Well, quite frankly, I do not know, but let us go through a list of possibilities.”

Why did he ask you?

Because he had spoken to the Minister and still did not know. [Interjections.] So he came to me and asked me. So I had to say: “Well, if the Minister does not know, how must I know?” Then I must try to help him. So we make a laughing-stock of ourselves. Not only do we make a laughing-stock of ourselves and create a credibility gap; we also really frustrate those expectations that were legitimately raised by hon. members on that side of the House, and unless the Government uses the rest of the session to act on those expectations, I predict this session will start one of the biggest political hang-overs this country has ever seen.

You are going to get such a surprise.

I love surprises, but I do not like the kind of surprises the hon. the Minister of Community Development has dealt out to some people in certain group areas.

I now want to come to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech.

*The hon. the Prime Minister reacted to four basic points raised and I am grateful for it. The first one, the one I regard as the most unsavoury and to which I want to reply immediately and state clearly what our attitude is, refers to the whole question of the DNS and its activities. I asked the hon. the Prime Minister for certain assurances and the hon. the Prime Minister assured me that as far as the meetings of lawful political parties are concerned there is no monitoring etc. I am grateful for that assurance. The hon. the Prime Minister also extended certain invitations to me, invitations that I have noted and for which I am grateful. Then the hon. the Prime Minister also said, and I quote from his corrected Hansard (6 February)—

There are two qualifications. One is “at present”. The hon. the Prime Minister explained that should extraordinary circumstances arise, that may possibly become necessary at a later stage. We need not complain about that. Then there is “unfavourable attention”. Am I to deduce from that that there are in fact some who are receiving favourable attention?

That has been explained.

I know the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to explain what “favourable attention” might mean if I understood him correctly.

Mr. Speaker, may I give a personal explanation?

I shall allow the hon. the Prime Minister to give a brief personal explanation.

May I just draw the attention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the fact that I did in fact explain that. I said that as far as favourable attention was concerned information regarding statements of policy and speeches by every one of us was being collected. I cannot give the assurance that all of us are not receiving that attention.

I thank the hon. the Prime Minister. I accept that that is the position in respect of 90%. As far as the remaining 10% is concerned, the attention is not favourable. I accept that assurance and I am grateful for it.

Allow me to make my next point, Sir. The hon. the Prime Minister is a political leader. He is the leader of the governing party and as Prime Minister he is leader of the country as well. He knows better than I do what the prerequisites for leadership are. He knows that in order to lead he must be able to depend on the loyalty of his supporters and, if he enjoys that loyalty, that they are entitled to expect protection and loyalty from him. I too find myself in a position of having to lead. Although my position is not as important as that of the hon. the Prime Minister, the same conditions nevertheless apply.

But you have a terrible team.

I too have people on whose loyalty I want to depend. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North who is continually interjecting, had dynamite for brains, the quantity would not even be sufficient to blast his spectacles off his nose! Why doesn’t he rather remain quiet? I am trying to put a serious point to the hon. the Prime Minister. As political leader I cannot allow insinuations to be made concerning members of my party in this House, insinuations which reflect on their integrity as members of this House. Neither can I allow attempts to be made to drive a so-called wedge between myself and other members of my party. I shall illustrate that in a moment. I can assure the hon. the Minister that I depend on the loyalty of every member of my party and that they in turn can depend on my unqualified loyalty.

The same applies to me. Do not try, therefore, to drive a wedge between me and members of my party.

Mr. Speaker, I have never yet tried to do so by questioning the loyalty of any member of this House.

[Inaudible.]

I have in fact done so on the basis of their political attitudes, their political speeches and their political objectives, but I have never yet regarded the integrity of any member on that side of the House as being a threat to the safety of South Africa.

We are simply doing the same.

I want to quote from the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister to explain why I say that. Referring to the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following (Hansard, 6 February)—

The words “allow him” imply an element of voluntariness.

I made that a general statement.

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to motivate that remark. It is recorded here in Hansard: “You allow certain people to use your personal facilities.” The hon. the Prime Minister went further—and in this case he altered his Hansard—

I deny having altered my Hansard.

In that case I have misconstrued it, Mr. Speaker. I am not implying that the hon. the Prime Minister was being dishonest…

I did not alter a single word.

Order! Is that not the handwriting of a member of the Hansard staff?

I do not know, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order!

All I am saying is that the Hansard has been altered.

But you stated that I had altered my Hansard.

Sir, then I withdraw it.

I say that is a downright lie.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it … [Interjections.] … and I apologize. If the hon. the Prime Minister assures me that he did not alter his Hansard, then I apologize.

Who do you think you are that I should give you assurances?

The hon. the Prime Minister has just told me that he did not do so.

But you made a false statement and you should apologize.

If I made a false statement I apologize. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister said the following, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard—

I also want to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence and of National Security said. He said the following (Unrevised Hansard, 7 February)—

That is with reference to those strange publications—

We on this side of the House will no longer tolerate reflections being cast on us as members of Parliament by way of this pseudo-patriotic whining. We reject it with contempt. We are most certainly not interested in it. I want to state quite clearly that if hon. members on that side of the House continue along those lines to question our integrity in this House it will become exceedingly difficult to conduct debates properly in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

These are transparent tactics which hon. members opposite have been employing for the past few years. As soon as the Government is confronted with shortcomings in its own ill-conceived political policy, members opposite resort to this type of tactic so as to evade proper political debate. That is a sign of political bankruptcy which is evident whenever the Government is confronted with the realities of its own policy. That is why I support the proposal of the hon. member for Houghton for the appointment of a Select Committee. In that Select Committee simple questions will have to be answered. In asking for this it is not my intention that the activities of the Information Service should be laid bare before the eyes of the world. That is not the point. We want to know how we can be held responsible for people who write to us. How can the hon. member for Houghton be expected to be? Surely the hon. member cannot be held responsible for what people write to her. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence says it is unhappily true that politicians and other people who, according to him, are important, are unfortunately the targets of subversive elements; that is why such action is essential. In this connection I want to ask two questions. If that is the position, it is logical to imply that all correspondence should be intercepted in order to ascertain whether those people are intruding upon their unfortunate victims. The second question is why an exception has been made of the hon. member for Houghton. Then all of us …

Everybody knows her.

No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member for Pretoria East is not important enough. He is not so important as to attract the attention of subversive elements. [Interjections.] These are simple and direct questions to which we expect answers. These questions can be answered very calmly in a Select Committee without bringing in all kinds of unrelated matters. If the position is that the Department of National Security has found out that one unfortunate hon. member is receiving the attention of these peculiar people, why is the hon. member concerned not told about it? That can be done secretly. That hon. member can be told to be on the alert as to what is happening. Why is that not being done?

Have I not offered to have you kept informed annually?

I have thanked the hon. the Prime Minister for that, but it goes …

Three times a year.

With pleasure. However, that is not what it is all about. I am dealing here with what has happened in this case.

It includes that.

The point is that that does not answer the question as to why the hon. member for Houghton has been singled out. That is the question that has to be answered. Surely it must apply to everyone.

Who singled her out? [Interjections.]

The sooner we appoint such a parliamentary Select Committee the better, and I am aware of the fact that a motion to that effect has already been moved. That is all I have to say as far as the Department of National Security is concerned.

Now I come to the second point raised by the hon. the Prime Minister, namely, the whole question of the socio-economic aspect of my motion of no confidence. The hon. the Prime Minister made the point that I had apparently ignored the interests of the Whites; that I had disregarded the established section of the population; that in fact I did not care what happened to the Whites. I do think, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister and I have misunderstood one another completely in this regard because that analysis of the socio-economic position dealt only with population ratios, the position of the Whites, the expertise of the Whites, future demands and what the Whites would have to do in order to survive, viewed against the background of the demands that would be made. The whole question centred around that. If that is not in fact taking into consideration the position of the Whites, I do not know what it is.

[Inaudible.]

It is easy to bluff the electorate in the short term. What is much more difficult is to tell the electorate, as the hon. the Minister of Mines told the White mineworkers the other day, what the dilemma and the realities of the situation are that face South Africa It was in that same spirit—I do not want to praise him too much because he is becoming nervous—that I advanced those arguments and for that reason I cannot accept it when the hon. the Prime Minister says that I have shown no interest whatsoever in the position of the Whites.

The third leg of the motion deals with discrimination. The hon. the Prime Minister made some peculiar statements in regard to discrimination and the moving away from discrimination. It amounted to the fact that by discrimination we understand one thing and that they understand something else; that there is necessary discrimination and unnecessary and hurtful discrimination and so forth. The hon. the Prime Minister then told us what necessary discrimination was. I quote (Hansard, 6 February)—

Do you disagree with that?

No. That is obvious as far as I am concerned and that is why I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister illustrated it because what I really wanted to know was precisely what the hon. the Prime Minister had meant by it. I quote further—

He also referred to their churches. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that that is an extremely sensitive subject. He need only ask the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who also attended the Sacla Congress how very sensitive this question of worship is. He knows what a stir it caused the other day when a minister refused to conduct a burial service because persons of a different colour were present in the hall.

Of what concern is it to me and you if the minister refuses?

No …

I can also quote clergymen who encourage national servicemen not to do their duty to their country.

We could discuss that as well, but that is not what I am talking about at the moment. We are talking now about discrimination.

[Inaudible.]

We are talking now about the “necessary” discrimination to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred by way of illustration. The hon. the Prime Minister used this one as illustration. The question which then arises is this: If this is an example and illustration of necessary discrimination, does the hon. the Prime Minister approve of those other forms of worship? I ask this, because immediately afterwards the hon. the Prime Minister said that the reason why South Africa was not a so-called unjust society was that there was freedom of worship. I say that there is a contradiction here, and that contradiction has to be resolved.

There is yet another example which the hon. the Prime Minister used. [Interjections.] It concerns the Immorality Act. With regard to section 16 of the Immorality Act in particular, the hon. the Prime Minister advanced a number of arguments which I found particularly interesting. He said one reason why it was necessary was to protect non-White women from unscrupulous White men. I say that this is a slur on the name of non-White women. Is the hon. the Prime Minister implying that if this Act were to be abolished, there would be thousands of non-White women who would willingly be exploited by White men? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that these things are going on already and could not take place on a much larger scale.

I thought you were arguing on such a high level …

But I am reacting to what the hon. the Prime Minister said. [Interjections.]

You asked the questions.

I am reacting to what the hon. the Prime Minister said and I am reacting on the level on which he reacted to my questions. [Interjections.] I am mentioning the reasons. Another reason was that the hon. the Prime Minister said that there were 250 000 signatures asking for this law. I want to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: Would the hon. the Prime Minister be prepared, if I found 500 000 signatures inside South Africa, to consider changing this law?

My answer is this: The point I was making was that our country was divided on these matters and that we should discuss it in a calmer atmosphere than you are now trying to do.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Prime Minister that our country is divided on these matters, but our country is divided precisely as a result of this legislation. And that is what we should try to rectify. [Interjections.] If this is not so, why should the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that of all our laws, this is the one which creates the greatest problems for him abroad?

If it creates problems abroad …

No, not only abroad.

If it creates problems, are we to run away from it?

No, not at all, but we must try to change it.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question? If I were to state—which I would be reluctant to do—if I were to say that supporters of the Opposition are refusing to sell a house to a Black diplomat, and I should then try to ensure that this is nevertheless …

Ask a question.

I am coming to the question.

You are making a speech.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he cannot, just occasionally, act in a dignified way? If I were to state that the refusal to sell a house to a Black diplomat was harming us abroad the hon. the Leader would concede that in that sense one could speak of harm without being able to eliminate the phenomenon overnight? Does he agree that one has to persuade one’s people to go along with what one is doing, and that he must also persuade his supporters to do the same?

That is not a question; it is a statement, and I have no fault to find with the statement made by the hon. the Minister. All I can say is that this is one of the reasons why it is difficult. There is a law which prohibits it and now one has to obtain permits and try to arrange the situation in a covert way, so that people are not aware of it. [Interjections.] The basic point which is at issue in the whole question of discrimination is that here—as the hon. the Prime Minister said—discrimination is very closely bound up with the right to self-determination of the various groups. There is necessary discrimination for the right to self-determination. I want to concede, and I conceded it in my motion of no-confidence, that the hon. the Prime Minister has said that we want to move away from discrimination. We want to get away from it and we want to make constructive announcements …

Unnecessary discrimination.

Yes, unnecessary discrimination. We want to move away from that. It is going to take courage to do so. I see the hon. the Prime Minister has gone back and has taken a look at what some of his predecessors tried to say, that the National Party is not a stagnant party; it is a party of change. That is easy. I can also go back and say: There was a Prime Minister, for example, who said “No, never” at Loskopdam; there were others who justified White supremacy, and there were others who said that Basil D’Oliveira could not come here to play cricket …

At that time you were still a Nationalist.

That does not matter. That is one of the reasons why I no longer am. Therefore I can tell the hon. the Prime Minister that what we need under these circumstances is a Prime Minister who will say about discrimination what Dr. D. F. Malan said when there was a tremendous struggle in the political leadership of the Afrikaner. He said: “This is right and I am going to follow the right course, and having done that, if I perish, so be it.” That is what we need and we shall have to start talking about discrimination in those terms.

I referred to the rule of law, and the hon. the Prime Minister was kind enough to discuss this at some length, but unfortunately, there is not much time for discussing it again at this stage. He referred to Canada, Britain, Northern Ireland, and so on. I have gone into the matter, and their security legislation is not the same as ours. There are important differences. But I do not want to go into the matter at the moment, because there is a commission of inquiry which is investigating this matter at the moment. Perhaps we should first see what the findings of that commission will be and see whether there are going to be any changes. What I did find interesting in what the hon. the Prime Minister said was that there was a right-wing political movement in South Africa which had tried to contact communist countries such as China and Russia and asked for their assistance in overthrowing the South African Government. The hon. the Minister of Police then asked whether I rejoiced to hear that No, I do not rejoice, but what I do find strange is the fact that these people were not arrested and brought to trial. Why is this rightwing movement allowed to continue? Why can they continue to do as they like? Why are they not placed under house arrest? Why are they not immediately detained in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act?

That may be because we are allowing some people on the right, just as we allow some people on the left, to bum their fingers.

This is the best illustration of arbitrary law enforcement I have ever heard about.

I come now to the final matter which the hon. the Prime Minister discussed, i.e. our constitutional dispensation. Here I have a problem, and I mean it in all sincerity. The hon. the Prime Minister gave us a vision, a projection of what things were going to be like in South Africa in the constitutional sphere. He referred to a presidential council. He also spoke about a council of States in a confederal relationship and how the urban Black could be involved in this. These are all constitutional visions of the hon. the Prime Minister. At the same time, however, the hon. the Prime Minister knows that the Schlebusch Commission has a commission concerning the constitutional situation in South Africa.

No commission.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development is a member of that commission and he says that it has no commission.

It has no fixed commission; it has an open mandate.

Exactly. If that commission has an open mandate, why does the hon. the Prime Minister, as leader of the governing party, say that he does not want to hear anything about federation, or about X, Y or Z, and that he is talking only about the plan he thinks will work?

But we were talking about our parties’ policies. Would you accept my policy?

No, but I should very much like to hear why the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to defend that policy before that commission. We cannot deliberate about it in this House.

What am I defending here, then?

If that is what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing and that is his policy, what is then the task of the commission? I also ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior: What is the task of the commission? Then we have already decided, after all. This is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell the House whether his party is going to put its own policy to the commission or not?

Our policy is there, but I am saying now that if the Government is not prepared to explain and defend its policy before that commission, no other party is under any obligation to do so. That is a principle which applies here.

All I want to say in conclusion is that the hon. the Prime Minister has said that he stands or falls by the 12-point plan. I have studied that 12-point plan, and it contains elements with which my party agrees. In terms of those elements, we can strive for unity in South Africa. I know, and I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister on this, that we have a crying need for unity in South Africa. In so far as the official Opposition can help to establish and expand that unity, it will do so. However, the 12-point plan cannot be used as a cloak for apartheid and to co-opt us to make the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy work. If this happens, we shall oppose it. The hon. the Prime Minister must be clear about that.

Mr. Speaker, my summary of the no-confidence debate is as follows: We have moved from the creation of expectations to the creation of confusion. The Government is marking time at the crossroads of South Africa, if I am to judge by what I have been listening to in the no-confidence debate all week long.

†Mr. Speaker, what we need is a realignment in the White body politic. There must be a real political division, not an artificial division. There are hon. members opposite—and I know of them—who agree with what I say. The division is between those who believe that White and Black can share power in this country and those who do not believe it. The hon. member for East London North said it. He said quite clearly that there are those who believe in it and those who do not believe in it. That is the dividing line. If we are going to have a responsible debate in South Africa we need a realignment along those lines.

I state now that I am prepared to talk with any individual, any organization, any movement, any party who is prepared to unite in opposition on that basis, because this country desperately needs such an Opposition against a Government like the one we have here, a Government whose members sit here marking time at the crossroads of our future, a Government that, during the parliamentary recess, whipped up the aspirations of people and then come back to Parliament to try to settle the squabbles of their own caucuses in public. That is the greatest reason why we move a motion of no-confidence in the Government, and there is not the slightest possibility that we will support the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—26: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Noes—129: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.: Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe en P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr. J. W. E. Wiley put, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Messrs. D. H. Rossouw and J. W. E. Wiley) having supported the demand for a division, substitution of the words declared negatived.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—130: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe and P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Noes—28: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine. Substitution of the words agreed to.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That this House expresses its confidence in the Government’s handling of the security and stability of South Africa, the relations between its peoples and the planning of its future.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.