Mr. Chairman, the other day the hon. member for Griqualand East made a statement here which to me was astonishing in that he dared to make a statement which he could not substantiate in this House. He said that people are getting out of and fleeing from South Africa, particularly the young people. Now I should like to draw his attention to the number of emigrants who have left South Africa over the past few years. It is interesting to note that in 1969 there were 9 000; in 1970 there were 9 000, in 1971 there were 8 000 and in 1972 there were 7 000, while in 1973 there were 6 000.

That is how they are fleeing!

Yes, that is how they are fleeing the country. I hope the hon. member was not referring to the descendants of the British Settlers in the Eastern Cape. Those people have settlers blood in their veins and they do not run away from anything. I know them because I have worked amongst them.

At the start of this debate the Leader of the Opposition put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: Is the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the security of South Africa, not making the same mistake as did Portugal in its African territories? In these times we are living in, it is probably necessary for us to ask ourselves such a question. Of course, one can also learn a great deal from the reply to such a question. By means of that question the Leader of the Opposition implied that inherent in the policy of this Government were the same dangers for us as those which were inherent in Portugal’s policy for its overseas territories. We know—and it is no secret—that the policy of the Portuguese in their African territories is diametrically opposed to ours. Their policy was one of assimilation. They tried to assimilate the Black man living in Mozambique and Angola and to gull him into believing that he was a Portuguese. To the question whether that policy worked, I am unable to reply. I think that if one wants an honest reply to this question, one should hear what the man who was responsible or partly responsible for the changes which have now taken place in Mozambique and Angola, has to say. In his book, Gen. Spinola states the following (translation)—

Gen. Spinola said that in this attempt of theirs to gull and bluff the Black people of Mozambique and elsewhere into believing that they were Portuguese, to assimilate them, they had deviated from the accepted concept of such an entity and tried to construct something which had no firm foundation. Now, when one asks oneself the question whether we, here in South Africa, are making the same mistake, one hears every day that the United Party and the Progressive Party speak about a South African nation of 23 million people. But the National Party does not try to obliterate and argue away the nationhood and the right of nationhood of the Black people and other people in South Africa. We recognize the multi-national concept. And if, then, danger threatens South Africa now and if there is something to learn from the events in Portugal’s overseas territories, then it is undoubtedly these words, that one must not build upon something which has no fixed foundation.

But the second important difference between the overseas territories of Portugal and ourselves is the right of seld-determination which we grant to the other peoples of South Africa. Let us again hear what Gen. Spinola has to say concerning this matter. And now the United Party, and the Progressive Party in particular, should really listen very carefully. Gen. Spinola states (translation)—

And now Gen. Spinola says something to which you should listen carefully (translation)—

Both the United Party and the Progressive Party are making the mistake which the former Portuguese administration made in its African territories. They do not recognize the nationhood of the people living there, nor do they recognize the right of those peoples to self-determination. These are the elements you want to build into our politics, and they are dangerous elements. On the other hand, the National Party recognizes the concept of nations and it recognizes the right of self-determination of these people. This is our guarantee that those things which happened in Portugal’s African territories, will not happen here. But I want to go further.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the terrorist onslaught on our borders, and so on. He was worried that the same things could happen here as well. The only party and the only policy which guarantees to the White person here a secure and continued existence, is the policy of the National Party. Since it is the fashion nowadays to quote our Bantu leaders to demonstrate their standpoints, I should like to quote from what the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Kaiser Matanzima, had to say about this matter. I refer to his statement of policy in the Legislative Assembly in March. Sir, I should like hon. members of the Progressive Party to listen carefully to this; he said—

He continues—

Sir, that is the reply. The policy of this Government is designed to accommodate all the aspirations of all the peoples living within this country. Therefore it is not necessary for them to resort to such means as terrorism and revolution.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister to a situation which we can no longer allow to linger on. A few days ago the nine-year-old son of the First Secretary of the Malawian Embassy, a Black boy, was evicted from a White bus in Pretoria. Precisely what happened we do not know, but in any case it does not make the harm any less. This is not the first time that incidents of this nature affecting foreign representatives and their families—incidents which descent like whiplashes on South Africa’s back everywhere in the world—have occurred. A few months ago we had the case of Mr. Richard Saunders, an important American of Negro extraction, who is the international editor of the periodical Topic, a prestige publication of the American Department of Information which is distributed everywhere in Africa. Mr. Saunders was travelling on a diplomatic passport and he was refused drinks in a Durban hotel and was not allowed to remain in a night club. The Minister of Foreign Affairs apologized to the American State Department, and pointed out that Mr. Saunders was here in an unofficial capacity, and that, if he had “made application”—do you understand, Sir, made application—to the Department of Foreign Affairs, they would have made special arrangements for him. The American Government reacted to this quite strongly and made it clear that they were not in any way interested in special arrangements for a Negro American; they expected equal treatment for all Americans, and if the human dignity of any American was in any way impaired, it affected the whole of America. According to the Press, an official of the State Department said—

The matter was taken further, and the chairman of the Africa Sub-committee of the American House of Representatives said—

Sir, it is time we realized that no country can allow its citizens to be treated in this manner elsewhere. No Government would remain in office in a country if it allowed its citizens to be insulted in another country, and maintained friendly relations with that country.

Mr. Chairman, before the Saunders case, there were harmful incidents involving other dignitaries who had visited South Africa, and this happens frequently. Time and again we have pointed out the gravity of the situation, and brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs; but apparently nothing is being done about it. Sir, unfortunately an incident such as this does not end with an official apology by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Malawi is the only state in Africa with whom we have friendly diplomatic relations, and with the dangerous developments on our northern borders, we will need its goodwill to a far greater extent in future than at present. But as an American statesman recently said—

Understand how effectively the enemies of President Banda in Africa could exploit this incident against him in the attacks which they are making on him for having friendly relations with South Africa. Experience has shown that events of this nature are constantly sabotaging the work of our representatives overseas, and that incidents such as these frequently occur at the worst possible time. I have here the Newsletter of the South African Foundation. Hon. members know that the Foundation is spending millions of rands to help give our country a better image abroad. The Foundation writes—

It occurred precisely at that stage. The letter also referred to the recent trip which Mr. Cyril Pearce and Mr. Sam Motsuenyane of Johannesburg, recently undertook to Britain. They were there on behalf of South African businessmen to make their influence felt against the groups which are propagating boycotts against South Africa. The Foundation reported that they had achieved great personal success; that they had made an impression, but—

Our representatives abroad find that they are constantly having to fight against these same factors. Sir, hours are spent here discussing the “harm” which students are doing; we devote hours of discussion here to security but, Sir, no actions on the part of students or organizations have the impact or do anything like the harm which is done by this kind of treatment of people such as Mr. Saunders and the son of the First Secretary of the Malawian Embassy. I think the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us what he is prepared to do in this regard. Time and again we, on this side of the House, have offered to serve on a parliamentary committee to clean up our legislation and remove offensie provisions from it. Sir, we are not the only people who think that the time has come for this to be done. A year or two ago Prof. Wimpie de Klerk, editor of Die Transvaler also made an appeal for us to review our Colour laws, and he went so far as to say (translation)—

He then mentioned a number of cases and said—

This is how he saw it—

The hon. the Prime Minister has every reason to be concerned over the security of South Africa. It affects all of us. It affects our lives. But his first duty is to begin sweeping before his own door, before the door of the Government, and we should not wait a day longer to get rid of measures which are doing such immense harm to South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout evidently takes a delight in continually raking up unpleasant incidents such as the ones he has just mentioned again and putting them under the magnifying glass. I do not know what pleasure he derives from that because this kind of incident, such as the one which occurred here involving Mr. Saunders and the one which involved the son of this diplomat, happens in all parts of the world where different race groups live together. [Interjections.] Sir, I wish I were irresponsible enough to tell you in what kind of incident the same Mr. Saunders was involved in the United States. That was not raked up by the newspapers or by the Opposition. But these are things which happen there.

They do not have a Japie there.

We are sorry. The Department of Foreign Affairs expressed its regret and we are sorry that this kind of thing happens, but we have our history; we have various ethnic groups in this country and the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot go and stand at every bus stop to see that such things do not happen. We try to set these matters right, but it takes time. I think it is really irresponsible to come along every year and broadcast this type of thing. There are so many positive things that happen. There are also good things. I do not really want to speak about them, but I should just like to mention this incident. Last year I met a man in New York, Prof. Braithwaite, a Black man. The hon. member was to have met him as well. However, he was not there.

But his book has been banned here.

He said he wished to come to South Africa, but not as the guest of some or other department or organization. I warned him that South Africa was a country in which a Black man would have difficulty finding his way unless he was accompanied by other people. Prof. Braithwaite was here this year and he went from place to place under his own steam. He encountered what he termed a few “minor irritations”, but he returned to America full of praize. He told me, “You have nothing to be ashamed of in South Africa”. He said that we could develop this country and that he would tell his students in Florida what the position was over here. There are so many good things we can talk about that it is not necessary to emphasize the few negative aspects.

Sir, when the hon. the Prime Minister announced the general election here on 4 February this year, he said that he was convinced that the next two to five years would be of decisive importance for the survival of South Africa and its people. Few of us who sat here on that day listening to the hon. the Prime Minister realized with how much gravity he was speaking on that day. Hon. members opposite said in so many words that they saw nothing in it but political opportunism. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself rose on that Friday and said that each time the Prime Minister rose in this House they heard the same old story and asked what it was that had now suddenly given him a fright. Sir, barely two months after the hon. the Prime Minister had uttered these very serious words here, the coup d’etat took place in Portugal and a chain reaction was unleashed, the results of which are difficult to predict for us here in South Africa. But to all of us one fact is as plain as a pikestaff, and that is that there was much truth in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister and that the uncertainty, the turbulence and the ferment which were caused by the events in Portugal present us with very great challenges. But I should also like to point out that this year, 1974, the Western world has been deprived of its leaders on a truly phenomenal scale. There were Mr. Heath. Mr. Pompidou, Willie Brandt, Dr. Caetano, Mr. Richard Nixon and now also Mr. Norman Kirk, and others. Some of them were lost through death and others had to give way and disappear before crises in their respective countries. In this year, on the other hand, South Africa has been blessed in that its leader excelled, went from strength to strength and attained new heights as a man of vision. In these stormy seas for which we are now heading—not only the Whites, but also other peoples of Southern Africa—we should be very thankful that we have a leader who can be trusted to manage our affairs with insight and vision. Sir, it is an established fact, no matter who one speaks to in this country, that the responsible non-White peoples in this country, too, see the hon. the Prime Minister more and more as the person who can lead us out of our dilemma. And I say, Sir, that we should be very thankful for this fact. The events in Portugal and the corresponding events in Africa have created certain problems for us but we should certainly turn the positive aspects of these problems to good use too. Sir, I think it is a fact that we can show the world and the peoples of Southern Africa that these so-called freedom fighters, who have now been fighting for virtually more than a decade to set people free, do not bring the freedom they promise. We now have the situation in Mozambique, and also in Angola, that the present Portuguese Government is prepared to grant these countries their independence on a basis of democracy, of a democratic institution. But what happens, Sir? The leaders of these movements say, “No, thank you”. They do not want freedom on that basis. For example, Augustino Neto, the terrorist leader of MPLA, says—

This man is speaking on behalf of a small section of the population of Angola and is not prepared to accept independence through democratic processes and to enhance the political standing of his people. He wants to continue fighting until they alone are the dominators and therefore the new oppressors. The same thing is happening in Mozambique. Last week there was a statement from Jorgo Rebello, Frelimo’s secretary of information. He said:

Frelimo intends continuing the war in Mozambique because Portugal is not ready to transfer power to Frelimo immediately.

He went on to say:

In spite of repeated requests, the new Portuguese Government in Lisbon had declined to meet all Frelimo demands for a complete and immediate transfer of power.

That is what they want to have—“complete and immediate transfer of power”—and that transfer must be to Frelimo, not to the ordinary Black man living in Mozambique, Sir. And I think that we can use this to show our own Black peoples, our non-White peoples, that these so-called terrorist freedom fighters who are also fighting on our borders to bring freedom, in point of fact bring no freedom at all. They actually bring chaos and disorder and all manner of problems. Secondly, Sir, it is the position that our policy, the policy of this party only—which tolerates no interference in the domestic affairs of other states and which recognizes other Governments as long as they are effective governments, because we do not interfere—creates the opportunity for us to deal and negotiate with Frelimo, or with whomsoever, as long as it is an effective Government which is formed in the Portuguese territories. I think it is a very important point that we shall grant recognition to any effective Government which comes into being in that country and that we are prepared to negotiate with whomsoever, for it is our policy not to interfere in the domestic affairs of any state. For that reason we are prepared to negotiate with Frelimo, or whomsoever. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, permit me as well to raise a few matters for the ears of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Arising out of what happened to Mr. Saunders, one wonders whether the hon. member did not take cognizance of recent events in this very House when the hon. the Minister of Justice introduced draft legislation dealing with this matter, legislation which is at present engaging the attention of a Select Committee. It concerns this very question of the provision of liquor, etc., when diplomats are involved. I do not know what purpose the hon. member thinks he is serving by carrying on in this House in such a way, in spite of this fact.

I now want to come to certain statements which the hon. member made during the Budget Debate. He then said that the crux of federalism was the decentralization of power. It is true that the crux of federalism is the decentralization of power, but in the present-day world the trend is in fact for the power to be centralized to an increasing extent in the Central Government. The hon. member would surely agree with me that this is a phenomenon which we find in America, as well as in Australia. It is a phenomenon which emerges in times of adversity, in times of war and in all cases where continual progress is being made in a sophisticated state. In the cases of America, Canada and Australia, it is not of very great importance, for they are homogeneous states. But when one is dealing with a heterogeneous state, it is a very dangerous situation and it is very difficult to imagine that constituent elements would be satisfied to be deprived of their powers and have these given to the Central Government. What is more, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to the hon. the Prime Minister in this House a year or two ago that federal powers could be removed and returned.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to a seminar which was held in Yugoslavia in 1965. He said that they arrived at the conclusion there that the federal idea was the only idea according to which various peoples or races could cooperate successfully without the one dominating the other. I accepted the hon. member’s invitation and read through the report on that seminar. Nowhere in that report was it stated that it had been decided that a federal form of government would be beneficial to a multi-national community. I challenge the hon. member to point out to me where, during this seminar, it was unanimously decided that a federal form of government would be the salvation of a multi-national society as well. This seminar was subdivided into various committees with their own chairmen. Over the entire period no decision was taken at any of these sessions. The chairman of every session made a summary of what had been discussed on each occasion. The only reference to federalism was in one specific place. Every paragraph begins in this way: “Several participants expressed the view ...”; “Certain speakers recorded the many historical instances ...” “There was substantial agreement ...” “Some participants pointed out ...” Then one paragraph follows—

But that is merely what some people said. It was not a general decision of that seminar. In fact, at a later stage during that seminar something of great significance was said. Towards the end, after mention had been made of “the right to develop their own traditions and characteristics autonomously”, the following was said—

That is precisely what was at issue, i.e. the encouragement of the various characteristics and cultures, traditions and customs. Why, that is our policy. Does the hon. member know that the people who participated in that seminar are in fact people who belong to the Third World bloc? They are not really people who are favourably disposed towards us. They say that these things should be encouraged. At a subsequent stage in the seminar the use of one’s own language was encouraged, and it was said that minority rights should be guaranteed and protected.

But surely that is what federalism is all about.

That is the policy of the National Party.

There is another aspect of this debate which I cannot understand. There are a few open debates which we have in the House of Assembly, and in which hon. members of the Opposition have the opportunity of juxtaposing policy against policy. They then have every right to criticize our policy and to point out points of friction. But it is pre-eminently an opportunity to state their own policy in juxtaposition to ours, to explain why the Oppositions policy is more acceptable than ours. But they shrink from doing that. When this suggestion was made to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on Friday he said that it was not our policy which was being discussed. But surely this is the opportunity for them to juxtapose their policy against ours.

Let them motivate their federal policy here. Let them tell us whether they agree with that aspect of the federal policy in terms of which the courts should have a testing right? If the central authority passes a law which is in conflict with the constitution of a constituent part, should the courts decide whether or not it is ultra vires? If so, it could mean that we would have a repetition of that constitutional struggle which we had years ago when the courts were still able to decide whether something which this Parliament did was justified. Does the hon. member recall all the bitterness which prevailed at that time? Does he want to see that bitterness repeated year after year? What is going to happen if this central body is in due course taken over by anti-elements, elements that believe in a one-party state in which no opposition will be tolerated and the courts will not be allowed to prescribe what they should do? Let hon. members of the Opposition explain their federal policy further. Specifically they must clear up the question of the keys to the security of the State. Will every question affecting the security of the State be decided by a referendum in which only the Whites will participate? We must bear in mind that by that time there will already be many non-Whites in that central body. Is it now going to happen, on each occasion when such a matter has to be decided, that the Bantu will have to sit on the sidelines while the Whites decide that matter? What irritation and strife would that not entail? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan has been trying to tell us how we should conduct this particular debate. He feels that he knows, better than we do, what should be said in this House in this particular debate and at this particular time in order to satisfy hon. members ...

But he did not say that.

He did say it.

Wat did he say?

The hon. member for Brakpan suggested that this debate should be used for the purpose of a confrontation of policies, because ...

He invited you to state your policy.

I want to say to the hon. member for Brakpan and also, with respect, to the hon. the Prime Minister, that the purpose of this debate is to deal with the Prime Minister’s Vote. Traditionally the Prime Minister comes to this House and when his Vote is discussed in Committee of Supply, he is in effect asking this House to vote money for his department. Traditionally, this House demands that its grievances be redressed before voting the money. By grievances we mean those causes for complaint and those causes for doubt about the Prime Minister’s policy about which we wish to be satisfied before the money is voted. Traditionally, then, this is the form of debate in the Committee of Supply.

It seems to us that the complaints we have brought to this House have not been answered. I do not want to recapitulate everything that has been said, but briefly what we have said in this particular debate is the following: Certain events have taken place, notably in Portugal and its territories; these events have created new dimensions, new reduced dimensions of space and time, which in turn have created new strategic implications that oblige us to take stock of our situation and determine what we should do. We have said that the situation which has arisen in the Portuguese territories has also taught us some very important lessons. It has taught us, if we had not learnt it from the Vietnam and Algerian situations, that subversive warfare cannot be defeated by purely military means, and that there is no front line, no concentration of force, where battle may take place and the enemy may be defeated. It has taught us that this type of warfare can be won only in the hearts and minds of our own people.

We have seen what happened to the Portuguese. In Portugal there was a narrowly-based Government with some very traditionalist ideas. It was supported by a verkrampte establishment and they were reluctant to learn the lessons of our modern time. The result of this was that new ideas and new forces arose in Portugal which led to the overthrow of that Government. For some years, while subversive activities were taking place in Mozambique, the Portuguese placed armies upon the Rovuma River, on the frontier with Tanzania. Behind those forces, behind that concentration of force, subversion was taking place. The Portuguese were able to conduct the kind of activity which the hon. the Prime Minister himself is good at conducting, i.e. to repress this type of subversion. However, what they neglected to do was the most important thing of all, i.e. to take constructive action in gaining the confidence and support of their own people. This is to what we have drawn the attention of hon. members. Eduardo Mondlane, the first leader of Frelimo, wrote the following in 1969:

What the Portuguese Government did try to do, was to spread material benefits. It did try to create new constitutional forms, but these forms did not succeed in engaging the local people, in sharing power with them, in gaining their participation in the creation and distribution of those benefits. In other words, there was not a full engagement of the local population. This was the difficulty that was recognized in the later stages of the Portuguese war in Angola and Mozambique, but it was not done in time. The message we have brought to this House is just this: it was not done in time.

We have not come to the House asking for an explanation of the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister or of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs vis-à-vis Mozambique. We have said that we recognize that we have strong and good cards to play and that relations between us and Mozambique should, on balance, be reasonably well conducted. We congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on what they say they have done to ensure that these relations continue. However, this is not the point. What we are concerned about in this debate is what is being done in South Africa to anticipate the kind of pressures which might arise here. We are less concerned with comparisons with Portuguese systems or with whether or not our relations with Mozambique will be good. That is not the real point of the debate. What we are concerned about is how we are using our time in South Africa to make good a situation which will be threatened by subversion We have pointed out that there are three major problems which need to be looked at in this regard. The first one is the Coloured people, the second the urban Africans and the third the homelands themselves.

In respect of the Coloured people we did get some reply. The hon. the Prime Minister introduced a new slogan. He talked about “gelyke buurskap”. I have been thinking about this phrase, “gelyke buurskap”, and what precisely it means. “Gelyke buurskap” could mean, on the principle of good neighbours, that each of the two neighbours has his own proprietorial or territorial rights and that between those two properties there is a good strong fence. That principle is that good fences make good neighbours. Is this what the hon. the Prime Minister means? If so, he is in fact talking about separate homelands. If, on the other hand, the hon. the Prime Minister is thinking in terms of good neignbourliness in the sense of, shall we say, sectional titles, then you have the situation where on the same property people have their own independent residential units, but they do share common services and they work together at those matters that are of combined interest. If the hon. the Prime Minister has this in mind, he is getting very close to a federal concept. If he has some other idea in mind—he has in fact mentioned such things as accident prevention and consumer councils—if he wishes to see the growth of this sort of contact, we would welcome such contact, but this is certainly not parallel development because parallel lines never touch as he has suggested they might now do. This is not a matter for humour. I am quite serious when I say that we do seriously look forward to hearing more specifically from the hon. the Prime Minister what he has in mind when he speaks of “gelyke buurskap”, because, frankly, it is susceptible to many meanings and we are not sure how exactly the phrase should be understood.

As far as the urban Blacks are concerned, we have heard very little. They are, in fact, the largest identifiable population sector in South Africa, larger than the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians combined and larger than all the homelands combined. They are a massive and a major factor in South Africa. And if we treat them as people who are here temporarily and gone tomorrow we will be evading the very point of problem which we are trying to bring to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate, and that is the importance of time. This is the kind of area in which insurgency could develop and where our enemies will try to exploit it. It is most important that this area—that of our urban Bantu—should be made immune to that kind of danger. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis intimated that this side of the House was not doing enough for the Coloured people, the urban Bantu and the Bantu homelands in real relations politics. In the course of my speech I should like to dwell on the contribution which has come from that side of the House in this regard. In the first place I should like to point out that after 21 April this year, this Government came back with the strongest possible mandate to continue governing this country. It is a mandate which has a primary responsibility in particular, and that is the responsibility of ensuring that State security is maintained at all times. In the second instance, it is a responsibility of ensuring the peaceful survival and coexistence of White, Brown and Black in this country. This cardinal requirement of security brings me to three aspects. In the first place it is necessary for any Government to act strongly; in the second place there are the confronters and the powers which are against the Government in South Africa; in the third place there is the scrimshanking of a negative Opposition in co-operating in connection with these things.

If there is one Government in the world which has a difficult task it is this Government, due to our varied, multi-racial and heterogeneous composition. If there is one Government in this world which has brought forth a product of which it may be proud, it is this Government which has brought about peace and quiet and stability in this country. Ironically enough, it is precisely this national pride, precisely this stability and peace which lead me to my second aspect, namely the agitators and the powers and enemies of South Africa. I am referring to those who cannot bear to see a Christian, Western view of life flourishing and blossoming here in this country. They cannot bear to see a Government in power here which will not tolerate subversion. I am speaking of confronters who occupy themselves with inciting race hatred against South Africa, the mobilization of freedom fighters, the destruction of everything which is South African and the building up of foreign action and pressure against South Africa. Internally the agitators are undermining the spirit of man, are assaulting man’s sense of values. They are bedevilling it. They are encouraging a permissive liberalism. But they go further: They also poke their noses into the delicate relations of the political situation in South Africa. They are creating unrest with their agitation for higher wages; they are creating unrest by inciting Black people to demand more land; they are engaged in stirring up dissatisfaction among the Coloured people; they are breaking down the colour bar in order to bedevil, confound and raze to the ground the preservation and maintenance of an identity of one’s own, a tradition of one’s own a culture of one’s own. These are the things we are up against. That is why these times demand a Government which is prepared to act realistically and positively. But what is equally important, is that these times also demand an Opposition which is prepared to come forward and act positively. It should not be an Opposition which is only prepared to play for the stands. It should not be an Opposition which is prepared to make political capital out of delicate questions of political relations; these times require an Opposition—I am now speaking to the official and the only effective Opposition in this House—which will say in delicate matters affecting State security: South Africa first; an Opposition which will now ask itself: What plan of action are we going to follow henceforth?

I want to refer briefly to two aspects affecting the Opposition in their negative approach in this regard. I am starting with certain Bills relating to the essence of State security in this country, and I want to refer briefly to the recent Bill in connection with publications; I also want to refer briefly to the amending Bill passed earlier this year in connection with affected organizations and riotous assemblies. Sir, what fact is consistently evident? We are dealing here with legislation which touches the soul of our people; we are dealing here with legislation which concerns the security of the State which makes it its primary task to close certain loopholes since it is the security and the survival of this country and its peoples that is at stake here. The Opposition comes along and expresses itself in a half-hearted manner; it supports the principle, but it qualifies its support throughout; it sets conditions; it votes against the Second Reading of the Bill; it opposes the Bill throughout the Committee Stage, and each time it seeks a refuge, and it takes refuge in the so-called protection of the freedom and rights of the individual.

Sir, in the second place we come to their participation in the Schlebusch Commission. We know that this is one of the most important commissions which has ever been appointed in the life of this country. In 1972 when it was announced that this commission would be appointed, or that an investigation was going to be instituted, it was that side of the House that said that no case had been made out for the existence of this commission. But, Sir, they did participate and I am thankful for that. Their participation brought division, and this division in their ranks brought a split; this split brought forth a mouse, and the mouse that was brought forth further division; it brought about that members on that side, to be specific, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, told Die Burger and the Rand Daily Mail that the new caucus of the United Party would reconsider the whole question of continued participation in the proceedings of the commission after the election on 24 April. Sir, the United Party went further. When the report was eventually brought up, they supported the majority report, and I am thankful for that, but what happened here? They came along once again with a minority report; once again they added a condition; once again they added a qualification; once again they sought refuge: “We are the protectors of the freedom and the rights of the individual”. Sir, that is the half-hearted cooperation we get from that side of the House time and again when it comes to delicate matters affecting State security.

Sir, the hon. member for Von Brandis also referred to what we were doing or were allegedly not doing in respect of relations politics. Let us pause for a moment and consider what the action and approach of the Opposition is in connection with relations politics in South Africa. Let us refer, firstly, to the Opposition who regard themselves as the frontline fighters and champions of the interests of the coloured groups and let us just consider the course of this debate. In the first place they said that not enough was being done for Coloured housing. The hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that a record number of houses had been built and were still going to be built, but that that had to be done according to the availability of money. Sir, the Opposition has come along here launching bitter attack on us for what we have not done, and then the hon. member for Wynberg rises in the same debate and says that the families of the hundreds of thousands of Bantu migrant labourers who are in this country temporarily, should be brought here; that housing should be provided for them in the cities where these 600 000 family members may be united with these hundreds of thousands of Bantu workers. Sir, in this way the United Party is confounding the intercession they are doing for Coloured housing. In other words, where must the money be found to settle these 700 000 Black people here? Money which is required for other important services will have to be used to provide housing for these Bantu, apart from the fact that the whole pattern, the whole composition, the whole ratio of White to Brown to Black in this critical centre of the Western Cape is going to be upset even further.

Sir, hon. members opposite are the champions of dialogue. They take pleasure in the fact that the Labour members of the Coloured Persons Council have expressed their dissatisfaction. I want to ask the United Party this: What dialogue have they conducted with the Coloureds recently? Secondly, if they have conducted dialogue with them, what positive proposal have they made to the Coloureds? Sir, the United Party dare not risk putting a positive proposal to them, for if the Coloureds should ask them the question: “What do you offer us?”, their reply would be, “the federal parliament”. Sir, when one analyses this federal Parliament, one sees that the Coloured will only have a minority interest in that Parliament. He is being cast to the swine; he will be trampled by the Black majority which will sit in that Parliament. They offer the Coloured nothing in that Parliament.

We can go further and I can ask this question: What really constructive contribution have you made in the past few years? I am not speaking about the smaller contributions. But what monument have you erected for the Coloureds? How have you been acting? The Government said the Coloured could not have a seat in this House and they basically agree with that, but outside this House that is presented as constituting suppression of the Coloureds. Sir, I want to say that the time has arrived for this Opposition, with an eye to the future of the country, to stop and ask themselves in a well-considered and responsible way whether the time has not arrived for them to say, in these delicate matters of State security and relations politics, that they will co-operate with the Government. If this does not happen, they will in the history of South Africa remain permanently settled in the benches of the political Opposition. It would be a good thing if we could possibly discuss these matters in that light.

The hon. member who has just sat down said that nobody on this side of the House ever makes constructive proposals. May I reiterate the proposal made by me and by my colleagues from Houghton that this Government stop any removals under the Group Areas Act until the backlog of Coloured housing has been made good. That was a constructive and positive proposal which could be applied even within the framework of National Party policies.

Sir, we have heard a lot about the “verhoudingspolitiek” and the need for people not to intrude in the affairs of the various racial communities. I want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister certain allegations that this Government, through its officials, through its agents and through the Bureau for State Security, is interfering in the political activities of race groups other than the White race group. I raise this because it is relevant and because the amount allocated to the Bureau for State Security has been increased from R9 million to over R12 million this year. We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister must give some account of this.

First of all, the hon. the Prime Minister has announced that the Coloured Representative Council will be re-elected in March next year. The hon. the Prime Minister owes it to this House and to the Coloured community to give four assurances. The first is that this election will be on the basis of the Coloured Representative Council being a fully elected body. We want to know whether he is going to change the composition of the Coloured Representative Council before the elections in March next year. If the Prime Minister says, “No, it will continue on the present basis”, then we want from the hon. the Prime Minister a categoric assurance that no single candidate date who has been rejected by the Coloured people at the election will be imposed upon the Coloured people as a member of that Council as happened in 1969. Thirdly, he must give the assurance that the Coloured Representative Council itself will be permitted to elect its own chairman of the Executive Committee and that he will not be a nominated member of a minority group. Fourthly, the Prime Minister must assure us that there will be no interference whatsoever by Government departments, Government agents or Government employees in the elections, whether this be by way of assistance to one or other political party or by way of intimidation of candidates or supporters of the other political parties. I raise this because the newspaper files—and I have only a few of them here—abound with allegations made by responsible Coloureds and Africans that there has been interference by Government agents in the politics of the other race communities. It is no use evading this. These challenges have been made and if the Prime Minister disagrees with them he must stand up and repudiate them. But so far he has elected to remain silent and so has the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

There was the recent complaint by Chief Lucas Mangope that Pretoria is interfering in the internal politics of Bophuthatswana. We had the events which led up to the election in Venda last year, which were investigated by officials in the Department of Information. One has the story of the Coloured Representative Council and the gross interference by Government officials of all kinds in the politics of the Coloured community and, more recently, serious and deliberate allegations against the Prime Minister’s Department that it is interfering in the politics of kwaZulu. I believe that this cannot go unanswered by the hon. the Prime Minister. In the time available to me just a few comments ...

That is a lie.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Carletonville permitted to say that the hon. member is making a statement which is a lie?

Order! Has the hon. member said that?

Mr. Chairman, I have said that what he has said others had said, is a lie. [Interjections.] We have to get that clear. I have not said he is telling a lie, but that he is building his argument on a secondary report and that is a lie.

Order! The hon.member for Sea Point may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, there is massive evidence during the 1969 election of intervention through a Mr. Louis van der Walt, employed by the Republikeinse Inligtingsdiens. There are allegations of a R50 000 fund, organized from the Broederbond’s Christiaan de Wet Fund, made available to the Federal Party. There is evidence of pressure by Police officials and by officials from the Department of Coloured Affairs on people wishing to exercise their free choice as electors of that election. There are specific allegations made by the leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Sonny Leon, who said that “Special Branch men and farmers and other employers of Coloured labour were threatening and intimidating candidates and supporters of the Labour Party.” I shall not itemize his complaints in detail, but he went on to say that Government officials, teachers and other people interfered directly in those elections. We go on to 1972. There were allegations of “harassment of Coloured people supporting the Labour Party”. In the by-election of October 1973 in the Eastern Cape constituency there was a specific complaint by the leader of the Labour Party that the Police and the Special Branch were intimidating people who were supporting Labour Party candidates. Then more recently, in March of this year, in the by-election in Swartberg, we had exactly the same complaints from the leader of the Labour Party. He said—

[Interjections.] It is all very well for the hon. gentlemen to get excited, but it is up to the hon. the Prime Minister to say that he has investigated these charges and that there is no truth in them whatsoever or that he will see that these things do no happen in the future.

The most important charges against the hon. the Prime Minister come from the Chief Executive Councillor of KwaZulu, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who over the years has complained of deliberate attempts by officials within the Department of Information to try to influence the affairs of KwaZulu, of interference by the Commissioner-General in making names and addresses of chiefs available to opposition people so that they could send out circulars and, in recent times, of the connivance of officials with Chief Hlengwa in the formation of the Chaka Spear Party. There was the accusation that not only was this Party aided by officials of the State, but that a certain Mr. Francois Fouche was responsible for its formation and that Mr. Francois Fouche is an agent of BOSS stationed in the Empangeni area. The six charges are, firstly, that that party was stimulated organized and financed with the assistance of this BOSS agent, Mr. Francois Fouche, secondly that he asked Mr. David Zulu to ask him to approach Prof. Nzimande to become the leader and when that failed, he asked him to approach Chief Hlengwa to become the leader. The third charge was that Mr. Fouche was in constant telephone communication to say when the constitution of this party would be ready and when the funds would be made available. The fourth charge was that meetings were held between this party and this agent in the home of this agent in Pinetown and that they were also held in the offices of the Bureau of State Security in Mayville Heights in Pietermaritzburg. The fifth charge was that a fund of R12 000 was deposited in the Volkskas account in Gardiner Street, Durban, by Mr. Fouche the alleged BOSS agent and made available to the Chaka Spear Party. The final charge was that this Fouche was instrumental in arranging a meeting between Chief Hlengwa and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This meeting was held in Pretoria on 13 December last year. The hon. the Prime Minister has not responded to these allegations. He is aware that these charges have been made against him and his department and against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development officially in the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly. He is aware that these charges were subsequently restated at a public gathering of 5 000 Zulus held in the Umlazi stadium. The hon. the Prime Minister has a duty to respond. He has to say that these charges are in fact not true, or else he has to give the assurance that even if this kind of action has been taken in the past, by Government officials in future neither the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development nor those of BOSS, are going to participate in any way in interfering in the freely expressed opinion through the elections of KwaZulu or those of the Coloured political parties. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party. Particularly in this Place, one should not lightly form a judgment about an opponent. We, particularly the younger generation on this side of the House, do not want to be too hasty and too harsh in judging the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party as regards his ability to lead this country, with all its manifold problems. The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party came to this House for the second time and the entire Opposition Press held him in very high repute. They said many things about him and his party. In the years that lie ahead, therefore, I think that we shall analyse his words very thoroughly. If I were to pass an opinion at this stage, I should say that he has not yet measured up to the great things which the English-language Press expected of him. We are often full of compliments for the hon. member for Houghton, but I do want to say that up to now, the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party has not come up to her standard and effectiveness. However, I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party that he is being watched very closely, particularly by the young, thinking people of this country, whether they be Afrikaans or English speaking and whether they be Bantu or Coloured. We, too, shall do so in the course of this debate.

Thus far, the course of this debate has merely been an extension of the political discussion we have had in this country for almost three centuries now. The one notable aspect today is that in spite of all the learnedness on the part of the Opposition, in the light of the history of the National Party, there is still a great deal of ignorance as well. I want to touch on a few matters in this connection. The one is that today we see the hon. member for Houghton with her Rosenkowitz sextuplet, whose ideas are really nothing new to us. What difference is there, really, between the way of thinking of a Van Zyl Slabbert and that of a Nic Olivier? What is the basic difference between the ideas of a Gordon Waddell and a Harry Schwarz? What is the basic difference between the ideas of a René de Villiers and those of a Japie Basson? There is no difference. For anyone who studies the political history of South Africa, they are nothing new. If truth be told, they are not even as new as the Young Turks. If one looks at the history of South Africa, the roots of the ideas which they represent, lie far deeper than in the immediate past.

In what respect do you and Albert Hertzog differ?

Just listen! I am dealing with the Progressives and it is the Young Turks that react. We are going to separate the sheep and the goats on the other side. There are many good fellows on the other side; we shall take them from there. Let the Young Turks and the Progressives give me a chance now. Let us look briefly at history. I just want to do this superficially, for the sake of the hon. member for Rondebosch, because I have only ten minutes in which to talk. In the light of the political history of the past three centuries, what is the difference between the way of thinking, the behaviour, the planning and the words of a Boraine, a Reed, Philips and a Van der Kemp and a Huddlestone? One need only inspect the record of the hon. member for Pinelands and compare it very clearly and objectively with the role played by clergymen in the politics of South Africa. Then the hon. member is a Rip van Winkel. There is no difference. In other words, the hon. member for Pinelands need not tell the young people of the Republic of South Africa today that he is a new voice, a new prophet. The prophets of old have become prophesiers today. I want to tell the hon. member that it will not be the first time that certain people, in the guise of a toga, a frock coat and a white bow tie, use certain gospel truths to approach the young people and change them basically in other spheres. In other words, the Boraines in our society are as old as the liberal clergymen.

But, Sir, what is new about a man like René de Villiers, the representative of that Press group, ranged against the Nationalist Afrikaner, and later, against the Whites of South Africa too? He represents that group of people who, in the peace of an editor’s office, have quietly, with pen and ink—or, more recently, the typewriter—represented a power group in South Africa throughout its history. In the morning or in the afternoon we see only the products of their work, which have been appearing for so many decades now. In the morning or in the evening they tell us how wrong the White man and the National Party are, and how wrongly things are being done in South Africa. And from there it goes out into the outside world. In other words, Sir, a René de Villiers in this Parliament is to us ...

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. member’s constituency and not his name.

I do so with pleasure, Mr. Chairman. I am trying, in this sense, not to refer to the hon. member but to describe a type. But that type of writer is nothing new to us. They constitute the second group of people who tell the young, up-and-coming generation that they are something new, something this world has never seen up to now. The sun has never shone on their ideas or their faces. But they constitute an old form of opponent of order and responsibility in South Africa.

But that is not all that we have; we have the hon. member for Rondebosch here too. It is nothing new for us to hear from an Afrikaner who is anti-Afrikaans, either. After all, we know this from our history. It is interesting to know that at the beginning of the previous century, a certain Gert Petrus Slabbert lived on the Eastern frontier. Do you know, Sir, I am a descendant of one Gert Petrus Slabbert. It is interesting that in the Slabbert family reference has always been made to the Slabberts and the “Slapperts”. That hon. member should establish where he belongs.

You are a Van der Merwe joke!

That is a very interesting interjection which the hon. member for Houghton made. I want to tell her that throughout the history of my people there have been occasions on which people like me have been reviled as Van der Merwe “jokes”, but I want to tell her, too, that the Van der Merwes have been in the country far longer than the Suzmans. The reason for my presence in the Transvaal does not lie in the fact that gold and diamonds were to be found there, but it was part of my history because I wanted my freedom and my independence. That freedom and independence was not aimed at depriving any other population group thereof. In the history of our people it is very clear, and it is not a novelty, that one finds a Van Zyl, a Slabbert, a Van der Merwe or one with any kind of name in the Afrikaans languages, approaching the young Afrikaner in the idiom of the Afrikaner and telling him that he has been wrong throughout his history, that he has no right to exist here, and the fact that he is here, is proof of the injustice which exists throughout the world. We know people of this kind, Afrikaners who write that we have to become compost. We have to destroy ourselves, so that khaki bush and things of that nature may grow from us. We know academics of this kind. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this debate will be remembered for two things: Firstly, for the brilliant way in which the hon. the Prime Minister led the debate and dominated it with his ability and secondly, for the way in which the official Opposition, alias the Old Guard, the Opposition in the Opposition, alias the Young Turks, and the official opposition of the Opposition, the Progs, did their utmost to make of this debate as bad a business as possible. I think that in the years that lie ahead that will be the one thing which will continue to stand out. So the term of office of the hon. the Prime Minister will be remembered not only for the success achieved by the National Party under his leadership; not only for the heights to which he took it, nor only for the flourishing period which the National Party achieved in the economic sphere under his leadership, but I want to contend that this period will be remembered in particular for the tremendous task performed by the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to the emancipation of the various peoples in South Africa. In the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to mention a few of the priorities which the hon. the Prime Minister set for that task. The first was that the hon. the Prime Minister resolved—and resolves—to bring about this emancipation by way of consultation and not by way of confrontation. Now I want to ask the hon. Oppositions as they are assembled on my right hand today, why they did not choose this debate to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he should not have done this or, alternatively, that he had neglected his duty. No, they cannot do anything of the kind. I want to tell them that if they had nothing else to say, they could at least have thanked and congratulated the Prime Minister on the way in which he had done this. Then, at least, they would have said something.

The second priority of the hon. the Prime Minister in that task was that the human dignity of every person, to whichever nation or group he might belong, should be taken into account. Our hon. Prime Minister does not allow any opportunity to pass, when he is appearing in public, without his asking his followers to be in deadly earnest about never acting in such a way as to offend against the human dignity of a fellow human being. If the Opposition had any fault to find with this, they could have attacked the hon. the Prime Minister or otherwise they could simply have thanked him for it. That would not have been repulsive.

The third priority set by the hon. the Prime Minister is that these peoples which are now being emancipated, should be uplifted in the socio-economic sphere. If the hon. members on the Opposition side want to criticize that and if they maintain that he should have done more, they should tell us at the same time where the money for this is to come from. An hon. member immediately to my right said: “Of course more should have been done.” Well, it is always easier to criticize than to create. Hon. members of the Opposition should tell us where the money to enable more to be done, is to come from. However, they should remember that the hon. the Prime Minister has to take account of the economy of South Africa. He is spending the funds which are drawn from that sound economy correctly, in respect of the socioeconomic development of the various peoples in South Africa as well.

The fourth priority set by the hon. the Prime Minister was that all the peoples should be led towards the maximum possible sovereignty.

Like the Coloureds.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, to them, too, the hon. the Prime Minister has said, on many occasions, that that is his ideal. There are difficulties or problems but by way of consultation and not confrontation, we want to lead them towards that sovereignty. The hon. the Prime Minister does not believe in shared sovereignty and that goes for the Coloured, too, because it does not work. They are being led towards a sovereignty in a new pattern which has not yet been tried to any great extent in the world, but which I believe is going to succeed in South Africa, I want to tell my friends why we do not want to share sovereignty. Because the past has proved that wherever it has been tried, it has failed. This does not only apply to some races, but to all. It applies, too, to the White race in South Africa. It does not want to share its sovereignty with other peoples. It wants to see them as neighbours, as it was so brilliantly sketched here by the hon. the Prime Minister. An hon. gentleman on this side has just been discussing neighbourliness—it was the previous speaker, was it not? That is a concept which we understand. We want good neighbourliness; that is a concept which we recognize.

The next priority set by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the implementation of his ethnic policy in South Africa, is that the identity of every person and every group should be preserved. Surely that is decidedly nothing new.

You need not be worried about my identity.

My friend next to me here says that we need not be worried about his identity. I know that his identity means nothing to him, but mine does mean something to me. I intend to preserve that identity. To me it is worth more than life itself. I believe that to the Bantu, too, it is worth more than life itself. That is why he says: “I want to be a Swazi”, or “I want to be a Basuto” or whatever nation he may belong to. He is proud to belong to a nation. I know that to a certain extent this is difficult for the Coloureds, who are a nascent nation, to understand, but my friends in the Opposition go out of their way to cause those people to feel that their identity and origin mean nothing, but that they should be passengers on the Whites identity because otherwise they would be neglected and doomed. It is a terrible thing always to give another person to understand that his identity means so little. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the short time available to me I do not wish to reply to what the hon. member for Namaqualand has said, other than to say that when somebody can stand up in this House at this time and speak of the situation that we have arrived at as being a glittering success of the Prime Minister’s handling of Nationalist policy is nothing short of tragic. I want to say a word or two in passing, if I may, on the speech of the hon. member for Rissik. In the past I have frequently followed him as it happens in debate and I have always followed his contribution with a great deal of interest. I regret that I cannot say that of his contribution today. It was superficial and I am afraid it did not carry us much further forward. He tried to embarrass us by showing that there was no difference between the Slabberts and the Waddells on the one side and the Oliviers and the Schwarzes on the other. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that there are clear differences between the Slabberts and the Waddels on the one side and the Oliviers and the Schwarzes and the Cadmans on the other side. If one is going to take a superficial look at these things one has only to look at the Progressive Party’s qualified franchise tied to a federation which is based on multi-racial units as compared with the federation of the United Party based on homogeneous units which accept the principle of group identity and based on the principle of one man one vote if that is what they want. One has only to look at the attitude of the two parties to the question of internal security—you only have to look at the recent debate on the Defence Bill to see that. One has only to look at the broad based and intense South Africanism which motivates this side of the House which cannot be said for the dilettante South Africanism of the Progressive Party. I will leave the hon. member for Rissik there and come to what we are here for and that is the Prime Minister’s Vote.

I can honestly say that I have seldom stood up at this stage, three quarters of the way through the Prime Minister’s Vote, with a feeling of such frustration, amounting almost to despair, at what we have heard. You have had from the Leader of the Opposition a clear and detailed exposition of the problems that beset us arising out of recent events here and elsewhere. You have had a model of that given by the hon. member for Von Brandis. And what do we get? We get suggestions that the United Party is speaking up for and encouraging extremists, and when you plead for the legitimate rights of the Coloured people you get suggestions that you are an agitator. Now, where does this get us in 1974? Why is the Prime Minister having lengthy discussions with the Coloured people at the present time if there is nothing to be concerned about? Why is he having these lengthy discussions if Government policy is succeeding? What distresses me is that it seems to get no further than discussion. I have heard the hon. gentleman say over the last five years that he is going to sit round a table, a proceeding which he describes with great gravity as though it is something unusal to sit round a table and talk to people. Sir, we have heard this so often. But what bothers me is this: What is going to take place when the hon. gentleman sits round a table? Because, Sir, we have reached the stage where we have, according to the policy of the Government, two Parliaments in South Africa and we are to continue to have two Parliaments, this Parliament and a Coloured Parliament. It has been said that there is to be no representation in this Parliament for the Coloured people. That is quite clear, Sir, because everybody on the Government side is agreeing with everybody else that in respect of the Coloured people and the White people you have parallel lines which shall never meet. We are told that there is going to be a statutory consultative body to link the Coloured Parliament and the White Parliament. Sir, what can that body do within the bounds of present Government policy in respect of the Coloured people which has not already been done with the “skakeling” and the meetings which have taken place between the South African Executive and the Executive of the Coloured people? The hon. the Prime Minister talks of consensus, and it can only be on the basis of consensus that this can operate within the bounds of Government policy. Sir, what different situation is that from the situation which pertains at the present time, and which has led us nowhere, where there is a meeting behind closed doors between the Prime Minister as the Executive and the leaders of the Executive of the Coloured people? Sir, we have had this for years. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that this is what the Coloured people asked for. Sir, it has achieved absolutely nothing at all, otherwise we would not be in the situation in which we find ourselves today. The hon. gentleman now presents the new consultative machinery as something different. But supposing there is no consensus, then this new machinery cannot work; then there is disagreement; then you are back to square one. After all that has been done, we are then precisely in the situation in which we are at the present time. Indeed, Sir, unless this statutory consultative committee has teeth which in a defined field—and I emphasize the words “defined field”—can bind the bodies from which it is made up, it can perform no function of any kind at all. We cannot get out of our present dilemma unless some machinery of that kind is set up, and what is the situation then? I believe the situation then can be described as “a federal rose by any other name smells just as sweet, call it what you like”.

Sir, let us now deal with the position in regard to the Black people. We are told that we should be pleased with the situation; that Government policy offers an unending vista of future satisfactory arrangements which can dispel the difficulties in which we find ourselves and which can provide for the legitimate aspirations of the Black people. Sir, what is the most recent utterance that we have had in respect of Government policy from prominent Black leaders? Two leading homeland leaders from the Transvaal, Dr. Phitaudi and Professor Ntsanwisi, have just returned from an overseas trip, and what have they said? This is one of the most descriptive phrases I have ever seen. They described overseas the Government’s homeland policy as “a discriminatory exercise doomed to failure”.

They said a lot of other things as well.

I do not suggest for a moment that Government policy is wholly bad and that there has been no advance for the Black people; nobody suggests that. But, Sir, as a principle it is described as “a discriminatory exercise doomed to failure”. A more colourful description of failure it is difficult to imagine. Sir, these are not wild extremists and agitators; they are responsible homeland leaders who have grown up under the tutelage of Nationalist Party government for 26 years.

Did they say anything about your policy?

Sir, is there any hon. member on that side of the House who can stand up and say that separate development on the basis of the 1936 Act has acceptance anywhere except in the Transkei? They cannot, Sir. Sir, I want to pose this question by contrast: Can you imagine how different our feelings in this debate would have been if the hon. the Prime Minister could have stood up here and if, instead of saying very little pertinent to this situation in the 1½ to 2 hours that he has spoken, he could have said: “Gentlemen, I have met these people and I am happy to be able to tell you that in this field and in other fields and in this area of our affairs there is broad-based agreement upon the following terms”. How differently we would have felt. Sir, we would have sat back with a sight of relief but instead, what happens year after year? First of all we get a splendid display of debating power by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is always very good, but nothing pertinent to our situation is said which we have not heard before, and it is time it was said. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana put me in mind of a woman who has been widowed more than once for one could describe him, as in a legal document, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, formerly of Eshowe, formerly of Zululand. He also referred, inter alia, to the fact that the Prime Minister sits down around a table with certain Black leaders, but I can remember the case when he was very upset because one of the members of his own party had sat down around a table without him. The hon. member also referred to the statement allegedly made by the Black leader, Phatudi, in which he had described the policy of homeland development as “a discriminatory exercise doomed to failure”. Well, I think I have heard certain statements from the same Mr. Phatudi recently in which he encouraged foreign investors very strongly to make investments in that very same homeland, Lebowa. I am astonished that a leader who gives encouragement of this kind should adopt the standpoint that the policy in terms of which that development is taking place is in fact “doomed to failure”.

But what I really want to refer to is the reaction of the hon. gentlemen on the opposite of the House during the course of the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister last Friday afternoon. We who sit here and look across to their side, can observe very closely what their reaction is when the Prime Minister is speaking to them. We found it striking to see that when the Prime Minister spoke of doors which were being opened for the Coloured population, we were greeted with faces which had gone rigid in silence. We received no reaction of encouragement or of acceptance or of recognition or of congratulation in this situation. The hon. gentlemen opposite were silent. When the Prime Minister speaks of opportunities which are being created for the economic and educational progress of our Coloured population, we are greeted with silence. When he speaks of the accommodation opportunities which are being created and which are going to be created, we are greeted with silence. But when it is a question of political rights, the opposite side of the House is up at once, and then they join in the discussion. When it is a question of the franchise, when it is a question of the concept of sovereignty, then the opposite side joins in. The impression which one gains when one sees the hon. members opposite and observes their reaction to the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister, is that they are not interested in the furtherance of the living conditions of the underdeveloped peoples of South Africa. They are not interested in the improvement of the living conditions of the Coloureds. They do not want to agree with us that this is one of the most important aspects of the policy of the National Party, viz., the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds, and that this is a sine qua non for the proper development of their human dignity and their participation in the decision-taking function in South Africa as well. Their criticism which they express is not aimed at the manner or the way in which we are launching this upliftment programme. Their criticism is aimed at one aspect, viz. the question of franchise, the question of sovereignty, the question of representation. When the hon. the Prime Minister tells them what housing opportunities have been created, when he presents them with a picture of the houses which are being planned between now and 1978 for this underdeveloped population group, then there is silence. When we on this side of the House show them what investments have been made in this community through the Coloured Development Corporation, an investment which has increased from a half million rands in 1962 to R13 million in the present year, then we receive no reaction or recognition from that side of the House. But when we come to the question of sovereignty, when we come to the franchise, then that side of the House wakes up, then they want to join in the discussion, then they want to steal a march on us. One gets the feeling that these gentlemen are not interested in the problems of South Africa. They are only interested in the problems of the National Party and especially those aspects which we find are the most difficult to solve. With the others, it seems to me, they trust us completely. When it comes to the franchise, I want to say to the hon. gentlemen: The franchise is no panacea. One cannot line the slum dwellings of the Peninsula with ballot papers.

Hear, hear!

I also want to say here, on the basis of their reaction and my observance of their reaction, that I find among them elements which want to associate with those who hope that the National Party will fail in the implementation of its policy, who wish that the National Party will fail even in its policy of upliftment, who see nothing favourable for themselves in any success for the National Party in what it is doing for the elevation and upliftment of our underdeveloped peoples in South Africa. In this they see the possibility—and I am not saying it is the entire Opposition which thinks along these lines, but there are such elements among them—of associating themselves with those journalists in South Africa who want to use and incite the Black man against the National Party. Last Friday the hon. member for Fauresmith quoted passages from a leading article in The Star to us, in which this very idea was being propagated that the time has perhaps come for members of the Opposition, or the Opposition elements, to seek strength in the Black man in South Africa to overcome this Government. When we speak as Nationalists in this country, and create opportunities for the political emancipation of our underdeveloped peoples in South Africa as well, then the gentlemen opposite try to ridicule this. Surely they know that we passed an ordinance as long ago as 1963, in terms of which it is possible for the Coloured community to take over municipalities. They do know that we created this Coloured Persons Representative Council, but now they come here and say: “It’s got no meaningful powers.” Surely the hon. gentlemen know what is stated in the Act itself as far as this is concerned. In section 29 we find the provision that the council has the same powers of making laws in respect of any subject which falls within the scope of a matter referred to in section 17(6)(a) as is vested in Parliament. These are the words which are used in section 21, and what are these tasks of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council? They are finance, local government, education, social welfare and pensions, rural areas and other matters which the State President may designate to them from time to time. And that is not the end of the road. It is only the beginning. From this point onwards the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council must develop so that it can in fact give expression to the political aspirations of this Coloured community in South Africa. It is my feeling that in this debate, and in fact in the practice of politics in South Africa, the United Party and the other Opposition parties included in it, are in fact merely trying to steal a march on us. There is among them the simplistic standpoint—and now I am referring in particular to the Progressive Party which was dealt with very well by the hon. member for Rissik—that we in South Africa are simply 21 million individuals. So simple is it. They ignore the cultural differences and the ethnic ties of some of our people; they also ignore the potential political alliances of these various groups in South Africa, as if all of them are simply children in the forest who would argue rationally if one were to speak to them rationally. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? Listening to the hon. member for Bellville, the essence of his complaint seemed to be that this side of the House was not interested in the material well-being of the Coloured people, but only in their political rights. I wonder how long it will take him to learn that the measure of your material well-being is often measured by the extent of your political rights. When a Government can ignore you because you cannot prevent their getting into power or staying out of power, you very seldom get as much attention from them as you do when the opposite is the situation. I think there is one thing the Coloured people have noticed, and that is that since they have ceased to have representation in this House, they are no longer as important to the Government as they were before that time.

That is not true.

Hon. members opposite are inclined to measure this sort of thing by the amount of money being spent. In making an estimate of the situation here, what you have to have regard to is the extent of the goodwill you retain among those people, and if ever a Government has lost goodwill it is this Government in respect of the Cape Coloured people.

I now come to the hon. the Prime Minister and the replies he has given so far to this debate. In the course of those replies he made mention of the fact that the General Secretary of the United Party had given him certain information concerning the political rights of the rural Bantu under the United Party’s federal system. He suggested that the hon. Senator Horak, in the Other Place, had indicated to him that the urban Bantu, under our scheme, was to have a choice where he wanted his political representation. The hon. Senator spoke in English and the Senate Hansard of what he said reads as follows—

The hon. gentleman spoke in English and in the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister. In the translation of the Hansard into Afrikaans there was transposed “stedelike” for “plattelandse”. The Afrikaans Hansard reads—

What he said was “rural” and not “urban”. This is a mistranslation, just as defective as the hon. the Prime Minister’s memory in this regard.

Now you have left yourself a rod in pickle.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that I have left myself a rod in pickle, but may I say to him that he has completely misunderstood the situation, because as I indicated when I replied to him the first time, the urban Bantu will have their own legislative assembly, while the rural Bantu will have a choice whether they want to be classed with the urban Bantu or with the homeland Bantu.

And is it your argument that the urban Bantu will have no choice?

It is my argument that the urban Bantu who are permanently settled will have their own legislative assembly, because their interests, their way of life and the problems with which they have to deal, are very different from those of the Bantu in the rural areas.

And Senator Horak said they would have no choice?

Once they are permanently settled they will have no choice. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember that when it comes to permanence there are two factors. The one is the fact of residence and the other is the intention. You are not permanently settled if you intend to return to your homeland.

The hon. the Prime Minister has also so far failed entirely to deal with the questions put to him in respect of Blacks being able to be registered as workers under the Industrial Conciliation Act and thus have membership of trade unions. The position at the moment is that he has the worst of both worlds. Trade unions of which Blacks are members exist and are muchrooming all over the country. Hundreds of them are in existence as the hon. the Prime Minister knows. He knows that they are not registered in terms of the Act and that legally they have no bargaining power. Nevertheless they are seeking to bargain and are negotiating with the employers. The 64 000 dollar question is a perfectly simple one: Is he going to legislate to allow Blacks to be members of registered trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act, or is he going to ban or make illegal the present Black trade unions as unregistered bodies? I think that is the choice before him; because while they exist, they will seek to negotiate and to bargain. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I do not believe that he dare legislate to make those trade unions illegal, because the reaction in the outside world will be very serious indeed, and there will be a strong possibility, I fear, of a trade boycott and things of that sort. The only other thing he can do, if he will not accept our proposal to allow Blacks to be registered as employees in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act and thus have membership of trade unions, is to make it illegal for employers to negotiate with those Black trade unions. You will realize, Sir, that he will then make it illegal to negotiate through those channels for something like 80% of the labour force in South Africa. What worries me about all this is that he is prepared to accept negotiations with workers’ committees, but not with trade unions in which Blacks have membership. What is the difference? There is bargaining on the one side as well as on the other side. Why does he rule it out when it is a trade union, working in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, but ...

What happened to your three-tier system?

The hon. gentleman, as usual, is several months out of date. He is probably several years out of date. Honestly, if you look at the hon. gentleman, I think he looks years older than he actually is.

We are already in the situation where the Trades Union Council in Britain is wanting to make available something like £150 000 to organize trade unions for Blacks in South Africa. I do not believe that we want that sort of trade unionism in South Africa, but this sort of thing is going to happen increasingly, unless we move with the times and take action at the present time. What is happening now, is that the White unions are finding themselves negotiating for a smaller and smaller percentage of the labour force, because the percentage of Blacks in our labour force is growing all the time. I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that he must never forget the experience in the United States of America. There were White trade unions which would not accept Blacks. In due course the Blacks formed their own trade unions. What happened? In many industries they represented such a large majority of the workers that in time the White trade unions lost their ability to negotiate. They ceased to have any influence. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Minister have lost touch with what is happening here in South Africa at the present time. Why otherwise would a man like Wally Grobler, the secretary, not of Tucsa, but of the Konfederasie, ask for a full investigation into the system of collective bargaining for Blacks at the present time and, in fact, support Mr. Harry Oppenheimer in a call of that kind, were it not that they both felt that the present system was not working? All this comes at a time when there are rumours of further industrial action by these people which can have very disruptive effects on the industrial life of the country. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister must act now if he is to contain the situation which has developed.

The hon. the Prime Minister said further in his reply that in his consultations with homeland leaders he had not come across any of them who rejected the policy of separate development as envisaged by his Government.

I said the basic policy ...

The hon. the Prime Minister says the basic policy of separate development, and apparently the ultimate independence of the sovereign Black States. I take it that it is also the case as far as the allocation of land on the basis of the 1936 Act is concerned. I must confess that that is not my experience, and I do not think it is reflected in the Press reports on what these gentlemen say and think. The hon. the Prime Minister had read to him a statement made by two homeland leaders overseas wherein they described the Bantustan policy as a “discriminatory exercise doomed to failure”. There are others who have spoken on this issue. There was Chief Buthelezi of KwaZulu saying, “I believe South Africa is one country. The powerful Whites have decided it is composed of many nations. Our feelings for the moment seem irrelevant. We never asked for separate States, but they now have become some kind of yet unreal reality.” My experience with these people is that they are determined to retain a connection and to have their share in South Africa’s one unified economy. As far as they are concerned, whether independence is offered to them or not, they are not going to give up their rights and their demand for a share in that economy. How different the position would have been if the hon. the Prime Minister could have given us some idea of the measure of agreement between himself and these people. When we, as an Opposition, met some of them we were able to issue a statement for public consumption with the consent of everybody. Attention was given to particular disabilities of urban Africans and general agreement was reached in respect of various matters including their rights to permanent, freehold ownership, family integrity as of right and not by permit, rapid progress towards free and compulsory schooling, local business and industrial rights and urgent relief from the grave hardships caused by the present operation of the pass laws. There were other things on which there was agreement, which is an indication that goodwill and understanding could be developed between us. That seems to me to be lacking at the present time in the sort of negotiations which the hon. the Prime Minister is conducting on the basis of his present policy.

I say this, because we have the hon. the Prime Minister coming back to us again in respect of the Cape Coloured people. He speaks of the possibility of consultation leading to a statutory consultative committee. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has indicated, that committee is to be purely consultative. How does it differ from the consultations which are taking place at the present time? How is consensus to be achieved? What happens if there is no consensus? This takes me back 13 years to the debates I had in this House with the late Dr. Verwoerd, the then Prime Minister, when we first heard of this idea of two Parliaments in one State. I asked him then: “What happens if one wants to declare war and the other wants to sue for peace? Who will prevail?” The hon. the then Prime Minister indicated that it was the will of the White Parliament that would prevail. I presume that I shall get the same reply from the hon. the Prime Minister today.

Who will declare war under your policy?

The federal Parliament will in due course have those powers.

And before the “due course”?

Until that time, this Parliament will retain those powers. The hon. the Prime Minister is holding out nothing for the future. He is saying quite deliberately that this is going to be a consultative body and nothing more.

... just a passing phase.

So it is just a passing phase? I am glad I picked up that remark. A passing phase in which direction?

I said your policy is just a passing phase ... [Interjections.]

When one talks of this Parliament’s will prevailing, what happens to “gelyke buurskap”? What happens to the statement of the hon. member for Moorreesburg that it is contrary to their policy that there will be two parliaments in one State, one of which will always be subordinate to the other? Now what? I do not want to be too critical of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statutory consultative committee, but I do want to tell him that, if he accepts the principle of such a consultative committee for the Coloured people, on what possible basis can he refuse it to the Indians?

I have always said that, as far as the Indians are concerned, they will get the same treatment.

On what basis can he refuse it to a homeland which refuses independence, many millions of whose people are permanently settled in our urban areas?

That is totally different.

I am afraid I see no difference, because they are citizens of the one unitary state which the hon. the Prime Minister is governing from this Parliament. If he has given that power to the Coloureds and to the Indians, he will not find it possible to refuse it to a homeland government, the overwhelming majority of whose citizens are permanently settled in our urban areas. I refer to people who refuse to accept independence because they want to retain an interest in the future economy of South Africa. It is very interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that he foresees a convention of independent states in Southern Africa. In other words, he accepts the need for coordination in foreign affairs and, possibly, economic affairs, between those independent states. Does that need not exist at the present time? If it does exist at the present time, why should we not have a permanent, multiracial, advisory committee to which I have now on two occasions already drawn the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention in separate debates in this House? On what basis of principle can it be refused? The hon. the Prime Minister has a consultative committee for South West Africa. It is either a good thing or a bad thing to have consultation in a multi-racial committee. If it is good for South West Africa and for the United Nations Organization, why not for South Africa under these circumstances? The hon. gentleman is himself now moving in the direction of a statutory consultative committee for the Coloureds and probably also for the Indians, and probably also for certain homelands that will not take independence. Why not accept the principle now and establish a permanent advisory committee which is multi-racial and which will help us to achieve the team-work which is so necessary in the difficult times with which we are faced?

On the part of this Government we are faced with what I would call “cul-de-sac” thinking and a failure to learn the lessons of what is happening in the world around us. I have drawn the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to what happened in the Portuguese territories. What do we hear from South West Africa at the present time? We hear not from irresponsible politicians nor from propaganda organs, but from the Commissioner-General of Owambo that approximately 1 500 Ovambos have defected and gone across the border, and that it is expected that they are going to Zambia to receive training, possibly in terrorist activities. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember that I spoke of Gen. de Arriaga saying that you lose the war if you do not kill terrorists faster than your own people are deserting to the enemy. To balance out the 1 500 who have crossed the border, you will need quite a battle and quite a long operation, and the consequences for the Territory can be most disastrous. One cannot help asking oneself what the situation is. It seems to me that this Government is always ready to treat the symptoms of things that have gone wrong. They are always ready to take violent preventative or remedial action, but what is lacking is the constructive approach which is necessary to avoid this sort of situation developing. When I look at the situation in South-West Africa I cannot help asking myself: Where is the Government going? The hon. the Prime Minister said the most extraordinary thing during the course of his speech in this House on Friday. He said—

Isn’t that exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing with many of the Blacks in South Africa? He is taking way their rights to be South African citizens ... [Interjections.] ... independent homelands. “Jy moet nooit sy nasieskap wegneem nie”, says the honourable gentleman. Isn’t that exactly the mistake he is making and exactly one of the mistakes that has been made in other parts of the world?

Now, let us look at the situation in regard to South-West Africa and see how far we have got. Quite honestly I find myself in great difficulty over this, because the hon. gentleman and his party have made many concessions to the United Nations in respect of South-West Africa. They have accepted that it has an international status of its own; they have accepted the principle of self-determination and independence for the Territory; they have accepted that steps in that direction will be taken in co-operation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and in consultation with the people of South-West Africa; and they have accepted that the application of this principle will be taken having regard to the wishes of the population as a whole. The expectation is that it will take no longer than 10 years for the people of South-West Africa to reach the stage that they will be ready for self-determination. In the meantime the Territory and its separate ethnic groups are going to get experience in self-government. An advisory council is established with which the hon. the Prime Minister is working. This leaves the position anything but clear and it is this lack of clarity in respect of South-West Africa that always leaves it such a prey to insecurity. Just at present, in view of the ferment of world idea, the sort of situation that is developing is more unenviable than usual. It is my belief that the South-West African people could not have wished upon themselves a more unfortunate Government than the present to manage the situation.

Is that why they voted for you?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks whether that was why they voted for me. You know, Sir, after the hon. the Prime Minister had made his speeches in the election in South-West Africa I believe many people were misled, many others did not know what the situation was and I believe that nothing could be more unfortunate than the fact that this Government is running the situation at the moment. Let me tell you why.

Look at the sort of situation that has developed now with the Security Council where countries like Australia, France and the Unite States of America are saying about our Government that they are supporting this resolution because of their disappointment and, frustration at South Africa’s ambiguity. They are saying that they are supporting this resolution because of its continuous use of pious expressions of belief, self-determination and independence without giving any proof of intention of carrying out those wishes.

Do you agree with it?

The hon. gentleman asks whether I agree with it. I am faced with the situation that that is their judgment of what this Government has been doing. That is the effect they have had on the outside world. What is more, they are worried about the situation in Owambo. If they are worried about the situation in Owambo how are they going to be feeling now when 1 500 people have gone across the border on the admission of their own Commissioner-General to receive training to come back and oppose this Government and its policy? Let me reiterate. When people start leaving the territory for those purposes then you are faced with an extremely delicate developing situation. The tragedy is that the hon. the Prime Minister does so much that is contradictory. He benignly suggests bringing into being a multi-racial council for South-West Africa, but so far we can get no acceptance of such a principle for the Republic, unless he is going to change his mind today. The Prime Minister went out of his way to emphasize that contradiction in a recent no-confidence debate. Sir, I raised this matter once before and he refused to give an answer. His attitude was: “We see South Africa as a multi-national and not a multi-racial country.” Surely, Sir, this means that he is taking up contradictory attitudes in South-West Africa and in the Republic; he is taking up one shop-window attitude in South-West Africa and a completely different one when he speaks to his own voters in the Republic. Then, Sir, the hon. gentleman goes to South-West Africa and he says that self-determination for South-West Africa will be determined with due regard to the wishes of the Territory as a whole, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said before the United Nations. But, Sir, when he gets before the voters he creates the impression that each group will have the right to self-determination, exercised apart and separately from the other groups in South-West Africa. Sir, which one is correct? How is it going to be applied, especially in respect of those groups in the southern part of South-West Africa? Then, Sir, we had one statement by the hon. gentleman that I found difficult to explain. He went to Windhoek—and I quote—“daar het hy die kiesers gevra om self ses Volksraadslede na die Volksraad te stuur, maar toe het hy gesê die Wetgewende Vergadering van Suidwes sal die lot van die Blankes van Suidwes beslis.” The Legislative Assembly of South-West is going to decide the future of the Whites in South-West—not this Parliament, which is sovereign, but the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa. Where are we getting to, Mr. Chairman? What is the position in respect of that Assembly? Sir, there are so many other things which are contradictory, and my difficulty about all this is the great tragedy that is being played out. The tragedy is that I believe that South-West Africa could be used as an asset in international affairs by this Government. If it were properly handled, it could become an asset which would find us friends throughout the world and give South Africa that good name which it had in the past. At the present moment, Sir, it is one of the biggest problems with which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to deal, but if it were handled properly it could become an asset which would stand us in good stead amongst the nations of the Western world. Sir, we have so often indicated to hon. members opposite what we believed should be done and what we believed were the essential principles which should be observed. But time is getting short, Mr. Chairman. Our own friends are getting impatient with us, and it seems to me that this Government is afraid to take action in respect of South-West Africa because it fears that South-West Africa will be used by our enemies who want to get at the policies of this Government in South Africa, and therefore instead of steps being taken for development, instead of advancement, you hear more and more of repressive measures being applied and difficulties being placed in the way of those, particularly in Owambo, who want to conduct normal political activities, contrary to the undertaking given by the hon. the Prime Minister. Sir, more and more we are landing in the position where there is no proper use being made of what could be an international asset. Sir, the fundamental principles are that the integrity of the Territory as a whole will have to be retained because international opinion is not going to allow it to be cut up into small pieces. Secondly, the only economically viable groups are the Ovambo and the Whites in South-West Africa; the other groups are small; they are separated geographically all over the Territory, and there seems to be no economic future for them as separate groups. The Coloured and the Baster groups are also probably politically without any viability. Where the hon. the Prime Minister has acknowledged the right to self-determination on the basis of the whole Territory, then I believe the way he is doing things at the moment is evading the issue, because if you are going to allow self-determination on the basis of the Territory as a whole, one of two things is going to happen—either the whole Territory is going to be dominated by the Ovambo group because of its numbers, or else the Prime Minister is going to have to opt for a federation in South-West Africa which will allow for free expression of opinion by the various ethnic groups. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition started by referring to what I had said on Friday about what the hon. Senator Horak had said in the Other Place. The hon. the Leader was obviously embarrassed by that, if it is true.

It was an incorrect interpretation.

Now, in an attempt to put matters straight, he says it is an incorrect interpretation.

It is an incorrect translation.

The hon. the Leader is quite wrong, as usual, and I told the hon. the Leader that by using that argument he was leaving himself a rod in pickle, because, as usual, the hon. the Leader only read up to a full-stop and then he stopped. If the hon. the Leader had read on, he would have saved himself and the hon. Senator Horak a great deal of embarrassment in this regard, because the hon. Senator Horak had said exactly what I maintained here on Friday.

He denies it.

But it is not a question of his denying it; it is a question of what is stated in Hansard.

Yes, but the English Hansard ...

Just exercise a little bit of patience. The hon. the Leader did not read far enough. He stopped reading too soon, because after the hon. Senator Horak had advanced his argument, I had another turn to speak, and I now want to read to the hon. the Leader from col. 4209, i.e. the Afrikaans, of 12 June 1973. If the hon. the Leader has found it, I shall continue. A few lines down from the top of the column I said this—

Take note, his choice is now based on the tribal ties. Then I went on to say—

Senator Horak: Ja.

Is that clear now? But let us go further, because this is not the whole picture yet—

He has a choice as to where he wants to be included, i.e. with the homelands or not.

Die Eerste Minister: Die stedelike en die plaas-Bantoe het ’n keuse of hy ingeskakel wil wees by die tuislande al dan nie. Die argument teen ons was dan, dit is onsin om hom daardie reg te gee, maar nou kom hy en hy sê as hy die reg wil hê, dan kan hy dit kry.

Senator Horak: U gee hom geen keuse nie. Dit is of die een òf niks nie.

Where is the rod that was left in pickle?

The rod left in pickle is to be found in the fact that Senator Horak stated in precise terms that the policy of the United Party—and this is what I also said on Friday—was that the urban Bantu could either integrate with the homelands or take their seats in that so-called federal parliament of the hon. member. That is the whole position which the hon. member now wants to undo here.

I have now been listening to hon. members for heaven knows how long, not only during the discussion of my Vote, but also during other debates. One wants to make many allowances for the conduct of hon. members opposite, but they should not allow it to go too far. What is the primary difficulty with hon. members opposite? We had this today in the speech made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He started his speech by talking about his frustration. This is true and we cannot argue it away, but in respect of the hon. member there is absolutely nothing which I can do about it. However, he is not the only person who is talking about it.

But you cannot furnish the answers.

Out of the mouth of very babes and children one hears the truth more often. On 16 August 1974 (Hansard, col. 941) the hon. member for Yeoville said ...

I am glad you read my Hansard.

This is what the hon. member said—

† want to ask hon. members opposite: Who are they to say that they are talking on behalf of the English-speaking in South Africa? More particularly I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Who is he to say to me that he has the sole and exclusive right to talk on behalf of the English-speaking people in South Africa?

Fourteen thousand voters.

I say that if the hon. member gets up and talks in this House, he has every right to talk on behalf of the Saps whom he represents in this House, just as I have every right to talk on behalf of the Nats whom I represent in this House. However, just as I, as a political leader who occupies this position, cannot and dare not say that I have the exclusive right to speak on behalf of Afrikaans-speaking people in this House, in the same sense neither the hon. member nor any other hon. member on that side can allocate to himself the right to say that he speaks on behalf of English speakers.

It is a dramatic change of the Nationalist Party’s point of view.

It is not a question of “dramatic change” at all. My standpoint ever since I have been a member of this House, and the standpoint also of the members of my party, is that we speak on behalf of Nationalists, Afrikaans and English speakers. I make bold to say that English speakers have not only voted for the National Party in the past; they voted for the National Party in increasing numbers in the 1966 general election. It is true that fewer of those who voted for us in 1966 voted for us in 1970, but this is understandable. But I make bold to say that a greater percentage of English speakers voted for the National Party in 1974 than voted for the National Party in 1966. There are ever so many members who sit on this side of the House who can vouch for the fact that they would not have been here if it had not been for the fact that English-speaking voters had voted them in. That is a fact. But of course the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not here because of the English-speaking vote, he is here by virtue of the Van der Westhuizen vote. However, be that as it may, I candidly thought, and this is the only reason why I refer to it, that we are far away from the old standpoint of the Opposition that it is their sole and exclusive right, when it comes to political matters, to talk on behalf of English speakers in South Africa. I want to say that they have no right whatsoever to do so and, moreover, I do hope that while we may differ and take different sides, we must for heaven’s sake not use the argument that the hon. member for Yeoville has used that that party is the party that represents English-speakers in this House.

I did not use those words.

The hon. member is welcome to go and read his own Hansard. Now I want to go further. It is a dangerous argument to say, when one’s party loses one election after the other, that one is frustrated because one is not sitting in the driver’s seat. Sir, the essence of party politics is, after all, that the party which wins forms the Government of the country, and that in practice it is its policy which is applied in that country.

And if the policy is wrong?

That is precisely what I want to warn against now. Here we now have a new view of democracy: As a democrat one goes to the voters and shows them one’s policy, and the voters make their choice. Then one enters the House of Assembly and takes the liberty, as the hon. member for Yeoville is doing, of saying that one does not care what the voters said, it is wrong, and that the Government should implement one’s policy. Surely this is too ridiculous for words. Frankly, I am amazed. Let me tell the hon. member for Yeoville that this is not even the kind of argument the hon. member for Hillbrow would have used. He would not have advanced that kind of argument in this House. Whether or not hon. members opposite like it, the voters have given their verdict. It is no use slating them, as my hon. friend the member for Griqualand East did when he said: “They were foolish to do it.” [Interjections.] Hon. members will gain nothing by doing that. Least of all will it help them towards sitting on this side of the House. After all, this is where they want to be, or do they not want to be here?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout opened this debate this afternoon. If I am doing him an injustice, I am sorry, but I could not help gaining the impression that it was with a great deal of satisfaction that the hon. member told the House about the bus incident, an incident which is being regretted by all, more specifically by the Department of Foreign Affairs. But, what are the facts? The facts of the matter are that we have now had a Malawian ambassador for almost six years. One was mindful of the fact that incidents could occur, and for six years the greatest measure of goodwill prevailed on the part of Malawi as well on that of my hon. friend here and his department. Literally hundreds of incidents could have taken place in those six years. However, only one minor incident did take place, and this the hon. member has now blazed abroad here. Should the hon. member not rather have said, not for the sake of my hon. friend here, not for the sake of this side of the House or anybody else, but for the sake of his own fatherland, and at least for the sake of his self-respect as well: “Look, for six years we have had no incidents. That shows what can be done, and now we are very sorry that this one incident did take place. I hope it will not happen again.” I would not have taken that amiss of the hon. member. That would have been the correct thing to say. But, surely, that is not the spirit in which the hon. member came here. The hon. member did not even care a fig for his own country, let alone this side of the House. The hon. member simply blazed it abroad, hoping .. .

It was in all the newspapers.

Yes, Sir, it was in all the newspapers. But because it was in all the newspapers, does the hon. member have to treat his fatherland the way he did here this afternoon?

Don’t hide behind your fatherland. What is the Government going to do? This is prejudicing my country.

I shall deal with that. I just want to tell the hon. member that, in spite of his and other people’s agitation in this regard, my hon. friend here will continue to handle the situation as considerately as he has been doing, and will see to it that that kind of incident is restricted to a minimum.

You are an agitator.

Order! Did the hon. member say the Prime Minister was an agitator?

Mr. Chairman, he told me I was an agitator.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

Well, I must, but may I ask you to ask the hon. the Prime Minister too ...

The Prime Minister did not say that.

He accused me of practising agitation in Parliament.

I listened very carefully. Does the hon. member want to argue with the Chair?

No, Sir. May I ask you whether it is in order for the hon. the Prime Minister to say something of that nature?

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

The hon. member cannot break away from this kind of rubbish which his actions bring upon all of us.

It is your laws which do this, not my actions. Put them right!

The hon. member referred to the American incident. If the hon. member knows anything, he ought to know that this is a matter which has been cleared up fully between the two departments concerned, and because it has been cleared up fully, it is once again a case where I was astonished by the aggressive spirit displayed by him here. This shows the state of mind in which he came to this House. Surely the hon. member is just as aware as I am that incidents of this kind also take place in the United States itself. Surely the hon. member is aware that an African leader—it is not relevant that his name be mentioned here—said the other day that he had been thrown out of a restaurant in the United States. This is what happens to the head of an African state. After all, incidents of this nature will take place, and surely the hon. member is no “babe in the woods” as far as this kind of thing is concerned. Surely he is aware that it is possible for one to telephone an hotel in the United States and to say that one comes from Africa, only to be told that there is no accommodation. Then one walks around the corner and asks whether they have accommodation. The moment they see what one looks like, one immediately finds accommodation.

The difference is it does not happen there in consequence of laws passed by that Government!

What is more, the hon. member knows, surely, that this legislation which he helped to make ...

I do not know.

It does not surprise me that the hon. member does not know. Surely the hon. member knows that he helped in 1950 to make an Act in terms of which certain provisions shall not be applicable to diplomats, their children and their staff.

I was not here in 1950.

I was under the impression that the hon. member had become a member here at an earlier stage.

But I shall help you; only your date is wrong.

That may be so, but when the hon. member was a Nationalist he did in any case ride on the back of that legislation as well as the other legislation which he helped to make before I became a member of this House and which he is condemning now.

No, that is wrong.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to various aspects and came back again, inter alia, to what he called his “plea for a multi-racial consultative committee”. I believe that I told the hon. member on a previous occasion that I saw no merit in that. If I did not spell it out to him, I want to tell the hon. the Leader now that I do indeed see no merit in it. The moment I say this to him, he comes back with the argument as to why we have a body such as the one for South-West Africa. This is so for the simple reason—to the best of my knowledge I have also explained this before—that the case of South-West Africa differs totally from that of the Republic. Apart from the fact that South-West Africa occupies a certain “position”, we may as well call it that, in the international world—which is what the International Court cases, and so on, were concerned with—the reproach was levelled at us, in season and out, that we, i.e. the South African Government, were keeping the peoples of South-West Africa apart; in other words, that we were responsible for there being various peoples in South-West Africa. We who live in this part of the world know that this is an absurd argument, because they had various peoples there even before the German Occupation; there were various peoples under all governments in South-West Africa. In other words, it was not our fault, but that reproach is nevertheless being levelled against us at U.N., in season and out. There is a second reproach which is being levelled against us in the emotional atmosphere of U.N., namely that we are keeping the various peoples apart, that we do not even want to allow the various peoples to meet in order to discuss common problems with one another. This is the reproach: “Your argument that they fought one another in the past and would have annihilated one another if it had not been for the intervention of the White man does not hold any water, because you are not giving these people an opportunity to come together; you are not giving them an opportunity to talk to one another.” This is the reproach that has been levelled against us. In order to meet that reproach, certain steps were taken. I thought there would be appreciation for these steps, even from hon. members opposite, because what is involved here is not the advantage this side of the House may derive from the situation; to all of us the matter involved here is how we may safeguard South Africa against attacks and reproaches. In order to meet that argument, I told Dr. Escher: “Very well, if that is your reproach, then I am prepared to establish such a consultative committee there so that the people may get to know one another and come together.” This has the additional object of creating here for these various peoples—and they are not my creation; they have always been there—who have common interests, an opportunity for discussing those common interests with one another. After all, the situation prevailing there is a completely different one. In so far as there is an analogy, the Coloured situation, with which we have already dealt, is more analogous than the other case the hon. member has in mind, although that is not quite the case either.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further today by reproaching me for what I had said about the role of the Legislative Assembly. I did not mince matters in speaking to the people of South-West Africa. I honestly did not do what the hon. the Leader and Mr. Niehaus had done. I took the people into my confidence and spoke to them in a very direct manner. It is perfectly true that I took up this standpoint, not only towards the people of South-West but also towards Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher, and I have often taken up this standpoint in public as well, namely that it is not U.N. or the South-African Government that will decide the fate of South-West, but the people of South-West itself. This is not only moral and common sense, but in saying in that regard that the peoples of South-West will decide their own future, I am also echoing the sentiments expressed in the charter of U.N. The charter of U.N. refers to peoples, to peoples who have the right to decide their fortunes. Now, it is true that in the terminology of U.N. they do not like our homelands. When one refers to them, it is like holding up a red rag to a bull. Perhaps we can come back to this at a later stage. Have hon. members, and especially the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, not read the Escher document? In the Escher document mention is made of “regions” and recognition is given to the various “regions” which exist in South-West Africa. This has always been my standpoint. I now want to speak very frankly and openly about this matter, once and for all. Why did I say the future of South-West Africa “as far as the Whites are concerned”? They do not decide the future of all the people. They can only decide their own future, just as the Owambo can decide their future and the Okavango their future and the other peoples theirs.

Can they do so now?

But, I am dealing with the argument at the moment! Suppose, as far as the Whites are concerned, they should take the decision tomorrow and say: “We no longer want any representation in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.” Are we to force them into this Parliament? Suppose the Legislative Assembly—that is why it is so important, for it is after all the mouthpiece of the Whites—should take up a certain standpoint tomorrow and it were clear to me and to the Leader of the Opposition that it was speaking on behalf of all the Whites, would we contradict it? Surely we would not. Why is the hon. member suddenly quarrelling about it now? The White voters of South-West Africa accept that standpoint. They also accept their responsibility in this regard. Furthermore, they accept that as a population group they are as entitled to determine their future as is any other population group in South-West Africa. On that standpoint, namely that of various peoples, on which we found a workable agreement with Dr. Escher, I am prepared to proceed and to deliberate with anybody on the future of South-West Africa.

The hon. the Leader referred to the people who had left Owambo. It is a pity that young people were tempted into leaving Owambo. That they were tempted is clear, even at this early stage. The young people were given the impression that South-West would be taken over by U.N. in the very immediate future, and that a certain Mr. McBride had been charged with creating machinery which would take care of the government of Owambo after the take-over. It is for that purpose that he ostensibly needs people now whom he will train in an institute or whatever in Lusaka in order to control and to administer South-West then. These people will arrive there and find out that they are under no circumstances going to be trained in that regard. Provision will perhaps be made for individuals, in order to keep up the bluff, to show the world that something of that nature is under way. But just as was the case with so many other people who left the country—and one finds this a great pity—these young people will bitterly regret their having done this, for, please note—and this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must understand—they did not leave in order to receive training as terrorists or whatever; they left under the false pretence that they were going to the universities and that they were going to be trained to be the future staff of the independent Namibia when U.N. takes over there. I want to take this opportunity, Sir, to tell all the people of South-West Africa once again that in spite of all these events, which one may not simply brush aside without second thoughts—and this the Government has never done—but which one must regard in a serious light, there is absolutely no cause for panic in any respect; and what applies to South-West Africa also applies to the argument advanced by the hon. members opposite, namely that the situation under this Government is such that people are leaving the country. Sir, in the first place I do not know what one gains by advancing that argument, but, in the second place, that argument is not true, and I am obliged, Sir, just to quote you the following (translation)—

This is the official standpoint in that regard. Sir, one will always have cowards on the run.

Does that refer to Owambo only?

No, these are the Republican figures in respect of immigrants. Sir, I say that one will always have cowards who will run; one found this after Sharpeville. How many of them ran then; how many of them sold their properties for a mere song at the time because we were experiencing problems here? How many of them regretted it and how many returned to South Africa with their tails between their legs? Sir, one can reproach me with anything, but one should not reproach me with the conduct of a coward and then blame the National Party for it.

Sir, because his party has failed miserably in South-West Africa, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that I deceived the people. Sir, surely he went and stated his policy there; after all, he is just as human as any other person. He has, to tell the truth, two newspapers in South-West, and surely these could and did convey his policy to everybody living there. Why did he nevertheless fail so miserably? For the simple reason that he had a policy which was not acceptable to the voters of South-West Africa. To tell the truth, he has a policy which is not even acceptable to all the members in his party. He has a policy on which unanimity has not yet been reached in his party at the moment. And the hon. the Leader cannot brush this aside by saying that these are personality clashes. What is happening in his party is not personality clashes; it is cardinal aspects of policy which are causing division. This is the type of thing with which he also played this afternoon, this question whether the White Parliament is going to remain or whether it is not going to remain, the Parliament which one group of his party says will always be there and which another group says is a passing phase which will simply disappear tomorrow or the day after. After all, we know that when he talks to his people he tells them that his party’s policy is as follows [translation]—

Surely he knows what is being said by the people who want to retain Parliament; the voters of South Africa will never agree to that thing. What bluffing game is he playing? I appreciate, Sir, the dilemma of the policy of the National Party. I appreciated this in 1968, and I have been dealing with it all these years. It is true. Now, I came to this House and stated this in the motion of no confidence, and this is still to be discussed with me by the Coloured leaders. I said that one way of escaping from that dilemma was that this liaison machinery which exists at the moment should have the potential to develop into a statutory consultative committee, and I honestly believe that if there is goodwill, it can develop in that way.

How is that going to help?

I shall come to that point. I am dealing with the hon. member for Wynberg first. Now, the hon. member put a very long list of questions to me. Then I thought that, if I said here in this House that a certain area had the potential of developing into a large city, it would be tantamount to the hon. member asking me by whom the foundation-stone of that city hall would be laid. After all, this is the same type of argument. I did refer here to an organism which has the potential to develop. Some of the questions I can answer. If the hon. member asks me who will serve on it, my reply will be that the Coloureds will decide who will serve on it, just as they decided about it in the past; and in the past it was not the way hon. members opposite said it was. I hope I am not doing them an injustice, especially the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who said this afternoon that I had only deliberated with the executive committee, because this is not the case. I had talks with the leaders of all the parties which wanted to take part in them jointly, and we had talks with the independents, the few that were there, because they had accepted the invitation extended by the chairman of the executive. And if the Labour Party had been prepared to take part in those talks, they would also have been round that table. But if the hon. member for Wynberg should ask me now whether the Opposition would be represented on it, my answer would be no, for the simple reason that it is this legislature which is deliberating with the Coloureds in respect of that ground which is common to both of them. Under those circumstances, Sir, it is absolutely unnecessary that one should also involve all the various political parties in South Africa in the matter, because it has a specific purpose, namely administrative and legislative action as far as that common ground is concerned. After all, it is the Government of any country which has that mandate to take legislative and administrative action.

Did you not promise liaison with Parliament?

Yes, Sir, because this Government is sitting in this Parliament and because it is this Government which comes to Parliament with legislation. After all, the whole matter is one of trying to obtain consensus with those people on those things.

And if you cannot reach consensus? Where does the sovereignty lie then?

Sir, if one does not reach consensus, then the status quo stands—that is so in any case. That is so in any event.

In other words, the Coloureds will not have their own sovereignty?

They will be able to acquire their sovereignty in that way. At the moment they have nothing, Sir, and under those hon. members they had even less. I now put this to hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Wynberg was once again guilty of referring to the age-old right which we had taken away from the Coloureds. Sir, I put this to the hon. member, and to members opposite who argue along those lines: Go and ask any Coloured leader whether he wants that position to be reinstated, whether he wants to bring back that age-old right, of which the hon. member for Wynberg has now been boasting. I am not aware of one single Coloured leader who wants to revert to that position, where a handful of male Coloureds in the Cape are to reach a privileged position above that of other Coloureds, namely to elect White people to sit in this Parliament. They have never had the right to sit here, not under those hon. members, nor under this side of the House. What is more, also under the new policy of those hon. members they will not have the right to sit in this Parliament. Time and again the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all of them said that as far as this aspect of the matter was concerned, this Parliament was the Parliament of the Whites which would remain as it was—that is to say, unless they have once again changed their minds in that regard now.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Is your problem not that in terms of current Nationalist policy consensus on this statutory body is unlikely on those matters which are of importance? Is the problem not that consensus is unlikely to be achieved in terms of National Party policy?

Sir, the hon. member asks me these things when we have not even started with the thing yet. As yet I am only holding out the prospect that if the goodwill is present, we can set to work that way, and then the hon. member immediately comes along and says: But you will not achieve consensus. On what grounds does he say that?

Because you want to remain in charge.

On what grounds does the hon. member say that one will not achieve consensus? Why not leave this to those people themselves? After all, it is they who have to say whether or not consensus is going to achieve.

Your policy allows no room for it.

Now we have the answer that my party does not allow any room for it. Surely on previous occasions I repeatedly told the hon. member that it was those hon. members who were hide-bound. All changes for the better that have been effected here in South Africa, have been effected by the National Party Government and by the National Party. Surely all these things that have happened to the advantage of the Coloureds in recent times, have happened with the aid of this party. But one does not achieve anything, surely by arguing, as the hon. member does, that we, and I wrote down his words, “achieved absolutely nothing at all”. No, surely the hon. member does not speak knowledgeably when he says that, and normally he is a person who does speak knowledgeably. We have, after all, mentioned to him the things that happened. He need not only go to Mr. Tom Swartz and his people to ask them. He may even go to unbiased members of the Labour Party, who can tell him what advantages have accrued to the Coloureds from this. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said in this House that certain visible advantages had accrued to the Coloureds from this. He does not agree with everything we do, but he does at least have appreciation for the advantages that have accrued from it. But now I want to go further. Surely we know about the days when there were four representatives of the Coloureds in this House. In those days the affairs of the Coloureds received little or no attention at all. The argument advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely that now that these representatives were no longer here the Coloureds no longer received any attention, is no argument at all. They are receiving much more attention now than they ever did before, and they now have much more scope for bringing their grievances and their problems directly to the notice of the authorities than they ever had before. I believe that when my colleague’s Vote comes up for discussion, he will be able to mention numerous examples of what has happened to the advantage of the Coloureds in recent years, as a very result of this new dispensation. Once again it is a question of hon. members opposite having lost the election but nevertheless wanting their policy to be implemented by this side of the House. Now they are angry with us for having put a policy to the voters and for the fact that that policy was accepted by the voters. That policy will be implemented by us in practice, and whether or not hon. members are frustrated because of it and whether or not they agree with it, does not matter at all.

The hon. member for Sea Point put certain questions to me. He asked, in the first place, whether a stop could not be put to all the removals of Coloureds until the backlog in housing had been made up. The basic policy of the department is to try to make up the backlog to the best of its ability. The department does not move people unnecessarily, but surely one cannot make this a law of the Medes and Persians. One often finds that where the people are living at present, they are living under far worse slum conditions than is the case with other people who do not have permanent housing at the moment. After all, it would be foolish of the department to say that they may as well suffocate where they are at the moment, that it is not going to help them now, and that it is not going to move them to decent accommodation. The fact of the matter is that the Coloureds have received better housing under this Government than was the case under previous Governments. I do not have the slightest doubt about that, nor do I think that the hon. member is quarrelling with me in this regard. The hon. member asked me, and I want to give him an answer to this question, whether the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council would be a full elected body. This matter has already been settled. The election after the next election will be a fully elected one. Then the hon. member also asked me to give him the assurance now that “no rejected candidate will be appointed”. With the best will in the world I cannot commit the Minister who has to make those nominations. It would be foolish to do that. Why should a person be excluded for that reason? Suppose he is a very good man and he happened to lose his seat ...

Like Cadman!

... why should I push him aside? But, what is more, Sir, let us make an analogy. Those hon. members fought themselves to a standstill about a common candidate for the Senate. Then they took a losing candidate, and today they are very happy. They say the one half belongs to them and the other half to the United Party.

Now I come to the assurance he asked me in regard to the chairman. That matter was settled a long time ago. Not for one single moment do I want to say that this will always be the case, but in the light of the financial matters which that person must handle, we stipulated that he was to be a designated man.

Then the hon. member made quite a fuss—believe it or not, this member of all members!—about my having to give the assurance that we would not interfere in the politics of the Coloureds. Just imagine, Sir, I could understand that if the hon. members sitting here before me, the official Opposition, told me that we should not do it. But that that party should tell me this, after everything they have done, and with the record of interference in Coloured and Black politics in South Africa built up by them since their party came into existence!

Do you approve of it?

No, I disapprove of your way of acting. I disapprove of it most strongly. I think the hon. member made a mistake, and I think he should rise here and say that he will never do it again. Then I shall be satisfied. But I want to state plainly that officials have very strict instructions not to concern themselves with the politics of those people. I do not approve of that. Nor do I believe that this is being done. That there has to be liaison, is true. Let me say this to hon. members—I know about this because I was Minister of Justice at the time: Do you know, Sir, that there are leaders of Black peoples alive today who would not have been alive if it had not been for the action taken by the Security Police? This is a fact. This is not something which one talks about all day, but surely one knows this happened. I do find it interesting that the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party does not feel concerned about the other parties in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council; he only feels concerned about one particular political party. I find this terribly interesting. I do not have one single reason to believe that there is any truth in the stories that officials of my department, or of other departments, are supposedly interfering in this regard. I investigated this matter in so far as it was possible for me to do so. I want to repeat this. If the hon. member is asking me in public to give an assurance in that regard, I say that I do not approve of that kind of conduct, no matter by whom. If this did perhaps happen in the past, a stop should be put to it. By saying that, I am by no means trying to say that this did happen, a conclusion that could perhaps be drawn from this. I believe that I have now, for the time being, replied to most of the arguments raised here this afternoon.

Trade unions.

Yes, hon. members want me to reply to that again. All I want to tell them in that regard—the Vote of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour will be discussed one of these days—is that I still hold the same view which they held with me when the motion by the hon. member for Houghton was discussed in this House. At the time we understood one another very well, and for the same reasons which they and we advanced at the time as to why we were adhering to that view, we still adhere to it today. With all due respect, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he should not, like the fox that lost its tail, demand that I, too, should lose mine just because it lost its tail. After all, the onus is on him.

That has not changed the labour situation in any respect.

I say that I still adhere to the same view to which the hon. member for Durban Point emphatically adhered at the time, and at that stage circumstances were exactly the same as they are now. The circumstances have not changed; it is hon. members opposite who have changed. Let me tell hon. members now that one has to take cognizance of changed circumstances, but, upon my word, surely a political party is not like a weather-cock which turns with every breeze! After all, a political party must be able to take up an attitude. What did we have from hon. members opposite? In respect of every concession they want us to make, they do not argue that it is good and right that concessions be made, but in respect of every possible situation they say that there is pressure and that it should be done for that reason, or that circumstances have changed and that it should be done for that reason. They do not advance arguments as to whether something is good or right; it is continually a question of pressure, pressure and pressure once again.

What about your sports policy?

The hon. member has asked me about my sports policy. After all, hon. members heard what I said in making the original announcement in this House. At the time I said that I had considered the matter fully, and that it was good and right that it should be done that way. I did not, as hon. members are doing now, start whining and say that the world was bringing pressure to bear on me and that I was being forced to make these changes. My party and I made those changes because we could justify it, on principle, that those changes had to be effected.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to deal in specific terms with the allegations made by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi in the KwaZulu Legislative Council? One of the Prime Minister’s departments was specifically and directly concerned with the formation of the Chaka Spear Party.

But, surely, I have just told the hon. member that I find no substance whatever in any allegation in that regard. I do not have the slightest cause to accept that the unreliable person—I could elaborate on this at great length, but that is not necessary for my argument—who made the allegations in this regard should be believed; the more so because the position of a certain Mr. Dladla is interwoven here and was involved. I have no intention whatever of concerning myself with the internal politics of the Zulu in this or in any other way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister has once again given no answer in respect of the question of trade unions. He said that his view remained the same as before. Surely, since it has been expressed, the whole situation in South Africa has changed. The hon. gentleman knows that Black unions are springing up like mushrooms all over the country and he knows that they are playing a bigger and bigger part ...

Dr. Vosloo, the hon. member for Brentwood, has dealt with the whole matter.

The hon. gentleman says Dr. Vosloo dealt with it, but he is not the Prime Minister. He has not given us the reasons ...

I stand by his reply.

As far as I am concerned, his reply also is unsatisfactory. I do not believe the hon. gentleman is making the adaptations that are necessary in respect of the changes which have taken place in our time. I believe he is allowing a very dangerous situation to develop amongst the Black labour force in South Africa. I have warned him that there are rumours of industrial unrest being stimulated—I will not say artificially stimulated—in certain areas which can lead to a great deal of strife, and I believe that this is a matter which is worthy of the hon. gentleman’s attention. He tells us that a political party must be able to take a line, stand by it and never give way in the event of pressure.

No, I did not say that either. I said take cognizance of it, but one should never allow oneself to be swayed by every breeze.

Yes, one should not allow myself to be swayed or to yield to every pressure. If that is the case, how did the hon. gentleman act in regard to the Loskop Dam sport policy? Why did he accede to the request for an advisory council for South-West Africa? What did the late Dr. the hon. Verwoerd do in connection with the independence of the separate Bantu states? He said that he had done that because of the pressure exerted by the outside world. A sensible Government responds to the changes within the country and to the pressure exerted from outside.

†The hon. the Prime Minister dealt once again with the question of the possible permanent statutory consultative committee for the Coloured people in South Africa. He was asked what the position would be if consensus was not reached. He told us that the status quo would then remain. What would that status quo be? Supposing you have to decide on some very urgent matters, such as whether there is to be war or peace, then the status quo cannot remain and decisions must be taken. The hon. the Prime Minister will take such decisions in this Parliament, regardless of what the Coloured people think. He will give them no power and no rights at all in respect of that permanent consultative committee. The hon. gentleman says that, as far as he is concerned, “die Kleurlinge sal hul eie soewereiniteit kry”. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Is that what he said?

Yes, within the context of the argument we conducted.

They will have their own sovereignty, then, within the context of the argument we conducted. In other words, they will have a measure of sovereignty over their own people.

They will have full sovereignty over their own people.

Will they be able to decide whether their own people should go to war or keep the peace?

I shall reply to that.

Will they be able to decide? What say are they going to have in foreign affairs if they have full sovereignty over their own people? Either they will cease to be citizens of the State or there must be some joint body which has representation and can speak for this Parliament and the Coloured Parliament, or you are going to have one Parliament subordinate to the other for all time. If that is what is held out for the Coloured people in the future, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to find more and more frustration, more and more unhappiness and less and less co-operation in respect of these people.

This worries me so because it seems to me that the hon. the Prime Minister is missing an opportunity. Once again he has told us that, as far as a multi-racial consultative committee is concerned, the position is different from that of South-West Africa. I accept that it is different, but what possible argument has he advanced to say that it will not be effective and not be a useful addition here in South Africa at the present time? The hon. the Prime Minister said: “Ek sien nie deug daarin nie” and “die posisie is anders as in Suid-wes-Afrika.” Well, Sir, as far as I am concerned the hon. gentleman is going to create a permanent statutory committee, possibly for the Coloureds, possibly for the Indians and possibly for a homeland government that does not have independence.

No.

The hon. the Prime Minister says “no”. I say he will be forced to. He is going to have to consult with all these various bodies and nowhere is he going to get the co-ordination he would get from one body in which all the various races were represented. This is especially so in a time like the present when there are pressures on us from outside.

The hon. the Prime Minister did not deal at all with the question of whether he should not move in a federal direction in respect of South-West Africa. What has been happening there, and happening very clearly, is that there is a consensus developing among the people themselves in that Territory. They themselves are beginning to feel that they want to decide things. You find that this National Convention which has been formed is definitely the framework of a federal structure. There is no doubt whatsoever that these people are groping and moving in that direction. I cannot see why the hon. gentleman cannot accept some framework of that kind for South-West Africa leading to self-determination in that way in a manner which can retain the territory as an integral whole. As things stand at the moment, it seems to me that there has been no answer given and that we are going from bad to worse as far as that is concerned.

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about the question of the Ovambo who had gone across the border. He said that they had gone across under a false impression. How many times have we not heard in terrorist trials of people who appeared very often as State witnesses, who stated that they had been attracted over the border, that they had been attracted by promises of educational training of one kind or another, but that when they got across the border pressure was put to bear upon them and they came back in the guise of terrorists. They did not come back as administrators or people who had remained true to the stories with which, they told us in court, they had been lured across the border. I believe this situation is very much more serious than the hon. the Prime Minister is leading us to believe at the moment. All the evidence we have is that once these people are brainwashed, once they are taken to foreign countries, and are subjected to pressures, they come back in the guise of terrorists hostile to South Africa. I cannot accept just this explanation of the hon. the Prime Minister. If this number of people as estimated by the Commissioner-General have gone, I wonder how many others have gone that he knows nothing about. I wonder how many of them have gone under false impressions and how many have gone with the deliberate intention of coming back to create difficulty for the South African Government. I cannot help warning about this at this stage. This is a vital issue and can become more important in the future. What is being done to find out what their troubles are; what development they are requiring and what they are asking for? What is the reason?

The leaders and the churches and everybody else know exactly why they went out.

Why?

The hon. the Prime Minister says the leaders and the churches all know exactly why they went out.

Why then did you let them go?

Here we have the situation where the Prime Minister says they know why they went. I wonder whether they do know why they went. I wonder whether they are going to stay true to those reasons when they are brainwashed in foreign countries and at the hands of experts outside South Africa. It is a most unsatisfactory situation and I do not believe we got an adequate answer from the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to come back to the position of South-West Africa itself. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what the situation is in respect of negotiations with the United Nations Organization. It seems that negotiations through the Secretary-General have broken down. What progress, if any, have we made? Sir, the General Assembly is meeting in September. There is no doubt whatever that tremendous pressures are going to be exerted upon the Council for action against South Africa. Has there been any further attempt at negotiation? Is there any contact being made? What brief is the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs going to get when he attends the United Nations meeting in New York in September? It seems to me, Sir, that we are faced with a very serious situation; that we are completely in the dark as to what the Prime Minister’s intentions are. He seems to be carrying on in his sweet old way, with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development continuing with his development, which has caused him so much distress overseas, and we do not seem to be making any progress at all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition finds it difficult to understand the explanations furnished him by the hon. the Prime Minister. I just want to express my admiration for the patience of the Prime Minister, who repeatedly furnishes answers to the same old questions, from a slightly different angle, with the utmost patience and forbearance, and I only hope that it will be granted to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers eventually to understand what the Prime Minister is telling them.

Sir, I rise this afternoon for a different purpose, and that is to express my surprise that no one on the side of the Opposition and in particular not from the side of the Progressive Party, grabbed the opportunity afforded by the Prime Minister’s Vote further to discuss the question of the fourth interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations and to ascertain what the attitude of the Government is. Because, Sir, that commission was appointed by the Prime Minister, and it is responsible to him. Sir, since we last discussed this question in the House, I think an alarming thing has become particularly evident, which is that attempts are being made in South Africa to distract the attention of the public from the real truths involved in this report, because the report of the commission on Nusas is a report which mainly deals with facts. This commission was requested to ascertain the facts; those facts are set out in this report, and the important point about this is that the commission reached complete unanimity in its findings as far as every fact recorded in this voluminous report is concerned. There was never any disagreement between commissioner and commissioner on the facts contained in this report. There was, however, in the case of this fourth report—not the previous three reports—a minority report dealing with certain matters of action and the question of emphasis on recommendations, but on the facts themselves there was no disagreement whatsoever. But, Sir, it is very interesting to note that in the dialogue which is being conducted in the Opposition Press as well as by the Progressive Party on this commission the minimum attention is given to the extremely alarming facts about un-South African activities among a clique of student leaders in South Africa who do not really represent anyone but themselves, and the sources from which they obtain money from overseas. These matters are not discussed, but in a desperate and rather clever attempt to distract attention from the facts of the situation, a vehement, unbridled attack is launched on the commission and the members of the commission. Sir, we, the members of that commission, are politicians; we can take it; we are used to being attacked, but just consider those attacks; just consider the nature of the complaints against us. One of the complaints which originated with the hon. member for Houghton, before she had even read one of the earlier interim reports, was that the commissioners were obsessed with the sexual life of the students. She said so in good faith, but when it was pointed out to her that this is not true—and every one who has repeated it since is telling a lie because it is not true—The Cape Times, the day after the report had appeared, in one leading article twice mentioned the fact that the commission displayed an extraordinary and unhealthy interest in the sex life of the students. Mr. Chairman, any normal person is interested in sex. But it is a very sick-minded person who is interested in the sex life of others, and I am just wondering whether the newspapers which are writing about this kind of thing are not projecting their own faults. But I can only furnish this explanation, that when one of the members of the commission, in a moment of surprise, remarked on a certain disclosure of sex, the then chairman of the commission immediately ruled that it was not part of the terms of that commission to investigate those matters and that we were not interested in them. That was the attitude of the commission all along, but the infamous, downright, ugly lie is still being perpetrated. Why? To distract attention from the shocking facts contained in this report. It is said that the commissioners were prejudiced and incompetent. It is said that we have no contact with the youth whatsoever and that we do not know what is going on. It is said that it should have been a judge, and I too said so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it should have been a judicial commission, because that would have inspired greater confidence with the public. I believed that too, Sir, but I can no longer believe this because it has been proved that even if one appoints a judicial commission and its findings are not favourable for these students, they and their henchmen will perpetrate the same downright lies about the judge as they have perpetrated about the commission. And I shall prove this. I shall prove this immediately. In 1971 the authorities of Rhodes University appointed a commission to inquire into certain matters in connection with Nusas. The chairman of the commission was Mr. Justice Munnik, assisted by three of the most prominent people in that area and, as I have learned now, Mr. Justice Munnik found against the students and Nusas. What was the result?—Sir, a series of unbridled, unjust attacks on the competence of that judge and his commission such as I have never experienced before. Let me quote a few examples. One of the senior lecturers at Rhodes had this to say about the commission, this judicial commission—

Now, the following was said of the judge...—

This is also being said of the Schlebusch Commission. A former lecturer called Maud wrote in the Eastern Province Herald of September 1971—

This is, of course, Nusas. Elsewhere they had the following to say of the commission—

In the Daily Despatch Neville Curtis—one of the people who attacked the commission such a great deal—and Barry Streek, the vice-president of Nusas, wrote—

The same is being said, of this commission. Furthermore, they say—

I have a lot more to quote. This was a judicial commission. Sir, did one single member of the Progressive Party defend that commission at that time? Did one of them object to a prominent judge of South Africa being insulted in such a way in the execution of a duty for which he was particularly competent, more competent than any other person, according to their own point of view? Oh no, Sir, anyone who shows up these leftist elements in South Africa, must except to be treated in this manner. The following is proof of it. Recently the principal of the University of the Witwatersrand, Dr. Bozzoli, appointed a committee consisting of extremely prominent people—not a judicial committee—to investigate the defamation, the sordidness on the part of a cartoonist, Frescura. And that committee of the liberal Prof. Bozzoli found against the students. And the result was the institution later of a criminal case of defamation, which they lost. But how did Nusas react towards that Committee? They were described as “a number of spineless toadies”. Were any objections raised by those people who have so much to say about the dignity of impartial commissions and committees? An extremely useful programme is now presented over the radio, Sir, a programme which gives one food for thought, on student unrest in the world. One programme in that series has been broadcast, and the moment it was broadcast—practically proved by quotations of the people concerned, the SABC was attacked immediately and the evidence was discredited, among others by my good lady friend, the hon. member for Houghton. Why? What is her objection? Mr. Chairman, you will not believe me, but what she objects to is how the SABC can dare to quote something from a person that is banned. [Time expired.]

They were selected quotations.

Mr. Chairman, it has become a habit for South-West Africa to be dragged into the discussions here by those who are least qualified to speak on South-West Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are repeatedly being accused that they are supposed to do nothing for South-West Africa, that nothing is being done about the problem of South-West Africa. But let me say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Surely, you have a proud record. After all, you governed South-West Africa for 23 years. What did you do during that time? Your record simply shows that you put Afrikaans-speaking and German-speaking people in internment camps, that you took away their citizenship and deported them. Why did you not incorporate South-West Africa if you were in earnest about the matter? After all, Gen. Smuts held a plebiscite and was given an overwhelming mandate to incorporate—208 000 votes in favour of incorporation, 33 000 votes against incorporation while 59 000 abstained from voting. Why then did Gen. Smuts not incorporate when he had the mandate? What is the reason for all these reproaches? Mr. Chairman, let us consider the real situation. South-West Africa has six representatives in this House. One of them is a member of the Cabinet. Where is the leader of the United Party of South-West Africa? I ask: Where is he? Surely, he was in the Other Place. You no longer regard South-West Africa as being good enough to have a representative in your own ranks. With the recent election you could only obtain 6 629 votes in the whole of the South-West Africa. Is that why you no longer consider the hon. leader as being good enough to be here? Mr. Chairman, those people who know least make the loudest noise. The hon. the Prime Minister is doing nothing. He allows South-West Africa to drift along. Strange enough, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition commends the advisory council appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister. That is significant. What is also significant, is that the hon. the Leader is worried that Ovambo will dominate, but this is the same leader who made that soap-box speech and announced a multi-racial federal council for South-West Africa. How is that to be reconciled? This advisory council is commended as the ideal situation and it is asked why this is not applied in South Africa as well. What did the United Party newspaper in South-West Africa had to say when this report was made public? It said the following (translation)—

These comments could just as well have appeared in the mouthpiece of the HNP, but let us consider the record of the National Party. As long ago as in 1958 a good offices committee, the Arden Clark Committee, was invited to visit South Africa and to have discussions in connection with South-West Africa. That committee visited South Africa and had discussions with the Government. That committee recommended that South-West Africa should be divided into two regions. Their recommendation was rejected and cast out of the window by U.N. But South Africa did not lose and scored some points. Then it is significant that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, since so much is being said about deserters, was the first political deserter of South-West Africa. I think the hon. the Leader may take a tip from Headman Elifas and give his party the palm-branch to restore some discipline again. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not visit South-West Africa for a period of ten years and then decided to go there again to have a look at the area which sent him to this House initially. On a platform there he said in no uncertain terms that South-West Africa is two regions tranditionally and that he thinks it is time for two legislative councils to be established, one for the north and one for the south where Whites and Coloureds will govern together. Furthermore, he said that this will be the only area in which Whites will be in the majority. But is this also the policy of his leader?

Which leader?

The old leader, the compulsory leader. Just listen to what was said by the leader of the United Party in Windhoek. He said that in order to get rid of the international status of South-West, it is inevitable that an overall multi-racial federal council will have to be established in South-West at some time or other. He is afraid the Ovambo will dominate. With the Ovambo numbering 256 000 he has reason to be afraid. That is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is quite correct. The only difference is that, all of a sudden they want to give Ovambo, the Kavango and the Caprivi together one legislative assembly in the federal council. It will therefore be but a small federation serving in the large federation. But let us consider further what has happened.

The Government subsequently went further and invited the Secretary-General of U.N. Mr. Hammarskjӧld, who left this country as a friend of South Africa. South Africa scored some points. After that Carpio and Dr. De Alva were invited, but their report was thrown out of the window. However, South Africa again scored some points. Then Dr. Waldheim was invited and Dr. Escher came. That visit by Dr. Escher was commended throughout the world as a victory for South Africa and a personal triumph for the Prime Minister of South Africa. Then we also had the visit of overseas correspondents to the Caprivi. South Africa scored some points once more. There is a wall of prejudice, misunderstanding and misconception between South Africa and the outside world. Every time the Government acts as it has acted now, it removes a brick from that wall and makes that hole bigger so that we can see each other and conduct dialogue.

Let me say this to the hon. the Opposition. Those of us who are living in South-West Africa and who love that country, do not, as citizens of the Republic of South Africa, expect from the hon. the Leader to pillory us. We do not expect him to crucify us. He should not pay lip-service. He no longer knows what is going on in South-West Africa. He should turn to this Government. If he really wants to make a contribution to solve the problems of South-West Africa it is his task as leader of this party to negotiate with the leader of my party, with the Prime Minister of this country. Then he will at least know what is going on in that country.

Surely, we cannot continue indefinitely with these things. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not even listen, but I should like to ask him—if he would go to the trouble to furnish me with a reply to this: Does he agree with this Harry Schwarz of South-West Africa. Advocate Brian O’Lynn, who says that South-West Africa is going to get its own citizenship? Does he agree when he says “federate or flee”? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon quite a number of attacks have already been directed either at me personally or at the party to which I belong. Unfortunately I do not have time to reply to them.

Speak a little louder!

If hon. members kept quiet they would be able to hear what I am saying. Unfortunately I do not have time to reply to all the attacks. But I do want to ask the hon. member for Rissik, who argues with so much passion and conviction in terms of assumptions which are by now completely divorced from reality, please to listen to what the hon. the Prime Minister said about the prerogative of speaking on behalf of some or other language group in politics today.

But, Sir, I do not wish to speak about that. What I do want to speak about is the fact that I have noticed something alarming in this House over the past few weeks that I have been here. There is growing tendency on the part of the Government, and a section of the Government Press—more specifically Die Burger—to begin making a party-political football out of patriotism. Briefly it amounts to this, that every time its opponents direct criticism at “trivial aspects of South African politics”, as the hon. member for Durbanville calls it, the Opposition is accused of being irresponsible, rebellious, seditious, and unpatriotic. To me there is no greater sign of political bankruptcy in a power group than when it tries to smother criticism or opposition to its policy under the pseudo-banner of a patriotic debate. That is what is happening here.

But, Sir, this is a tendency which has a long history. Today we have listened to the hon. member for Turffontein again, who referred to extra-Parliamentary criticism of the policy in South Africa. He wanted to know what the Progressive Party’s standpoint was in this connection, and in this debate too! Is it really necessary to state it again now? Is it really necessary to repeat what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said the other day when he stated the basic dividing line between the Government and us? It concerns the courts. We shall not abandon that standpoint, no matter what the hon. member for Turffontein says. It does not concern the fact that we excuse students, no matter what they do. It concerns the way in which they are accused or excused. That is what it is all about. When the commission’s report was tabled, I noticed that members quoted from what Marcuse and Van Nonsen had said. Sir, honestly, in the sphere of social science these people are stale news. There are many other people overseas who at present have theories about change in South Africa, violent change. The point I want to make, is that theories concerning change in South Africa will come and go; but the important question is that it has to be proved that a group of individuals are a threat to State security. That has to be done in a court. That is our standpoint, short and sweet, and it remains our standpoint which I wanted to put to the hon. member for Turffontein.

What is more alarming is the fact that this tendency to call criticism unpatriotic is now beginning to reveal itself here in the official Parliamentary Opposition as well. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also saddles this mangy donkey and digs his spurs into it in order to get it to gallop a little further. As regards the question that we in this party are unpatriotic I want to say straight out that I am not going to take any notice of pious moral lessons on patriotism from this side of the House or from the other side of the House who sanctimoniously make as if all the troubles in this country are other people’s responsibilities and other people’s fault, but never their own. After all, the first test of patriotism is that one places the interests of one’s country and its peoples above those of party-political gain, personal gain or even personal bloodlust. Closely connected to this is the thought that one should identify oneself with one’s country and with the problems of all its people because one knows that the interests of one group or one section are intimately linked with those of another. In terms of that conception of patriotism, this Progressive Party legitimately made use of the institutions of this country in order to become members of this Parliament. As long as the Progressive Party is here it will put its standpoint until, if that should ever happen, even this institution is taken away from it.

What are you insinuating now?

I want to put it very clearly that to me this means delivering a plea that an end should be put to this debate about patriotism in this House, and that attention should come back to the real, ... [Interjections.] ... urgent political problems of our country. What are these problems? It does not matter how we approach the problems of South Africa, but in the last instance it always comes back to two basic problems to which the hon. the Prime Minister also referred. The one is the question of the sharing of power and the other is the question of our situation in or our relations with the rest of Africa. A lot has been said about the sharing of power, and this is evident from every stage of these dramatic events in Coloured politics. That is what it is about. The hon. the Prime Minister is quite justified in saying that the problem of the Coloured population is basically a socio-economic problem. What I want to show is that every house and every school one builds will make that Coloured population aware of the political situation in which he finds himself in this country. That political situation eventually comes back to the problem of how this population group will participate effectively in the decisions that have to be taken in this regard.

Then there is another problem I want to mention in this regard. This afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister referred time and again in this House to the manner in which he obtained his mandate. He said that the voters put them into power. If we link this problem to the question of power-sharing I can only issue hon. members on that side with a warning. The means whereby one obtained on’s mandate determines the way one is going to handle the problem of power-sharing in South Africa. If one is going to tell the White man that he need never, now or in the future, concern himself about what will happen in regard to participation in political institutions and political power in South Africa, one is obtaining a mandate which will most probably give one a large majority in Parliament but will render one powerless to tackle the basic problems of our society.

Then I want to come back to the question of Africa. I listened with great appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister when he referred to the Portuguese territories. He said we should make and maintain contact with these territories. He put forward four important reasons, namely labour, tourism, harbours and hydro-electric power. I should just like to warn the hon. the Prime Minister that there is a Minister of Defence sitting on his left who has a political bloodlust that will make even Count Dracula look like a bushveld mosquito that has lost its way. When we read what the hon. the Minister of Defence said in connection with the tour which I and the hon. leader of the Progressive Party undertook and if we read the reference he made to the people in African territories, I should just like to know how he feels about the persons to whom the hon. the Prime Minister referred when he said that we will make contact with whatever government is in power in Mozambique, as long as it is a stable Government. The hon. the Prime Minister did not mention how that Government was established; he did not refer to the fact that they took part in guerilla warfare or terrorism, but he said we would make contact in the interests of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this debate is drawing to a close. I do not want to spend much time on the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as there are more important matters to which I have to refer. Nevertheless, I do want to tell him that I could not help gaining the impression, when he began to make an attack on Die Burger—and Die Burger itself can reply to it—that because it was writing about patriotism, the hon. member himself had a guilty conscience. Nor could I help being strengthened in that conviction when the hon. member concluded with an attempt to attack the hon. the Minister of Defence in this regard. I want to say to him in passing that I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister of Defence said about him and his party.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

To tell the truth, I could express myself in even stronger terms. Although the hon. member has risen to speak I find it interesting that neither he nor the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party have replied to the question which was put to them from this side of the House, inter alia, by the hon. member for Waterkloof, in regard to their visit to African states. The reply which this House is waiting for from them as members of this House is not what African leaders said to them, but what the hon. members opposite said. I find it surprising that so many parliamentary opportunities have passed without the hon. members having availed themselves of these opportunities, for I believe that this side of the House as well as the official Opposition would be very interested in hearing their standpoint in that regard. I find it surprising that they have allowed all the parliamentary opportunities to pass without saying anything about it. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party: What are you hiding in this connection? [Interjections.] If one has nothing to hide, why not take one’s colleagues into one’s confidence? All your colleagues would be interested in that. Therefore, since you have had the parliamentary opportunity, why did you not avail yourselves of it? May I assume that, when the Vote of my hon. friend is being discussed, the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party will avail himself of the opportunity of enlightening us on this matter?

On that, and on many other matters as well.

I should very much like to hear from him in that regard.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in spite of all the arguments which we have already had, came here again and said that we should simply accept that the solution to our problems lies in a sharing of power. That was the keynote of his argument throughout, irrespective of how he couched it. We have already argued about this matter a great deal. I do want to tell the hon. Leader that he could, to great advantage, read an article which appeared in The Star on Wednesday, 7 August 1974, to the effect that “the lesson of Cyprus is, like Northern Ireland, India and Pakistan before, that the sharing of power cannot be forced on people”. Then there is another caption in very bold type: “We should realize now that mandatory power sharing and democratic rule are incompatible ends”. Time does not permit me to bring this article, which is an excellent one, to the attention of hon. members, but it would be a good thing if hon. members were to acquaint themselves with its contents.

I must mention one thing here. It is becoming a habit on the part of some English-language newspapers, irrespective of what the interests of South Africa are, to write certain things wilfully—I cannot but interpret it in this way. You will be aware of the charges which were levelled of wholesale murder in the Caprivi. You will be aware of the steps which were immediately taken in this regard. But that was not good enough for certain Press organs. I am referring in this connection to The Sunday Tribune of 25 August, in which reference was made to this matter. They proceeded on the standpoint, to cloud the issue because those things were not proved, that the inquiry had been preceded by a quarrel between the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs. If they want to speculate on this matter, I do not object. But what I take the strongest exception to is that this writer, Eugene Hugo, wrote that the Department of Information wanted nothing to do with this inquiry and did everything in its power to torpedo it. Again, if they want to speculate on this matter on false grounds, one could still understand it to a certain extent. But then they went on to say the following—

All I can say is that it is an infamous lie. Nothing like this ever occurred. From the moment the news was first heard, a modus operandi was decided on, and no one departed from that modus operandi and no one ever contradicted it. This was as it was eventually done. In respect of reporting of this kind, as if the person had been present when the Prime Minister or a Minister took certain decisions, I want to make an urgent appeal to the Press to abstain from it. I have other examples as well which I could have used if time had permitted.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition returned to the question of Owambo. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what assurance I had and could give that those people who had left would not be brainwashed. Surely it goes without saying that I can give him no assurance in that regard. After all, I do not know where those people have gone. As you know, I have no control over them after they have left the country. And this was followed by the foolish remark of the hon. member for Hillbrow: Why are you allowing them to go?

But you knew about it all the time.

Surely it is not I who am letting them go. These are people who sneak out in the dark, just as they sneak out of Rhodesia, Mozambique, Britain or any other country when they want to go somewhere.

But I want to return to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerning the position if a consensus cannot be reached. Sir, he presented this argument, inter alia: If a consensus cannot be reached, what say do they have in foreign affairs? Sir, does the Leader of the Opposition not understand what we are dealing with? These are matters in regard to which the Coloureds have never in any respect had a say.

When are they going to be sovereign?

They have never had a say in regard to these matters; that is their dilemma and that is the dilemma of this Parliament, and if we return to the old dispensation, they will never in all eternity have a say in regard to it. But surely I am telling the hon. members now that it is precisely because I recognize the dilemma that I want to make an attempt to give them a say. Is there then no appreciation for that?

A say in what?

A say in all these things, in foreign affairs, inter alia. I shall make an attempt to give them a say in that way in spheres in which they have never had a say. Sir, I do not want to anticipate matters now, but you will probably hear, during the present session of Parliament, that they are being given a say in spheres in which they have never had this before. After all, it is precisely in order to escape that dilemma that we now want to do all these things.

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me once again where we stand with South-West Africa. Surely he is fully aware of where we stand. We have had a deadlock for many years. In an attempt to resolve that deadlock, we invited the Secretary-General to this country; we reached an agreement with him on a certain modus operandi, he appointed his representative and with that representative we reached a working agreement—I do not want to state it more explicitly than that—from which one could seek a solution to this problem. Even before the Security Council could give a decision on it, that agreement was shot down. It goes without saying that we are still at all times prepared, proceeding on that basis, to negotiate with responsible people. But, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot take it amiss of me if I cannot, as far as these things are concerned, achieve an agreement with the communists, for that I cannot do; I cannot in any way guarantee that I can do that, but I can conduct negotiations with responsible members of the United Nations, who are not unwilling to hold talks on this basis, and although the working agreement was shot down, the door has not been closed entirely and my colleague has over the years been constantly engaged in canvassing support for an agreement. But if what is meant is that this Government should abandon South-West Africa, as some people in the outside world want, then I say now that this Government will not abandon South-West Africa. This Government will not abandon South-West Africa because South-West Africa was entrusted to it under an old dispensation, and it has certain duties to South-West Africa which it has to fulfil. This Government will only step aside on that day when all the people of South-West Africa say: “We want nothing more to do with you; we no longer want any assistance, or whatever, from you”, but before that day this Government will at all times fulfil its duty to South-West Africa. Sir, this is not a strange standpoint which we are now adopting; this is the standpoint which we have repeatedly expressed to Dr. Waldheim and to Dr. Escher and to all interested parties. For the rest we shall continue, whether there are people who like it or not, to let the various peoples of South-West Africa gain experience of self-government, for whatever constellation may in future emerge in South-West Africa, it is entirely self-evident that there has to be well-equipped people from all population groups who have had experience of government and who are able to manage their own and the affairs of South-West Africa. And therefore there is nothing in what he is doing—if my hon. friend now reproaches the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration—which is in conflict with the standpoint which we have adopted towards Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher in this regard. We are encouraging dialogue on all levels so that a sound mutual understanding may be established among leaders, in exactly the same way as we are conducting a dialogue in the Republic of South Africa itself. And if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot understand that the situation in the Republic is quite different to the situation in South-West Africa, then I am afraid I cannot take it any further. I can only tell him that this is my view of the matter and if he does not wish to accept it in this way, the matter rests with him and I can do nothing further about it. I believe that the agreement, the basis of the agreement which we reached with Dr. Escher is in fact a workable agreement, and I believe that if the responsible states have the interests of South-West Africa and its peoples at heart, they will ensure that South-West Africa is developed along those lines until such time as it can reach a decision on how it sees its future and what should ultimately become of the Territory. But I want to reiterate, and this is important in view of things which are now being said in South-West Africa and in the rest of the world, that this Government, on its part—whatever decisions are taken in South-West Africa—will not force any people to enter any constellation which it does not want to enter voluntarily. I believe that if that assurance is generally accepted, South-West Africa will continue to develop as it has done in recent years under National Party government. But because this is a delicate matter, it is self-evident that there are many things which one would have liked to have said and which one cannot, owing to the delicacy of the situation, spell out now or in the future because they may be abused to the disadvantage of South-West Africa and its people. I believe that there is and will be sufficient consultation to safeguard, as far as possible, the position of South-West Africa in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister concerning South-West Africa are naturally of enormous interest to both sides of the House. What worries us is not his inability to reach agreement with communist countries about South-West Africa. What worries us on this side of the House has been the criticism coming from countries which we believe to be our friends, countries like France, the U.S.A. and Australia, a member of the old Commonwealth, whatever its Government may be at the moment. While I appreciate the difficulties and the natural reticence on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister to reveal more than is necessary about the matter at the present time, I would like to tell him that there is disquiet, there is worry and a feeling of insecurity amongst many people in South-West Africa as well as in the Republic concerning the future of the Territory. While one feels that we have not the support of countries which, as I say, we believe to be our friends—like France and the U.S.A. and Australia, to name but three—that disquiet will remain. I hope it may be possible for such amendments of policy to be made to see to it that the support of those countries can be carried.

Sir, the Prime Minister came back again to the question of the statutory consultative committee in respect of the Coloured people. He said that his object was to give these people a say, a say they had never had before, “om hulle seggenskap te gee in sake soos buitelandse sake waar hulle in die verlede nooit seggenskap gehad het nie”. Mr. Chairman, when the Coloureds had representation in this House, first of all on a common roll, they influenced the election of many members to this House, and through those members they had a say in every single power exercised by this House.

Hear, hear!

When they were placed on a separate roll, and had representation here through separate White members of Parliament, they still had a say in every single thing that was decided in this House. They voted on all those issues, their people participated in the debate and, Sir, there were many matters in which the representatives of the Cape Coloured people were capable of giving very mature and interesting judgments in respect of affairs other than purely Coloured affairs. Now, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has moved in another direction. The Coloureds will have their own Parliament which will have no say, no power over these things. Possibly through a statutory consultative committee it will have a say. In other words, its representatives will be consulted. But if there is disagreement, their views will be disregarded. This means that their advice is asked, you take it if you like it and you disregard it if you do not. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really, honestly, believe that he is going to retain the loyalty of those people, retain their co-operation, retain their enthusiastic assistance in times of trouble for South Africa, if that is the way he is going to treat them? These are people, Sir, who have had franchise rights, however limited, for over 100 years. These are a people who sat in the old Cape Parliament. These are people who sat in the Provincial Council in the Cape until recently. A great many of these are people who have been accustomed to participate in the debates of this country. Does the hon. gentleman really believe that treating them in that way will give them sufficient satisfaction, and lead them to feel that they have enough common cause with us in this Parliament, with the White people of South Africa, to stand by us and not seek their future by making alliances with other sections of the population? I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I sense a very difficult mood amongst the Cape Coloured people. I have said before it was an ugly mood, and I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister he has not got unlimited time to deal with this matter. And the situation is not improving from day to day, Sir; it is deteriorating from day to day. I think it is time for the hon. the Prime Minister to realize that unless he is prepared to give them some measure of power, he is going to be faced with greater difficulties in the future. It is no good his quoting to me, Sir, articles from newspapers saying that mandatory power sharing and democratic aims are irreconcilable. We all know the history of Cyprus. We all know that there was a treaty forced on those people. We all know that there was representation in an assembly which disregarded the population numbers in the hope of finding a settlement.

That is exactly what you are disregarding.

The hon. gentleman says that is what I am disregarding. I have quite another basis. We all know, Sir, that there had to be signatories to that treaty to guarantee that the Constitution would be observed in Cyprus. We have all seen that when the crunch came, the signatories to the treaty did not enforce that treaty or the maintenance of the existing Constitution. That is mandatory power sharing. What we envisage is something very different. We envisage negotiation and agreement between people who have lived together in a country for centuries, people who understand each other, who have started to work together, and who have cooperated in the most difficult times in our history. It is an entirely different basis. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the difference between him and me goes over the question of the sharing of power. It is quite correct. Unless these people are going to have a real say in the government of South Africa you are not going to get their co-operation and loyalty in the future. The hon. the Prime Minister is seeking to give real power to the Blacks of South Africa by giving them independence in their own territories.

May I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If the Coloured people were to come with a demand for sixty members in this Parliament, would he grant it?

The hon. the Prime Minister is putting one of those ridiculous questions one has at a political meeting. Everyone knows that there is no willingness on the part of this party, on the part of the Government, on the part of the Progressives, or any party I know in South Africa, to immediately give them 60 seats in this House of Assembly.

What about giving them 20?

Listen to the childishness of the hon. Whip. It is exactly because of the difficulties experienced with a unitary system that we have opted for a federal system where each group will retain control over matters concerning itself and where there can be a division of sovereignty in a manner which is worlds apart from the old Augustinian idea which is necessary in a unitary system.

Supposing they reject your system and say they want to be represented in this House, would you be prepared to concede it?

I believe that would be a mistake, because the unitary system in this country is breaking down on this very issue, namely the question of representation in one unitary Parliament without safeguards. It is for that reason exactly that this party stands for a federal system.

In other words, you will disregard their wishes and carry on with your policy? [Interjections.]

The Prime Minister raises purely academic issues. He is disregarding their wishes and he knows it. I believe, and my conversations with these people lead me to believe more and more, that they are extremely interested in a federal concept and that they see in it a solution to the problem that will give them real power without the fear of the Whites in South Africa that they are going to be overwhelmed by numbers. That is the whole essence of a federal constitution. That is why it has been opted for in a country like Switzerland where there are people of different races and there is the fear that the one will be dominated by another. It is exactly this fear of domination that makes people choose a federal system. That is the whole object. They do not want to be dominated by us just as little as we want to be dominated by them. The whole essence of a federal system is that no one group will dominate any other, that each group will retain control over its own affairs, but that in those matters of common interest they will work together on an agreed basis. The basis we have suggested is, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows, their contribution to the welfare of the State.

How do you measure it?

I have no doubt that it will be measured in a number of ways, and it will have to be negotiable, but without doubt there will be regard to things like income tax, the contribution to the gross domestic product and the standard of education of the people concerned. The hon. the Prime Minister raises all the difficulties, he can, but I believe that this is a negotiable system, a solution which can be acceptable in South Africa and which can give us an answer we cannot get through the present unitary system. That is why I do not want to talk any more about the demands made on a unitary system. I believe this system has already shown that it has failed. The fact that the hon. the Prime Minister is so frightened of being dominated by Blacks under a unitary system and is prepared to fragment South Africa is clear proof that the system has failed. Were it not that he had that fear which arises from this system, I could not believe that he as a patriotic, good South African, would be prepared to fragment South Africa and hand portions of it over to sovereign, independent states which may not remain friendly to the rest of South Africa.

It is their right to be independent.

I do not know where the right comes from.

It is their birthright.

The hon. the Chief Whip says it is their birth-right. Well, all I can say is that it is a birth-right that is more honoured in the breach than in the observance of it throughout the civilized world today. [Time expired.]

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 5.—“Treasury” and 6.—“Public Debt”, Loan Vote A.—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services” and S.W.A. Vote No. 1.—“Miscellaneous Services”:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—