Mr. Chairman, in what I want to describe as a friendly request, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me to tell this House what we have to hear; not what we should like to hear, but what we have to hear. Now I should like to commence by telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that what we have to hear, is, inter alia, the following facts. There is an onslaught on the Free World, a world of which we are part. That onslaught manifests itself not only in the military field and in the field of diplomacy, but also in the form of international terrorism, which has created an oppressive state for this world. South Africa is not the only country that is struggling with this, other countries are struggling too, civilized countries, countries that have maintained stable forms of government throughout the ages, but are engaged today in a struggle for existence against international terrorism. This is the first truth we have to hear and which we have to take into account when we debate in this Chamber and also when attacks are made on the Government. Then we have to remember that we are contending with an onslaught not only on the Free World, but also on the Republic of South Africa, as part of that Free World.

The second thing we have to hear, is that there is an attempt, under Marxist leadership, to bring about revolution in Southern Africa, more specifically in the Republic of South Africa. This can no longer be denied. The revolutionary elements are there, and nothing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or I can do, can satisfy the hunger of those powers. They want nothing but the overthrow of the present order. They want nothing but the overthrow of the civilization in this country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this. He knows that what I am saying here is true.

The third fact we have to hear, is that there is an attempt, under the leadership of these powers, to subvert the high degree of stability, in the economic field as well, we have enjoyed up to now. The tragedy is, however, that there is interference from the West, and particularly from America, in our domestic affairs as a sovereign, independent country, interference similar to that in other countries in Africa, such as Zimbabwe and South West Africa, with the difference that in those countries they still had an excuse for interfering, or a so-called excuse. But what excuse can there be for countries of the West to interfere in the internal affairs of South Africa, which is a sovereign, independent country in its own right? As long as we, as a Parliament, do not present a united front to those attempts to interfere in our affairs, we shall have problems. This is another thing we have to hear and has to be said in this country. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should help me to say it. But then he should not add a “but”. Then he should not say “yes, but”. He should join me in saying that we reject all interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa.

Even more. There are attempts from various quarters, particularly from quarters to which I have already referred, to undermine the authority of this Parliament, to by-pass this Parliament in changing our set-up. I should like to come to an arrangement with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I want to hear from him whether we are able to come to an arrangement with each other. I want to know whether both of us say that our minds are open to renewal and the development of all the population communities of South Africa, but that each constitutional change which takes place in this country, can only take place with the final approval of this Parliament. This Parliament is the sovereign authority in this country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is very quick to defend his rights whenever he is of the opinion that the authority of the Opposition is being question, or that their right in this Parliament is being questioned. I want to hear from him, however, whether he agrees with me that this Parliament is a body which effects changes, and that this Parliament has the final say about those changes.

Yes, that is correct.

He said “yes”.

Very well. We shall fight every extra-parliamentary action with all the power the State possesses. That is the standpoint of the Government. This also applies to attempts being made in the country at the present time—to which I shall probably come back later on—to push the Government around extra-parliamentarily under the cloak of the uniforms of school children. I want to make it very clear today that those who are playing this game are going to get hurt. They are being warned this afternoon. They are going to get hurt, and they are going to get hurt very badly, and if there are casualties in this process, reproaches should not be levelled at me.

Did you hear that, Boraine?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a second point of criticism yesterday. He said that the Government showed planlessness and disunity, and he had a great deal to say about what he described as a lack of direction on the part of the Government, that the Government created the impression that it was on the point of collapse.

Hear, hear!

I hear a “hear, hear” coming from the back. I should like to ask the hon. the leader of the Opposition, if he is correct, how he explains the fact that the country has already been given an economic development plan and that a second report is on the way? How does he explain the co-operation with the private sector which was brought about in a way which has never existed before in South Africa’s history? How does he explain the latest successful budget, one of the finest budgets the country has ever seen?

Ask the teachers.

I am coming to that. Wielie-Walie must just keep quiet for a while.

The latest budget has not only brought tax relief and encouraged growth and development, but has also brought better salary benefits for the employees of the Government sector than any other budget in our history. How does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if there is planlessness on our part, explain the progress made with the rationalization of the Public Service, about which not only the Government feels happy, but on which we have also been congratulated by the private sector and on which the representatives of the private sector collaborated by giving advice? However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we do not plan, that we appeared to be so planless.

How does he explain, then, that with regard to constitutional changes the Government has taken the lead by appointing a parliamentary commission of all parties which is giving in-depth consideration to constitutional proposals for the future? Is that not planning? Is that not planning by the correct method and with the right kind of instruments? How does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he says we evince a lack of planning, explain the fact that we took the first steps last year, and have already made considerable progress, towards reconsidering the consolidation of the Black States, and that consultations are taking place in a meaningful way, not only with the academic world, but also with the commercial world, the industrial world, with agriculture and with all the other persons involved as well, and that we are waiting for the reports? How does he explain that when he says that we have not planned? I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke too hastily; he did not think clinical as he is expected to do.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a third point as well. He said that some of the members of the Erika Theron Commission had changed their standpoints in respect of their recommendation concerning the Cape as preferential area for the Coloureds. He said that because they have now changed, and because he thinks so, the Government should now say whether it will continue with the old policy. But not all the members of the commission have changed their standpoint on this point. It would be a very serious indictment if they now suddenly changed their stance on this one point. What right would they have then to say that we should consider the other recommendations that appear in their report?

I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question. Is it not a fact that his real reason for raising this matter was that the National Manpower Commission had referred to it? What did the National Manpower Commission actually say? It is mentioned in their annual report that the commission will consider the matter in the course of 1980. Why? It gave its reasons, and the reasons are not based on the recommendation of the Erika Theron Commission. The National Manpower Commission said that the Riekert Commission had specifically refrained from expressing an opinion on the Coloured preferential policy for the Western Cape. It is quite understandable, however, that the question should now arise whether, if the mechanism recommended by the Riekert Commission works well in practice, the same objects could not be achieved by the methods prescribed by them. Surely that is not a change of policy or of standpoint. Surely it is merely a change of instruments. Surely the Manpower Commission is not saying that it is going to throw the Western Cape open. It has never adopted a standpoint on that matter. The Government says that what is involved is not merely economical interests. It involves social conditions which are being created and which will cause new problems for South Africa. That is my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on that point.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised another point. He quoted two professors, inter alia, Prof. Du Toit of Bloemfontein, on the 12-point plan. I shall discuss the 12-point plan in greater detail later, but what I wish to say now, is that I do not know whether it is the standpoint of Prof. Du Toit which the hon. the Leader quoted. I do not think so. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should make quite certain first whether that is indeed Prof. Du Toit’s standpoint. My information is that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the 12-point plan.

Why then did he say what he said?

Why not ask him. Let him speak for himself. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so fond of quoting other people, I, too, am going to quote someone today. We have previously quoted to each other what other people had said. I am now going to quote someone again, because it is important as far as the future is concerned. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants this Government ousted in order to have his own party installed here. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is important that the country should know what and who the alternative is. I am now going to quote someone to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has expressed an opinion on the Opposition as it sits there at the moment. The person involved is present here, a prominent member of this House. He said the following—

Then the report goes further. It says that this person was bitter—

A bunch of schemers.

Order!

… Mr. Schwarz’s replacement by Mr. Waddell as federal executive chairman, Mr. Alex Boraine’s election as deputy federal executive chairman in place of Mr. Derek de Villiers.

Who is this witness?

Yes, whoever can it be?

Order!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted witnesses. Therefore I, too, am going to quote witnesses. There his witness is—he only has to look round: The hon. member for Yeoville. What did he say? He said the official Opposition was ruled by a clique. Secondly he said that that clique did not stand for sensible consensus politics. He said there was scheming going on in the official Opposition. Now I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Does he repudiate the hon. member for Yeoville? If he does not repudiate him, must I accept that what he said is true? And if it is true, does it mean that if the country exchanges that party for this party, it will know that it is to be governed by a clique, by a bunch of schemers, by people who do not stand for sensible politics, in the words of the hon. member for Yeoville? [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes us an explanation. He must not come with all sorts of appearing statements now, but must reply to these things and tell us where he stands as far as the accusations of the hon. member for Yeoville are concerned.

The second issue I wish to discuss briefly—I have to do this for the sake of the record and for the sake of clarity—is the changing role of the Office of the Prime Minister and the operation of the new Cabinet system. I am doing this particularly because the hon. member for Sea Point yesterday referred to the heavy burden that I was ostensibly carrying. I thank him for his sympathy. I must say that it seems to me the older we two are getting, the more sympathy he develops for me, and I have a little for him, too, especially after the way the clique-treated him. I think that after I have given this explanation, the hon. member will see that, contrary to the assertion by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we do not plan, we are doing exactly that in order to establish a better organized system of administration for the country. With that we are not casting a reflection on previous Governments. The fact remains, however, that since 1910 South Africa has not given much consideration to its system of administration. Perhaps this was because previous Governments were overburdened with other problems, so that matters of this nature could only receive attention at a later stage. With the rationalization of the Public Service important changes were made to the role of the Office of the Prime Minister, and since last year the operation of the Cabinet system has also been changed drastically.

I deem it advisable to indicate a few essential features of these changes. Changes to the Cabinet system were calculated to coincide with the establishment, for the Cabinet, of a central mechanism within the Public Service to provide the entire system with collective decision-making. Previously we did not have it in this form. I am referring here to the new task of the Office of the Prime Minister which can be summarized as being, in the first place, to help the Prime Minister to effect coherent determinations of policy and to provide support services in the process of that determination of policy. I think this is sound planning, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition follows what I am saying. The central planning role which the new office of the Prime Minister is now playing in the rationalized State structure and which it will have to play to an increasing extent, should be seen against the background of the growing need, over the years, for the planning of operations to be undertaken in the total sphere of Government activities and in an integrated way. It stands to reason that development planning at the present juncture must be properly co-ordinated with the security planning which is necessary to ensure and to promote the security of South Africa and all its people. There must also be co-ordination. For this reason the entire planning function of the Office of the Prime Minister in the sphere of security and the co-ordination of security, and in the constitutional, physical, economic and social spheres, has been brought together in one departmental organization. To prevent what is a nonexecutive and primarily a planning institution, such as the Office of the Prime Minister, from coming into conflict with operational departments in the performance of its task, the guideline has been adopted that the Office of the Prime Minister does not venture into the sphere of activities of executive departments. It is purely co-ordinating and advisory. The policy objectives of the Government are formulated as clearly as possible and processed into plans for the various specialized fields, but their implementation rests with the departments and ministries concerned.

As far as the Cabinet system itself is concerned, my point of departure was that the systematized use of committees, on which I do not now wish to go into detail here, was the best method of ensuring a proper consideration of policy, co-ordination of action and timeous decision-making in a way which was reconcilable with ministerial and Cabinet responsibility. These Cabinet Committees are not only given recommendational capacities, but decision-making powers as well. In earlier years, since 1910, matters developed in such a way that a host of Cabinet committees came into existence— for every problem a Cabinet Committee was simply appointed—and also as a result of that, too many inter-departmental committees came into existence, which brought about an unwieldy organization. The number of Cabinet Committees has now been reduced to a few, and each has decision-making powers in respect of certain matters. It is not the case, as is being alleged in hostile Press organs, that there is now only a certain clique of Ministers which dominates the entire Cabinet. There are various Cabinet Committees in each of the spheres which I mentioned. They have decisionmaking powers, and they come back to the Cabinet when it is deemed necessary. Their minutes are regularly submitted to the Cabinet. The composition and the functioning of Cabinet Committees and the administratively supporting services rendered by the Cabinet Secretariat, which is also a new institution, is aimed at one important goal, viz. the efficient functioning of the Cabinet system in which a collective executive authority determines the policy and work programmes of the Government and in which the members accept joint responsibility for the results. The positive results which this dispensation entails are numerous. Not only do Ministers have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, they also have the opportunity of getting to know more about what their colleagues are doing and they are also better informed than before on all aspects of Government activities. Naturally this must be the case. In the past there was a tendency to act as individuals.

I think hon. members will agree with me if I state today that in terms of the new system, which I have outlined here in general, all the requirements for this necessity are now being met for the first time within our Cabinet system. With that, I think, I have produced sufficient proof that we are not drifting about helplessly from the one wave to the next, but that an effort is in fact being made, from the top to make co-ordination and planning a reality, in the Government as well.

Then there is the rationalization of the Public Service. Questions were put to me in this regard during the discussion of the Part Appropriation already, for example whether it would bring about a saving. I think the hon. member for Yeoville also asked this question. In the first place the purpose of rationalization is not to effect a saving, but to bring about efficiency in the utilization of the available manpower. There are thousands of vacancies in the Public Service, and we thought that we could succeed by means of rationalization in bringing about a more effective administration with the available manpower. If this leads to a financial saving, it is a by-product. The primary object is efficiency and co-ordination.

Economic planning is an integral part of the Office of the Prime Minister. I need not elaborate on that. The results are produced from time to time in reports, and there is continued enthusiasm on the part of the Economic Advisory Council in regard to the functions which they perform under the leadership of the Economic Advisor. Part two of the Economic Development Programme, in which the implications of the development strategy for the various sectors of the economy are set out, has already been completed and is at present being prepared for publication. In other words, progress is being made in that sphere as well and it is taking place in the closest co-operation with executive departments. It is not as though we are negating them. In addition good progress has also been made with the formulation of a policy for the pursuit, inter alia, of important long-term objectives, for example the pursuit of a socially acceptable division of income, not in a revolutionary way, but by way of development and planning, and the motion of a socially acceptable spatial distribution of economic activities, together with the provision of adequate collective goods and services, the safeguarding of the economy against outside pressure and the promotion of economic co-operation and development in Southern Africa. All these activities are being co-ordinated as far as possible by ensuring co-operation and providing the Government with the necessary advice.

Then there is the task of physical planning. It is, after all, the declared policy of the Government to afford the private sector greater leeway in the economy so that we can strengthen the free market system further. However, South Africa has never yet stated that it simply accepts an unlimited free-market system, without there being spheres in which the State also operates. Here I am thinking, for example, of certain strategic industries which are necessary for the security of the State. It is an indisputable fact that there are certain services in the sphere of the security of the State which cannot and will not be provided by the private sector. There the State steps forward to provide those services through the mediation of State undertakings, but if one looks at the end result, one finds that the private sector benefits tremendously, even from these undertakings which the State launches under its guidance in this field. In my talks with the leaders in the private sector in November last year I also defined our national goal, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to this, as the promotion of a regional order within which material welfare is maximized and in which it is possible to ensure the quality of life of everyone. To be able to achieve this goal it is essential that the spatial development operations of all Government bodies and agencies should be co-ordinated on a national level. This will be an additional task of the Office of the Prime Minister. Attention is also being given to the task of scientific planning under the guidance of a scientific advisory council and a scientific adviser that have been attached to this Office. It is interesting to note in passing that research activities have increased rapidly since 1945. Involved in research projects are 15 000 man-years of scientific and supporting personnel. The Government indeed places a high value on research in South Africa.

I come now to security planning. We cannot in this Office of the Prime Minister take over the tasks of the Defence Force, the Police or the National Intelligence Service, but we can discharge a co-ordinating function in conjunction, inter alia, with the Secretariat of the Security Council, which is a full-time secretariat and which has already rendered invaluable service in respect of security planning and co-ordination. Consequently our management system with all these cardinal tasks, has already made considerable progress on four fronts.

There are two left which will also be subdivisions of the Office of the Prime Minister, viz. those of social and constitutional planning. We are not yet able to give them our full attention, but we hope to appoint the staff for these subdivisions soon, and then steps will be taken in this sphere as well to ensure greater co-ordination and co-operation in the State context, and where necessary with private organizations.

I think that I have with this given the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a picture of what progress we have made by means of thorough planning. When the rationalization of the Public Service has been completed, which I hope will happen during the present year—it would seem to me that better progress is being made than even the Public Service Commission expected, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister concerned and the Public Service Commission on this—I shall give attention to the matters which the hon. member for Sea Point raised. In the composition of my Cabinet, however, he must leave my job to me. I do not wish to quarrel with him about this, but I promise him I shall not work myself to death. Even if I did, that would in any case be better than boring myself to death. That is my philosophy.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to this House with another matter as well. He saddled the discrimination horse again. Consequently I wish to spend some time discussing this matter again today. There are a few words, which, in the world in which we are living, are the most overexploited words imaginable. One of these is the word “change”. One need only say “I want to change something” and everything is hunky-dory. One need only stand up and shout “change”, as hon. members probably saw the crowds in Teheran doing on television, and everything is as it should be. Another word which is being overexploited is the word “discrimination”. Because South Africa has always had the candour and open-heartedness to say that we draw a distinction between population groups, South Africa is being singled out, but in the same South Africa there are people who apply discrimination, for example in the party on the opposite side of the House there are people who apply discrimination towards other people within that party, but we never hear a word about that.

I now wish to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what I understand discrimination to mean. As I understand it, discrimination is a process by means of which one draws a distinction in treatment. In other words, hurtful discrimination takes place when one draws a distinction in the treatment of people. I think it is wrong if one were to apply this without taking the background into consideration. But surely we know the history of South Africa. The position of having remained behind, a position in which a large part of the Black population, a large part of the Coloured population and a part of the Indian population in South Africa find themselves, is surely not attributable to the 30 years of NP Government rule, but is attributable to the history of this country over generations. Surely this is not only the case in South Africa; surely it is the case throughout Africa and also in other countries of the world. Surely it is a fact that the White man, the Westerner’s has in numerous spheres progressed further than other people. But I do not consider it to be discrimination against Westerners that the Japanese people have risen to where they are. It is a historic fact that some people have remained behind in their development while other people have not. We must take this into account in South Africa. But there is a new fashion now—and I find it very deplorable—of saying that the Government is to blame for everything which is wrong in South Africa. Surely that is absolute nonsense, and I shall prove in a moment how nonsensical it is.

I want to repeat that it is discrimination when one acts in such a way that one person is wronged in comparison with another. I believe that that is hurtful discrimination. However, when one speaks of differentiation—and this is what I said in the 12-point plan—one draws a distinction, and if one looks them up in some dictionaries, one finds the words “multiple development”. In other words, it is possible to differentiate and yet still accord equal treatment. I wrote those words into the 12-point plan, because I believe that under the system which the Government, this party and my people, advocates, we do not begrudge any of God’s creatures in South Africa the right to development. We say they are welcome to attain the highest rung of development. But why should this happen at the expense of our survival and our self-determination?

Let us examine this document which I have with me for a while. I have quoted from this document in previous debates, and I do not therefore wish to bore this House. Let us know look at examples where the Government has eliminated discrimination of the nature to which I have just been referring. Over the years we have created— and I played a part in this when I was Minister of Coloured Relations and Minister of Community Development—numerous opportunities by means of which the Public Service was expanded to such an extent that other population groups could make progress in it. The fact remains—let us now be honest with one another—that no opportunities existed for Coloureds, Indians and Black people in Government departments before this Government came into power. Surely that is the case.

Today we are being attacked by this bunch of foolish Hertzogites in the country. They say we have given the Brown and the Black people too many privileges. The fact of the matter is, however, that under this régime it became possible for Coloured persons to become inspectors of schools. Under this régime it became possible for Coloured persons to occupy highly graded Government posts in the Public Service. Surely these are facts which speak to us today as witness to the truth. Consequently we have never refused to grant people their rights in the service of the State. Under this régime Coloured and Black people in South African uniforms were placed on an equal footing with White people in the Security Services of South Africa, in the Defence Force as well as the S.A. Police. Under this régime the conditions of service were improved to such an extent, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday, that we have already reached the stage at which, in certain cadres, equal pay for equal work has been introduced. Surely we are moving in that direction with properly planned strides.

In the public services we have made provision for the elimination of discriminatory measures. We eliminated certain practices which were introduced during the colonial period in South Africa. As far as labour relations are concerned, there is new hope for those people as well, as a result of the reports of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions, without jeopardising our own people and without wronging the Whites. Today we are being attacked because of this, but we brave these attacks because we believe this is the path of justice.

We have effected amendments to the Group Areas Act. I submit that if it had not been for the Group Areas Act it would never have been possible to experience one of its positive effects, which is that a strong middle-class has developed among the Coloureds of South Africa. Why do hon. members not join us in saying this. Why must they always occupy themselves only with negativism and with the emphasize of what is ugly in South Africa’s administration?

Under this régime we made it possible for people who would like to participate in cultural functions to be able to do so under given circumstances. I, among others, took the lead in this, and I do not regret having done so today. The Nico Malan would not have been open if I had not personally taken the lead.

It should not be closed.

That is true.

Who closed it?

Order!

No one closed it; it was originally built exclusively for the White man.

Why? [Interjections.]

Order!

We facilitated access to public buildings. We made participation in decision-making on a lower level possible, inter alia, by giving other population groups representation on the Economic Advisory Council, the Wage Board, the Group Areas Board, the hospital boards and the National Housing Commission. These people have a say there, because they have representation there. Is that not progress? Is it not a demonstration of the goodwill of the Government to make it possible for people to be able to deliberate with us and to help with the formulation of day-to-day policy.

Not as good as the common roll franchise.

Order!

I have enumerated these few examples because I …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Are interjections not allowed?

Order! Last year on 15 March, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling that he would exercise stricter control over the making of interjections when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. the Prime Minister was addressing the House. I am now applying that procedure. In any event, it is for the presiding officer to decide how many interjections he wishes to allow. I applied this procedure when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was participating in the debate, and I am doing so now as well, while the hon. the Prime Minister is speaking. I would be pleased if hon. members would abide by this ruling.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask whether you interpret the Speaker’s ruling as meaning that no interjections are to be made at all?

As few interjections as possible. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party. If they are right, if they are right in all their condemnations of the NP, if they are right in sowing all that bitterness against South Africa from those benches, if they are right about how hopeless the conditions in South Africa ostensibly are, if they are right in their judgments, which are gratuitously echoed by irresponsible elements outside this House, people who do not know what they are occupying themselves with, how do they then explain the growing, pulsing hope of our country in the economic sphere, its position in the world and the confidence which it is to an ever increasing extent enjoying in the Western financial World. How do they explain it that in the rest of Africa, and in many parts of the world, there is economic stagnation, and even deterioration, while in South Africa there is a pulsing economy, which is not only ensuring the people of South Africa of an every growing number of employment opportunities, but which also enjoys the confidence of investors abroad and which causes them in increasing numbers to tell us every day that South Africa is one of the countries of the future. How do they explain that, if we are ostensibly so bad? Surely there must be an explanation for it.

I come now to the hon. member for Pinelands. One of the leaders in his party, perhaps the leader.

I wish that was true.

That hon. member said: “The Prime Minister must stop the collision. He is the man who is able to stop it.” I thank him for that wonderful testimonial. To me, however, it always depends on where such things come from. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then the hon. member spoke about “unemployment”, about “housing” and also about income figures. Then he went on to quote from a report of the National Manpower Commission on the mining industry, the manufacturing industry, the Government and services in order to indicate what a disgraceful difference there was in income …

A dangerous difference.

Dangerous difference. Please note that the hon. member is always talking about “danger”, about “collision” and that kind of thing. The hon. member has a certain formula in terms of which he expresses himself.

The Ayatollah. [Interjections.]

What the hon. member omitted to say, however, was that the commission subsequently issued statements and, inter alia, pointed out that the average earnings of Blacks in the mining industry in 1970 was 5,1% of that of the Whites, while in 1979 it was already 15,6%.

But in real terms there is a big difference.

Wait a minute. First give me a chance. In the manufacturing industry it was, correspondingly, 17,3% in 1970 and 23,4% in 1979, and in the Government and services, 15,9% as against 26%. In other words, it is progress, we are making headway.

But not in real terms.

The commission also qualified the figures by saying (paragraph 6.3)—

The figures which the hon. member tried to interpret—

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but that the hon. member does not quote. He only quotes what suits him. [Interjections.]

How am I going to do it in ten minutes?

He only quotes what suits him, and many things do not suit him.

We do not have two hours to speak, as you do.

Order! I ask hon. members to allow the hon. the Prime Minister to finish his speech.

I want to tell the hon. member that I shall speak as long as I choose to speak on my Vote. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands must please contain himself.

Mr. Chairman, I was merely agreeing with the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Let us now consider another group of facts. Earlier in the year I said that there was a spirit of negativism which was being applied for specific purposes, and that we would pluck the fruits of it outside Parliament. The negativists are not only being egged on by certain members on the opposite side, but this spirit is also being fomented by certain media in South Africa. I shall come to that later. Today I want to say that we should recognize one another’s rights in this country and not begrudge one another these rights. The rights of the nation of which I am a member and which wishes to continue to remain live in this country must also be recognized, and not begrudge it. We shall fight to the last for our right of self-determination. Let there be no doubt about that. Hon. members must have no doubt about that. If there should be an onslaught on the people who helped to bring this country’s security and stability to where it is today, then I tell hon. members that people are making a mistake if they think that they can do again what they have done elsewhere in Africa.

As long as the Afrikaner is able to survive in this country—and I want to speak very candidly this afternoon; I am doing so in a spirit of goodwill towards the other population communities—other minority groups in this country will have a refuge. As long as the Afrikaner in this country is granted the right to exercise his own right of self-determination, a minority group, for example English-speaking South Africa, will have a refuge. And so, too, will a Greek-speaking minority group, a Jewish minority group and Portugese and Italian minority groups in this country have a refuge. But break this nation, which is being persecuted with so much hatred, and the other minority groups in the country will not have a future in South Africa. I think it is necessary for us to say this to one another, for Africa testifies to how White people had to flee. We may not endanger this bulwark, this stability. Hon. members can say whatever they like but I say that I am acting on behalf of those people today, they who have a right to exist in this fatherland, who have stolen nothing from anyone, and who intend to continue to exercise their rights in South Africa.

The virtue of the NP …

Why do you not refer to the Whites as an entity?

I included all of them. That is in fact my point.

Speak of the Whites as an entity.

Order! Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister why he only speaks about the right of survival of the Afrikaner and while he, as Prime Minister of this country, does not speak on behalf of all the Whites of this country? [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me repeat what I said for the sake of the hon. member. I can understand that pressure is being exerted on him from both sides. He is being pressurized by a clique on his side, as well as by us. He is having a difficult time of it. [Interjections.] I said I was speaking on behalf of all the White minority groups in this country, but the security and the survival of the Afrikaner, I said, is of the utmost importance for the survival of the other minorities. That is what I said.

Does Harry agree?

Order!

If it is assailed, the other minority groups will not be safe in this country either. That is why we belong together.

Mr. Chairman may I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister?

No, I am not going to reply to any further questions. [Interjections.]

Order!

The virtue of the NP is that it recognizes the ethnic rights of other people. The virtue of this party, I say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is that we are to be trusted with the ethnic rights of other communities in this country: Their cultural rights, their political rights and their spiritual possessions. There is no Government which gives a greater guarantee in respect of the cultural heritage and the immortal rights of other groups in South Africa than this very Government. Its virtue is, moreover, that it wishes to realize the idea of freedom in its full consequences. Surely there was no Government which made it easier for the Black peoples in this country to give expression to their idea of freedom than this very Government. The people who became constitutionally free in South Africa, under the guidance of this Government, did not need to fight their way through to that freedom. They did not need to wage war as in Rhodesia, Angola or anywhere else for that matter. They obtained their freedom and independence in a constitutional way, the way which the Government helped to created. That is why it is a lie to say that this Government stands in the way of freedom. We say only that we do not stand for a unitary society, for in a unitary society, an open society in South Africa, the people whom we represent and who sent us here, will not have a chance to exercise their right to self-determination. The same applies to the other White groups in South Africa.

I want to go further. By maintaining stability, as this Government has done and is still doing, and strengthening the economy, as we have succeeded in doing and are still succeeding in doing, the standard of living of all the people of South Africa has been raised. Let me mention a few examples. Let us look again at the increase in earnings. In 1960 the average increase in earnings of the Whites was 3,1%. In 1975 it was 12,8% and in 1979, 10,6%. Let us now consider the other population groups. In 1960 the increase in the earnings of the Coloureds was 3,4%. In 1975 it was 15,4%, in 1979, 9,2%. For the Blacks the figures were, respectively, 3,8%, 26,4% and in 1979, 14%. For the Indians the increase was more or less the same. Surely this proves that the stability and the economic prosperity which follows from the other stability to which I have referred, is helping to raise the standard of living of other people in this country. Now there emanates from Opposition circles, in their unrelenting process of disparagement, the statement that this Government is a Government of oppression and of neglect of the rights of other people.

Let us now consider the crux of family life, viz. housing, in so far as the State is concerned with this need. I do not wish to tire this House with all the figures, but in the years between 1920 to 1948, i.e. in 28 years, the State spent R106 million on 87 000 dwelling units. From 1948 to 1979, i.e. over 31 years, the State spent R2 122 million on 737 000 dwelling units for the various population groups.

Let us consider the position over the past five years. I am quoting this here because I am proud of this ministry and of this department. I have a personal pride in them because I worked with them for a long time. From 1974 to 1979, i.e. over five years, we spent R271 million on 22 000 dwelling units in respect of White housing; in respect of Coloured housing, we spent R560 million on 777 000 dwelling units; in respect of housing for Asiatics, R146 million on 16 000 dwelling units; and in respect of housing for Blacks, R106 million on 43 000 dwelling units. This gives a total, in five years, of R1 085 million on 159 000 dwelling units. Then the Opposition says that the Government is responsible for the grievances which exist. Where in the world is there a Government comparable with that of South Africa which has done more to provide people with a roof over their heads than this Government has in fact done? However, we hear nothing being said about this.

We must also view our problems against the background of Africa. Let me dwell on that for a moment. Fifty per cent of the world’s refugees live in Africa, and a large percentage of those refugees north of our borders do not flee deeper into Africa, but if they are close enough to our borders, they come to this country or go to South West Africa. South Africa, therefore, with all the bad testimonials which the Opposition gives it, has always remained a safe haven for refugees.

Let us now consider another matter. Of the total world population, 401 million people find themselves in Africa, and only 10% of the States of Africa have a literacy which, expressed as a percentage of the population, exceeds 30%. In the Republic of South Africa, however, it is 89%. What a difference! And then this country continues to be so criminally humiliated by its enemies and is sometimes not defended by those who have representation in its own Parliament.

I come now to our Black areas, because some hon. members on that side of the House referred to them as well. Certain questions were put to me. I wish to refer to them this afternoon, in the shortest possible time. I did not go to the Black areas and to Soweto to create expectations; I went there because I felt, as a Minister, that I must know what things looked like there. That is why I went. In the second place, I did not go there because I thought that I would return and afterwards say “abracadabra!” and everything would have been rectified, but I wanted to know what conditions were like there when people discuss the problems of those Black national States with me. In the past I viewed parts of our country from a different angle, because I bore responsibilities there.

Let us now consider the gross domestic product, as an indication of a country’s production capacity. In 1960, at factor costs, Black States produced only R134,6 million, 2,7% of the total, while the Republic of South Africa produced R4 953 million. In 1975 the production capacity of the Black national States rose to R798 million, 3,1% of the total. That is still not enough. I concede that, to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well. But the fact of the matter is that owing to the favourable physical and climatological situation of the Black national States, it is estimated that 23% of the agricultural potential of South Africa is situated in those States, and it is also calculated that the potential of the Black national States, if it can be properly utilized, can provide enough food for 25 million people; in other words, if we co-operate, if we make a co-ordinated and planned effort and we receive the assistance of the Governments of those States, there must be an improvement, for at the moment only three million of the population of almost 10 million can be fed from the production there. This is one of the deficiencies; this is one of the problems. We must, through persuasion, through planning and the creation of instruments and not in a spirit of paternalism but in a spirit of co-operation, get those Black leaders and Governments to persuade their population to take cognizance of these facts.

The hon. member for Durban North, in a speech made here yesterday, asked me how I wanted to solve these problems in a constellation of States with two economies. I think that is a good question. What the hon. member said was that on the one hand we have a stabilized free economy in the Republic of South Africa, a Western economy, and on the other hand a form of communal land tenure, a form of socialism in the Black States. That is true. I admit it. The idea of the constellation of States, however, is based on voluntary co-operation. That is why I went to the Carlton Hotel last year and asked the private sector, on behalf of the Government, to give us their assistance, because the State, if it wishes to survive as a State with a free economy, cannot take on all the development tasks. Then it has to persuade the private sector to bear a large part of that responsibility.

This presupposes voluntary co-operation, not only between the various States, but also between the State and the private sector, and the private sectors of these various States as well. It also presupposes the co-operation of the various population groups. If one cannot achieve this, it is a lost cause in any case. How do we want to achieve this in practice? We want to achieve it in the first place through the Black national States—and this I conveyed to the Black leaders in personal talks after the Carlton conference—encouraging the private sector to development and giving them guarantees against nationalization. The private sector will not venture into independent States or independent-States-in-embryo on a large scale if there is no assurance against nationalization. Does the hon. member agree with me?

Secondly, the Government must give serious attention to the effort to create a multilateral development bank for Southern Africa, and we are working on this. Such a development bank must give representation on its board of governors to the various co-operating States so that they can have a share in it. Moreover, it must be placed under the very sound management of a proper board of directors. Once one has established this and has brought about rationalization in the development corporations, one can, as it is necessary, serve both kinds of economies by making the necessary adaptations in order to promote the particular needs of each one. That is my reply to the hon. member. The Government cannot do it on its own with its State administration. We have already launched studies to make such a development bank possible. We shall discuss it further, and I wish to state here at once that I think that the preference which South Africa should give is that to its own independent States and not to those far from its borders. We must begin to concentrate our priorities on our own independent States, in other words they must receive the most attention from us. What should the objects of such a development bank be? I wish to mention only a few items. I am not an expert in this field. For example there is the granting of development aid, the mobilization of financial and technical assistance, the recruiting of private investment, channelization of financial resources in lesser developed countries and the provision of loans, and, when necessary, soft loans as well. We have already made a great deal of progress with the preparatory work. A special division of experts has been established in the Department of Foreign Affairs. We mentioned this at the Carlton conference, and we have been doing follow-up work. The assistance of operational departments and others has been called in, and each of the proposals made at the Carlton conference is being considered and we are seeing what can be done to launch such an institution. We are not merely paying lip-service to this idea. A report has just been sent to me in which the progress made was set out.

What should our approach be? Our approach should in my opinion be not to be disparaging but to encourage these things and to say collectively, as Opposition and Government, that it is in the interests of all the people in South Africa. As I said yesterday evening when I began speaking, there is no alternative. This is all there is. We must go further and be prepared, at the given moment, to consider the establishment of a secretariat, to promote the co-operation between these States. It must be a permanent secretariat. That is what I envisage for the future.

We have already made progress in many respects. We already have a customs union and the Rand Monetary Area. In addition we have already held talks with various governments, outside the Republic as well, on health services, the combating of stock diseases, the making available of technology, and on tourism and water conservation. There is activity in virtually each of these fields. In spite of all the uproar at world meetings and in spite of all the vituperation hurled at South Africa, hardly a week passes without our receiving some delegation or other here that wishes to discuss these matters with us. We shall not let them down. We do not wish to create the impression that they cannot trust us. We shall continue to promote co-operation, because we think it is in the interests of all of us, not only in the interests of Black South Africa, but also in the interests of White South Africa.

I do not wish to speak for much longer this afternoon. There will be a further opportunity to discuss other matters. However, I have a deep-felt desire to refer briefly to two other matters. One is specifically the 12-point plan. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked what the 12-point plan was, whether it was a new thing or whether it was simply a re-affirmation of party-policy. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expect from me? Surely he does not expect that I, as the chief leader of the NP, should jettison the principles of the party. He will not do so as far as his party is concerned. Even if he is the representative of a clique, he will not do it. [Interjections.] The fact remains that the NP is founded on certain basic principles. Only the congresses of the four provinces can do that when they collectively agree to do so. I made it clear to the congresses that I consider myself to be bound by the decisions of the congresses, and to the principles of the party, as long as I am their leader, but in respect of the daily implementation of policy I cannot subject myself to the congresses. I shall do so when they are in session, but otherwise I must consult representatives, the Cabinet and other bodies from the private sector, and then I must pursue a policy as it becomes necessary from day to day.

The 12-point plan is therefore in the first place a framework within which strategies in the various spheres can be developed and expanded. In the second place it is a reaffirmation of the basic principles of the NP. This is friendly nationalism, and if the Opposition wishes to debate this matter with me, they are at liberty to do so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that some aspects of the plan were obscure. I have already dealt with one of them, with the question of differentiation. I do not believe in a unitary State or in a unitary society. I do not think it will work. Nor do I think it can work, unless the population is homogeneous. That is why there must be differentiation. The 12-point plan provides that we must recognize and accept our multinationalism. Is there any person here in this House which does not do so? Is there any person in this House who closes his eyes to it and says that it does not exist? Let me give an example of what I mean. About 700 or 800 km from here, there are two independent States, Lesotho and the Transkei. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now, even in his wildest dreams, think that he can unite those two States? Let us be practical. I am not reproaching them. The fact of the matter is simply that we must take into account the multinationalism within Southern Africa, not because people are inferior, but because people are different. Surely it is not a disgrace to be different. Surely it is not a disgrace to be a Coloured, a Zulu or a Sotho in South Africa, just as it is not a disgrace to be an Afrikaner, a Jew or an English-speaking person. In other words, we must accept multi-nationalism and build on it for the future.

I have already discussed vertical differentiation and therefore I am not going to discuss it again. In this 12-point plan—I am not going to deal with all the points this afternoon—I am asking for the establishment of constitutional structures for the Black peoples to make the greatest measure of self-government possible for them and to consolidate the States as far as is practicable. What is wrong with that? Either the Opposition wants this, or does not want it, one or the other. What does the clique say?

I come now to the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we wish to organize the Coloureds and the Indians in opposition to the Black people. Where does he get that from? After all, the Indians do not have a national homeland in South Africa, except in group areas where they are able to obtain proprietary rights and in certain agricultural areas which were primarily given to them under the régime of this Government. Similarly the Coloureds have never had a national homeland in the sense in which the Zulus and the Xhosas have one. Some of them lived in rural areas, but for the rest they were town and city dwellers where they obtained proprietary rights in terms of the policy of this Government. The fact of the matter is that if one places the national States on the road to independence, one has to devise another plan with the Coloureds and Indians. I am not in favour of a homeland for the Coloureds, and my party knows this. I think it is nonsense, and that it is simply not possible. For that reason I state at congresses and elsewhere—and this is the policy of the Government too—that we are not heading for a homeland for Coloureds. Accept this now.

At the same time, however, I am also not in favour of a common voters’ roll, and I shall tell hon. members why. I am not in favour of it because we have already had a foretaste in this country of a common voters’ roll and also of the old system of Rhodes under which the Coloureds had a qualified franchise. Of what benefit was it ever to the Coloureds? At the time of the common voters’ roll I was active in politics. What good did it do them? They remained the slum-dwellers; their education was disgracefully neglected; their health services were deplorable and they made no progress in any of the spheres which afford people human dignity, but at every general election or by-election they were wickedly exploited— and it is not only I who say this; there are also people in Opposition circles who can testify to this. All they need do is read a book by B. K. Long. He was not a Nationalist, but he said—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this. Surely he knows about those abuses. That is why the NP says that we do not wish to rob the Coloureds and the South African Indians of their political rights, but that we think we are able to seek a solution in another dispensation, a dispensation suited to a multi-national society. We want to allow them to participate in freedom. We want to allow them to participate in human dignity. We want to elevate them to a higher level of civilization, as we have been progressing with them during the past 30 years. That is why there are proposals before the Schlebusch Commission, and we are waiting eagerly for the findings of the commission. What more must the Government do than to say that it has an open door?

Before I conclude, I think it is necessary for me to make one thing very clear. I am concerned about the misuse of Coloured schoolchildren for certain purposes. In South Africa there are people who are gambling with the interests and the safety of these schoolchildren. No State with any self-respect—and this State does have self-respect—can allow agitators to misuse the uniforms of schoolchildren to defy State authority. We shall deal with this matter calmly and sensibly.

On 1 April this year the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and of Community Development took over this department from the CRC. If the ruling party of the CRC had done its work over the past few years, it is quite probable that a great deal of progress would have been made with many of the things which could have been eliminated for the Coloured children. However, they played politics to such an extent that even they are being rejected today.

Inherently the Coloured population is in fact a peaceful population group. I wish to make an appeal to the schoolchildren and their parents for the children to return to the schools which the State is maintaining for them. They must go back to school and prepare themselves to occupy their place in the manpower life of South Africa. They must return to enjoy the benefits which a civilized society guarantees them.

We know who those persons are who are gambling with the schoolchildren, and some of them have already been locked up. To those who are still at large, I say that we know who they are too. They are playing with fire; they are going to get hurt, but the schoolchildren are going to pay the price for the absolute lack of patriotism of these people. I hope that the parents of the schoolchildren will see to it that their children return to the schools to prepare themselves for later life.

I conclude by saying just this: If the State is challenged and it retaliates, it will do so with all its might. There must be no doubt about that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister covered a very wide field in the course of his speech and gave us a great deal of new information, for which we are grateful. I shall be able to react to all the points immediately. However, there are a few important questions asked by the hon. the Prime Minister to which I want to react. Before I come to that …

Do you repudiate Harry?

I shall react to that as well.

One thing is quite clear from what the hon. the Prime Minister said and that is that the 12-point plan is merely the same thing as the principles of separate development. Now we are at least clear on that matter. The 12-point plan is separate development. In the second place it is, according to the hon. the Prime Minister, the only answer; there is no alternative to it. There is a difference in principle between that side of the House and this concerning that matter, but I shall come back to that in greater detail later.

The first point to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred, is the question of the onslaught on the Free World and on South Africa. We have never questioned the fact that there is a Marxist onslaught. Nor have we ever questioned the fact that Southern Africa and Africa have become involved in the struggle between the great powers. Nor have we ever had any problem with the principle of non-intervention in our internal affairs, just as we have always said that we, too, believe that we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other States. However, the hon. the Prime Minister also asked a question about the sovereignty of this Parliament. However, that is old news. It is stated in our policy. I shall quote it to the hon. the Prime Minister. Unfortunately I have only an English copy with me. It reads—

And then the important sentence—

Later on we say—

In other words there is no difference between my approach and that of the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to the sovereignty of this Parliament and the role this Parliament has to play in the constitutional development. However, the important point is that we believe that this Parliament should be used for the very aim of involving other groups, other population groups, in the process of constitutional development; and not excluding them. We believe that they must participate in a process of consultation, whereas on the other hand the Government believes that it in itself must decide what the constitutional plan for South Africa is.

Surely you know that is not true.

No, wait a minute. That is why the difference between us amounts to the fact that the Government increasingly excludes by definition other groups, other extra-parliamentary persons and bodies from the whole process of constitutional development, whereas we believe that they should be involved in this process of constitutional development. However, there is no difference between me and the hon. the Prime Minister on the sovereignty of this Parliament in this respect.

Furthermore, the hon. the Prime Minister said a great deal about the fact that there is no lack of planning. He held out several examples of this to us, inter alia, the present successful budget, the co-operation of the businessmen—the conference of 22 November 1979—the private sector’s role in this regard, the rationalization of the Public Service, etc. I want to concede those points to the hon. the Prime Minister, but what was really at issue in my argument? It concerned the fact that this hon. Prime Minister, more than any other hon. Prime Minister of the NP, had created the impression that we were on the threshold of new and major changes concerning discrimination. He did do so. He created the impression that old, established standpoints within the NP would be revised. I refer, for example, to the 1936 legislation, about which the hon. the Prime Minister said that this was no longer a sacred cow, and that it could be involved in a process of re-evaluation in the structure of the whole programme of consolidation. These are new things that have been done by the hon. the Prime Minister.

If this is the case, we wanted to know what possible new developments could take place. My questions which I addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister concerned three things. These were the preference policy with regard to the Western Cape, the present Government’s position in respect of the Coloureds and their constitutional position, as well as the whole question of the removal of discrimination. I was very specific, because the hon. the Prime Minister, and no one else, asked the question with regard to section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. These were questions asked by the hon. the Prime Minister. He did not say he was going to abolish those measures. However, he did say he wanted to improve them.

Consequently those expectations were created, and it is against that background that vagueness and confusion arose, which, I believe, was cleared up to a large extent today by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that we had misunderstood him, that there were to be no changes in these fields.

There is one new possibility mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister. This is the preference policy with regard to the Western Cape. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. the Prime Minister. Consequently I should like to have his reaction to this. Is there a possibility that the recommendations of the Riekert Report are also to be applied to the Western Cape. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister has another opportunity to speak tomorrow. He can come back to this. This means that the preference policy as it is implemented at present, may be changed and implemented uniformly throughout the country. This is an important question. Another aspect raised by the hon. the Prime Minister concerns the hon. member for Yeoville, and as far as this is concerned, the tactics of the hon. the Prime Minister were transparent. According to him the hon. member for Yeoville said that I was ostensibly the victim of a clique, that there was an intrigue and there was division. Let me say at once that the hon. member for Yeoville used those words, and the day after that— and he can say this himself too—I spoke to him and told him that I want to clear up the matter with him. What I told him then, I came to say two days later to the Cape Press Club, viz. that no clique in my party prescribes to me, that no one tells me what to do and what to decide, that I accepted the position of leadership and have the confidence of my colleagues, and if I do not have it, they must tell me. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville is free to say whether he accepts this or not, but I know, on the basis of my relationship with him, that I enjoy his bona fide support. This is all I am prepared to say to the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, there are constant interjections.

Order!

If we are to continue with this type of game, then surely I, too, can ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question. It is a simple question. The hon. the Prime Minister can answer it for me in his next speech, if he does not mind. The question is: Does the hon. the Prime Minister agree with the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, of Statistics and of Tourism on the Craven Week? [Interjections.] I just want to know “yes” or “no”, whether he thinks … [Interjections.]

Order!

… this is the correct standpoint which the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Von Brandis must not make so many interjections.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Von Brandis is the victim of his own limitations.

I put the question directly to the hon. the Prime Minister and ask him whether he will reply to the question when he rises again. This simply involves a quid pro quo, internal division in our respective parties.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister came forward with the whole question of discrimination, and defined it as a distinction drawn in the treatment of people, and said that he thought this was a bad thing, that this was wrong. What I really asked, was which laws the hon. the Prime Minister regarded as discriminating, for that way lies fruitful debate.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister said rather passionately and with conviction that the Afrikaner would fight to the last for his right to self-determination. This part of the House has never denied the right of any group—cultural, ethnic or national—to self-determination. What we do say, is that if any group regards it as part of its right to self-determination that it should be able to discriminate against other groups or dominate them, the right to self-determination is a source of conflict and struggle in this country. Consequently the question we must answer is this: Does the Afrikaner, or any other group—Jewish, Greek, English, Mohammedan, Xhosa or Zulu—need discriminatory measures to maintain its identity? Is it part of the self-preservation of a group that it should discriminate against other groups? If this is the case, it is inevitable that in the process of self-determination in a plural society such as South Africa, there is inevitably going to be conflict and struggle. This is the central question: Can the Afrikaner, or any other group in South Africa, survive without having to dominate other groups or discriminate against them? What we must do, is to examine the Statute Book. Which laws are there in the Statute Book which discriminate unfairly in favour of any particular group at the expense of another group? This is what discrimination involves. There are such laws, and I have already quoted them to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Against this background the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that tremendous socio-economic development has taken place in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity of proceeding with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Chief Whip opposite for this opportunity.

Against this background the hon. the Prime Minister went on to explain what spectacular socio-economic development has taken place. We do not deny that. Economic development has taken place, but there is one lesson we must learn, and that is when an oppressed group experiences socioeconomic development against the background of discriminatory practices, it becomes an impetus, a source, of greater dissatisfaction. The best illustration we have of this is Iran. We have seen what happened there. There the Shah tried to maintain a political system with the aid of the Defence Force, and simultaneously bring about modernization and socio-economic development. We know what the consequences of that were. That is why the central point which is relevant here, is not the fact that socio-economic development has taken place, because we concede this. The central point is how we deal with the political consequences of that process of socioeconomic development.

†The differences between this side of the House, the official Opposition, and the Government are fairly well known. The PFP believes in a national convention as the process of constitutional development by means of negotiation between the effective political leaders of all significant political groups committed to peaceful change. That is the fundamental point of departure in the policies that we have. We believe that one cannot unilaterally construct policy. We believe that one has to involve the real, effective political groupings in our society to negotiate a new constitution. The convention we stand for does not usurp the sovereignty of Parliament. It stands in an advisory relationship to Parliament, but it is vitally important for Parliament to take note of the feelings of other political groups and organizations in our society in the process of constitutional development.

As opposed to that, the Government believes that it must dictate the pace of constitutional change through a process of consultation. The Government must decide. This came out so beautifully in the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. Throughout his speech the hon. the Prime Minister made one thing quite clear, and that is that the Government, this Nationalist Government, has decided what the plan is and has decided what the goals are that we have to work towards. Now it is the task of the Government to try to consult with other groups and explain to them how they fit into the plan. That is basically the whole approach of the Government. It is not a question of bargaining or negotiating. It is a question of having unilaterally determined what the plan is and trying to persuade other people, by various means, to become part of that plan.

*I just want to interrupt my argument to say something else in this regard. This is a fundamental problem which the Government will be facing to an increasing extent. One of the illustrations of this, at the present moment, is the very dilemma and the problems the Government is having with the Coloured population. There we have an illustration of what happens if one persists in putting forward unilateral constitutional proposals and telling people what they should do. The hon. the Minister of Police knows that I went to discuss the present unrest, the present boycott of schools with him. I appealed to him that this matter should not become a matter only between the police and the scholars. I said that this was a matter for the Government and that the Government would have to come forward with new plans. Once again the plans can only be formulated if the Government involves those people in the new dispensation which is being referred to.

†So that is the first difference between us. We believe in negotiation whilst the Government believes in consultation. The second difference is that the PFP believes that a federal structure of government is best suited to South Africa where there will be self-governing States with the greatest degree of autonomy possible. That is so.

*This is not a unitary society in the sense of a unitary State. This is a State in which all the people participate in the processes of political decision-making. The hon. the Prime Minister says he does not believe in unitary societies. Are the Coloureds and Asians part of a unitary society? They are definitely part of a unitary society, but on separate voters’ rolls, which is a form of pure political discrimination.

†The Nationalist Government therefore believes in independent nation States which they unilaterally construct for other people and then they expect them to become members of South Africa.

That is not true.

It is absolutely true. They have done so. If the hon. the Minister says it is not true, why does he not hold a genuine referendum amongst all the people to find out to what extent they accept the policy of separate development. I can continue in this vein to explain the differences.

The ideal of the PFP is to work towards a South Africa in which there is power sharing, with no discrimination and no domination. The NP does not believe in power sharing, but has declared that it would like to move away from discrimination and domination. So at least in principle the NP and the PFP appear to agree that discrimination and domination are bad. If this is so, I am sure we can work out an interim strategy which both parties or all parties can actively support in trying to move away from discrimination and domination.

Let me take the question of discrimination as an example. Why does the Government not, as an interim measure, give local authorities the power to remove, suspend or repeal any race laws or discriminatory measures as they see fit? In this way the Government can get the active assistance of all sections of the community to move away from discrimination without appearing to force anything or anyone. As far as Cape Town is concerned, for example, this would quite obviously lead to a radically different kind of District Six to the one the Government has in mind, but so what? It does not affect the rest of the country—only the people of Cape Town.

Take the question of domination. Instead of unilaterally imposing a consolidation programme on Natal and KwaZulu, allow them to hold their own mini convention to decide on the structure of government for Natal. All sides claim they do not want domination. Allow them to find a formula which can achieve this. If they are successful, all of us can benefit from it. If not, we can learn from their mistakes and improve on their attempts. In this way the Government’s own position is not threatened and at the same time it still can monitor the process of change. In the meantime, in the rest of the country the Government can formulate a declaration of intent committing itself to full economic opportunities for every individual on the basis of merit, to the non-discriminatory provision of educational facilities for all people and to the right of every person to legal representation and to be charged and tried before arrest and detention.

Why I mention these possibilities is because they would genuinely be new initiatives without sacrificing the ideal position adopted by each side.

*If we do this, there is a possibility that we shall be able to move. At the moment, however, we have a Government which is to an increasing extent excluding by definition all other groups and all other political organizations from the process of change at the social, economic and political levels. This is what they are doing. They say: “You may participate on our conditions; we determine what the alternative is.” The hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly said today: “Ours is the only alternative. Apart from our alternative there is no other alternative. Accept this or die.” The hon. the Prime Minister said that the 12-point plan once again puts the NP’s policy in a new idiom. If this is true, does the hon. the Prime Minister expect that we as Opposition party are irrelevant? The same also applies to the political movements outside. In that case all of them are irrelevant. The Coloured Labour Party is irrelevant. If they do not want to play ball, away with the CRC. Any political organization that does not want to accept the 12-point plan on the NP’s conditions, is then irrelevant. If they do not want to play ball, the NP nominates people who will play ball with the Government. In that case there will be no representative bodies to negotiate with. In this way the Government will increasingly define itself into a corner until eventually it will have no one to talk to. Once that moment has arrived, the possibility of a peaceful constitutional development will be gone for ever. What I am advocating, is that this is what we should try to prevent. We must not use Parliament as a sovereign institution to close or to prevent, but to open up, to invite other groups to bargain with us and to consult about a new constitutional dispensation. This is what I and the other hon. members who are not on the side of the Government are trying to do in the constitutional commission as well. We say: Use this institution to open up, to involve other groups, not on the basis of conditions unilaterally decided on by the NP, but in terms of the way in which they can participate in the bargaining process.

But who introduced the commission?

Order!

I know the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is feeling unhappy at the moment. But how does he feel about the plan? Does he agree with the hon. the Minister of Tourism that the Craven week is a bad thing?

You spoke absolute nonsense …

I am asking the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the Minister of Tourism.

I do not agree with you.

I know the hon. the Minister does not agree with me, but does he agree with his own party?

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor.

Sir, I did not start the dialogue.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must proceed.

The point I am therefore trying to make—and that is why I put certain questions to the hon. the Prime Minister—is that we must continue to debate. I must say that the hon. the Prime Minister at least replied to all the questions and stated his standpoint. From that it became clear what type of debate we could conduct here: We must decide whether the 12-point plan is a basis for bargaining or not and then conduct a debate on that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to react at once to two aspects raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Before doing so, however, I want to record the thanks of this House for the survey given by the hon. the Prime Minister of the various allegations made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Basically, there are three elements contained in these. Firstly, there is supposed to be confusion in our ranks; secondly, we are supposed to lack direction; and thirdly, we are supposed to suffer from inertia. I do not intend to add anything to what the hon. the Prime Minister said, but I want to ask, in the first place, what the basis was of the allegations made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this particular connection. The basis of these lies in the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, his spiritual associates, as well as the Press organs which support him and dictate to him what he should actually say, create expectations out of what the hon. the Prime Minister allegedly said, which in actual fact bears no relation to what he did say, nor to what he meant. One thing that I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and those who echo his words in this particular connection, is that the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister and the remarks of hon. members on this side of the House must be seen and debated against the background of the NP’s policy. A second thing I want to tell him in this connection is that they must not only interpret them in this way, but that he and the other members of his party must also stop distorting the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister by projecting them through the colour slide of his own liberalistic ideas.

There is a second thing I want to say, and here I want to talk to the real Leader of the Opposition, the one sitting diagonally behind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says his accusations of a lack of direction and of inertia, after receiving the reply as to what is being done in the field of planning and in various other fields, are based on the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister allegedly said that he would look at the 1936 Act. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a Rip van Winkel? Does he not know that the Commission for Co-operation and Development is giving attention to this particular problem and that it is waiting for the reports that are to come from the various sub-committees that have been appointed? This hon. leader poses as a scientist. What truth is there in the accusation that the hon. the Prime Minister has not honoured his undertaking?

In the second place, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. the Prime Minister had not spelt out a plan to us regarding the position of the Brown people and the Indians of the country. However, the hon. member himself and some of his colleagues are serving on a commission with unqualified terms of reference from this Parliament. He and his colleagues are participating in it. What truth is there in the allegations by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the hon. the Prime Minister has not kept his word in this particular connection?

I did not say so.

But you did. If the hon. leader says that the hon. member for Von Brandis is limited by his own limitations, I want to say that he himself has no possibilities.

He is limited by his own limitations today.

The hon. Leader says he is not dictated to by anyone. The hon. member knows, and I know and he knows that I know, that he is not a free man. He is not a free man on the Schlebusch Commission. He also knows that I did not come to the commission with orders from a caucus.

Mr. Chairman, you will permit me to say that the rules of this House often do not allow hon. members to use the language which is suited to the occasion or to the sentiment they want to express. I have said before, and I want to repeat it, that in the mother of all Parliaments, the official Opposition is described as “Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition”. All I can say is that over the years the concept of loyalty, as regards its content and scope, has faded.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask your ruling as to whether, in the first place, the hon. the Minister is not reflecting on the loyalty of the Opposition, and secondly, if he is, whether that is parliamentary?

The hon. member is wasting my time, for it is limited.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? I should like to remind you that the hon. the Minister said that the concept of a loyal Opposition had failed in this country? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I said that the concept of loyalty had faded over the years. If the hon. member feels guilty about that, I cannot help it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister prefaced his remarks by saying that the rules of the House did not allow him to express himself fully on this.

When did I say that? It is a lie.

Order! I shall first deal with the first point of order …

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a second point of order. The hon. the Minister said that I have told a lie. That is the first thing that has to be dealt with. I ask you to deal with it, Sir. The hon. the Minister used the words “That is a lie”. I call upon the Chair to rule that he must withdraw it, or else … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to deal with the hon. member’s first point of order first.

Mr. Chairman, will you deal with both of them?

Yes.

The first one is that the hon. the Minister said that he could not use the language he wanted to by reason of the rules of the House, and then proceeded to say that the concept of loyalty had faded. He clearly referred to the official Opposition, and I say that that is a reflection on the official Opposition and that the hon. the Minister should withdraw it. He knows that that is what he intended.

Order! The hon. the Minister did not say that the official Opposition was disloyal. With regard to the second point of order, the hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “That is a lie”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, but it remains untrue that I said it. I want to go on. Even if it irritates the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to tell him that I nevertheless try, within the limits of the rules, to reply to the speeches that have been made here up to now.

It is a smear tactic, and you know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. Nevertheless, it was a disreputable tactic.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

It would require an effort on our part to behave as that hon. member is behaving towards us. The first remark I should like to make is that probably one of the most dangerous speeches was made in this debate, as well as one of the most unfortunate speeches I have heard in a long time, and I contend that it was made by the real Leader of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should know that the powers that wish to destroy the existing order and dispensation in our country, which he says he supports, must have listened with great amusement and satisfaction to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. They must have been grateful for the fact that their extra-parliamentary role is being supplemented by speeches inside Parliament. The hon. member for Pinelands used many important slogans. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to complete his speech.

Let us consider the terminology which the hon. member used, for it is important. He said: “The name of the game is power.” Let me say immediately that the name of the game is indeed power, but I want to suggest that when this game is over, there will be very little power to be shared and that the power will be concentrated in the hands of one man, or a few. The hon. member uses terminology and slogans which—I am not afraid to say this— are not new, but which are dangerous. In fact, the type of remark he made and the terminology he used have preceded revolution in many other places. I want to urge that we should understand the gravity of the circumstances. Furthermore, I want to make the statement that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to come to an agreement with the other population groups of the country in respect of their participation in the political decision-making of the country if White politics is practised in the way it was practised in this House yesterday, and the way it is practised outside this House.

I listened with great sympathy to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I mean this quite seriously, because I understood his dilemma. The cloak of reasonableness has been designed for him so that some hon. members of his party may hide behind it to conceal their true political role.

What do you mean by that?

I mean by that that it forms part of an extra-parliamentary action.

In what kind of form, lawful or unlawful?

You should know.

Order!

I want to give the hon. member for Groote Schuur some good advice. He should put this question to his colleague and not to me.

Are you suggesting unlawful action?

It is paradoxical that the complaint about the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy formulation is that it is vague and ambiguous. By the way, it would appear to me that it is a sin these days to explain one’s policy. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he does not make any political speeches and whether he does not go to church. Does he not make political speeches because he wants to explain his policy? And does he not go to church to obtain clarity? Surely that is his responsibility, as it is the responsibility of any other party. I notice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quotes his professors and colleagues. It has been said that “much learning doth make thee mad”. I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not have this problem. I want to say, and I do not mean to be disparaging, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the most pathetic figure I have seen for a long time, not because of his incompetence—in fact, I think he has great ability—but because of his naivety in believing that he is leading a party, or his naïvety in believing that the conglomerate sitting behind him can be led. I want him to take a look at some of his people. Let us begin with the hon. member for Sea Point, who is unfortunately not in the House at the moment. He is the man who collaborated with the American ambassador to the UN. He is the man who hates the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because the clique referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville hijacked the party for which he had worked. He should also take a look at the hon. member for Houghton, who shares her stationery with an American. It is curious how an American keeps appearing in Opposition politics. He should also take a look at the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who was once the father of a 14-point plan. All he is advocating now is a national convention without any point or plan. However, he should also take a look at the hon. member for Yeoville. That hon. member’s loyalty is limited to himself. He should also look at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to say that because of his background and his convictions, and with his knowledge, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must be finding his present position increasingly difficult and untenable, especially with the hon. member for Pinelands, who wants to release Mandela. These are the people the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to lead. If the situation had not been so serious, one could have laughed about it.

What is implicit in the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition, especially that of the hon. member for Pinelands? The third statement I want to make, therefore, is that the official Opposition has realized that they will never be able to become the Government of the country in a democratic way with White support.

Just wait for the election.

That explains a lot of things. It explains why some of them are engaged in extra-parliamentary action.

Like what? Just explain that.

An example of this is that hon. member’s speech before the Ikeys, in which he advocated the release of Mandela.

Is that unlawful?

What did the hon. member for Pinelands do? He quoted from a report about the difference in wage scales in the mining industry, in industry and in the public sector. He was, or still is, an adviser to Anglo American. Is that so?

I was.

He was. I now want to ask him a fair question. Did he ever talk to Anglo American about the wages they paid?

Yes.

What was the result?

They kicked him out.

They kicked him out. [Interjections.] Do hon. members know what the hon. member went on to do? Through omission he created the impression that different wages were being paid for the same work.

I did not say that at all.

Of course.

Look at my Hansard. [Interjections.] I referred to the monthly average.

I do not want to analyse the percentages, but what I do want to say is that according to his own figures, the public sector, and not the private sector, is the one with the best record. I now want to ask him why he addresses his accusation to the Government. Why does he not conduct a campaign against those people who control the economy of the country? I want to ask the hon. members to make a critical analysis of the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, and I want to tell him that his speech is an invitation to violence.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Sit down!

Order! The hon. Chief Whip need not tell the Chair what is to be done in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I just …

The hon. Chief Whip need not say: “Sit down”. That is not his task.

I just want to say that the hon. the Minister’s whole speech…

The Chair will tell the hon. the Minister when he must sit down.

… indicates a contempt of Parliament.

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

I shall certainly not withdraw it.

Then I will have to ask the hon. member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

(The hon. member thereupon withdrew.)

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that my speech was an invitation to violence? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it with the greatest pleasure. All I want to say is that the consequences of the hon. member’s speech lead to violence. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you rule that the hon. the Minister must withdraw unconditionally, in exactly the same way as … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it unconditionally, and I go on to … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to rule that to allege that another hon. member is acting in contempt of Parliament is not unparliamentary. [Interjections.] With respect, it is not unparliamentary to allege of another hon. member that he is acting in contempt of Parliament. On the contrary, it is correct that if he is acting improperly, the Chair should have its attention drawn to it. Therefore I ask you, Sir, to reconsider your ruling, because I believe precedents show that it is not unparliamentary.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member must abide by that.

With respect, I ask you to reconsider it, Sir.

Order! I have already given my ruling and I am not going to change it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of continuing with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Umhlanga.

I want to make the allegation that continuity, stability and order have always been preconditions for development and change. In saying this, I do not mean it in the material sense of the word only. Nor do I mean it in the economic sense of the word only. Stability has always been a condition for development in the intense group and ethnic relations in this country. Therefore I do not want to accuse the hon. member for Pinelands unnecessarily. However, I want to know from him when he has ever taken a stand in this House for order and for the restoration of order.

[Inaudible.]

Please. A lot of my time has been wasted. Surely I must be given a chance to say something.

Then do not ask me questions if you do not want to give me the opportunity of answering them.

The fourth statement I want to make this afternoon is that the official Opposition has not only become irrelevant, but is also trying to make this Parliament irrelevant. [Interjections.] Hon. members have only to read the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, in which he said that the debates in this House were sterile and futile.

But of course. Often they are.

What do you want in their place?

I just want decent debates. [Interjections.]

Order!

The NP’s policy is not a fair-weather phenomenon, like political parties and leaders and their policies on the other side. In a continent which is simmering, which is boiling over and which obviously cannot find its true course, the NP, in spite of the things to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred, the things which testify to development and growth, has been and is a factor of continuity, a factor of stability and of order and development, not only for White people, but also for the Black people in our country. Why does the hon. member for Pinelands imply that there is a limited number of rich people in South Africa and that they own the greater part of the assets and—this is implicit in his statement—at the expense of the Black people? I want to ask the hon. member a question, and he must reply to it. Do those workers who come to work in South Africa from foreign countries come here because it is better here, or do they come here to be oppressed? The hon. member must answer me on this. The party of the hon. member for Pinelands represents a phenomenon.

Finally, I just want to refer to White politics. This is the politics I am most concerned about. In the ideological spectrum of political thinking in this country, the NP finds itself in a responsible and balanced central position between left and right.

That will be the day.

There is one thing I should like to emphasize. Is the hon. member for Green Point more right-wing than I am? I must say that the groups are becoming more and more radical in their thinking and conduct. If White politicians, White people, are not going to practise politics more responsibly at the extreme poles, I foresee serious stability problems for the country. On the far right is the HNP with its splinter groups, whose policy it is to deny people’s rights and to see the country purely as a White man’s country in which other people of other nations or colours do not have any legitimate claims. This can give rise to violence. On the far left, with all due respect, is an equally explosive situation, explosive in terms of the creation of expectations which cannot be satisfied in this country. My most important charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party is that they have never taken stock among themselves of the economic implications of their constitutional model. They have never calculated what the burden of taxation will be on a limited number if their policy is implemented. They have never examined the way in which the production capacity of the country will be harmed by their proposal. If they were to come into power, they would not be able in 50 years or more to implement their policy, economically speaking, even if Oppenheimer gave them all his riches for nothing. Both extremes in politics are unwittingly instrumental, not in relieving tension, but in heightening its electric charge. We have an opportunity in this hon. House to see whether it is possible to design a constitutional dispensation for the country which will make it possible to bring about a complex society, whether, in contrast to any other country in the world, there is a formula according to which political and fundamental rights can be recognized and developed. This being so, I find it censurable, reprehensible—with great respect—that our politics is being practised in such a way that we are reducing the chances of finding a solution. I want to conclude with an appeal to all hon. members, including those who speak the same language as I, that we should not refer to other nations in terms which will lead to a heightening of tension. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal, I shall not have time to enlarge on those matters on which I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. I just wish to mention that it is not necessary to state that as far as the onslaught of Marxism and external interference are concerned, there is no difference between us. There is also no difference between us with regard to the sovereignty of Parliament in respect of any change to the Constitution.

There is a difference between myself and the hon. Leader of the Opposition in respect of one of his replies. My party regards the decentralization of power to political bodies as preferable to any central Parliament with a common voters’ role that would lead to majority rule. We believe in legislative bodies for various groups. These various bodies should then get together in a central body. The central Government of the country would then be created on the basis of the interaction between the various bodies. However, there should not be one central parliament of which the representatives would be directly elected by the voters.

†I now come to the 12-point plan. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that he will reply later to some of the points I have raised. Although there was some laughter at my talking of the honeymoons being over, his final removal of any illusion that what his 12-point plan means is nothing more and nothing less than separate development is without doubt a factor which makes, not a joke, but a reality, of the danger of those honeymoons with the homelands, the urban Blacks and the other communities coming to a sticky end. The one thing that people have sought in the 12-point plan is a move into a new era. The hon. the Prime Minister said he stood by the principles of the NP. Those principles, as far as I know, were not changed by any congress between the time that his party stood for apartheid and the time that it stood for separate development. There was merely a change of terminology. Apartheid became separate development. It was a change in terminology without any congress decision stating that the NP no longer stood for apartheid. In the eyes of the people of colour in South Africa separate development and apartheid are synonymous. The hon. the Prime Minister has now said, loud and clear, that his twelve-point plan is separate development. I do not want to take the matter any further, other than to say that this has confirmed what I have said in the past, and what I have been criticized for saying, and that is that the twelve-point plan is in many respects an illusion. There are good aspects which are acceptable, aspects I dealt with yesterday and which I shall not therefore repeat.

I now want to come to two fields in which I believe there has been progress. The hon. the Prime Minister referred again today to the question of secretariats or a secretariat to bind the homelands together. On 15 February he dealt with the proposed appointment of a joint committee of experts to draw up a joint statement of intent for the future. There he set out certain objectives, certain matters on which there was agreement. Initially he was talking only of separate secretariats. Today he mentioned “a” secretariat. He is starting to get to the concept of one common body that can bring people together, whereas in the past he has talked only of bilateral secretariats.

Not necessarily. It depends, of course, on what one is dealing with.

There is something I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister. Why will he not take that extra step and move towards what I called a council of State—one can give it any name one likes— comprising the leaders of the various non-independent homelands and becoming, with a secretariat, the nucleus of a confederation? When the hon. the Prime Minister himself talked of a constellation on 15 February he said “in a form of confederation”. I therefore now plead with him to commit himself to this confederation concept and to get on and create a body which will bring it about. We do not have to fiddle around while experts go on and on drawing up statements of intent, and the year after that take another step. This is something we can start getting on with. This could be one of those spectacular things which could help to change the whole situation in South Africa. Whilst everything is in committees and tucked away in backrooms, one is not going to win the confidence of the people whose confidence it is necessary for us to win.

One of the issues the hon. the Prime Minister made very clear when he talked of his idea of a committee earlier on was that private enterprise should have a guarantee against nationalization. He listed a whole lot of conditions. This ties up with the Carlton “beraad” with businessmen. What better guarantee could there be, what better security, than the articles under which a confederation was formed with South Africa as a member and with the non-independent homelands coming into it—whether technically they first had to become independent and simultaneously become members or not. The independent homelands would have, in the normal course, to surrender some of their sovereignty. Once one creates that confederation one has the instrument which guarantees protection against nationalization or exploitation. I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to take that extra step now. Let him take that extra step which could mean so much for stability.

The other shift was his definition of “hurtful discrimination”. I want to ask him whether he would accept our philosophy in a definition like “freedom of choice in association without either forced segregation or forced integration”. There has been still another significant shift—and I am sorry the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here.

He has hardly been here at all.

That is right. He was not here much of last night and part of yesterday afternoon. This afternoon he spoke of local option. That is what I am talking about when I speak of freedom of choice in association. Local option is the right of a community, at the level where it lives, through its local authority to determine the character of its neighbourhood. Only weeks ago the hon. member for East London North resigned from my party and last night he attacked me in Durban because our party stands for local option. Now the leader of his party says: “Let Cape Town decide, let the local community decide.” I want to know which is their policy. In an agreed document that party stated that its Bill of Rights would deny any community the right to have an exclusive residential area. Yet today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked about local option. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that people may not have an exclusive area and then say one is going to allow people an option.

Read what was said.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether his definition of discrimination will include the right not to have forced integration as well as the right not to have forced segregation, if one does not wish to have either. These are fundamental aspects. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, ironically, the hon. Leader of the Opposition in fact confirmed an essential aspect of this party’s policy today namely that we live in a country in which the Government may be criticized. While he was speaking today and criticizing the Government’s policy—and it is his right to do so—it is important to bear in mind that this debate was being conducted on the continent of Africa. It is being conducted not just in Cape Town, but on the continent of Africa. In the few minutes at my disposal I deem it my duty to state frankly some of the elements of the political set-up of the African continent today. If we do not begin to speak frankly to one another about this across the floor of this House and also with the Black politicians, the Coloured politicians and the Asian politicians in this country, then we are going to find ourselves in conflict as a result of fictions without ever having tried, on the basis of certain realities, to find one another. It is a basic fact that on the continent of Africa there is no democracy as it is understood in the Western World, or as it is implemented in this House. It is not I who say so. I have no preference in the matter; I neither approve nor disapprove of it. I am stating a fact.

It is a generalization.

I state here as a fact that nowhere in Africa is there freedom of the Press as we know it, nor is there an independent judiciary as we know it and which we have as an anchor. I therefore invite anyone—and I do not want to make it a point of dispute—to tell me where, in which and in how many African countries an Opposition Leader can stand up and do what he has done here today. I do not say that he must not do so; I am merely stating a basic fact that he can criticize because he is in a system which permits criticism. The tendency in the other systems of Africa is that criticism is not tolerated.

Now I come to my own country. I wish to mention a few factors which we cannot escape. When I speak to a Black leader about his communal system and I tell him: You have no hope of economic development if you do not begin to phase out that system at least partially and introduce individual ownership, because I am not going to be able to persuade the private sector, including the private sector on which Prog directors serve, to invest in your country unless you begin to adopt a system which attracts private investment and unless you take other steps which, if I were to mention them here today, would probably cause me to be regarded as a racist. But that is the truth. The reply is: “If I tried to do that I will have a revolution amongst my own people.” That is a fact. That is a basic fact. Therefore, to theorize about the viability of a possible policy which must be acceptable to Black and White will be pointless unless the Black and White political leaders of this country recognize certain basic, essential facts and put them frankly, honestly and sympathetically—not in a paternalistic nor in a colonialist way, nor in a threatening way—to one another. We must first settle certain basic matters with one another.

If the Opposition wishes to succeed, they must settle the following issues. They must establish whether they are able to change the inherent systems, those cultural economic systems of the Black peoples, and they must not come here and speak about “urbanized Blacks” in the sense that they have become disengaged from a specific system of values. All the leaders of Africa are urbanized Blacks, but they are still people, bound to a cultural pattern, just as I am bound to a cultural pattern. Therein lie certain basic truths which have been pointed out in this House but to which the necessary weight is not attached. It is pointless telling me that the Whites must not apply the lobola system, whereas Black systems make laws which institutionalize it. Hon. members must tell me whose right is to hold good in that regard in a unitary state. Whose heritage is to hold good? Whose system of motivation is to hold good? Whose system of values is to hold good? Whose pattern of thinking, dimensional thinking and social affinities is to hold good or form the basis for an order which must apply equally to all? I tried to get two Black leaders together in an effort to bring about greater unity between them, but one tells me: If you make him independent, I shall attack him. The other says that he refuses to meet him or have a meal with him. Is that my fault? Is that the fault of this Government? Must I compel leaders to come together?

But they want to take these people to a convention,

Those are the basic facts. Let us take the Opposition’s policy and let us also take the 12-point plan about which so much is being said in this debate. Which is based more solidly on the realities of both the White man and the Black man?

The PFP’s policy.

Which is based more solidly on the realities? Which takes into account the direction in which African politics is going? We, both White and Black, must be able to tell one another honestly and frankly: If you do not see your way clear to forfeiting your systems, I shall not be able to convince my people to live under your system. That is the truth, and applies to both White and Black. If this Government moves too rapidly in removing discriminatory measures which Black people regard as hurtful, then we have a rebellion on our right wing. I hope I may use that word—it is not a nice word—but there is, after all, a radical wing to the right of us. If you do not do it as rapidly as the left wing wishes in terms of their policy and politics of surrender, then it is the Black people that we are doing an injustice to. We see this in politics every day: Why must we remain silent about it? One can barely take a step on this side of the House without the Government having to defend itself on its left and right flanks. Apart from that it also has to keep a watch on world politics, on the changing situation on our borders, and it is against that background that it is necessary to reflect and evaluate in this debate: How has the Government conducted itself, against the background of a massive onslaught on it such as has never yet been experienced in history? How is the Government to move ahead, against the background of events in Rhodesia, against the background of a threatening and difficult situation in South West Africa, and against the background of improved standards of living? It is the improved standards of living that have created expectations. I admit it. As is the case in all communities, this has created expectations here, too, and now we are being blamed for the turmoil arising out of that.

This Government says that it is prepared to speak to Black leaders. That is undoubtedly so. Since when has this Government said that it will not speak to them? With all respect, if anyone says that, it is a lie. It is simply not correct to maintain that. However, the day the Government creates the impression amongst the majority of Whites that it is selling them out, it will fall. That also applies to the Opposition. No party will come to power in terms of a policy under which the White population group is and feels threatened by the over-hasty abolition of certain measures. We must prevent the Whites from feeling that their schools, their residential areas and their political power are disappearing.

That is why it is so important for the sake of mutual understanding that Black leaders, too, should not make statements causing the Whites to feel that they are threatened, because if they are threatened, they will fight. They will not give in, still less be inclined to do away with discriminatory measures.

However, the Opposition shows no understanding of this dilemma and of the prejudice that does exist. There is prejudice towards the Blacks among the Whites and towards the Whites among the Blacks. Instead of showing understanding for this in the sense of not threatening one another in our public statements and outbidding one another for Black favour on the one hand, or hastening to surrender on the other, irritating little debates are conducted here across the floor of the House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is absolutely true that the White population group is united in a certain system of values which it would like to preserve, and he knows that we want others to retain their systems of values. Our dilemma is to preserve our freedom in accordance with Christian ethical norms, and to do so in such a way that we do not land up in a state of war.

I want to conclude by saying this: In the process that lies ahead of us in the immediate future, one is going to find that if the maximum which the White person can offer to maintain peace is not sufficient to satisfy the minimum required by the Black man, then there is going to be war and the issue will have to be fought out. If, therefore, war is not going to be the deterrent for both White and Black—and I believe that it will indeed be the deterrent—then there is going to be strife. However, if it is going to be a deterrent, and we have a strong security force and defence force to from an umbrella under which Black and White are compelled to show realism under threat of that deterrent, so that interests can be weighed and balanced against one another, political power and land properly divided, and socioeconomic discrimination can be removed in those spheres in which it must be removed, then there is a future to look forward to for Black, White, Coloured and Asian in this country. I also wish to maintain that this party can do it. This party can travel this road and it will do so with courage, faith and conviction. The official Opposition, on the other hand, will never be able to offer anything that would be accepted by the majority of White and Black people of this country—that is why it is a party of capitulation.

†It is a party not with a viable policy, but merely with an insurance policy with which it thinks it can glide over Black majority rule.

*That is why that party is treated with contempt by every true Black national leader in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the short time at my disposal I should like to deal with certain aspects of the comments of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

However, I want to come immediately to the final sentences of the hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks this afternoon, when he dealt with the unrest which has been taking place in South Africa in recent weeks in respect of Coloured and other schoolchildren. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated, and certainly left us with the impression as he sat down, that what he was doing, was threatening very tough action indeed if this sort of situation continued in South Africa. While this debate has been taking place this afternoon, we have been receiving reports of mass police arrests of young people in parts of South Africa, of baton charges and of a situation which certainly indicates that the unrest which has been evident in recent weeks is not abating, but increasing. I want to make an immediate appeal, at this very first opportunity that I have, to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Police to ensure that considerable restraint is exercised. Certainly the police have a function to preserve law and order and one must say that up till now in this situation the police have exercised considerable and admirable restraint. I want to urge the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Police to ensure that whatever is happening at the present time, they appreciate the sensitivity of the situation and the extreme need for the police to continue to exercise the utmost patience and restraint in this situation.

For how long?

For as long as possible, because we are dealing with a situation which we all know is extremely sensitive and restraint must be exercised in the interest of South Africa.

That is the instruction.

I am very pleased to hear that reassurance. In the very short time at my disposal I now want to deal with some of the hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks and some of the references to expectations which we had in this and previous debates. I do not want to get too involved in it, but I believe the hon. the Prime Minister deserves to be complimented on the fact that last year he did visit the Black townships. He referred to it this afternoon and told the House what his motivation for, and the purpose of, that trip was. Whether expectations were raised or not, the fact of the matter is that the response to the hon. the Prime Minister’s visits last year was the optimistic view that perhaps at last there was now a chance for peaceful change in South Africa. However, I hope the hon. the Prime Minister does not become known as a Prime Minister of slogans which have no substance, because he has made a number of major speeches which have been built around slogans. We have heard of total onslaughts, of national strategy and a constellation of States, and we have had discussions on a 12-point plan. These are phrases or slogans which certainly make fine headlines in the newspapers, but they need constant definition and substance if they are to be of any real meaning to the national debate in South Africa. We have heard, for example, constant reference to the total onslaught on South Africa, and in response to that we are told that we have to develop a national strategy. But what does all this mean? It needs definition. There is an onslaught against South Africa in the form of what is happening on our borders as a result of terrorist incursions which violate our territorial integrity and we are united on all sides of the House in our resistance to that onslaught. However, that in itself is in no way the total onslaught against South Africa in the sense that that in itself threatens to destroy our national security and sovereignty or the order of things in this country. What produces the totality of an onslaught is a coincidence between the expressed views and aims of those engaged in violence and military activities on our borders and the views and aims of the masses of people in South Africa.

It is this coincidence of views which can invariably and inevitably be found in their common loathing of apartheid and the race policies of the Government. That is what produces, in its totality, the total onslaught against South Africa. So when we talk about a total onslaught it is more a total onslaught on apartheid and the unjust laws in this country than it is a total onslaught upon South Africa per se. Unfortunately, it is South Africa that has to bear the brunt of the hostilities, both external and internal, engendered by the policies of the Government. In other words the hostility which supports the notion that there is a total onslaught can surely be felt just as strongly, if not more so, on the Cape Flats, in Soweto, in KwaZulu, or any other Black part of South Africa, as it can be felt beyond our borders. For that the Government is directly and solely responsible. It is the policy of the Government which, more often than not, compels us to defend the indefensible in South Africa. It is the policies of the Government which alienate the feelings and patriotism of vast numbers of South Africans. It is also the policies of the Government which attract the hostility of most of the civilized world and increase the volume and extent of the total onslaught against this country. So much for the total onslaught, but now we are told that we have to commit ourselves to a national strategy in order to meet this onslaught. In theory the notion of a national strategy is a good one, but it must not be confused with what is NP strategy. That is the difference. We on these benches are only too pleased to commit ourselves to a national strategy which is designed to protect the broad interests of South Africa and in which all South Africans can participate. Few people can find fault with the sort of national strategy outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister in his Carlton Hotel address last November, but all too often it appears that when Government spokesmen plead for a national strategy, they are in fact seeking a commitment to a strategy which will secure and perpetuate the policy of separate development as part of our national way of life. We have heard further evidence of that during this debate this afternoon.

The hon. the Prime Minister bases the Government’s commitment to a national strategy on his 12-point plan. This afternoon he told us that this has to have the approval of the four congresses of the NP. He told us of his policy commitments, the policy commitments to the NP. His 12-point plan is clearly something which has the approval of the NP caucus. We know that if that is the fundamental corner-stone of his 12-point plan, it is a 12-point plan which is founded upon the philosophy of separate development and which for the same reason, I believe, cannot be acceptable to all South Africans. It is clearly something which is exclusively that of the NP.

During his speech at the Carlton Hotel the hon. the Prime Minister spent a good deal of time talking about the proposed constellation of States. This is indeed a major part of his 12-point plan. Much of what he said at the Carlton Hotel was encouraging on the surface, but there was a vagueness in vital areas which leads to a great deal of concern.

I want to refer to the specific question of a definition of States and the part they will play in his proposed constellation. When the hon. the Prime Minister talked at the Carlton Hotel about the constellation of States, he defined those participating in the following terms—

I want to stress the words “individual, sovereign status”. Further on in the same address, however, he said, and he was then talking about the proposed membership of the constellation—

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us what he means by the term “national States”. Does he mean independent national States such as Transkei, Bophuthatswana or Venda, because constitutionally they can, after all, be regarded as having sovereign status and therefore to fall within his first definition; or does he, when he talks about national States, also include the non-independent homelands such as Gazankulu, Lebowa, KwaZulu and others? If he does, how can he include them because they are not sovereign States. They do not have sovereign status, and what is more they do not want sovereign status. They are not asking for independence. They are asking that they should continue to share the sovereignty which is the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. My question is therefore: How are they going to fit into the constellation of States envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister, and what is their future?

Point 3 of the hon. the Prime Minister’s 12-point plan deals with the creation of constitutional structures and the right of areas to self-determination, at their own choice, to develop to independence. What is the hon. the Prime Minister’s plan for meeting the aspirations of these people within his constellation of States, however, if they do not choose independence, as they have indicated they will not do? Too often the assumption is made in Government circles—and this is often evidenced by Government brochures—that independence is a fait accompli for all the homelands in South Africa, but this is not the case. The hon. the Prime Minister has again indicated that independence would only be by choice on the part of the homelands concerned. In the debate yesterday the hon. member for Umlazi made the same mistake of assuming that a non-independent State was somehow not part and parcel of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell for any length of time on this afternoon’s political debate. I should just like to make one or two remarks about it. In the first place, as regards the call made by the Opposition that the Government must move away from discrimination, I just want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that there is a vast difference between what the Opposition means by moving away from discrimination and what we on this side of the House mean by it. When we study the documents of the Opposition parties in which they state their policies, we find that the official Opposition normally refers to statutory discrimination. The NP on the other hand does not necessarily confine itself to statutory discrimination. Our concept of discrimination is far wider than that. Our concept of the abolition of discrimination is also far wider than that of the official Opposition.

One thing is very clear, and that is that whereas the official Opposition wants us to move away from discrimination, at the same time it does not want to accept the responsibility of shouldering the task of educating, which is attendant upon the moving away from discrimination. In the broad sense of the word we genuinely want to try to guide our community in such a way that we can move away from discrimination. It is good enough for hon. members of the official Opposition if we simply remove statutory discrimination. Subsequent to that they are satisfied to continue humanitarian discrimination.

Oh, nonsense! Test it out. [Interjections.]

The only thing of interest to them is mere statutory discrimination. [Interjections.] Those hon. members may laugh about this if they want to. We have found this thing everywhere. We have also come across it in our conversations and in our numerous discussions with Black people during past months. It is those people’s own interpretation of the PFP’s policy. Only last week Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi said that the hon. member for Houghton and other liberals should stop dictating to them what they should do in Black politics. He simply could not agree with their standpoints.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Musgrave that if he thinks that the total onslaught on South Africa is merely aimed at a set of laws contained in the Statute Book, laws written into the Statute Book by the NP, he is living in a fool’s paradise.

Then he is naïve.

No, “naïve” is still too euphemistic a word. A “fool’s paradise” sounds better. Surely the issue is not only the laws written into the Statute Book by the NP Government, but also the laws written into the Statute Book by other parties. In this regard we can think of, for example, the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. After all, that Act was not written into the Statute Book by the NP. It was the old United Party that did so. This is an Act which regulates the whole situation of influx control. Section 10 of that Act, to which reference is so often made, is not a measure formulated by the NP.

We must really be far more serious. My summary of this debate up to this stage, as far as the Opposition parties are concerned —and I include the NRP—reminds me of a statement made by Paul Pretorius of Nusas on a former occasion—the hon. member for Mooi River knows this—which the hon. member for Pinelands apparently drafted for him. He said—

This is the whole point of departure of hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] Reference was made to consolidation in the course of this debate. I, too, should like to avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words about it.

In the first place I want to point out that at this stage, as far as the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister are concerned, nothing is as sensitive as the very matter of consolidation. It concerns land, and land issues in South Africa have always been burning issues. I should also like to point out that there is a certain newspaper that continues to publish quasi-secret maps, maps which ostensibly indicate the consolidated areas. Then that newspaper indulges in exaggerations by suggesting that the Government had allegedly taken final decisions as to how consolidation was going to take place, but that this was being withheld from the public and that the existence of the commission investigating consolidation was simply a smoke-screen. I think it is necessary for us to tell the people of South Africa today that up to now no design or plan has been accepted by the Government. I want to state categorically that, as far as the plans are concerned that have recently been published in most editions of Die Afrikaner, and which have been taken over so enthusiastically by other newspapers, I cannot understand with the best will in the world how and where they have obtained those maps. I do not know who drew those maps. It could possibly be just anyone there in the editor’s office. No such maps have been submitted to the commission or the regional committees of the commission. It is an infamous lie. I state this categorically—and I consequently want to make an appeal to hon. members—that in this regard we are dealing with a very serious matter and that, if we are going to arouse feelings with regard to the land issue, we in South Africa are going to suffer damage, irrespective of what policy we follow. We must be very careful when we deal with these matters. At the same time I want to say that the commission has made very good progress and hopes to finalize its provisional reports at the end of this month and to present them to the Cabinet in the first half of June. A tremendous amount of work has been done, and I want to express my gratitude in advance to the commissioner and all the officials involved in that work.

However, hon. members must not think that to consolidate is simply to sit down and draw lines. That is not what is involved. In the near future we shall probably have to ask ourselves seriously: Can South Africa still consolidate in a conventional way? In the second place we shall have to ask ourselves: When we consider consolidation, what does it entail for the economic progress of the Black States, as well as for White South Africa? We shall have to reflect very deeply on this matter. Something which to me is a tremendous cause for concern is the fact that we have not yet been successful in involving private initiative to such an extent within the Black States that it will have a significant influence on the economic growth of the Black States. Whether we agree with the idea of consolidation or not, the fact is that most of the Black leaders want a piece of land somewhere. Many of them are emotional in connection with this matter. Probably the fact that their forefathers are buried there has a bearing on this. But they want a piece of land. Whether we follow the policy of the PFP or that of the NRP, we shall always have the situation that territory will have to be set aside for Black people in South Africa. This is part of Africa, and we shall never remove this idea from the minds of the Black people. Even if they had one man, one vote in this country, they would still tell us: “Here I want my particular piece of land.” We experienced this again last Friday, when we had discussions with the Cabinet of one of the Black States. Consequently we must accept that we are going to have this situation and because the situation is such, we shall have to do everything to interest private initiative in particular in development within the Black States.

During the next ten years we shall have to create employment opportunities for approximately 200 000 people in the Black States annually, simply to accommodate the population growth. This places a tremendously heavy burden on all the people of South Africa. The sooner we can come to the matter of the development bank, the better it will be, because the whole question of the development bank, which could provide certain guarantees and take certain other initiatives, will probably have a major influence on the private sector. When one has discussions with the private sector, they simply tell one: “It is to no avail this Black Government giving a guarantee. I want more than a guarantee from the Black Government.” If it can be a guarantee which is given not only by a Government, but one which can be given by a body such as the international development bank, we are going to ensure in that way that we unite forces in that development bank. Then we must also accept that we should see consolidation against the background of the establishment of such a development bank, of the constellation of States and of the confederative idea. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke touched upon what is probably the most important problem that faces the White community of South Africa today, and that is the question of the consolidation of land. I agree with him entirely when he calls upon people not to make a political issue, a football, out of this particular matter.

I have said in this House, and I have been saying it for a number of years that there is only one thing that scares me absolutely stiff, when it comes to the relationship between Blacks and Whites, and that is that there should be a war between Whites and Blacks over land. One can work out or negotiate anything. One can negotiate attitudes or investments, etc., but once one gets it into the minds of Black people in South Africa that land is the question on which they have to take issue and fight the White people one will unleash something in this country that one will never be able to control. I think that this is one of the touchiest and most difficult subjects that can possibly be raised. For that very reason we shall debate it with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke when the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s Vote comes up for discussion in the House. We shall be debating it in detail. I want to reiterate, however, that the point I made during the budget debate was that what we are doing by spending large sums of money on consolidation is, in fact, wasting our money.

Why?

Because there is a better way of spending the money. I shall be coming back to the point I made then. Let me put this to the hon. the Prime Minister because he was talking about the development in those homeland areas. The money we are currently spending in buying White farms and moving Black people in order to fit into some kind of ideological pattern would be far better spent within the boundaries of the homeland areas, in negotiation with the established tribal authorities, to create viable economic farming units for the Black people in those areas. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says there are 218 000 people per year for whom work opportunities have to be created. How can one do it better than by creating, within those areas, a viable farming unit on which a man and his family can be employed, thereby changing the entire social pattern of those areas. The hon. the Prime Minister was perfectly correct when he said that this is what we have to do.

We have to create, in the minds of those Black people, not only the private enterprise idea, the idea of the private use of money, but also the work ethic that goes with it, the idea that one has to get out and work for oneself and one’s own family, create the wealth and then use the wealth within one’s own community. This must happen if one is going to create, in those homeland areas, any kind of economic base. The White Government cannot do it. There is not enough money in the world for the immediate development of all the homelands in South Africa into viable economic units. The entire wealth of the United States, put into the homelands tomorrow or the next day, would still not ensure a viable, on-going economic unit because the people themselves, in their own attitudes towards life, their attitudes towards private enterprise, their use of themselves and their mental attitudes, are not attuned to that way of life. That is why it is so important for us to realize our direction and the priorities of our investment.

We shall return to this matter when the debate comes up on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. It is quite obviously something we are going to have to explore with the homeland leaders. The hon. member for South Coast knows, as well as I do, that in the rural areas the chief and headman control the whole allocation of land. The White man cannot come in there and simply ride roughshod over that arrangement, saying they cannot do it any more. The chief cannot do it, and neither can the Chief Minister of kwaZulu. It has to be done through the system, but it can be done if money is made available and put into that system to create a set-up in which the chief and the headman can still enjoy the usual privileges they have, privileges that go with their authority. In that way one could still create a unit, and this is something I consider to be absolutely fundamental to the whole development we are going to have to bring about here in South Africa.

I just want to say a few words about what the hon. the Prime Minister said about the revolutionary assault against South Africa. The one point I want to make is that the people who begin revolutions never end them. There is something I want to point out to those who are toying with radicalism, leaders of the non-White groups and other people who think that they are the ones who will control the radical forces. Let me tell them that the people who begin the revolutions never end them. What is happening is that one is beginning to see people toying with the idea of radicalism inside our country whereas there is an armed assault being launched on South Africa from outside. The people inside this country will not be those who will control the revolution. I think it is vitally important that we should say so, that we should understand that. The assault is not simply on the White leadership, but also on Black leadership and on the total society that has evolved here over the years. When the hon. the Prime Minister says he is not in favour of a unitary State and a unitary society, we agree with him entirely. We are in favour of a plural society and a plural political relationship. Pluralism implies political representation for groups and leaders getting together to negotiate common matters and common problems at the top level and not at a lower level. I think that this is vitally important, that it is a point that must be made. Pluralism implies separate political institutions for the groups taking part and negotiation between leaders. That is what has to happen in this country.

The problem we have is to identify real leadership. So often in the non-White groups anybody who gets up and adopts a militant and radical attitude against the White establishment is suddenly identified as a leader. It is a negative, counter-productive process which we have to find some way of getting around.

Mr. Chairman, I returned from Durban recently and according to the news papers there, and what I have been told, the hon. leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point, yesterday asked whether we as the NP would participate in Buthelezi’s proposed commission. I just want to say that I consider it a very stupid question. I think it is a question which a very stupid “Sap” would ask. I can tell the hon. the Leader of the NRP very clearly and frankly that the reply is “no”.

Are you now the NP leader in Natal?

I can tell him on behalf of the leader in Natal, or whoever, that the reply is “no”. If the hon. member then asks me: “Why not?” I can tell him that there are various reasons. Surely structures in which we can participate have already been established. Surely it is not necessary for a further structure to be created to consider the constitutional dispensation.

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

Just let me put my case. I am answering a question which the hon. the Leader of the NRP has already asked.

[Inaudible.]

I just want to say …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

It is stated very clearly in a report this morning that Buthelezi said that the ANC would participate in his commission. Imagine South Africa, as a sovereign State, telling Swaziland that we were going to devise a constitution which would affect them as well as us.

In a constellation.

This is exactly what is happening. We are a sovereign independent state and kwaZulu too, if it wants to, can ask for absolute independence. It is a self-governing country. Would Swaziland tolerate our working out a constitutional system for it? Surely this is not true. For that reason we shall not participate in it.

Did you not give evidence before the Quail Commission?

The commission’s terms of reference are very clear, viz. to devise a constitutional system, not only for kwaZulu, but also for Natal, which is part of the Republic of South Africa.

Is kwaZulu not a part of South Africa?

We are prepared to co-operate with Buthelezi in consolidating kwaZulu more meaningfully. We shall assist in their development. In the nature of the matter we shall do so just as the United Kingdom did this for its old protectorates. We shall assist in providing employment. We shall assist in bringing about good neighbourliness. We shall also assist in giving them their rightful share. We shall do so increasingly. We shall do so until it hurts. There is no other nation in the world which has done so much for other nations as this very nation, the Whites in South Africa. When I speak of other nations, I include the UN and all the do-gooders who kick up such a fuss. We shall consolidate their territory and we shall assist them.

It is really not pleasant to fight with the NRP. One does not like to fight with a man who is down. One does not kick a man who is already down. I should just like to put it to the NRP that we should take consolidation out of politics. These things were the cause of the old United Party breaking up. Is their memory so short? In 1958, if I remember correctly, it was that very controversy that caused the PFP to break away. I wonder whether it has forgotten that the so-called Mitchell faction said: “Over our dead bodies; not one square foot of land more for the Black people.” It was for that reason that the Progressive Party broke away. It was precisely because they made political issues of matters in respect of which they should not have done so.

In 1978 their congress passed a motion to the effect that they wanted to consolidate more meaningfully. This little yellow brochure here states that their policy is “that the existing homelands will be developed urgently into viable economic and political units”. In 1980, however, their provincial caucus said that it wanted absolutely nothing to do with consolidation. [Interjections.] It also said that it was opposed to Venda’s independence. They were opposed to it, but subsequently they accepted the independence. They jump around from one side to the other.

Their last hope is this “Natal Buthelezi stand”. Here we have seen a fine example of this. I really am sorry to have to fight with a little party which is already dead, but it has asked certain questions. The hon. member for Mooi River said that their policy advocated a condominium. Then a former member of their party, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, said that his policy was a Natal alliance. The one’s policy is a condominium and the other’s is an alliance. Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg accused the hon. member for Mooi River of having stolen his policy. He said that he was in fact the one who had formulated the policy. [Interjections.] Now they are fighting amongst each other about who really designed the policy in Natal, the so-called condominium or the Natal Alliance. [Interjections.] The NRP’s prestige in Natal has unfortunately sunk to such a low level that the PFP can now prepare itself to fight every seat in Natal. This is so as a result of the NRP’s attitude to consolidation.

Unfortunately I must also refer briefly to the other so-called commission which was appointed by the Sugar Association and certain business leaders. I do not want to say this is true, but if it is true, as certain media put it, that the motivation for those terms of reference arises out of the statement that consolidation is impossible, impractical and unacceptable, then certain questions come to mind. We have received telegrams of protest from milling groups and individual sugar farmers who said that they were not in favour of the levies that had been imposed on their product being used for this purpose. Did they consult their people before they voted that money for that purpose? The Sugar Association said its whole economy would collapse, and that that was its motivation. If this is true, surely this is then a capitalist, colonialist attitude, and then I ask: Do you not wish kwaZulu to have anything, do you even begrudge them good sugar land, do you begrudge them their own sugar mills too, and do you begrudge them a growth point? It is a selfish attitude to view this from your own capitalist angle and not from another person’s point of view too.

May I ask whether you will give up Richards Bay too?

Furthermore I ask, in justification of the people who are objecting, whether this investigation will also determine whether consolidation can work. I want to ask another question, viz. whether that commission is going to submit its findings to the Schlebusch Commission. I am asking this in all fairness.

This step which the present Government and this hon. Prime Minister have taken to re-examine consolidation meaningfully, is the greatest political event since the establishment of the Republic, whether the hon. members want to know it or not. This question of territory—I am now referring to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke —dates back to before Union. In 1902 it was decided in Natal that land would be allocated to the Zulus and that it should always be guaranteed against alienation. This is stated in the report of the Beaumont Commission. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one of the hon. the Prime Minister’s points in the 12-point plan is that he wants to follow a policy of qualified neutrality in regard to certain conflicts. Therefore, the hon. member for South Coast, however honourable though temporary, will forgive me if I do not deal with his private war with the NRP, because I really regard it as being somewhat irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon. member refer to another hon. member as “the hon. temporary member”?

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

I should like to draw the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to two statements that I regard as very significant. These statements were recently reported as having been made by two leadership figures in the Black community, two figures who, as personalities, are very different in many ways as far as the Black political spectrum is concerned, and who often appear to be opposing each other. The first one is the Chief Minister of KwaZulu, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who has indicated that, at some time, circumstances could force him to leave South Africa. The other is Dr. Motlana who said in a statement that it is too early, from his point of view, for a national convention, as he does not regard the Blacks as yet having sufficient bargaining power or, to use his words as they are alleged to have been reported, that the Blacks have not yet earned their place in a national convention.

The question that I want to pose today is what actually prompts a man like Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who has, as I understand it, consistently stood for peaceful change and for a process of negotiation and who has been subjected to much radical criticism, particularly because he has been prepared to accept office in a homeland Government, to say that he might leave South Africa, with all the implications that such a statement has. The answer, as I interpret it myself—it is not his interpretation—is that Black leadership which is committed to peace and negotiation can only maintain popular support if the fruits of such a policy of commitment to peace and to negotiation can be demonstrably seen and felt by the Black people of South Africa. If it is not seen or felt, there are always more extreme leaders whose promises can outbid the promises of those who are committed to peace and so wean away moderate support. Every change that is made by this Government as a result of militant action or as a result of pressure means a loss of support for leadership which is committed to peaceful negotiation. On the other hand, each benefit which is a result of such negotiation strengthens the hands of those who seek to lead in the course of peace. If this Government does not enable those who are committed to peace to show results, then either such leadership, as was demonstrated in Zimbabwe, loses popular support, or the leadership itself takes another course. The answer, as we see it, is not to consult but to negotiate with the men of peace and to let the fruits of negotiation be tasted by the people who support moderate Black leaders in South Africa, because those leaders need support in order to maintain their position.

Change must not merely be talked about, merely be announced or merely be a question of theory or of expectations, but it must actually be felt. I want to submit to the hon. the Prime Minister that, as I see it, the benefits of change, even the changes that he has announced, have not been fully experienced by the Black masses. And meaningful change which they do experience and which they appreciate must be seen by Black people to have come about as a result of the action of their leaders who are committed to the negotiating process, and must not be seen as a result of confrontation politics. The advice which one gives, with great respect, to the hon. the Prime Minister is not only to consult but to negotiate in meaningful fashion with the Buthelezis, the Ntsanwisis and the Phatudis of South Africa. He must not only negotiate, but allow them to demonstrate to their people that there are results from such negotiations, so that in the Black political process the issue of peaceful negotiation, as against violent confrontation, can be resolved in favour of those who stand for peaceful negotiation. I believe, contrary to what many other people believe, that moderates can get popular support if their actions produce results, and this is where the Government must play a role.

Like with Muzorewa.

The hon. member refers to Muzorewa. Why was Muzorewa a failure in Rhodesia? The answer is that he could not produce any results, and that is the difficulty. If one wants moderate policies to triumph—and there is no reason why moderates should not get Black support—one must enable those moderate policies to produce results. That is the appeal I make to the hon. the Prime Minister today.

I also want to analyse the statement which is attributed to Dr. Motlana. His argument is that Blacks should not be at the conference table until they have muscle and can argue from strength. I do not want to ascribe motives to Dr. Motlana which he may not have. I prefer to look, if I may, at Rhodesia and so avoid a possible wrong interpretation of Dr. Motlana’s words. The lessons which are apparently drawn by some people from the Rhodesian situation is that one must actually not negotiate too early. The Lancaster House conference could not have had the desired results from the Patriotic Front’s point of view until the people desperately wanted an end to war and until moderate leadership had been discredited, both because of its inability to end the war and its inability to deliver the goods of change. Therefore, by delaying a negotiating process, I believe the Government is doing the very thing which more radical opinion also wants to have done, and that is to create a situation where the Whites would over the passage of time be less and less able to argue from strength. Moderate Black opinion will in those circumstances have decreasing Black popular support and extremists will gain more and more bargaining power. I believe in negotiating from a position of strength. Negotiations to produce just results need to be conducted on an equal footing with the intention of producing an equitable result, and not capitulation by one side. We in these benches reject the accusation that we believe in surrender politics. We do not. We believe in negotiation and negotiation from a position of strength.

With all respect I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that time is against South Africa in this regard, because hostile action against South Africa will undoubtedly increase, the motive behind it being the internationalizing and radicalizing the situation and the engendering of instability. The policy of the Government should firstly be directed at the maintenance of stability. This involves the maintenance of law and order. Not only must terrorism be suppressed, but it must also be shown that terrorism produces no results. Law and order as against crime in the ordinary sense of the word, must be maintained.

We need to avoid the destabilizing effects of inflation. We need to create vested interests in the economic order by ensuring jobs and outlets for entrepreneurial talents. We need to enable Black leadership, committed to peaceful negotiation, to have and maintain popular support among their people, and to this end the negotiating process must be seen, firstly, to take place, secondly, to produce results, and thirdly, to be actually understood and felt. Today Blacks need not negotiate from a position of weakness, as Dr. Motlana has said, but Whites must also never negotiate from a position of weakness. I do not want the South African community to wait until Whites may be in a position where they are weak, because then one will be involved in the politics of surrender and one will not get equitable results. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since we are now probably approaching the end of this debate, I think the appeal to the Prime Minister made by the hon. member for Yeoville was absolutely unnecessary because every person who understands something about the situation in South Africa, is aware that this Prime Minister in particular has, since assuming office, gone out of his way to enter into discussions with the recognized Black leaders of the Black people in South Africa. Surely, to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister at this point for such negotiations to be conducted if they are not already being conducted, is absolutely frivolous. What is more, I think the appeal by the hon. member for Yeoville is also an insult to the Black leaders, because in true Prog fashion he tried to dictate to the Black leaders on how they should negotiate with the White Government in South Africa. I do not believe there is really anything more in what the hon. member for Yeoville said that warrants a reply.

In this debate, the hon. Leader of the Opposition started off by levelling the accusation at the hon. the Prime Minister that he had created expectations but was now marking time. After the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister which we heard today, a speech in which he stated what the Government was doing, the speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition was also somewhat frivolous. The hon. the Prime Minister took the initiative with regard to consolidation, something about which my constituency and I feel very strongly. We as Whites have eagerly been looking forward to the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to the improved consolidation of the homelands. It is not only in respect of the Blacks that great expectations have been created, but also in respect of us as Whites who are most closely involved.

The hon. member for Mooi River said we wanted to force the Black people into Black homelands. I wish to tell him that in the part of the country where I come from, a part of the country that borders on Swaziland, our forebears, the Afrikaners, concluded border arrangements with the ancestors of the present Swazis. We established a border between ourselves and Swaziland, and we have always respected it. Later on, the Government nevertheless made additional land within the RSA available to the Swazi nation. It was not necessary to force a single Swazi to go to the land made available to them. They went there of their own accord. At the moment we are taking a fresh look at a more meaningful consolidation.

Now we have the problem of the official Opposition telling us that the 12-point plan of the hon. the Prime Minister has given rise to expectations among Black and Coloured people. The hon. Leader of the Opposition told us tonight that it was previously not clear to him, but evidently he has now obtained clarity. The impression I have gained, was that the leftist elements in South Africa have deliberately sought to read into every announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister something that would suit their ends. They deliberately interpreted this as meaning that the hon. the Prime Minister was now abandoning the policy of the NP. Is it not remarkable that the Hertzogites wanted to do exactly the same? They also wanted to interpret the statement to mean that the hon. the Prime Minister had now discarded the entire policy of separate development of the NP; but in their case, too, such an interpretation merely suited their ends. However, both interpretations are altogether unfounded.

What has the hon. the Prime Minister done? If the hon. the Prime Minister, as a practical administrator, demonstrates to South Africa that it is possible to talk and negotiate with the recognized leaders of the Blacks in South Africa, in a manner that becomes a civilized human being, then surely that does not mean discarding the policy of the NP. The policy of the NP, also under the present hon. the Prime Minister, is based on separate development. The hon. member for Pinelands said earlier tonight that the debates in the House were becoming sterile.

I spoke yesterday.

The hon. member said so by way of an interjection tonight.

He is sterile.

Perhaps the hon. member for Pinelands has it in the back of his mind that he can convince me and members of the NP that separate development is not the correct policy in South Africa. I wish to tell him that he will never succeed, because if we had not believed in the policy, we should not have been here tonight.

There is always hope.

What is important, however, is that it is then the task of the Opposition, if they are convinced that the policy of separate development is wrong, to convince the White electorate of South Africa of their view and to convince the electorate that they should be given the reins of government instead of the NP.

And now I wish to sound a warning—and my time is running out fast—that we in South Africa are being confronted with a dangerous trend. There are all sorts of people today creating expectations. There has been reference to the expectations that may possibly have been created by the hon. the Prime Minister, but there are also other people who are creating expectations in South Africa, among them also Whites, but they are creating expectations among the Black radicals in South Africa that there may be a White fifth column in South Africa that would be prepared to side with them against the majority of White South Africa. I wish to warn against that.

Years ago there was talk in this House of “winds of change sweeping across Africa”. Today there are still winds sweeping across Africa, but these are strange winds from the East and from the West. I wish to sound a warning that in the time that lies ahead, those winds may reach gale force. I wish to sound a warning to the official Opposition in particular. When the tempest is rising, one does not play with matches. One does not create expectations among Black radicals that could not possibly be met, except over the bodies of one’s fellow-Whites. I wish to warn the official Opposition against that. They do not represent the majority of White South Africa, but the NP does. We know that just as we conduct negotiations with the recognized leaders of the Black man in South Africa, it is also the standpoint of the Black man and the Black leaders that they prefer to negotiate with the real leaders of White South Africa. However, there are also the radicals. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the short time I still have at my disposal before the House has to adjourn, I shall start replying to the last few questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the 1936 legislation. I had said that that legislation was not a sacred cow, and I reiterate that now. However, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would look at the statement I made here in Parliament, he would see that I expressly stated that the consolidation efforts should, however, be made on the basis of the 1936 legislation, in terms of the provisions thereof, and that, in the event of deviations from that legislation, a report would be made to the Government and Parliament. Surely that is the position. After all, to adopt the attitude that we should adhere strictly to the 1936 legislation as a result of which we might possibly not be able to resolve a matter, is not practical. That is all I meant when I said it was not a sacred cow, in the sense of a rigid adherence to every single provision of the 1936 legislation. I hope that is clear.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the Western Cape again. Let me reïterate categorically what I have already said. I said it was stated in the annual report of the National Manpower Commission that the commission would consider the matter in the course of 1980. The reason for the commission’s view that a fresh look should be taken at the present policy, is simply that the Riekert Commission has proposed an alternative form of influx control, based on the availability of employment and housing as well as preference to all workers already in the urban areas vis-á-vis new work-seekers from outside, since the reaffirmation of the policy at the recommendation of the Theron Commission. We know that there are 60 000 unemployed Coloureds in the country, of whom 80% must probably be in the Western Cape. I do not have the exact figure but it comes to more or less that figure. We have to take that into account before new workers are introduced. The Government stated in the White Paper on the Riekert Report that it would try out the alternative form of influx control and that if it worked satisfactorily, it would be adopted. We are not going any further than that. Consequently the whole question will be viewed in the light of the Riekert report only. I am not prepared to commit the Government to any further steps.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.