Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

As this Bill is a hybrid measure, it will now in terms of the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules relating to Hybrid Bills be referred to the Examiners of Hybrid Bills for report.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, namely—

1. (a) to promote regional initiatives with the object of achieving interstate agreements in respect of—
   1. (i) migrant labour;
   2. (ii) the protection of the rights of minorities through a convention of human rights;
   3. (iii) inter-state transport and communication;
   4. (iv) defence;
   5. (v) mutual economic and technical aid with a view to the establishment of an economic community for Southern Africa;
   6. (vi) the use of the energy resources of the region; and
   7. (vii) strategic planning;
2. (b) to achieve a rapid and honourable settlement of the South West African issue based on the wishes of all the inhabitants after effective consultation; and
3. (c) to strengthen South Africa’s own position, more particularly in the field of negotiation, by—
   1. (i) carrying out the undertaking of the Government to the United Nations in respect of the removal of discrimination based on colour alone;
   2. (ii) adopting policies which will be more effective in bringing about racial co-operation in South Africa; and
   3. (iii) taking more effective steps to combat the crippling effects of inflation.

Before speaking directly to the motion, I want to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on the reshuffle in his Cabinet which I see has strengthened it because he has brought into it yet another defector from this side of the House. What the hon. gentleman would do without new blood from this side from time to time to raise the efficiency of his Cabinet is something which is too appalling even to contemplate.

I should also like to address a few words to the hon. the Minister of Finance, the former Leader of the House, whom I had hoped would be here this afternoon and who I understand will make his last speech in this House …

Unfortunately he will not be here today.

The hon. gentleman will not be here. Nevertheless, in his absence, since this will probably be the last occasion on which I shall have the opportunity of speaking while he is still a member of this House, I want to say that I understand that he is a favoured aspirant for higher honours and that he will be making his final speech in this House here in a day or two. He and I have been members of this House for very nearly 27 years and during that period I have found that unlike most people who have an obsession with gold and with money, he is a very friendly person indeed. I have always found him to be a very polite person, a very charming person and one who has earned many friends on both sides of the House and no enemies. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we want to wish him luck in any office to which he may be elected and to say that we feel that he has great talent which can be put to singular use in the interests of the country.

I want to return now to the hon. the Prime Minister and I want to start by commending him once again this afternoon. I want to commend him for certain enlightened and constructive actions he has taken which have contributed to an easing in the strained relations in Southern Africa and have created a more hopeful international climate for the solution of some of the difficulties which have threatened peace and progress in this region of Southern Africa.

Last year in a speech in the Other Place, the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized that the choice before Southern Africa was essentially a choice between the creation of a new era of peaceful co-operation and goodwill or continual confrontation the eventual consequence of which he said, and I quote, “were too ghastly to contemplate”. I agree with the hon. gentleman that that is the fundamental choice, that that is the grim alternative. I think too that that is the essence of the message which we on this side of the House have tried to convey to the House and to the country ever since the breakdown of Portuguese authority in Angola and in Mozambique. We have gone further. It has been our consistent theme for many years that South Africa has the means, the opportunity and the inducement to become the great catalyst in the emergence of this important region of the world, Southern Africa, and, in so doing, I believe that we could play the role destined for us in Africa. We have pointed out, too, Mr. Speaker, that some of the very problems that have seemed to the Government to be major obstacles to the fruitful development of our domestic and external policies, in fact can be converted into major assets and without insuperable difficulty either. For instance, Sir, in the Censure debate last August, I pointed particularly to the possibilities and advantages of an early breakthrough in respect of the political, economic and social status of the Coloured people; I also made mention of the possibilities of a speedy solution of the perennial conflict over South West Africa.

Sir, whilst I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister credit for whatever progress he has achieved, I think it is obvious that he has gone neither as far nor as fast as we would have liked …

What I can do you can do better.

That is right.

And what you cannot do he can do.

[Inaudible.]

I also want to say that there is much that he has seemed to promise that has not been done. Nevertheless, I want to say, without any acrimony, that I find the Prime Minister a most apt pupil, and I have hopes that in the coming year we are going to be able to chalk up further notable gains in these respects.

Do you regard yourself as the teacher?

Of course.

Sir, I will explain to the hon. the Prime Minister very shortly in what role I see myself and I believe that he will agree with me. Sir, I quite understand that the Government and the Prime Minister would like to take all the credit for any progress that has been made in achieving the relaxation of any tensions, and I want to say that I do not begrudge them that at all because I feel that any progress they have made has been made through following, however hesitantly and inadequately, the policies which we on this side of the House had advocated for some time in various debates. The hon. the Prime Minister has asked in what role I see myself. The role in which I see myself and the Opposition in our relationship with the Government reminds me of the relationship between a pathfinder squadron and a bomber squadron. The pathfinder squadron identifies the target and lays a flare path to serve as a clear guide to the ultimate destination of the bomber squadron. When the flares are almost extinguished, the heavy bombers of the Government arrive, often too late to identify the objective accurately, and as a result drop their explosives in the general direction of the target, sometimes without achieving what it set out to do.

The bomber has 33% support amongst its own people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says that the bomber has 33% support.

He is the bomber.

After all, Sir, he is the bomber. Mr. Speaker, yesterday that target might have been restrictions on White investments in Black areas; today it may be restrictions on attendance at the Nico Malan theatre; tomorrow it may be the role that the urban Bantu has to play in the future industrial development of South Africa; but, Sir, there is no doubt whatever that we have identified the targets; we have placed the flare path; we have done what we could to enable the Government to reach its mark. I accept, Sir, that this Government, ponderous as it is, weighed down by dogmas as it is, needs a pathfinder squadron and a flare path. I think it needs them particularly at this point of time in our history because there are at least two respects in which Government policy is so inadequate as to warrant fully this motion of no confidence, even if there were no other reasons for it, which there are. The first is that this Government in its approach to the new situation in Southern Africa has, I believe, failed to grasp the essential nature of the problem, or to envisage the full range of opportunities that lie before South Africa in the present circumstances.

The second reason, Sir, is that these opportunities cannot be grasped and exploited unless the Government recognizes the urgent need to eliminate the weaknesses in its own domestic policies and to make fundamental changes in the political philosophy which causes them. Those are the two fatal impediments to the emergence of a Greater South Africa at the present time. Sir, I believe, as I have always believed, that South Africa has a major role to play in Africa and a major role to play in the world. It has great human and natural resources and I believe that it cannot evade those roles because they are inherent in the situation as it is developing at the present time. If we do not succeed in Africa, then we will not succeed in protecting South Africa. Conversely, if we do not succeed in South Africa, we will not succeed in Southern Africa. I think it amounts to this, that if we do not succeed in Southern Africa and cannot save South Africa, then we face what the Prime Minister has called a future that is “too ghastly to contemplate”.

Sir. I have on various occasions in this House drawn attention to what I believe is one of the fundamental elements that lies at the heart of the matter and that is the question of our own population explosion here in South Africa. We believe that it is going to double in the next 25 years to 50 million people, and that means quadrupling our domestic economy in that same period. Sir, this is a mammoth economic task, but it must be achieved, because if we fall far short of it, our people will join the ranks of the hungry nations of the world. Unless we succeed we cannot help our neighbours either, and if our neighbours do not become prosperous nations, there is no real security for us in our sub-continent. Sir, I have pointed out before that in order to reach the high levels of production needed to serve and supply our own 50 million people, we shall need something like 5 million people in the highly skilled professions and trades. Even if our White population can by then fill as many as 2 million of these jobs, it means that there will still be 3 million to be drawn for those highly skilled professions and trades from our own Black and Brown people. It means also that we are going to have to put at least 10 million more people into fully productive employment at other levels, and these are going to be drawn, in essence, from our Black and Brown populations. Sir, that is the size of the task that must be accomplished within the lifespan of most of the members of this House. I wonder, Sir, whether hon. members have considered what an economic change of this magnitude must have on the social structure of this country, and I wonder if they realize what effect these social changes will in turn have on the political structure of this country. I do not believe that these changes, which I regard as inevitable, can be accommodated within Government policies, and I shall show why later on. For the present I just want to draw attention to the kind of country we are becoming and our corresponding responsibilities and opportunities on this subcontinent.

I think South Africa already has the potential to play a constructive part in bringing peace and stability to what I call Capricorn Africa. By “Capricorn Africa” I mean an area roughly a thousand miles north and south of the Tropic of Capricorn, a community of countries north and south of the Tropic of Capricorn which runs roughly through South West Africa, through Botswana, through the Northern Transvaal, Mozambique and Madagascar. I believe that this is a responsibility which we have to accomplish. What has happened in recent months and in recent years has made it clear that within Capricorn Africa we are going to be forced to share a mutual prosperity and a joint security and an indivisible peace. We are going to be so tied up with each other that one will not have peace without the others having it too, one will not have security without the others having it and one will not have prosperity without the others having it. If we do not achieve those things, then as the Prime Minister says, there is a dire alternative for South Africa. These are problems, Sir, which cannot be solved by individual countries acting in isolation. Some of them may even be matters which are in serious dispute between the various countries concerned but they could be settled by cooperative action and regional alliances covering that sort of thing. Let me illustrate by giving instances of what I mean.

Last year I spoke in this House on new sources and methods of subversive warfare and of the particular dangers they present to South Africa. I believe our basic vulnerability remains where I said it was then. It remains in the hearts and the minds of an alienated people, people whose aspirations are frustrated, people whose loyalties are rejected. Fortunately the immediate threat from outside has been diminished by a degree of detente within our region. At the same time I pointed out that Mozambique was an area of sensitivity. Previous development of inter-regional benefits, of labour relations, port and railway facilities, tourism, investments, the Cabora Bassa hydro-electric plan would, I thought, have a stabilizing effect on the relations between Mozambique and South Africa. This, Sir, apparently has been the case. I want to say that we thoroughly approve what has been done by this Government and others in that regard. But I mention this merely as an illustration of what should be worked upon in a more deliberate and more constructive manner throughout what I call Capricorn Africa.

Sir, we have consistently presented this case on a broader basis and we have drawn attention to many other points of mutual advantages and opportunities for reciprocal aid. I believe that this sort of arrangement holds the key to our future peace and our progress in this part of Africa. I want to look at a few examples so that hon. members can get an idea of what I mean. There is a particular aspect of our inter-relationship within Capricorn Africa that is assuming ever greater importance in our economic progress but which already has critical political implications. That is the question of the migration of labour. Hon. members know that for historic and for other reasons the economic developments on our sub-continent have been uneven, and that has led to the permanence of periodic migration of hundreds of thousands of work seekers from their tribal homes to the industrial areas. The most important example is the mining industry, but of course there are others as well. Last year I think there were 475 000 foreign migrant labourers working in South Africa of whom the mines employed 303 000. The others must have been employed in other industries. Naturally these figures do not include workers from the South African homelands. Now, we cannot at present exclude this labour. It would do us untold economic harm and it would do our neighbour States untold economic harm. But for various reasons, I believe unconnected with labour conditions in the mining industry, migrant labour has acquired a stigma throughout South Africa and throughout the world of which the social and political' repercussions may disrupt political relationships both within South Africa and within Southern Africa.

I believe that the time has come for an inter-governmental convention whereby the essential conditions of service of the migrant worker can be guaranteed and the status of this form of employment raised to a level that will ensure universal respect. When I talk about the migrant worker in Africa I am talking not only about the Black migrant worker; I am talking also about the security of the White migrant technician and the White migrant investor as well. Since last year, by a remarkable reversal of the Government’s former policy of disallowing private White investment in the homelands, it now appears that such private White investment is to be encouraged. We saw that that would come. I predict that the time will also come when the Government will admit the impossibility of consolidating the homelands by the purchase of land and the exchange of land. I believe that before long it will be drawing jurisdictional and territorial boundaries which will result in White farms and White villages being included in Black-governed areas. That means that there will be White minorities in Black homelands, and this whole position will become relevant in South Africa as well.

The hon. the Prime Minister shakes his head. Let us look at what is going to happen in South West Africa then. If that territory proceeds through self-determination to independence as an integral geographical unit, which is quite likely to be the case since the Government continues to reject the federal solution offered by this side of the House, what is going to be the position of the White minority in South West Africa? It is going to be essential that they continue to play their part for the progress and stability of South West Africa. What is going to be the sort of question the Whites are going to be asking there? They will want assurances about their personal status, about their private property rights and about their investments and their future in the country. They will want to know what to do with their children, whether to train them to take up technical and other posts in that territory. All these things are necessary if an independent South West Africa is to continue as a viable and stable country with close reciprocal trade and other relationships with South Africa.

Let us look a little further afield. Let us look at the countries to the north of us. A number of them are already being governed by Black majority Governments. It seems that Angola and Mozambique are going to join that number before long. There is tremendous pressure on Rhodesia for the same sort of thing to happen. I do not want to make any predictions there; that is a matter for Rhodesia to solve itself, but I do want to point to one conclusion that I think concerns the whole of Capricorn Africa. That conclusion is that we are all of us destined to seek a peaceful future together. We are inevitably going to live and work in each other’s countries. We are going to have to provide each other with skills on the one side and labour on the other and we are going to have to develop by our combined effort those resources which are essential to our common welfare. I believe that this is a basic reality of co-existence on this continent. Now, as this is a necessity, if we could get a Capricorn convention guaranteeing the basic rights of Black migrant workers in White-governed areas and of White migrants in Black-governed areas, we would surely have established a firm foundation of confidence in a vital area of our future relationships. If, moreover, this concept could be further extended by treaty or by general acceptance to guarantee the social and economic security of all Whites who are in an overall minority throughout the area, surely that would smooth the path toward further constitutional adjustments either in South Africa. South West Africa or the countries to the north of us. I have spoken of a treaty, of general acceptance guaranteed by permanent reciprocal advantage. It may be that such an agreement should be formalized in a convention of human rights particularly designed to meet the special needs of Capricorn Africa, because, after all, there are a number of minority groups whose rights and whose security could be guaranteed by a convention of that kind. I have an open mind about the sort of agreement, but I have no doubt that the time has come for positive action in this important but vulnerable area of our relations in Southern Africa. That is one example, but let me give hon. members another example.

Let us look at the position in respect of transport. Some 30 years ago an imaginative initiative was taken to create an African Transport Organization. South Africa played a leading part in it and Mr. Marshall Clark who was then, I think, the General Manager of the Railways, was its first chairman. Its purpose was to plan and to develop a co-ordinated transport system that would solve the problems of the landlocked countries, that would stimulate commerce and create a network of interdependence throughout the region. If that great project had come to fruition under this Government we would perhaps not have seen the building of the Tan-Zam Railway under Chinese communist auspices. We might have seen interdependence through trade and the elimination of many of the threats and hostilities from which we are today seeking detente. We know that transport services in Southern Africa are hopelessly inadequate for the task of developing the economies and of stimulating and consolidating the interdependence of Southern Africa. Our own railway and port system can barely deal with the base load it has to carry for South Africa and at peak times they have to resort to the most desperate expendients. I think it deserves all credit for what it does, but we are in a very dangerous situation indeed. What is going to happen if Rhodesia is suddenly denied access to all the east coast ports? Can we meet that demand? What is going to happen if there is a breakdown between Zambia and Botswana or between the copperbelt and Angola? Thirty years ago it was seen clearly that the progress and stability of all the countries of Southern Africa was indivisible and that their mutual prosperity must be stimulated by a carefully planned and co-ordinated transport system. What has happened since then? Is it not time that this Government did something to recover the years the locust has been eating?

I come to a third example, viz. defence. Once there is permanent detente, if such can be achieved, surely there are far better things for our troops to be doing than policing the thousands of miles of border between these various States in Southern Africa. Surely we could effect great economies by mutual agreements. Surely there is a difference between the sort of defence forces we need in respect of border areas and attack or hostilities from outside. Surely there are greater deterrent advantages which could be achieved if we could work together. There are other fields such as economic, educational and technical in which South Africa could take an initiative in assisting our African neighbours. The advantages would be reciprocal, because we are in this position that even if South Africa becomes internally self-sufficient it could never have lasting peace and prosperity if it is inhabiting a hungry sub-continent. The point I want to make is that if like the encroaching desert the hopeless poverty of the Third World creeps across the Capricorn region, South Africa will not be immune from the consequences. At a recent strategy for development conference in Johannesburg particular attention was paid to the problems of the underdeveloped countries of Africa. It was clear that many of them were in urgent need of assistance, but it was also clear that they would not accept assistance unless it avoided all taint of colonialism or neo-colonialism, unless it was designed to assist them to develop their own skills and resources and unless it was fully attuned to their own local abilities and problems. And who, Sir, is better qualified to have care to those things and yet assist in the area of Southern Africa than South Africa? In view of this, should thought not be given to the establishment of a regional industrial development agency, something that could select areas of best economic advantage for the production of commodities, something that can give attention to resolving some of the problems of multiple customs frontiers and the ironing out some of the problems in existing customs unions, a body that could give attention to the planning of the use of scarce resources such as oil and help plan complementary patterns of growth. Just think of the advantage of such an organization operating at the present time in Southern Africa.

One of the biggest fields of opportunity lies in the question of energy. The shortage of oil has complicated matters for all African countries. We have supplies of coal and uranium. The shortage of oil is going to stimulate the rival demand, on the part of power stations and the petro-chemical industry, for the use of the coal which we have available. The economic extractability of uranium is dependent on the future life of the gold mines as we know it. If we take a regional view of the energy position in Southern Africa, we find that there are vast resources of hydro-electric energy. It is estimated already that hydroelectric energy can be produced in the Zambesi, Kunene, the Shire, the Rovuma, the Rufigi and the Congo Rivers amounting to 40 000 MW, more than three times the installed electrical capacity in South Africa at present. We have great rivers to the north of us, rivers which are great sources of energy, and we have the dry areas in the south which need that energy and that power for their development and for achieving maximum growth and prosperity in the areas concerned. It seems, however, that when we look in retrospect one day, we may feel that Cabora Bassa was just pointing the way. I have furnished a few examples. Surely what we have to work out is a new concept of strategic planning that is going to include all the resources that can be used to further common interests.

We South Africans are indigenous people in Africa. We are forever in and of Africa: that is a legitimate claim. However, I am afraid that is one that will never be fully acknowledged by others unless we play this sort of part in our own region, a part which I believe to be both our opportunity and our obligation. I know what the defence from the Government side will be: I shall be told that I am preaching to the converted; that they have already actively promoted technical co-operation and regional consultation within this strategic area. I shall be referred to soil conservation agreements and to arrangements in respect of tourism, locust and malaria control, and to veterinary assistance. Well, this is true. I am aware also of important links established at both the inter-government level and by private enterprise. But these are nothing like adequate in present circumstances and they are nothing like adequate as a foundation for the future. Time is running out and this Government is sitting there doing virtually nothing about the situation. What I have in mind is a grand strategic design for peace and prosperity, a regional policy far wider in scope and more imaginative in concept than the somewhat formalistic and haphazard activities in which this Government has been engaged. We must develop what we have and it must be made a permanent base of peace and progress in this part of the world. As I have said, the Government’s policies have been inadequate and lacking in vision and that is why we have no confidence in them. The Government has failed to realize what the possibilities are and they show no sign of appreciating it even this afternoon. The people of Southern Africa desire peace and security. That has been demonstrated in the manner in which all parties and all sections of the community have endorsed the first visible signs that the hon. the Prime Minister has seen these wider horizons. We, too, were very glad about that and we commend everything that he has done, but we do not believe that he or his Government has grasped the essential nature of the problem or envisaged the full range of the opportunities and responsibilities which lie before us. Look how long this Government has been in power! What progress have we seen in that direction in the 26 or 27 years it has been in power? Hostilities have begun. South African lives are involved. Now the Government is belatedly asking for an overdraft, an extension of time in which to put things right. But the time is expiring, however, and the Government will soon have to start redeeming its promissory note. Because of that it must lay the wider foundations for peace in Capricorn Africa. It also has to recognize that it is not going to succeed unless it eliminates the fundamental weaknesses in its own policies.

The first of these is a matter which has both domestic and international repercussions, namely the position in South West Africa. I have suggested that a rapid and honourable settlement be achieved based on the wishes of all the inhabitants after effective consultation. In the motion of censure which I introduced in this House in August last year, I dealt in some detail with the somewhat unhappy state of our relations with the United Nations Organization in so far as South West Africa was concerned. I am not referring to the irresponsible actions of the General Assembly; I am referring to the views which have been expressed and the votes which were cast by the responsible Western powers in the Security Council. My forecast that things might deteriorate has unfortunately proved to have been well founded. I do not propose to traverse that ground again, but I do want to deal with the question of South West Africa in the regional context, because it is quite clear that further progress towards a relaxation of tension is going to depend very greatly indeed on our ability to achieve a satisfactory solution in South West Africa. Unless rapid advances are made in South West Africa the sort of relaxation of tensions which is taking place may prove to be illusory in Southern Africa. I believe that the attitudes of the countries in Southern Africa towards South West Africa have a double potential which we must appreciate to the full. The first is that it is going to be difficult to reach any stable solution in South West Africa if that solution is not also accepted by other countries in the region. Conversely, their support and our goodwill can make an important contribution to the achievement of a stable solution. Therefore, the future of South West Africa is inseparably bound up with the pattern of interdependence and co-operation that is essential to the peace in this sub-continent. I believe it is going to evolve as an essential portion of Capricorn Africa, that it will achieve its proper place within it, and that its future security will be guaranteed by it. As I have said before, at the moment it is a diplomatic liability but I believe it can be converted into a major diplomatic asset. It has been suggested that the solution must be found within South West Africa itself. Of course, that is quite right; history has shown that you will never get a lasting solution when such a solution has been forced on people. It will have to be something the people themselves choose. If that is so, all options should be open to them whether they want a unitary State, a federal State or separate development. That does not mean for one moment that South Africa has no further obligations in the matter. Surely, it is not realistic to suggest, as some Nationalist spokesmen and some members of the United Nations seem to be suggesting, that South Africa and the United Nations should now become disinterested spectators of the process towards self-determination and independence. To put it at its very lowest, the Government cannot abandon its responsibility to ensure that there are adequate consultative bodies in South West Africa and a full and fair opportunity to examine those options. I endorse the suggestion that the people of South West Africa must decide, but let us look at the hard facts: South West Africa is an underpopulated country, it covers a vast area, its population is scattered and consists of people with different degrees of political development. Those tendencies are being, shall I say, accentuated because of the implementation of the Odendaal Report and the activities of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The hard fact is that it is utterly unrealistic to feel that those people must be left on their own to find their way back and to find a solution for themselves. This comes at a time when the policies of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are being carried out there in full, when there is a Minister in the Cabinet who comes from South West Africa and leads the Nationalist Party there and who has collective responsibility with the Government, when proclamation R.17 of 1972 still inhibits free political expression in the interest of internal order, and when in countless other ways the policies and administration of the Territory are still subject to direction from Pretoria.

In all these circumstances I think the first and most depressing phenomenon is the unwillingness or inability of the hon. the Prime Minister to give a clear lead as to what the policy of the Government and his party is in that respect. Surely he realizes that rapid and decisive political progress is an essential cornerstone of that policy of detente for which he has received so much anticipatory approval. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that a solution in South West Africa cannot merely be a fortuitous consequence but is in fact an essential pre-condition of the restoration of goodwill and co-operation in Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has been very reticent but his Ministers have not been so reticent about what their policy is in respect of South West Africa. Their interpretations are so much at variance that it would seem to me they compel the Prime Minister to intervene in the interests of clarity alone. The hon. the Minister of Community Development stands by the principle “dat die Blanke nie sy soewereiniteit sal deel nie … die Nasionale Party-hoofbestuur het gesê dat die Nasionale Party sal sy standpunt stel en dit is sy standpunt”.

He has always said that.

The leader of the Executive Council in South West Africa states on the other hand that the Legislative Assembly will represent the views of all the White voters in the Territory. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs declared unequivocally at Warmbad that “Suidwes-Afrika sal ’n Blanke-land wees”. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in the White Paper accompanying his Bill for the Promotion of Self-government of the Native Peoples of South West Africa said that future constitutional development would be “net soos in Suid-Afrika”. Well, where are we? Then you have the Commissioner-General of Owambo. He proposed a White State with a federal system for the non-Whites. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on 1 April. The questions and answers were carefully preserved for posterity on tape.

*I quote—

†Mr. Speaker, in such confusion I think there is a real responsibility on the hon. the Prime Minister to give us an idea of what exactly the situation is. I want to say that what he said so far is utterly inadequate. I cannot accept it and I cannot condone his inactivity because rapid progress in South West Africa is an indispensable precondition to real and lasting détente in Southern Africa.

There is just one more matter in respect of South West Africa that I must raise, and that is the participation of the United Party in South West Africa and the contribution it wishes to make by putting forward a constructive solution on federal lines. The hon. the Prime Minister has himself declared that federation is one of the possibilities. I believe it is possibly the most satisfactory possibility. The Government gave the United Nations the formal assurance on 30 April that all political parties would have full and free participation in the process that would lead to self-determination and independence. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed in Geneva that the South African Government acknowledges and accepts, subject to the requirements of public security, the need for freedom of speech, freedom of political activity, including the holding of public meetings in the process that would lead to self-determination. Now, what has happened? First it seems that the hon. the Prime Minister has abdicated his responsibilities in this regard to certain members of the Executive Committee in South West Africa. Secondly, the leader of the Nationalist Party in South West Africa declared that the White opposition parties should make their proposals to members of the Executive Council or to him personally. Thirdly, there was the summary rejection of the request by the former leader of the United Party in South West Africa that in these circumstances the Nationalist Party must be prepared to present the alternatives to the other population groups. Fourthly, there was the warning by the leader of the Nationalist Party that non-White leaders should not allow the White opposition to ride on their back in achieving their own political objectives.

Now, what is the situation? I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister quite clearly that as far as we are concerned we do not believe that the leader of the Nationalist Party in South West Africa or the members of the Executive Committee are fit and proper persons to negotiate the federal concept with the other population groups in South West Africa. The United Party in South West Africa may be a minority party; it may not have representation in the Legislative Assembly, but it has 30% of the votes, which means support from a population group greater than that of some of the homelands and there is no doubt that the federal idea is gaining support. Sir, I do not quite know what is amusing hon. members opposite, perhaps I could be let into the joke. I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon what I feel is a perfectly logical and reasonable demand, consistent with the hon. gentleman’s own undertaking, and that is that these scandalous attempts to exclude the White Opposition from participation in shaping the future of South West Africa should now cease. I believe the Opposition has a right to play its proper part in the political process that is going to lead to self-determination and eventual independence. I can give the corresponding assurance, which I believe would hardly be seriously questioned, not even by the leader of the Nationalist Party in South West Africa, that the United Party there will make a contribution fully consistent with the importance and urgency of the situation. I therefore ask the hon. the Prime Minister to give me an assurance in the course of this debate that the rights of the Opposition will be recognized in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated the case for a more purposeful and constructive regional policy that could create a solid bastion of peace and progress in Capricorn Africa. I have spoken of the need to deal more urgently and realistically with the situation in South West Africa and to envisage that territory as a positive element within the broad regional structure.

I come now, Sir, to the third and vitally important requirement for the achievement of détente in Southern Africa, and that is the strengthening of the position of South Africa itself by resolving its human relations within South Africa as it stands. I want to say that unless the Government does this, it is never going to be able to negotiate on behalf of a people truly united to that end to break down the wall of prejudice and hostility which separates us from people who should be our friends. In these regards the most fundamental requirement, I think, is real and visible evidence that the Government is moving to eradicate institutionalized inequality in South Africa itself. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister has taken some important new initiatives abroad. He has done so by virtue of an extension of credit granted him, and by the acceptance of his personal undertakings and the undertakings of his ambassadors abroad that it is his Government’s unconditional attitude that—

This, Sir, is a promissory note that must be redeemed. The United States Ambassador said subsequently (U.S. Information Newsletter 6.11.’74) that the triple veto against South Africa’s expulsion had not been cast in exchange for specific promises, but he went on to add this—

And of course Sir, an implied condition of detente in Southern Africa is exactly the implementation of this undertaking. I do not believe that specific conditions for the removal of discrimination were laid down or were accepted but I think it is perfectly clear that the expectations of other Governments in this region are the same as they are in New York. It is perfectly clear that that applies also to Black and Brown people wherever they live and work. They are no longer going to be satisfied by the protestations of theorists that race discrimination will be made to disappear through the realization of separate territorial nationhoods.

Now, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has recently taken initiatives which I also commend. He has called meetings of Black leaders, Coloured leaders and Indian leaders. A large number of proposals have been put forward by them and I expect that Parliament will find time to discuss those in detail. But speaking generally I would say that the majority of those proposals were not unreasonable and that their acceptance would have been consistent with the Government’s own determination to do away with discrimination on the basis of skin colour and to move away from discrimination on the grounds of race. Now. Sir, with a few exceptions, what happened? The hon. the Prime Minister undertook to have the proposals of the Black leaders considered, discussed or investigated. What has been the reaction of the Black leaders?

“We have very little news to take home”, said Dr. Phatudi, the Chief Minister of Lebowa, after the meeting. “We expected a bit more meat on those dry bones”.

Chief Gatsha Buthelezi said, amongst other things, that it was time “to deliver the goods” if disaster was to be avoided in South Africa. Prof. Ntsanwisi, the Chief Minister of Gazankulu, said that minor changes were insufficient, and I quote—

In the case of the meetings with the Coloured and Indian leaders it would seem that a few more specific concessions were made and the reaction was correspondingly better. But the hon the Prime Minister must be under no illusions. Symbolic gestures, however welcome, will not meet the real needs of these people. The opening of the Nico Malan Theatre to all races, welcome as it is, and much as I welcome it, is a case in point. In this regard I want to quote the words, not of a Black man or of a Brown man, but of a good Nationalist supporter of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Cape M.E.C. Mr. Frans Conradie, who is reported to have said, after referring to what he described as “the pathological resistance” to amenities for Coloureds, even when they were planned on a strict apartheid basis—

I want to take it a little further, Sir. There was a letter published in The Argus last week which describes a state of affairs far better than I can ever do. I am only going to read the first and last paragraphs. It is the story of a Black man and his wife who went on a motoring tour along the east coast of the Cape. It is striking evidence of the sort of treatment that is still accorded to educated South Africans of colour. This is what he wrote—

He then refers to the number of notices forbidding the use of various facilities by them, for example braaivleis facilities, lavatories, hotels, bathing places, various resorts, etc., and continues—

Mr. Speaker, what was the meaning of the statement of the hon. ambassador at the United Nations when this sort of thing is still happening in South Africa at the present time? I want to ask hon. members opposite a question. I want to ask them whether they have ever directed their minds to how the better paid urban Black man can spend his take-home money after he has provided for food and clothing, for amusement and things of that kind. On what does he spend his money? Hon. members opposite are always minimizing the effects of discrimination in South Africa. That Black man cannot buy a better home than his neighbour. He cannot buy a home at all. He cannot invest in industry and commerce as he wishes in areas reasonably under his purview. He cannot spend money on a decent holiday in South Africa if he wants reasonably civilized conditions. If he is rich he has to go overseas in order to enjoy a holiday with civilized amenities. He cannot enjoy the best education at school, cultural activities or even entertainment. He is offered leasehold when in South Africa only freehold can supply for him the basic elements of a capitalist society. He gets no advantage out of the appreciation in value of his home. He cannot bequeath it to his child or his wife and he has no security. In fact, what this Government is doing is this: It is forbidding him, as it forbids us, to contemplate or embrace the tenets of Communism while denying him the alternative advantage of a capitalist state. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if meaningful change is to mean anything it must mean getting down to the basic re-orientation of the urban Black man. The Government must take the lead not only in ending discrimination in the work place but in aiming to create an environment in which all people will live out their lives free from fear of humiliation because of the colour of their skin.

There are other fields too in which action is urgently needed. Hon. members know my views. I have said before there is nothing which symbolizes more pointedly to the Black and the Brown man at home and abroad the attitude of the White man in South Africa to his Black and Brown fellow citizens than those provisions of the Immorality Act dealing with sex across the colour line. And, Mr. Speaker, nothing is more difficult to defend to Black and Brown diplomats and would-be friends c South Africa than just that bit of legislation. Today even the Nationalist Press refuses to defend it. Is it not time it was removed from the Statute Book and ceased to exercise such a disruptive influence on the race relations of our region?

Why did you not support me three years ago?

There are other matters too. There is job reservation, there is home ownership, there is the question of educational facilities, which are the very basis of communication between civilized human beings and which are so blatantly discriminatory and so indefensible that they inevitably disrupt the climate for détente in the whole of Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, 1975 is among other things Womens’ Year. If the Government is concerned about meaningful change, then I would suggest that it considers as a priority the humble and helpless state of the Black woman in South Africa. It would perhaps do more real good than a thousand new committees if it were to help these women better to fulfil the peaceful and civilizing role in family life that should be the priceless contribution of the wife and mother. They can only do it if they are guaranteed certain things. The first is the right to undisturbed family life. The second is the right of a family to own a home. The third is the right of that woman to own or to occupy that home even if widowed, divorced or single. The fourth is adequate education and welfare facilities for her children so that they may be kept off the streets and the family’s ambitions for them given a better chance of success. The fifth is adequate educational facilities for herself and the right to job opportunity and advancement, and equal pay for equal work and responsibility. These are five very simple things, the sort of things which are taken for granted in all civilized states outside of the communist countries. But they are of paramount importance to the people whom they affect and their denial is having a most damaging effect on race relations in South Africa. We know this from the consultations which we have been holding with people from different walks of life at all levels. It is because these consultations have made us so acutely conscious of the gaps in understanding the unresolved problems of these people that we have pleaded so earnestly for the establishment of a Council of State, even if it is purely an advisory body, on which all races would be represented. If ever there was a time when the Government needed to be fully informed of the currents of opinion flowing in the ranks of our Black and Brown people it is now. Without détente at home we shall never achieve détente in Southern Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister has rejected our federal solution.

Is it still your policy?

It is still my policy and I do not know why the hon. the Prime Minister doubts it. Unlike him I do not change from day to day. I always get suspicious when the hon. the Prime Minister asks me if something is still my policy because that is always the prelude to his taking it over himself. That is what he has been doing with one policy statement after another in the last 25 years. The hon. the Prime Minister has rejected our federal solution involving the sharing of power and responsibility. The majority of the homeland leaders, in their turn and at their own summit meeting, have rejected the ultimate objective of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy, namely independence for the homelands. It would therefore seem that he is on a dead-end road as far as that is concerned. The hon. gentleman has consulted with certain Coloured leaders, but the laudatory remarks for his policy which that consultation earned him must be small consolation when he reflects that those with whom he consulted on the last occasion represent a minority of the elected representatives in the Coloured Representative Council and that the overwhelming majority of elected representatives totally reject his policy. How impossible is the position going to become when the Coloured Representative Council becomes a completely elected body, which it is going to become fairly soon? How impossible is his position going to be after the next election even when it is not yet fully elected? I see the apprehension on the face of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs. I do not blame him. Even his nominees are not going to have a majority to those who are favouring the Government after the next election. The question I want to ask is whether it is not time that the hon. the Prime Minister start tailoring his policies towards that day when he has a fully elected council which is now not so far away? What is he promising now?—Committees for inter-Cabinet consultation with the Coloureds and the Indians. This is a step in the right direction, but when is the hon. the Prime Minister going to grasp the nettle of the political representation of the Coloured and Indian people? He knows and I know that you cannot have two or three sovereign Parliaments within one State. What is his answer going to be? Others on this side will deal with these issues.

There is only one further essential point to which I want to make brief but emphatic reference to complete my argument. It is implicit in all I have said that what has to be achieved can only be achieved on the basis of a South Africa which is economically strong. All we stand for, all we hope for is going to be lost unless we can stop the wasting away of our economic strength through inflation. The country’s wealth, its vitality, will wither away unless we can take effective measures to check the disastrous fall in the value of what we earn, save and invest. We wait, the entire country waits, for any positive sign that the Government can furnish a remedy. It seems that we are waiting in vain. All that I have said, concerning the strengthening of our internal position can, I think, be summed up in a single sentence. The strongest weapon we can forge in our own defence, the greatest contribution we can make to détente, is a contented population at home, proof against both the blandishments and threats of the terrorists on our borders and the agitators in our midst. In that this Government has singularly failed to be successful.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to find the right words to describe the motion before the House. It is certainly most amazing, indeed astounding that the leader of a party which is, as it were, tottering on its last legs—I do not have to elaborate on that —could have the audacity to propose a motion of no confidence in a Government which is literally riding on the crest of the wave. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was obviously in a dilemma when he had to decide about this motion. Unfortunately I cannot congratulate him on the way in which he tried to extricate himself and his party. Instead of giving full and unconditional credit where credit is due, the motion on the Order Paper does not contain a single word of appreciation for the Government, not even for the Prime Minister. The hon. leader did commend him in a sentence or two, but he spoilt it afterwards by, for instance, using the expression “a few miserable signs of success”. That is how the motion was published on the Order Paper and how it appeared in the world Press. There was not a single word of appreciation in the motion for what the Prime Minister and the Government have achieved. Imagine, merely a few words of praise for what has already been achieved. Not a single word about the Government’s handling of events in Mozambique or about the Prime Minister’s role in the developments in Rhodesia. It is unnecessary for me to have to remind the House about the progress that has been made during the last few months, especially since the now historic speech by my leader in the Other Place. Every South African is aware of it and most South Africans, regardless of their political affiliations, appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister, of the Government and of those in South Africa and outside South Africa who are assisting us. Even the English-language Press in South Africa does not hesitate to acknowledge the important role which the South African Prime Minister has played and which he is continuing to play. Perhaps it is unfair to expect the hon. gentlemen to be influenced by the English-language Press in South Africa. Why then do they not take a look at the overseas Press, including newspapers which have, in the past, been exceedingly critical, if not biased and openly hostile towards the Government of South Africa and its policies? Many of those newspapers do not hesitate to give South Africa all the credit which we deserve.

I will indicate that both the motion and the speech of the leader are not only amazing, but also far-fetched, ill-considered and completely unjustified. The first section dealing with Africa can indeed be described as a chapter of errors.

*It is very clear that the motion as we have it before us is the combined effort of a group of persons who have no idea whatsoever of some of the matters which are mentioned in the motion, of persons who have no idea of what is happening all around them in Southern Africa, and of persons who, willy-nilly, wanted certain subjects incorporated in the motion because it suited their purpose to have them there. As usual the motion we have before us is a very long one, and it covers a very wide field. Two of the three subparagraphs in the motion affect me as Minister of Foreign Affairs, viz. the subparagraph dealing with the South African Government’s African policy and the subparagraph dealing with the South West African question. As hon. members heard, four other subjects have been dragged in, viz. human rights, including the rights of minorities and a possible convention in that connection, the elimination of discrimination, race relations and inflation—to which reference is also made in the motion. I cannot help feeling that these four additional subjects have, as it were, been dragged in by the hair. They were dragged in in order to be there in case the other ammunition of the United Party runs out or if it should appear in the course of the debate—which will soon happen—that the Opposition’s powder was damp in respect of the Government’s African policy and in respect of South West Africa.

†I do not intend to deal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s arguments about discrimination, race relations and inflation …

Why not?

I shall leave that to other hon. members on this side of the House.

Do they not affect your job?

In order to put the record straight, I wish to comment briefly on paragraph (c)(i) which reads as follows: “… the undertaking of the Government to the United Nations in respect of the removal of discrimination based on colour alone”. These words could be interpreted to mean or to imply that the South African Government holds itself accountable to the United Nations in matters of domestic concern, in matters of domestic jurisdiction. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may deny it, but that impression might be created. I wish to state here very clearly that this is not the case. Nothing could be further from the truth. The remarks of our permanent representative in the Security Council on 24 October 1974, which I presume the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had in mind, were merely an explanation of the policy of the South African Government and, I may add, a very clear and correct explanation of our policy.

It was not a declaration of policy.

In this connection the Leader of the Opposition levelled a reproach in respect of the rights of minorities. Inter alia, he wants us to find a solution by means of a convention on human rights. I want to point out that the Government’s policy of separate development is in fact directed at preventing the domination of one population group by another. This is also the most practical form of protecting human rights. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to deal with the matter on a regional basis, it could amount to, or degenerate into, interference in one another’s domestic affairs, and this is definitely one of the greatest evils of international life. I think the hon. the Leader will agree that this opens the door to interference in one another’s domestic affairs.

That the motion was not well-considered appears further from the sections on defence and strategic planning. The most encouraging development in Southern Africa lies in the willingness of leaders now sincerely to seek, instead of sterile confrontation, the solution to certain fundamental problems which placed obstacles in the way of co-operation in the past and which still do so today. However, enough has already been said about this. Let us be realistic now. After all, first things come first. Defence and strategic planning fall into the most sensitive sphere of inter-State cooperation. One has to adopt a long course of co-operation in a region before one can venture into this sphere. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to stifle the present healthy development at its birth, he must now insist on agreements in this extremely sensitive sphere. I can give him the assurance that it is not our intention to come forward with such untimely matters at a time when such serious attempts are being made to avoid conflict, but that we must first eliminate those problems which block further development.

As a general principle in this sphere I want to remind hon. members of the willingness of our Prime Minister to conclude non-aggression pacts with all freedom-loving, non-communist States in Africa. I have made that offer repeatedly at the UN, and it still stands today. At the right time the first step in this direction will be taken. When the time is ripe we will in fact hold talks with others in the military sphere. In any case, all the States in Southern Africa know that we are not a threat to anyone, because we do not interfere in their affairs. Sufficient proof of this has been given in practice. Because our neighbouring States have nothing to fear from us in the military sphere they know that they do not have to spend large amounts of money on defence. In this regard I want to reiterate, by way of summary, that we in Southern Africa should concentrate first on the elimination of problems which are conducive to confrontation. We simply must persevere in this, because the alternatives, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister which were also quoted by the hon. the Leader, are “too ghastly to contemplate”. Fortunately other leaders in Southern Africa are in agreement with us in this regard, and, practically-speaking, this is the strongest motive behind the détente attempts which are in progress.

Mr. Speaker, as far as South West Africa is concerned, the Government is being accused in this motion of failing to appreciate that it is necessary to achieve a rapid and honourable settlement of the issue after effective consultation with the inhabitants. But these words sound strange, for this is in fact the policy of the Government, which has already been stated repeatedly and unequivocally. …

But nothing is being done.

… that there is only one solution to the problem of South West Africa, viz.—and I am quoting what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his famous speech last October in the Other Place—

Hon. members will be aware that the National Party of South West Africa has taken the initiative in this connection. They took the initiative by resolving last year that positive steps should be taken to encourage and to hold discussions between the various population groups in the territory in order, eventually, to achieve a final agreement on the constitutional future of the territory. Virtually all the population groups reacted favourably to this initiative. To get the exchange of ideas into full swing now, it is necessary for the various population groups to designate their spokesmen for these discussions. At the time when the initiative was announced, the Government of Owambo reacted positively. Before they sent representatives to the talks they wanted to ensure that no one had any doubts whatsoever as to whether or not those representatives represented the Ovambo people. The Ovambo Government repeatedly made it clear that, inter alia, an election was being held to eliminate all doubts as to who the recognized leaders of that people were. The election took place. A high percentage of votes was polled, in spite of attempts to boycott the election. And now, in the words of the Chief Minister of Ovambo, the Ovambos are able to send true representatives to the proposed talks among the various population groups. Other population groups are also engaged in this task, and we wish them success.

But what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expect now? He expects us to interfere in the designation of the representatives of the White population. Why? It is because he does not like the representatives who have already been designated in a democratic manner. But surely he should not pick a quarrel with us on that score. He should quarrel with the White population groups of South West Africa who elected those people. The leaders have to be designated. They have already been designated in the case of the Whites, the Ovambos, and others.

We have been devoting attention to the South West African issue for many years. Everyone who has the true interests of the inhabitants at heart, knows that there are no instant solutions to this difficult issue. Only a well-considered solution which is acceptable to all the population groups has any chance of success. It is a pity the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not indicate precisely what his solution to the matter was. Nor is it for the Government of South Africa to say that a solution to this problem should be found rapidly. However much we would like to find a solution, it is not for us to determine the pace. The sooner the solution is found, the better for all concerned. But in the last resort it is the inhabitants themselves who have to decide at what pace they wish to move towards a final solution, just as it is they and no one else, who have to ensure what the nature of that solution is. Surely to try to create the impression now, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing, that we are leaving the inhabitants of the Territory to their fate, to struggle along and muddle through as they please, is totally misleading. We are in constant contact with those people: we are in contact with all the groups. We have permanent representatives there. We are proceeding with the development of the Territory in every possible sphere, including the political sphere. Nevertheless, Sir, I want to repeat that on the basis of new developments in South West Africa, it is the view of this Government that the population of the Territory could reach the stage where it would be prepared to exercise its right of self-determination considerably sooner than the ten years which were envisaged during the contacts with Dr. Waldheim a few years ago. As far as we are concerned, we would of course be ready and eager to render assistance in order to achieve a rapid solution; and what could be more honourable than a solution worked out and accepted by the people who are involved and whose future is determined by it? This much as far as South West Africa is concerned.

As far as South Africa’s relations with its neighbouring states are concerned, the Government has, in all the important spheres mentioned in the motion, fulfilled its duty completely and achieved a great deal, as I shall indicate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused the Government of having failed to promote regional initiative by not concluding agreements—and I have to assume that he means regional agreements between States —and in this connection he referred in the first place to migrant labour. I think it is a pity he made the statement that a stigma attaches to our mine labour. I am certain that South Africa’s enemies will seize upon this statement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and will use it against South Africa. In the same breath I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Has he, as Leader of the Opposition, ever done anything to improve the lot of those mineworkers on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere? We, the Government, have in fact done so.

You misunderstood me completely.

Then I am sorry. But, Mr. Speaker, let us ask ourselves this question: Where does our labour come from? Which neighbouring states’ citizens have in the past come to work in the Republic? The vast majority have come from Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Mozambique and Malawi, and now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is accusing us of not having concluded agreements with those territories. If the accusation was well-grounded, he would have had a very strong case, but what is the true state of affairs? In the case of all the states he mentioned, except one, formal agreements with South Africa are already in existence; I have them here. The only exception is Swaziland, with whom negotiations are in progress, and with whom I hope an agreement will also be concluded in the near future. Take Lesotho. In respect of Lesotho, permanent arrangements concerning the employment of Lesotho citizens coming to the Republic as well as related matters have been in existence since 1963. On 24 August 1973 a formal agreement was signed between our two Governments; I have it here. Apparently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not seen it yet. The same applies to Botswana, with which a similar agreement was concluded in December 1973. A like agreement with Malawi, and this ought to interest the hon. member there because it is his field—has been in existence since 1967, while a pact with Mozambique, which is still in operation today, was concluded many years ago. We are being accused of not concluding agreements with out neighbouring states on a regional basis. [Interjections.] If you read the motion on the Order Paper you will see it. [Interjections.] These agreements were no secret. They were announced in public and were published. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not aware of them?

That is not what I was referring to.

Apparently his objection is that these agreements were not concluded on a regional basis. [Interjections.] Surely it is stated thus in the motion. Now is it realistic to expect that South Africa should conclude agreements in regard to labour in Southern Africa on a regional basis, as is being proposed in this motion? In the case of the so-called BSL countries, joint talks were in fact held at one stage, but surely it is quite logical that separate agreements had to be concluded with the States concerned, for the circumstances are different for each neighbouring state, and each state must, after all, look after its own interests. Every agreement which is concluded serves a particular purpose, viz. to arrange certain matters as agreed with that country in question, for the interests of the people in all the neighbouring states do not always correspond. Anyone who has dealt in practice with foreign labour will appreciate that one simply cannot have a fixed pattern with all or conclude a joint agreement with an entire group, as is being advocated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As far as migrant labour is concerned, therefore, the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition falls quite flat.

When we come to transportation and communication between South Africa and our neighbouring states, the accusation is even more antiquated. If one had been listening to the Leader of the Opposition speaking on transportation and communications, one could have thought that South Africa had been totally isolated in that sphere for the past 20 years, and that is not the case at all. In the case of Mozambique an agreement which has been brought up to date from time to time has been in existence since the previous century. The result is that as far as transportation is concerned there is almost daily contact at operational level between South Africa and Mozambique. It is true that new circumstances have recently caused a measure of disruption in respect of railway transportation to and from, and harbour facilities in Lourenço Marques, but we trust that this is of a temporary nature. We on our part are encouraging importers and exporters and shipping lines to make full use of the railway and harbour facilities there. In addition we are trying to eliminate any snags in our joint handling of the operating problems, and the Government hopes that the problems will be ironed out rapidly and that Mozambique will soon be able to handle its normal traffic again. We would definitely welcome this. It is in our interests, and also in their interests, in view of the economic inter-dependence of all of us in Southern Africa. As far as our other neighbouring states are concerned, there is in fact a joint agreement in respect of railway and road transportation. Therefore a joint regional agreement does in fact exist. Apparently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not aware of this either. This agreement is incorporated in the Customs Union Agreement which was signed on 11 December 1969 and which superseded the original agreement of 1910. I am referring in particular to articles 15 and 16, which deal specifically with rail and road traffic. In other words, here the matter was in fact dealt with on a regional basis. Further discussions are in progress with Botswana and Lesotho in regard to the possibility of separate road transportation agreements, while the possibility of a rail link between Swaziland and Richards Bay is also being mooted. I assume that it is generally known that a new rail link between the Republic of South Africa and Rhodesia via Beit Bridge was recently constructed. Mr. Sneaker, it is perhaps less generally known that the Republic also has rail links with Zambia and Zaire. As far as air traffic is concerned, the position is also quite satisfactory, for there are regular air services to all adjoining neighbouring states, as well as to Malawi and Angola. Why the Government is being attacked in the case of transportation and communication, and why the image is being created that we are totally isolated in this sphere, is therefore something I quite fail to understand.

The same applies to the accusations in respect of mutual economic and technical aid with a view to the establishment of an economic community for Southern Africa. Far from failure on the part of the Government we have made further progress in this sphere than any other region in the world. If one were to read the customs agreement with our neighbouring Black states one would realize that it creates a closer economic community than for example the European Economic Community, the so-called E.E.C. in Western Europe. And this customs union is not static. One need only read the preamble to the agreement to realize that its object is in fact to create the most favourable climate possible for development. I want to quote it to the House—

Perhaps I could also refer here to the monetary agreement between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland which was concluded last year. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has advocated the establishment of an economic community. As far as this is concerned the Government has already gone as far as is possible under the present circumstances. Of course we also envisage closer co-operation, in the economic sphere, on a regional basis and over a wider field. It is not impossible that an economic community could be established in Southern Africa at a later stage, in which other states as well, which are not at present members of the toll union, could be included. It is even possible that an economic bloc of States with common interests could be formed, States which are interdependent in the economic sphere. Considerable progress has already been made in laying the foundations of such a bloc or community, and we are continually engaged in furthering the building of this bloc. However, one cannot act too rapidly; one cannot proceed precipitately; one should not try to run before one has learnt to walk. There are, for example, obvious reasons why it has not up to now been practicable for us to take pains to include other adjoining neighbouring states in the customs union. Two of them were, until recently, still under the control of a European power. However, what could and had to be done was done without fail, and is constantly being done. After the BSL countries attained their independence the old agreement was superseded by a new one which, as I have indicated, was adapted to the new circumstances. Inter alia, it entailed that the three neighbouring states were assured of a considerable and permanent source of State Revenue which means a very great deal to them.

In addition there is co-operation and assistance on a considerable scale outside the framework of the customs union, both on a bilateral and on a regional basis. One thinks of South African participation, on the part of the private sector as well, in the development of the mineral resources of Botswana. One thinks of the creation of the growth point in Malawi through our participation in the Lilongwe project, and of the construction of the Nacala railway line linking Malawi with the sea, etc. One good example of co-operation on a regional basis is Sartoc, an organization of which the most States in Southern Africa, including Mauritius, are members and which seeks to promote tourism on a regional basis. I may mention in passing that Sartoc held its last meeting in the Republic in 1974. As far as economic cooperation is concerned, therefore, a great deal has already been achieved, and these achievements may not by any means be belittled.

The Government’s record in respect of co-operation in the technical-scientific sphere is, if anything, even more impressive than in the economic sphere, for here important regional co-operation is taking place over a considerably wider field. I am thinking in particular of the organization known as Sarccus, in which we cooperate with seven other States in Southern Africa. The object of this organization may interest hon. members, and I just want to quote it briefly—

It is therefore a tremendously wide field. In the words of the most recent director of this organization, Prof. Danie Joubert of the University of Pretoria—

For this reason the meetings of this important organization are usually attended by those who formulate policy in their respective countries, so that ideas may also be exchanged at the very highest level and decisions may be implemented without delay.

However, I do not want to tire this House with details of technical and economic co-operation. Hon. members who are interested in this would do well to glance at the annual reports of our Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It is very active in Africa. Hon. members would do well to glance at the regular publications of the Africa Institute, and numerous other organizations; they would do well to take the trouble to glance at the trade figures of the Republic of South Africa with Africa. During 1973 our total trade with Africa amounted to R532.7 million. This figure increased to R695 million in 1974, an increase therefore of approximately R162 million, or 30%. This is important if one appreciates that there are States included in this whose political relations with South Africa were less friendly. Surely such an achievement would never have been possible if the Government had been so grossly negligent of its duty in respect of Africa as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has tried to imply.

So I can continue to demolish the arguments of the hon. the Leader one by one, whether or not he finds it pleasant now to listen to this. Let us examine the following accusation. According to him the Government has failed in its duty in respect of cooperation in regard to the use of the energy resources of the region. We have done nothing to warrant the accusation that we have neglected our duty on that score. The hon. Leader did in fact refer indirectly to Cabora Bassa and the Kunene project. Was the hon. the Leader not aware of the formal agreements in this regard which were signed as long ago as 1964 and 1969? The generation and distribution of power requires major capital investment, a fact which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not appreciate. Therefore the utilization of the power has to be considerable enough to economically justify its generation and distribution. There is a vast difference in the degree of industrial development between South Africa and most other countries in Southern Africa. This necessitates a particular pattern of co-operation. What this amounts to in practice is that we—i.e. the Republic —have to buy power from our neighbours. We have to do this particularly at the outset when their own requirements are not yet extensive enough, and this is precisely what will happen in the case of the Kunene and Cabora Bassa schemes. These two schemes have an enormous potential, and for that reason we turned our attention to them first. That was why they were priorities with us. In the meantime we have not been sleeping, for we are, together with other neighbouring states, investigating other schemes. Talks have already commenced with Lesotho in regard to the so-called Malibamatso scheme, previously called the Ox Bow scheme. Talks have also been held with Swaziland in regard to the generation of thermal power by the Government of Swaziland.

I want to dwell for a moment on Cabora Bassa. What influenced the Government in interesting itself in that major scheme? Was it a shortage of power? Was it fear that we would not have sufficient power in future? No, by no means. We acted in that regard in a spirit of co-operation, because we wanted to promote regional development, which the hon. the leader has advocated, for Cabora Bassa is not merely a power generating project. It will in fact be able to provide various neighbouring states as well as our country with power, i.e. the provision of power on a regional basis. However, there is far more than this at stake. The planning covers a far wider sphere. In this way, for example, it creates the potential for irrigation and development of the extensive Zambezi valley between Cabora Bassa and the Indian Ocean, as well as development in neighbouring states to whom power will be supplied. South Africa’s undertaking to buy a large percentage of the power initially was a decisive factor in this project for it made the project economically possible. The result is that tens of thousands of people in Mozambique and other neighbouring states of ours will enjoy the benefits of this and will be able to deal with the threat of starvation, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. The same applies to the Kunene scheme, which, just like the Cabora Bassa scheme, has reached an advanced stage. The statement or the insinuation that not enough has been done, is extremely unfair. If we take into consideration the nominal requirements of the other States and the enormous capital expenditure which will be required, it would be totally unpractical to tackle further schemes on a regional basis now, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated1. It was not very clear to me whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was thinking of co-operation in respect of nuclear energy; I could not follow very clearly what the hon. the leader said on that score, but I just want to point out that anything like that would be totally unpractical at this stage for reasons which I need not elaborate on.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had thanked or congratulated the Prime Minister and the Government on what we have already achieved in the interests of the whole of South Africa, instead of moving and advocating a motion of no confidence, it would have redounded to his credit. If he had done so he would have displayed true statesmanship and he would have improved his entire image and the image of his tottering party in South Africa, as well as in the outside world. If he had done so, he would have promoted South Africa’s case in Africa and in the outside world, and he would perhaps have made a contribution to détente, however humble that contribution may have been. Why did the hon. leader not rather propose that everyone in this House, on both sides of the House, should participate in a discussion of how we could promote detente, or that we conduct a discussion on how we could enlarge our co-operation with Africa without hurling totally undeserved reproaches at the Government and without moving a motion of no confidence in this Government? After all, such a motion is not obligatory.

But it is absurd.

Instead of acting positively the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sought to make petty political gain and he allowed a golden parliamentary opportunity to promote the interests of South Africa and Southern Africa to slip. However, I do not want to castigate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition any further. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may be surprised, but I even want to thank him. I think it is generally known that it is my policy and the policy of my department to maintain a low profile throughout. We do not seek publicity because it is usually not in the national interests. In particular we do not want publicity when we are breaking new ground. We are seeking results, and we are achieving results, thanks in particular to the statesmanship and the leadership of our Prime Minister, who is gaining ever more status and respect for himself and for South Africa in the free world. I want to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he gave me a good excuse to enlighten this House and others in regard to our extensive activities, something which I normally do not like doing. However, the attempt by the hon. the leader to justify a motion of no confidence in the Government failed completely. All he succeeded in doing was to afford a golden opportunity to let the spotlight fall afresh on the great achievements of the National Party Government, an opportunity to intensify the realization once again that there is only one Government to which South Africa’s destiny could be entrusted in these times of crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs was chosen to reply this afternoon to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He did not throw much light for us on all the interesting events of recent times, and it is a pity that a man in his position did not do this for us. But he has at least prevented this debate from beginning on a petty party-political basis.

You will see to that.

I must say that I am a bit surprised at the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for being so offended because there were not, in the motion at least, words of praise for the wonderful Government this afternoon. I shall give a word of praise later, but does the hon. the Minister expect us to applaud the Government? No, we have not come here to do that. The hon. the Minister must concede that many of the difficulties in which South Africa finds itself today are in fact attributable to the policy of the Government. Now that the Government is correcting what it has bungled, we are pleased that it is happening, but he must not expect from us that we must come here to applaud.

I shall come to the South West Africa issue later. The hon. the Minister attacked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having raised the question of consensus and the official Opposition’s participation therein in South West Africa. I am surprised by the hon. the Minister’s point of view. In 1948, when the United Party was in power in South West Africa, the National Party had only one elected representative in the Legislative Assembly of South West, but when Dr. Malan went to South West in October 1948 to establish a new constitution for South West he called the United Party and the National Party together on an equal basis so that there could be consensus amongst the Whites before he came to this Parliament to give a new constitution to South West. Let me say to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Prime Minister that we are not going to moan if the official Opposition is excluded from talks in South West Africa, but then the Government must not come and complain later if we accuse it of having played party politics with the interests of South West rather than having looked for a common solution.

Before I come to matters which were touched on by the hon. the Minister and which I want to raise in the field of foreign relations myself, let me just say a few words about the background against which we are entering this session. We are aware of the fact that far-reaching changes lie ahead for all of us in South Africa. This will inevitably bring about that there will be people in South Africa who will lead the way and others who follow dragging their feet. There will also be a whole lot of people whose thinking will be such that they will simply stay behind protesting. As a result of this all political parties in South Africa are going to experience their quota of problems; the one perhaps to a somewhat larger extent than the other. This we must expect. Our attitude is, however, that different parties sticking out their tongues at one another will not help anybody. The hon. the Minister spoke here of a “tottering” United Party. Outside there is talk of the irrelevancy of the Party.

†Mr. Speaker, this talk about the so-called irrelevancy of the official Opposition is nonsense. In our system of government no party which occupies the position of the official Opposition is irrelevant. Apart from this the United Party is based on fundamental ideals and objectives in respect of its internal policies which are more relevant to South Africa today than any other policies in the country. Let me just mention a few of the fundamental objectives of this party. They are, firstly, the removal of all discrimination based on the colour of a man’s skin. Without this it is fruitless to hope for a state of peaceful co-existence between our different peoples in South Africa. In other words, colour apartheid must be buried. The colour curtain in South Africa must come down. This must be done swiftly.

Secondly, fundamental to our outlook is social, economic and cultural freedom. Every individual in this country must have the right to seek his own social, cultural and economic place in society unburdened by Government restrictions on the ground of race ideology. This of course implies that any cultural group and any private sector of the population should have the right to organize themselves for social, economic and cultural purposes as exclusively or inclusively as they prefer.

The third fundamental ideal of the United Party is that of political co-operation between our different peoples on the basis of co-existence and of no domination of one over any other. Because we realize that the only successful way in which in a multinational country such as ours different peoples can work successfully together without the one dominating the other politically is a federal one, our philosophy is federalism and we therefore seek a federal arrangement for the peoples of South Africa.

These have been the main objectives of this side of the House for years. We do not have the slightest doubt that if South Africa wishes to survive as a country and if the White man wishes to have a secure future in South Africa the country will have to turn in the direction of these ideals. Whether in the long run the public will give the United Party the credit it deserves by putting it into power or not or whether other parties will eventually implement these objectives, because they have no alternative, because they have no choice, is immaterial at this stage. What cannot be disputed is that the party promoting the fundamental ideas that we advocate can in no circumstances be or become politically irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, the focus has lately fallen sharply on South Africa’s international relations and in particular on the Government’s efforts to end confrontation and achieve détente in South Africa. There can be no doubt as to where we stand in all this. The record shows that we have consistently promoted a productive foreign policy, a foreign policy based on a number of principles of which I want to mention just a few. The first is emphasis on our African personality and the forging of the closest links of friendship and co-operation, economically, culturally and security-wise, especially with our immediate neighbours in Southern Africa.

The second is full membership of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an ideal guide for all civilized countries. Included here is of course also membership of all international organizations which are relevant to South Africa’s interests. Thirdly, a speedy solution to the issue of South West Africa by the application of the principle of self-determination to the territory and its peoples without undue delay and in a manner consistent with the generally accepted meaning of the term, and, finally, Sir, the widest degree of personal diplomacy in the field of foreign relations by the head of our Government. Sir, in every country of the world the Prime Minister or the President at the head of the Government is the central and most authoritative representative of his country. We need only look at the active and leading part which the Prime Ministers and Presidents of other countries play in the field of their country’s international relations to realize how far we have been lagging behind in this respect. It speaks 100% for itself that in so far as the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government promote the objectives which we have advocated for so long and which we regard as essential to the well-being of South Africa, he can count on the effective support of the Opposition. It would be illogical for a party to oppose steps which follow its own objectives. Sir, the question that we have to face is whether the Government have advanced far enough for us to express the kind of feeling of confidence that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs wanted us to express here this afternoon. Let us look at the picture. The Prime Minister has embarked on a measure of personal diplomacy and the whole country has welcomed it. Everyone has welcomed it, including the Leader of the Opposition in statements made by him. But, Sir, the precise scope of his recent activities is not known because they were clothed in secrecy. One had hoped that the hon. the Minister would enlighten us somewhat here today. We cannot therefore at this stage assess the Prime Minister’s role as accurately as we would have liked to do. But I hope it will soon be possible for the hon. the Prime Minister to give us a full account of what he and President Kaunda and President Seretse Khama and Mr. Samora Machel and other African leaders have done to reach a state of communication and a meaningful measure of relaxation in Southern Africa. Undoubtedly, a most encouraging beginning has been made, and we are quite happy to acknowledge that, but, it should not be forgotten that 28 years have now elapsed since a South African Prime Minister has appeared on behalf of his country at the United Nations or at any international conference, and from the good beginning that has now been made in personal diplomacy at the highest level within Southern Africa, South Africa needs the Prime Minister to broaden the front of initiative to the international terrain as a whole. Looking further at the Government’s new policies, the Government have begun to place greater emphasis on our African personality, but we have not yet advanced beyond diplomatic relations with only one Black African State, namely Malawi. So far no formal links have been established with our most immediate Black neighbours, and we regard this as essential.

As far as our membership of the United Nations is concerned, we are faced with the danger of a complete breakdown. This was not even mentioned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs here this afternoon. True, the United Nations has acted illegally in denying to South Africa the participatory rights which flow from its recognized membership. All of us condemn it and, fortunately, the major Western nations have likewise deplored and condemned it, and it has lowered the standing of the United Nations in the eyes of many in the world. The Government has reacted by stating that it is reconsidering our formal membership of that organization. Mr. Speaker, we share the concern of the Government, but our attitude is a very straightforward one: we regard our membership of the United Nations, our presence in the United Nations, as a national right which should not be abandoned.

The United Nations does not belong to anybody. It does not belong to any particular group of States where we are a guest of the others. No, South Africa has as much right to be there as any other country in the world. The Government has consistently defended South Africa’s right to be in South West Africa. It has even gone so far as to go to the International Court to participate in the proceedings in the International Court to safeguard South Africa’s right in South West Africa. We expect the Government to put up the same sort of defence in respect of our right of membership of the UN. Not to do so would be highly inconsistent on the part of the Government. Let me add that as far as the organization itself is concerned, nobody denies its faults or the abuse of power which took place during the last session, particularly in respect of South Africa and Israel. But the simple fact is this, that despite all the weaknesses of the UN there is no alternative to the UN. If it were to disappear, the world would have to form another one, and it is unlikely that it would be much better than the present one. If the organization were to split up into two or three different organizations confronting each other, it would mean that the world’s problems would merely be aggravated; nothing would be solved. So we on this side believe that we should not abandon our membership of the UN, but that we should insist on our rights, our right of membership, and that we should continue with the other Western countries to seek a workable relation with the UN and with the rest of the world.

*Then the subject of South West Africa has also been broached. We can also look at that. The Government has come so far as to accept the principle—and I quote— of self-determination and independence for the area and its people. That was a sound step, but the Government has not succeeded at all in creating the confidence in our minds that the Government itself knows what it means by the concept “self-determination and independence”, and the result is damaging uncertainty inside and outside South West Africa. The Government furthermore creates the impression that it would like to wash its hands of the matter, and would like to leave it to the different population groups of South West Africa to find one another and to seek a solution for the future amongst themselves which will be acceptable to all. Sir, in principle that is good and right. We all know that in the near future the people of South West Africa will have to decide about their own future in one or another way, not just about their political future in international context, but also about their internal form of government, and that is not going to be easy. But a form of government in South West Africa must be found which is more or less acceptable to all the population groups. Now, we are altogether in favour of talks taking place, contact, consultation and dialogue, views being exchanged. It is essential and should have taken place long ago. But there is no time for failures nor is there any time for disputes dragging on between the different population groups. It must be clear to everyone that the pressure on South Africa, actions against South Africa, are going to increase tremendously and dangerously this year. Sir, if it so happens—and I think all of us hope that it will happen—that the Rhodesian issue is solved satisfactorily in some way or other, then we must expect that subsequent to that, although we should like to see success as far as the solution of the Rhodesian issue is concerned, the full attention, hostile and otherwise, will be focused on South West Africa and on South Africa’s position in South West Africa and the constitutional future of the territory. Therefore the Government cannot in our opinion leave the political developments in South West Africa to the guidance of two executive members of the Legislative Assembly, however good and sincere those two members might be. Sir, in the Republic we have the position that the Government has consistently refused to hold a national convention of all the population groups with a view to finding a solution to the problems of the Republic. It has been proposed so many times: Bring the Black leaders and the Brown leaders and the White leaders and the Indian leaders together at a conference and then look for a solution to the relations problems of South Africa. What has the attitude of the Government always been towards this? The Government has said that it is an impossible task; one will never achieve success in this way. I think the Government still is of that opinion. We all know, however, that South West is even more multi-national than the Republic of South Africa is. How do hon. members think that all the different population groups there will reach consensus if they are to discuss abstract concepts around a conference table? The two White parties there have not even reached consensus as yet; how shall we reach it with the others—I put the emphasis on this —if abstract concepts are to be discussed? Therefore we say that it is correct that the people of South West must not be prescribed to from the Republic. The course of the South West issue is, however, of extreme importance to all of us. It affects the question of war or peace for the Republic of South Africa. It is one of the issues around which our whole future in Africa and in the world revolves and therefore all of us—whether we are South West Africans or not—have the greatest interest in any solution of this issue. Consequently our attitude is that the Government itself must take the lead. The Government must get away from the abstract and take positive steps to create a model which can serve as a basis and from which one can work. We believe that in the Southern sector of the territory a multi-national government involving all the population groups in the south must be established immediately. In order to prevent any domination of the one by the other, this may be done on a federal basis. The same must happen in the northern sector which is a completely Black area. In other words, a representative central government must, immediately in our opinion, be established in the southern and in the northern sectors. Powers of government must then be transferred to them and the two bodies of authority can then come together to decide whether they want to proceed together or separately. In this way the way can be prepared for a referendum under both South African and international control to take a final decision on the future of the territory.

Later in this session we shall seek an opportunity to have an extensive debate on the South West Africa issue and we hope that the Government will take part in it.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs must concede that if we look at the scene of our foreign relations in its entirety, including the South West Africa issue it is in fact clear to everyone that there are bright spots. We are glad about these bright spots, and we are prepared to give credit for them to whoever deserve credit for them. We realize also that there are great opportunities. Now it is up to the Government, however, to create the confidence that it will actively set about correcting all the issues that are wrong. With all its declarations about the removal of colour discrimination, the Government has created tremendous expectations internally, among White and non-White, as well as abroad. The declaration of the Government at the end of last year, voiced by our ambassador at the UN before the Security Council, was clear and straightforward and came at the right time. I refer to the parts as they appear in the official text and I should like to quote only the following from the words of Advocate Pik Botha on behalf of the Government—

Please note: “Race or colour”.

This is important, because here is a promise and undertaking on the part of South Africa that—

It was a great declaration and I want to repeat that it came at the right time. But the implications are far-reaching and it will be good if hon. members realize this. It affects discriminatory laws and discriminatory practices. We hope that in this long session which lies ahead the Government will take active steps to remove both discriminatory laws and discriminatory practices. In this way it will eliminate large areas of dispute in South African politics. I think the most sensible thing which the Government can do is to nominate a Select Committee of Parliament consisting of members from all the parties to go through our legislation with help from outside, if necessary, and to make recommendations about discriminatory laws and discriminatory practices which must disappear. We as a party have made this offer before and we do it again now. We realize that for many members on the other side this will be a difficult and painful operation, but as it is with all operations, the quicker it is done the better. Our advice to the Government is rather to act quickly and to get this behind them. We hope that it will act quickly. Those who want to stay behind, must simply stay behind because South Africa’s interests are greater and more important than the obsolete programmes of political parties. Fortunately there are signs that the winds of change outside are beginning to blow in the right direction. I notice that a number of apartheid signs have recently been removed at the General Post Office in Cape Town. We all took note of the decision concerning the Nico Malan theatre with great interest. Now I only hope, and I should like to say it here, that no internal apartheid arrangements within the theatre complex will be introduced, and especially not on the level of toilets, because this will make two evils where there was one.

†Years ago a prominent Black American said: “The problem of the 20th century is the problem of the colour line, the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia, Africa, America and the islands of the sea.” We know that this is absolutely true. The major human problem of the 20th century is the problem of the colour line. At international gatherings such as the United Nations and the OAU, more emotion, more hostility and more blind irrational action engendered by the problem of the colour line than by anything else. We believe that if we want to achieve a breakthrough to Black Africa and to the rest of the world, we will first have to achieve a human breakthrough to Black and Brown South Africa, otherwise I am afraid détente will remain a word without any relevancy for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the two Opposition speakers who preceded me devoted so much time to saying why they are satisfied with what the Government has done to us that they of necessity devoted less time to the things with which they are dissatisfied. I am not rising to venture into the province of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nor do I wish to cover the ground which will no doubt be covered by the hon. the Prime Minister when he enters the debate. However. South West Africa has, to my regret, been drawn into this debate. I say “to my regret”, although I realize that hon. members on the opposite side have an interest in South West Africa. No one will deny that, since South Africa does indeed have an interest in South West Africa. I also realize that this House, the Parliament of South Africa, has a very real interest in South West Africa. In addition to that I realize that the South West African issue is a difficult one, a delicate one which will have to be handled with circumspection. But what do we have now? Since 1967 the hon. the Prime Minister has adopted the standpoint that the people of South West Africa must themselves decide on their future. We found that when the people of South West Africa took the lastest positive steps in this regard—and these are not the first steps— the Opposition leaders—and I am referring to the Leader of the official Opposition and the Leader of the Progressive Party— fell over each other to say that they were the first to propose this, that they agreed that this was the right thing to do, i.e. that the people of South West Africa themselves should decide. In my opinion this standpoint is unassailable since the Government, the Parliament of South Africa, is giving to the people of South West Africa, which is a dependent territory, the opportunity to decide for themselves by mutual deliberation. I do not know how any reasonable body in the world can adopt a standpoint against that. Nor did the Opposition do so, i.e. both Opposition parties supported that standpoint, and as a South West African, someone speaking on behalf of people who have everything they possess in South West Africa and not merely a political interest or constitutional interest in it, I was very pleased to see this. These are the people on whose behalf I am pleading. But no sooner was South West Africa, with the approval of both opposition parties, entrusted with deciding for itself on this delicate matter, than we found that it was being inundated with advice on how it was to go about deciding on this matter. In fact, we have this illogical approach: You are good enough, you are equal to the task of deciding amongst yourselves what you want for your future, but you are evidently not equal to the task of deciding amongst yourselves how you will set to work, and we should now like to tell you how you should do so.

We had an attempt here today and we have had attempts outside this House. We had an attempt here today by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to tell South West Africa how it should set to work. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout even went a little further and also indicated how that dialogue should proceed. Either we in this Parliament of South Africa trust South West Africa to deal with this matter itself, or we do not trust it. This side of the House, I know, is confident that South West Africa can deal with this matter itself. Now that I have said this, I should like to quote certain words from a farewell speech delivered by ex-Senator Niehaus at the congress of his party, the words of a man who has for many years served that party and its school of thought in a very responsible capacity. I quote (translation)—

These were the words of ex-Senator Niehaus.

I want to refer to the remarks which were made here in respect of South West Africa. Firstly, I want to refer to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. He reminded us that a solution in South West Africa must also be acceptable to the other nations in Southern Africa. Why did he say this? How can a solution for South West Africa be achieved in a valid way, a way that will be recognized? A solution in South West Africa, if it can be found, must, in the first place, be recognized by the Parliament of South Africa. It must, in the first place, be laid down by this Parliament by means of legislation. Whatever that solution is going to be—whether it is independence, self-determination or some other form to be agreed upon, and whether there will be some or other link with the Republic of South Africa—South West Africa is not going to proclaim a unilateral declaration of independence. In other words, South West Africa will have to approach the Government of South Africa and state its proposals. The Government and the Parliament of South Africa will then have to decide on it. If unanimity or a reasonable degree of unanimity can be found among the people of South West, is the Parliament of South Africa then going to ask the other countries whether they are satisfied with it, whether they would like Parliament to amend it? I think it is important that South West Africa should know this at this stage since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the other African states and other states in the world also had to be satisfied. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head now. I do not know whether or not I am hard of hearing, for then I would have to start shaking my head.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to quote an alleged statement of mine that the White man would not share his sovereignty. I do not know from what source the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted me—he did not mention the source—hut I am not interested in it either. I want to tell him that I was not quoted correctly and in context. What happened was that the leader of his party in South West Africa, the new leader, Mr. O’Lynn, made a statement which amounts to the fact that the standpoint adopted by the National Party in South West Africa, i.e. that the White man will not share his sovereignty, has now been shelved. I referred to this at a meeting in Tsumeb, and I presume that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted from what I said there. I can tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have that speech on tape. I asked what right O’Lynn had to say that it had been shelved. The National Party said that it would also state its policy as other population groups would be able to state their standpoints when discussions were held. The National Party has not abandoned its standpoint. Discussions will be held and an attempt will then be made to reach unanimity. I said that the National Party maintained that all options were open. In other words, if all options are open, this standpoint is open as well. What right does O’Lynn have to say that it is not open? This is the standpoint I adopted at Tsumeb. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted from what I said there, but he has brought a totally wrong impression home to this House because, so I believe, the story was not relayed to him correctly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head again. He complained that the political parties could not participate in solving the South West African issue. Who on earth said in South West Africa that political parties could not participate in this attempt? I should again like to quote ex-Senator Niehaus, who served his party very loyally. The day after representatives from my side and representatives from his side had held discussions and agreed that we had reached an understanding, he said the following at his party’s congress, when he took leave of them (translation)—

He accepted, because it is reasonable and logical, that the will of the White majority group would be the will which would be stated at that consultation as emanating from the Whites. Surely one cannot dispute this. That is why ex-Senator Niehaus adopted this reasonable and fair standpoint. Whether the new leader of the United Party in South West Africa will abide by the fine understanding which has been achieved, i.e. that we will gradually hold more discussions with one another, I do not know. Time will tell. If I understood the hon. the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he intimated to the United Party that they would not be able to participate.

Did Mr. O’Lynn write to you?

He wrote to Messrs. Mudge and Van Zyl in Windhoek. I saw the letter. The hon. the leader maintains that the United Party was told that it could not participate. My reply at the time was that we could not prevent the United Party in South West from holding discussions with non-White groups; we do not have that power. I said, however, that it would be very unwise to state the standpoint of the Whites towards the non-Whites on behalf of a minority group. This can only confuse them. Why are they concerned that their federal policy will not be put to the non-Whites or not be discussed? According to the standpoint that all doors are open, the federal policy is, as far as we are concerned, on the table, provided someone wants it there. If the Whites do not want it there and they intimate as much through their representative body— and the United Party played a role in its composition—and if not one of the non-White groups asks that the federal policy be discussed, why should it be there? What business has it there? Then they also ask that they, as a political party, should participate in the discussions. Let us see what the situation would be if they did in fact participate. Give the United Party participation and the HNP would also want to participate since they also put forward candidates and polled a few votes. What is the position among the non-Whites? Take the case of the Hereros. There are people among the Hereros who say that they represent all their people. We know that there are various groups among the Hereros. They are not all of one mind. We know that those minority groups exist. Members of these minority groups say that because members from other groups are represented there they also want to be represented there. So you have it among the Ovambos; so you have it among the Damaras; so you have it among the Namas; so you have it among the Rehoboth Basters and so you have it among the Coloureds. Would the Opposition have us make a farce and an object of ridicule of this sincere attempt to achieve unanimity in South West Africa? One would reasonably expect—and this is how we put it to the people—that when people are designated to speak on behalf of those people, in a way which will satisfy those people, whether it is determined unanimously or by means of a majority or in any other way, then one must hold discussions with that group since they are speaking on behalf of those people. Why should one sit there and argue with people who cannot say that they are speaking on behalf of those people? This is precisely what the position of the United Party in South West Africa is. They cannot tell us that they are speaking on behalf of the Whites.

What is the position in regard to participation by political parties? Political parties can participate. Three political parties participated in establishing a body which speaks on behalf of the Whites. When non-White political parties participate, we hold discussions with them. We tell them that if they want to participate, if they want to make a contribution, they must do so through their own people. It must not take place in any other way. In other words, they must play their role in the place where their representatives are designated. That is where their role as a political party must be played. That is where they will play it. If a political party such as Swapo does not want to play that role when its people are designated, we can definitely not be blamed for it. In other words, there is no prohibition whatsoever on participation by political parties.

The hon. member for Sea Point went so far as to say that everyone that might possibly be a power factor, i.e. political parties, must be taken into consideration. Who has to determine this? Who is going to determine which political party is a power factor and which political party is not a power factor? Every single political party in South West Africa claims that it is a power factor. I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that I appreciate the fact that he went to South West Africa to acquire some first-hand knowledge there. I take it that the people of South West Africa gave him a friendly reception for they are friendly people. However, I should also like to tell him this: He still knows very little about the people of South West Africa. When I speak about the people of South West Africa, I mean all its people. Today I should like to put this question to the hon. member: The Damaras constitute the third largest population group in South West Africa. What language do they speak? Would he be able to tell me? [Interjections.] The hon. member has indicated to me that he cannot tell me what language they speak and, as we all know, language is important to any man. That is why I am telling the hon. member that he still does not know enough about the people of South West Africa. With that, I think, I have dealt with the points relating to South West Africa which were raised in the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout came along and, as the old saying goes, the moment he opened his mouth, he put his foot in it. He referred to the occasion when Dr. Malan came to South West Africa in 1948 and summoned everyone for a consensus. The hon. member overlooked two facts. That consensus was concerned with Whites only, and Dr. Malan consequently summoned the two White groups for a consensus, as we now want to summon the Whites and the non-Whites for a consensus. The second thing the hon. member overlooked is that what it was concerned with was representation of the Whites in this Parliament without any of the parties having to relinquish their policies, and if one wanted to achieve consensus between the National Party and the United Party in South West, it would mean that one party would have to relinquish its policy otherwise one would not be able to achieve consensus. Dr. Malan did not ask the United Party of South West Africa to relinquish its policy and he did not ask the National Party to relinquish its policy.

They both relinquished parts of their policies.

What happened was that both accepted amendments to procedures, but neither relinquished its policy. A few months later a hard election was fought, in which policy was pitted against policy. This is where the hon. member failed to grasp the whole situation, which he wanted to compare here. It was not a comparable situation at all. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize this again: It is this type of blunder in respect of South West Africa which does not do South West Africa any good. We are dealing in South West Africa with peoples that have not yet progressed very far on the road of constitutional development and political understanding, and when these statements are made they can only create confusion in their minds; it can only make the position more difficult for people in South West who are sincerely trying to find a solution there which will also be of value to South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that we did not know what we had in mind for South West Africa. If he has not seen the statement which was issued on 23 September by my Chief Executive, and the resolution which was subsequently adopted by the Legislative Assembly, it is not my fault; I am not going to quote the entire statement here, but I should like to quote the following (translation)—

Must I tell the hon. member today what that final pattern will look like? If I did so I would surely be making this statement appear ridiculous. I am only being honest when I say that I do not know what the final pattern will look like. There is no one in South West Africa and no one in the world, for that matter, who knows what the final pattern will look like. What I do know is that it will not be possible to force peoples into it. South West Africa does not have the power to force peoples into it. What I do know is that every people in South West Africa will have the opportunity to say “Yes” or “No”; we cannot force them into it. We would then have to find alternatives for them and alternatives for the community. After all, there cannot be compulsion. Surely we do not want the same happening in South West Africa as happened in other States in Africa. I think responsible non-White leaders in South West have said repeatedly that they do not want the same to happen in South West as has happened elsewhere in Africa where there was bloodshed and its aftermath. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout associated himself with the motion which states that we should speed up our actions. Sir, I can give this House the assurance that there is going to be no dragging of feet on the part of the Whites. We want an answer and we want it as soon as possible. We want to know where we stand, and as soon as possible. We are dealing here with peoples whom we cannot simply force, whom we cannot simply take by the scruff of the neck and insist that they take a decision tomorrow. We are dealing here with peoples among whom there is a great deal of dissension as to who will speak on their behalf. We shall have to accept that they are going to iron out those problems of theirs in their own time and in their own way. But what I do find encouraging is that, to my knowledge, each individual population group in South West Africa intimated that it is prepared to participate in the discussions. I think this is very important. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that to do what is being expected of us now, to draw up a timetable, is to look for trouble. There are some peoples in South West Africa that have reached the stage where they can take part in discussions and discussions are in fact being held with them, but there are others in respect of whom we do not know at what point of time we will reach the stage of being able to hold discussions with representatives who will represent them properly. It is true that there are only two on the part of the Whites, but how many should there be? Three, four or six? What is the difference?

I did not mention that.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said there were only two who were White, and he even said they might be very good. How many should there be? The fact is that the hon. member has failed to grasp this as well. There has always been what we accept as the sovereign authority over South West Africa, i.e. South Africa, and this Parliament is still, in the final analysis, the body that will have to take decisions. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout even goes so far that he now wants to establish two governments in South West, one for the south and one for the north, and now those two governments must be at loggerheads. The hon. member, who knows South West Africa, ought to know as well as I that one cannot very easily constitute a government in the south consisting of Namas, Hereros and Damaras, and that one cannot very easily constitute a government in the north consisting of Kavangos and Ovambos. The hon. member know this as well as I. In other words, one has to conduct negotiations over a period of many years in order to establish those two governments, and when one has conducted those lengthy negotiations in order to establish those two governments which he wants, one has to set in motion the next stage of negotiations, to achieve unanimity between those two governments. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has lost touch with South West Africa. A few days’ holiday in South West Africa is not enough to appreciate what is happening there. If I were to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout today how many languages are spoken in South West Africa, I wonder whether he would be able to tell me. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. the Minister who has just sat down and who is the leader of the Nationalist Party in South West Africa because he has dealt with a number of local problems in respect of this matter and with a number of matters relating to the participation of the Nationalist Party and of the United Party in South West Africa. I shall leave those matters to be dealt with by my hon. leader when he replies to this debate, since he has knowledge of the affairs of which the hon. the Minister spoke. However, I must say one thing for the hon. the Minister: He did not seem to be caught up with the euphoria which has somewhat affected everyone else.

The euphoria is present amongst the Nationalist Party members, or should I say amongst some of the Nationalist Party members, in relation to the commendable efforts by the hon. the Prime Minister to achieve détente in Southern Africa. I thought it remarkable that the first speaker we have heard from that side of the House, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was more euphoric than I have ever known him. He has been the Minister of Foreign Affairs for goodness knows how long …

Twelve years.

He surely must have advised the hon. the Prime Minister in those 12 years to achieve some form of détente and here, for the first time in 12 years, he has managed to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to do something about it and he has done it. The euphoria of the hon. gentleman is such that when he was asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he was speaking, whether the statement by Mr. Pik Botha at the United Nations that discrimination based on colour alone would be removed was a declaration of intention, he chose not to answer him. What he went on to say was that the most practical basis for the protection of “menseregte”, human rights, human dignity, was the policy of separate development. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that if he wishes really to know why he meets with difficulty when he wishes to achieve détente and after that entente with the Black nations to the north of us and, in fact, with anyone else, he should look in the mirror at the Government’s policies which he is supposed to represent because that is what causes this difficulty. I shall try to demonstrate why it is that the Government has to do certain things in order to achieve the entente which will follow the détente that we hope will be achieved.

The hon. gentleman accused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of not clapping his hands and praising the hon. the Prime Minister. He said: Do we not all ask ourselves how we can all encourage detente instead of introducing a motion of no confidence? That is precisely what my hon. leader has done. He has commended the efforts towards détente just as everybody in South Africa does. But if you wish to further détente, if you wish to have entente, then you have to examine the process. [Interjections.] The hon. gentlemen are laughing, but my understanding of détente is that it is the end of strained relations. My understanding of entente is something which is obviously related to it, and that is a friendly agreement or relationship between States.

They do not know that, Mike.

You do not have a friendly relationship or an agreement between States until obviously you have ended the strained relationship. I think this is precisely the problem this Government has, because if we can achieve détente, then the achievement of entente, of agreement, of a working solution, is going to depend entirely on the internal policies of this Government in respect of those very matters of human rights, in respect of those very matters of the individual’s liberty and especially and obviously those of the Black man. What has not been mentioned by anyone is the utter breakdown, since this House last met, in the Government’s internal policy. They have, in effect, come to a cul-de-sac, to a dead-end in respect of their policies. I do not have to go any further. I do not have to look at the meetings which we have had with the Black people, the Coloured people or the Indian people. One has only to look at what happened last week and immediately before that as well. What happened? Before our meeting took place the Black leaders themselves had a conference at which they were all present. In respect of independence as a concept for homelands, the corner-stone of the Government’s policy, they dealt with the matter at length. They said there were various factors. They did not question the right of any homeland to seek independence, but made a statement in order to show their thinking on a matter which they considered to be a very serious one for all Blacks. They said: “No other Black leader, with the exception of Chief Kaiser Matanzima, has any intention at this point in time to seek independence for any other territory.” This was the statement made by them at their own meeting before they met us. They then went on to say in their statement: “The concept of federation was discussed in detail, as was the case at the Umtata conference, because the Black leaders feel that at this point in time when South Africa is at the cross-roads the concept of federation needs serious attention as one of the possible alternatives which is worth looking at.” After that the hon. the Prime Minister had a series of meetings with various members of the other communities. What was the result of the communiqué which was issued after the meeting with the Black leaders? The result was that the Prime Minister was prepared to grant leasehold to urban Blacks. Not freehold, but leasehold, indicating that he does not accept the permanency of these people.

Hear, hear!

What is the situation that we do then in fact have? The Blacks do not want independence for the homelands and the hon. the Prime Minister has admitted that he cannot force them to. He has also said that if they do not opt for independence things will stay as they are. How much can you achieve in the way of détente or entente or anything else in Africa if in fact things are going to stay as they are and are not going to change? This is my first point. Related to this is the question of the urban Blacks and at the time the hon. the Prime Minister was asked about this. If the situation as regards the urban Blacks is to remain the same and if these people are never to be regarded as being permanent residents—I shall come back to this point—there is no policy. How much further can you go from there? How can you promise to fulfil your side of any deal or any improvement when you negotiate with Black States?

Then he met the Coloureds and the Indians. What was the result of that? There is now going to be a Cabinet association between the cabinets of the various representative councils and the Cabinet of this Government. They will deal with matters on an administrative basis, but they will have no say whatever in the body that controls that cabinet. They are to have no say whatever in any other body which controls the cabinet and makes the decisions. Where do we go from here? The hon. the Prime Minister does not even envisage that there will be any other body in which they will have a say and where these matters can be discussed. It would seem that the Coloured people and the Indians will for ever have no say in the sovereign body which controls their destinies. They will just have a cabinet committee in which they will be advised of matters such as foreign affairs, defence and other matters which they do not deal with, but in respect of which they have the greatest interest. If one is going to take the position of the urban Bantu as a yardstick I think one has to look seriously at what has happened up to now. It does not matter what your policy is or what you say you believe in. It does not matter what words are used here. I accept the sincerity of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development in dealing with the problem of the urban Blacks, but the fact of the matter is that the Blacks are here in our urban areas on a permanent basis and they will remain here for ever. If you do not accept that, they will nevertheless still be here, but they will remain here on a basis which carries with it all the ingredients of an explosion and of turmoil, which will be sparked off by the very internal combustion which this process inevitably produces. If there is to be no change in this attitude, one is asking for trouble. So why not change the whole basis upon which they are present? Security is the keystone of stability. How often have we not heard this from hon. gentlemen on that side? Security, as far as they are concerned, of home ownership, family life, opportunities for educational and economic advancement and the opportunity to acquire wealth and capital, are the cornerstones of Western democracy and of peace and order. Anton Rupert says this very authoritatively. Everyone says it. It is a fact of life that those people are there permanently. However, if one has a situation, as my hon. leader has said, where one has urban Blacks—and I am not speaking about rural Blacks now; I am speaking about urban Blacks—who are the have-nots who have no opportunities and who can have no opportunities to develop wealth and to develop a position in that society, one has a classic situation which invites unrest and Communism.

What about the rural Blacks?

We believe that they should have the right to own and operate a business or an industrial undertaking in any area within the purview of their residence which is zoned, in fact, for that purpose. If one does not provide these facilities for them, one is living in a fool’s paradise. We are not only creating a dangerous situation for ourselves; we are creating an impossible situation when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world simply because we will not face the fact that those people are, in fact, permanent residents in our land. My hon. leader dealt with this question of the accumulation of wealth very eloquently and I do not propose to deal with the matter any further. However, I think one must appreciate that the days of wealth in the form of cattle have gone, and that if one does not provide this opportunity, one is putting oneself out of court. The responsibility for all this does not solely rest on this Government. It also rests on our shoulders. It is our duty not to come here and clap hands and say how marvellous the hon. the Prime Minister has been in achieving something we have been urging him to do all these years, but to come along here and tell this House and this country where, in fact, that movement towards détente and entente can be accelerated. The urban Blacks are one of the keys to our whole economic prosperity. The hon. Prime Minister knows that, and if one plans on the long term—and we cannot plan any further on the short term —one has to plan on the basis of granting their legitimate aspirations, and granting these on a permanent footing, not on the basis of the homeland leaders meeting the Prime Minister from time to time, but on the basis of their being inextricably a part of the country that we live in with a destiny common to ours. What I want to know is, when did the hon. Prime Minister last meet a representative group of urban Blacks? I do not know that he has. I do think, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister should broaden his consultations within, because I think that he will find that there are aspects, in respect of the urban Blacks, which he might not have contemplated. I think he would realize the urgency of the situation if he did talk to these people. Let me say this …

I have talked to these people more often than you have seen motor-cars.

I am pleased to hear that. With the urban Bantu as well?

With all the coloured peoples, with their representatives.

I only asked. When last?

†The fact of the matter is that the hon. gentleman has gone a long way; he has leant over backwards in order to try to accommodate the Coloured community and the Indian community. I indicated, but unfortunately the hon. gentleman was not here, that the basis which he suggested is no basis on which one can deal with this unless he can tell us whether they are going to have a say in the Parliament or the body that controls that Cabinet and which in fact determines their destiny, the body which in fact makes the decisions in respect of foreign affairs and defence, the body of which they are a part, as he acknowledges. What I cannot understand for the life of me is why the hon. the Prime Minister, who is a practical, pragmatic man, cannot also recognize the existence, the permanency, of the urban Blacks. The politics that swept the hon. gentleman into this House when he came to this House for the first time, have gone. The politics where you pretend that the White man has a future and an existence in isolation from the Blacks belong to an era which has disappeared and can never come back again. Any approach based on that is calculated not just to undermine and destroy the White man’s future, but is calculated to deny everyone in this country the rightful place which we can have together if we have the sort of country which my hon. leader outlined, a country which will be strong as a united South Africa.

Who will support you and your hon. leader in that?

I shall tell the hon. the Prime Minister who will support us in that. The hon. the Prime Minister himself will support us in that because that is what he aims to achieve, but he will never achieve that except through a formula and a framework such as we envisage, because it is real.

And who subscribes to your formula?

This is very interesting. Who subscribes? Who are the participants in the South African scene? Whom do we have to accommodate? We have to accommodate the White people, the Blacks and the urban Blacks.

We know all that, but who supports your party in this?

I have already mentioned the statement that was made on the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy. But let us look at the joint communiqué which was issued after the last conference we had with the Black leaders. It was a joint statement and on such occasions nothing is published and everything is confidential except for what is agreed should be published. What they said about the urban Black people is—

This agrees with our policy. The question of influx control was dealt with. Then, however, the following was said—

Yes, talk, talk, talk!

The hon. the Prime Minister says “talk, talk, talk”! But at least what happened at the meetings which we had was that there was a discussion about a concept which was an acceptable solution, namely a federal solution. I do not know what it is about the word “federation” that frightens the hon. the Prime Minister. If one mentions the word “federation”, the hon. the Prime Minister throws up his hands in horror.

I just think it is foolish, that is all.

The hon. the Prime Minister thinks it is foolish, but it is precisely on that basis that he is now negotiating with South West Africa; South West Africa will be treated as an integral whole and the different groups that exist there are to be recognized. This is precisely what federation is. I do not know why he is so frightened of it. I think the hon. the Prime Minister will be the first to concede that you cannot today resolve South Africa’s problems on the basis of the South Africa Act of 1910 and all it implied and as it was repeated in the Republican Constitution Act. This is not relevant any more to the modern needs of South Africa and to the fantastic changes that are taking place, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that. If one is going to have a unitary constitution, one cannot deal with the problems we have and at the same time maintain and safeguard the rights of the minority groups in South Africa, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that too.

If that is so, how is it that you cannot sell your federal policy to the electorate?

I think we have in fact achieved great success in getting the idea across. One of my witnesses in this regard is that very well-respected writer and editor, Mr. Schalk Pienaar, who says that he knows Nationalist M.P.s who say: “Well, of course, federation is the answer but I just cannot say this outside because the Prime Minister is frightened of it.” What I want to say is that perhaps the most important aspect of our policy is that we do not have time to start making new bases on which to move forward. We do not have time to start consolidating big areas in order to achieve some ideological end. The genius of this scheme in the present context is …

Did you say “genius”?

Yes. The genius of this scheme is that it can take every institution which this Government has built up over the years, i.e. the homelands and their constitutions, the Coloured Representative Council, the embryo Indian Representative Council and, indeed, almost all the machinery that is now in existence, and it can use that machinery on a new basis with a new outlook. What is more, this scheme can work and it will work because it has got to work and because … [Interjections.] It has got to work for the very reason that if South Africa is to be saved and if that hon. gentleman wishes to achieve what he hopes to achieve in the attainment of détente, he will have to look at this very carefully. I shall tell you why I say that. It is only within the framework of a federation such as we propose that you will in fact be able to achieve the intention, mentioned at the United Nations, to remove discrimination based only on colour of the skin. Within that federal constitution you can give to everybody and especially to the urban Blacks the right to deal with those matters that concern them and at the same time you have a basis on which you can share not just that power with them but also the responsibility and power in respect of the whole of the country. There is no other way in which you can accommodate the urban Blacks. This is what gives this policy a meaning in the modern context. This is why the hon. the Prime Minister is going to have to look at the position. When he starts dealing with the matter on the basis that the Blacks are not to be regarded as a permanent fixture in the urban areas, that the urban Blacks are not to be regarded as a permanent part of South Africa, he is obliged to discriminate against them, he is obliged to withhold from them the “menseregte” which were mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is inevitable; it follows as night follows day. If your very presence is not regarded as being a factor, then it is obvious. What is more, it provides a secure basis founded upon the realities of South Africa and not upon what someone would like to have or someone would like to create. What we have now we can take and use and make work. Furthermore, it provides that consultation which can produce a consensus which no other scheme can provide.

If that is so, why cant’ you sell it to the electorate?

Of course we are selling it.

We are selling it to the Prime Minister.

We are even selling it to the hon. the Prime Minister. There is another factor which I think the hon. the Prime Minister will appreciate. I appreciate that the hon. the Prime Minister has attempted to do many things, but his difficulty is that he is caught up in the concrete block in which his party is now founded. If he could put his policy on a factual basis so that it could be more flexible—this is one of the factors of federation; it is a flexible instrument—then he would be in the position … [Interjections.] Yes, it is a very important aspect in the world as it is today, a world that is changing all the time.

It means all things to all men.

It does not mean all things to all men. What it does mean is that everyone in it has a framework in which consensus can be found and where all can enjoy an agreed upon development of the country.

Flexible and collapsible.

In the short time left to me, I should like to commend one thing to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to commend this to him—

I commend that to the hon. the Prime Minister and I also wish to commend this to him: The only way in which he will achieve that is through a federation.

Is your whole party on that road?

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that what I have just read was written by Wimpie de Klerk about Mr. Vorster and his role. He also had this to say—

If the hon. the Prime Minister does not adopt the policy and the framework of a federal system he will not be able to lead this country into the promised land.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much one can say about the hon. member for Durban North, but what one can say about him is that he is a brave man. He is a brave man to have stood up in this House this afternoon—having certainly perused the results of the Pegasus survey—and, in the light of the evidence of the diminishing support for his party and in the light of the overwhelming flood of praise for what the National Party has accomplished over the past weeks and months, to say that the federal policy is doing well and that growing support is being won for that policy.

It is Enthoven who says so.

Mr. Speaker, the key sentence in the speech the hon. member for Durban North wanted to make, was “that there is an utter break-down in the Government’s internal policies”. This he said, Sir, after his hon. Leader had said that we would not be able to make progress in South Africa or in Southern Africa if we did not succeed in our domestic policy, and this in the light of evidence from every side that we are in fact making progress in Africa. If, therefore, his hon. Leader’s premise is correct, namely that in order to make progress in our national relations, in order to make progress in Southern Africa, it is necessary to have a favourable internal situation, then does not the evidence of the progress we are in fact making in international relations and in Southern Africa constitute emphatic proof that at the moment we have a favourable internal situation in South Africa itself as well? Let us take a look at a few of the matters raised by the hon. member as proof of how poorly our domestic policy and the National Party’s policy in South Africa are supposedly faring. Concerning trading rights he said that we are depriving the Blacks of this right; that we are discriminating against them radically in this sphere, and that we are therefore heading for greater discrimination and for disorder and chaos; but when he quotes discussions between the leaders of the Black peoples and the hon. the Prime Minister, then he omits to quote in full; to investigate the whole picture and to present the information to this House in full. What was the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply when representations were made to him concerning business rights for Black people in the urban areas? His reply, according to a statement I have before me, was—

It was stated in the Press that this was the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude, and to come here and pretend that our policy in this regard has failed, while the hope is held out that there will be improvements, that there will be a review, and while there has even been positive evidence coming from the homeland leaders concerning this investigation and the fruits it might bear, is, surely, to fail to present this House with the correct and the full picture.

The hon. member spoke about the question of acceptance or non-acceptance of independence, and he quoted from the statement by the homeland leaders but quickly skimmed over the following words in that statement—

Why not? It is only logical, and if the hon. member had done any research he too would have ascertained the reason for this: It is because at this stage, the point at issue for any responsible homeland leader must surely be the question of what the implications of independence would be and the question of the precise basis on which independence is to be gained, and because they first want to make a full investigation before giving the matter their final consideration. The question before the homeland leaders at this stage is not necessarily: “Do you want independence, yes or no?”. Discussion of independence with the homeland leaders is taking place and, Sir, the homeland leaders take part in this discussion. Discussion of independence is taking place between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the elected governments of the Black peoples of South Africa, and they are playing a positive part in this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, a further matter raised by the hon. member is the issue of proprietory rights. He referred disparagingly to the investigation into leasehold that is to be instituted. But surely, Sir, the issue of proprietary rights in the White areas is bound up with many complicated questions. It is bound up with the issue of the right of the proprietary rights of Whites in the homelands. It is bound op with the issue of the proprietary rights of Whites in the Transkei, in the KwaZulu territory and in all the other territories. After all, there is another side to this matter. There is another side to all aspects relating to the homelands. What, do you think, would be the result if we were to throw open proprietary rights at any place within the borders of the present Republic of South Africa? Where, do you think, would the Whites go and buy? Do you think that anything would be left of the homelands, or would we have further economic enslavement by the financially powerful in South Africa?

Colonialization.

Yes, colonialization by money. No Sir, in this regard, too, the hon. member omitted to give us the whole picture, to mention or even to take cognizance of those aspects of the policy of the National Party which are positive and safeguard that which belongs to the Black nations. In his pronouncements on the unhappy lot of the urban Bantu, as he calls them, the hon. member omitted to take note of the steps that have been and are being taken by this Government to make these people’s stay here a good and happy one. He omitted to make mention of the pleas and the steps taken by the National Party to ensure improved working conditions for them, to ensure an improved income for them. He omitted to make mention of the fund that has been established and that is administered by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, to provide them with better sporting and other facilities. He omitted to take note of what we are doing in respect of their education, their schools and universities, in respect of that which separate development gives the Black peoples of South Africa. No, once again we had the old picture of the National Party as a tyrant and a suppressor, which only takes and gives nothing in return. Then the hon. member comes along and states that the solution is federalism—federalism in which the Whites are to play what role? We have now been waiting three years for a reply. Will it be a federalism in which full justice will be done to each Black nation in accordance with its numerical strength and in which it will share its say on the basis of numerical proportions in South Africa, or will it be a federalism in which it will have to be satisfied with a little and leave the power in the hands of the Whites? It will certainly not choose the latter. The hon. member asks what we will do if they do not want to accept independence. But what would the United Party do if they were to come to power? Preserve us from that, but if it were to happen and they were to offer these Black nations federation, and the Black leaders stated that they were dissatisfied with what they were offered by way of federation; that they would accept federation but on their own terms, what then? Would they, too, then, maintain the status quo? And if they were to come to power—he talks about business rights, and he talks about migratory labour as his hon. Leader did—would they throw open doors and say: Anyone who wants to may come to the business metropolis; simply let 30 000 or 40 000 or 100 000 people stream to that area in the course of a year; they are welcome? How would he control the slum conditions that would develop? No, Sir, when they have to provide the answers, they are silent, because they know that they themselves would be obliged to continue with these measures such as influx control and limitations on who may do business where and many other measures as well. Just as differentiation is a corner-stone of the policy of the National Party, that party and even the Progressives who base themselves on a foundation of multi-racialism are unable to get away from differentiation. Differentiation is built into their policy of federation, as they want it to be: differentiation in the sense of a greater representation of the Whites irrespective of his smaller numbers; differentiation as the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party said, when he eventually conceded that he would throw open the Sea Point swimming bath to everyone, that at least he would not throw open the schools to everyone; differentiation as reflected in their policy, in their Senate plan and their qualified franchise. In the final analysis there is consensus as regards this one point even though the other side does not want to recognize this, viz. that the White man has a right to protect his identity and that he does this by way of differentiation. What, however, is the tactic they employ in order to cast suspicion on the National Party’s handling of this matter? Their tactic is to conceal and deny the fact that there is a distinction to be drawn between differentiation and discrimination. They simply refer haphazardly to the discriminatory measures we have, the same discriminatory measures which they and their children protect, the same discriminatory measures which they would continue with if they were to come into power. Let us briefly consider discrimination and differentiation.

Is it differentiation that the Government is now applying in the Nico Malan?

I shall come to that shortly. Underlying the National Party’s approach to discrimination, if I am to summarize the policy briefly, there is, firstly, the premise that a distinction must be drawn between discrimination and differentiation. Certain measures will always be maintained under this party and, I say, under the United Party as well, in order to ensure the identity of each people. It is surely also that party’s policy as they have stated it, that each group is entitled to its identity and they will effect this by way of differentiation. Underlying the National Party’s point of view in this regard is the conviction that it is the right of a people to maintain its own identity, that it is the right of a people to separate itself from other peoples, in the process of maintaining its identity, as often as it may consider it to be necessary. At the same time, however, it is also the conviction of this side that it recognizes the human dignity of all people. On occasion the hon. the Prime Minister expressed it in these terms (translation)—

Because we recognize the human dignity of all people, the National Party wants to eliminate discrimination. That is why our ambassador at UN was able without hesitation to make the statement which he did and which was quoted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. As far as the elimination of discrimination, viewed as a negative concept as against differentiation, is concerned, the National Party is just as adamant as any other person and just as adamant as any other party that it has declared itself in favour of its elimination. The hon. the Prime Minister expressly said this when he said that it was the destiny of the National Party to eliminate any discrimination that may exist. The third foundation stone of our policy as regards discrimination is that the National Party has committed itself and remains committed to its elimination, but in an orderly manner, viz. in such a way as not to disrupt law and order. This, then, is the standpoint of the National Party: It is against discrimination; it is against humiliation and insulting of people, against disregard of human dignity, but it stands for the maintaining of identity; it stands for law and order and for the prevention and elimination of friction. That is why it is in favour of differentiation. Hon. members opposite must recognize the necessity to draw a distinction between these two concepts. If we want to conduct a meaningful debate on this, we must not have smokescreens being raised by hon. members of the Opposition, as if all discrimination in South Africa can be laid at the door of this Government and as if all discrimination, seen as a whole, whether it be differentiation or discrimination, would disappear like mist in the sun if they were to come to power. If we are to conduct a meaningful debate on this matter, they must make certain admissions and stop doing certain things. If they do not stop doing those things and if they do not make the admissions, they may be a stumbling block on the road to the elimination of discrimination. They may then be a source of friction which would itself promote internal tension. What, then, are these acceptances and admissions I ask of the hon. members of the Opposition? In the first instance, they must accept the bona fides of the National Party when it states that it commits itself to the elimination of discrimination. At the same time, they must stop giving out that all steps taken so far are the fruits of their work and the pleas they have made. What the National Party has done, what it does and what it will do in this regard, it does because it wants to do it and because it believes that it is right and because it believes that it has been called upon to do it in terms of its Christian National character and not because it believes that the federalists of the United Party are actually possessed of the truth. As long as they persist in this attitude, they hamper the Government in the execution of its task. There should be no doubt on this score. The National Party is committed to the elimination of discrimination because that is its policy and because it believes that it should be so.

The second thing they must stop doing is criticizing each step taken by the Government, such as the development in respect of sporting matters, and saying that this is well and good but that a great deal remains to be done. The National Party and not the United Party is governing the country. Without detracting from their right to state their policy as an alternative—that is their full right and they must do it, too—if they want to make a meaningful contribution to the elimination of discrimination and to the improvement of the lot of the so-called urban Bantu, they must accept that steps in this regard will be taken within the framework of the National Party’s policy. This will be done within the framework of the policy of maintaining our identity, of not sharing the say over our own people, of maintaining law and order and of elimination of areas of friction. The test, where criticism of the National Party’s policy and attitude to discrimination are concerned, is not what their policy is. The test is whether we are doing it fairly and justly according to our policy. Within this framework of our policy we already have a good record and all the signs are there that we are developing the policy in a way which, on the one hand, will give every people the assurance that it has a future and that it will be allowed to take its rightful place in South Africa, that it has full opportunity to develop, and on the other hand also gives the assurance that what is troublesome, offensive, unnecessary and injurious to human dignity will be done away with. If we debate on this, let us debate the question whether a measure constitutes discrimination or whether it constitutes differentiation instead of just sowing further confusion and creating further expectations, because this, too, is often done. Where practically possible, and where it is in the interests of law and order, it must be accepted that the maintenance of our identity will be ensured, that in such cases, separate facilities and facilities for the various population groups may be provided and will be provided. At the same time it must be accepted that where it is desirable in practice, and where law and order and the identity of a people are not threatened, the National Party does not flinch from making facilities available to more than one people or group. I know that the members of the Opposition would prefer not to acknowledge this, but let us remind them again that their policy, their statement and those things that they stand for also imply the maintaining of differential measures. A third thing the hon. Opposition should stop doing if they want to make a contribution with regard to discrimination, is making a political football of the subject “discrimination” in the sense that they want to use it to sow discord

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Who told me it is the pot calling the kettle black? May I quote what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in this House in 1973? He said (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1134)—

Where?

Then he asked why. And he states—

This is what the National Party’s real motive is behind its measures distinguishing between people of various colours and nations. He says that they do in fact know what the reason is—

He is accusing the National Party of intentional discrimination to emphasize that the White person believes that the non-White in this country is inferior.

That is how you came to power.

That is different to what he said today. Those words he uttered, are fighting talk. I see, too, that he repeated those words here today. He comes along today and shakes his head and says that he still thinks so. He still thinks so after everything the hon. the Prime Minister has achieved in Southern Africa, after the acting leader of the Federal Party of the Coloureds has said: “There are major breakthroughs. I am excited, I am satisfied, I am happy about the progress we are making. Something positive is being achieved.” The hon. member still thinks so. Then he says that he is not making discrimination a political football, while as he sits there he knows that his Party also wants to differentiate. No, if they want to make a meaningful contribution they must stop calling our bona fides into question, casting suspicion on us, and they must at least have the courage to tell the Black and the Brown people of South ern Africa: We do not agree with the National Party, but we know that they are genuine. As long as they call our genuineness into question, we do not debate with them, we fight them.

In the fourth instance, the Opposition must accept that there is a relation between the acceptance of separate development in broad outline and the elimination of measures which may be irritating. If alleged discrimination is used—as certain hon. members on that side want to use it —as an arena or as a springboard from which to exert pressure on the Government, for political power in South Africa to be shared and for the Government to give up its policy of the sovereignty of each people over itself, they may be a stumbling block along the road to the abolition of certain discriminatory measures. Surely hon. members must see that in relation as separate development becomes established, as it becomes more than the policy of a party, as it changes the face of South Africa and as the sovereignty of each people over itself is secured and ensured thereby, certain measures which had previously been necessary for the protection of the identity of a national group will become superfluous. To sum up, if the Opposition wants to co-operate in a positive way to eliminate discrimination, they must accept our bona fides and acknowledge that separate development is not based on discrimination, they must acknowledge that differentiation is essential for the maintaining of law and order and the safeguarding of the identity of each people and reconcile themselves to the immediate existing validity—even though it is not permanent from their point of view— of separate development as the decisive policy that is going to determine what will happen.

The hon. Opposition can make a contribution, with the necessary pre-condition that they do not agree, by arguing, when discussing these matters, within the framework of multi-nationalism, and breaking away, for this purpose, from the framework of multi-racialism, that framework which they advocate. If the hon. members do not do this, the National Party will nevertheless continue as in the past to ensure the identity and self-determination of peoples with dedication and zeal. The National Party will continue to maintain law and order, without which freedom is useless, and it will continue to prevent friction, the precursor of unrest and disorder. At the same time the National Party will continue to eliminate discrimination and to extend and safeguard the human dignity of each person or group. There is no contradiction between the maintaining of identity and differentiation on the one hand and the elimination of discrimination on the other. The elimination of discrimination can take place simultaneously with these other things in a positive and virile fashion. We shall continue to safeguard what is ours in South Africa in a fair and Christian way and we shall continue to assist others towards full development and towards the acquiring of freedom, opportunity and prospects. The Opposition can play a role in this process, or it can continue to forfeit support among the voters as it has done in recent months. The Opposition can continue to deprive South Africa of the privilege of having an effective Opposition and it can continue along its downward path, or it can listen to the hon. members on this side of the House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that one takes part in the first debate of a session, because it gives one an opportunity to fire the first shots of the new season. The hon. member for Vereeniging attacked us on this side of the House in a very pious manner because we had accused the Nationalist Party of basing its policy on discrimination. We can remember only too well the Nationalist Party of former times. The hon. member praised the hon. the Deputy Minister because he was doing so much for the urban Bantu but we remember quite well that a member of the Cabinet under Nationalist Party government had said that we should not make matters in the cities too comfortable for the Bantu, because otherwise they would be staying there too long and would not want to return to the homelands. As far as sport is concerned, I just want to put the following question to the Nationalist Party: What would Minister Muller not give to have another chance of allowing Basil D’Oliveira to come to South Africa with the M.C.C. team for which he had been selected? What would South Africa not give to have that chance again? What trouble did we not experience in this country on account of the actions of that Minister? Now people are splitting hairs about discrimination and differentiation, but these are merely so many words. Allow me to tell the hon. member on the other side that the Nationalist Party is based on such discrimination That party grew up with it. Words were even exchanged in the newspapers between the members of that party, for example, the hon. members for Pretoria Central and Waterberg, as to whether or not the party was discriminating. I say that the hon. member has no right to accuse us of attacking the Nationalist Party for something which is not true. It is a fact that the Nationalist Party is based on the concept of discrimination, and he cannot get away from that.

†To come back to the real problems that are facing South Africa, there is a threshold which in the words of the Prime Minister and of other Ministers, the Nationalist Party can never cross, namely to share wealth and power with Black South Africa. In this country we are moving towards the stage where Black people—I use the word collectively to include the Indians and Coloureds—are demanding more and more of White South Africa. One of the things they are demanding is a share in what is done to them by the Government of South Africa. We can say what we like, we can listen to all the nice words, the pious hopes and dreams of the Nationalist Party, but there is one threshold they will not cross and that is to share wealth and power with the Black man in this country. The hon. member for Durban North dealt with the position of the urban Blacks who are a permanent factor in the equation that makes up South Africa. There is not a person in this House today who can say to me that the urban Blacks are not a permanent part of our population and a factor that must be taken into account politically. Whatever arrangements may possibly be made to include them in the aegis of the political leaders of the Black homelands, they will remain in the urban areas in White South Africa and they will be a factor with which we will have to reckon for all time. What does the Nationalist Party have to offer to Black South Africa and especially to the urban Blacks, the Indians and Coloureds? My hon. leader has already said that by the end of this century 3 million of the 5 million people who are in leadership positions in the economy of South Africa will be Black.

Why do you not include the rural Blacks?

For the sake of the argument which the Nationalist Party advances—they say the rural Blacks will be given independence—I am, too, prepared to give them out of the generosity of my heart credit for the fact that those people may at some time or other in the future become independent. For that reason I am not debating the position of the rural Blacks at this particular stage.

We are talking of the rural Blacks outside the homelands.

That represents a very real problem. While the Nationalist Party pauses before this threshold which they cannot cross, history waits and while it waits the destiny of the White man in South Africa is going to remain unfulfilled because of the inability of that party to take the step that is necessary in the present time in which we live. History waits and our destiny is going to be unfulfilled. It is unfulfilled for one reason: Africa is looking for leadership; this continent of Africa which has undergone such tremendous changes—in the old days, the “good old days”, the map was red from Cape to Cairo—is today a coat of many colours. Today this is a coat of many colours and it is waiting for leadership. There is no such thing in nature as a vacuum. If we who are the actual leaders of Africa do not step into the space that has been left by the withdrawal of the metropolitan powers, we know very well who will be waiting in the wings to do so. Even today she is reaching out that iron claw to smite into the vitals of Africa. We know that the Communist Party is waiting to supply the leadership which because of the inability of the Government to meet the needs of South Africa today, we are unable to supply. I want to say that there is an alternative to White power in Africa. White power is gone. The alternative is what this country, South Africa, can supply, led as it is by ourselves in association with the Black people here in South Africa where we White people, because we are here are breaking new ground. We are giving a new vision, a new dimension to life in Africa. We are doing this but the full consequences of it can never be met until that Nationalist Party crosses the threshold that I have mentioned. It has to move out into Africa. That threshold has to be crossed at home. We have to have solidity among our own people. We have to have their solid support, their whole attention. We must have everything that they can give not only to South Africa but to Africa as a whole.

I want to tell hon members that one of the things that perturbs me in the present climate in South Africa is that it has become fashionable to decry the role of the White man.

What have you been doing?

I have not been decrying the role of the White man. That is one thing I have not been doing. I have been laying the sins of the Government at the Government’s door. It has become fashionable today, as I say, to decry the role of the White man. It is said that we are living too high off the hog, that we own too much, that we do not give a sufficiently fair share to other people. I think that it is time we took a closer look at ourselves in a historical perspective. We must know that the gap between White and Black is a historic thing and cannot be eliminated simply by waving a wand It is not something which can disappear overnight. I think it is vitally important that we should say and that people should realize that there are many people who tend to attack the White man for being selfish. They should realize that what is happening is a process of upliftment and change in which Black South Africa is involved and from which Black South Africa draws every single day more and more advantage. I say that this process is something which has profound implications for Black South Africa as well as for White South Africa. It is a process that is fuelled by our knowledge, by our capital and by our ability to organize. It is also run on the ability of the Black man to supply the labour that turns the wheels. Together Black South Africa and White South African can change the history of Africa. I think that we are the only people who can stem the tide which is threatening to engulf Africa at this time. We hear all about freedom. Freedom is a catchword. It has been well said that when people asked for bread they were give a vote. I think that the expression “freedom” in Africa is something which requires a new definition. We have heard of the Atlantic Charter. Some years ago when certain freedoms such as the freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly and so forth were enunciated, I believe that they were freedoms enunciated by a group of White nations to suit their own particular situation. In modern terms this is probably what we could call a White chauvinist approach. We need something new in Africa. We need a new definition of freedom. Freedom in Africa has got to mean a lot more than it does now. It has to mean freedom from fear, from want, from corruption and from instability. I think that we should realize that democracy, which is something which we desire for all people, without stability is the biggest farce and the worst system of government that anyone has ever thought up. This has been proved in country after country. We only have to look at South America. Some of those South American Republics have been free, independent Republics for 150 years and yet have not had a continuous ten year period of stable government, stable democratic government, without military takeover, coups d’état or revolution.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Africa today faces this situation. The population curve is rising and, commensurate with the rise of population, the curve of expectation has got to fall simply because they have not got enough production to meet the rising expectations of a rising population, and I believe that it is when those curves cross that you get revolution, and revolution in itself has not achieved real freedom in any of the countries of Africa where we have seen it. I think it is important to realize that we here in South Africa have got stability because the White man is here …

Because the National Party is in power.

Mr. Sneaker, hon, members on that side are quick to seize for themselves the credit, but there is a great deal that has happened in South Africa in the very teeth of every single thing they have ever preached and thought about and attempted to practise over the many years that they have been in power. As I said before, you have seen the flood of Black people into the towns, people who are voting with their feet, people who have gone against every wish of the hon. the Minister who sits over there and who has done his level best to keep them in the homelands. They have flooded into the towns in spite of everything that this Nationalist Party has tried to achieve. They have gone to the towns because only there can they expect to share in the modern thing and the new thing that is happening, in the wealth that is being generated. Mr. Speaker, let us face one thing: Wealth pays for education; it pays for health services; it pays for progress, it pays for everything that change means to Black Africa, and I believe that we in this country are one of the very few countries in Africa, if not the only country in Africa, who can face the challenge of that rising population, with rising expectations, who have to be catered for.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the point as to whether this Nationalist Party can fulfil the destiny that we have got. I go so far as to say that it cannot fulfil the destiny that the White man has in this continent of Africa because they are incapable of crossing the threshold which says that they can share wealth and power with Black South Africa in this country of ours.

Will you define “sharing of wealth”?

Sir, the policy of the United Party is designed to bring about a sharing of power in South Africa with the Black people. The sharing of wealth is something which is happening today in spite of everything that the Nationalist Party might have thought it was going to do in the past to prevent it. What is happening today is the sharing of wealth by people participating in the growing expansion of the industrial scene in South Africa, where Black people are moving up in the ranks of every single trade union and of every single organization which brings wealth because of employment. That is sharing of wealth. I do not mean people coming here and swiping the living of other people; I mean a change whereby people take part in a change-over of wealth by reason of their participation in the economy of the country. Mr. Speaker, the internal peace which that brings, the consciousness that these people have that they are participating in a real, meaningful change, is what gives us hope and what gives Africa hope and makes us the country that we are a country that holds out hope to our neighbours and makes us the rallying point, a bastion, upon which our neighbours can look, because they know that we have got the ability and the basic attitude of White to Black which can lead us to help our neighbouring countries, not for selfish reasons but because we are interested in them. But I want to say that we must start off from this point of view that Black South Africa is the only ally that White South Africa has in the world. We have no other allies. We have no other real friends in the world except the Black people who live in this country.

Do you really believe that?

The only real friends we have in the world are the Black people who live in this country. Other people will help us because it suits them. They will help us because we are in a strategic position. They will help us because we are in a position to help them to defend their own interests somewhere else in the world. But the Black population of this country has more to gain by our being here and continuing to operate than anyone else in the world. Only we can bring them the sort of benefits that can come from real change. I know, Sir, and you know that there was a time a couple of years ago when the word “change” was a swear-word. It is not a swear-word any more. Change is happening. It is happening even under the Nationalist Party. Things are changing in South Africa. One wonders how many of the old corner-stones of the Nationalist Party have been swept away because of the rapid rush towards change that is taking place. It is only in the attitude of that party that no change is apparent. It is a sort of antediluvian rock-painting of a party, sitting there without change, implanted in the rock, immemorial. [Interjections.] I want to say, with all the sincerity in the world, that what perturbs me is that this party is founded on the nationalism of Afrikanerdom and it has come to a dead end. The Nationalist Party has come to a dead end where it cannot progress out of the coils of the past. [Interjections.] If hon. members think that is a joke, I would invite them to tell us what they propose to do in South Africa, when every single element of the policy which the Nationalist Party has expounded over the years has been rejected. The hon. member for Durban North dealt with it. The hon. members say that at this point of time the Black leaders have refused to accept independence. When will they accept independence? What does the party offer them to make them accept independence? What do they propose for the Black people living in the urban areas? Now you have the Coloured community and the Indian community being offered something which every person knows is merely a stopgap. It can never be anything else. I say this concerns me, and I am not an Afrikaner. I have discussed this with my Afrikaner friends and asked them what I should do to become an Afrikaner, and they said it was impossible; a person cannot become an Afrikaner. The whole essence of the struggle of Afrikanerdom has brought them into a laager, shut away by this Nationalist Party from occurrences in the world. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members must have a good look at themselves, because I want to say that there is a part which White South Africans can play in the world which is of absolutely vital significance in the struggle going on in the world for the minds of the third world. Sir, this is not a struggle which will be fought with arms and weapons; it is a struggle which will be fought with ideas and even ideologies. That is how the struggle will be fought, and we are the people who are experienced in leadership in Africa. We have had the experience of leading people out of the backwardness, the squalor and the degradation of Africa.

We have had the experience of leading them out into a new scene altogether into a new sunlit scene. We should be the people who should be setting the tone and giving the lead. That is what our position should be. We should not be the “muishond van die wêreld”; we should be the people who should be listened to with respect, because we know. We are of Africa and we know the problem. However, the problem is that the Nationalist Party can never, without a basic change of heart right inside the party itself, fulfil the destiny that the White man has or should have in the world situation which we face. Let us face one thing: Africa is an open field; it is today a power, a vacuum and it is our destiny to step into that vacuum—not as White people, not as colonialists, not as paternalists, but as people who are used to and who know how to work together with Black people and to lead them, to inspire them and to work together to create something real, positive and constructive. I say, till the Nationalist Party changes its heart we shall never cross that threshold, we shall never attain the destiny which we ought to have in the continent of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have worked hard enough for today, and consequently I feel at liberty to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.