Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour.

At the very outset of this debate it is a special privilege for me to congratulate Mr. Fanie Van der Merwe, who is now attending a session of Parliament for the first time in his capacity as Director-General of the department, On his appointment and to wish him everything of the best in the administration of this department in the future. Of course, I am doing this with a measure of personal pride, since it is enhancing the prestige of the surname Van der Merwe. [Interjections.] I wish him every success.

†Mr. Chairman, if one should try to find the two briefest paragraphs in the annual report of the department it is not really necessary to go any further than paragraph 1.1 and paragraph 1.2 under the heading “Development of the Coloured Community”, on page 9 of the report. These two paragraphs are brief for a very particular reason. They are brief because they reflect one of the greatest dilemmas of South African politics, one of the greatest failures of the NP Government, i.e. the total vacuum that exists in respect of political rights for Coloured people in this country. In dealing with this matter I do therefore address myself to the hon. the Minister, who is not only the one responsible for the administration of Coloured affairs in South Africa, but who is also a sort of a runner between the Government and the President’s Council—indeed a very important function in the attempt to solve this particular dilemma facing our country.

In recent weeks there have been encouraging signs of how the NP appreciates the seriousness of this problem. As a result the prospect of fruitful debate is in fact today better than it has been for a very long time indeed. The seriousness of this problem cannot possibly be overestimated. Distrust and suspicion have been built up over years owing to the failure upon failure to produce an acceptable solution to this particular political problem. This is so particularly because it was felt in the Coloured community—with good reason, I suggest—that the Government has not been sincere in trying to give the Coloured people real political equality. Time and again the Government insisted on putting the stamp of apartheid on every new set of policy proposals at an early stage. This has led to a situation which has been described by the hon. member for Krugersdorp in a newspaper article over the weekend as one of the last opportunities to negotiate for peaceful reform. The hon. member added that the Government realized this. He is quite correct. He may even be understating it. It may in fact be the last opportunity of negotiating for peaceful reform. A degree of polarization has developed which can only serve to complicate matters in the process of finding a solution. For this reason I sincerely hope that the perceptible new spirit on the Government side is not merely due to the relative poltical flux while they are waiting for the President’s Council to report, but that it is indeed more meaningful. One hopes it does not merely amount to a situation in which people take advantage of the political flux, but that NP members will close their ranks and terminate the entire debate regardless of the consequences as soon as the President’s Council produces its report.

I wish to refer to a few specific aspects of this problem. Whenever an issue is referred to a council, a commission or any body of inquiry for purposes of investigation and report, the status and the credibility of that body is of the utmost importance. It has a lot to do with the acceptability of its recommendations when they are eventually produced. In this regard I fear that the President’s Council has little to offer. I am sure that every hon. member in this House will know that whatever one’s attitude is to that body there is a problem regarding its credibility, mainly caused by the short-sightedness of proposing and constituting this body. Therefore the Government can only rely on the inherent viability and inherent acceptability of the President’s Council’s proposals when they are ultimately produced.

The proposals of the President’s Council will have to be that much better because there is not sufficient confidence in that body for the public to buy from it anything less than the right thing. In his newspaper article the hon. member for Krugersdorp writes that constitutions are the result of trust and confidence. Once again he is absolutely correct. This is a tall order, however, in the South African political situation. That trust will have to be found in the sincerity of the Government in dealing with these proposals, in reacting to them and in producing legislation as a result. It will have to be found in the sincerity of the Government and of all other parties involved, because one cannot expect that trust to be found merely in the President’s Council. It will be very, very difficult to find it there.

The Government must realize that they dare not present the Coloured people with a system of representation which suffers in any way whatsoever from the shortcomings of the many previous systems. Those people who talk about self-determination for all people in South Africa—I include here hon. members of the CP and a large section of the NP—must realize that most aspects of self-determination are not divisible unless there is a geographic division underlying it. It has been pointed out that so many Governmental functions, Government departments, cannot possibly be divided along racial lines. If this is not possible and one legislates the White people into a superior position and people of other race groups into an inferior position, talking about self-determination is political fraud. It is therefore imperative, even in Nationalist terms, in terms of Nationalist thinking and in terms of separate development, that the Coloured people should have a say in regard to matters such as taxation, defence and foreign affairs and every aspect that cannot be sensibly divided even in terms of separate development. Furthermore, the degree of authority that the Coloured person is given or the amount of say that a Coloured voter is given cannot be limited by law to a degree of authority or of say which is less than that of a White person. I do not believe that the Coloured people of South Africa will at this late stage accept any form of legislative inferiority based on race. The kind of nonsense written into the 1977 proposals which entrenches a White nationalist majority will not, I believe, even be taken seriously. When the President’s Council presents its recommendations, different political parties and race groups may support or reject those recommendations for their own reasons. This is an issue which becomes very important indeed and I believe it becomes even more important because of the hon. the Prime Minister’s undertaking that important changes in the constitution will be referred to the country by way of one or more referendums. This is very important because if one assumes that all parties to the right of the Government—in this group I include the CP, the HNP and perhaps one or two others—reject the proposals that the President’s Council is going to submit and manage to draw some additional support from Nationalist quarters, which is likely to happen, the Government may well need the support of the other Opposition parties to obtain an overall majority in such referendum. I can think of no more horrifying prospect for the Government than that it should find its reforms rejected by the vast majority of the Coloured people and also by slightly more than 50% of the White electorate. This is not wishful thinking; it is in fact a very real possibility.

In dealing with this question obviously a debate and a very sensible debate on these possible reforms is of the utmost importance. The Government is well aware of the attitude of the Official Opposition towards constitutional change. I believe that the Government will have to satisfy certainly this party that its reforms are positive and that they substantially outweigh the negative effect that they may produce. Parties other than the Government will also consider these proposals in their own way. They will apply their own considerations; they will measure them against their own policies, their own principles and their own ideals and I think this is a factor that the Government simply cannot ignore.

One aspect of constitutional politics that the Government knows very well is of the utmost importance to the PFP is that Blacks should be included as equal South Africans in the constitutional system. Furthermore the Government knows that the majority of the Coloured people in this country hold that view as well. If the PFP and the majority of the Coloured people—and the majority of the Indians for that matter—are to accept the fact that the government reforms amount to a step in the right direction, a number of tests may be applied in order for those groups to decide whether or not they will support such proposals. I believe that the expression “a step in the right direction” is of the utmost importance because it would be unrealistic to suggest that something that is produced by the President’s Council, something that is produced by the Government, would satisfy the PFP, the NRP, the CP or any other party completely. Obviously it will not because it has been produced by one political party and therefore if support for those proposals has to be obtained, presumably a certain degree of compromise will be necessary. I say therefore that in that regard it is extremely important that it in fact be proven that those reforms produced by the Government in the form of legislation do in fact amount to a step in the right direction, certainly as far as the PFP and I assume also the NRP are concerned. As I have said earlier on, there are many tests that can be applied to establish whether, in fact, one can say that such reforms amount to a step in the right direction. I want to mention only one test which I think may satisfy the PFP and the Opposition in general and a test which may possibly satisfy the Coloured people. This test is that the Coloured people should, in terms of the new proposals, be granted equal political rights and political rights sufficient to give them the same say as Whites on the crucial question of whether Blacks should be included in a further constitutional dispensation in South Africa.

It is well known that the Government loves talking about the term “self-determination”, but it is also important that one should understand that real self-determination also has something to do with the constitution. Self-determination implies that each man should have a part in deciding whether lines should be drawn and, if so, where those lines should be drawn. A constitution cannot be forced by one or more racial groups on to another racial group.

When the hon. member for Krugersdorp said during the weekend that constitutions are in fact the product of trust, he was correct, but that trust can only be obtained if there is unanimity and agreement among the parties to such a constitutional discussion.

I believe that the test that Coloured people should, in terms of any new deal, have the same say as we in this House as to whether the Blacks too should become part of the future dispensation could prove to be a very important test. This is a test which may affect not only the official Opposition and other Opposition parties, but indeed the attitude of the Coloured people themselves. I should like to suggest that the Government should take this very seriously, and should the President’s Council’s proposals fail to answer this requirement, the Government should be bold enough to reject such proposals and to redraft new proposals because failure on the road to reform at this stage will be disastrous. It will be a disaster which neither the NP nor anybody else in this country can afford.

Mr. Chairman, allow me at the outset to congratulate and welcome Mr. Fanie van der Merwe in his new post as Director-General of the Department of Internal Affairs. I wish him every success in this extremely important position, and I am confident that the work done in the future will be with the co-operation of the officials, the hon. the Minister and all hon. members in this House. At the same time I should like to express my appreciation for the services of the former Director-General, Mr. Jimmy van der Merwe. Although he did not occupy this position for very long, he did important work, and his promotion was well deserved because he was also formely Provincial Secretary of Natal. There, too, he did excellent work. We convey to him a message of appreciation.

†The hon. member for Green Point raised the issue of the development of the Coloured people and referred to the short paragraphs in the annual report. If there is one thing of which this Government has no reason to be ashamed, it is the services it has rendered to the development of the Coloured people. One need only consider what has been achieved in improving the education, the housing position, the economic opportunities and the social services of the Coloured community. One can also think of the work which has been done by this Government in appointing the Theron Commission and in preparing the way for meaningful participation in political matters. When all this is considered, this Government certainly has nothing to be ashamed of.

Against that, if I were to say something about the PFP, I could say that they have every reason to be ashamed of their contribution towards the upliftment of the Coloured people. If ever there was an indictment against the likes of the PFP, I only need to refer the hon. member for Green Point to the television interview some months ago in which Coloured leaders of the Cape Town community made some very telling remarks about the PFP when they said that the PFP could only talk, while when it came to doing, they did exactly nothing. So I believe the PFP certainly have nothing to be proud of when it comes to their contribution to the upliftment and improvement of the position of the Coloured people in this country.

*I should like to say a few words about certain other matters. A total of R914 million is being voted for the Department of Internal Affairs. This consists of four components, namely administration, for which R9,5 million is being voted; internal and miscellaneous services, for which R22,5 million is being voted; administration and development of the Coloured people, for which R625 million is being voted and administration and development of the Indian people, for which approximately R254 million is being voted. I should like to focus on the sub-division “Internal and Miscellaneous Services”, which is also at issue in this debate.

The first aspect I want to discuss is the control of aliens. Perhaps it is as well to make another general appeal that people intending to apply for a permanent residence permit and/or work permit in South Africa, must apply for it before they come to South Africa and not after they have arrived here. There are many cases of people who tour our country with a visitor’s visa or visit their families here with the intention of applying for a permanent residence permit or a work permit once they have entered the country. This procedure of first entering the country with a temporary residence permit or a visitor’s permit hampers the consideration of applications and frequently leads to delays, which in some cases cause misunderstandings at a later stage. It would be a great help if employers on the one hand and the family of these visitors on the other would take cognizance of the correct procedure for applications. It should, however, also be mentioned that during the past year there was a considerable increase in applications for permanent residence, i.e. applications from prospective immigrants, and this placed a great deal of pressure on the already limited staff at our various overseas immigration offices, which in turn led to considerable delays in the processing of applications. However, I believe the hon. the Minister has already taken cognizance of this and given attention to the matter. There has already been liaison with the Federated Chambers of Industries in order to transmit an abbreviated handling procedure to them on how to go about expediting the immigration of workers they need urgently in South Africa. Therefore cognizance has been taken of the existing problems. In the short and medium term, the immigration of expert and skilled workers remains the most effective way of creating more job opportunities in South Africa for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, unskilled or semi-skilled workers. I refer in particular to Blacks. According to the annual report on 30 June 1981 there were about 2 500 unemployed Indian men and women, whereas there were about 3 700 unemployed Coloured men and women. In comparison there were an estimated 800 000 unemployed Blacks. If skilled immigrants enter the country, they help to create additional work and training opportunities for these unskilled or semi-skilled workers. It is our policy to give preference to the training of the available local manpower to meet our requirements, but it is nevertheless a fact that a large percentage of those who are unemployed are people who lack the necessary educational qualifications to be adequately trained in the short or medium term to occupy many of these posts. In contrast, the average educational level of potential immigrants is such that most of them can be effectively used in the South African economy within a short time. In turn, they can immediately give additional job opportunities to thousands of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. In the long run the immigration of skilled workers saves us a great deal of money in the cost of training, and in addition, they can be of great assistance in the training process of the local work force.

I should also like to say something about citizenship matters. I note that according to information provided to us, there are at the moment just over 4,25 million White South African citizens in South Africa.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

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

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for this opportunity.

However, I see there are about 400 000 Whites resident in South Africa who are not South African citizens. I feel we should go into this matter and perhaps discuss it further in this debate.

However, there is another matter I want to raise and accordingly I shall not discuss this matter further at this stage.

Last year it was announced that from 1 June 1982 the White voters’ roll would be drawn up on the basis of the identity document. In the past it was indicated that the population register would be used as the basis for the voters’ roll, but because it was felt on various occasions that there was still a too great a backlog, this was postponed from time to time. I recognize that as a result of the staff shortage there are still problems, but unless there is joint disciplining of the public as well as the public servants, it will be too easy to postpone this matter indefinitely. I am afraid that the increasing credibility gap between the public and the State as regards this matter could lead to one of these important functions or reasons for an efficient, effective and correct population register, being frustrated. The public will simply no longer accept its importance or realize that it is essential to give notice of changes of address regularly and timeously. If the use of the identity document were to be a prerequisite in the proposed referendum, this would probably also be the most effective way of drawing the public’s attention to the necessity of giving notice of change of address and drawing their attention to the advantages of having an identity document. If voters are placed on the voters’ roll according to the population register, many problems can be eliminated. For example, every voter with an identity document will know at what address he is registered as a voter. During the last election there were hundreds, in fact thousands of voters who could not remember at what address they had been previously registered. It caused tremendous problems to find out where they were registered, if in fact they were registered at all, and there were many thousands of voters who were not registered.

We should make use of the microfiche system.

Even with the microfiche system it was proved that there were many thousands of voters who were not registered. That is why I am saying that every individual who has an identity document, will at least know that his name appears on the voter’s roll if the identity document is used as a basis. At the same time he will also know at which address, and therefore in which constituency, he is registered. There will also be fewer problems with voters who only find out on the day of the election that their names simply do not appear on a voter’s roll. Problems would also arise however—for example thousands of voters do not give notice of their change of address in terms of the Population Registration Act, and therefore reside at a different address from the one at which they are registered as voters.

I propose that the referendum envisaged for the various population groups be held on the basis of the population register. It is estimated that this will mean that over a quarter of a million White voters—according to the report the figure is 277 000—whose names do not appear on the voter’s roll—usually people in the age group 18 to 20—but who are included on the population register, can take part in a referendum. Moreover, in a referendum it does not matter in which constituency one is registered. A single matter must be decided on, and it is therefore not necessary to be registered in a specific constituency.

As far as the counting procedure is concerned I even want to suggest that we introduce a change in terms of which postal and special votes can be virtually eliminated, in that every individual irrespective of where he is registered, may use this vote on production of his identity document in the constituency where he is on election day. His identity document can then immediately be stamped to ensure that he does not vote twice. The counting can then be done with the identity document as proof. This will mean that the public will be made aware of the need to keep their identity document up to date. They will also realize how essential it is to have an identity document, because at the moment the general public does not understand the necessity for this. According to my information there are approximately 170 000 people with whom contact has been completely lost. They have identity documents, but they no longer reside at the address where they were registered, and the department cannot contact them because the people themselves do not inquire again about their identity document. They have changed their address but have neglected to inform the department of their change of address, as the Act specifies. I therefore ask that the real need to have an identity document must be brought to the attention of every voter in a tangible and forceful way by, for example, arranging that it be used in a referendum.

On page 173 of the report, reference is made to the fact that the Government has decided to introduce a uniform identity document for all population groups in South Africa. We have already had three identity documents to date. First we had the plastic card, then we had the book with 48 pages and now we have the book with 16 pages. If we have a uniform identity document for all the residents of South Africa, I want to ask that we at least stick to the present 16 page book. I feel it is possible to make provision for Blacks, too, to be issued with identity documents in accordance with the current numbering system. I have no objection to there being a uniform identity document. However, I am asking that we should not consider a fourth kind of identity document or a totally different use for it. I am saying this because on the one hand, it will create confusion among members of the public regarding the Government’s aim, and on the other, it will also lead to large-scale resistance if a completely new sort of document is introduced from scratch. At the moment the present identity document makes provision for the inclusion of the person’s name, address, his driver’s licence, firearms licences, possible use of a voter’s roll and his marital status. The idea has been advanced that we may get a new form of identity document, a plastic card. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour please. I should like to follow up on what the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member for Green Point said by conveying my congratulations, on behalf of this party, to the new Director-General, Mr. S. S. van der Merwe, in his new capacity. We wish him everything of the best and hope that he will achieve great success with his work in future. I also wish to express a word of thanks to his predecessor, Mr. Jimmy van der Merwe, for the work which he did. The hon. member for Green Point and I feel that we are in very good company among all the Van der Merwes. Although the hon. member for Klip River is not a Van der Merwe, I wish to congratulate him as well on his appointment as chairman of the Internal Affairs study group of the NP. [Interjections.] That hon. member concentrated to a great extent on one aspect of internal affairs, and I do not wish to react directly to what he said. Later in my speech, however, I shall refer to a few similar matters.

This department is a very large and comprehensive department which has to look after the interests of two very large communities in South Africa. The term “communities” is the one which the department uses in its report. I am referring to the communities of the Coloureds and of the Indians. There are, of course, those aspects which used to fall under the old Department of the Interior, viz. civic services, aliens control, permanent residence and publications control.

One assumed that after the Government had disposed of the whole question of rationalization, and had adopted its standpoint on the recommendations to the President’s Council, the department would probably emerge in a different form.

As far as internal affairs are concerned, I should just like to raise three matters briefly.

The first is the whole question of the control of publications. Later on, other hon. members of this party will have more to say about this. With reference to the new finding pertaining to Kennis van die Aand and of many other books and publications which appear, as well as films which are shown, I wish to say that it seems to me there is a strong tendency in the South African community to move towards a milieu of decadence and permissiveness. I think all of us in this House wish to offer resistance to this.

At least we have knowledge of the day as well.

I do not know whether that hon. member does not perhaps wish to offer any resistance, but as far as I know we all of us do. As for the CP, we as a political party will adopt a standpoint against this deterioration and against the direction in which certain people, as well as the world, wish to push South Africa. We shall, to the best of our ability, support bodies and institutions in South Africa that oppose this tendency, and we shall also support individuals who are concerned about this tendency in our society. There must be no doubt about that.

Furthermore, I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to page 72 of the annual report in which reference is made to open universities. As far as the White universities as well as the Afrikaans universities are concerned, they are now considered by the department to be open universities. In the introduction “open universities” is given in quotation marks, but later in the report the quotation marks are omitted and reference is simply made to open universities. In view of the Government’s standpoint in respect of power-sharing, I should like to see how the universities, and the position of universities, grow under the guidance of this Government.

On page 153 of the annual report one sees that a very large number of Cape Coloureds have been reclassified as Whites. I should like to know more about this particular matter. Is the hon. the Minister and the department engaged in a disposal process there?

Now I wish to return to the aspect of the two major communities with which the department also occupied itself. I think that any objective observer will know that since 1948, after the NP took over the reins of government from the old United Party, there has been phenomenal growth in every sphere and every facet of the pattern of life of the Indian community and of the Coloured community. No objective observer can dispute that. I think this was to a great extent attributable not only to the zeal and the idealism of the people themselves, but also to the will, the idealism and the hard work of the people who governed after 1948. The CP would also like those aspects to be continued. We will do everything in our power as an Opposition party and, I believe, later as a governing party, to make a contribution to the progress of the Coloured community and of the Asiatic community, not only as dependants of the Whites, but as independent and proud communities, communities which will generate pride and idealism in themselves, for to generate pride and idealism in oneself is, in the final instance, the exclusive responsibility of every community.

In their own areas, or where?

I also wish to address a friendly request to the leaders of the communities concerned to refrain from judging the CP by what the Government is at present saying about us and also to refrain from believing everything which the Government Press is saying about us. We shall not only continue to build creatively on our own freedom, our independence and the stabilization of our cultural heritage, but we shall also work hard to allow the Brown community and the Indian community to realize their ideals. Our nationalism is Christian nationalism and also determines our attitude to other peoples and communities.

But how are you going to succeed in doing that? [Interjections.]

In the months which lie ahead, the CP will continue to make it very clear to these communities what we want for our own White community in Southern Africa, how we wish to work out our own future here, but also what our relations with the Brown community and the Indian community will be. This we shall determine for ourselves in the months which lie ahead. We shall extend the hand of friendship to both the Brown community as well as the Indian community, and these communities must not accept this gesture of friendship to mean that we, as representatives of a large part of the White community, are acknowledging our own capitulation. When we extend this hand of friendship to the, we are not doing so with a guilt complex about our own conduct, and also not in a way which implies that our ancestors left us with a guilt complex owing to their treatment of the Brown and the Indian communities. We shall continue the struggle which we waged for the acquisition of our own freedom in this Southern land. In the search for and the stabilization of our own freedom and own independence we shall, however, do nothing which will embarrass either our ancestors nor our descendants.

You are still a Nationalist.

You have already embarrassed them.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member says I am still a Nationalist. I have been a Nationalist all my life. I still stand for the same principles…

What were you prior to 1958? [Interjections.]

I still stand for the same principles I have always stood for. I have not changed. [Interjections.]

We do not stand for the PW Progs, that’s all! [Interjections.]

In all sincerity we should also like to ensure that justice is done to the peoples and communities in South Africa …

How?

… peoples and communities which in the course of history were placed under the political control of the White man by British imperialism. This is, after all, in my opinion, what I at least wish to escape from. I wish to escape from having to exercise political control over other peoples; only over my own people do I wish to exercise control, not over others.

When I turn to the hon. the Minister now, I quite earnestly mean what I am saying. The hon. the Minister is in fact one of the major planners of the Government’s policy. That is how I have come to know him. In fact, that is how I see him today. His will and his vision is to a great extent the vision and the will of the NP. I have come to know the hon. the Minister as a person who likes to argue and debate. As a member of an Opposition party, my view of the Government is of course different to what it was before. I believe that the hon. the Minister also sees my fellow party members and me in a different light now. I wish to point out that two statements have recently been made on the proposals before the President’s Council. On 31 March this year, while the hon. member for Meyerton was speaking, the hon. member for Pretoria Central asked him by way of an interjection why he had not walked out when the congresses changed the policy in 1977. The hon. member for Meyerton’s reaction to this was as follows (Hansard, 31 March 1982, col. 3933)—

The reaction of the hon. member for Pretoria Central to this was—

According to the hon. member for Pretoria Central, the proposals which are before the President’s Council had therefore failed, and the Government is now examining other proposals. Last week the hon. member for Benoni said something entirely different. In a speech which he made in this House last week the hon. member for Benoni said (Hansard. 21 April 1982)—

For the sake of the debate which we are now conducting, and also for the sake of our report-back meetings which we shall have to hold later this year, I believe it will be interesting to try to determine which one of the two aforesaid standpoints is the correct one. It is the standpoint of the hon. member for Pretoria Central, or is it that of the hon. member for Benoni?

Rather tell us something about your policy now!

Another aspect which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, stems from the debate during the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. We have dealt with the entire matter of the chairman of the President’s Council and what followed. The hon. the Prime Minister is in the House. On one occasion he replied to me, and I want to tell him again that I am very grateful for having accepted my appologies for not being able to be here. However, I read the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech and I want to say that I did not really receive a reply to the arguments I advanced, viz. that the chairman of the President’s Council said the following—

He went on to say—

Then I quoted the previous Prime Minister when he said the following—

To my mind it is important that this debate be taken further because I think that the events of the past few months revolved around this one basic fact. The dispute was not triggered off by a single word. I want to repeat: Words have meaning and content and I think it is absolutely essential that this party should go out and demonstrate its moral correctness to the general public and the voters. We must do this otherwise the voters will not accept us. They will reject us and then, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, we will be caught napping. That is true and I agree with that. On the other hand it is equally important that the NP should explain itself in respect of whose standpoint is the correct one in respect of this particular matter. I repeat that there we had two living persons, the one retired, if I may use that expression, and the other who was a chairman of the President’s Council. We are all awaiting those proposals now. This side of the House, too, would like to see what proposals the President’s Council are going to make. Of course we will study them, we will see what is stated in those proposals because one does after all learn from the opinions and thoughts and views of other people. Of course we shall also take careful cognizance of what the Government is going to do with them, what the proposals of the Government are going to be and how they see the future of South Africa.

Why did you not stick to the text of the 1977 proposals?

The division in South Africa today is between those people on the one hand who want power-sharing in South Africa, and on that side we find the PFP, the NP and the NRP. At the other end of the spectrum stands the CP, the HNP and other groups … [Interjections.] This is true, this is the reality. I want to say that every party which subscribes to power-sharing will not only have to spell out this course for itself and for the voters of South Africa, and also to the other communities in Southern Africa, but will also have to be prepared to go all the way. I do not think there is any doubt about this, as in the case of this party which states that we do not advocate power-sharing. So, too, will we and the others, however many of them there may be, have to accept the full consequences of that course. We shall have to spell out our direction for ourselves and also for the other peoples in South Africa. I have no doubt about that. That is why I think the times which lie ahead are, as all times are, important to the national communities and to Southern Africa. I think it is also important, in view of the political debate which is in progress in South Africa, that all the political parties should spell out these things as far as it is humanly possible. In addition I must say that it is not only the White political parties that will have to do this, but also the leaders of the Brown community, considering the division which exists in their ranks. They are also divided, and they, too, will have to spell this out much further …

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

No, unfortunately I do not have the time at my disposal to reply to questions. Unfortunately I have only two minute left. I think the hon. the Minister and I can discuss this matter in Delmas.

The Brown community and its political leaders will also have to spell out, not only what they want for themselves, but also how they see the Whites in their pattern and policy. The same applies to the Indian community of South Africa, with its political school of thought and drift. They, too, will have to state what position they think the Whites will have to occupy.

You tell us where you stand.

This will also have to be stated in respect of the Black community.

We on this side of the House represent White people, and we wish to spell out the future for the Whites; we do not shrink from that, nor are we afraid to do so. We want to state this directly and consistently.

State it right now; we shall give you the necessary time to do so.

The hon. member for Brakpan will go into this matter further at a later stage, but I just wish to point out that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs told the voters in one and the same speech the other evening that they were now waiting for the President’s Council to spell out the policy, while he said in the same breath that they were now waiting for the CP to spell out its policy. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, I shall not shrink from doing so, but every political party has a programme of principles. We have only just begun, and this much I can say now: During the next few months we shall, as far as it is humanly possible, co-operate with all people in the country who support us. It is not only Prof. Sampie Terblanche and people like that in the academic world who will help us to do so. These will be plans which will be spelt out by us in co-operation with others by our congress. I can understand that many members of the NP will only wait until we come forward with a policy in which a better position is spelled out for the White man than power-sharing which is being advocated by the NP. The hon. member for Brakpan will refer to this as well at a later stage. We may as well ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central what he has to say about power-sharing.

Your two minutes are very long!

In conclusion I say to the hon. the Minister that as I did when I was a member of the same party as he was, that my party and I will now do our best to help him wherever we can, when we agree with him. But when we differ with him, we shall indicate this in the hope that we shall be able to conduct a good debate.

Mr. Chairman, the words of the hon. member for Rissik do have meaning and content. I shall be so pleased if we and the CP can come to an agreement one day and say that words do have meaning and content. He pointed out that there had been a difference of opinion between the Vice State President and the former State President in that the one had said there was power-sharing while the other had said there was no power-sharing. To this the reply is simple: Both are correct when they say that, because the one is referring to power-sharing on the basis of model A, while the other is referring to power-sharing on the basis of model B. Even then it is doubtful whether the former State President, when he interprets the matter in this way, really understands it. If he says that we never accepted power-sharing and by that he means power-sharing in the sense of “one man, one vote”—that model of power-sharing—he is 100% correct, for we never accepted that. However, when the Vice State President says that the proposals do in fact contain elements of power-sharing, and by that he means joint responsibility, he is completely correct.

Another aspect of the speech by the hon. member for Rissik, is that on one hand he quoted the hon. member for Pretoria Central as having allegedly said that the 1977 proposals had failed, while on the other hand he quoted the hon. member for Benoni as having allegedly said that the 1977 proposals were the policy of the NP. Those two hon. members are both correct, because the NP has not formulated another policy since 1977. On the other hand, the NP admitted that the policy as it was formulated in 1977 could not be applied, and for that reason the Bill which had been drafted in 1977 was referred to a Select Committee prior to the Second Reading and eventually ended up before the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik went on to say that the CP did not wish to pursue a policy with which they would perpetuate political control by the Whites over other nations. I should like to grapple with the hon. member over this problem. He also said that independence, the right of a nation to self-determination, is something which a nation has to earn for itself and has to shape for itself, out of its circumstances if I may paraphrase the views of the hon. member for Rissik. The opinions of the hon. member are very closely linked to a pamphlet which I received entitled “Sabra se Kommentaar op die Regeringsvoorstelle van 1977”. On page 17 Sa-bra’s interpretation of what the 1977 proposals were aimed at is given. I quote—

Hon. members must please take note of what follows, viz.—

To me that sounds more or less in keeping with the premise of the hon. member for Rissik. To my mind there appears to be a very close connnection between this pamphlet and the premise of the hon. member for Rissik, and, so I assume, the premise of the CP, and for that reason it is perhaps necessary for us to take a closer look at this pamphlet. A few interesting observations occur in this pamphlet. Inter alia, it is said that for a democracy to be able to succeed there must be acceptance of the concept by the population. This is one of the requirements for a democracy which are specified on page 8 of the pamphlet. In support of this point it is stated—

Further points in this connection are also raised, but unfortunately I do not have enough time at my disposal to quote all of them. Sabra put forward quite a few requirements, and then went on to test the 1977 proposals of the Government against those requirements and eventually arrived at specific conclusions. On page 23 it is stated, inter alia—

What is being referred to here is the situation in which the electoral college is dominated by the Whites and the president may at will be elected and dismissed by the Whites. I shall read this again—

Sir, I have very little time left, but I just wish to observe that one encounters this particular premise in several places in the pamphlet. On page 21, for example, it is stated—

That is to say, with the fact that the White House of Assembly has the sole decision concerning revenue funds. The authors of this pamphlet then proceed to suggest that specific adjustments should be made to the 1977 proposals. They say for example that the State President should not be elected by an electoral college, but by the White House of Assembly. Yet only a moment ago they were shooting something like this down in flames. After all, they did say that because the State President would be elected by Whites only, the Coloureds could not possibly be satisfied with that. But now they are saying that the State President should be elected by the White House of Assembly. On the last page of this pamphlet there is a diagram and from the diagram it is clear that it is the premise of these people that every nation should decide its own affairs, and that only the Whites should decide on matters of common interest. There you have it! The Whites decide on matters of common interest. To the Coloureds goes the consolation prize that they will be able to conduct their affairs in such a way that they will gradually be able to develop their self-determination further until it reaches the same level as that of the Whites. Now I ask you: How is it possible for educated people to publish rubbish like this? If the hon. member for Rissik and his party were to accept these proposals put forward by Sabra as the basis of their policy—a policy which they still have to evolve, I concede that, and they have to be given time to do so—they will have something which will not work, but which has already been condemned by the same people who wrote it.

Mr. Chairman, this debate has, for the first time during my period in this House, got me really worried, because I cannot help but feel that the whole of South Africa is being taken over by the Van der Merwes. There is the Director-General who has retired, a Director-General who is replacing him and then three of the speakers who have already spoken are all Van der Merwes, one from the NP, one from the CP and one from the PFP. We Natalians have always said that we are different. Here again the only two Natal speakers to speak so far are not Van der Merwes. I refer to the hon. member for Klip River and myself. Nevertheless I should like to congratulate Mr. Van der Merwe on his appointment as Director-General and at the same time suggest that his successor should not be a Van der Merwe as well, otherwise it might be construed as a family business.

Like the Bothas.

Well, that is a family business too.

I am sorry that we only received the report of the department on Friday. Nevertheless I did have the opportunity of going through it over the weekend. I have great sympathy for the department in that they have a substantial shortfall in staff. 28% is one heck of a shortfall when it comes to the White staff. I therefore do have great sympathy and appreciate the problems of the department as a consequence. In so far as the shortage of Coloured and Indian staff is concerned, it is relatively small and. I would venture to suggest, quite manageable. One point that did interest me, however, was in respect of the promotions. One would obviously like to congratulate those who have been promoted. However, it was interesting to note that in so far as the Coloured and Indian officers are concerned, there have now been promotions to the posts of Assistant Director and Control Administrative Officer, which are very high promotions and which indicate the will and intent of the department to ensure that these people achieve the highest offices.

Basically, this department has a great number of very human problems to deal with, matters relating to race classification, immigration and other matters of similar ilk. One point that in my view is important and should be raised here, is that when one is dealing with human problems, the time factor is of vital importance in most cases.

In my dealings with the department, I have always received the utmost courtesy and respect, and I have no criticism at all of the officials with whom I have had dealings. All my letters to the department have been acknowledged but, unfortunately, once letters get out of local hands and are referred to Pretoria, it seems as though they are put into the sausage machine. Thereafter one experiences considerable delays. This is why I made the point that when one is dealing with human problems, delays can in fact be disastrous to the people concerned. Take for example the question of race classification. I am not going into the why’s and wherefore’s, or into the desirability or otherwise of race classification. It is the law of the land and, as far as I am concerned, if it is the law of the land then it must be administered justly, efficiently and without any delay. However, in many instances these race classification cases take a considerable time to be finalized, and in the meantime the sword of Damocles is hanging over the heads of the people concerned and they await the outcome in fear. Let us be quite honest about it. In our South African context the race classification is the be-all and end-all of certain rights and privileges, for instance where a man may live and vote, what sort of business he may conduct, etc. As far as race classification is concerned, I believe, therefore, that it is vitally important that there should be absolutely no delay in handling these matters.

Are you for it or against it?

I have indicated quite clearly that I am not commenting on whether it is good, bad or indifferent. I am merely suggesting how it should be administered while it is the law of the land. [Interjections.]

In so far as race classification is concerned, we in these benches believe that surely we can find a system that is a little less complex than the one that presently obtains. The system that was used in the past is, I believe, that one should take note of a man’s appearance and acceptability within the community. I understand from what I have read on the issue that there is now a far more complex procedure than appearance and acceptability within the community. If one were to look at these points, I cannot help but feel that it would be more humane if cases of this nature could be handled far more quickly. Furthermore I think it would be less hurtful. If hon. members want to know what my personal views are, I can assure them that I am not very happy at all about race classification. [Interjections.] The reason why I say that one can work, within reason, on appearance and acceptability within the community, is because I think that most of us in this House are perfectly well aware of people of colour who are accepted as Whites and enjoy the rights of Whites in South Africa today. If we were quite honest about this, I think we would admit that most of us know of such people. So, if we are talking about racial purity, of the fact that one has to be absolutely certain of having this racial purity—I might add that I am not one of those who is frightfully enamoured of the racial purity theme—I think one would have to admit that one has already lost it anyway, because there is a great deal of colour in the White community. We know this from various reports that have been published from time to time. I therefore believe that we could do ourselves as a country a great deal of good if we were to be more human in our approach to this subject. The next point I should like to touch upon is that of immigration and the long delays in that sphere.

Hear, hear!

Mostly it is a question of the processing of applications. I firmly believe that we must be selective, more so in this country than in other countries, when it comes to selecting immigrants, because we want immigrants who can assist in creating job opportunities for our community as a whole, so as to improve the economy. We are not looking for labourers. We are looking for people who can provide job opportunities for labourers. I am therefore not suggesting, as far as the general run of immigrants is concerned, that we should reduce standards, but I am saying that for certain catgories we must have a somewhat more simplified system than the one which obviously prevails at the moment. I am referring now, in particular, to people who previously were South African citizens but who, for some or other reason, lost their citizenship through being overseas, intending immigrants whose wives or husbands were South African citizens, and full South African citizens who wish to be responsible for bringing out elderly parents who have been left on their own overseas. Perhaps many years ago the children, for example, emigrated to South Africa, their parents having been left alone overseas. Now the children might want to bring their parents out to South Africa so as to look after them. I believe that those people should be given specially swift treatment because we have a means of looking quickly into their backgrounds, something we do not have in respect of totally new immigrants. As I have said before, I do not advocate automatic entry for anybody, not even for these people, but I do suggest that, as in a supermarket where one has a push-through counter for people with small baskets, the same could well apply to immigration if the people involved are people about whom one already knows something. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for giving me the additional time. I want to refer to this document that was handed to us on Friday, which was, as I have said, a little late. I went through it, in the first instance, in a bit of a hurry, and in my first reading of it found something that struck me as rather startling. As I have said, intitially I read through it very quickly and was not quite sure what to make of one item I found. On page 166 I found the item “Executed or in process of execution”, and alongside it the figure 675. Below that I found the item “Suspended during good behaviour” and next to it the figure 57. I know that we do hang people, but I thought that that was rather an unusual way of expressing it.

Expecially for good behaviour!

Yes, well that was the point. It was the reference to “good behaviour” that worried me.

Chris certainly does not hang around!

From what has been said today, it is of course obvious that the department also handles constitutional matters. Again, I do not propose to get involved in the argument between the CP and the NP, but there are a couple of points I should like to refer to that were raised by other hon. members. The hon. member for Klip River said the Government had nothing to be ashamed of in regard to the development of the Coloured people. I would say that over the last few years the Government has treated the Coloured people very well. From the material angle, certainly, the Government has done a terrific amount for them, but to make an all-embracing claim such as the hon. member for Klop River made is, I think, quite wrong. The hon. member obviously has forgotten the packing of the Senate to remove the Coloured people’s vote. So far as the Coloured people are concerned, that is one thing which, I believe, the Government will always have to be ashamed of.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the issue that the Blacks must be included in the constitutional change if it is to be acceptable to the PFP and probably the NRP. He also said that the Coloureds and Asiatics had to have the same rights as Whites to decide upon the Blacks once the new constitution comes into being. I fully concur with the views of the hon. member in this regard. If in fact the new constitution does bring the Coloured and Indian people in line with the White community, they will obviously have to have just as much of a say as anybody else as to whether the President’s Council is to proceed further with any other investigations to bring the urban Blacks into line with the Coloureds, Indians and Whites. I thought I had better make that particular point again. I did make it some time ago—I think I made it during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote—but I want to repeat that, as far as the NRP are concerned, we believe that under no circumstances can the non-homeland Blacks be left out of any dispensation.

I should like to go beyond that and get to the aspect of local government, a matter which I know is likely to come forward soon, specifically with reference to viability. This is probably one of the most grossly over-used and under-appreciated words when it comes to local government. As far as I am concerned, the land, the area itself, is not inherent in viability at all. What is important is whether the people are viable or not. I hear that Transkei cannot be viable as a homeland, because of this, that or the other. It is said that there is not enough space and not enough agriculture. I am quite convinced that, with proper management, Transkei can be thoroughly viable. Similarly, with regard to local authorities I have heard it said that certain what we call ethnic local authorities cannot be viable because they do not have industries, they do not have a commercial centre or whatever it may be. I do not accept that this is so. I believe that, if the base is right, any local authority can be viable. An hon. member on this side was in fact mayor of a small local authority which had virtually no commerce at the time and certainly no industries. Yet is was very viable. In Natal there are at least 30 to 40 local authorities with neither commerce nor industries of any magnitude but which are nevertheless thoroughly viable. They are, however, thoroughly viable because the people concerned have been handling their economics in a sound and sensible manner and have not been suffering from illusions of grandeur or setting their standards on the major urban centres. I believe that one of the problems in respect of viability is that the yardstick that is used is that of the major urban areas. What is necessary and, in fact, essential in a very, very large city is very often certainly not necessary and frequently undesirable for a small local authority. If in our new constitutional dispensation we are to achieve the maximum degree of participation of all communities, I believe it is going to be necessary to have what I think are probably termed ethnic local authorities to a very large degree. I think this is going to be necessary. They will, however, not be able to operate as they are operating at the present moment, with the responsibility for all the infrastructure services, and also for running their parochial affairs, etc. They will not be able to do it. Apart from the financial side there are just not enough professionally trained people to be able to accommodate this possible proliferation of urban local authorities. One will not, I believe, allay the fears in certain of these local authorities—definitely not in so far as the White community is concerned—by having a system of one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll. One will not be able to satisfy the political aspirations of the Indian, Coloured and Black communities by expecting them to stand entirely on their own and look after their own infrastructure affairs. Therefore I was quite pleased to read what was said by the Chief Director of Public Finance, Mr. Croeser. Addressing the Institute for Municipal Treasurers and Accountants recently he spoke about the setting up of a fourth tier of government. I am not so sure that I am terribly fond of the idea of a fourth tier of government, but I certainly believe in the metropolitan concept, whether it be on regional boards or on metropolitan boards. I do, however, keep an open mind in this regard. I do believe one has to have a body such as that, a body with the necessary expertise and the magnitude of scale which will enable it to handle the infrastructure for a large metropolitan area.

I am very pleased that that statement was made. I know Mr. Croeser made this statement in his personal capacity, but knowing the little I do about the functioning of government, I hardly imagine he would have made that statement if he felt it was going to be opposed.

We in the NRP have advocated a metropolitan system for quite a long time.

A very long time!

A very long time indeed! Nevertheless, we are hoping that in the not too distant future it will come into being, possibly along the lines which we advocated in 1978 …

And in 1980.

… when we formulated our proposal in this respect. As it was, however, they never listened to us. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo touched on a wide range of subjects. He will therefore pardon me if I do not try to react to them in detail. However, I wish to point out that I think he made quite a positive contribution. I noticed that the hon. the Minister was listening attentively to him. He will therefore undoubtedly be receiving replies from the hon. the Minister on all the aspects he referred to.

I should like to express a few thoughts with regard to the constitutional development process in South Africa, with particular reference to White-Coloured relations. However, before dealing with that, I wish to make a remark or two on the subject of justice.

During the past few weeks the subject of justice has been referred to in various speeches here in this House. I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein East gave a particularly fine exposition of this subject last week. However, I wish to touch on the subject once again by asking: What is the underlying principle of justice? We could argue about this philosophically and ask: What is justice? However, I believe that in the first place, one can only apply justice if one has self-respect. I am inclined to say that one should first love oneself before being able to do this. If one has enough self-respect to treat others with dignity, I would say that one is fulfilling the requirements which ought to be imposed when the subject of justice is being discussed.

Firstly, I believe that it is concerned with the acknowledgment of one’s own existence as a creature before God. After all, man derives his own human dignity and his own earthly existence from this. This also includes the acknowledgment of the miracle of God’s creation, as embodied in man on earth. This certainly does not include self-worship or self-glorification. It merely entails dignity and self-respect. This does not mean that one should demand esteem for oneself in a covetous or selfish way. However, self-respect certainly does not mean an attitude of self-reproach, self-recrimination or even self-criticism. I think that in such a spirit of self-respect, one can afford, as an individual or as part of a group, to see that the justice which one demands for oneself, is done to others, or to allow others to have the justice which one demands for oneself, done to them. With this as a basis or point of departure, one could make the statement come true that one will grant to others what one demands for oneself. With such an attitude to one’s own dignity, one could also act towards others without a morbid fear that one would lose out if one were to negotiate about one’s future. If one acts in this dignified way, one could go and negotiate without that fear. This applies to every individual and every group. This does not only apply to the Afrikaner or the Whites; it also applies to every other group. I am stating this as a general basis on which I should like to see justice being done. Justice means self-respect, not denying others the right which one demands for oneself, but with reference to the subject which is relevant in this debate, it also means a realization that the Government of this country is also responsible for the interests of, inter alia, the Coloureds and the Asians. That responsibility of the Government should also be carried out in the realization of the joint interests relevant in this regard. I would say that this could be deduced from the principle of justice which we on this side of the House do after all support.

I now wish to deal with the expectations of the Whites and the Coloureds in particular, in respect of the constitutional development course that has been embarked upon. This Government and this side of the House has embarked on a course in regard to which it has declared its willingness to find a solution; what is more, it cherishes the hope that a solution will be found for this difficult problem in South African politics. The best demonstration we have of this is the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has explicitly indicated, in this House and elsewhere, his willingness to bring about peace between Whites and Coloureds in South Africa. In fact, earlier this year, he said that he was willing to make it his lifelong task. That is the best demonstration this Government could give, i.e. to embark on a course which could lead to a solution to this difficult problem in South African politics. I also believe that it is indeed the hope of the majority of White South Africans that we should find a solution to this difficult problem which has existed in our South African politics almost as long as the NP itself. There is also the hope that we shall find such a solution soon. I think that there is the realization, too, that this hope demands a sacrifice on the part of the Whites. It also demands a price which they will have to pay in this process, and in this regard, in a spirit of dignity, we should also have no illusions about what is indeed relevant to us in this process of finding a solution. This hope we have of finding a solution, occurs against the background of the realization that in respect of the Coloureds in particular, an unfair and unjust dispensation exists at this time in South Africa.

The Coloureds also have expectations with regard to the future. Undoubtedly they, too, have the hope that this problem will be solved. They have more right than anyone else to cherish that hope, for they are, after all, the ones who are involved in this question. We realize why there is bitterness and a lack of faith in the Coloured community with regard to its own destiny and its own situation, but it is also important that the Coloureds should realize that as far as the sacrifice demanded of all of us is concerned, of them as well as of the Whites, that sacrifice and price on the part of the Whites is also a sacrifice and a price which should be taken into account against the background of the total spectrum of South African politics, and of White politics in particular. The possibilities for polarization in South Africa in the overall political spectrum are many. This is clearly perceivable when one speaks to the representatives of the Coloured community. There is the reproach or idea which is continually brought to one’s attention, that there is a polarization element in the ranks of the Coloureds. However, that polarization element does not exist only among the Coloureds; it also exists in the ranks of the Whites. In fact, it exists throughout the political spectrum.

In this phase we are approaching, the Coloureds should also bear in mind that it is concerned with the sacrifice which is being made, or the price which is being paid on the part of the Whites, and that it is accompanied by the polarization element, a definition of which I do not wish to deal with in detail now, but which also exists in the ranks of the Whites. This could lead to new tensions in South African politics, which would not be to the advantage of either the Whites, or the Coloureds, and which would also not be conducive to the finding of a solution to this crucial problem.

In the hope of finding a solution, the Coloureds should also understand and have patience and realize that this polarization element exists and that it demands a sacrifice and a price on the part of the Whites, so that a course can be embarked upon which will lead to finality in the search for a solution.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg West who has just sat down was patently at total cross purposes with the hon. member for Klip River who was the first speaker for the NP in this debate. The hon. member for Klip River said how wonderful the Government had been for the Coloureds and how they had brought them on and had done everything. He said the Government was worthy of their praise because of these wonderful services it had rendered to the Coloureds. He also stated that the Government had nothing to be ashamed of. Now, however, the hon. member for Johannesburg West gets up and says that the situation in regard to the Coloureds, to use his own words, was “onregverdig en onbillik”. This is a total contradiction.

I agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg West; things are not right in terms of the Coloured community of this country or the Indian community or any community which is not White in this country. Therefore, let us take the words of the hon. member for Johannesburg West and say that we have to try to bring about a situation for the other people in this country similar to that which we should like to have for ourselves. Let us say that anyone of us would be prepared to swop places with anyone of the Coloured, Indian or Black community because the opportunities that they have and the political rights which they enjoy would be the same as ours.

The basis upon which this whole political structure in South Africa is founded has been mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a wonderful passage which we find on page 154 of the department’s report. There we have the stupendous statement that during the year under review the department and the hon. the Minister made no less than 153 Cape Coloureds White. They also made one White a Cape Coloured. They made two Malays White and one White man Chinese. Finally they turned five Chinese White. Really! Do we seriously utilize this as the basis for our whole political structure in South Africa! It is ludicrous! In any country, in any sensible country of the world, it makes a total laughing stock of what we do in South Africa. I ask you, Sir, we made five Chinese White! [Interjections.]

All the parties in this House, with the exception of this party, want to perpetuate this sort of system. Even the NRP which some people might say were closer to us than any other party in this House …

Never.

… also want separate voters’ rolls for the different population groups, because their policy clearly states that they want a Parliament for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and urban Blacks. The only way in which one can have a voters’ roll for racially differentiated parliaments, is by racially differentiating between the people who are the voters in that system. This means that one will have to have a form of race classification. I am glad to hear that the hon. member for Umbilo, in his own words, is not very happy with race classification. I agree with him and I hope he can persuade his colleagues on those benches to get rid of this racialistic aspect of their policy.

When the hon. member for Klip River started the debate he made the statement that the NP had nothing to be ashamed of in relation to its dealings with the Coloured people, and he could not have been more incorrect. Let us look at the history of what has happened to the Coloured people of South Africa. When one goes right back to 1872 one finds that when responsible government was given to the Cape Colony there was no race or colour discrimination in terms of voting qualifications. There was none whatsoever more than a century ago.

When one goes back to the same period in time one also finds that the Potchefstroom constitution of the Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek provided that the vote should be restricted to Whites. The same happened in 1854 in the Orange Free State, where the vote was restricted to Whites only. Then followed the formation of Union in 1910 and voting rights were retained in the Cape Colony and also in Natal in respect of Coloureds. It was only when the NP Government came into power in 1948 that slowly but systematically and deliberately they started to destroy the political rights of the Coloured and Indian communities in South Africa. They were prepared to go even as far as acting in an illegal manner in order to bring this about.

That is not true.

They passed the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act in 1951.

Of course it is true.

What about the High Court of Parliament Act?

The hon. member who says it is not true need only look at what the history books say. In 1951 the Separate Representation of Voters Act was passed and the Appeal Court declared that Act, Act No. 46 of 1951, ultra vires. Did the NP act legally or illegally in doing that? Having been caught out in this, we all know they then tried to turn this Parliament into a High Court in 1955.

That was also chucked out by the courts.

Yes, that was also chucked out. The NP then enlarged the Senate and this was patently a clear case of gerrymandering.

Was that illegal?

No, that was not illegal but it was morally reprehensible. That hon. member should be ashamed of what his party did in this regard during those years. I am sure that hon. member was a member of the NP at that time and he has to share responsibility for it as has the hon. the Minister with whose Vote we are dealing today.

Finally, they got rid of the vote of the Coloureds in 1956 by means of a ballot which required a two-thirds majority, that was made possible thanks to an enlarged Senate. Of course, they subsequently reduced the membership of the Senate to the correct number. They played around with the Constitution unmercifully in order to make the political position of the Coloured totally untenable in this country. When the hon. member for Klip River says that the Government has nothing to be ashamed of, why is it that right at this moment in time the relationship between the White and Coloured people of South Africa has never been worse? Why is it that there have been such problems with the Coloured community in the Cape, for example the burning of schools? I do not approve of these things in the slightest, but surely it demonstrates the degree of unhappiness with their own position.

Then the hon. member for Klip River has the nerve to suggest that that dreadful, scandalous television show which took place represented the views of the Coloured people of South Africa.

What did the Coloured Labour Party say about that?

I think these were the views of a number of Uncle Toms and I believe that those views will be totally repudiated as and when the Government holds a referendum amongst the Coloured people as to what form government should take in this country.

I now want to get on to the next particular section of the history of what this Government has done to the Coloured people of South Africa. In 1971 ordinance No. 19 was passed, removing Coloureds from the municipal voters’ rolls in the Cape Province. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a direct question: Does he believe that this was a sensible or a decent act? Silence! Does he believe that it was the correct thing to do?

He is not usually silent.

He is absolutely silent now! The Government has set up a system in its place which is basically not acceptable. Between last session and this session I had the good fortune to attend a meeting in Cradock, at which the hon. the Minister himself was present, where members of the Coloured Management Committee were present and where there was a deal of discussion. It was patently apparent that the Coloured people who were at that meeting were very unhappy with the political system in terms of local voting rights, i.e. the municipal voters’ rolls, that had been foisted upon them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central became a bit confused here this afternoon, because the hon. member for Klip River spoke about the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloured people, whilst the hon. member for Johannesburg West spoke about the political aspirations of the Coloured people. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was trying to play them off the one against the other. That is typical of that hon. member. All he could talk about this afternoon was the past. Instead of entering a debate with a young hon. member on this side of the House and speaking about the future of South Africa, he spoke about the past. He sowed suspicion upon suspicion amongst the Coloured people.

*The year 1982 poses absolutely phenomenal challenges for today’s generation, and they are not merely phenomenal, but also of a challenging nature. We on this side of the House are not prepared to run away from these problems, but will face them with enthusiasm and deal with them. Today’s decisions will determine whether future generations in South Africa will live in peace, prosperity and security or whether they will live in conditions of chaos, anarchy and confrontation. That is why we deprecate the criticism and sowing of suspicion on the part of the Opposition. Here I want to exclude the NRP, because they are making a positive contribution in regard to this matter. They do at least sit in the President’s Council. Those two parties that represent the extremists in South Africa, the PFP and the CP, are the people who are sowing suspicion from platform to platform. Instead of supporting the hon. the Prime Minister in dealing with this wide-ranging problem, they are aggravating the problem.

The hon. member for Green Point merely made his customary speech by making negative remarks and sowing suspicion in advance with regard to the proposals of the President’s Council.

When we discuss the political rights of the Coloureds, we must in some way create mechanisms for these people to deliberate together with the Whites of South Africa. By way of the President’s Council the Government is engaged in an honest and sincere effort to negotiate a fair and just dispensation for these people. But while it is doing so its efforts are being cast under suspicion, its efforts are being undermined from platform to platform, by the CP in particular, and suspicion is being sown among the people of colour by the PFP, among others, and among the White voters of South Africa by the CP.

However, the NP has two basic points of departure with regard to the Coloured and Indian communities in South Africa. The first is self-determination with reference to exclusive interest to a specific community and the second is joint responsibility concerning matters of common interest. There are hon. members who hide behind the skirts of the former Prime Minister, Mr. John Vorster.

You are a “meid” (old woman)!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that the hon. member for Turffontein is a “meid”?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Turffontein referred to Mr. Vorster as a woman, and in response I said that he was a “meid”. [Interjections.] But I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, may I just explain? I used the expression “hiding behind someone’s skirts”. After all, it is a recognized expression.

The hon. member for Rissik is one of the only hon. members of the CP who is prepared to debate openly. He told us this afternoon that words had meaning and content. Power-sharing and co-responsibility are two of the words that have been bandied about here today. Hon. members of the CP want to attack us on the word “power-sharing”, but in the mean time they have banned the word “co-responsibility” from their vocabulary entirely. I think the hon. member must give us a reason for that.

There are certain things that are causing concern in the politics of South Africa, among the Whites in particular, and I want to say to hon. members of the CP this afternoon that they do not have the sole right to speak here on behalf of the Whites of South Africa. After all, the Whites of South Africa know where they stand with the NP, and while we are struggling with the new constitution for South Africa, there are, after all, certain built-in guarantees for the White community in South Africa. The President’s Council, in contrast to what those hon. members announce from the platforms, is indeed an instrument of this Parliament. The Cabinet, the caucus and the NP congresses will discuss any proposals, and if necessary, the Whites will decide on them by way of referendum. And what will happen after that? Then the Government must approach this Parliament, as the highest authority in South Africa, to introduce legislationoin terms of which these proposals will be implemented. This Parliament, which comprises representatives of the White community in South Africa, will therefore act as the regulator of the evolutionary process for a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa.

What is there for us to be afraid of? After all, there are built-in guarantees, and the way in which we debate these matters with one another in the future has been spelt out. For a period, evolution will determine in a responsible way the rate of change in this sphere.

I know the CP cannot spell out its policy for us, because they do not have a policy as yet, but they should at least spell out clear guidelines for us. Let us look at the Coloureds this afternoon. As far as I am concerned, there are only three alternatives. We can either maintain the status quo, and I do not believe that there is anyone in the ranks of the CP who accepts that. In the second place, they can propose a homeland for the Coloureds. I do not know whether they have decided on that yet. In the third place, we must sit down and negotiate a fair and just dispensation with the Coloureds for the Coloureds, and mechanisms for this have already been created. After all, the hon. members for Rissik and Brakpan served on the Select Committee before which the NP’s 1977 plan served as a basis, and they came back to Parliament, together with the other members, and said that the 1977 plan should not be implemented, but that we should discuss matters with the Coloureds again. The mechanisms they proposed and signed jointly were that a President’s Council should be instituted which should be a mixed body, to deliberate and to take evidence, and subsequently to make proposals to Parliament. [Interjections.] The CP therefore had a part in the creation of these mechanisms. But what are they doing now? They are now, together with the HNP, evading the responsibility of deliberating on the future of South Africa together with the NP. Surely we in this country must move forward. The hon. the Prime Minister faces these problems unflinchingly, and because he is making an honest and sincere effort to find a solution, he is reproached and suspicion is cast on him in the minds of the White voters of South Africa. Those hon. members must know that one does not retire into the future. One goes straight ahead and states one’s standpoint very clearly.

You are a typical example of a “straight” man.

I am quite happy. The difficulty with those hon. members is that they are angry with me because I am in the NP and they are out of the party. [Interjections.] However, that is not my fault.

They accepted your policy.

The NP is responsible for the most wide-ranging measures of reform South Africa has ever seen, and I believe that the problem of the Coloureds will be resolved by the NP Government. Hon. members on the CP side had better admit, for once and for all, that they are awaiting the proposals of the President’s Council, because at the moment they do not have a standpoint to adopt. Whatever the President’s Council may recommend, they will simply say: That we do not accept. On the basis of that standpoint they will work out their policy for South Africa in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Turffontein. He always makes positive contributions. [Interjections.] The basic error of reasoning of the CP is that they are always seeing spectres. They describe these things beautifully and they use fine words, and then they are angry with us when we tell them that these spectres do not exist. For example, they apparently saw things in the caucus which did not occur. They should not confuse their nightmares with reality. [Interjections.]

In his first appearance in this House, the hon. the leader of the CP put certain important questions on behalf of the CP and he made certain statements which, in my opinion, would repay careful study.

Firstly, the CP made a statement through its leader which needs to be considered carefully and judged in the correct light. To tell us this, is really unnecessary, because after all, as Nationalists we are aware of this. I quote from Hansard, 30 March 1982, col. 3852—

However, to tell us this is unnecessary, since we are aware of it.

Are you sure?

After all, those hon. members were members of the NP until 24 February. They are well aware of what our party’s policy was until that date, and, like good Nationalists, gave that policy a hearing and advocated it enthusiastically. I should like to quote what our hon. leader had to say on 26 January 1981 (column 30). He was replying to specific questions which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had put to him, and did those hon. members not believe what the hon. the Prime Minister said? Or are they obstreperous and ignorant about our policy? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the following to say—

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on—

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Is the CP’s policy the same? Do they also believe in a separate constitutional dispensation for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians on the one hand, and Black people on the other? [Interjections.] Our policy in this regard has not changed one iota. Why do those hon. members not rectify the position in their posters? Why do they not announce their position at their meetings? Why are they hiding these important facts?

This brings me to another important aspect. I wish to refer to the kind of thing which the hon. the leader of the CP does regularly in his speeches throughout the country. I quote his question (Hansard, 30 March 1982, col. 3847)—

Does he think he is going to confuse our people by casting such a question in our midst? I do not know whom he thinks he is going to confuse. He goes on to ask—

The hon. the leader of the CP, as well as the CP, are well aware, as I have already indicated, that the NP draws an important distinction between political formulae for the various Black nations on the one hand, and for the Whites, Coloureds and Asians on the other. We differ radically from the PFP in this respect. If, therefore, one asks, “Who is governing whom?”, one knows that one should draw this fundamental distinction in advance. Only then can one reply to the question meaningfully.

If, therefore, as far as the Black nations are concerned, it is asked, “Who is governing whom?”, then the reply is that the Black nations have to follow the constitutional path of a limited form of self-government and, eventually, fully-fledged self-government, independence and sovereignty. Then Blacks will be governing Blacks, as has already happened in four cases. Then, too, the CP is well aware that as far as the millions of members of Black peoples who do not live in their own national States, but in the RSA, are concerned, the reply to the question, “Who is governing whom?”, is as follows in this case: At local level, the right to self-determination is given to the Black man living outside his national State, but at higher levels of government, a dispensation is being envisaged in terms of which he can express himself at a higher level via the political institutions and channels of the people to which he belongs. Therefore, as far as the Black nations within and outside the independent States are concerned, the reply to the question, “Who is governing whom?” is crystal clear in terms of NP policy. If the CP says that this exposition of mine is not NP policy, I want to tell them that they are dishonest and stagnant. This is indeed the correct NP policy. Why do they not put this to our people at their meetings? Then the CP would also agree that the NP and the PFP differ radically from one another on this. I should like to know what the CP policy is on this.

Then the question, “Who is governing whom?” still remains as far as the Whites, Coloureds and Asians are concerned. The NP’s reply to this question is also very clear. This was already formulated and provided for in the constitutional proposals of 1977. The reply to the question, “Who is governing whom?” as far as the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned, is crystal clear. It is this: “The State President”. If the CP gives a different reply in terms of NP policy, I assert once again that the CP is malicious and uninformed, and that until 24 February 1982, they were dishonest Nationalists.

To help the CP change their minds, and to get at the truth, I want to quote certain sources in support. Then they need no longer put this question to us, but they could rather make an effort to try and broaden, polish and improve their political knowledge and insight, particularly as far as NP policy is concerned.

They were not dishonest. They were lying to us all along. [Interjections.]

Mr. Vorster had the following to say (Hansard, 12 April 1978, cols. 4550, 4551 and 4553)—

This State President would be chosen jointly by an electoral college of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Why did the hon. members of the CP not point out before they left the NP, that this electoral college would be mixed? I have other evidence. Clause 26(1)(v) of the draft legislation provides that if there is a dispute, “the matter concerned be referred to the chairman of the Council of Cabinets for a decision”. That means the State President. According to this, there will be one final Government authority who will be able to make final decisions, viz. the State President.

Koos van der Merwe can also become State President!

Yes. The now historic statement of 22 February 1982 also contains the reply. It reads as follows—

In his exposition of this on 15 April this year, the hon. the Prime Minister has the following to say (Hansard, col. 4525)—

Therefore, unless our congresses are going to change our policy, the reply to the question, “Who is governing whom?”, as far as the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned, is the State President, someone who, in the words of Mr. John Vorster (Hansard, 12 April 1978, cols. 4545 and 4546)—

Why, then, do the hon. members of the CP not say that the President’s Council may be mixed? After all, they are fond of using those words.

Do not ask; they will not reply.

Therefore, if the CP are going to have meetings again, I want to ask them to inform people properly. They should tell people that in terms of the proposals of 1977, it will not be the Council of Cabinets that will govern. Call it what you will—a supreme Cabinet, a super Cabinet, a mixed Cabinet—the people must know that in the final instance, it will be the State President who will govern. Why are the CP hiding all these important truths?

We are not hiding anything!

Do they do so out of ignorance or out of malice?

Mr. Chairman, I really do not have any swords to cross with the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. In fact, I think that his interpretation of the NP’s policy is exactly as we have always interpreted it. However, it has become confused as a result of the concept of power-sharing and mixed government. This is our problem. This is our problem with the interpretation of the proposals of 1977. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon. member for Turffontein is concerned, I just wish to put it to him briefly that we are not running away from the principle of co-responsibility. My hon. leader said the other day that when two farmers live next to one another, and there is a common boundary between their farms, they talk to one another across that boundary. In fact, in the Council of Cabinets, people will try to reach consensus. As soon as consensus has been reached, co-responsibility is accepted by the various Parliaments with regard to the matter on which consensus has been reached.

And if consensus cannot be reached?

Surely the hon. member is aware of what happens when consensus is not reached. The matters concerned are referred to a Select Committee. However, in the long run the State President tips the scales, does he not? Surely that is correct?

Be that as it may, the hon. the Minister, as well as the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs, have said on occasion that the hon. member for Rissik and I signed the interim report of the Commission on the Constitution. I should like to know what the two hon. Ministers deduce from that. Why are they trying to argue that by signing that, we have accepted power-sharing? That is absurd. We all accepted the proposals of 1977 in which provision is made for a President’s Council consisting of Whites, Coloureds and South African Asians. We also agreed with one another that that body would be an advisory body, and that it would have absolutely no legislative, executive or judicial powers. The fact that there are Coloureds and South African Asians on the South African Housing Commission, or on the Group Areas Board, or on every other advisory board, is not at all indicative of power-sharing. In this regard, I quote the words of the hon. the Prime Minister as recorded in an NP publication dated March 1980. Therein the hon. the Prime Minister states—

Secondly, I wish to point out that by signing the interim report, we did not intend the President’s Council to dictate policy to the Government, but rather that it should give that policy substance, in such a way, that we do not lose our right to self-determination.

The hon. member for Rissik referred to what the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs said in Mossel Bay. I find it interesting that the hon. the Minister said—

Almost in the next sentence, the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs says—

I find it odd that the audience did not roar with laughter, when the hon. the Minister said that.

Why should they laugh? They laugh at you. After all, you are the people who are putting on a circus act!

In this regard, I think it is desirable that the hon. the Prime Minister should elaborate on the concept “relativity” as far as our right to self-determination is concerned. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister agrees with me that the right to self-determination is only relative in context of international law. One’s rights are restricted by the rights of one’s neighbour, or take the example of the USA, which cannot do as it wishes in the outside world. However, in the constitutional sense of the word, one’s right to self-determination is absolute. Let us have no doubt about that. By sharing power, one’s right to self-determination becomes relative. Yes, not only that; it is eroded, and one’s fate is, in the first instance, what Prof. Ester-huyse’s approach is to the right of self-determination. I wish to quote what Prof. Ester-huyse had to say in this regard, and it reads as follows—

This appears in Die Burger of 3 March—

If one accepts these things, one is embracing Mr. Croeser’s concept of the restructuring of local government. Mr. Croeser is chairman of the working group which is further investigating the recommendations of the Browne Report. His line of thought is that the joint service committees which include the management committees of people of colour, will have almost all the significant powers, for example, overall planning, financial responsibility and urban transport, power of taxation, etc. A man who has made his mark in local politics, Mr. Steyn van der Spuy, the MPC for Waterkloof, says in this regard that the acceptance of these proposals would shake this Government. It was with reference to this, that Prof. Esterhuyse made his remarks about joint municipalities in the article I referred to.

What makes the matter even more questionable, is two other significant events. The first is what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his discussion of his Vote on 25 August 1981 (Hansard, cols. 1862 and 1863 et seq.) and the fact that he did not refer at all disparagingly to the report of the three most senior officials in the Cape Town City Council. He called it an interesting document. I wish to quote what is stated in paragraph 14 of that document—

How is the council made up?

I should like to have clarity on this. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would reply to this.

But it is written there. Why are you withholding it?

Add to this what the hon. member for Lichtenburg wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister on 1 March 1981. He said—

It is with reference to this that Prof. Esterhuyse, as well as the hon. member for Randburg said that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act should be abolished. The professor says that this is inevitable.

Chris agrees.

The hon. member for Randburg is a little more cautious.

You do not have to say that I agree. I can speak on my own behalf.

The hon. member for Randburg is a little more cautious, as he could perhaps be asked to conform. Also arising from this, is Prof. Esterhuyse’s further statement that Blacks will inevitably have to serve on the President’s Council. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could comment on the statement so that we may have clarity on the Government’s thinking in connection with local governments.

Thirdly, I wish to say that I do not think that by signing the report, we envisaged that the President’s Council and the Cabinet, in consultation with one another, would have to work out the political dispensation. That is why the hon. the Minister owes it to this committee to comment on the impression which Beeld publicized that the hon. the Minister was instructed by the Cabinet to continue to put forward certain Government standpoints based on principle in his negotiations with the Vice State President. The hon. member for Barberton referred to this during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote, and the hon. the Minister would do well to expand on this. How did it come about that the Cabinet was discussing this matter, while the recommendations of the President’s Council were awaited? If this is a leak …

Ask Ferdie; he was there. Ferdie knows.

No, it appeared in Beeld. If this is a leak, what is going to be done about it?

It is no use asking the hon. member for Lichtenburg; he is bound by an oath of secrecy.

Am I not bound by it?

The hon. the Minister has only to comment and say whether this is a leak or not.

If this is a leak, we ask what is going to be done about it. If this is true, what is the connection between the Cabinet and the President’s Council, and if it is true that there is a connection between the Cabinet and the President’s Council, then it is somewhat irregular.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Brakpan, who addressed the hon. the Minister in particular. Having listened to different speakers of the CP, one comes to the conclusion that their entire policy can be summed up in a single phrase: We are opposed to power-sharing. That is their entire approach.

We are all opposed to power-sharing when it has the PFP connotation, and the hon. members of the CP know this better than we do. However, this is a negative approach. One can sum up the entire approach of the CP to the debate thus far by saying that they disagree with the approach of the Government, but have not put forward any positive alternative.

What about the 2 000 people in Bloemfontein?

The hon. members of the CP must not allow themselves to be misled by numbers. I see they intend to come to Welkom too. There are many inquisitive people, HNP supporters and the like who will attend their meetings, but the test lies in the number of people who join the CP. When Boswell’s Circus visited Cape Town recently, a great many people went to see it too. [Interjections.]

I should like to say a few words on local management, but before I do so, I want to point out the following in consequence of the debate this afternoon. When we discuss future constitutional development, one encounters politicizing. I want to refer to an alarming phenomenon which has reared its head since the CP was established. It is a phenomenon we encounter in the ranks of former politicians. The credibility of political leaders goes hand in hand with this. When one refers to these things, one does so reluctantly because leaders for whom one had great respect are involved, but in the interests of the matter to be served, it is necessary to talk about this even if it is painful for us to do so. The reason for their behaviour is obvious. There are people who have been hurt and now want to get their own back or lick their wounds. It is to be regretted that owing to circumstances some people did get hurt, because we must not forget the good work they did for many years. However, they must now be big enough not to injure the cause they struggled to promote for so many years, because this will not easily be forgotten by their own people, or even by history. It is a pity that they allow their names to be used for political attacks on the NP.

Does that include Oom Ben?

The hon. member may refer to Oom Ben and praise him or reject him; that is his business. I am referring to the people the CP are now using in their attack on the NP. I want to tell these former leaders of the NP—which until recently, they still supported—that it is beneath them to be misused for petty politicizing.

I want to refer in the first place to Mr. Vorster, a man for whom one had very great respect. We cannot deny that he did good work for many years.

Do you now no longer have respect for him?

I still have respect for what he did, but he must be careful not to forfeit the respect of his people. I wonder whether Mr. Vorster has forgotten how the Hertzog supporters pestered him initially, in the first years? Does he still remember that, while the present hon. Prime Minister is also being pestered by people with different motives?

I now come to the man who is in league with the CP, namely Dr. Connie Mulder. At one stage he called the new dispensation a magic formula, but later on he told voters in cold blood, without batting an eyelid, that he had sold them something he did not believe in himself. Will the voters believe what he wants to sell them now? That is the question.

I now come to Mr. Louwrens Muller and Mr. Jimmy Kruger. It is a fact that these people are being used today. Challenging times lie ahead for South Africa, and we must serve the national cause and not neglect our people, particularly not people of this stature. It is South Africa, and not P. W. Botha, that will suffer.

Apparently the CP is extremely grateful that they can use these people, but the CP, too, must be critical. People who know what is going on in the country also know why those people are trying to hurt the Government, the NP. It is a characteristic of our people that when they have been personally hurt or frustrated, they will even injure a course they have promoted over the years in the process of getting their own back.

I should like to say a few words about local authorities. The hon. member for Brakpan referred to recommendations by municipal officers, and to other matters in this connection. However, I feel that at this stage we must concentrate on statements by politicians who must pass judgment on these matters. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will reply to the hon. member in this connection.

The key to the success of a new constitutional dispensation is largely to be found in the establishment of cities and towns for the various population groups with space in which the people can live and work in peace and contentment. It is recognized—and I think every one of us in this House accepts it—that urbanization cannot be halted entirely. That is why we must try to make the best of things. This can only be done by ensuring a sound system of local government. Traditionally the White towns have played an important role in the development and creation of infrastructure in the towns of people of colour. It is true that there are sometimes differences of opinion as to the success achieved in this connection, but the fact remains that over the years the White towns have played a very important role in assisting the towns of people of colour as well.

No matter what the new constitutional dispensation may be, in practice the towns of the various population groups cannot function in watertight compartments even if they have autonomous managements. Sometimes the CP create the impression that this is what they want to achieve. Whatever the CP may say or want in this connection, the fact remains that these managements will not be able to function in watertight compartments because they are situated within the same area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on the argument advanced by the hon. member for Welkom, but as far as his last point is concerned, I want to tell him that there are communities throughout South Africa for whom there is no possibility of independent local authorities, as the Erika Theron Commission made quite clear.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other matters I want to deal with. The entire debate we are conducting at this stage is, of course, artificial, because we are awaiting the proposals of the President’s Council and the Government’s reaction to them. In other words, we are actually in a vacuum, particularly, too, since I accept that the 1977 proposals, as I pointed out the other day, are as dead as the dodo. Therefore, as far as I am concerned it is really a waste of time to hold a debate here on what the 1977 proposals mean or do not mean. However, at least it is clear that as far as the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned, we have made some progress, i.e. some progress in the thinking of the NP. In the first place, when I consider the principles formulated here by the hon. the Minister and others, it seems to me that there are three or four that one can single out. Firstly, the Coloureds are not a separate nation or a nation in the making; in the second place, it follows from this that both from a philosophical and from a practical viewpoint (a) it is impossible to retain the present arrangement with regard to the political situation of the Coloureds and the Indians and (b) it is impossible to create a constitutional future for the Coloureds and the Asians by means of separate States; and in the third place, that on the basis of these considerations, it is essential that these groups be given a say in the government of the country, i.e. unless a “baasskap” policy is followed, but this policy has been clearly rejected by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. As far as I am concerned, the fundamental problems stemming from these three principles appear to be the following: In the first place, in what way must the Coloureds and the Asians be given the opportunity of appointing their representatives in this joint say; and in the second place, what must the form and nature of this say be? In this connection I want to agree with what the hon. member for Randburg said recently in Bloemfontein when he discussed this matter and said that it was difficult for a Government to govern in the interests of everyone if its subjects do not all—and I shall return to this later—have a say in the election of the Government, and are not represented in the Government. I agree with this. To this I want to add that in a certain sense I found it extremely stimulating to take cognizance of the speech by the hon. member for Randburg, and it goes without saying that I have great appreciation for the stimulating proposal he made in the course of that speech regarding the direction we must take in this sort of situation.

I also want to put the following question: How is the principle of the right of self-determination of the Whites to be maintained within this context? Another question which interests us here is whether there is still room for the concept of the White man’s right to self-determination in the planned new constellation. Closely allied to this is the concept of divisibility of interests, viz. among Coloureds, Whites and Asians. Is this still a feasible concept in politics? In other words, can we, in fact, build a constitutional set-up on the basis that certain interests are so exclusive to each group that they can be divided among the Whites, the Asians and the Coloureds, while there are other interests that are jointly shared? In this connection I want to agree with what the hon. member for Green Point said, and that is that whatever may occur under the proposed dispensation, it must also be acceptable to the Coloureds and the Asians. If we were to work out a dispensation which was unacceptable to the Coloureds and the Asians, we would have achieved absolutely nothing. I agree with what the hon. member for Green Point went on to say with regard to that situation, namely that we may not get another chance to do something about this. My plea, therefore, is that whatever it may do with regard to this matter, the Government must realize that this may be our last chance to reach an agreement acceptable to the Coloureds and the Asians.

However, I now wish to return to the position of the Blacks. I want to start by saying—and in this regard I want to agree with the hon. member for Randburg—that we shall only succeed in creating a political framework for any country if, in the first place, it reduces potential or real conflict in that country; if, in the second place, it creates the machinery for dealing with and resolving conflict and, if, in the third place, the machinery is of such a nature that it makes provision for reconciliation of conflict and can maintain that reconciliation. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that even if we solve the problem of the Coloureds and the Asians in this country by means of a constitutional dispensation, if we do not find a satisfactory constitutional dispensation for the Blacks, we shall not have got anywhere. I also contend that the actual and overwhelming conflict in South Africa lies in the relationship between Black and White. No matter what we may do about the Coloureds and the Asians, however good it may be, if we cannot find a satisfactory solution for the real conflict between Black and White, we shall have solved nothing in South Africa. I wanted to re-emphasize this point, because it remains the fundamental principle of our entire situation here in South Africa. This is the fundamental problem facing us. It seems to me that we cannot seek a solution to this problem in formulae. One of the formulae through which we are not going to find a solution is the formula of creating independent States for those Blacks who want to reside permanently in the Republic of South Africa. We shall also have to recognize that because a large number of Blacks are settled permanently in South Africa, those people will eventually have to be accepted as full citizens. I cannot imagine a situation anywhere in the world more liable to lead to conflict than if we eventually find ourselves in the position where the majority of the permanent residents of a country are in fact aliens. This situation would be totally untenable. Over the past 30 years or so we have already had the situation in South Africa of people residing here permanently and for all time, being regarded as aliens, and if anyone still thinks we can have peace in South Africa on that basis, he had better think again.

The concept that there must be a differentiation between nationality and citizenship—and I shall return to the speech the hon. member for Randburg made last week—is a formula which cannot offer us a solution. The idea that we can solve the problem by giving Black people residing permanently in the White urban areas, political satisfaction through their own independent or national States, will not succeed either. We must be realistic and accept this, even if at this stage it is totally unacceptable and even unpleasant for the NP to think about this. In addition, with the best will in the world I cannot see how we are going to satisfy the political aspirations of the urban Black people by means of a constellation of States. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member Prof. Olivier for the sentiment he expressed here regarding the extent to which the ideals I had put forward had stimulated him. Much of what he said was true but there are a few points I should have liked to have discussed further with him.

The hon. member said we should not try to force a dispensation on the Coloureds and the Asians, arising from the recommendations of the President’s Council, which was totally unacceptable to them. It is only logical that we shall not do so. If we wanted to force a dispensation on them which was unacceptable to them we would have continued with the 1977 plans. But we are seeking a solution and that is why we are awaiting the recommendations of the President’s Council and when their proposals are received the Government will obviously negotiate with the various leaders. Somewhere along the line a standpoint will have to be formulated which in everyone’s opinion is acceptable to the majority, and in actual fact we can only proceed on that basis.

However, there is great significance in what the hon. member said, namely that by implication—and I assume this also goes for his party, because the hon. member for Green Point spoke in more or less the same vein—he is prepared to give the Government a chance to see whether they can bring about a reconciliation between the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians. At this stage no further obstacles will therefore be placed in our path, and I hope I understood the hon. member correctly.

The hon. member for Green Point said that the test the PFP is going to make would be whether the amount of say the Coloureds and the Asians were going to have with regard to the future constitutional position of the Black man would not fall short of that of the Whites. If this is the standard which is going to be applied, it is my opinion that we have made a great deal of progress with that party in this country. Nor am I saying this in order to disparage them, Sir, but I wish to thank them if they are prepared to modify their earlier standpoints in this way. In that light I also want to appeal to those hon. members, when the Government is considering the proposals of the President’s Council, to give it the opportunity to hold discussions and negotiations with leaders of the other community in a mutual atmosphere of goodwill. The PFP must therefore not try to prescribe to other people—I am not referring to direct, prescriptive behaviour, but to prescribing through the influence of standpoints they adopt in a very definite way—so that the other groups can also consider the circumstances with an open mind. I do not want to restrict hon. members of the PFP to the extent that I am asking them not to voice any opinion on the merits of the proposals made by the President’s Council. However, they must please leave the necessary room for a discussion between the leaders of that sector of the population which at present has the only real representatives and representation in the Government and the leaders of those communities whose interests we have at heart.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said. His point of departure was the concept of justice, with which I associate myself. However, I want to add that justice as a norm is a way of life for us and all Christians. It is our answer to the question which arises from the message of the Gospel, namely: How do you treat your neighbour? One need merely test this norm in practice by seeing whether people in a less privileged position accept the situation at a specific time. If we could arrive at a dispensation in terms of which the Coloureds and the Asians did in fact accept the direction in which the Government was thinking in its proposals, or if a compromise could be reached in the negotiations, even if they are in an inferior position, who are we to say that that new situation does not under the circumstances meet the requirements of justice? That is why I want to appeal to hon. members—and this applies to all hon. members including the CP …

And you too.

… to refrain from making emotional statements which could bedevil relations in this country.

I could not hear what the hon. member for Brakpan just said but this brings me to his remark that I am supposed to have advocated the abolition of the prohibition on political interference. Let me explain what I suggested. I forecast that in future we would have a dispensation in which, to a greater or lesser extent, attention would have to be given to reconsidering the provisions of section 2. I said this against the background of the fact that section 2(c) could be interpreted to mean that a member of the Cabinet would not be entitled to walk into a meeting of the congress of the Labour Party to explain the Government’s standpoint there, because when the Labour Party decides to participate, surely they must also adopt a standpoint. However, section 2(c) prohibits a members of one group from speaking at a meeting, where the vast majority represent another group to promote the interests of a party. Surely there is nothing wrong with this standpoint. Surely the hon. member for Brakpan agrees with me that something like this should be possible.

I should like to refer very briefly now to the hon. member for Rissik. He referred to a pride and idealism which the Coloureds and Asians must be given the opportunity to generate for themselves. Is that hon. member suggesting that those people have no pride? Is that hon. member suggesting they have no idealism? Surely they do. If the hon. member agrees with me, I want to refer to his second statement. He said his party would work hard to help these people to achieve their ideals—i.e. the ideals of the Coloureds and the Asians. But then they must take cognizance of their ideals. Surely they must then ask what their ideals are. When one talks to them one finds that one’s idea of their ideals or one’s idea of what their ideals should be, definitely does not correspond to their actual ideals. Those hon. members should really think what they are saying before they make such statements.

In conclusion I just want to point out that we are entering an extremely difficult phase. It would therefore be presumptious of us to adopt the standpoint that there are no problems. In power politics or domination politics there is only one outcome, and that is to come to a fall. However, if we seek a compromise and justice, there is a chance, and considering the community we are living in, that chance is already very slender. Let us therefore make an all-out effort to see whether we cannot turn that chance into a reality.

Mr. Chairman, up to now this debate has to a great extent been dominated by matters affecting the Coloureds, the Asians and the Blacks. However, very little has been said about matters affecting the Whites.

I should like to confine myself to local authorities. This afternoon, in the short time at my disposal under the Vote being discussed today, I should like to make a very urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister. Section 84(1)(f) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. Act 32 of 1961, provides that provincial councils may pass ordinances to exercise control over local governments, municipal institutions or whatever one wants to call them. I want to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to give urgent attention to the establishment of a full-fledged State department with a ministry for local government. The idea of also giving other groups in the community the right to have local government is being considered and this would mean that even more powers would be given to those groups than are at present being given to White local authorities.

When it comes to control, I must say I am in favour of it. However, what is important to me is the way in which it is applied. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to control over local authorities. Last week at a congress in Pretoria the Administrator of the Transvaal also referred to “control over local authorities”. As I have said, I am in favour of control. However, in this space age in which we are living we must not be burdened with an ox-waggon. During this session the Financial Relations Amendment Bill was piloted through Parliament and in this Bill the executive committee of a province was empowered to make a donation. What does this mean? I shall give a practical example. The Transvaal has a provincial fish hatchery at Lydenburg. The Transvaal also has a provincial bird farm near Pretoria North. The central Government has now passed an Act empowering the executive committee of a province to make a donation of a few nesting birds or a few fish to another province, person or body. Let us do away with that control. What is also important is that that is still subject to the approval of the Minister. If such a full-fledged Government department were to be created it would be to the advantage of the inhabitants of our cities and towns. It is interesting to note that more than 80% of registered White voters live in our cities and towns.

The next reason I want to give is that of uniformity. Uniformity can only be achieved if the central Government takes action. In the first place the country is governed by the NP. In Natal, however, the NRP governs the second tier of Government.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear!

Let me add at once that that is the only place in the country where that is the case. In Natal one also has the position that the largest towns and cities, for example Pietermaritzburg and Durban, are governed by the PFP. Hon. members may say that this is not official, but it remains true. I want to appeal for uniformity. The standpoint of the NP is that we must not become involved in the third tier of government on a party-political basis.

Hear, hear!

Bearing in mind the recent municipal election however, we must take cognizance of the fact that party politics on the third tier of government has come to stay. We have to accept this.

The next statement I want to make is that the optimum utilization of trained manpower in the Republic of South Africa is essential. We simply cannot continue to use that trained manpower in the way we are doing now. I therefore want to request the hon. the Minister to support local authorities. I am asking him to prove his confidence in the local authorities by allowing them to have more powers. This will encourage them to do more for themselves. The initiative of local authorities is being stifled. Renewal will in fact be still-born if there is no appreciation, understanding, sympathy, stimulation, encouragement and confidence from above. The old principle of the delegation of responsibility to subordinates is very important here. Give a subordinate more responsibility and he becomes of more use to you. His productivity and efficiency improve. This is in the interests of the country.

We must get away from all this unnecessary control. I could give many examples of this here, but there is no time. However, I should like to mention a few. An individual may decide to alienate his land. A local authority may not. In the case of a local authority such a decision is subject to the approval of the Administrator of the specific province. What is also interesting is that 95% of the cases on which the provincial authorities have to decide are simply approved by a junior official. I shall give a further example. If a local authority should decide to donate a piece of land to a commando or to the Defence Force, it must have the approval of the provincial authority, surely this is not necessary.

I shall give one further example. If my neighbour has problems with his water supply outside the jurisdiction of the local authority, that local authority cannot supply him with water. Prior approval must be given by the Administrator of the province. My argument is that we should get away from this.

However, I am in favour of control. In the few remaining minutes at my disposal, I want to motivate this. Here in the Cape only last week the Administrator pointed out that problems are being experienced in this province owing to the fact that the local authorities are unable to implement Government policy. The Cape is no exception in this regard. The Administrator of the Cape went on to point out that local authorities were not carrying out the decisions of the provincial council either. These are matters which should be taken in hand. That is what must happen in the Republic of South Africa.

Here in the Cape we have for example, the Town Council of Goodwood, the Town Council of Parow and the Town Council of Bellville, which are all adjoining suburbs. Is it necessary to have a duplication of services? We have a similar situation on the Witwatersrand. Springs, Boksburg, Benoni and Germiston are examples of this. I believe that the larger local authority should gain control over the smaller local authorities. This would be to the benefit of our country. We must arrive at this situation soon. Is it necessary for us to continue to erect innumerable civic centres and town halls? Is it necessary for every local authority to have its own computer? Is this really necessary? In this respect I am also thinking of the erection of abattoirs. Is it not possible for us to do this on a regional basis? One need only think of the many different kinds of expensive road-building equipment. Why must each local authority in the country have its own equipment? We cannot deny the fact that for many years now each local authority in this country has been building up its own little empire. Let us break it down! We must do so in the interests of the country. After all, it will be to the advantage of the inhabitants of our towns and cities because they are the people who must pay for all this.

In conclusion I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to the few aspects I have pointed out this afternoon. As a matter of fact many of our people are uncertain of the road ahead. I should like to re-emphasize that we ought to have a Ministry for Local Authority so that local authorities in our country can come into their own. At the moment there are city councils whose budgets, if they do not exceed them, are equivalent to those of second tier Government bodies, which should really be exercising control over those local authorities.

Mr. Chairman, I want to extend a hearty welcome to the latest convert to the views of the NRP. If he continues in this way, he will definitely be able to assist in making a fine contribution to the new dispensation in South Africa. I have no doubt whatsoever on that score. All he needs to do now, is to spend some time studying our policy of metropolitan bodies, especially with regard to the interrelationship of problems and the integration of the services of local authorities. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go into the details of local Government to the same extent as it was done by the hon. member for Witbank. First of all, I want to express my disappointment with two things. I regret that the hon. member for Randburg is not in the House at the moment because I was hoping to congratulate him today and to thank him for the support I thought he was giving to my plea earlier this year for the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Unfortunately, that support was watered down somewhat today. However, that does not make it any less essential for us to consider the repeal of that measure at a very early stage or at least the repeal of the portions of that measure which prohibit interracial political consultation and co-operation and even political party affiliations. In regard to other aspects dealing with political interference from overseas, that is another matter entirely. I am discussing now purely the interaction of politics between South Africans belonging to different race groups. If we are even to start having a new dispensation in politics in South Africa I believe it is essential for us to begin by sweeping away the dust of a bygone era and open the doors to enable people to talk to one another, to consult with one another and work together in the interests of the common South Africa we hope to build.

The other disappointment I have is that this debate today, 26 April, is not taking place in the atmosphere in which I had hoped it would take place but actually in vacuo. I say this because today was the date on which the President’s Council was to have started debating the recommendations of its committees in which case we would at least have known today … [Interjections.] Yes, the date originally suggested was 26 April on which the President’s Council would start discussing those recommendations. That fact appeared in the Press and I can only go by what appeared in the Press. It was then announced that this discussion had been postponed to 12 May. If no earlier date had been fixed, why was it postponed? However, whatever the case may be, my disappointment is that we do not have those recommendations before us to provide the basis for a really meaningful debate on constitutional development. It means that by the time we do have those recommendations, the Vote of this hon. Minister will have been dealt with, and I think that is a great pity. I also want to say that I welcome the remark made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier who said that he was looking forward to having the recommendations of the President’s Council to debate. I welcome that statement although I must also say that it surprised me.

Why does it surprise you?

It surprises me because that party is not participating in that discussion. That party boycotted the President’s Council and now they are looking forward to its recommendations. [Interjections.] That hon. member’s leader has in anticipation rejected the report of the President’s Council unseen. [Interjections.] He has said that proposals drawn up without Black participation are not acceptable to his party. These proposals will not have been drawn up with Black participation. Therefore, whatever emanates from this body, he has rejected unseen.

Did we reject the report on Pageview? Did we reject the report on District Six?

That is why I was surprised at the statement made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

Don’t be silly; you are talking nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, there is another feature of this debate which I think we should take note of. What we are in effect debating is the hangover of two departments that have disappeared and which are being administered temporarily by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. I am referring here to the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Indian Affairs. I sincerely hope that this will be the last occasion on which a White Parliament will debate in this House the affairs and the problems of Coloured and Indian South Africans. If not the last occasion, I sincerely hope that it will at least be the penultimate occasion on which those affairs will be debated by us here when White people will presume to know what is best for Coloureds and when White people will stand up as hon. members have done on both sides to say how wrong or how good something is which the Government has done for the Coloured people or for the Indian people. The hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central were the two extremes. One said how well the Government had treated the Coloureds while the other one said how badly. This should be the last time that we do that. However long it may ultimately take, next year we shall be dealing with matters in a different atmosphere since we shall then have before us positive proposals and decisions to take regarding the new administrative procedure to be followed. Therefore I am not going to debate the possibilities of what will come, the possibilities of the proposals for the new dispensation because that can only effectively be done when we have the recommendations before us.

In the minute or two I have left, I want to deal with the original responsibility of this department and not with the issues which are temporarily being administered. First I want to deal with the question of the voters roll and its compilation from the book of life. I do not want to expand on what the hon. member for Umbilo has said, but it is a known fact that it can take anything from three to five or six months, depending on whether there are any queries, to get an identity document.

If we have to wait for that process before a person can get on to the voters’ roll, we are going to disenfranchise tens of thousands or maybe 100 000 or 200 000 people who do not have books of life and therefore will not be entitled to vote after July next year which is the new target date. I want to make the positive proposal that when an application for a book of life is received, before the months and months of processing and the sending back for more information, provided there is a birth certificate, the applicant be allocated an identity number immediately. That identity number should then be included in the computer and given to the applicant to be used as a reference number in any matter which requires the giving of an identity number. Such a person can then immediately go on to the voters’ roll with an identity number and he will not be disenfranchised because of the shortage of staff and the administrative procedures which have to follow the submission of an application for an identity document.

The other aspect is that we are still waiting for the decentralization to be complete. When I heard it, I cheered. However I find that it is not the decentralization for which the present hon. Minister of Community Development, I and others pleaded and which we understood was to come about. That was for the decentralization of the compiling of voters’ rolls to the local authority, the city council wherever it was big enough and had the computers and the equipment to handle it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the main argument of the hon. member for Durban Point is that he deplores the fact that in an important debate such as this we still do not have the proposals on the part of the President’s Council in front of us. This is of course to be regretted, because one would have liked to debate such proposals at this stage. I do just want to say that I—and I assume other hon. members on this side as well—am prepared to afford the President’s Council ample opportunity to debate their proposals, to duly dispose of the investigative work and, in due course, to submit the decisions to us. The hon. member need not be in such a hurry. I am sure that in the months ahead he will be afforded ample opportunities to discuss the proposals of the President’s Council.

On this occasion I should like to focus on what I want to describe as the wonderful progress the Coloured is making in the socio-economic sphere in South Africa. I think this is an aspect which often goes unpraised, but is nevertheless something which will remain a very important basis for the political development which is at hand for this group of people in South Africa. This socio-economic development went hand in hand with the better utilization of the opportunities which the Coloured is afforded in South Africa, especially in the field of education.

But should the Coloured not tell us himself how good or how bad the progress is?

Surely the facts are clear. Why should we ignore them? No group in South Africa can improve its expectations unless basic and post-school education are continually improved. In terms of the latest figures it is evident that with regard to primary education, there were 7 500 more children at school in 1980 than in 1979. In the primary classes, the total number of pupils was nearly 600 000. As regards the total figure for all pupils, it is interesting to note that in 1980, approximately 750 000 Coloured children attended school, with 26 000 teachers. In 1979 a slightly smaller number of children attended school, but there were 1 996 schools to which 27 000 teachers were attached.

As regards attendance at technical colleges, it can only mean one thing, and that is that we in South Africa must increasingly make use of the technically trained Coloured in this country. In 1979, 3 783 Coloureds were enrolled at technical colleges. The figure for 1980 was nearly 4 600. However, what is really gratifying is the increase in the number of students and staff at the University of the Western Cape. The number of students—160—and of teaching staff—17—in 1960, has increased to 4 000 students and 296 members of the teaching staff last year. In addition, approximately 1 000 Coloureds are studying at open universities, not to mention Unisa.

This data points to one phenomenon, and that is that in spite of talk of boycotts the Coloured is seizing with both hands the opportunities afforded him. I do not say this in a spirit of paternalism, but because I welcome the fact that they seize these opportunities. At the technical, technological and managerial levels the Coloured will increasingly be able to alleviate the tremendous manpower shortages which we are experiencing in South Africa, and nobody can prevent the Coloured from doing that.

If this is not proof of the progress being made, I do not know what other proof one could advance. Due to the contribution of the Coloured to the economic prosperity of our country, the standard of living of the average Coloured is rising constantly. The average annual income of Coloured workers outside the agricultural industry was R1 061 per annum in 1970. In 1980-’81, this increased to R3 400 per annum. This is no mean feat, especially bearing in mind the backlog which the Coloureds as a group must make up. I want to use another example. In 1970 there were 46 900 motor vehicle owners amongst the Coloureds. This rose to 115 000 in 1981, and economists tell us that the ownership of a motor-car and the increase in their numbers is an excellent barometer wherewith to determine the level of prosperity of the Coloureds.

†But, coupled with this tremendously welcome rise in the standard of living, is the significant tendency of reducing the birth rate. By planning for smaller families—and I want to say that I welcome this and I think everyone in this House will welcome this—sensible Coloured couples realize that they can provide for a better educational future for their children, individually. The difference in the standard of living compared to that of the Whites is also steadily improving. The gap is closing. If one looks at the situation as far as the social security for the Coloured aged is concerned, we find that there is an improvement every year and we have an increase in those who are qualifying for old age veterans and disability pensions. We find today that more and more management committees have been established. White-Coloured relationship committees have steadily increased in number and today they total something like 153. I say these things because they are significant facts in the socio-economic development of the Coloureds. Political development, therefore, may not lag behind. When more economic and educational doors are open, political doors may not remain closed for the Coloured people. If these doors were to be closed or kept closed, it would be the best recipe for building up frustration and political emotion. Coloured South Africans, predominantly domiciled in the Western Cape, are our natural partners in promoting our Western way of life and I say this not in the spirit of trying to gang up against any other racial group in South Africa. It is, however, also to be regretted that there are White political groups who want to relegate the Coloureds to a perpetual state of second-class citizenship, people who are not prepared to guarantee an equitable form of citizenship for all. Simultaneously, we also have those who are in favour of a common non-racial society, which I believe creates so much resentment and reaction, that Whites feel that their position is threatened. We in this country should not polarize a position between those on the one hand who recognize no differentiation and those who think that we can forge ahead with old-fashioned “baasskap”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what have we had in this debate today? From the Conservative Party we have had a succession of vague statements, without an ounce of policy. The members of the CP have not ceased to hang on the apron strings of the NP. [Interjections.] The PFP, on the other hand, sounds like a Jeremiad from the past. They become totally irrelevant after they had taken the foolish decision to boycott the President’s Council. They are now sitting here as spectators, while the Government is dynamically on the way to a new dispensation. We have reached the end of an era in the chequered Brown politics of South Africa. This debate will probably be one of the last debates on the Coloureds under the old dispensation. We are on the threshold of a new era in the Brown politics of South Africa. Many of the old things have passed. Many of the old arguments, the old standpoints and the old conceptions have lost their force. We are on the eve of an exciting new period which we do not, of course, flinch from, but which we, together with thinking realists in this country, look forward to with longing. We enthusiastically await the proposals of the President’s Council, which we hope will end the deadlock in Brown politics which has lasted for 60 years in this country. The Coloureds are ripe for their new dispensation, which is to come. Over the past decade in particular, the Coloureds have become far more mature. They are now also liable to accept greater responsibility. The Coloureds are now able to play a more significant role in the politics of our country.

As a former Senator entrusted with the interests of the Free State Coloureds, I entered completely into their situation, and I have always retained my interest. From my own observations I could say that the Coloureds have made tremendous progress in many fields in just one decade. Looking back over the past decade, all I see is milestones of progress on the road of the Coloureds of South Africa. This progress among the Coloureds gained momentum particularly when the present hon. Prime Minister appeared on the scene and extended his hand to them. The Coloureds arose out of inferiority and increasingly began to come into their own. Throughout the country they began to take their rightful place. They have increasingly begun to show their value, until today they have become indispensable over a wide front, but particularly in the economy of our country. They have made ample use of the opportunities which the Government has created for them to make progress.

Like the hon. member for De Kuilen, I, too, wish to look at a few things relating to the progress that these people have made. 20 years ago, only about 50 000 Coloured men and women occupied skilled white-collar jobs. Today, approximately 200 000 of them are in white-collar jobs. This represents an increase of 250%.

In spite of the NP.

Not in spite of the NP, but due to the upliftment policy of the NP. Today the Coloureds occupy highly specialized and remunerative posts. To show how indispensable they are, I want to point out that the Coloureds in the Western Cape comprise 95% of the total labour market in the clothing, textile, leather and footwear industries. More than 85% of the total labour force in factories in the Cape Peninsula and in 36 adjoining agricultural districts is comprised of Coloureds. In the Cape Peninsula, the Coloured community at present represents a consumer market of more than R485 million, which is far more than the gross domestic product of many African States. An increase in their standard of living, education and civilization has accompanied this trend. The Coloureds have indeed become valuable citizens of South Africa, without whose skills and expertise we should not be able to manage. Through a process of upliftment they have become a middle-class capable of deciding, together with us, on their political future. Nor are they lacking in loyalty to South Africa. An increasing number of Coloureds are joining the Defence Force, and a scientific survey that has been carried out has indicated that 90% of the Brown men are prepared to take up arms and defend the country.

Because more recognition has been accorded the Coloureds over the past decade under the leadership of this Government, and because they have been increasingly used in management committees and boards, and because, by means of relations committees, they have had far more communication with the Whites, their leaders have developed a greater maturity. The fact that they have been included in the President’s Council to co-operate with the Whites in working on a new political dispensation has meant that the bitterness among some of them has made way for a greater degree of goodwill on their side. Accordingly I contend today that the Coloureds are ripe for the new dispensation that awaits us. No one can still dispute that the Coloureds must be given an effective political say. For too long a political dummy has been placed in the mouths of the Coloureds to keep them quiet. It is no longer possible to flinch from accommodating the Coloureds, that share one economy and one fatherland with us, in a common constitutional dispensation.

And the Indians too?

Some of my colleagues will speak about the Indians in due course. For the present I am confining myself to the Coloureds.

Now that the great moment of realism has dawned in our colour politics, it is regrettable that the CP is still trying to escape reality by speaking about it in vague terms. They say inter alia that the exercise of political rights by the Brown people must take place in a separate geographic context. [Interjections.] They say this, knowing full well that a homeland of their own for the Coloureds on the Cape Flats or anywhere else, can be nothing more than wishful thinking.

We were not speaking about homelands.

The CP lives in a never-never land. They are developing into a Utopian party which conveniently evades the major problems of our country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North commenced his speech by accusing the CP of vagueness. On this score I am in agreement with him, but after having listened to his speech I also know the origin of their vagueness, because in my opinion the speech of the hon. member was a monument of vague statements.

The hon. member went on to say that the PFP spoke only about the past. However, his entire speech was based on the past. His final statement was that the Government was on the road to a new dispensation. Nothing that hon. member said gave us any idea, however, of what that new dispensation was going to be. We are waiting for that; the Coloured people are waiting for that and South Africa is waiting for that. In fact everyone is waiting for that. [Interjections.] We trust that the new dispensation may help in the future. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the annual report.

†On page 87, under the heading “Welfare”, reference is made in paragraph 4.1 to “Scope”, and I quote—

I share these sentiments. In paragraph 4.2 under the heading “Welfare Policy” the following is said—

In paragraph 4.3 under the heading “Rationalization” there is the following—

This is all discussed in a chapter headed “Development of the Indian Community”. A bit further forward in this report, however, there are also welfare services discussed in a chapter headed “Development of the Coloured Community”. So in the hon. the Minister’s department these services are separated into those for Coloureds and those for Indians. I think the hon. the Minister is well aware of the fact that there is great dissatisfaction amongst social workers, and people generally interested in social work, about this division in welfare services. It is really astounding to realize that one Department of Health covers the Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians, whilst welfare services—this is really unbelievable—for Whites fall under the hon. the Minister of Health, the welfare services for Coloureds and Asians under this hon. Minister and the welfare services for Blacks under the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. In June last year the hon. the Minister was visited by a delegation of all three associations for a discussion of their problems. They discussed aspects such as low salaries, the discriminatory salaries and other matters. One special topic of discussion was the fact that welfare services fall under three separate State departments. This is a problem I should like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention. Is it, in the future, going to be Government policy to continue with this system, or is there going to be a new policy of having all welfare services under one department?

I believe that it is essential to have one State department for the rendering of welfare services to all population groups.

Hear, hear!

In the short time available to me, I want to argue that one department would ease the manpower situation by helping to alleviate the shortage, would improve planning and co-ordination, would lead to a better utilization of available funds and would prevent any differentiation in the quality of service offered.

First of all I should like to deal with the shortage of manpower and expertise. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that planning is essential for efficient service, and expertise is essential for planning. It is therefore quite obvious that the number of experts in the various fields of social work in South Africa are not so numerous that they could be divided up amongst different organizations which, independently of one another, deal with one and the same problem. Working along parallel lines inevitably leads to duplication. That is pretty obvious. Therefore there is bound to be duplication all the time. The use of ad hoc liaison and joint consultation procedures is cumbersome, leading to increased costs and, amongst other things, to loss of time and manpower. When only one organization exists, problems can be discussed without unnecessary delay and expense. Some years ago the Government stated that it was its aim to decrease the number of welfare organizations. Separate structures for different population groups not only increase the need for manpower but also increase the number of organizations. That must be pretty obvious. There are at present about 4 700 registered social workers in South Africa. This number does not provide sufficient people to man three Government departments as well as separate welfare organizations.

Let us look briefly at the aspects of planning and co-ordination. Again, the existence of three different departments must make this an impossible task. There might well be specific needs in respect of certain population groups—I can accept that. However, the same variation in specific needs also exists amongst different communities. For example, the specific needs of the Coloureds living along the Orange River differ from those of the poor Coloureds on the Cape Flats. Therefore, I do not believe that that is a sufficient reason. Living and working together from day to day, as we do, demonstrates that the welfare services for the various people in the country cannot be separated one from the other. The differences that may exist are not so radical as to demand separate departments. I am sure that the hon. the Minister, considering my argument, must accept that, especially with a view to what we are being told is going to happen in the future, this position is no longer right. There is a need for an overall policy and overall planning for all population groups. One of the functions of the recently established welfare council appointed in terms of the National Welfare Act, No. 100 of 1978, is to seek co-operation. To create further confusion at State department level, several other departments deal with welfare in its broadest sense and cater for all population groups.

There have been discussions regarding the institution of a probation service by the various departments dealing with welfare. This would require liaison between each of three departments and the Department of Justice, which deals with one population group. This means that three social workers from three welfare departments need simultaneous access to one court roll. We can refer to separate regional welfare boards, various provincial and local authorities, numerous generic and specific private welfare organizations—all further confuse the issue as regards different groups.

Then we come to economic factors. Unfortunately my time is running out, but let me say that a reduction in the number of departments dealing with welfare services would provide an opportunity for a fairer distribution of manpower and finance.

Finally, there is the question of a difference in the quality of service. I should just like to mention that there is a difference in the pensions and grants paid to members of different population groups. These are differences not only in terms of money but also in criteria for eligibility. There is differentiation in salaries paid to social workers, and the regulations issued by various departments are similar but different. I should like to end by saying that, in order to ensure that social welfare services for all population groups operate with maximum efficiency and with maximum expertise, it is necessary that uniformity be obtained, inter alia, in our national welfare policy and that there should be a more equitable and economic distribution of manpower. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. My time is limited and the hon. the Minister will reply to his speech.

It is a fact that intelligent and meaningful participation in any political action is not possible, and that successful participation in the economy is not possible either, unless the participation in political action or in the economy is supported by a well-trained group of people.

We must accept that the quality or standard of the education of every people or population group is determined mainly by two factors. These are, firstly, the quality of the person who reports for training and, in the second place, the quality of the training itself. That the Department of Internal Affairs has accepted the challenge implied in this truth is evident from the drastic changes which have been and are still being brought about in the training of teachers. I should like to emphasize a few of these drastic and very commendable changes.

In the first place, there is the control over the training of teachers. Until recently, control over the teachers’ colleges was vested in the chief regional inspector of the region in which the college was situated. Today, control over the teachers colleges is vested in an assistant director of teachers’ training, assisted by three inspectors, which immediately means that the training of teachers is now controlled on a co-ordinated basis from the head office here in Cape Town.

The second positive and fruitful change has been the establishment of a departmental teachers’ training board. Until quite recently, the director of education was advised by the examination board with regard to the training of teachers. Today there is a new body—the departmental teachers’ training board—consisting of senior professional officers of the department, representatives from the universities, teachers colleges, technikons and teachers’ associations. Inevitably, in this way, a wider spectrum of opinion is involved in determining the quality and standard of the training of teachers.

In the third place, however, there is the systematic phasing out of training after Std. 8—a two-year course known as the junior primary teachers’ certificate. As from 1982, no further enrolments have been accepted for this course. It must be borne in mind that those who received training after Std. 8 received that training at training schools, as they were called. These are ordinary schools at which these people enrolled for two years’ training after Std. 8 in order to qualify as teachers. This course has now been discontinued, and will be abolished at the end of 1983.

The fourth important change lies in the fact that in 1979, the committee of heads of education revised the criteria for evaluating South African qualifications for employment in the teaching profession. The Department of Internal Affairs has brought its programme for the training of teachers into line with these criteria. As a result, new training courses have been designed, and new requirements have been drawn up for teachers’ colleges. Teachers colleges will henceforth train teachers for primary and junior secondary standards. Furthermore—and this is very important—no training course for teachers at primary schools may be of shorter duration than three years after Std. 10, and no training course for teachers at secondary schools may be of shorter duration than four years after Std. 10. These provisions came into effect at the beginning of 1982.

To make all these things possible, new part-time and correspondence courses have been introduced to enable teachers who are already working to bring their qualifications up to the minimum level of three years after Std. 10, so that they may at least be classified in salary category C. This arrangement is extremely important when we bear in mind that according to the 1980 statistics, approximately 74% of the total number of teachers, i.e. 27 486, must be regarded as insufficiently qualified in terms of the new requirement of three years after Std. 10.

Bursaries have also been increased to make it easier for people to follow these teachers’ training courses. What is very important is that uniform criteria have also been accepted with regard to accommodation and the facilities in teachers’ training colleges. From now on the norms for teachers’ training colleges will be the same for all population groups in terms of the new criteria that have been accepted. New teachers’ colleges are also being planned and existing colleges will be expanded. Instruction by means of microfilm and closed-circuit television is at present being introduced at the teachers’ training colleges.

When we consider these changes that have been brought about in the training of teachers, it is clear that the Government, and specifically the Department of Internal Affairs, seriously intend to implement principle 1 in the Interim Memorandum on the Report of the De Lange Commission, namely that equal opportunities for education, including equal standards in education, for every inhabitant, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex, shall be the purposeful endeavour of the State.

Mr. Chairman, the facts concerning the position in which the Republic of South Africa finds itself have been stated and documented in so many ways in recent years that it is not necessary to refer to them again when one wishes to make some statements based on them. The facts are known to everybody.

However, not enough attention is being given, in my opinion, to the system dynamics of the facts concerning our position. I should like to refer to a few aspects of this matter. Firstly, an important aspect of the dynamics of our position is, in my opinion, the fact that every racial, ideological or religious subgroup of our nation sees and interprets the realities and the facts in a different perspective. Secondly, within every subgroup of our nation the motivation and the philosophy of the individual often undergo unpredictable changes because of pressure groups within each subgroup, and this aspect of the dynamics of our position is probably more pronounced among the coloured subgroup than in the White subgroups. A third aspect is the fact that in a climate of internal and external insecurity, emotional factors reduce the ability of people to develop a clear perspective of our realities. The ability of people to distinguish between real and implied dangers is reduced. What would be seen by this side of the House as a light at the end of a tunnel would be the danger of an approaching train to the hon. members of the CP. [Interjections.] These dynamics, these single aspects, and not the actual facts of our position, are probably the reason why our situation is explosive, fluid and difficult to deal with. Mistaken opinions, disorientation on the part of people who are not very well informed, unrealistic fears on the one hand and expectations on the other, cause a climate of uncertainty which has to be reduced to manageable proportions in our situation, as a matter of the greatest urgency.

We must remember that it is the strategy of the enemies of the RSA to destabilise our system in order to place the Government of the day on the defensive. We must not be under any illusions, because the more the Government exerts itself to bring about a just and stable dispensation, the more our enemies will try to destablise the situation.

Breaking this vicious circle, and getting away from a defensive pattern of behaviour, and adopting instead a pattern of creative and innovative behaviour, in my opinion constitutes the essence of the challenge which faces us and which the Government will have to deal with in the months to come. None of us on this side of the House would imply that it will be easy to break this vicious circle, that it will be easy to proceed, from a climate such as the present one, to clear, creative and innovative behaviour. It is not easy to create harmony between the fundamentally different expectations of the various population groups. Nor is it easy, in the midst of the emotions felt in our various communities, to move in an evolutionary manner towards a more equitable and more stable dispensation.

It is important to realize that evolutionary change from one dispensation to another requires that many old customs, measures and institutions be discarded. In most democratic countries, obsolete customs are usually discarded when there is a change of government, but in our country, unfortunately, it does not happen in this way. Perhaps I should say “fortunately”, when one considers the alternatives.

The old things which were begun in the Verwoerd era and in the Vorster era must now be carried to their logical conclusions by this Government. The collective aspect of our relations policy must be given the emphasis in the new constitutional dispensation which the aspect of separation received in the Verwoerd and Vorster eras. This will have to be done if the Afrikaner and the other population groups in this country are to survive.

In this connection, it is a pity that certain schools of thought among the Afrikaners adopt illogical absolute standpoints and continue to give the aspect of separation of the Government’s policy 80% of the emphasis. It is regrettable that an organization formed by Afrikaners is at present behaving in a way which is endangering the very survival of the Afrikaner because it insists on White domination, i.e. on Afrikaner domination.

I am referring specifically to Sabra, arising from what the hon. member for Helderkruin said in the debate this afternoon. The problem is that Sabra is held in high esteem by a large part of the population, especially by the Afrikaners. This high esteem in which Sabra is held is due to the respectability which it acquired during the years when it was being formed and shortly afterwards. Many Afrikaners who are members of Sabra and who are still making financial contributions to Sabra are not so well informed, and such Afrikaners should take cognizance of the fact that Sabra is not helping to reduce the expectations and fears in our country to manageable proportions. The other population groups in the country should also take cognizance of the fact that Sabra does not necessarily represent the pure thinking of the Afrikaner. Many good Nationalists will have to take cognizance of the fact that Sabra has probably become the policy shaper of the CP and that it has little to contribute, therefore, to balanced and healthy understanding in our present difficult situation.

Mr. Chairman, we have just listened to a speech by the hon. member for Kimberley North in which he very clearly indicated the progress which had been made in the field of Coloured education. Then we have also listened to the speech of the hon. member for Caledon, who emphasized that we now had an opportunity for clear and creative action.

With reference to these two speeches I want to say to the House this afternoon that my experience in this portfolio over the past 18 months has been that there is enormous goodwill in the Coloured community and that there are Coloured leaders who are prepared today to utilize this goodwill in the interests of South Africa and to create a positive and healthy relationship in this way to our common fatherland. This goodwill which exists among the various population groups has developed as a result of a new approach which has emerged on the part of the National Party and the Government over the years, an approach in terms of which we have not only talked about people, but have also talked to them. This reminds me of the words of our previous Prime Minister in 1974, when he said: “A lot of people talk about the Coloured people, but heaven knows how many actually talk to them. We in the National Party do not only talk about them, we also talk to them. We deliberate with them and we try to find solutions to our problems in co-operation with others.”

In this portfolio in recent months we have talked to all Coloured political parties, to all Coloured leaders. It is essential that there should be a dialogue with this community. I think the hon. member for Durban Point referred to the fact that we were having the same old debate again, with the hon. member for Klip River pointing out the progress we have made and the PFP saying that no progress is being made. There is one thing we must remember, however, and that is that when we talk about the Coloured community, we are dealing with a community in which real needs exists, in which real problems exist. Over the past 18 months we have been trying to identify these problems and I think we have eliminated many of these problems and we have brought about an attitude which is enabling us to move into the future together.

An important contribution to the creation of this goodwill has been made by the system of relations committees, which has created opportunities for discussion between White and Brown. On 30 June 1980, there were 153 committees with a membership of 2 810. During the period under review, 544 meetings were held and 11 regional conferences took place.

I want to say today that the degree of goodwill was also increased by the appointment of the President’s Council. I am grateful for having been able to play a part in the creation of this council. I am also grateful for the fact that my name appears in the interim report of the Constitutional Committee, along with the names of the hon. members for Rissik and Brakpan, I believe. We are awaiting the recommendations of the President’s Council without any prejudice. There are expectations on the part of the Coloured community. However, there are also expectations on my part that we may bring an end to the debate we have been conducting for years and that it may be continued in a meaningful way in a different sphere. I want to make it quite clear this afternoon that no directives whatsoever have been given to the President’s Council by this department. We are awaiting those recommendations, they will be discussed and the decisions will be taken.

I believe that this goodwill which exists could be increased and that even better relations could be brought about if the legitimate expectations of the Coloured people in respect of their constitutional needs could be satisfied. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Waterberg said as NP leader before the Transvaal congress on 3 November 1981—

That is what we are doing. That is what we are doing at the moment, and it is essential that provision be made now for the political rights of this population group.

Let us admit that there has been an honest endeavour on the part of the NP over the past three decades to find an effective way of meeting the constitutional needs of these people. Let us also say this afternoon that it has not yet been found. Everyone who has served in the NP and in this House over the past three decades must confirm with me this afternoon that we have not yet found that formula.

However, we have laid down two guidelines since 1961. The first guideline was the principle of self-determination and the second one was the existence of common interests. These are not new principles that have been introduced. I think of the words of the then Prime Minister on 12 December 1961, when he said that each group must be given its independence, its opportunities and its administrative powers within its own community. I also think of the words of the previous Prime Minister on 8 November 1974 when he said that they should be placed on the road of self-determination as far as this was practicable.

I also think of the 1977 constitutional proposals. Surely it is a fact that these proposals were designed to give all the population groups concerned the right to take decisions about matters directly affecting their own particlar groups. At that time the then Prime Minister said that he was giving them exclusive control over their own affairs. In 1982 the present Prime Minister says: “Without violating the principle of self-determination.” In other words, this is a principle which has been consistently applied from 1961 up to the present time.

It has never been the intention, with regard to this principle of self-determination, to create a separate and independent homeland for the Coloured people. This has never been the intention of the NP. In 1961 the then Prime Minister said that this was not so. He said that this offered no solution for the Coloured group. In this case the policy of a separate homeland cannot be implemented.

Twenty years later, in 1981, the hon. member for Waterberg said before the Transvaal congress that the concept of separate independent States for each of the three groups was not practicable. In 1982, however, the same person spoke in Durban, and according to a report in the Natal Mercury of 22 April 1982, the hon. member for Waterberg had come to believe in the course of a few months, from November to April, that the Cape Flats should be proclaimed as an independent homeland. If this is not so, the hon. member must deny it.

It is not true.

Hon. members say that it is not true. Then the hon. members must rise and deny it.

I want to be more serious. I want to ask the hon. members of the CP to rise and to say, in the interests of goodwill and good relations, that it is not their policy that there should be an independent homeland for the Coloureds. I challenge them to do so. They now have an opportunity in this debate, but not one of those hon. members has done so. Nor have they done so in the budget debate, in the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote or in any debate up to now. [Interjections.] I therefore challenge those hon. members, because this is what their hon. leader is reported to have said, and if they do not deny it in this debate, we must believe it and say so to the people outside. [Interjections.]

The standpoint of the Government, on the other hand, is very clear. In fact, it was made clear to Coloured leaders on 8 November 1974 by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, when he said “… together with the White population, within the overall geographic borders of one territory …. Surely this is making it absolutely clear—“within the overall geographic borders of one territory”.

However, the idea of geographic ties is not a new one. This concept forms the basis of self-determination.

Is it a homeland, then?

It has never implied a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] It has never implied that the Cape Flats is now going to be designated as an independent homeland.

I was there; he did not say that. [Interjections.]

Then I accept this afternoon, from the mouth of the hon. member for Brakpan, that the policy of the CP does not envisage a homeland for the Coloured people. [Interjections.]

I believe that the principal objective of the Group Areas Act is to settle population groups in their own communities, where the population groups concerned may promote and decide about their own interests.

Now you are coming right.

No, I want to teach the hon. member for Sunnyside a lesson this afternoon.

He will never be able to teach me anything.

We are both newlyweds, Sir, so we shall find each other. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No, we shall not find each other there. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House, along with hon. members of the CP, have been giving effect to the concept of geographic ties all these years. In fact, there are approximately 255 Coloured communities today which were established by the NP. In the current financial year, 26 new areas have been proclaimed. This means that 26 new communities have come into being where the principle of self-determination can be implemented. There are also 23 Coloured rural areas comprising an area of 1,7 million ha, where 68 000 people are accommodated. In these Coloured rural areas, people engage in agricultural activities, and by means of management boards, the principle of self-determination is implemented.

Moreover, the concept of self-determination is nowhere so strongly emphasized as in the educational sphere. On 30 June 1981, there were 1 966 Coloured schools in the Republic, and the number of pupils at these schools was 747 000. In addition, there are 821 Government schools, and there are already 746 school committees, on which members of the Coloured community serve. Surely this is self-determination, and we are working every day to implement this principle of the NP.

In the field of local government in particular, the life of the individual is affected every day, and here self-determination is of the utmost importance. On 31 March, there were already 188 management and local affairs committees in the Republic of South Africa, of which 155 were fully elected, while 33 had nominated members. Let us also admit this afternoon that if we want to give full effect to this principle of self-determination, it is precisely in the sphere of local government that progress has not been satisfactory. I want hon. members to join me in considering the Government’s ideal in 1961. At that time, the then Prime Minister said the following to Coloured leaders—

I therefore say with all due respect this afternoon that in the almost five years that Dr. Verwoerd was subsequently privileged to govern the country, he could not realize the ideal. Over a period of almost 13 years, his successor could not do it either. I do not mean this as a reproach. It happened because we are faced with difficult problems in this sphere, in the first place the lack of money, for example.

We succeeded in doing it with the Blacks.

The hon. member for Kuruman says that we succeeded in doing it with the Blacks. Then we should all admit this afternoon that we have been remiss as far as the Coloured people are concerned. However, there is a lack of finance. It is true that the Coloured areas are approximately 70% sub-economic, and the essential sources of revenue—those of taxation—do not exist in those areas. The financing formula was not found by Dr. Verwoerd or by Mr. Vorster, and to this day it has not been found. A second reason is the lack of trained staff to serve, for example, as town clerks and treasurers. A third reason is the attitude of White city councils and municipalities which is harmful to co-operation. There are city councils and municipalities in the Republic today which refuse to co-operate with local management committees under any circumstances, and one finds them in the cities and in the rural areas as well.

There is yet another reason, and that is the attitude of White voters towards the development of Coloured areas, and the accompanying accusation against the Government that we are doing everything for the Coloureds or that we are just giving everything away as far as they are concerned. A further reason is the mistrust of the Coloured people and the intimidation to which they are subjected.

By the PFP.

I am mentioning these reasons to show that Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Vorster and we ourselves have not been successful in this endeavour, and there are very real reasons for this. However, there has not been stagnation in this field. Progress has been made. I have very great appreciation this afternoon for towns and cities where one finds the best possible attitudes and co-operation between the White city councils and the Coloured management committees. In this connection I should like to mention the fact that the two interim reports of the Committee of Inquiry into the Introduction of Independent Local Authorities in Coloured Group Areas, the Yeld Committee, as well as reports by other committees of inquiry concerning matters affecting local government, such as the Slater Committee, the Browne Committee and the Dr. Schlebusch Committee, have been referred by the State President to the President’s Council for its advice concerning the development of local and regional management systems with due regard to aspects of geography, finance and representation.

As far as self-determination at the central level is concerned, the Coloured Persons Representative Council was dissolved by the Government, at the request of the Coloured people themselves. We may judge this afternoon whether this was right or wrong, but it was also dissolved because the Coloured people themselves were responsible for the inefficient functioning of this council. This aspect has also been referred to the President’s Council.

I have mentioned all these things to indicate how we work in this department every day to give effect to the principle of self-determination and to indicate the progress we have made. The hon. members for De Kuilen, Kimberley North, Klip River and others have indicated the progress that has been made.

It grieves me that there has been an estrangement and a rift within our ranks and, let me say, within the Afrikaner ranks on this point. Then I think of the words of our former Prime Minister when he said in Parliament on 30 April 1978, referring to the debate on the 1977 proposals: “I therefore want to conclude by making a serious appeal to hon. members to act with restraint and responsibility with regard to this whole matter.” Can we not show greater restraint? Can we not show greater responsibility? After all, we are not engaged in a process of betraying one another. We are engaged in an attempt to find an honest solution which will give all population groups peace, quiet and stability in this country.

Therefore we must accept that as a party, we have laid down a second guideline over the years, namely that there are matters of common interest. In 1961 Dr. Verwoerd said: “Therefore there will have to be consultation at the highest level in the new dispensation concerning matters of common interest.” This is not a new concept. It was expressed as far back as 1961. In 1974 there was reference to “spheres where the overlapping of interests required joint consultation and decision-making by way of suitable liaison machinery”. That was what Mr. Vorster said. He said that the overlapping of interests required joint consultation and decision-making. He also said: “Therefore, the White Parliament must be prepared, in order to implement its policy of constitutional development, to give the Coloured political leaders a say, in the exercise of sovereign power in the sphere of common interests, with regard to matters affecting the Whites and the Coloureds jointly.” In 1981 Dr. Treurnicht, the hon. member for Waterberg, said that “everyone should be involved with respect to common interests in a way which does not affect self-determination”. In 1982 the present Prime Minister said: “I have pointed out that joint services will have to be rendered to the White and Coloured population groups, which will require joint consultation and decision-making.” Can you see, Sir, that the words of the present hon. Prime Minister and of the previous Prime Minister are exactly the same? They both spoke of joint consultation and decision-making.

Therefore the principle was accepted in 1961 and it still applies. For the implementation of this principle, both Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. Vorster introduced or held out the prospect of liaison machinery of various kinds. It was Mr. Vorster who went further and appointed the Cabinet Committee with a view to creating a new dispensation. The result was the 1977 proposals with the concept of co-responsibility. Now it is interesting that he should have said in Parliament in 1978: “The fundamental principle of our new dispensation is to give the Coloured people and the Indians not only a voice, but also co-responsibility concerning matters of common interest.” Then he said in reply to an interjection by the hon. member for Durban Point: “The hon. member may use the word he prefers …” Mr. Raw used the words “a joint say”. The hon. the Prime Minister went further and said: “But I prefer to say that I am giving them a voice and coresponsibility to decide about those matters.” In 1982 the present hon. Prime Minister said: “Therefore we prefer the term “co-responsibility”. This was approved in 1978 when Mr. Vorster, the previous Prime Minister, told the hon. member for Durban Point: “Use whatever word you like, but I prefer to say that I am giving them a voice and co-responsibility.” Now the present hon. Prime Minister uses the concepts of consultation and co-responsibility which, he says, constitue a healthy form of power-sharing. However, he adds: “But I prefer the term ‘co-responsibility’.” Surely it is precisely the same. In 1978, the then Prime Minister was ablt to say “I prefer ‘co-responsibility’”, but when the Prime Minister says in 1982 that “I prefer ‘co-responsibility’”, this has suddenly become a mortal sin.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said today about self-determination, about self-respect and whatever that may entail. Before coming back to these aspects, however, there is a serious matter which I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister as well as a request which I want to put to him.

I want to say a few words to the hon. the Minister about several requests which I have received from women’s associations throughout our country. Among these are Dames Aktueel, as well as several societies, and even bodies such as the Vrouefederasie and the Vrouelandbou-unie.

And from the Kap-piekommando? [Interjections.]

This is a matter of the utmost importance to us as the women of this country, Mr. Chairman. I just want to quote briefly what is said by some of these ladies. There is one particular petition which I should very much like to read to the hon. the Minister. The rest are all in the same vein. I shall only quote from one because I happen to have it with me—

What is it about?

I shall tell the hon. the Minister of Community Development presently what it is about. First I want to arouse his curiosity.

Pen is pricking up his ears with curiosity!

Is it about the Kappie-kommando? [Interjections.]

I quote further—

I want to read to the hon. the Minister this one request from the women of Pietersburg. It is dated 17 November 1981.1 quote—

This specific petition was signed by 241 women, but it is not…

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

No. [Interjections.] The petition goes on to say—

Now I come to the question of our self-determination. The problematical question in our country today is how to reconcile so many interests and dispositions. How does one overcome the differences that have developed through the centuries? What political dispensations are required to accommodate these realities? People who suffer from a feeling of guilt, who feel that they must apologize for being here, have no personal experience of the hardships experienced by our people. They came here when life had already become easier for all of us.

Let us examine our political structure, for politics is a method, after all, a means by which a people wishes to ensure its continued existence. A people, a population group, consists of individuals who belong together because they share the same principles, the same traditions, the same ideals, self-determination and decision-making regarding their own affairs, the same culture, the same history and the same religion. These things give me my own identity and they also give every other population group in this country its own identity.

We wish our national life to develop on the basis of Christian nationalism, and this is a non-negotiable principle. We have a multinational country; that is true. The development of a multi-national society is based on the recognition of equal communities existing side by side, not all of which are equally strong in the economic and labour spheres, of course, and not all of which are equally productive and responsible, but each nevertheless constituting a community in its own right.

We live in a multi-national country. The recognition of Black and Brown nationalisms alongside that of the Whites is the only peaceful solution, not only for Black/White relationships, but also for Black/Brown relationships and Black/Black relationships. All over the world, experience has shown that the integration of communities never takes place without a bloodshed, because it means giving up the principles of identity, of religious and of cultural heritage. Forcing people together in this way leads to conflict. Healthy contract between the various communities in our country can only take place through the recognition of the equality of peoples, the recognition of the equality of individuals within an ethnic context, not first-and second-class citizens and certainly not qualified franchise.

The preservation of identity, integrity and character provides another healthy basis for contact. We can achieve a great deal by projecting a certain image. A successful person is not judged in terms of what he possesses and what he is able to do, but in terms of what he is. If we can project an image of productivity, of service and of joy in labour, we shall have achieved a great deal. It is wrong just to keep on giving. People should strive after things and achieve them, otherwise they do not appreciate them. Charity makes an enemy of the recipient. Self-confidence and self-respect are two very important qualities for every person, and it is our object, our vocation and our responsibility towards the other peoples in our country to help them to experience self-respect, self-confidence and self-determination. Then they will develop side by side with us and accept responsibility for themselves, and they will appreciate and preserve the things they have achieved for themselves.

Every group must have the will and the ideals to get to the top by working itself up vertically, but it should not live horizontally and rely on others to support it. We must not deprive people of the privilege and the right to work and to fight for their own future and self-determination.

“Change” is a slogan of our times, but change merely for the sake of change leads to chaos. Change can only be meaningful if it is based on with tradition, and tradition contains so many elements. Tradition is an undeniable element of man’s culture. It serves to regulate the customs, habits and morals of a group. Traditions are built up over generations and they guide the members of the community concerned. Tradition is an anchor which connects us with a rich and stable past. Traditions give people a sense of direction in crises. Tradition is an effective bulwark against revolution and communism. Tradition must be built upon by every generation.

The Afrikaner has a special understanding of the Black and Brown people of this country, for we have developed and grown together with them in this country. We know their abilities; we know their inabilities. We know their traditions and we know their culture. We know their attitude towards labour. We want to honour and appreciate them for what they are, for what they do and for what they desire. We must not hand them things on a platter, for the only things that mean anything to a person are the things he has worked for. The other peoples we should like to regard as sovereign peoples and communities. No people can live in total isolation, and we must help them to help themselves. We must not deprive them of the right to taste success and victory. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to a large extent the hon. member for Germiston District spoke this evening as she used to speak in the days when she was still in the ranks of the NP. In fact, the hon. member carefully concealed the reason why she and her colleagues on that side of the House left the ranks of the NP.

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

No, the hon. member may not waste my time.

The hon. member for Germiston District very carefully avoided telling this House what possible reason they could have had to break with the NP.

We were driven out.

What the hon. member said this evening she could equally have said—and, indeed, did say—within the ranks of the NP.

However, the hon. member finds herself in good company, viz. the company of the hon. member for Rissik, who also failed to give us any indication today of the reason why they left the ranks of the NP. The hon. member for Rissik explained to this House that they are still going to formulate their policy and are still going to gain clarity as to precisely where they stand. I do not understand that, because the alleged reason why the hon. members left the NP was specifically that the NP had allegedly departed from its policy and that the hon. members of the CP were still standing by the policy of the NP. If that is so, then surely they need not seek a policy, because they have one. If that is the case, they surely have the NP policy, which has already been formulated. Why, then, do they not spell out that they stand by the NP policy, and what possible reason can they have for seeking a policy? The mere fact that they are seeking a policy constitutes irrefutable evidence that they are not in favour of the policy of the NP as it has always been formulated.

Have you accepted the draft Bill of 1977?

Those hon. members are bluffing no-one with these equivocations of theirs. They can say what they like, but on the issue of their break with the NP due, according to them, to the NP having allegedly departed from its policy, they will be pursued from Dan to Beersheba. The hon. members refuse to stand by the policy of the NP and are seeking another policy. Therefore, it is not we who have departed from the party’s policy, but they, because by their own admission they are seeking another policy.

Tell us whether you have accepted the draft Bill of 1977.

I refer, too, to the oblique attacks which the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Germiston District made on publications control. The hon. members must not think that we are so naïve that we fail to understand the game they are playing in this regard. It is very clear that they want to launch an attack on publications control in order to make out that liberalisation of Government policy has occurred in this connection as well. What other possible reason can there be for these two hon. members to rise in this House and request assurances from the hon. the Minister about a matter with which they are as well acquainted as anyone else in this House. When he was still in our ranks, the hon. member for Rissik himself was the chief spokesman on this very matter. Therefore that hon. member knows that the Publications Act as it stands is not aimed at preventive censorship, but provides for the evaluation of works after publication. Accordingly it is surely obvious that there will be publications that will have to be evaluated and examined after publication. After all, the hon. member knows that there is no directive to the effect that works must be submitted for approval prior to publication. Why, then, is he complaining that works are being published which are unacceptable, when it has always been the case that unacceptable works have been published?

The real question is whether action is taken against such works, and action is indeed taken. In the year under review, 1 021 publications were considered, more than half of which—over 500—were declared undesirable. After all, it is not as if we are now simply turning a blind eye to these things. Moreover, what the hon. members must bear in mind if they want to find fault with the existing system of publications control is that it is the product of a Select Committee of which former Minister Jimmie Kruger was the chairman, and that it is legislation which their present ally, former Minister Connie Mulder, piloted through this House. All these years they have not found fault with it. Moreover, all these years they have been aware of the problems relating to the system of publication control.

Surely those hon. members know that there are no uniform norms or criteria in terms of which publications can be evaluated in this country, because the norm applied is the acceptability of a publication to the average citizen of the country. The hon. members are surely aware that South Africa has a heterogeneous population and that every part of that heterogeneous population has its own ethical and moral norms and standards. Therefore I think it is nothing but a transparent effort on the part of those hon. members to insinuate, as they are doing in a subtle way, that as far as publications control is concerned, a liberalisation of Government policy has also taken place now.

I also want to say to the hon. members that publications control is not the sole responsibility of the State. A responsibility also rests upon us as parents and on the schools. There is also an educative task which we must perform. We must educate our children so that they themselves can judge the publications that appear, and read selectively. But what are the facts? What do we, as parents, read? What television programmes are most popular among us? What example do we set our children? What we have here is yet another manifestation of a tendency among certain people who expect the State to protect them against their own weaknesses. However, we dare not hide behind the State and expect it to protect us against all kinds of evils and fancied evils. It is high time we stood fast on the basis of our own morality and ethical viewpoints, so as not to become victims of this kind of subversion, or blame the State every time things happen which are unacceptable to us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly associate myself with what the hon. member for Mossel Bay had to say. I, too, wish to refer to the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Germiston District. I want to say to both those hon. members of the CP that I find no fault with the remarks they made. If that party lends its support to people who rebel against decaying standards, I have no fault to find with that. As long as it is a question of motivating the community to act against that evil, then I have no fault to find. However, when the action is based on political expediency in the interests of the party itself, and is aimed at scoring political points of the Government, then they are acting negatively, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay indicated. By doing so they will become more and more like their neighbours on their right and will to an increasing extent become a party which is no longer relevant in our country’s circumstances.

Now you are prejudging the issue.

The basic philosophy on which publications control in South Africa is based, is very pithily summarized in one paragraph of the report to which the hon. member for Mossel Bay referred. It reads as follows—

And what about the State?

The report states that the State cannot do it alone.

But the State must do something about it.

That is quite right. For that reason our whole system of control is based on the closest co-operation and liaison between the State and the communities and has a simple structure. It seems to me that hon. members are not quite au fait with the situation. In the first instance there is the Directorate of Publications, which performs an administrative and co-ordinating function. In the second instance, there are the publication committees that investigate publications and make decisions on merit. These committees are appointed on an ad hoc basis from a panel of approximately 200 men and women who are invited to serve on them on a voluntary basis for remuneration. There are people from all walks of life and all degrees of skill, for example from education, the churches, the legal profession, etc.

In the third instance, there is the highest tribunal for decisions on merit, namely the Appeal Board. This is an independent body and comprises members who are appointed by the State President due to their knowledge, experience and skill. However, it is not only these selected members of society who are concerned with publications control. Any man, woman or child can refer a publication to the directorate for a decision. Therefore I could think of no better guardians and adjudicators of the morals of our people than those very men and women in our community who, due to their knowledge, skill and experience, have the best interests of our youth, in particular, at heart.

In what way is the Minister involved? The Minister has no share in the whole process of decision, and this is absolutely right, too, because one cannot subject the moral norms of a people to the vicissitudes of a political appointment.

What is the norm on which consideration and decision is based? It is undersirability with regard to race relations, State security, morals and religion. Due to the subjective nature of this norm, the Supreme Court decided that consideration should be given to its acceptability to the probable reader of any particular reading matter. In practice this means that even if a certain book would be admissible due to its limited circle of readers, excerpts from the same book published in a popular magazine may be undesirable. This, then, is an indication of the reasonableness, the fairness and flexibility of our system.

What is the criticism most frequently expressed? It is said that whereas it is true that there is a system of control, nevertheless everything is allowed. According to page 119 of the annual report, 1 021 publications were referred for consideration over a period of six months, viz. eight per working day, 665 of which were prohibited. While I am referring to the report, I should very much like to congratulate the Director-General wholeheartedly on a very comprehensive and illuminatinq report which they have submitted. Therefore the system of publication control is working and the community is co-operating. The figures for the previous year were 2 138 publications, 1 207 of which were found to be undesirable.

A second objection raised is that the publication committees and Appeal Board let too much through. In this regard I must point out that the decisions of these institutions do not reflect the view of the Government but that of the community. Moral standards are not static either, because what is forbidden for one generation in one decade is permissible for the next generation, even in the next decade. Thus, the community’s attitude changes. Take, for example, the question of children born out of wedlock; that is a very good example. Changed moral standards are therefore reflected in the findings.

A very important problem is the fact that different people issue divergent findings on different evidence. This is also the position in our legal system. One judge finds the accused guilty, whereas on the same facts another judge may find him not guilty. A few days ago a certain magazine was declared undesirable because it contained an article which was blasphemous, but nevertheless a professor in Bible study adopted precisely the opposite standpoint. The community produces the authors, not the other way round. If, in this process, undesirable matter is published, the community must be afforded a medium whereby to show its displeasure and oppose the evil, and this is exactly what our system of control does. I think the system works well, because it activates the community to become involved. The fact is that pornography and undesirability cannot be imposed upon the South African public. There are masses of publications of outstanding quality that dominate the market totally.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Namaqualand talked about publications and about things the public should find desirable or not find desirable. I do not, however, plan to talk about publications.

Initially I want to refer to electoral matters. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the functioning of the electoral offices around South Africa leaves a great deal to be desired. Most offices are not operating efficiently, and in Johannesburg the conditions can only be described as chaotic. [Interjections.]

What do you know about Johannesburg?

I have spoken to people from Johannesburg. [Interjections.] This is due to a critical shortage of staff with the necessary training and experience. There are many excellent officials heading up regional electoral offices around South Africa, competent, hard-working and helpful people who are doing their jobs very well, but it is impossible for those individuals to run efficient operations without the necessary back-up personnel. In the report we see mention of the shortage of personnel. It is not, however, broken down into divisions within the department, so one does not really know what figure applies to the electoral offices, but certainly there is a deficiency. I should like to give a few examples relating to various electoral offices.

In one office, after the general election last year, 800 voter registration application forms were lost. They were simply lost. In another office—and in fact in many offices round South Africa—there are delays in voters names coming onto the voters’ roll. The names on cards handed in as early as the 19th of the month do not come onto the voters’ roll as they are supposed to, in terms of the law, by the end of the next month. This has been an ongoing complaint over many months in many parts of South Africa.

Earlier this year we had the problem of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people being removed from the voters’ roll on the basis of having died when, in fact, they were not dead at all. In certain cases the mistakes could be rectified, but in others it has been almost impossible to do so. There are also offices that have no capacity at all now to deal with specific queries. If there is anything out of the ordinary, the offices concerned simply do not have the staff who know enough to be able to look into the queries and give a suitable reply.

Electoral offices play an important role in the proper functioning of democratic processes, and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are able to function efficiently.

The second of the electoral matters I should like to talk about relates to the impending disenfranchisement of voters that will take place in a couple of months’ time unless something is done about it. In terms of section 4 and section 200 of the Electoral Act all voters who do not have identity documents, or have identity documents but do not have the numbers recorded on the voters’ roll, will lose their votes on 1 July 1982, two months hence. I realize that the department has made considerable efforts to have people obtain their identity documents, and if they have them, to have the numbers recorded on the voters’ roll. The fact remains that there are tens of thousands of voters who will be affected, either because the department, despite its efforts, has not been able to link the book of life number with an individual voter or because they are voters who do not as yet have a book of life.

Then, of course, there are delays in issuing the books of life. A figure was quoted here today of three months to five months, but there are quite a few people who have had problems that stretched back further than that where there were documentation problems. I think it is also fair to mention that over the years—for a decade or so the department has from time to time warned people to get documents and then two weeks later appealed to people to stop applying because they could not cope with the rush of applications for one reason or another.

Besides the delay factor, there is the very real problem of the elderly. There is an enormous resistance amongst many older people to applying for identity documents. Firstly, they are faced with what for them is a formidable six-page document that has to be completed. Many old people find it extremely difficult to complete even a simple document, let alone something like that. Then, obviously, like everybody else, they are required to have photographs. In addition, for many older people to try to find the documents containing the supporting evidence they require in order to send them in with their forms is something that bothers them. Sometimes it is very difficult for them to do so. They are also, of course, concerned because they do not understand the procedures and fear that, if they part with documents, they may never see them again, which would lead to additional problems.

In fact, hon. members of the House who have contact with their constituents will know that a lot of older people say: “Look, I am too old to bother with that. I am not ever going to want a passport and I am too old to drive a car. Please, I do not want to bother about one of these identity documents.” Surely, this is placing an unfair burden on many aged and infirm people who have been voters for decades?

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he amend the Act, firstly to make the effective date not 1 July 1982 but a date in January or July 1983 so that any remaining backlog can have been dealt with by then; and, secondly, to exempt existing voters who are over the age of 65 from having to have identity documents. That could be done very easily and it would save a lot of elderly people a great deal of trouble. Unless this is done, many voters will be unfairly disfranchized, often through no fault of their own.

I should now like to say a few words on an aspect of Coloured education. I welcome the fact that from the beginning of this month 56% more Coloured teachers have achieved parity with White teachers as compared with a year ago. I think that that is encouraging progress and I hope that that process will continue at a rapid rate.

However, I think we all accept that, whatever progress has been made in some areas, Coloured education is still beset with many problems. Besides political ones, there are two problem areas I should like to identify. The one is the shortage of money and the problems that arise from that in terms of providing facilities and personnel, and the second is the shortage of suitably qualified teachers.

The De Lange Commission in its recommendations on priorities specifically mentioned that the resources required, especially those that are scarce, must be utilized to the maximum extent if we are going to be able to make progress in the field of education. In this context I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the last two years 29 White primary schools in the Cape have closed down. Of these 14 are owned by provincial authorities, and could therefore easily be used as Coloured primary schools. Time and money can be saved in the process.

Equally important is the fact that there are vacancies in most of the White teachers’ training colleges in the Cape Province. There will be no problem and very little cost involved in opening them to Coloured student teachers. Language problems will not arise and many tertiary educational institutions are now opening their doors to students of all races; not only English-language institutions either. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to take the initiative in order to ensure that every effort is made to use underutilized educational facilities to the full. In doing so he would provide Coloured education with a fillip that it sorely needs.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens must not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech. As a matter of fact, I have no problems with electoral officers. At the same time, I do not want to join issue with him on education.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to dwell briefly on a matter which, in my humble opinion, is a prerequisite for every contented and prosperous society. It is the relationship between people, how they act towards one another, whether they are prepared to recognize and respect one another’s human dignity. I believe that this is tha endeavour of every right-thinking South African, and, indeed, of every right-thinking person in the entire Western World.

Unfortunately, it is also true that the government of the day is unable to regulate and rectify this important matter by way of legislation. The Government cannot maintain relations and attitudes among people at a high level by way of legislation. It must be the effect of an inherent characteristic, which means, of course, that inner attitudes must be right. What a Government can do is to create instruments enabling the individual to change his attitudes if those attitudes are not right, as long as he or she makes full use of the instruments created.

It can be quite illuminating to take a brief look at the instruments created by this Government for South Africa with its population which comprises so many cultures, languages and a variety of backgrounds. Unfortunately time does not permit me to refer to all the existing instruments. However, I want to refer in particular to the instruments created that refer specifically to the relations between White and Brown. In the early seventies the Government, under the leadership of the then Minister of Coloured Relations—now the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—tried to establish public relations committees. What was the aim of those committees? In the first place, it was to bring Coloureds and Whites together around the same table to identify hurtful points of friction and attempt to eliminate them. They were also aimed at identifying and eliminating misunderstandings that could have existed between the two population groups.

I must concede that the initial stages of those committees were hardly strewn with roses, because, of course, certain people regarded those committees as Government instruments and wanted nothing to do with them. Today I can only say of those people that they have allowed a wonderful opportunity to pass to make a contribution towards bringing about better attitudes in this country between White and Brown. Then, too, I want to point out that it is better to speak of people than to keep speaking about them. Yet others apparently had conscientious objections to serving on those committees.

However, what is the position today? The hon. the Deputy Minister has already pointed out that more than 150 of those committees are fully active throughout the Republic of South Africa. They are performing an exceptional task and helping to build a better South Africa.

I had the privilege of being chairman of such a committee for more than seven years. My experience was that points of friction and misunderstanding that did exist were not unbridgeable and that legislation was not necessary to eliminate those areas of difficulty and that with the right attitude, of course, it was possible to eliminate points of friction between the two population groups. In the process I had the opportunity of attending several meetings and conferences of those committees. By doing so I did not harm my own culture. I did not neglect my language. On the contrary, I think it made a better person of me. In the process I learnt how other people live, what their desires, expectations and wishes were. I think that I also succeeded in bringing home the message that good attitudes are a reciprocal process and must come from all sides. There is just one question I wish to ask. Are we always truly aware of how other people live? Are we aware of the real need they have to speak? We must remember that they know how to live. They know us. They know, too, that some of us only speak about them but are never prepared to speak to them. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Deputy for the exceptional interest they show in these committees. I can tell them that by means of these committees they are putting the relations politics of South Africa at a level which makes it unnecessary only to speak about people instead of speaking to them.

The second aspect I want to mention is the management committees at the third level of Government. Hon. members are acquainted with the history of how the ordinance was amended in 1965 to provide for the establishment of management committees for the Asians and the Brown population. Why were these committees established? In this regard I want to refer specifically to the Coloureds. At that stage the Coloured population had no platform at the third level of government. In this way they would acquire some joint say. They would obtain the opportunity to discuss bottlenecks in their own areas with White city councils; to bring together White city councils and management committees to deliberate about the bottlenecks mentioned, although the White city council would still retain the right to decide; to train non-White council members and officials eventually to make decisions about their own affairs and to administer their own affairs. Today, after 17 years, we can look back and try to determine what has in fact been achieved. We can also consider what the White city council have in fact done with this instrument provided by the Government. I can attest to municipalities in the Cape that tackled this task with enthusiasm and achieved signal success, that trained council members and officials, provided offices and set the management committees to work.

If, with your permission, I may refer to one city council, viz. the city council of Port Elizabeth, then I want you to consider what can really be done if one is really in earnest as regards doing something for one’s fellow-man. This city council gradually provided offices for the management committee and officials, to the extent that today this management committee has its own civic centre with council chamber, committee rooms, offices etc.—an asset of this management committee worth more than R1 million. Over the years this management committee has been organized into exactly the same committee system as the White city council, each committee with its own chairman, with regular meetings and with one plenary management meeting once a month. The chairman of the management committee—there may be people who will say that this is not important, but in my opinion it is very important—bears his chain of office and mayoral attire just like the White mayor when he presides over meetings. There are White officials and council members at every meeting to furnish guidance and give advice. Regular discussions are held between the White city council and the management committee. The management committee is allowed—and this is important—to make decisions within the framework of its own budget, which are then ratified by the White city council, because this is required by ordinance. The Department of Housing and Coloured Affairs of this city council comprises approximately 410 highly trained officials, 90% of whom are Brown. The Assistant Housing Director is a highly trained person and he is a Brown man who has given lectures overseas about low cost housing and other relevant matters. This evening I wish to make the statement that the Coloured management committee of Port Elizabeth will look after its own administrative affairs. I could mention many other towns and cities. Here I have in mind, for example, Bellville, Stellenbosch, George, Upington and others.

Paarl too.

Yes, Paarl too. However, because there are city councils that are hostile to the Government and see this instrument as a way of attacking the Government, they are trampling underfoot the rights of their Brown ratepayers. To these people I want to say today: Remember, you are working with people, and these people will never forget you. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Algoa must be complimented on his very positive speech. He has indicated a trend which we on these benches welcome very much indeed. This trend has made itself evident, particularly over the past two or three weeks, in some of the messages which have come across the floor of the House in regard to trying to create a better dispensation for each and every member of the community of this country. I do accept the fact—and one respects it—that the Government does appear to be moving in a direction where it is giving hope to many more people in this country. I accept also that we must not bluff ourselves. If we do not move with the times, we cannot in any way continue to live in a secure position in this country, irrespective of the group to which we may belong.

I want now to turn my attention to a certain matter which relates to my constituency. I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the plight of some of the Griqua people in East Griqualand. As hon. members know, some four years ago East Griqualand became part of Natal. The Griquas in East Griqualand consider themselves to be the forgotten people of South Africa. When one studies the history of these people, one can understand that there is a certain justification for this point of view. It is estimated that there are some 5 000 Coloured people in East Griqualand of whom some 3 000 to 3 500 are of Griqua origin. These 3 500 people have become detached from the other Coloured races in the country so that really, in actual fact, the expression “the forgotten people of South Africa” is very aptly applied.

I wish to trace very briefly the history of East Griqualand. Our farming friends in the House who have not been there, might find this somewhat interesting. East Griqualand has been referred to, on many occasions, as the “no man’s land that everybody wants”. During the mid-19th century there was a tussle between the Governments of the Cape and Natal in regard to the inclusion of this so-called agricultural jewel within their boundaries. Adam Kok 3rd finally came on the scene in the early 1860’s when he settled with his band of trekkers on the slopes of Mount Currie and later established the town of Kokstad. It is significant to note that Adam Kok allocated farming land to his people, as well as urban land in the town of Kokstad. In 1879 East Griqualand became annexed to the Cape and remained so until 1978.

I annexed it for Natal.

The hon. member for Umbilo was one of those responsible for Natal acquiring this precious jewel. In the course of time the ownership of much of the original Griqua properties in East Griqualand changed hands. The reasons for this are many and, I think, have great significance as regards the point I wish to make. The principal reason for this was that this land, which was initially allocated in the form of farms and erven in East Griqualand, was eventually lost to a large number of the original owners as a result of the subdivision of land that followed the distribution of the estates of deceased owners. It was inevitable that the face of East Griqualand would undergo a change. The Griquas moved away from the farming lands to such towns as Kokstad and Matatiele where they were to become a closer-knit community. I must point out that a section of the Coloured community has remained on the land in East Griqualand and that some of these Coloured farmers are among the most prominent in that area. The National Independence Church in the centre of Kokstad is a proud monument to the contribution the Griquas have made to the development of East Griqualand.

Earlier in my speech I referred to the Griquas of East Griqualand as being a forgotten people. One only has to visit Kokstad—I would be grateful if both those two hon. Ministers would just spare me a minute because I want to issue an invitation to them at a later stage during my speech to come to East Griqualand so that they may make contact with the Griqua community—to appreciate the frustration that a large number of these people are experiencing.

I have already indicated that I will go there.

This year?

Yes.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, there is a divergence of opinion among the Griquas. Some accept that they are part of the Coloured community while others regard themselves as a separate entity with their own traditions and style of life. All are unanimous, however, in their feeling that they have not been accorded the recognition to which they are entitled. They feel that over the years successive Governments paid little head to their status and requirements and that they, for want of a better expression, have been pushed around and ignored. I am aware that an interdepartmental committee has investigated the status of the Griqua community and that a report has been completed with regard to their constitutional future. May I just at this stage make the plea that the Griquas themselves be consulted before any, shall we say, final decisions are taken with regard to their future.

It is not in this context, however, that I would like to attract the attention of the hon. the Minister. I wish to raise certain material issues which relate to the Griquas and which require immediate attention. I wish to refer to the inadequate facilities that are provided at the Coloured high school in Kokstad. The hon. the Minister’s reply to a question by the hon. member for Durban North on 26 February does indicate that it is the intention of his department to provide a new secondary school with hostel facilities for the Griqua community in Kokstad. May I say how very much this is welcomed. I wish to inquire from the hon. the Minister and—I would be grateful if in his reply he could give me information in this regard—when is it contemplated that work will commence on this project? When will it be completed? And whether the siting of this school lends itself to easy accessability. I cannot express too strongly the need to provide improved educational and hostel facilities at secondary school level for the Coloured people as a whole in East Griqualand. The existing high school is inadequate in every sense of the word. It consists of a prefabricated building constructed many years ago with inadequate facilities to afford pupils the most favourable means of gaining a sound education. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take steps to ensure that the Coloured people of East Griqualand are more closely consulted in matters which particularly affect this section of the community. Previous Ministers have declined to negotiate with these people.

They even refused to go there.

That is correct. They should be consulted in regard to such matters as the siting and construction of their new secondary school and they should be encouraged to elect responsible bodies in the form of parent associations etc.

Nothing debars them from doing that.

They have not been encouraged to do so.

They are being overridden by the department.

I request the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the fact that these same people should also be consulted in regard to matters of housing and social facilities. It would be advantageous if any decision relating to the quality of their present housing could be left over until such time that the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Minister of Community Development could attend to it when they visit East Griqualand. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to follow the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member usually makes very good contributions in this House. I was a member of the Cape Provincial Council when Griqualand East was transferred to Natal. I am not sure whether we did the right thing, but it was done and we wish Natal everything of the best with regard to Griqualand East. There is an interesting story about the Griquas who were given the land in Griqualand East about 100 years ago and were the actual owners of that land, but a few years later, for reasons we should perhaps not go into here, were deprived of their land. Today we have a problem with the Griquas in Griqualand East and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to the requests of the hon. member for Mooi River.

I should like to refer briefly to the endeavours of this Government over the past 34 years to uplift the Coloured people of South Africa. This is a matter of the greatest concern to me. For over 100 years the Coloureds were on a common voters’ roll and the year 1956 when the Coloureds were removed from the common voters’ roll was mentioned in this House today. In actual fact they were on the common voters’ roll from 1854 to 1956. During that time the predecessors of the hon. member for Durban Point’s party did give these people the vote on a common voters’ roll, but as far as their social position, their economic, educational and cultural status were concerned they had made no progress at all. The hon. member for De Kuilen referred to this today.

You are talking nonsense.

Even when it came to his vote, he was only registered in constituencies where his vote could play a role. Surely this is true. He only had the vote in such constituencies as Paarl, Caledon, Stellenbosch and Hottentots Holland. In 1953 as a first-year student at Stellenbosch I saw for myself how on election day the Coloureds were driven to the polls in Olds-mobiles and Pontiacs and how, after they had voted, they had to walk home. [Interjections.] Steps taken since 1948 have probably also caused unhappiness, but if one were to draw up a balance sheet the credit side of what has been done for the Coloureds and the progress these people have made, would by far outweigh the debit side. Over the years there has been a sincere attempt on the part of the NP Government to uplift the Coloured so that he could take his place as a full-fledged citizen of this country. I should like to emphasize this: So that he could take his place as a full-fledged citizen of this country. One need only think of Atlantis, Mitchells Plain and Charleston Hill in Paarl to realize what a tremendous difference there is between the situation today and the slums of the old Tuin area in Paarl or District Six in Cape Town where people were exploited for many years.

Socially, culturally and economically the Coloured today is much better off than he ever was before, and in the constitutional sphere we are at present holding serious discussions with them on a future dispensation.

Were there poor Whites in the ’thirties?

Many! [Interjections.]

We are discussing this dispensation together, and the Whites will have to be prepared to make sacrifices, and to grant unto others what we demand for ourselves in order to ensure our future. But the Coloureds will also have to moderate their demands.

However, in the final instance, what is at issue as far as I am concerned is the heart and soul of a human being, and there is probably much more to be gained from building up a person and making him a full-fledged and balanced human being. How does one do this, Sir? One does this spiritually, and there are few other countries in the world that have done more to Christianize and educate people than South Africa. How else does one do this? One does this by giving attention to education, and in the sphere of education a great deal has undoubtedly been done to educate and help the Coloured to become a full-fledged citizen of this country. In this year’s budget alone R366 million is being appropriated for Coloured education, in comparison with R288 million last year. I cannot think of another item in the budget which reflected a larger percentage increase than Coloured education. If there is one area of education to which special attention must be given—and I know that this is already being done—it is the area of post-school and adult éducation for Coloureds to train them as teachers so that they can help with the upliftment of their own people.

I should now like to come to a local matter, of which the hon. the Minister is aware. It concerns a small teachers’ training college in Paarl, namely the Athlone College. In my opinion the history of this college gives it a right to exist or at least a reason for serious attention to be given to it. Today everything must always be bigger, and everything must be rationalized in these times of shortages. This college was established as long ago as 1926 by the N.G. Mission churches and the English churches. And this was not done with money from the State, but with loans from private individuals completely contrary to what happens nowadays. However, the problem is that there are only 220 students at this college, whereas the type of college the State builds these days can take 900 students. However, I am appealing to the hon. the Minister to go out of his way in this case to see to it that the existing facilities at this college are maintained in as good a condition as possible so that it can continue to exist in future.

That is a wonderful request.

Yes, and there is a very good reason for this appeal. The relations committee to which my benchfellow referred so strikingly was one of the first committees of this nature to be established in this country, and from the very beginning the aim of this committee was to create better interrelations.

It is one of the finest in the country.

The hon. the Minister is therefore aware of this. From the outset this relations committee campaigned for post-school educational facilities in Paarl and particularly for the improvement of the facilities at this specific college.

I realize that in these times of shortages and rationalization it is impossible at this stage to build a large new college, but that is why I am asking the hon. the Minister to go out of his way to ensure the right of this college to exist, for as long as possible. The latest effort by the relations committee in Paarl—I should like to mention this to the hon. the Minister—was a special effort to establish a bursary or scholarship fund, to help people to study at this college, a fund with three Whites and three Coloureds as trustees, working together in the interest of better attitudes and relations. The aim is to train people as teachers, so that they can go back to their own people and help them to become full-fledged citizens of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Paarl. I have known him for many years and, as it was tonight, it is always a pleasure to listen to him. I have come to know him as a man who always makes calm, well-argued and pithy speeches. His speech, this evening testified to this.

I am actually rising to react to the speech by the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member quoted a newspaper report on the hon. the Vice State President’s statement that the 1977 proposals contained an element of power-sharing. The hon. member also referred to the statement made shortly afterwards by the previous State President who said that they did not contain elements of power-sharing. I think the best explanation which can be given for this apparently conflicting interpretation of the word power-sharing was probably given by the hon. member for Helderkruin when he announced that these hon. gentlemen apparently do not attach the same meaning to the term power-sharing.

Let us however, consider the 1977 proposals. I must admit that I have the benefit of hindsight. Let us just consider the relevant part of those proposals, that part centering around the concept of power-sharing. We find that there was to be a Cabinet Council and this Cabinet Council was to consist of seven Whites, four Coloureds and three Indians, in other words a Cabinet Council with seven Whites and 7 Non-Whites. The State President would be the chairman.

Daan is still with the 1966 proposals.

Let us go a little further. Let us see how that Cabinet Council would function. This was explained by the former Prime Minister in this House in 1978. I was not here yet, but the hon. member for Rissik was. The former Prime Minister emphasized two aspects. He said the Cabinet Council would function in the same way as the present Cabinet. It would initiate legislation and then the legislation would be submitted to the Parliament for approval. However, he made a further important statement. He said that if the present Cabinet was an executive Cabinet, the Cabinet Council would also be an executive Cabinet. This appears in Hansard and has already been quoted in this debate. I therefore do not want to quote it in detail. [Interjections.] If this Cabinet Council which was to be created was not a form of power-sharing—and I put this to the hon. member for Rissik—what is power-sharing? Here are seven Whites and seven non-Whites deciding on legislation to be pilotted through the Parliament and accepted as law, with the aim of governing the country. If this is not power-sharing, what is power-sharing? The hon. member for Rissik—I must concede this in all fairness—had objections to this. He told us that he made inquiries about this at the Synod Hall. I was also at the Synod Hall. The reply he received was that it was not power-sharing and he says he accepted this. The hon. member is not stupid. After all, he can judge for himself. He has a mind of his own. As I said, I was also at that meeting. I also arrived at certain conclusions regarding the 1977 proposals, and I must say I did not disagree with them.

He listens to what Connie tells him.

I realized that the implementation of those proposals, viz. the three Parliaments, the three Cabinets and the three Prime Ministers, would be fairly expensive. I realized that there would be practical problems. There would be three Prime Ministers. It is obvious that certain practical problems would arise from time to time. In the third place I realized—and this is important—that there would be conflict between these groups, that there would be clashes of interest between them. This goes without saying.

The CP’s three Prime Ministers are Connie, Jaap and Andries. [Interjections.]

However, the important aspect is that those conflicts would be discussed behind closed doors and not in public as is taking place here today. In the fourth place—and as far as I am concerned this is of real importance in the 1977 proposals—in those proposals more power is actually given to the two non-White groups involved than they would have had if they had been represented as minority groups in the House. If they had been represented as minority groups in the House, they would not have sat in the Cabinet, they would not have had a share in the decision-taking process and they would only have been able to ask for certain things to be accepted or rejected here by the Cabinet. What is important is that they would have had no say in the decision-taking process. Is this not power-sharing?

Did you tell this to your voters in Port Elizabeth?

At that stage I was not a member of Parliament, but my voters in Port Elizabeth know where I stand. Not a single one of my voters in Port Elizabeth has deserted to join the CP. They know where I stand and they know what my standpoint has been over the years. My standpoint for more years than the hon. member would care to know, has been that the Coloureds must have better representation in South Africa. Nor did I hide my standpoint under a bushel.

Did you tell your voters it was power-sharing?

It is incomprehensible to me how this hon. member, who shows every sign of having an above average intelligence, can disagree on this. This afternoon he admitted that the CP does not have a policy yet. As yet there are no aspects of policy in respect of which they differ from the NP and regarding which they left.

Power-sharing.

He was honest enough to say that they must still draw up their policy. The hon. member for Sunnyside, whom I have known for a long time, must allow me to make my speech. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking.

I was therefore unable to find any explanation, until I happened to come across an article by Prof. J. J. van Tonder of the University of Potchefstroom. Prof. Van Tonder spoke of the origin of the right-wing organizations in the Verwoerd era, which at that stage were already making statements in conflict with the official standpoint of the NP. Something else becomes apparent from this particular article. It is pointed out that Dr. Albert Hertzog was in contact with all these right-wing organizations. What is however, of importance in this debate is that Prof. Van Tonder also mentions other people who were involved with the right-wing organizations as far back as the Verwoerd era. He mentioned, inter alia, Mr. Jaap Marais, the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Rissik. The other day the hon. Prime Minister said that those hon. members were seeking a policy to conceal their disloyalty to the NP, and if anyone still had any doubts about this, they have been dispelled by the information I have just given.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North will understand why I do not want to take part in the debate between the two wings of the NP which now find themselves in two separate political parties.

†I want to try to focus on some matters relating to the Coloured community and in particular to the question of constitutional development.

But Colin, where is Harry tonight? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, this really shows the quality of hon. members on the Government side. They are sitting there lfke a bunch of braying donkeys instead of as hon. members of Parliament. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes indeed! [Interjections]

The debate is taking place against the background of a change in the Government’s attitude towards the political representation of Coloured people. Indeed we welcome change. We will debate whether or not the change is adequate. What I do find quite nauseating, however, is the way in which speaker after speaker on the Government side stands up and tries to justify what the NP has done to the Coloureds over the past 20 years or more. Why do they not admit that they made a terrible mistake?

That is all they have to do!

Why do they not say they have made a mistake? Why do they not say that they despised, humiliated, repudiated and rejected the Coloured people for 34 years? That is indeed what they did. Nothing that the Government can do today can undo the past. [Interjections.] It can look forward to the future but it cannot undo the past. It cannot whitewash the essential injustice which is at the root of the NP policy and which resulted in the Coloured people, 150 years after the abolition of slavery, having no vote at municipal, provincial or parliamentary level. [Interjections] Those hon. members can talk until they are blue in the face. It is like trying to persuade an Afrikaner to accept that Lord Milner was doing them a good turn. That is exactly what it is like. They are the Lord Milners of the Coloured community. That is what they are. [Interjections.]

They may talk about relations committees, about management committees and the upliftment of the Coloureds if they like. What is the reality? The reality is that they deprived the Coloured people of political power, and political power is the essential instrument for bringing about economic and social reform—not do-goodism. I am not against do-goodism but that is not what the substance of politics is. The substance of politics is political power. I do not have the time to read out all the various statements made by hon. members opposite. Some of them say, however, that it was a passing phase.

Oh goodness me!

We only need to read the declaration by the federal council of the NP in 1961 where it is stated—

*In that declaration of 1961 this statement is repeated three times. However, what do we have here? It was merely a passing phase! Ten years later, on 27 May 1971, that statement is confirmed once again in a declaration by the federal council of the NP.

What happened to your qualified franchise?

It was not a passing aberration. What this was in reality, appears from the following words—

It was a matter of fundamental policy. I hope the hon. the Minister will admit that they made a mistake; that they were wrong. In fact, one of the worst things in the constitutional evolution of South Africa—and that is what the NP Government did—was to remove the final link between the Coloured people and this Parliament. What could have been a matter of adjustment has now become a matter of fundamental principle. I must emphasize that I look forward to the day when, in a Parliament of one, two or three chambers, the first Coloured man arrives. All this paternalistic nonsense about what we have been doing for the Coloured people is going to go out of the window. Those people will then be expressing from their hearts the feelings of people who have been repressed and deprived over the past 34 years in South Africa.

So while we say that we hope there is a new future hon. members on the Government side should not try to camouflage or to whitewash all the injustices of the past.

Much is said about the urban Coloured in South Africa. Much has been spoken about housing and about what has been done and what not. I believe that on this occasion we should also not forget the rural Coloured, the man who lives on the platteland. There, I should point out, are many worth while employers there. There are certain local authorities that are taking action, but because of the lack of political rights and of political power for the Coloured people—at whatever level that is—many of the Coloured people on the platteland live in degrading conditions. They are living as an oppressed community. Many of them are caught up in a downward spiral of poverty which is both debilitating and dehumanizing. That is the reality. Amid the progress which one has to find in any society, one also has this factor of a downward cycle because of the lack of political power. I am delighted that the hon. the Minister of Manpower has set up a commission to investigate the question of farm labour conditions. However, it goes far beyond that. Do we in fact treat these people with the real respect and the real dignity which they deserve? [Interjections.] I ask this question because I have also lived on the platteland. Go into any platteland dorp on a Friday afternoon or a Saturday morning and see whether those people are being treated with dignity and respect. I want to ask whether there is for the Coloured man in the rural areas a real opportunity of upward mobility or is he trapped in a cycle of poverty because of the circumstances in which he finds himself? Look at the degree of alcoholism that exists among these people on the platteland. Is the tot system not a feature and a factor that has to be taken into account? There is the attempt to migrate from the rural areas to the urban areas. Do we know what this means for these people? Do we know the number of so-called Coloured servants who are brought from the platteland into the cities and the conditions in which they are removed from one environment and placed in another? There is also the question of looking at job opportunities. Is there the opportunity for those people to acquire some wealth and to escape from the cycle of poverty in which they live? I raise these matters not because there has not been progress in some fields and not because certain employers and certain local authorities mean well. However, I say that if one does not have political power—and by political power I do not mean tokenism, not “bestuurskomitees” or “verhoudingskomitee”—if one does not have the vote and the right to share power—“healthy” as the hon. the Minister may say—then one will not be able to remedy the position. [Interjections.]

When the Government uses the term “power-sharing”, I take this very seriously. There is a fundamental difference between simply saying that people can have a token vote, “hulle kan inspraak hê”, and saying that they can share power; there is a difference between “magsdeling” and “inspraak”. “Magsdeling” is a very fundamental term because it means that one will have an actual share of power, power to make decisions. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister. The Government has said that it does not want to anticipate the findings of the President’s Council but, oddly enough, the hon. the Prime Minister himself has made certain very important statements. The hon. the Prime Minister has said “geen gemeenskap-like kieserslys”. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Cape Provincial Municipal Association this week has advocated a common voters’ roll. I believe it was unanimous with perhaps Hanover and Oudtshoorn dissenting. However, they were unanimous in this and they were led by Mr. Schlebusch. They said that as far as local government was concerned there should be a common voters’ roll based on a qualification of income and property ownership. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister has said as a matter of principle that there will be no common voters’ roll. I see from a leaked Cabinet report that this hon. Minister is the one who is negotiating. The Cabinet has given this hon. Minister the authority to negotiate with Mr. Schlebusch, the chairman of the President’s Council so he should know. I ask the hon. the Minister whether in his negotiations with Mr. Schlebusch he has made it clear that there will be no common voters’ roll. Is he in fact repudiating the other Schlebusch of the CPMA? Is he repudiating all the local authorities of the Cape Province because the hon. the Prime Minister has said in advance that there will be no common voters’ roll? Is he in fact bluffing us in South Africa?

The second thing that the hon. the Prime Minister said was that “die selfbeskikkingsreg van die Blanke moet nie aangetas word nie”. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister as I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: What fields of government does this hon. Minister say the Whites should control in order to exercise “selfbeskikkingsreg”?

In areas that they share with Coloureds and Indians how are they going to exercise the right of self-determination or are they going to abandon the right of self-determination in those areas? My third question is: If in fact he says it is paramount that the right of self-determination of the Whites should not be affected, is he also prepared to accept on a non-discriminatory basis that the right of self-determination as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned should also not be affected? I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do when the President’s Council recommends, as the Cape Provincial Municipal Association has recommended, a common roll, a common voters roll at municipal level? How will the hon. the Minister react to that? I want to ask him how is he in fact going to give practical implementation to the principle of “selfbe-skikking” or is he starting to realize as we realize that “selfbeskikking” can only take place in those very limited cultural areas which people can have separation but that in all the areas of power, all the areas in which fundamental power decisions have to be made there is no way in which any one community in a common parliament or a common government structure can do anything other than to surrender its self-determination in favour of a common determination of all the people participating in that government? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the PFP’s primary interest is to exploit the Coloureds for political reasons. There is no indication at all that the PFP is interested in the upliftment and the quality of life of the Coloured community. Just now the hon. member for Sea Point said that the Coloureds should have the right to share political power with the Whites, Indians and Blacks on an equal level within a single community. That is the PFP’s premise. Participation by the Coloureds in South African politics has been a controversial issue since the previous century. I have a pamphlet here in which the views of well-known Cape liberals such as Cecil John Rhodes, W. P. Schreiner and Onze Jan Hofmeyr are reflected. They took a very clear stand and expressed their misgivings concerning the political role played by the Coloureds or the Malays at the time, in the previous century. I should like to quote the view of W. P. Schreiner in this connection—

This view of his, which he expressed in the Cape Parliament in 1893, was followed by interjections of “Hear, hear”.

Why do you not come to the 20th century?

I quote further—

This was the view adopted by a well-known Cape liberal in the previous century. It is typical that these liberals, these people who call themselves progressive—they are not progressive, but are the mouthpiece of overseas opinion that wishes to destroy the political set-up in South Africa—are interested solely in exploiting the Coloured vote in order to get the whole set-up in South Africa changed.

The Coloureds were removed from the common roll in the fifties and were given separate representation. Only when they were given separate representation in this House, and later by means of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, did the real upliftment of the Coloured community begin to take place. That was when people started taking the Coloureds as a community seriously and providing them with a basis for development on the educational, social and every other level. It follows that the next step has to be to give serious attention to the political development of the Coloured community. Under the previous circumstances, when the Coloureds were on the common voters roll, 50 000 Coloureds, at the utmost, were registered in the whole of South Africa. The Coloured women did not have the vote, only the men, and then only a small percentage of them. There was exploitation at every election, and between elections they were totally disregarded. No attention was given to them. I honestly believe that to give them separate representation in this Council, in the same way as the Blacks had separate representation since 1936 until it was abolished in 1958, and in the same way as the Coloureds were later represented by four Whites in this House, is a system which is in itself destructive since those representatives do not really form a part of the political structure in this House. Under such a system they are always a permanent minority. The Black representatives were limited to three. They could never form part of the power structure in this Parliament. So it is no wonder that Sam Kahn was elected in 1948 to represent the Blacks. It is also no wonder that the representatives elected by the Coloureds could not really participate in the exercising of power, since they were in the position of a permanent entrenched minority, so to say. This meant that those representatives could promise the electorate the world, but could never be called to account, for they could always say: We do not have the power to do it. They could plead for anything. They could plead for the world, but they could never deliver the goods. It is clear therefore, that this system lends itself to exploitation at the polls. Even when the Coloureds held the balance of power in a few seats in the Cape, there was a tremendous wooing of the electorate, but the systematic, positive upliftment of the Coloured community never really received any attention. This is why, when the Coloureds had their own Council, I accepted that that was the starting point from which they could develop their political say over their own affairs. When the NP proposals were announced in 1977, proposals in terms of which there would be three separate parliaments, with three separate cabinets, three separate prime ministers and a council of cabinets in which representatives of all three Parliaments would be able to hold joint deliberations on common problems, the reaction of the Coloured leaders, also the extremely radical Coloured leaders, was that that was more than they had expected. They held that view until the Progs, inter alia the hon. member for Sea Point, apparently got at them. The change came about because it did not suit the PFP that the Coloureds should have real, positive representation. The PFP wanted to use the Coloureds to acquire political power in South Africa for their own personal reasons since they knew that they would never be accepted in White politics but would consistently be rejected by the White voters. They are interested, not in granting the Coloureds separate representation where they would be able to contribute to the upliftment of the Coloureds on their own initiative, but only in exploiting the Coloureds. This is the tragedy of the whole affair, particularly in the economic field.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. member an opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Houghton for indicating that she is willing to be rebuked further.

I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he, without broadcasting it, has systematically held discussions with Coloured leaders, discussions which were not always made public. Intensive discussions were often held with Coloured leaders, and not stooges, but leaders, even leaders who were very critical of the Government. These discussions have contributed to the development of a totally different attitude in the relations between the Coloureds and the Whites. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his continued efforts to build bridges to mutual understanding, not in order to sell our policy, but in order to develop an understanding for our policy. In South Africa we find ourselves in a multiracial situation. We are not a single community. We would only create problems if we were to follow the policy of the PFP, viz. one State structure with one voters’ roll and one Parliament. This would inevitably lead to tension and friction. If, in contrast to this, we were to accept one another’s bona fides and were to go out from the standpoint that we really wanted to build bridges which might lead to understanding between the population groups of South Africa, we would be in a very good position to improve attitudes in this country. This depends on the positive effort made by every one of us in our constituencies, in our homes and in other places, to create and improve positive attitudes.

It is obvious that we would create tension if we went out from the standpoint that because a person is a Coloured, a Black, an Indian, an English-speaking person, a Greek, a Portuguese, a Jew or whatever, he should be kept at a distance and should perhaps be regarded as a potential enemy. In this way we would obviously never be able to build bridges to a better understanding in this country. What is needed in this country, is that we should show the world outside that it is possible to accept one another’s bona fides here through positive action. If we do this our primary interest will not be to have equal political rights in one Parliament with one voter’s role, but we shall proceed from the standpoint that as neighbours each of us has rights in his own area while we deliberate together on certain matters where our interests overlap. To deliberate with one another in responsibility—and I want to emphasize the words “deliberate in responsibility”—means that I take the other person’s standpoint seriously and that I expect from him to take my standpoint seriously too. In so far as we take one another’s standpoints seriously we do already have power-sharing to some extent. If, in contrast to this, I merely listen to a person and do not take his standpoint seriously, there is no power-sharing. However, if I do take his standpoint seriously and I am prepared to give serious attention to his problems, and he takes my standpoint seriously, we would have reached such a measure of common accord that we have decided to acknowledge, preserve and respect each other’s mutual identity. In Europe there are many areas today—and I have mentioned this on previous occasions—where there is indeed power-sharing without relinquishing sovereignity. Within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, on defence level, there is power-sharing on the level of the sovereign responsibility of each individual country. On the level of the economic community within the European Community Market, too, there is power-sharing in respect of certain economic aspects, but they deliberate in a responsible manner and take one another’s interest seriously. So, with a view to the multiplicity of communities in South Africa, it is essential that we, too, should take one another’s bona fides seriously and appreciate them. It is in this context, then, that each of us can make a great contribution towards improving relations among the various nations in South Africa. I am convinced that South Africa will have its manifold and multiracial problems solved long before increasing tension will lead to an eruption in Europe, for there are already indications of racial problems.

In which countries?

I can mention Germany as an example where, according to the German Tribune which was delivered to our mail boxes three weeks ago, a recent opinion poll brought to light that 66% of the German population were not prepared to grant the Turks permanent residential rights in Germany. [Interjection.] In Britain, too, there was racial conflict last week in cities where large numbers of non-Whites live. So there is no doubt about the fact that racial problems are on the increase in Europe.

It is not official.

This racial conflict has perhaps not yet been acknowledged officially but exists mainly between individuals at the moment. However, let me make it very clear that racism which is rife under the people could have far more serious consequences than differences acknowledged by the State, because the fact that the State acknowledges the differences decreases the tension among the population groups. [Interjections.] However, when the State does not acknowledge the differences, social sanctions exercised by individuals will lead to far greater cruelty, as is apparent in America, for example, and in many other countries.

Are you advocating racism?

I have stated my views very clearly. Our task is to build bridges to understanding and to better attitudes in South Africa. However, we would destroy the existing bridges to better attitudes in South Africa if we should decide to adopt the policy of the Progs, viz. to go forward into the future as one community with one voter’s role in a joint political dispensation. [Interjections.] So I repeat that by acknowledging that there is a variety of nations in South Africa, we are acknowledging at the same time that it is essential to build bridges to understanding and to better attitudes.

Mr. Chairman, to me it is a privilege to follow the hon. member for Klip River because, as he put it, he was trying to build bridges tonight, and if ever in our history there was a time when it was of the utmost importance for us to try to build bridges and not to try to steal a political march on one another, that time is now.

I have no real intention to refer to the hon. member for Sea Point’s speech but if one wanted to rake up the past, I could refer to a very interesting publication.

†In 1896 there was the Franchise Act which dealt with the withdrawal of parliamentary franchise in Natal of Indians. In 1897 there was the Dealers’ Licences Act of Natal, and so one could go on. [Interjections.] I could take hon. members all the way through to 1943. The point I am trying to make is that it is not very helpful. [Interjections.]

*I shall rather expand on the speech of the hon. member for Klip River about bridges that have to be built.

†In a short while the President’s Council will issue a report, and that report holds out a great deal of hope, not only for Coloureds, about which a great deal has been said here, but also for Asian South Africans.

Tonight I want to say something about these Asian South Africans. Hon. members will remember that in 1860 the first 341 Indians in Natal disembarked from the barque Truro. Over the next 41 years some 46 ships sailed between the Indian subcontinent, Mauritius and the Natal colony. The last was the Umlazi which arrived in 1911 bringing a total of some 152 000 Indians—according to the census figures—to the colony of Natal, as it was then. It is interesting to read The Natal Mercury of 22 November 1860, and I quote—

The Natal Mercury went on to say, and I think this is most interesting—

The article goes on to say—

Five days later, on 26 November, the Belvedere arrived. It brought 69 gardeners, 61 Brahmins, 25 warriors, 18 dairymen, 16 pig rearers, 14 fruitgrowers, 14 potters, 11 salt dealers, 11 porters, 9 clerks, 8 herdsmen, 7 boatmen, 6 cattle workers, 5 policemen, 5 messengers, 5 laundrymen and undertakers and so on. [Interjections.] I notice the Natal members, as is their habit, making fun of their fellow Natalians.

Of you, my friend.

The fact is that those people were skilled and semi-skilled people who came to a continent crying out for skills at that time. In short, it was a group of people as representative as any other group of settlers that ever arrived in this country from Europe. I believe that the positive role that these people have played, do play and can play is not nearly seen in the correct perspective or the right light.

By whom?

By society generally…

Not by us.

… as illustrated by the remarks made by the hon. members from Natal. [Interjections.]

Either grow up or shut up.

I am making this speech for the very reason that this is the kind of remark one hears in South Africa, and if we are going to build up anything in this country, this kind of thing is going to have to stop.

Stop talking trash. [Interjections.]

The fact is that these people have been vilified in Africa. Their massive contribution has been minimized, even ignored and often goes unappreciated. [Interjections.]

And you have done everything for them since 1948!

Why does that hon. member not just listen? [Interjections.] All over Africa the pioneer heroes have had a high profile, e.g. the Voortrekkers, the 1820 Settlers and many other heroic groups. What, however, of the Asians? From research I have done recently, it is clear that when the bold White pioneers opened up the White highlands in East Africa they found that the Asians had already been there for 60 years. Of the White pioneers there are statues everywhere, but there are no statues to the Asians who had been there some 60 years longer, opening up that country. They helped tame the land and often broke virgin African soil for the first time for the purposes of agriculture, sometimes for themselves, sometimes for others. The Natal Mercury wrote on 19 January 1865—

Indeed, exports rose to over £180 000 in 1871. So they played a foundation role in a foundation industry in our country, viz. the sugar industry.

Tell us about the Free State.

Much is said about the Small Business Development Corporation and the importance of small business in South Africa as an employer. However, the Indians, without administrative, technical or financial help, have built up thousands of small businesses in this country, many of which have become large and important enterprises. They have become major employers serving all sectors and sections of our country. Law abiding and industrious, they have helped to build this country.

Do you think they should have the vote?

They have risked their capital, they have risked their lives and they have traded and lived under the most inhospitable circumstances, often ignored or even restricted by society.

Like in the Free State.

By sheer guts and determination and with great skill they have helped tame and build this land. They have done so with quiet heroism and fortitude to which I want to pay tribute tonight.

The Indian community in South Africa is the largest Indian community outside the Indian sub-continent. There are today more Indians in South Africa than in the rest of Africa put together. No group has achieved so much or succeeded so well with so many obstacles placed in its path as this particular community. Theirs has been a history of high achievement in commerce, industry, agriculture and education.

Just over 20 years ago it was Dr. Verwoerd who for the first time gave these people formal permanence in South Africa and since then we have seen tremendous development. Now, with the President’s Council about to report, a new era has opened up for these people. One thing is certain, and that is that, as the style of South African politics changes, as we move towards the politics of accommodation, consensus and negotiation, the Asian South African has an increasingly important role to play. Armed with a strong and adcient culture and with proven skill and tenacity, the Indians will, I feel sure, play a positive role in the best interests of all the people on this sub-continent, all the more so because of the unbelievably important role this hon. Minister has played in creating a climate of goodwill and understanding in South Africa so that we in South Africa can go from strength to strength to build a greater South Africa in which also communities such as the Asian community will have a role to play which, as I have said, will be in the best interests of all the people on this sub-continent.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I just wish to dwell briefly on what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs had to say.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sunnyside allowed to listen to the radio in this House?

Who says I am listening to the radio? [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Sunnyside is listening to the radio, he must refrain from doing so at once. The hon. member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to come back briefly to the speech made earlier today by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. I want to refer in particular to the last part of his speech in which he discussed the whole issue of self-determination and power-sharing. I want to state very clearly this evening that until 22 February this year, the NP had never stated in any of its official documents that its policy was one of power-sharing, healthy or otherwise. [Interjections ] It is remarkable how quickly those hon. members begin to shout. When the hon. member for Sea Point said it earlier, however, no one shouted. [Interjections.] In the NP’s manifesto of 1981 there is not a single word about joint decision-making or power-sharing.

What about co-responsibility? [Interjections.]

Moreover, there is nothing in it to the effect that co-responsibility is equivalent to joint decision-making or power-sharing. That is a new interpretation, a new term, in fact, which has now been accepted, and the sooner the NP …

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

No, Mr. Chairman, I really do not want to answer that hon. member’s stupid questions. [Interjections.] The sooner the NP admits that, the sooner we can proceed to conduct a meaningful discussion with one another.

At this point I should also like to discuss the debate in connection with publications control. It is clear that the hon. member for Mossel Bay was to some extent labouring under a misconception this evening as regards what the hon. member for Rissik had said.

No, I see right through your entire argument!

The hon. member for Rissik never ever attacked the Publications Board or anyone else in a way that could be interpreted as a political ploy or anything of that nature. He merely referred to trends in our time, tendencies among people to compel us to accept permissiveness and indifference towards moral decadence. In this regard the hon. member for Rissik said that the CP, together with all who fought these things, would do everything in its power to combat them. That is all that the hon. member for Rissik said.

What about the innuendo it contained?

I now wish to link up with what the hon. member for Rissik said by pointing out that I am of the opinion that the sphere of publications control is a tremendous problem area for the Department of Internal Affairs, a problem area in that the moment one has to pass moral judgment on books, films or whatever, one enters a problem area. In this regard there is profound appreciation for what the Directorate has done over the past year and is still doing.

We really have the greatest appreciation for the successes achieved in this regard, and the large number of works prohibited. I should like to place this on record on behalf of hon. members of the CP. These decisions of the Directorate are often made under very difficult circumstances. The Publications Board always performs its functions in an atmosphere of tension, tension caused by, on the one hand, external influences. It is true that the outside world adheres to certain ethical viewpoints and certain moral norms and standards which are not normally acceptable here. Tension is caused, in that this must necessarily exercise an influence in our country. On the other hand, it is also true that we experience tensions internally, because not everyone in the country upholds the same ethical standards and norms, nor does everyone subscribe to the same moral viewpoints. On the one hand, for example, we have the churches, and specifically the Afrikaans churches with their commissions for public morals and for current affairs. Then we have the viewpoint of individuals, of individual Christians. We also have the viewpoints of groups of people, groups of Christians in society, and the viewpoints of specific moralists in society, people who set certain conservative norms and standards as far as morals are concerned, and that expect the State and the Directorate—indeed, the whole society—to maintain those standards and norms and fight tooth and nail against anything which seeks to undermine those standards, impugn those norms and by so doing, bring about moral decadence. On the other hand—and this is what causes tension to build up—we also have those people to whom I want to refer as the moral liberals. They are those who adopt a more liberal-minded approach, who set a more flexible criterion, or in some cases want no criterion at all. They are those who tell us that everything is permissible, everything must be allowed, everything must be accepted. It is they who tell us that art is free; whatever I want to write or depict is not subject to criticism or any moral norms.

This kind of thing creates tension, and the context of this tension one must decide what is permissible or acceptable and what must be prohibited. Now, it is also true that in our day it has become a very disturbing phenomenon that publishers and authors in particular insist that the church and the community must drop their moral norms and standpoints and allow them carte blanche in regard to what they, in fact, regard as art, and as good and right, and what they would like to write, display and present to the outside world.

We are living at a time when decadence has set in in many respects. It is true that in certain respects decadence has set in not only in the outside world, but also here in our country. Now such publishers and authors are trying to present this kind of literature, which they present in order to condone that decadence, on the pretext that they are really reflecting reality as we experience it in everyday life, as it occurs in society. They claim to have the right to present that reality to the public, whether by way of books or by way of images. In the process they are, in point of fact, presenting to the public what is decadent in our society and civilization.

We take a stand against this, and the church, the moralists and the Christians expect that the State, too, will fight and take a stand against it. Accordingly we profoundly appreciate what the Directorate of Publications is doing in this regard, because the people to whom I referred are trying to condition our community into accepting decadence as the norm, as the standard by which society must live and operate. We reject this conditioning and we fight it with all our might. This decadence is in fact what should be censored in the community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this does not apply so much to the contribution made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, to which we have just been listening, but in general the contributions of the hon. members of the CP and, also in general, their behaviour since they broke away, gives one the impression that they are suffering from something resembling delayed shock. One gets the impression that these hon. members got such a big fright that they ran away, and now they must try to justify their actions to themselves. But they are not quite certain whether they really saw something ominous when they got that fright. Nevertheless, they must justify their actions to themselves and now they are trying to make everyone believe that there was a good reason for leaving.

I should like to exchange a few ideas with the hon. members on the basis of a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister during the discussion of his Vote on 15 April. Fie said, according to Hansard, column 4524, that the Coloureds should first be uplifted and that the consequences of this should be accepted. The second part was obviously aimed at those who until recently still subscribed to the policy of the NP, but who have now terminated their ties with the party. The hon. the Prime Minister obviously implied that that was in fact the reason why they broke away, in other words that they did not see their way, or could no longer see their way clear to facing up to the consequences of NP policy.

However, it was not only the hon. the Prime Minister who reminded us of this truth and who confronted us with the inevitable and logical consequences of our declared and accepted policy. Nor was this the first time that the hon. the Prime Minister expressed an opinion on this matter. On 15 April of this year the hon. the Prime Minister said that neither the late Dr. Malan nor the late Dr. Verwoerd had thought otherwise on this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister himself had stated as long ago as 1975, in his opening address at the Cape NP Congress, that—

His predecessor, Mr. Vorster, had said the following in September 1973, according to a report in the Weekend Argus of 22 September—

In the same spirit the hon. the Prime Minister declared in 1972, in his opening address to the Cape NP congress, that—

Suddenly, now, there are those who do not see their way clear to continuing along that same road, and have apparently taken fright at and flinched away from the inevitable consequences of the policy which they once endorsed.

We make great claims in respect of our policy on the upliftment of the Coloureds, but then we should be prepared to persist with it and carry it through to its logical conclusion. It would not be fitting for us to flinch away from it at a certain stage. The CP dare not argue that this is a new or amended policy, the consequences of which they no longer wish to accept. They dare not allege that their policy is, as it were, a 1982 version or a P. W. Botha version. This policy dates back, not only to the time of Mr. Vorster and of Dr. Verwoerd, but as far back even as the time of Gen. Hertzog.

What are the consequences of the policy? It is interesting to take cognizance of a statement made by a sympathetically disposed Western leader, the late Mr. Robert Menzies, during the Commonwealth crisis which preceded South Africa becoming a Republic. He described the NP policy as—

When he referred to “Bantu”, he was speaking in general terms and referring to all the coloured groups in South Africa. Although he was very sympathetic towards Dr. Verwoerd and his policy, he did not believe that the policy would succeed owing to, as he saw it, a “fatal flaw”, from which, according to him, the whole policy suffered. He put it in this way—

Another newspaper reported him as follows—

There is for us an appropriate reply to this statement of the late Mr. Menzies. Although it testified to acute powers of observation for any outsider, it is clear that Mr. Menzies’s conclusion was based on a false premise. It is clear that he did not fully understand the spirit in which the policy was being applied. It is clear that he did not want to give us credit for our willingness to accept the logical consequences of our policy. He did not want to give us credit for the resolution and determination, regardless of consequences, with which we would implement the policy to its logical conclusion. Not only is the Government in deadly earnest with its policy to raise up the Coloureds; it is also absolutely honest towards the groups concerned. As far as this matter is concerned, the Government does not dare be dishonest and immoral by giving with the one hand and taking with the other. The hon. members of the CP must not expect this of the Government. I cannot go into it, but there is eloquent testimony to this programme in this annual report. There are about 70 to 80 pages of eloquent testimony to how sincerely and honestly the Government is engaged in that programme and what progress it is making with it. And that is not even half the story, because the health aspect is not covered in this report and probably half of what is being done for the Coloureds is being done in that sphere.

We do not like the terms “first-class and second-class citizenship” which Mr. Menzies used. We do admit that for the time being there is no equality of citizenship between the Whites and the non-White groups. This is an evolutionary process; it is a process of emancipation which has had a long preliminary history and which also has a long way to go still. There are historical reasons for this, and it is not necessary for me to go into them this evening. In the ’forties and ’fifties we frequently heard it being said that the NP’s apartheid policy, as it was then known, was just and could be defended on the basis of two considerations in particular, i.e. the numerical relationships and the development gap, or rather the major difference in standards of civilization. The NP decided, and accepted as a cardinal part of its policy, to narrow this gap and eliminate it as far as possible. We could say that it was a Christian act of faith. Unlike what happened elsewhere in the world, the National Party did not decide to eliminate its problem, but to nurture and care for it, as it were, regardless of the consequences.

The programme of upliftment involves economic and social upliftment, the creation of opportunities and the raising of their general standard of civilization. All this must inevitably result in the Coloureds arriving at a dignified human existence and in recognition of their full dignity being granted to them. This must inevitably give greater content and meaning to their citizenship. As they develop, their needs will increase. This is inevitable. This is the logical consequence of our policy, and a further consequence is that we shall have to endeavour to accommodate them in respect of those needs. We must remember Dr. Verwoerd’s well-known credo that discrimination would progressively diminish as the policy of separate freedoms unfolded. We know how frequently he expressed his disappointment and impatience because, according to him, the progress that was being made in that process had not gone far enough and was not rapid enough.

We must all put our heads together now and reflect on the precise form which this accommodation will assume. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for Maitland for having sketched the historical background of the Indian community in South Africa to us here. There is perhaps a danger that, in this constitutional debate, we may forget that there are two population groups in the country with which this entire debate is concerned, and we may perhaps place a little too much emphasis on the interests of the Coloured community, and too little emphasis on those of the Indian community. In previous years I pointed out, on the basis of reports from the then Department of Indian Affairs, the tremendous progress which the Indian community had made in South Africa, particularly in various spheres, during the past 34 years under the NP Government. I shall not go into detail about this again, but merely wish to mention a few examples. In the province where I come from this community plays a highly important and very dynamic role in the economic life of that province. If one were to look at the annual report of the new combined department, one would see that that process is continuing. It is particularly noticeable that in the sphere of unemployment there was a gradual decline in the unemployment rate among the Indians in South Africa, particularly during the past four years, so that this annual report was able to point out that the total unemployment rate among the Indians was as low as 2 500. That is only 0,3% of the entire Indian population.

The best example of the progress being made by a community is perhaps its progress in the field of education, as this report once again testifies. Two years ago we introduced compulsory school attendance for all Indian children in South Africa, and today no fewer than 190 000 of just under 800 000 Indians are attending school. That comprises almost 28% of the total Indian population. This school attendance figure has grown during the past few years, in spite of the attempt of subversive elements to encourage a schools boycott among the Indian community. When it comes to primary and secondary as well as technical education, further progress has also been made. The M. L. Sultan Technical College has now become a full-fledged technikon and has also been affiliated to the Association of Technikons. Today the University of Durban-Westville occupies a position of honour in the Indian community in Natal and in South Africa as a whole, in contrast to the calumny which this institution had to endure at its establishment and for years afterwards.

In the sphere of welfare, too, great progress has been made, as is very clearly apparent from this report. More and more members of the Indian community are being employed by welfare services as welfare workers.

In the sphere of constitutional development, however, there is still an impediment, as there is in regard to the Coloured community which has already been referred to in this debate. The report mentions that there are four independent town councils in Natal today which consist of Indians and that there are only 15 Indian local affairs committees in Natal as against three management committees and 33 consultative committees in the Transvaal, and eight management committees in the Cape. The unhappiness among the Indian population in regard to the existing third tier level of government is only partly attributable to the relations between some White town councils and Indian local affairs committees and to the fact that these relations are not always what they should be. Another reason which also gave rise to this is the fact that the large Indian town of Chatsworth, which falls partially within the Umlazi constituency, was initially incorrectly planned as a dormitory suburb, so that there were no economic development points which could generate the necessary taxation to turn this area and other similar residential areas into viable municipalities. As is the case with any other Government institution, control over financial affairs on the third tier of government is after all of the utmost importance. This consideration, together with the inevitable atmosphere of temporariness which permeates the entire management situation in the Indian community, is probably another part of the reason why the percentage poll for the elected S.A. Indian Council was so low. The irrefutable conclusion one arrives at is that local and regional participation in the control of their own affairs will only flourish and prosper if the line is drawn through and the new political dispensation gives these population groups as well a full-fledged joint say in the administration of the country. If, after receiving the recommendations of the President’s Council, we do not embark on a course which makes the Indians and the Coloureds just as much a part of the body politic as the citizens of the Transkei or Ciskei for example are part of their States, we would inevitably be driving them into the arms of the Indian Congress, which is after all only a blood brother of the ANC.

It will avail us nothing, as the members of the CP are trying to suggest, to say that power-sharing with the Indian community will lead to power-sharing with the Black people. The Indian community cannot be compared with the Black nations, They cannot be cast in the same mould. Unfortunately there is not time to go into details, but the fact of the matter is that ever since the Whites came into contact with the Black nations in Southern Africa, such contact has been in an ethnic context. When one takes note of the border wars here in the Cape, of the Voortrekker treaties and their contact with the Black nations, of the settlement arrangements which the Republic arrived at with these nations, and even of the 1936 legislation, one sees that Black-White relations in this country have throughout taken place on an ethnic basis. The same cannot however be said of the Indian community. The Indian community is in South Africa through the instrumentality of the Whites. We cannot today say that it was unwise or shortsighted of the colonists of the time, but the fact of the matter is that the Indian community is in South Africa through the instrumentality of the Whites, and the Whites have acknowledged their permanence in this country. [Interjections.]

We cannot tolerate a situation where one sector of the White population views this youngest of our population groups as a wedge which is being driven in to cause a new arrangement between Whites and Blacks, while the official Opposition party regards the Indian community as a lever to bring about a different dispensation between Whites and Blacks in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by referring to a remark which the hon. member made, namely that this debate was concerned fundamentally with two population groups. In this connection I should like to state a new perspective this evening, namely that although this Ministry has specific and particular responsibilities in respect of the Coloured and Indian communities in this country, it is basically involved with other population groups as well. I want to suggest that when we conduct a discussion under this Vote, it is extremely important that we should direct our discussion at the relations which exist, not only in respect of two population groups, but in respect of all population groups. The fact of the matter is that every success we achieve in the evolutionary development of the two population groups, for which the department is specifically responsible, is going to depend on the degree of security and the guarantee of such security which is going to be promised to the White population.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.