By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make an announcement in regard to the business of the House for next week. The business will be as printed on the Order Paper, with two exceptions. As you know, Sir, the Budget Speech will be delivered on Wednesday, and then there will be a special debate on Friday on the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Nusas and the Institute for Race Relations, which will be introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the last day of the discussion of this motion of censure in the Government. Sir, it is quite clear that all the “sour” (suur) of this motion of censure (sensuur) is on the other side of the House.

And all the “sense” (sens) is on this side.

This was proved conclusively by the recent elections when the people gave expression to their feelings, and I think it was proved as conclusively by the arguments and counterarguments raised in the course of this week when the Official Opposition and their fellow travellers, the Progressive Party, were unable to state their alternative policy clearly and fully. Yesterday things were going so badly for them, Sir, that the crown prince of the United Party had to “leave the room”.

Order! I think the hon. the Deputy Minister could have said that the hon. member had to leave the Chamber.

I shall put it that way, Mr. Speaker, if it pleases you. I am not sure what it was he went to do; I do not know whether he went to cool off in the water or to see whether his crown jewels were still in safe custody. I am glad he is back in the House again. His bench-fellow, who is really the Opposition’s spokesman on agricultural affairs, has donned a little Coloured apron. He did not say a word about agriculture, and instead tried to make some contribution to the debate on the Coloured people, a debate which has been conducted all this week.

Sir, I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House have presented the people with a distinct policy. We received a decisive answer and we do not intend effecting any of the changes the Opposition are now suggesting, but do intend making adjustments, where practicable, on the basis of the mandate we received. We shall, with enthusiasm, dedication and devotion, implement in its full consequences the policy approved by the people. I want to say immediately that it is not an easy policy; it is not a policy without problems, but we do not intend making concessions in order to satisfy the Opposition. If I would give them some advice, I would suggest they reconsider their policy which has just seen the light and has just been rejected, again, with a view to making further changes.

Concerning our policy—and I say there are problems in that connection—I want to refer to the urban Bantu in the first place. I want to make it quite clear that as far as the urban Bantu are concerned, it is the policy of the National Party that they will neither obtain land tenure in White areas nor receive political rights there with the Whites. This is quite clear. These Bantu come to work in the White areas on that distinct condition. Yesterday I told hon. members opposite that these people belong to nations and that they have their own cultures, languages and entrenched beliefs. How can we make these people an appendage to a White political party or a White political institution? Last year a Negro from the United States told me: “We Negroes in the United States have nothing of our own. Whilst I do not agree with your policy in South Africa, I have to congratulate you on letting people develop according to their own cultures.” This is very important, Sir. It is vital for these people to preserve something which is unique to them and that they should not become an appendage to White politics. Therefore we have to continue to develop these homelands. A great deal of criticism has been levelled at it, among others by the hon. member for Sea Point—actually, I mean the hon. member for Green Point. Sir, those two hon. members do not differ much in appearance, but yet there is a difference as far as their constituencies are concerned. I should like, at some stage or other, to hear from the hon. member for Green Point what the terrible differences in policy are between him and the hon. member for Sea Point, especially after this week’s debate.

Sir, we are carrying out a major development programme in the homelands. I admit that we should like this development to take place more rapidly. The limiting factor there is the lack of motivation on the part of these Blacks. But now the hon. member says we have closed down agricultural schools there. The agricultural schools, according to the hon. member for Griqualand East, were closed down a long time ago. I went to find out how long ago, and I found that those agricultural schools had been closed down even under the United Party. You know how long ago that was, Mr. Speaker. They closed down those schools very long ago, during the ’forties. In the meantime, what has happened to agricultural development, which is receiving our closest attention? We established agricultural colleges in the various homelands. At Chwaka in kwaZulu we have an agricultural college with 107 students.

I may tell hon. members that we have also introduced a course in nature conservation there in order to train these people in this very important field and cultivate the necessary sense of responsibility in them. At Fort Cox in the Ciskei we have 82 students attending the agricultural college. At Arabie in Lebowa there are 130 students, at Taung in the Tswana area 78 students, at Tsolo in the Transkei 75 students and at Ogongo in Owambo, where a college was established recently, 18 students. To this I may add that we are in the process of building an agricultural college at Masori in Kavango. I visited it recently; it is almost complete.

There we shall provide training in this field to the Kavangos as soon as possible. This gives a total of 490 students who are studying at these agricultural colleges. We are, in fact, experiencing problems in recruiting enough people. Hon. members opposite say we have done away with them. Then, of course, we have the agriculture faculty at Fort Hare where we provide training and try to train the required Bantu at a technological level. This cannot happen overnight. I paid them a visit last year and discussed all their problems with them because I am deeply interested in this vital development of the people. As a result of strikes and certain problems a few students unfortunately suffered the consequences, but we have to accept these things.

After so many years of separate development there are only 500 students.

They closed down these colleges, Sir, while we in turn established six agricultural colleges at which 450 students are studying. When we came to power, the colleges had already been closed down by the United Party. In other words, it was a tremendous achievement to have proceeded from nothing to the present number. A large number of these people have in the meantime completed their studies. I want to say that we pay all possible attention to agricultural development and the training of these people so that they are able to serve their own people. There is something we often hear in this country, that the Whites are to be blamed for the lagging behind and, sometimes, failure of the Black people. The only way in which we can squash that argument, is to give the Black man the responsibility, for then he will not be able to blame the White man. We are doing that at the moment, but it cannot be done overnight. It is a lengthy process and we are making continual progress in this sphere.

Some hon. members are constantly asking what we are doing. But who among them has read the report of the Xhosa Development Corporation for the last financial year, and also the reports of the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Bantu Mining Corporation? We have established these bodies to assist the Bantu. I should like to quote a few extracts from these reports. Let us have a look at the report of the Xhosa Development Corporation. I do not wish to furnish details, but merely wish to stimulate hon. members into reading it themselves. In 1967 the Xhosa Development Corporation was instrumental in creating work opportunities in 489 cases. By 1973 the Corporation had created job opportunities for 8 259 people. This process is gaining momentum and I shall presently furnish hon. members with additional figures. I do not want to burden the House with too many figures. According to the report of the Bantu Investment Corporation, they provided work for only 720 people during 1971, while this number increased to 6 268 by 31 March 1973. This is tremendous progress. We do not make these people an appendage to White development, but enable them to develop in their own right. They do not become hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Whites while they are experiencing a constant feeling of frustration, but they become businessmen, industrialists and farmers in their own right. Furthermore, I should also like to refer to a report of the Department of Census and Statistics. I quote the following from it—

This matter is one of great magnitude and it shows that we are making good progress in training these people on a long-term basis. What really matters, is where we are eventually going to end up as far as race relations in this country are concerned and in which way we can place peaceful coexistence beyond all doubt. We are in the process of doing this by developing those people and by allowing them to participate in development.

Then I should like to tell hon. members that it is essential for us to analyse our agricultural policy from time to time and to examine its efficiency. I have given this matter a great deal of attention during the past year. We have had discussions with all the homeland officials and homeland leaders only recently. One of our major problems in this regard which often causes people to raise such a hue and cry, is when people are shifted. One of the major problems is the incorrect occupation of land in the homelands. If we are to implement a proper agricultural policy, it will amount to our bringing about, in conjunction with the Blacks, a complete shifting of people within the homelands. We cannot continue successfully to obtain high productivity according to modern standards from those farmers while 350 000 to 400 000 farmers occupy small-holdings. The numbers must therefore necessarily be reduced. But, Sir, the position is that they occupy that land whilst being employed in the White area. This is not an approach we can condone or allow to continue. In other words, we are constantly giving attention to the matter, and this party is bringing about changes in a dynamic way in order for this policy to succeed, because there is no alternative policy as we heard quite clearly this week. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister about my so-called “leaving the room”, I just want to inform him that there is a very old rule in this Parliament that, if one member asks another to come to the House when he is speaking, that member does him the parliamentary courtesy of leaving whatever he may have been doing outside, and coming to the Chamber. I have always adhered to that rule of courtesy—there are many hon. members on that side who know that I have always done so—and have complied with a request to come to the Chamber. I did the hon. member for Turffontein that courtesy too; but I was busy with an appointment yesterday, and received a message from the hon. member to come to the Chamber. There sits my Chief Whip, who can confirm this. I did him that parliamentary courtesy, and came. But, Sir, I want it very clearly understood that if a member abuses the rule of courtesy in the manner in which the hon. member did, by making personal attacks, attacks which are totally unfounded, he need not expect me to do him that courtesy any longer.

It was only three months ago that we had the general election. The Deputy Minister was quite correct in saying that the Government was returned with a solid majority. The Leader of the Government Party was quite right in saying, shortly after the general election, that the Government had received a mandate from the voters to implement its policy. We accept this. We also accept our own role as that of Opposition and critics, which is an honourable and very necessary political role in the type of parliamentary system we have. We also appreciate fully that, at least until the next general election, it is not our policy which is going to applied in South Africa, but the policy of the Government. For that reason I must say that we were astonished when we listened to the past few days’ debate, and the kind of speeches which were made here, particularly in view of the fact that it is the policy of the Government, and not of the United Party, which has to be applied in the light of the mandate. I think it is time hon. members on the opposite side of the House showed a willingness to accept their mandate in deed and to come here and debate its implementation in this House. Let me say at once that this is the approach which we will adopt, particularly in view of the critical times which lie ahead for South Africa.

In the course of my speech, I want to touch upon a few points which have been raised here. A great deal was said here about the question of patriotism, and even the hon. member for Turffontein ventured upon that preserve. I think I must say at once, at the beginning of a new session and at the beginning of a new Parliament, that we on this side of the House will accept no dictates or guidance from the Government side on the question of patriotism, not from the Government as we know it. That Government has no special qualifications for adjudicating upon this matter, for partisanship, giving preference to the interests of their party is frequently far more important to them than those of their country. It plays only too great a role in the life of the Government. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that when a politician is losing his influence and his credibility is failing, he usually makes himself out to be a great patriot while all the rest are knaves. The National Party had this in the form of their Jaap Marais. We in the United Party have it in the form of a Philip Myburg, of the kind that was quoted here earlier. Surely it would be childish of me or of any member to rise here and quote Mr. Jaap Marais day after day accusing the Prime Minister of being a leftist-liberal and unpatriotic. This is what he as ex-Nationalist now saying about the Prime Minister and other leaders. It is equally useless and childish for an hon. member on that side to go on quoting Mr. Philip Myburgh or any other person of the same ilk against us. The same applies to the hon. member for Turffontein. It is common knowledge—I make no secret of it—that I never had very much time for that hon. member. [Interjection.] I can understand him being somewhat bitter, but I shall tell hon. members why. Those hon. members who know the political history of South Africa, will know that one has, throughout the history of South Africa, found a type of Afrikaner, or let me rather say a person with an Afrikaans surname, whom the English-speaking sector, particularly in the United Party—accepted in all good faith as a good Afrikaner, but who in reality had an entirely misleading and destructive effect and who constantly aroused venomous suspicious among them against the lawful aspirations of the Afrikaner. Let me say that the hon. member for Turffontein has all his life been a supreme example of that type of “Afrikaner”—in parentheses. When the Republic was established it was he who incited thousands of English-speaking people against the idea of a republic.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is insinuating that the hon. member for Turffontein is misleading.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the hon. member was misleading to the English-speaking people in his politics. If you like, I shall withdraw it with pleasure. The hon. member for Turffontein did the same at the time of the introduction of the flag and the national anthem, but now he is sitting there as the super patriot. A number of years ago when legislation was before this House to establish the Rand Afrikaans University as an Afrikaans university on the Rand he fought as hard as he could to dissuade the caucus of the United Party from voting for it.

Are you disclosing caucus secrets now?

Yes. I opposed him, and I won in the end and he lost. Now he is sitting there as the super Afrikaner, and the hon. the Prime Minister will probably reward him soon. Let me say that I have never had time for such Afrikaners, and I do not mind if people like them regard me as being a troublemaker. The hon. member for Turffontein did more than any other member I know to alienate Afrikaans votes from the United Party. The irony of it is that it is precisely this kind of “Afrikaner” who, when they have done their negative work, crawl to the National Party under the false cloak of Afrikanerdom and patriotism. [Interjections.] However, I want to tell the National Party that when I see what kind of people are being applauded here and outside the House today by the National Party, then I wonder whether Jaap Marais was not perhaps right when he said that there are so many unsavoury Afrikaners sitting in the front seats of the National Party today that he preferred to leave.

The hon. member for Wonderboom criticized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on Monday for having raised the question of South-West Africa here. I know there is a school of thought on that side of the House which believes that South Africa is the property of the National Party and that anyone who opposes them may be arbitrarily told what they may discuss and what not. That is a philosophy which this side of the House will not accept. Everyone knows that the South-West African question is a delicate matter, but it is no more delicate than any of our problems dealing with human relations. We are still waiting in vain for the day the Government eliminates offensive apartheid practices and indicates that it regards the question of human relations here and in South-West Africa as being as delicate as it really is. Our standpoint on the discussion of South-West African affairs is very clear. This side of the House has repeatedly suggested to the Government that a Committee of Parliament, representative of both sides of the House, should be established in which the question of South-West Africa may be deliberated on a proper parliamentary basis. The Government has consistently rejected this proposal, as it had the right to do.

You were too irresponsible.

Presumably the Government rejected it because it did not regard the South-West African question as being sufficiently delicate to justify such a procedure, and we accepted that. In any case, let me inform the hon. member that we on this side are not prepared to accept any double standards on the part of the Government. Members of the Executive Committee in South-West Africa, who are leaders of the National Party, and other politicians, including the National Party daily newspaper, Die Suidwester, do not hesitate, in this Territory itself, to make a political football of the international question of South-West Africa. Frequently what they say and write there is so irresponsible and so contradictory of the standpoint adopted by the Government towards Dr. Waldheim and the U.N., that it does not interest us in the least that the Government is now displaying simulated concern here about the particular delicacy of the South-West African question. The hon. members know as well as we on this side of the House that what is being said in Windhoek today by Government politicians is being read and noted far more eagerly by the U.N. than any standpoint of the Opposition. However, what is of paramount importance to us is that what happens in and to South-West Africa, and any mistakes the Government makes in their handling of that important question, affects not only the Government, but also the life and future of each one of us sitting here and of each inhabitant and citizen of the Republic. Therefore we feel that we would be guilty of dereliction of duty, not only towards South Africa but also towards South-West Africa, if simply allowed the Government to go its way on South-West Africa without placing its actions under scrutiny. We have no intention of doing so. In the course of this session we shall, therefore, deal with further aspects of the Government’s policy on South-West Africa.

In the course of the debate a host of distorted ideas on the federal direction of the United Party and on the so-called disappearance of what is known as the White Parliament were expressed. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs that the situations he depicted here are situations which could arise in a unitary state, but not in a federal state. It is clear to me that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, and other hon. members who discussed the subject, have not yet examined the basic difference between a unitary state and a federal state at all. I do not think they really want to, because they are afraid of discovering facts which may cause them discomfort. Firstly we must remember that this Parliament is not a White Parliament which can stand on a par with a Xhosa or Zulu or Coloured Parliament. It is true that only Whites have representation here. But we are sitting here in a capacity of total “baasskap”, of domination, over all the other groups and the entire country. Consequently this Parliament is an imperial Parliament. This Parliament is the “baasskap” Parliament which is supreme over the entire South Africa. The essence of Federalism is a decentralization of power, a sharing of power, a geo-political sharing of power among the various peoples in South Africa in as far as it is possible to give everyone a political basis of security and sovereignty. Alongside these bodies for the various peoples a federal institution develops—which does not have supreme authority over everything and everyone, for them one would be back again with a unitary and not a federal system. Therefore a federal institution will develop alongside the various Parliaments, and I am saying “alongside” deliberately, Mr. Speaker, a federal institution in which the representatives of the various peoples will sit together as equals. As in every federal state, the federal Parliament has limited and defined functions, which are mutually agreed to and in regard to which the various peoples will and can co-operate without domination of the one by the other and without the institution as a whole encroaching upon those aspects of life over which each nation retains full autonomy in its own interests. The Government members are suggesting that we are heading for a pattern in which the Zulu and the Xhosa and all the other nations will ultimately have an autonomous Parliament, and not the Whites, but that is devoid of all truth and whoever believes that must be very credulous.

May I ask a question?

I am sorry, Sir, I do not have the time for that. What will have to disappear, and it is merely a question of time—whatever Government is in power—is the “baasskap” character of any White Parliament, including this one. There are numerous examples of successful multi-national federations in the world. I would advise you, Sir, to look into this U.N. seminar on “The Problems of Multinational Societies”, held a few years ago in Yugoslavia, and to take note of the number of countries which participated. The terms of reference were to find a way in which various races could co-operate with another—various language, ethnic and religious groups [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, Yugoslavia itself is called the Multi-national Republic of Yugoslavia. That is where the hon. members got the concept from. They arrived at the conclusion there that the federal idea is in fact the only idea in terms of which various peoples or races can co-operate successfully without the one being dominated by the other. Mr. Speaker, the hypothesis of the hon. the Prime Minister that Federalism would lead to the extinction of the Whites, is nothing but a political ruse. He is Supreme Leader of the National Party in South-West Africa; he is Supreme Leader of the entire National Party, including that of South-West Africa, and in October 1972 the Executive Committee of the National Party of South-West Africa—the entire team—submitted a memorandum to Dr. Escher, and I refuse to believe that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Prime Minister, who is personally in charge of South-West African affairs, was unaware of it. Sir, I have here the memorandum in which they made certain recommendations to Dr. Escher, a special chapter on “Federation”. I am quoting paragraph 5(1 )(i)—

“Serious consideration”. Sir, will what the Government is planning lead to the extinction of the Whites? It goes on to state—

May I put a question to the hon. member? It is also stated in that memorandum that the Executive Committee rejects federation for the Whites. Would he quote that as well?

Yes, I have not finished. It does state here as well that the Prime Minister had said that he was not going to force anything upon anyone; but the central fact here is that they said that federation deserves serious consideration. This is what the National Party says, and, Sir, if that were then to lead to the extinction of the Whites, why does it then deserve serious consideration by a White party? Sir, I should like to add this: In the one breath the National Party states that it is not in favour of federation or that it would mean the extinction of the Whites, but in the other it states: “It deserves serious consideration”.

All options are open.

I want to say that this last view, is the correct, the honest one; and time will show that there is no other way out for the White people of South-West Africa; either they are going to accept a form of federation or eventually have Black domination, and I think that this will ultimately be the case in South Africa as well. If the Prime Minister had really had the interests of the population of South-West Africa at heart, then he would have given them advice and would have guided them towards beginning as rapidly as possible to seek co-operation with the other population groups on a federal basis, for it is in any case impracticable—which is what the hon. member for Wonderboom said—for people living in the same Territory, such as the population groups in the south of South-West Africa, to exercise separate conflicting options. Those are mere words which mean nothing.

All options are open to them.

Sir, in their memorandum to Dr. Waldheim, large population groups—the Damaras, the Hereros and others—also made it known that they did not want to be dominated by other population groups and that they were in favour of a form of federation, and the Government knows this, and I believe that, if the Government were sensible, it would use the time it had available to create a federal order in South-West Africa on the basis of co-operation without domination, and then hold a plebiscite in which all the population groups, in the exercise of self-determination, need not vote for an abstract idea, which is very difficult to vote on, but for something which works and something which they can see working. I want to tell him that the vast majority of the population groups will vote for such a federal system ...

How do you know that?

... and the Government need not then be at all afraid of allowing the voting, i.e. the actual deed of self-determination, to take place under international supervision so as to find a final solution to the South-West African question.

†Mr. Speaker, whenever we come to deal with vital issues like this, the Prime Minister claims that he is in consultation, in the case of the Coloured people’s situation, with the Coloured leaders, and in fact he claims that he has communicated with more Black and Brown leaders than any Prime Minister before him. I am quite prepared to concede that, but there is a certain danger in the new pattern which has now become the regular thing on both sides of the House. I believe we should beware that consultation does not become a subterfuge, a disguise and an excuse for lack of action. And the hon. the Prime Minister particularly will have to prove to us that this is not the case as far as he and his Government are concerned. Mr. Speaker, consultation has a very precise meaning. According to the best dictionaries it means “the act of conferring; deliberation of two or more persons on some matter with a view to a decision”. That is important—“with a view to a decision”. Sir, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, we find that, despite all the consultations that have taken place over the years the Government consistently failed to get a meaningful decision, and we too fail to get a meaningful decision from the Government as to the future political position of the Coloured people. Two years ago Mr. Tom Swartz told the country and the Prime Minister the following, and I want to say that I am quoting Mr. Swartz particularly because he is considered to be the most conservative of the Coloured leaders and may, in fact, be on his way out because of his moderation. This is what he said—

Now, Sir, that is what every Coloured leader will say to us and to hon. members opposite. How often must the man go on repeating the same thing? How often does the Prime Minister want to go back to the Coloured leaders and hear the same thing and salve his conscience by coming to us and telling us that he is consulting with them, but nothing meaningful is done about it? We know that the Coloured people want nothing less than full citizenship. Sir, all that we need to talk about now is the implementation and the time and the manner of application. In other words, consultation should by now make way for negotiation.

*In March this year the hon. the Prime Minister explained why he had advanced the general election by more than a year. He then stated in Windhoek that the next five years “will be the most critical in the history of South Africa and South-West Africa”. Sir, it is quite significant that since the present Government came into power 26 years ago, we have already had seven general elections, if the first and the latest one are included. This is, on an average, a general election every 3¾ years instead of every five years, as intended in the Constitution Act. What is interesting about the situation is that on every occasion the Government called for an early election, it explained to the country that the situation which lay ahead for South Africa was deteriorating all the time and now, alas, we have reached the point where, on the admission of the Prime Minister, we are facing the most critical period in the history of South Africa. Now, we do not dispute this damning prognosis of the hon. the Prime Minister. In fact, we expected it. We realize that South Africa has reached an appalling moment of truth.

†At the root of most of the troubles of the Government—there are other factors too, we admit—at the root of most of the troubles that South Africa finds itself in and the Government finds itself in, lie the discriminatory policies of the Government. Sir, the Government had a handsome victory at the last election but let me say this, that in terms of history it will prove to have been merely a delaying action. Sir, the policies of forced discriminatory apartheid will collapse in South Africa no matter who governs and for how long they govern. It is all a matter of time. I am convinced that we need an entirely new ideology, not one of discriminatory development but one of co-operative development, and we need to go over to the politics of accommodation and co-operation without domination.

Mr. Speaker, one of the members of the United Party who resigned from that party, said on occasion that the United Party was a sick party. If it is political influenza that the United Party has contracted, I can sympathize with it, because at the moment I know what it means. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced a motion here, and contrary to my normal practice in this regard, I wish, for very good reasons, to move an amendment to that motion of the hon. the Leader. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (a) expresses its confidence in the Government’s policy which is based on the good neighbourliness of nations and denounces attempts which—
   1. (i) arouse expectations among the Brown and Black population communities of the Republic which cannot be fulfilled; and
   2. (ii) must lead to confrontation between the White, Brown and Black nations of the Republic and promote unrest instead of evolutionary development; and
2. (b) also expresses its conviction that any discussions in the interest of good race and human relations must take place on the basis of the maintenance of the individual identity and right of self-determination of nations”.

During the course of my speech I shall refer to those aspects which are covered in this amendment. Before I come to that, I should just like to address a word to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It will be a soft word, for I want him to go on honouring us with his presence in this House. I took cognizance of the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had dropped a word or two about a politician who has allegedly fallen into disfavour. I took note that the hon. member had said something uncomplimentary to an ex-colleague across the floor of the House, namely that he had never had time for the hon. member for Turffontein. That does not surprise me at all, for there are many people for whom the hon. member does not have any time. The question is: How much time does the hon. member have for his leader? [Interjections.] I am pleased if the hon. member also sees it that way. Sir, the hon. member is the last person who should level reproaches at the hon. member for Turffontein about patriotism, etc. He will recall that when he ran away from the United Party, his motivation was that an Afrikaner could not stand it in their ranks. He will recall that he said in public that they had discriminated against him in that party because he had a banking account with a certain Afrikaans bank.

There were such times, certainly.

The hon. member is the last person who should reproach others in this connection. The hon. member referred to the United Party caucus. I do not wish to say anything about it, but in this connection I wish to refer to the hon. member for Turffontein. Since he came over to our side, I have very often had discussions with him. I have very often spoken to him about this and that, but as an honourable person he has not, to this day, divulged to me a single thing said or done in the caucus of the United Party. As regards the Rand Afrikaans University—and I am saying this on the authority of the Minister of Immigration, who sent me a note in this regard and had much to do with the establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University—I want to say that from the outset, when its establishment was yet in its initial stages, only the best co-operation was received from the hon. member for Turffontein. The hon. member is the last person in this House who should make such an insinuation against any other person. He has blotted his copy-book far too often for that.

As far as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I do have a great deal of sympathy with him to a certain extent, because to cover all these children of his with one blanket, is not easy. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will agree with me. He should rather not look round now, because someone is breathing down his neck! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition launched an attack on the Government, and I shall, to the best of my ability, reply to that attack, but I should like—and I think I shall be doing this with the concurrence of both sides of the House—to refer to two matters before I come back to the motion.

Since the adjournment of this debate last night, the curtain has fallen on one of the greatest human tragedies of which, I think, we in this House have taken cognizance in our time. I think I am speaking on behalf of all members of the House when I say that it is in the interests of the United States and in the interests of the Free and the Western world that that book should be closed completely. President Nixon possessed unquestionable attributes and Tendered unquestionable service in many respects. It is a tragedy that things developed as they did. The United States of America is the leader of the Free and the Western world. It is consequently in the interests of the Free and Western world that this matter should now be hushed up completely. I believe that all hon. members will agree with me whole-heartedly in sincerely wishing President Ford everything of the best for an exceptional task which he has to perform not only on behalf of his own people and his own country, but also on behalf of the Free and the Western world and therefore on our behalf as well. As a believing people, we will think of him and through prayer do the necessary intercession for him in this most difficult office which he must now hold under most difficult circumstances.

In the second instance, I should like to express my joy at the reaction caused by the resolution adopted by the South African Council of Churches, reaction on the part of clergymen and lay Christians, reaction on the part of churches and organizations, reaction on the part of old and young, reaction on the part of Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, reaction on the part of Whites and non-Whites. I am grateful for that reaction, and I hope that the Messrs. Bax and Naudé will learn from this reaction which has resulted, for it is my considered opinion that these two persons do not mean well by South Africa and its people. If they were to have their way, they would bring about a confrontation which would entail disaster for, and cause great distress, to South Africa and its people. On a previous occasion I had cause and occasion to speak to the South African Council of Churches. I warned them about where certain policies would lead them. I am glad that one now finds that there are churches that realize for themselves where this leads. I am convinced that this decision by Messrs. Bax and Naudé was actually a kite which they sent up to see how far they could go at a given moment. I hope that they learn from what has happened.

I think, while I am on the subject, that the hon. member for Durban Point did me an injustice. To be specific, the member reproached me for having tried to bring about polarization between leftists and conservatives. I am not trying to bring it about. I was merely interpreting what I saw happening before my eyes. I was merely speaking about those things which the hon. member for Durban Point himself knows are happening. Why should we mince matters? The hon. member surely knows that not all the people in his party think alike. The hon. member surely knows that there are different trends which people in his party are following. I want to go further and say that the hon. member for Durban Point is one of the first people who will yet revolt against those policies.

We are all unanimous as regards our policy.

I am not referring to lip service. I am not referring to pious decisions. That is what the hon. member is resorting to. But the hon. member surely knows as well as I do that people piously join him in accepting a certain policy and taking a certain decision and then walk off and do exactly the opposite.

Do you also have a Watergate?

Surely he knows this is the case. After all, any person who is interested in politics know this is true.

Order! What did the hon. member mean by “Watergate”?

I am asking the Prime Minister whether he also has a Watergate?

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, Sir, I cannot lower myself now to the level of the hon. member. The hon. member for Durban Point did me an injustice, and I shall return to it later, if I am given the opportunity.

Now, I must say that it was sensible of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not to introduce a motion of no confidence. In his motion of censure the hon. the Leader referred to the fact that I had motivated the election some time ago by referring to the dangerous and changing world in which we were living. That is true. The hon. the Leader has not always agreed with me, but he agrees with me today, and must agree with me, for my party and I were quite correct. It is a dangerous and changing world in which we are living. To resolve the South-West Africa question straight off, across the floor of the House, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to do it ... after all, any authority on international politics knows that this is nonsense. It is clear that communistic or communistically inspired pressure and anti-South African pressure—for we must differentiate between the two, and it is not always easy to distinguish them, but one does find purely communistic pressure and the other pressure which results purely from an anti-South African feeling on the basis of the double standards which are applied by the outside world ... This afternoon I listened to the one o’clock news, for instance. President Sadat, the president of one of the oldest African peoples, an ancient people, motivated his dictatorship by saying that his people were not yet educated enough for the two-party system—and he gets away with that. The world accepts it; they are not going to argue with him on that score, but can hon. members imagine what would happen if I should take up such a standpoint? Can hon. members imagine how the skies would fall upon us and how many blue caps we would all be wearing?

It would not be true.

Yes, it would not be true, but imagine what would happen if I should take up such a standpoint. Nor do I believe that this is true in the case of Egypt, but he gets away with justifying his dictatorship. I have said that we must differentiate between those two kinds of pressure. This House should, however, take cognizance of one fact, and it should see this resolution of the South African Council of Churches in that same light, namely that as the pressure from outside mounts against South Africa, there will be persons and organizations fomenting internal pressure as well. I want to give the House the assurance that the Government is prepared for this and that it will take essential precautionary measures. The Government has at its disposal many effective measures, in cold storage, and these will be put into effect if it should prove necessary to do so.

In his last speech before the House of Assembly prorogued prior to the election, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition chose the battlefield on which he wanted to oppose the Government. He will recall that the theme of his speech was that the Government was a security risk on all fronts and had to be replaced for that reason. He will recall that when the election began, his slogan was: “The Nats can be beaten, like Heath.” That slogan, however, grew faint very soon, for two reasons—firstly, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realized in the early stages of the election that he would not be able to sell his policy to the electorate. He cannot blame me for that; he cannot even blame the English Press for that—he must put the blame on himself and on his own people. The fact of the matter is that the “sales resistance” which he spoke of last year, was so insurmountable that by the time we came to the end of the election, it was no longer a question of “we must vote the Government out and put an alternative Government in its place”, but one of “we must bid now on those who are the best opposition party and who will be the best opposition party in Parliament”. Eventually the hon. the Leader of the Opposition no longer even tried to sell his policy to the voters. I can illustrate this best on the basis of what happened at Windhoek. He will remember it. His then leader in South-West Africa, Mr. Percy Niehaus, spoke about their new policy in the morning and the hon. the Leader himself spoke that evening. He will remember—it was reported that way ...

It was not during this election. I did not speak at Windhoek.

I am speaking about when the policy was explained there.

By Mr. Niehaus?

Yes.

It was not during this election.

I am taking it as an example. On that occasion Mr. Niehaus said in the morning that he would not explain the policy in detail at that stage because you were to speak that evening, but when you spoke that evening, you said that you were not going to explain the policy since Mr. Niehaus had spoken about it in the morning. That is how things degenerated.

I shall show you the speech.

As I have said, Sir, towards the end of the election it was a question of striving to be the better opposition party. In this regard I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. leader of the Progressive Party back in this House. I have listened to him and want to say to him candidly that he can do very much better. Granted, it was a question of first-night feelings, and that sort of thing. I grant him that but, in all seriousness, as one politician to another, I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Progressive Party: It is time that you become a political party; stop being a mutual admiration society and become a political party; and get yourself a policy and put that policy to us across the floor of this House, because candidly, for years the role of the only member of your party in this House was an entirely negative one. It was very, very seldom that something positive emerged from her arguments. I take it that the hon. leader of the Progressive Party himself took note of the fact that the United Party is moving left.

We will help them to move further left.

If the hon. leader keeps talking as he did, he might talk him and his members out of the House. That is a possibility. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as I have said, failed to sell his policy to the electorate; he failed to sell it to my people, the Nationalists.

You are too dim (toe)! [Interjections.]

Granted that according to this bright boy, the younger Pitt—I always bow to him in this regard—we are “toe”, but what about his own people? Why could the United Party not sell its policy in Pinelands? What is more, in solid Natal, judging by the results of the last election, the United Party has only 25% of the people of that province behind it.

But surely the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is sitting here.

I know that he is sitting there, because if you won an election even by 30 votes, you become a member of the House and if you lose even by 2 votes, as I did, you do not become a member. However, if this once great United Party finds comfort in the fact that in a seat where nobody would have dreamt to fight them before they only scraped home...

All you do is to ally yourself with the Progressives.

Yes, I heard the hon. member talk about that, but like myself the hon. member is a student of politics. He will know that in Pietersburg the Herstigte Nasionale Party fought the parliamentary election while the United Party fought the provincial election. That was the only seat in the whole of South Africa where that happened. As a student of politics, the hon. member will know that for all practicable purposes the HNP parliamentary candidate polled the same number of votes than the United Party provincial election candidate. If the hon. member wants to know more about it, he can talk to the hon. member for Pietersburg, who will be able to give him all the details. A.s we say in Afrikaans: “Hoe lieflik is dit as broers saam woon.”

I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes to this House having lost the general election and having failed to sell his policy to the electorate. The hon. member for Turffontein is quite right—he now wishes us to implement the policy which he could not sell and which the electorate of South Africa did not want. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in pique dismisses the election by saying that it was a sterile election. It was not a question of a sterile election; it was a question of an impotent opposition! [Interjections.] We have listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. To what does he attribute his lack of success in the last election? To what does he attribute his dismal failure? He says that there were misunderstanding, that there were misrepresentations, that there was internal bickering and that there were minor domestic controversies. Is that true? As an objective onlooker, I say that is not so. I say, Sir, that there are deep-seated differences in principle; there are deep-seated differences in outlook; there are deep-seated differences of attitude and purpose. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: it is very much better to admit it than to deny it, because if you say to us now across the floor of the House that your troubles and your difficulties flow only from misunderstanding, misrepresentation, internal bickering and minor domestic controversies, then, Sir, this is a very foolish Opposition. This is not a childish Opposition, Sir. If there is no difference in policy and outlook, why take each other to court? If there is no difference in policy and outlook, why did the United Party workers in Orange Grove tell United Party voters, “Vote Widman for M.P.C. but not Malan for M.P.”? Why, Sir, were Koos Yster and Carlisle pushed out? Why was Oliver pushed out, and why was my hon. friend, the prophet over there, pushed out? Why is it, Sir, that in this House you have the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout sitting next to each other but not having much to say to each other, except perhaps “good-bye”? I say, Sir, what confidence can the electorate of South Africa have in a party that behaves like that? I say to my hon. friend: Admit, for the sake of South Africa, that you have these policy differences; you heard me say last year in the Senate, Sir, that the people must choose; that the future of South Africa and its interests demand that you do, and you had that opportunity. I say to my hon. friend: Make use of that opportunity. I say to him across the floor of this House that he has more in common with me than with many of the people sitting on his side of the House.

Say something about the motion.

I am coming to that. I am still dealing with the motion of the hon. member. The hon. member’s motion has two legs, and the one leg is the usual one which we have been hearing all these years, i.e. that our policy has failed and that it is lying in fragments at our feet. That is not a new argument. You will find it in each motion of no confidence or censure introduced in this Parliament up to now, and I consequently do not intend replying to it again, except with regard to certain matters which were raised here. Sir, the second leg of the motion by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that we should accept the policy of the United Party so as to prevent a catastrophe in South Africa. In connection with that second leg, of course, four questions immediately arise: Which policy must I accept? Once you have given me clarity on that point, this will be my next question to you: What assurance do I have that you have no finished changing your policy? But, surely, it is a fact that before this Parliament was prorogued, when we last met here before the election, you had a particular policy, and that you have now come back to this Parliament with a completely different policy in many respects, and, in order to prove to what extent you have now considered the matter, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs pointedly illustrated that there is no clarity concerning this Parliament.

Not as far as we are concerned.

And the hon. member for Durban North, who now says Parliament will disappear ...

What did I say?

You said Parliament would disappear, otherwise it would be a “fraud”.

What did I say?

You said the White Parliament had to disappear, otherwise it would be a “fraud”.

I did not say so.

In that case, tell me what you said.

All the newspapers in South Africa said so.

Read what I said.

Yes, I have your Hansard here, if you would just indicate the place to me. I should be glad if you would show me this courtesy, because I do not have the time to do it myself. If you would just look it up and sent is to me, I should be very grateful.

It is what it is.

Fortunately one of my colleagues is helping me now. Why is the hon. member now trying to get away from what he said? For here I have his Hansard—

In other words, so as not to be a “fraud”, this White Parliament must disappear, otherwise words have no meaning. If in heaven’s name, there is another meaning to be attached to it, then I have no knowledge of it. But I am aware of it, and hon. members know that on this point—and this was apparent throughout the election, for this was pronounced upon—they are not unanimous.

But let us just look at the way the United Party changes policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along in this House and out of the blue he now announces Black trade unions, without further ado—unqualified.

Trade unions for Black people, not Black trade unions.

But what was the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition up to 22 April 1974? [Interjections.] I am now dealing with the Opposition’s policy. On 22 April, a few days before the election, the hon. the Leader stated his policy, as I stated mine and as the Progressive Party stated theirs, to The Star, and the hon. the Leader did so in these words—

Now the hon. member who corrected me, can do the same for his hon. leader. He said—

What is wrong with that?

That was their policy on 22 April, but it is no longer their policy. Now the policy is that there should only be Black trade unions.

Who told you that?

Sir, if words have any meaning, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said so here. He spelt it out. I remember questioning him on the point and he confirmed to me by way of a reply that this was the new policy, and the Progressive Party also accepted it as such and complimented you on having seen the light.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he accept that many Black trade unions exist, and is he going to take action against them?

Sir, we have stated our standpoint very clearly. I shall send the document from which I have just quoted over to the hon. member in order that he may take cognizance of my standpoint and the standpoint of the Government which has been stated repeatedly in this House. [Interjections.] I shall read it to him now, if he so desires. This is our policy—

That is our policy. But I shall go further. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, having introduced this motion, is now asking us to accept his policy, then I ask him this question: Is the policy which he is now asking us across the floor of the House to adopt, acceptable to the Brown people, to the Indians or to the Black people? If he says that this is the case, then I challenge him to bring me the necessary evidence. In my time, as has quite rightly been said, I have held many talks. From those discussions I have become aware that there are problems in respect of my policy. There will be many differences with the leaders of the Brown people and the Black people in respect of my policy. I am perfectly aware of that, but basically they accept separate development.

No.

Basically they accept it, in spite of what is being said. You are now reproaching us for not talking to people, but only about them. When you stated your policy, we tried to find out from you what coloured leaders you had consulted. You said, no, you were not going to tell us. I asked all the Leaders personally whether you had consulted with them and their answer was an unequivocal “no”. More and more I am beginning to think that the hon. member over there who is so clever only consulted with the tea-boy when he drew up this policy. Who accepts the United Party policy as it stands at present, the policy he wants us to adopt now? What did Mr. Curry say yesterday or the day before? After all, what Mr. Curry is demanding is not the United Party’s policy. What other leaders are demanding in this connection is after all, not the United Party’s policy. But I shall come back to this.

Since the hon. Leader is asking us to accept his policy, I want to ask him how sincere his policy is, how honestly his policy is intended? The hon. member for Durban Point told me that it was not true: I looked it up again, and it is true that in his speech the hon. member for Von Brandis referred to “social equality” five times. In fact, that was the major theme of his speech. Hon. members opposite have been reproaching me with Lucas Mangope, but let us deal with the practical side now. Let us not have our heads in the clouds, but deal with the practical aspects. If the hon. member says that my policy is the cause of Mangope sneaking in that vein, or of this leader or that leader speaking in that vein, and that this would not happen under his policy—and the same goes for that pious party over there, the Progressive Party—I want to tell them that that is not the case. After all, if you really oppose discrimination, which you are laying at our door, and which, I shall argue, is not discrimination but differentiation, then both you and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must, as honest people, must be prepared to tell the city council of Cape Town, or whoever has jurisdiction over the matter, that they must throw open the Sea Point swimming bath, the Long Street swimming bath and the schools because there is no “social equality” if this is not the care. If you were then to refuse, and hon. members know that they are not willing to do this, what game would you then be playing? But they incite feelings against us and try to gain votes against the Government and the National Party on the strength of something they are not prepared to do. What, then, are they doing to the non-White peoples in South Africa? What do we achieve if we are not prepared to do those things, but hold them out as a prospect? Can you see now, Sir, why I had to word my motion as I did? If one is not prepared to do it, then, naturally, Chief Mangope will turn to one and say: “You are alienating the vast majority of the people”. I shall come back to this “vast majority of the people.”

All the Bantu leaders are asking for more land, and they are doing so irrespective of whether they are going to become independent. What are you engaged in doing, when land is being discussed in this House, when you know in your heart that you are not prepared to go further than the 1936 Act because that is not your policy?

Have you read our statement of policy?

I have read the statement of policy, and I say that in essence you are not prepared to go further than the 1936 Act. When there was merely talk of the transfer of Port St. Johns, that hon. member was the first to revolt against it. [Interjections.] We, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and, I have to be very careful in this regard. There are two meanings which can be attached to the word “discrimination”. One is a good meaning and the other is less good. That is why I choose to use the word “differentiation”. Now I want to say, and hon. members opposite know this, that whatever may happen in South Africa in the future, multi-national as we are, there will always be differentiation in South Africa.

The man sitting next to you says just the opposite.

There will always be differentiation.

He said the whole exercise is to get rid of it.

I say “differentiation”. And in doing so I answer your question, which I thought you as an intelligent person would have anticipated. There is such a thing as discrimination, and no one is trying to reason that away. But my late leader, Dr. Verwoerd, quite rightly said in this House and in other places that the policy of separate development was in fact based on getting away from discrimination. I want to make this very clear to the House and to the peoples at large: I do not want to escape from that. I see it as my constant task to get away from discrimination. I have devoted my energies to that ever since the first day I filled this position. I shall devote my energies to that until the last day that I sit in this House. Sir, sometimes discrimination is intentional. We know that. Who has warned against this in public more often than I myself have done? As a matter of fact, I have reproached the Bantu leaders in the past by saying that I speak to my people very frankly, and that they, too, should speak to their people frankly, because this may not come from one side only.

I have said in public, and I state this across the floor of this House as being my conviction, that 60% of our problems of discord between race and race and person and person can be prevented if there is elementary courtesy on the one hand and if there is no arrogance on the other. After all, we know that this is the case. That is what I am striving for, and that is what I am pleading for. I want hon. members opposite to join me in doing so, and the same goes for the non-White leaders. But sometimes it is not boy’s fault that there is discrimination. Take, for example, the development of sport in South Africa, which led to our own non-Whites being the only non-Whites in the world who were deprived of international participation in sport. This Government made it possible for them.

Who stopped it all in the first place?

I accept full responsibility for the decision I took at the time, a decision which I took after very close consultation. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. Sir, I say that we made it possible for those people. There were many facilities which these people had to do without and which they still do without today. City councils and other bodies, and even the Government, can be charged with not providing them. If this is true, the matter must be remedied.

Sometimes discrimination is historical, such as the wage gap, for example. But why harp on that continually, when one knows full well that it is the standpoint of the Government that it wants to narrow the gap and that it has taken active steps to narrow it?

Why then is it widening?

But I am telling the hon. member that we have taken active steps to narrow it.

Where?

In the salary increases which have just been announced. Sir, it is not only the Government that is guilty in this respect—if there is talk of guilt when it has come about historically. Some of our severest critics are doing it. Here I have The Star of 17 June 1974 in which this is stated—

This is the Methodist Church—

[Interjections.] Why are stones always being thrown, in this regard, at the Government only? Why is gratitude not expressed and recognition not granted to the fact that this is the first Government to do this, because hon. members opposite did not do so when they were in power. This Government is the first one to have taken, in principle, a decision on this matter and to be carrying it out. After all, it is not only a question of discrimination; it is also a question of leeway to the made up. Sometimes the authorities are to blame, but sometimes the peoples themselves are also to blame for this. I listened to the argument between the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development and the hon. member for Green Point. During their régime the United Party closed the agricultural colleges. Why? Because the could not get the people to take an interest in them. They could not get them to do that. They said that it was a waste of time; that was why they closed the colleges.

After 15 years it is still the same.

Yes, but those were the circumstances. Now the hon. member is reproaching the hon. the Deputy Minister for our having now reopened the colleges now. The people do not want to take an interest, and surely we cannot take a person by the scruff of the neck and tell him that he must go to a college. After all, one can only propagate the idea; one can only ask the people to come. One can do everything in the world to get them there, but surely one cannot force them to go.

They see no future in separate development.

Surely the practice of agriculture has absolutely nothing to do with separate development. One could go and live in paradise and one would still have to practise agriculture. The hon. member’s argument is surely an evasive one. I say that the Government is sometimes to blame, and I readily grant that, but the peoples, too, must take a look at themselves. What I want to warn against and I should be failing in my duty if I did not make use of this platform in this House to do so, is the practice of laying at the door of the Whites everything that goes wrong in South Africa. I want to warn against that kind of argument which we have heard here, in which the White man is summoned before the judgment seat, because that practice will eventually avenge itself on us—on those hon. members as well as on me.

Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made this his theme, let us look afresh at the question of the Coloureds. For purely imperialistic reasons—and we have argued about that here before—the franchise was given, in the previous century, to a handful of male Coloureds in the Cape Province only. Nothing beneficial for the Coloureds came of that; on the contrary, it only gave rise to evils. There were no benefits attached to it, from whichever angle one might look at it. There was strife and there was unpleasantness. Eventually there were four Whites here as Coloured representatives in the House. Then things were a little better, but that did not bring about a better dispensation for the Coloureds either.

Then, in the late ’sixties, this Parliament passed an Act. Whether or not hon. members agree with it, whether or not hon. members say that we have not gone far enough yet, makes no difference, but the fact remains that it was only in the late ’sixties that this Parliament took notice, for the first time in its entire existence, of the existence of a Coloured population in the Free State and a Coloured population in the Transvaal. Previously they had not even existed as far as this Parliament was concerned, and this Parliament did not even recognize them.

They were not restricted in the Transvaal.

There are thousands upon thousands of them, and it was this Government which recognized their existence and granted the franchise to them and to their wives. You will recall that I explained very clearly in this House the dilemma in which I found myself. I did not shy away from it. I said that the dilemma facing us was that one could give the Coloureds a say in their now parliament over what was their own, but it is true—I cannot reason it away, nor do I want to do so—that there is ground which is common to them and to me. There must therefore be a channel of communication between their Parliament and this Parliament. Not only did I speak to this House in all frankness; I put it to the Coloureds in the same way.

I want to repeat, because we must see this matter in its proper perspective, that I told them: “Look, this is the dilemma; I do not want you to say tomorrow or the next day that I dictated to you. I want you to go back and then to come and tell me what the nature of that channel of communication should be.” They agreed with me that there had to be a channel of communication and of their own accord, without being influenced by me or by any other White person, they came back and said that they had considered various kinds of machinery for communication:

“Select committee, no; standing committee, no; representation in the Senate, no.” They did not even mention representation in the House of Assembly, but proposed the liaison which is still the liaison today, as I reported to you. I know you are ridiculing it, but just remember that when you are doing so, you are ridiculing the Coloured leaders, because it is they who suggested it in its present form.

How long ago was that?

This is the machinery which is still in existence today. I told this House that I did not believe that that machinery would exist for all time. I see the Coloured leaders regularly, but they have not yet told me that they want other machinery, because if they want other machinery, I shall sit round the table with them in order to negotiate with them.

Surely you have a responsibility to initiate it?

I do not want to dictate to them in that regard. As far as I am concerned it works effectively, and as far as the Coloureds are concerned it works effectively, because there is a great deal of good that is being achieved by the Coloureds by those means.

May I just ask how long ago you talked to them? This is a simple question.

I talked to them as recently as in the course of this year; I talked to them last year, I saw them for a short while the other day and I shall be seeing them again shortly.

Conditions change, and do so very rapidly.

Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that this liaison is the creation of the Coloured leaders themselves. Now, it is true that from the start there have been major personality clashes in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. The hon. member referred to personality clashes in his party, but they are child’s play in comparison with those which have taken place in that council. Hon. members are aware of this. We have all read about it in the newspapers. As a matter of fact, these personality clashes are so severe that, as you have seen, the opposition party, the Labour Party, refuses to come to me in the presence of Mr. Tom Swartz and the others. That is in fact how severe these personality clashes are.

They belong to different parties.

The clashes became so severe that the council was unable to proceed with its normal business. It did not take a prophet to see that matters were going that way. Once again, and this is something which is lost sight of by those who merely seek a stick with which to beat the Government—the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council was prorogued, not high-handedly by the Minister of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs, but at the request of the chairman of the Executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council itself.

That is why it was prorogued. Now, it is true, and I do not for a single moment want to deny it here today, that those personality clashes, as well as certain frustrations which had mounted up in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, did cause problems. I am fully aware of this fact. It is my task and my function to take cognizance of it and to deal with it to the best of my ability. And I will in fact try to do so. But to do what hon. members opposite are doing by blowing this up into a crisis, because problems have arisen, problems which I cannot minimize, surely that is not playing the game. After all, there is no crisis in this House; there is no crisis outside. There are problems, yes. When this Coloured Persons’ Representative Council was established, I invited the then leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Arendse, to come to my office, just as I had invited Mr. Swartz. Mr. Arendse came, and I found him a very agreeable man and we conversed very pleasantly. His people subsequently kicked him out as leader, not because he was a bad leader, but because he had come to see me. In other words, we had a Labour Party which never wanted to have anything to do with this council. You know what their standpoint has been from the very outset. I am pleased that they are now coming to see me. That conference will take place next Monday. Mr. Tom Swartz and his people, the Executive, were not the only ones present at those liaison meetings; they did not simply keep it to themselves. They invited all interested persons in the other parties to attend. They acted very responsibly in that connection.

I want to say this of Mr. Swartz and his Executive at that meeting: In an exceptional way they gave rise to a better grasp and understanding. It was those discussions that gave rise to the implementation of compulsory education. Mr. Swartz and his people must get the credit for that. The first acceptance or narrowing of the wage gap flowed from them. It was in the course of these discussions, not only with Mr. Swartz and his people but also with all the other leaders, excluding the Labour Party, that the There on Commission was jointly decided on. This was not a decision which was simply taken by the Minister or by myself. It flowed from discussions. And why? Because I have found, and this is a shortcoming which I myself have felt, that at the moment there is no authoritative work which one can consult if one wants to know how matters stand with the Coloureds, how things are with them. The less people know about a subject, the more they talk about it. A tremendous amount is being said about the Coloureds by many people, without their having the vaguest idea of what is involved. There are a great many people who, without knowing what the bottlenecks are, are giving advice from the sidelines on how one should solve these problems. I felt, and the Coloureds felt this along with me, that we should compile something so that we might all know what we were talking about.

Let us have an authoritative work; let us take stock and let us identify the bottlenecks, and then we shall be able to talk to one another in the future. It astonishes me that hon. members opposite want me to rush this commission off their feet so that they may submit an interim report, an interim report which would defeat the whole object. But, Sir, this I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is charging me with talking about these people but not to them: For the first time in our history a commission has been appointed here which consists of Whites and Coloureds who have to investigate this matter on an equal footing. I believe, Sir, in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. In spite of its shortcomings and in spite of what happened there, I still believe in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, and if it does have shortcomings, then they must be remedied. If the liaison is no longer as desired, then it can be reviewed, and then I am prepared to sit at the round table, because I want to say this in passing: These liaison meetings—and now I do not want to accord them a higher status than this—have the potential that even a statutory consultative body may develop out of them; the potential is there. Sir, if there is goodwill and co-operation we can achieve a great deal in this sphere, because the policy of the National Party is still to create equal opportunities for the Coloureds. So, do not reproach me in this regard, because surely you know that we have created more opportunities for them than anybody else did: A Coloured rector, a council in the Western Cape, this commission, compulsory education, and all those things.

Now the U.P. are quiet.

Sir, I want to go further. The administration of a country does not lie in its parliamentary institutions only; the administration of a country also lies in a host of councils and commissions and, Sir, because I am in earnest about the Coloureds, I shall discuss it with them in order that they, as they are able to provide competent people and as people with a good grounding become available, may also, in respect of common ground, play their part in it. What I am trying to say here is this: In the past this Government opened doors for the Coloureds. It will continue to do so, even though this may not be appreciated in certain circles and whatever comments may be addressed to it, because, Sir, the Government has a duty and a policy and it has a task to perform in that regard.

Sir, whenever reproaches are levelled at me, as has been done by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and others in the course of this debate, this is what I ask: Who has done more than this very party to give human dignity to the peoples and their leaders in South Africa? Who created the platforms on which they stand when you negotiate with them? Who established the pattern for negotiating with these people as leaders of their peoples in their own right, not from a paternalistic point of view but as one leader to another? Sir, my policy is to create more and more opportunities, and I shall go on doing so because it is my duty. But, Sir, I want to make this very clear to hon. members opposite: From the nature of the case—for on this matter the electorate of South Africa expressed its opinion very clearly— everything will very clearly have to be aimed at the Whites not giving up their identity in that process. Let there be no doubt about that, and now I am not talking behind the backs of the Coloureds or of the Black leaders; I say this to them when I speak to them.

We quite agree.

On what grounds are you attacking me then? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been accusing me in that regard. His accusation against me is that we are allegedly acting in a manner amounting to a denial of human dignity. Sir, this party believes in good neighbourliness. The hon. member reproaches me for our having abolished the four Coloured representatives in this House. He says this was a mistake on my part. Sir, place yourself back in the time when we abolished them. Nobody took any notice of it at the time. There was nobody who raised any fundamental objections to that move. They left this House without people even knowing that they had left. I shall go further by saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself does not want to bring them back again. Why is he therefore levelling reproaches at me? He himself does not want to bring them back. His policy is quite different.

Because we can make a better arrangement.

Why then does he reproach me for having removed them from here?

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon. member that he should gaze into the crystal ball; then he will get the answer. I say that my talks with these people compel me to say that they do not have any faith in the policy of the United Party. But be that as it may. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say when he addresses me? He says—

Without mincing matters he says that it should be removed in all spheres, i.e. what he calls discrimination and I call differentiation, while he knows perfectly well that he himself does not want to or cannot do it. I return this reproach to him. He would not go to the Cape Town City Council and say: “I, De Villiers Graaff, tell you that you must throw open the Sea Point swimming bath.” And if he is not prepared to do that, then, in his judgment, surely he is discriminating—not in my judgment but in his.

That is not correct.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used significant words in his speech and in his accusation against me. I wonder whether he realized, when he read it, what the end would be? He said—

He could not have had the Whites in mind here, for the Whites have accepted the policy. The Whites have now accepted his policy. But what matter is the hon. the Leader taking up with me now? I am now to lay down a policy which is acceptable to “the vast majority of the people”, and if I did not comply, I would be playing with fire. Now I ask him this: If one made this one’s maxim, and the “vast majority of the people” told one, and it became clear to one, that they, the “vast majority of the people”, wanted “one man, one vote”, would one then give it to them? Because if he is not prepared to give it to them, why does he accuse the Government? Why does he arouse feeling against the National Party, and indirectly against the White man, by saying that the “vast majority of the people” do not want this policy?

Do you believe that is what they want?

In this regard that is not relevant at all. I am sitting in this Parliament, elected by the Whites on the strength of a certain policy.

So you lead a minority group!

The hon. member was elected in the same manner. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has a certain policy, and surely that policy, too, does not comply with the demands of “the vast majority of the people” if they say they want “one man, one vote”?

That is not what they want.

Should they want that, would the hon. member be prepared to give it to them? Surely this is a fundamental question to which a reply must be given.

Do you believe that that is what they want?

I say it is not impossible that they will demand that if these hon. members continue in the manner they have been carrying on in respect of these people. I put this question: Suppose they were to demand it ...

But it is not what they want.

That is not relevant. In all sincerity, that is begging the question and the hon. member knows it. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is one dealing with when one adopts this as a maxim? The federation policy of the United Party was rejected by the voters—it was rejected crushingly—and in the place of this Parliament there will, according to their policy and that of the Progressive Party, eventually be a meeting or a parliament in which various peoples will be represented. According to the Progressive Party persons are to have obtained a certain educational qualification in order to be elected to Parliament, and according to the United Party they are to have a certain sum of money.

That is not true.

Sir, can you imagine yourself in the position of a Coloured leader when the United Party’s system is being applied, i.e. that the contribution made to South Africa’s welfare, which can after all only be measured in terms of money—it cannot be measured in any other terms—will be the norm on which representation in the federal parliament will be obtained?

That is much better than nothing.

The hon. member says it is much better than nothing, but let us analyse it. One enters such a parliament and finds that a Black leader has a seat in it. Buthelezi, Mangope and other Black leaders have seats in that parliament. Their people would then ask them why all of them are not represented in that parliament. What reply would such a leader be able to give other than to say—from the point of view of the Progressive Party—that the White people are saying, “You are not educated enough to be represented here.”

You have ignored the question of a Bill of Rights which forms part of our policy.

I am not concerned with their Bill of Rights at all. Surely the hon. member knows that this is what would be said, “The White people say you are not educated enough to sit in parliament”. From the point of view of the United Party the Black leaders would have to say. “The White people say you are too poor; not all of you can sit in parliament.” How exposed would we be leaving ourselves in that regard to trouble of our own making! Hon. members would do well to take cognizance of a publication by Profs. Hunt and Walker, viz. Ethnic Dynamics—Patterns of Intergroup Relations in Various Societies. They are people who are not sympathetic towards South Africa or our policy. But this is what they write in this regard—

This is a scientific reply on that very matter.

The hon. the Leader attacked me in a cruel rage on South-West Africa. I should have liked to furnish him with a reply in that regard, but I find that I have already been speaking for too long a time. Unless the hon. the Leader tells me that I may take up some more time of the House, I do not want to go on with it now.

Do so by all means.

Very well, then I shall go on. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the reproach at me that my colleague and I had not taken this country into our confidence concerning South-West Africa. I want to say that there is not one single question in connection with which there has been such perfect frankness with the people as has been the case in connection with South-West Africa. There is not one single question in connection with which as much has been written and published in public as has been done in connection with South-West Africa. Such a charge is therefore absurd, surely. After all, the country knows exactly what talks we had with Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher. The country knows perfectly well that my colleague and I found with Dr. Escher, as we believed, an accepted formula for the solution, something which could be negotiated further. The hon. the Leader surely knows what we said in that regard at Press conferences. Why does he arouse feeling when he knows that the official standpoint of this Government is, and now I want to repeat it for his benefit, that neither this Government nor the U.N. will dictate to South-West Africa. The peoples—and when I refer to “peoples”, which hon. members have been taking amiss of me, I am within the framework of the U.N. Charter, because they refer to “peoples” in it—of South-West Africa will exercise their own right of self-determination. Then the hon. the Leader also levelled the pious reproach in regard to the White Paper tabled by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development last year. He did not reproach me at the time.

I did.

No, he did not reproach me then. He is reproaching me now.

At the time I ...

The hon. the Leader put a question to me at the time. He wanted to know whether it would prejudice us. My reply was that it would not prejudice us for a very good reason, i.e. because what was stated in it and was done was precisely what I had said to Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher. After all, that is stated here in the documents I have before me, i.e. that these people are to have experience of self-government before they can carry their self-determination into effect. After all, my colleague introduced legislation here for the very purpose of granting those people self-government. If I should grant self-government to a specific people, and if there should be a person anywhere in the world who takes exception to it, then I would tell him to stop bothering me and get lost. Why should I tire myself out on that account? Surely I would be doing a people a good deed if I created opportunities for it to gain experience of self-government. The hon. the Leader reproaches me for what happened in Owambo. Surely he knows that over all these years, and in their time too, South-West has been referred to as comprising that part which falls within the police zone and that part which falls outside it. Surely he knows that the Ovambo enjoyed greater autonomy than did most of the other peoples, that they had their own tribal chiefs and everything that flowed from that fact. Why does he reproach me now? I say, Sir, there is lawful political activity in South Africa. What is happening there, is that subterfuge is not allowed. The hon. member has reproached me with the proclamation that has been issued. It has the same purport as the proclamation that applies to the Transkei. In fact, it has the same purport as the proclamation requested by Chief Buthelezi for a certain territory in Natal.

Msinga?

Yes, Msinga. This was done because murder, intimidation and arson was taking place there. That was why the proclamation was issued; and I am by no means going to apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for our having taken such action in that regard. If the hon. the Leader should now ask what the position of South-West is at the moment, I would say that it is calm and peaceful. The people for whom he is pleading, who are ostensibly being begrudged political activities, are the very people who have now fled from South-West so as to receive terrorist training. These are the people who left Owambo.

But there is one thing I did not expect the Leader of the Opposition to do, namely to prejudice my and my Government’s credibility in this regard. I want to tell him that I take the strongest exception to that. We should be careful when we prejudice other people’s credibility. In doing this, the hon. member compels me to refer him to what Mr. George Oliver said about him. I quote—

Mr. Oliver is not in the Senate. Then one thinks of what Mr. Oliver went on to say—

I. e. the Leader of the Opposition—

You see, Sir, Mr. Oliver said the Leader of the Opposition had told him the following in his home, at De Grendel—

Mr. Oliver is not here. I say one should be extremely careful, Sir.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he privately discussed the federal system for South-West Africa with Dr. Escher?

Sir, I did speak to Dr. Escher about federation, and I told him that personally I was not in favour of federation. I told him that under the circumstances federation would not work out, just as little as it had worked out in the Federation of Rhodesia and of Nyassaland.

How could he have misunderstood you to that extent?

Sir, he did not misunderstand me at all. There is no misunderstanding in regard to this matter. I told him that this was a possibility, most definitely, but not a possibility which I would accept. I can tell him straight away that this is a possibility which the people of South-West will not accept. But they can do with it what they wish.

The policy of this Government is separate development. It is a policy which has brought about many good things for all peoples in South Africa. This Government will carry on with that policy and with effecting, in an orderly manner, those changes required by the logical implementation of the policy. But this Government will do these things in terms of its own policy. This Government will do these things because it is fit and proper that they should be done. But this Government will not be pressurized by any person in or outside this House into deviating from its policy.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself and this side of the House with the message by the hon. the Prime Minister conveying best wishes to Mr. Ford, who becomes the new president of the United States. I think that everyone in South Africa observed the painful post-mortem of the conduct of the presidency in the United States with sympathy. There is not the slightest doubt that everyone would like to send that country and its people their best wishes.

We have come to the end of a debate in which I moved a motion of censure on the Government. What is interesting is that in the course of the debate we have obtained so few answers to the questions I raised.

You say that every time, don’t you?

The hon. the Prime Minister says that I say it every year, but this year it is more obvious than it has ever been before. I think this debate has completely justified our motion of censure. I think this has become clear from the touchiness and the vulnerability which the Nationalists have reflected, in so many respects, in the course of this debate. I think the Government’s reaction justifies the attitude I adopted at the beginning of this debate. This debate must have been a disappointment to members on the other side. When they returned to this House of Assembly after the election, after their victory and their success, they were so proud of what they had done that they apparently thought they would not find a United Party here, that they would find only a United Party corpse. I think they were looking forward to preying on that corpse, as vultures do. I think the surprise has angered them somewhat, and that they now find themselves in a position of being unable to reply to our complaints.

I want to say frankly that if anyone ever manages to destroy a middle of the road movement such as that of the United Party, the final outcome here in South Africa will be a one-party state. That is not something which either this people or this party will allow. There is no dead body, and I can give hon. members the assurance that there will be no dead body. I think it was such a shock to the hon. the Prime Minister and his party that we obtained no answers to the complaints we raised in the election. It is now being said that in the election we relinquished our cry of the Government being a security risk. We spoke about that up to the very last meeting. If there was anything that met with the approval of the people, it was that allegation against this Government. What has happened after 24 April proves yet again how justified that accusation was.

They say we could not sell that policy, particularly not to Nationalists. Thereupon an interjection was made to the effect that they were so dense they could not be penetrated by prayer. Now hon. members are attempting to create the impression that I am trying to persuade them to implement my policy. Why ever not? It would not be the first time this Government has taken over the policy of the Opposition. Where did their immigration policy come from? What is the position in respect of Black education today? How far have they not progressed as regards sport? How far have they not progressed as far as the relaxation of job reservation is concerned? So there is every hope that they may still take over further parts of our policy, because they will see that it is in the interests of South Africa to do so.

The hon. gentleman claims that there are policy differences in my party and that he and I have more in common—imagine, Mr. Speaker!—than I have in common with some of the people sitting behind me. When the hon. gentleman made that remark, I wondered whether he had suddenly become a Turk—not a Young Turk, because I would never accuse him of being that. He claims our policy is continually changing. Of course it is. Times are changing. The policy changes nevertheless always remain within the envisaged framework of a federal concept. There are still many more changes and adaptions that will still have to come in order to place the policy squarely within that framework.

The hon. gentleman raised certain questions. He asked whether I had not changed my policy in respect of grade unions for Blacks. We have; times have changed. Yesterday, or the day before, it was acknowledged in this House that there have been 222 strikes in Natal over the past two years. These strikes involved 78 000 workers. Is that not a change in the position? Is that not a sign that the present bargaining machinery is inefficient and does not work? Has the time not come to think of something else? The position is that we sit with a wonderful piece of legislation in South Africa as far as these people are concerned. It is a fine piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which has resulted in our having industrial peace here in South Africa which is unequalled in any other country in the world. Why can the Blacks not have the benefit of that too? Why can their employers not share the benefit? I can see no reason why that should not be accepted. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. the Prime Minister is quite sympathetic to that view, because, as was indicated yesterday by the hon. member for Newton Park, the hon. gentleman had an interview with Mr. Vic Feather, who accompanied the British Trade Unions Congress delegation here in South Africa. What does the report state?—

Then there was a difference. Mr. Vorster said he had not spoken of “trade unionism”, but of “collective bargaining”, “gesamentlike bedinging” in Afrikaans. Mr. Feather said there was no difference since the one did, after all, flow from the other. That is something which is essential in South Africa, where we are threatened by an inflation rate unparalleled in our country’s history. There will be a dangerous gap in our labour relations if we do not do so. The politicians in the homelands are now beginning to participate in the organization of these employment strikes. We run the risk of the employment conditions of our Black labourers in South Africa possibly becoming a political football. I consequently feel very strongly that this is a challenge and an adaption from which the Government cannot escape. They will undoubtedly have to give attention to this. Since I have broached the position of the Coloureds in our country, it was unavoidable that relations politics should be brought to the fore. Once again the confusion and absence of logic in the Nationalist Party were revealed, as has always happened previously when we have discussed the matter. A fine example of this was the speech of the crown prince, the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He said there were only two directions; Either South Africa was accepted as being a multiracial unitary state, or it was accepted that this was a sub-continent of various peoples, each with its own identity, its own full status and self-determination. He said that both were acceptable to the Western World, provided one was prepared to bear the full consequences of one’s policy, because if one was not prepared to accept this, one was heading for chaos and problems. The hon. gentleman went on to speak of freedom for each nation in South Africa, and then suddenly came to the Coloureds, and because he does not have a homeland for them, because he does not want to give them a homeland—they who always speak a great deal of the division of other countries to give separate homelands to the various races in those countries; he does not claim that here in South Africa—he hid behind a fig leaf. He said they were not yet a people of full status; that they were still a nascent nation. Mr. Speaker, they are not yet a people “of full status”, although they had parliamentary franchise for more than a 100 years in the old colony and in the Union, as we knew it.

Only a few of them.

The hon. gentleman says, “Only a few of them”, but no other group of the non-White peoples, had this. They have a higher standard of living than any other section of the Black population. Their level of education is higher; they have more professional people amongst them; they have more trained artisans amongst them.

Do they have national pride?

The hon. gentleman asks me whether they have national pride. If he had ever fought with a Coloured regiment in the war, he would have known how much national pride those people have. Let him go back to the First World War and find out what happened on Square Hill when, incidentally, they were also attacked by the Turks; then he will come to realize how much national pride the Coloureds have. Sir, amongst almost all the Black sections, the Coloureds have made the greatest progress, but the hon. gentleman says they are not a people of full status, and he is hiding behind that fig leaf. Does he remember what the hon. the Prime Minister said about Pres. Sadat of Egypt, who said that his people had not yet developed far enough for a two-party state? That hon. gentleman says they are not a people of full status. Who is going to decide whether they have reached full status or not? His bench-mate is so anxious to ask direct questions. I shall now ask him this direct question: Who is going to decide whether they have reached full status one day? In terms of the speech of the Minister of Coloured Relations, the approach has always been that the Whites would decide; they would have to co-operate, but on conditions stated by the Whites, although he also speaks of the acceptability of the policy to the Coloureds. Sir, once they have reached full status, or when they are regarded as having reached it, and they come and take their seats around the table with the hon. the Minister, which according to him is actually the culmination of his policy, i.e. the fact that they will come and take their seats around a table ...

You did not listen properly.

They are going to take their seats around a table to settle the question of what the relationship is going to be between the White and Coloured Parliaments, not so? Will they have equivalent status?

At that stage, of course.

Numerically they will be in the majority.

Around that table?

Of course; they will be in the majority. Who will take the decisions?

There will be no voting around that table.

There will be no voting ...

No, of course not; consultations will be held.

When consultations are held, there is no voting?

Of course not.

But let me then sound a warning in advance: If they have not reached full status, they will not come and take their seats around that table.

Of course they would have reached full status.

In other words, there is going to be no majority representation; another criterion is going to be applied. [Interjection.] Yes; and we are now being criticized because we apply another criterion in a federal council. Sir, if another criterion is to be applied, what becomes of the right to self-determination which the hon. gentleman speaks so much about? I should like to know what honest alternatives this Government is going to offer those people, honest alternatives that are in accord with the policy of separate development as they apply it now. Sir, this hiding behind sophistry on the part of the Nationalist Party must now end once and for all. The hon. gentleman warned that the policy was heading for disaster. He spoke of a revolution.

Under your policy.

Yes, it is always someone else’s policy. I warn him: If they do not stop hiding behind this sophistry, their policy will be headed for disaster, which could be that revolution they are speaking about. The trouble with them is that they do not even agree with one another on what the policy is. The hon. gentleman refers to parallel lines which will never meet. It has been said by others that with this parallel development there should rather be movement further away from each other rather than closer together. The Minister of Bantu Administration and the hon. the Prime Minister said so in this House in 1969, but the hon. the Minister of Planning and the hon. member for Moorreesburg allege that the Whites and the Coloureds are on the same road together, and that the Brown people should not be pushed further away towards the Black majority, but should be guided along the difficult road of fuller and more fruitful partnership. What is this policy now, Mr. Speaker? Is parallel development a policy of closer partnership, or is it a policy of moving further away from each other? Sir, we have a right to ask this. But just listen to what Mr. Willem van Heerden wrote about these people. He was referring to the Coloureds and to this parallel development and wrote (translation)—

Members on the Government side suggest that we drag in the non-White problems in order to intimidate the Government and the Whites, but that is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. This is the background to problems which concern the Whites as much as they do the Coloureds who are at receiving end of this policy. And here Mr. Van Heerden added (translation)—

Sir, is this not the crux of the Prime Minister’s problems? The Coloured Persons Representative Council and the policy for the Coloureds do not amount to equal treatment. For that reason objections have been raised. Sir, I do not want to take up too much time, but the memorandum submitted by Mr. Tom Swartz two years ago could have been resubmitted yesterday or today, for the Government has not responded to it. Do the hon. gentlemen opposite think that people do not feel frustrated when this kind of thing happens? In 1972 he warned that a deadlock had been reached and that his people were beginning to show signs of frustration. Sir, it is even worse today. He said (translation)—

They are still waiting, Mr. Speaker. That is why I referred to a new dispensation. He went on to say (translation)—

This is still the case today. And further (translation)—

It is even worse today than before. And further (translation)—

What share do they have today? He went on to say (translation)—

It is not an attempt to intimate the Government when these matters are raised; it is an attempt to preserve peace in this country and to find a solution which will result in the national peace being preserved. When mentioning the constitutional dangers involved in the failure of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, I am doing so precisely because I want the Government to avoid the pitfalls and to rectify the situation as soon as possible. I shall not proceed to referring to the frustration of these people and to the problems they are experiencing in their own Council. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that he is prepared now to meet members of the Labour Party as well.

I have always been willing to meet them.

The Labour Party has now agreed to having consultations with him. He admits that there is common ground for Coloureds and Whites and that there should be a channel of communication. Now he tries to hide behind the statement that the present channel of communication is the very one which the Coloured people have asked for and that they have never asked for anything else. Is it possible that the hon. the Prime Minister does not appreciate that this institution has already failed? Is he abdicating his responsibility? Is he shifting his responsibility on to these people he does not regard as being a people of full status yet?

Instead of its having failed it has achieved a lot of good.

The hon. the Prime Minister says it has achieved a lot of good. When it comes to cardinal issue, however, I want to ask whether relations between Whites and Coloureds are better or worse today than they were 25 years ago. The reply to that is that relations are far worse than they were 25 years ago.

That is definitely not so.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that is definitely not so. I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister has adequate discussions with these people.

Do you remember the time when the Coloureds came storming to this Parliament?

I remember it very well.

That was in your time.

I remember it very well, but it was not only the Coloured people. The hon. the Prime Minister knows it. I was standing outside.

The Coloured people were on the Parade then.

The hon. the Prime Minister is now referring to the Coloured people on the Parade, but he knows full well that it all started with the meeting of the Torch Commando on the Parade. He also knows what happened.

This has got nothing to do with the Torch Commando; they did not exist at that time.

Oh, the hon. the Prime Minister is now referring to the days before the Second World War.

No, I am referring to events of that time.

Yes, the motor car of B. K. Long was set alight outside this House. Surely, that happened before the Second World War. It all happened more than 40 years ago. The hon. the Prime Minister should not think back to those days now. I can also think back to the Kaffir Wars. I can also think back to the days when the Coloured people carried Bruckner de Villiers up the steps of the House of Assembly. However, I say without fear of contradiction by any responsible Coloured person belonging to any party that the relations between White and Coloured in South Africa have undoubtedly deteriorated over the past 25 years.

The hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to my motion. In terms of his amendment he objects to attempts being made to which aroused expectations among the Brown and Black population communities of the Republic which cannot be fulfilled. What expectations do we arouse which cannot be fulfilled? The hon. gentleman refers to independence and self-determination for every race. In which way will he bring about self-determination for the Coloured people in terms of his present policy? How can it be achieved? It is he who arouses expectations which neither can be nor will be fulfilled, because the hon. gentleman does not want them to be fulfilled. He goes on to say that the danger of confrontation exists. There is indeed the danger of confrontation if he persists with his present policy.

†It was obvious when one was dealing with Coloureds that the whole question of race relations would come to the fore. We had the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs trying to compare our policy with that in Cyprus, which bears no resemblance at all to the policy which this side of the House is standing for. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that Cyprus is a unitary State where there is representation in a central Parliament not according to the numbers of the population. It has nothing to do with a federal arrangement. I would suggest that if he is going to talk about that the thing to which he should direct his attention is that there will be no answer in Cyprus until the Cypriots are Cypriots first and Greeks or Turks second, instead of the other way round. Then let him ask himself whose policy the position in Cyprus is more closely allied to. He will find that it is that of his own party.

The hon gentleman asks if the representatives who will meet round the table to discuss the election of our federal Parliament will be “gelykwaardig”, whether they will have the same dignity and status. In our federal Parliament all members will have the same dignity and the same status. They will not necessarily have the same voting power for each group, but every member in that federal assembly will have the same status, the same dignity and the same rights.

But then you discriminate.

The hon. gentleman says we are discriminating because the numbers representing each group will depend on their contribution to the national welfare. What is discriminatory about that? As I contribute so I should gain representation and a say in what is happening in the country, and then there is the question of the responsibility which is shown by those who make the biggest contribution to the welfare of the State and its well-being in respect of all its peoples. Of course there have been further attempts in the course of this discussion of Coloured affairs to misrepresent the whole federal policy of this party and to confuse things as much as possible. Sir, when I hear them speaking I begin to wonder whether the confusion is deliberate or whether it is involuntary. I think there are a few things that I should say about our federal policy this afternoon.

The first thing I want to say is that federation as a constitutional form is something which is more common in the world today than is a unitary system. It is used by plural societies to achieve a common national purpose whilst safeguarding the rights and the identities of minorities. It is precisely this question of identities that is so important to us, because the White population here are determined to maintain their identity. That is the entire attraction of a federal policy for them. The second thing I want to say is that a federal policy has nothing whatever to do with integration. Integration is a sick word amongst members of the Nationalist Party. It is used to condemn everything that does not accord with their policy of racial division. A federation has nothing whatever to do with integration. It is the reverse. It recognizes “gelykwaardigheid” where it matters, namely in the federal assembly, in the power of each legislative assembly to manage its own affairs. The policy of the hon. the Prime Minister perhaps recognizes “gelykwaardigheid” in remote and irrelevant situations where it does not count at all, but people are right out of touch with the central Parliament. They have equal dignity in their own homelands, but no say at all in the Parliament which controls their destiny. This policy of “gelykwaardigheid” does not apply where it matters in South Africa, viz., where people meet and work together and live their daily lives together.

The fourth thing I want to say is that Government speakers pay lip service to equal dignity, equal opportunity and equal political rights, but in areas where they are irrelevant and not where people have mutual interests and mutual problems to solve. The hon. the Prime Minister has a very easy solution for separating people. They have separate homelands, and he talks about independence. But when he comes to people whom he cannot separate physically, geographically, namely the Coloured people and the Asiatics, then the hon. gentleman is in trouble. Then he talks about the future liaison between the two Parliaments, and he says: “Ten opsigte daarvan sal ons kinders na’n oplossing moet soek.” And then, Sir, we are constantly being pressed by the Prime Minister and Government speakers for a final definition of our federal structure and exactly what the powers are that are going to be handed to the federal assembly. I outlined them to the hon. gentleman earlier this year. They stand in Hansard of this year, col. 446 where they are set out with a great measure of detail. I do not pretend to be able to tell what is going to happen in 15 to 20 years. There will have to be negotiation, administrative restructuring and evolutionary development. The hon. the Prime Minister said of his own policy, very truthfully—

Let me tell the hon. gentleman: We will lay foundations. Like him, I do not pretend to see the end of the road; but I believe I can have a pretty good guess as to what it will be. It is nothing but political mischief on his side to try and accuse us of not being able to answer, when he himself cannot, in fact, give the answers in this regard.

We have had in this debate suggestions that we have changed our approach in a number of matters. The hon. the Prime Minister has made accusations in respect of the hon. member for Durban North. What did the hon. gentleman say? I quote—

I believe the hon. member for Durban North was perfectly sincere in predicting that the White Parliament could disappear, that it could be phased out.

That it “would” disappear.

If you like, “that it would”. He is expressing his total confidence in the federal system...

And that all powers would devolve on the federal assembly.

Sir, he is expressing his total confidence in the federal system, and his belief that it will eventually prove itself to the satisfaction of all population groups in South Africa, including the White population group. The hon. the Prime Minister says “all powers will devolve on the federal assembly”. No, Sir, they will not. A large number of them will devolve on the legislative assemblies. The federal assembly will have the residual powers. All powers consistent with good government will be devolved on the legislative assemblies. The hon. member for Durban North was chairman of that committee. He himself has helped to formulate the pre-conditions. All population groups particularly the White group, which exercises power through this Parliament, and which is responsible for regulating the creation of the federal assembly and bringing the federal structure into operation, must be given a formal, specific opportunity to affirm their confidence in the working of that federal constitution. The Whites will do so by way of a referendum, because the White Parliament is the regulator. Earlier this year in this House I said that my advice to that assembly was that its tasks should be first of all, consultation, secondly, negotiation, particularly in respect of the transfer of powers, and, thirdly, that it should ensure the safe and efficient working of that federal structure. I appreciated that the White Parliament could reach a stage where it believed that it was functus officio—I said it in this House—and that all groups who had had a say in the past were so satisfied with its working that there was no point whatever in that White Parliament continuing to insist on its dominance.

I hear you.

The hon. the Prime Minister hears me. I hope that clears up any differences between us. But the other matter I would like to get clear for the hon. gentleman is that the federal assembly will not be a super-Parliament. It will not result in any one group being able to dominate any other group, because it will be a federal body whose powers will be controlled by the constitution and it will bring about the position where no one body can dominate any other.

With that background I want to say once again that I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has given me no answer in respect of the Coloured people. All he has indicated is that he is not prepared to make adaptations and changes which I believe are going to be vitally necessary before he is going to get an answer for the Cape Coloured people. I raised certain questions with the hon. the gentleman concerning the Bantu population but the hon. the Prime Minister made no attempt to answer them.

You were fully answered on that point.

The hon. gentleman says that I was fully answered on that point. Then I must make do with the answers that I received. I had answers from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who made an interesting contribution concerning the urban Blacks, but the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development chided me for daring to ask integrationist questions which he clearly could not answer. What did I get from him? I got a few skimpy details of constitutional developments, of how he was not getting on with consolidation and was not going to get on with it this session, of industrial development and of the incredibly small number of work opportunities which he has created in the last five years despite spending some R36 million. That is what I had from the hon. gentleman. He could give me no idea of that time-table, that balance-sheet for which I asked, the balance-sheet in respect of what the position would be over the next 25 years regarding the inter-dependent development of homelands and the White portion of South Africa. He could give me no idea of what his planning was and he made no attempt to do so. He in fact gave no indication that he was adapting to changing circumstances, increased industrialization in South Africa, competition from the outside world and the need for a more sophisticated labour force. What else did the hon. gentleman say? He gave me an indication that he believes that the homeland leaders still accept his policy. It is true, the Transkei is apparently negotiating for independence, but what does that mean? What happens after independence? What is the position with the other homeland leaders? I am afraid that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is in for a very rude awakening. Then we had the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. All he was prepared to tell us was that under no circumstances would a Black man in the urban areas in his own urban township be allowed either home ownership or any political rights.

Then there was the other hon. Deputy Minister, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. When I listened to him I had the gravest doubts as to his wisdom in sitting on that side of the House, because it seemed to me that he shared many of my misgivings about certain aspects of Bantu administration under this Government. He attempted to discredit the policies of my party, his argument seemed to be halted every now and then by the stirrings of his own conscience. He conceded at the outset:

Then, no more than a few seconds later, he was saying:

I agree that we have to change. Then he went a little further and said:

Later he said—

I respect the hon. gentleman for his integrity, frankness and honesty in this regard but when he pleads in defence of his side that we must have patience and that we cannot expect the Government to solve all the problems to which he apologetically refers, I want him to stop and ask himself the question: Far from being able to solve these questions, is it not the policy of the Government that is creating these problems? Is it not the Government’s policy that the number of Bantu in the White areas would not increase but would be reduced and that the flow of Bantu from Black to White areas would be reversed roundabout the year 1978? With a policy of that kind, is the hon. gentleman not in the position that he has to do things that he does not like doing? Does he not have to apply the policy more strictly than he would like? The hon. gentleman talks about the morality of migrant labour. I feel very strongly with him, but this Government, far from trying to reduce the incidence of migrant labour, is converting virtually every labourer in our White industrial areas into a migrant labourer. That is their policy. I do not believe the hon. gentleman is ever going to be happy in that portfolio until he is working for a Government that recognizes the permanence of a large number of Blacks inside the Republic. The hon. the Minister has gone so far as to say that they will be here for a very, very long time. But he does not yet recognize their permanence. He is not allowed to, that is the trouble. He knows as well as I do that they are going to be there as long as there are White industries in South Africa.

He speaks about the dangers of change. I could not agree with him more. No one wants change just for the sake of change. Change is constructive only when it meets a need. When hon. members opposite tell us that there will be no integration, no concessions to human needs just because it is not their policy, then I think we have a Government in the saddle that simply cannot ride that lively animal, the world of the 1970s. I believe that what is happening, tragically, is that that hon. gentleman is being used to carry out a policy which is going to end in disaster.

May I ask the hon. member a question? May I inquire from the hon. gentleman who on this side of the House said that they were not prepared to adapt policies to changing conditions? If the hon. gentleman suggests that, please can he tell me who said that.

I did not suggest that nobody would change. I suggested that they were not prepared to change outside the confines and limits of the policy which they have laid down already.

I am perfectly with him and I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether I did not say that, exactly, that I would do so within the confines of the policy.

All the hon. gentleman has told us is that it is quite clear that nothing that he can do can meet the situation because within the confines of that policy he has no hope of finding a solution.

Sir, I have asked the Government three perfectly fair questions, but I get no reply. What did we get? The hon. the Prime Minister picked up my one question which had to do with government by consent and asked whether I did not realize that I was on dangerous ground if I spoke of having to have the consent of the vast majority of the people of South Africa for policies. He said that I was obviously not speaking only of the Whites. Of course I was not. I was speaking of White. Black and Brown. Let me repeat to the hon. gentleman: Whether he likes it or not, unless he can get the co-operation and the consent of the vast majority of the people, Black, White and Brown in South Africa, for his policies, he is in for trouble and South Africa is in for trouble.

Everybody knows that government is the art of the possible, and his job is to work in that direction. If he does not work in that direction, he looks for the very confrontation which he mentions in the amendment put before the House. I also raised the question of inflation and the failure to reduce wasteful work practices, the failure to improve productivity as the result of racial policies and discrimination, and pointed to their effect on inflation. What reply have I had from that side of the House? Not a word from a single Minister, Sir. Not one has dealt with it. They simply ignore the whole thing. Proposals were placed before them by the hon. member for Constantia, not so much to deal with inflation, but to lighten the burden on the ordinary man in the street.

The hon. member asked for increased social pensions at a more realistic level than at present and for a lessening of the gap between White social pensions and those of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Africans. The hon. member asked for increased subsidies on essential foodstuffs, in particular on bread and maize products, so that the retail prices of these items could be eased. He asked for a subsidy on milk, an essential health-giving food item. What reply have we had from the other side of the House? He asked that the excise duty on petrol be reduced in order to alleviate the effect of the increased price of crude oil. Was any reply heard? He asked for the sales tax on non-luxury items, such as household goods, to be abolished. Has there been any answer, Mr. Speaker? The hon. gentlemen on the opposite side are so out of touch with the burden which the ordinary man in the street is bearing, but there was not an attempt by any single one of them to react to these requests. He asked for relief from the high marginal rate of income tax, either by abolishing the existing 10% surcharge or by introducing a system of indexing, related to the inflation rate. What answer did we get from the gentlemen?

There is a Budget next week.

Yes, but that is no reason not to answer these questions. This is a motion of censure on the Government. If the hon. the Minister would take my advice, he would do well to incorporate many of my suggestions in his Budget. I can give him no better advice. He and I have been together in this House for a long time and he knows I bear him no ill-will at all. We differ on many things, but I believe that if he would take the advice of the hon. member for Constantia, there would be a little realism in this Budget which he is to introduce.

I also raised the question of South-West Africa. I expressly said that it was not I who had called the credibility of the Government in issue. I said it had been called in issue and that it was not for me to give a judgment on that.

You made the insinuation.

I made no insinuation at all. Anticipating such a remark from the hon. the Prime Minister, I have here exactly what I said. I wish to make it quite clear that I do not consider it to be my job to act as prosecutor or judge in the Government’s dispute with the United Nations; I am solely concerned with the Government’s obligation to South Africa, South-West Africa and its responsibility for the security of Southern Africa. I do not seek to prove or disprove the Security Council’s charges; that is the Government’s responsibility.

That is where your insinuation lies.

I appreciate the hon. the Prime Minister’s haste in dealing with this matter, but we have no answers as to what he is going to do. This is one of the most pressing problems with which we are faced in South Africa at the present time. This is our soft underbelly; this is one of the most dangerous things with which we have to cope in the light of the new developments in Angola and Mozambique and nobody knows it better than the hon. the Prime Minister. Where are we going in respect of this issue, Mr. Speaker? There is going to be a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in September. We know what pressures will be brought to bear. What is the position going to be? The people of South-West Africa want to know.

They know exactly.

Sir, all I can say to the hon. gentleman is this: If they know exactly, they are a lot more intelligent than anybody in this House, because I do not think we know or have any idea at all.

That is why they voted for me and rejected you once more.

Sir, the one complaint I have about the hon. gentleman is that he went to Windhoek and told the people absolutely nothing as to his plans for the future.

Then they must have been foolish to vote for me.

They were! A truer word was never spoken.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister stands condemned out of his own mouth. We have no answer to this problem. The hon. gentleman is still playing his cards close to his chest and we are getting no answer at all.

Then, Sir, I made certain suggestions to the hon. gentleman. I suggested to him certain changes in policy that he could make, changes that would be within the framework of his own fundamentals of policy and would do a great deal to improve race relations in South Africa. I spoke particularly of the question of discrimination, and the hon. the Prime Minister promptly jumped to the conclusion that attempts to remove social discrimination would mean that the Sea Point pool would be open to all races, and a few things of that kind. May I tell the hon. gentleman quite simply that the policy of this party in respect of public amenities has always been perfectly simple namely, where they are privately controlled and privately made available to the public, then it should be up to the person who controls that amenity to decide whom he is going to admit and whom he is not going to admit. But where they are controlled by a public body, then our belief is that there should be facilities for those who want to be separate, for Whites who want to be on their own and for Blacks who want to be on their own, and there should also be facilities for those who want to mix, and it is for that reason that time and again in this House I have pleaded for restaurants here in Cape Town, which should be open to White and non-White; that is why I have pleaded that there should be facilities in Cape Town for non-Whites who are doing a day’s shopping and who very often have no place where they can eat on their own; that is why, Sir, I have spoken so often about the necessity of getting away from petty apartheid, that thing which the hon. the Prime Minister says does not exist; that is why I have supported him so strongly in his request for politeness between the races. The hon. gentleman says that he has been doing his best to reduce the wage gap between White and Black. Mr. Speaker, do you know that there is irrefutable proof that since this Government has been in power, the wage gap has grown bigger in almost every industry, in every important form of employment, even in the Government service, until the latest introduction of wage increases? Sir, we know that the percentage increase for non-Whites is greater than the percentage increase for Whites. Mr. Speaker, I am not so satisfied that the gap between the two has really got any smaller.

It has got bigger.

I want to tell the hon. gentleman once again that one of the greatest complaints amongst the non-Whites today, particularly amongst the Coloured and Indian communities, is this question of the gap between White wages and Coloured and Indian wages at the present time. I made certain other proposals, Sir. For instance, I made proposals about job reservation; I made proposals about a number of other things. However, I have had no reply from that side of the House whatever. In fact, Sir, if one reads the record of this debate and examines the replies that one got from that side of the House to questions, the only conclusion to which one can come is that either they did not understand the questions or they were ashamed to adumbrate Government policy with regard to those matters.

Sir, as far as I am concerned, I feel that this motion was fully justified. The Government is deserving of censure, and unless it is going to make adaptations and changes, this country is going to be the sufferer in the years that lie ahead.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—45: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers. J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

NOES—118: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, S. F. Kotzé, J. E. Potgieter and N. F. Treurnicht.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister put and the House divided:

AYES—118: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J, J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. B.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, S. F. Kotzé, J. E. Potgieter and N. F. Treurnicht.

NOES—45: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon. W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft) R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W, G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That this House—

1. (a) expresses its confidence in the Government’s policy which is based on the good neighbourliness of nations and denounces attempts which—
   1. (i) arouse expectations among the Brown and Black population communities of the Republic which cannot be fulfilled; and
   2. (ii) must lead to confrontation between the White, Brown and Black nations of the Republic and promote unrest instead of evolutionary development; and
2. (b) also expresses its conviction that any discussions in the interest of good race and human relations must take place on the basis of the maintenance of the individual identity and right of self-determination of nations.

Mr. Speaker, I move—