Mr. Speaker, almost 27 years ago I was elected to this House for the first time. So for almost 27 years I have had the privilege to serve in this House. That is a long time in the working life of any person. This being the last day I shall be granted to act in this capacity in this House, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to say good-bye, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to give thanks where thanks are due, and I should like to avail myself of the opportunity for the last time to make a few observations on the financial-economic conditions prevailing in the world and in South Africa as I see them.

I am sorry that I am to retire from active politics at the very time when the economic and financial conditions all over the world are fraught with problems and challenges such as have seldom been experienced in times of peace. Each one of us who has made a study of what goes on in the world today will find that a gradual deterioration of economic conditions has taken place in the last two years, and not only a gradual deterioration of economic conditions, but also an increasing pessimism about the future of the world has taken root. I should like to deal with that presently, but before doing so, I should like to express a few words of thanks. In the first place I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, as well as all the Speakers who preceded you and with whom I have been able to co-operate. I am pleased to be able to remind myself of the fact that during the full period of my membership of this House it has never been necessary for any Speaker to apply disciplinary measures against me. I am especially pleased about the privilege I have had to become personally better acquainted with you, as I have had the opportunity to co-operate with you in my capacity as Leader of the House. In the second place I should like to express my thanks towards the Secretary and the Secretaries of this House for their kind assistance, more particularly in the time I have been Leader of this House. In the third place, I should like to express my thanks towards my own staff. I think that this is a suitable occasion to say how grateful I feel towards the Secretaries of my departments. I refer to the Secretary for Finance, the Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary for Internal Revenue, the Secretary for Customs and Excise, and the heads of financial institutions in all the various branches of those departments. I should like to address a special word of thanks to Mr. Browne, the Secretary for Finance, who, in the eight years for which I have been Minister of Finance, has been by my side, who has been my prop and stay and who has accompanied me over the years on most of the journeys I have undertaken abroad. I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to express my thanks towards people in foreign countries, towards the very many people I have seen over the years in connection with financial and economic issues, and towards the great number of friends I have made in all parts of the world, friends who have not only broadened my outlook, but who have also given me new insight and have helped me to understand something more of the international problems of the world.

To come back to this House, I should like to turn to the Opposition first of all. In the course of time the Opposition has changed completely. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Griqualand East are the only remaining members of the 1948 group. I should like to express my thanks towards the Opposition for the fact that, although we have had many differences of opinion in the course of those years and have had many hard fights, there has never been any feeling of malice. I now leave this chamber with the feeling and with the assurance that I harbour no ill-feeling against any of you. I should also like to express my thanks towards the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—we who have walked this road together for almost 27 years—for the friendly words which he expressed about me yesterday. I should like to give him the assurance that I sincerely appreciate them. I should like to express my thanks towards those hon. members on this side of the House with whom I have served for so many years. In the course of time they have changed so that the hon. the Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Turffontein, and I are the only three who remain of the 1948 group. In this connection I thank hon. members on this side of the House for the trust they placed in me by nominating me for the highest office in this country. I also thank the members of the Cabinet with whom I have served. It is not easy for a Minister of Finance because he must often say “no” as well as limit the splended plans of other people. Consequently it is not easy for a Minister of Finance to retain the friendship of his colleagues. I am retiring from the Cabinet now, but I do so with the feeling and in the knowledge that I have retained the friendship and respect of my colleagues in the Cabinet. In conclusion I come to the hon. the Prime Minister. I have taken the opportunity on various occasions to express my deeply felt thanks towards the hon. the Prime Minister and consequently I do not so want to do so again now. I should only like to say that it has been a privilege for me as Minister of Finance to have served under him for eight years. I should like to express the hope and the earnest desire that the peace efforts which he is now making inside and outside South Africa to ensure greater peace and co-operation in our country and neighbouring countries will be richly blessed.

I return now to the question of finance and the economy, which I should like to deal with here. I said that I am now retiring from public life in my present capacity at a time when dark clouds are hanging over the whole world in the field of economy and finance, clouds which are so dark that there are some people who say that the world is heading for a catastrophe and that we must prepare ourselves as nations and as individuals for that catastrophe, and that only a catastrophe, a world disaster, will mark the onset of recovery in this field. Let us now consider a few aspects of the present world position with respect to finance and the economy. There are a few pointers which determine where the world stands and where it is going.

In the first place I should like to refer to the question of balance of payments. Throughout the world today there are few countries that are not struggling with the problem of balance of payments, which means that most countries are sending more money out of the country than is coming in. That also means that those countries have to incur ever-increasing debts. Few countries in the world are in such a favourable position today that they are able to pay their foreign debts. This is one of the greatest problems with which a country can ever be confronted, viz. when it has an unfavourable balance of payments and does not have the money to pay its trading partner from whom it imports. These balance of payment problems which are being experienced throughout the world today, are caused by many factors. In the first place they have been caused by the tremendous shock which humanity experienced when the price of crude oil was quadrupled at the end of 1973. I do not believe that we in this country and many people elsewhere in the world were able to realize what a shock that deed was to humanity and its economy. Only today are we slowly beginning to realize what this will mean for us. It was a deep shock which resulted in nations being robbed of oil and their production being adversely affected. This means in particular that many more nations are in the position that they are no longer able to pay for the oil which they import. If we consider that the oil exporting nations are today in the position where they will have approximately 65 milliard dollars in surpluses every year, and that with one year’s surplus they are virtually able to buy all the shares on the German stock exchange, we realize the magnitude of this problem. If we think of the smaller and undeveloped countries which are now hard-hit as far as their production is concerned, and do not have the money to pay for their oil, and when we look at larger countries that are in the same position, we realize that an economic disaster, such as has seldom occurred in times of peace, has befallen the world. When attempts are made today to reduce the consumption of oil, to find more and more surrogates for oil and to find new oil resources, one realizes that it will only be in four or five years’ time that these attempts will produce results. What will happen in the four or five years till then, however, we cannot foresee. Within the framework of the Monetary Fund attempts are being made today to establish all sorts of facilities for giving credit to countries that have balance of payments problems as a result of the oil price. Even those facilities will only be partially effective. Not all countries will derive the same benefit from them. It remains a fact, however, that the advantages which will arise from these facilities create a debt with which these nations will be burdened. Therefore this does not offer a solution to the problem. Many countries which are burdened by an oil shortage today are not even capable of paying the interest on that debt. I think that at present we still have no realization whatsoever of the real meaning of the oil debt which rests on the shoulders of humanity.

Secondly, there is a danger, viz. the danger of diminishing production. When production drops, a country is faced with the danger that there will also be a lowering of the standard of living of its people. Therefore it is the aim of every State and every Government permanently to encourage the production of goods and services in its country. We are now experiencing a period of diminishing production. Think for example of what the production of two powerful countries, the United States and Germany, was during the past year. In the United States the volume of production slumped in the past year by 2,2%, and at the end of the year it slumped even further. In a powerful state such as West Germany the volume of production of goods and services rose in 1974 by only half per cent. From these figures can be seen where we stand in respect of production in the world as a whole.

A third problem with which the world has to contend today is the problem of inflation. We speak and hear of inflation every day. For years and years, throughout the world, this disease which afflicts all of mankind, even the communist countries, has been raging. However, no one has succeeded in finding an answer to this problem. We find that a reaction to inflation on the part of most countries and people is now beginning to set in. This gives rise to the psychological problem of despondency, as if a disaster is really awaiting mankind. It is because of the untamableness of this inflation that people are going to meet the future with despondency. What is happening now, is that States are beginning to apply measures, not only to stop inflation, but also to stimulate their economies, and with that attempt they are encouraging further inflation.

I now come to a fourth phenomenon. That is the phenomenon of increasing unemployment. It is something to ponder when an unemployment rate of almost 8% is prevailing in the powerful America. That means a much greater percentage of unemployed persons among the non-Whites, viz. the Negroes. That means an ever-increasing percentage of unemployment among the young Negroes. Today nations are beginning to take fright at the effect of unemployment on the young people, at the effect of riots and even revolution among the unemployed in various countries.

We now have the strange phenomenon of conflict in policy-making so that, in the midst of inflation, nations are once again stimulating their economies, and nations are coming to the conclusion that inflation is, in fact, an evil, but that recession is a greater evil and that they do not want a higher inflation rate, and still less a higher unemployment rate. This is the contradiction we find in the world today. On the one hand inflation is being combated, but to the extent to which inflation is being combated, the possibility of a recession increases. On the other hand a recession is being combated and to the extent to what that attempt is successful, the fires of inflation are being fed. The economic leaders of the world are really finding themselves at the cross-roads today, viz. the dual struggle which has to be waged against inflation on the one hand a recession on the other. They do not know what the answer is, nor what the methods should be.

I ask myself the question: What of South Africa? Where do we stand in this constellation of economic facts? Naturally this has to affect us. We are not isolated from the world; we are part of the world economy. We are dependent on foreign countries for the acquisition of capital and for the price of that capital. We are an exporting country and a country which imports on large scale and although our economy is small, we are one of the 15 most important countries as far as foreign trade is concerned. Conditions will not leave us untouched. However, we find that our circumstances are somewhat different from those in other countries. Let us now take those four aspects again and compare the position of South Africa with that of the world.

Firstly, as far as balance of payments problems are concerned, we are fortunate in that we are one of the few countries in the world—with the exception of the oil producing and exporting countries—that have no acute balance of payments problems. In recent times there were weeks when our reserves dropped rapidly for certain reasons, but if we look back over a period of weeks and months, we see a slowly rising line which indicates that there has been an addition to our reserves. If we had revalued the gold content of our reserves in terms of the actual free gold price, we would have had high foreign reserves today. Our balance of payments is, however, reasonably healthy. To what can we attribute our reasonably healthy balance of payments? In the first place it is attributable to the fact that we are not dependent on oil to the same extent as other countries. While other countries are dependent on oil for the acquisition of energy to an extent of 50%, 60% or even as much as 80%, South Africa is just over 20% dependent on oil for the generation of energy. In the second place, we are in a fortunate position because we have our gold which earns foreign exchange for us. Now we must not think that we, because we have gold, are a fortunate nation. On the ore hand we are indeed fortunate, but on the other we can also say that it is unfortunate that we did not, for the past 10 to 15 years, receive for gold the price that it was worth, while the prices of all other commodities rose. For 15 to 20 years we have been deprived of the privilege of receiving a truly realistic price for our gold. Now we have it, because gold has come into its own. I believe that in spite of the efforts of those who wanted to oppose the role of gold, and in spite of the fact that there will continue to be fluctuations, gold will play an increasingly important role in our own financial life and an increasingly important role in the international world.

But it is not only gold alone. If one looks at the tremendous volume of imports of our country and the high cost of the imports over the past few years, one finds that we are able to afford this because South Africa had a high volume of exports, exports of all sorts of commodities— raw materials, food, and so on. South Africa is developing soundly in other fields as well and is becoming an exporting country, which will strengthen its balance of payments. That is all I want to say as far as the balance of payments position is concerned.

In the second place we come to the question of growth. If we compare favourably to other countries with respect to our balance of payments, we do so all the more with respect to the question of growth. I have mentioned that America had a minus growth of 2,2% last year and Germany a plus growth of half per cent. Over against that South Africa had a growth of 7%. I think that it is an achievement for us to have maintained an average of 5% real growth per year over the past 25 years, and that in the past year our growth was one of the highest among comparable nations, viz. 7%. Even if there is a slowing down in our growth this year, it will be a healthy slowing down which will bring with it a consolidation and prepare us for further growth in the times which lie ahead. I do not have the time to go into this, but I believe firmly that from next year onwards South Africa will grow as never before, and experience an unprecedented period of prosperity. I ask only that our people make use of the opportunity which they now have, so as to prepare themselves for the period of growth awaiting our country in future.

As far as the question of inflation is concerned, I concede that we also have inflation. One could even say that our inflation is high. There are a few countries in the world that have a lower inflation rate, but the most comparable countries have an inflation rate which is far higher than ours. Our inflation rate is high, but the level of prices, the basis on which everything is reckoned, is lower in South Africa than in most other countries. Those of you who have recently had the privilege of visiting foreign countries would have found that the level of prices in general was far higher in foreign countries than it is here in South Africa. We have had inflation and we still have it, but we have one thing which other countries do not have, and that is that we have growth together with inflation. It is a terrible thing to have inflation and no growth. It is something to be grateful for if a country, although it has inflation, also has a high growth rate. In our case it is a growth rate of 7%.

In the fourth place I referred to the question of unemployment. I told you of the dangers of unemployment, such as riots and revolutions which could go hand in hand with it, and which are feared by people in other parts of the world. South Africa has no unemployment. South Africa has, on the contrary, a shortage of workers as far as skilled workers are concerned. Even among the unskilled workers there is really no unemployment in our country. There is a scarcity of unskilled workers on our farms and in our mines. Consequently there is no unemployment. When we think of the numerous undertakings initiated by the State and State Corporations, such as the construction of railways, telecommunications, the harbours which are being built, the mines which are being established, television, the large Sasol works which the Government is proceeding with again, and numerous other works, then we see that we have plans before us and undertakings which we want to proceed with for which we will require all our manpower in South Africa.

In this way we are not only creating employment opportunities, but we would simply be stimulating the economy and the industries which are dependent on those projects even further. This will bring money into circulation, which will create even greater prosperity in South Africa. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We are grateful that we do not find ourselves in the position of those countries in which the Governments have almost given up hope and the entrepreneurs have almost become despondent or in which the trade unions have sometimes become powerful organizations and are acting irresponsibly towards the interests of others. We are grateful that we do not find ourselves in that position.

We in South Africa should be grateful that we can enter the future with confidence. Our position is so different from that of many other people that even if a catastrophe were to occur in the world, even if the disaster for which many people are preparing themselves were to occur— and I do not believe that such a disaster will occur—South Africa would be one of the few developed countries in the world that would be able to survive it. We will be able to survive it because we have the basic goods and because we have the fundamental commodities on which a nation can live.

Even if the greatest economic disaster were to befall the world, we would be able to survive. We have things which the world needs and here I am referring to our minerals and metals, to our gold, sugar, coal and our food for a starving world. There is no other country in the world that is made up in the same way our country is, and because this is so, I believe in the future of my nation. I know that other countries in the world are beginning to realize this. People who were always concerned about the internal problems of South Africa, now realize that they themselves have internal problems as well. What country does not have internal problems? People who were always concerned about the external problems of South Africa, now realize that they themselves have external problems as well, for what country does not have external problems. In the present dispensation people are beginning to see South Africa as a country which can govern in Southern Africa and can unite the peoples in and around South Africa and can lead them all to great prosperity.

In that spirit I want to conclude by saying to you: I remain an optimist, a realistic optimist who reckons with the realities of our time, a realistic optimist because I believe that we will grow in the economic financial field and will become great in this country, and that we will become a leader in Africa and in large parts of the world. All that is necessary is that we will have to preserve our confidence in the future. We must have faith and not give up hope. Confidence in itself is not enough however —we shall also have to work. If we remain confident and if we all keep working. I believe that the future will be a golden future for all the peoples of our country, South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, although this time yesterday afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke at some length and bade our official farewells, as did other hon. members of this House, to the hon. the Minister of Finance upon his retirement from this House, I do not think, bearing in mind that this is the last occasion. I believe, on which the hon. gentleman will have addressed us in his present capacity and in this Place, that I can allow the occasion to pass this afternoon without a word or two in that regard. The hon. gentleman leaves us very shortly to, as it were, go into retreat prior to taking on the highest office that this country can offer one. I think it is appropriate that I say something very briefly on this occasion. I have always admired the hon. the Minister because he has had the rare capacity of being able to combine the finesse and the ability to argue in that rare atmosphere of high finance and economics with the ability to mix it in the rough and tumble of political debate with the best of us. That is a very rare and useful combination indeed and is one of the many attributes which, I think, has earned for the hon. gentleman the high distinction which he enjoys in the opinion of all in this House and outside.

One has listened to him for eight years, I think he said, during which he has held his present office, and I do not think that there is anybody who has not always listened to speeches of the most acute interest from the hon. gentleman, expressing thoughts of great originality which, together with his other attributes, have earned him the standing which he enjoys not only here but throughout the civilized world. Sir, the name “Mr. Gold”, which I believe is used in some quarters, is appropriate not only because he represents the country which produces that commodity but because what he offers so often has the quality of that commodity as well. So much, Sir, of the hon. gentleman’s past and the respect we have for him, built up over a period of time. He has delivered himself this afternoon of his usual erudite speech, and were I to be put up to deal with it on its merits I would feel compelled to use that phrase which I heard once used by the late Piet van der Byl when, resplendent in his highly starched linen, he said, “I am only a simple farmer”.

But, Sir, I should like to add this simple reflection of how I see the situation and how I have summed up the point of view of the hon. gentleman over the years. I put it no doubt quite differently, but as I see it,. Sir, one of our problems today is the inconsistency which at present exists between the requisite monetary discipline which we need to put our affairs in order and the pressures of modern democracy on the basis of “one man, one vote”, and until the powers of the world—and that includes us—can solve that problem and thereafter restore the discipline of gold. I am afraid all the paper money in the world, the credits of the world, will not see our position put right. But now, Sir, the hon. gentleman will shortly move elsewhere into a far more rarefied atmosphere than we are accustomed to here, and because I believe that he has enjoyed being with us from time to time, I venture to suggest that in his new place, should he feel that he would like to enjoy once again just a taste of what he enjoyed here, I am quite sure that there are those present who would be only too happy to respond to an invitation which he might like to extend to some of us to visit him in that other place to which he is going. Suffice it to say, Sir, that he goes from this place with our deep respect and our deep affection and I wish him the greatest of good luck in his new office.

I come back now—one might say, going from the sublime to the ridiculous—to a no-confidence debate.

Are you going to talk about his successor?

I would like to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is not here unfortunately. I do not want it to be thought that I am referring to his speech as ridiculous; that was not my intention. I would like to say a word or two about his speech before I continue with what I have to say. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman sought to distinguish between differentiation and discrimination in so far as Government policy is concerned.

He spoke at some length on the fact that the Nationalist Party, whilst it stood for the phasing out and the removal of discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, nevertheless stood for differentiation between the various racial groups in South Africa. You know, Sir, I had some difficulty, whilst I was listening to him, in distinguishing between discrimination and differentiation and so I had to resort to the dictionaries. I found that one of the appropriate definitions of differentiation was “to distinguish between”, whilst the definition of discrimination is also “to distinguish between”. It is only in the modern idiom, Sir, if you look at the dictionaries, that you find that discrimination has taken on an adverse connotation because it has been used to discriminate against people. But, Sir, this play on words gets us absolutely nowhere at all. You know, Sir, we once had the word apartheid, which became unpopular and so we changed it to separate development. But the policy, whether under the one label or the other, did not alter. So you find that the word “discrimination” has become unpopular and has been changed to differentiation whilst in fact the policy that is applied is the same. So you are solving nothing at all. It is like the favourite communist technique where when a policy becomes unpopular, they change the label but not the policy. That has precisely been the trouble in the past—I emphasize that—with the Nationalist Government. It does not matter whether it uses the word “discriminate” or the word “differentiation”. It depends on what it does in terms of that differentiation or that discrimination, i.e. whether it does things which are hurtful to people or whether it does not. It is not the term you use; it is the policy you apply as the result of that.

The hon. gentleman has said other things in this regard. He said, with emphasis, that the Nationalist Party was against discrimination. This, Sir, is a most welcome development, and he pleaded with us to accept the bona fides of the Government in this regard, to accept the sincerity of the spokesmen for the Government in this regard when they say that they are against discrimination and that the value differentiation only in those fields where there is a constructive connotation to be given to it. But, Mr. Speaker, let us go back in time a little. This did not start yesterday. It started in 1948. The Nationalist Government during a period of 10 years or more after 1948 introduced hurtful discriminatory measures into fields where no discrimination at that time existed. That is what they did. It was petty apartheid upon which emphasis was laid in those years. While that was done, does it surprise anybody that discrimination has taken on in South Africa a particularly unpleasant connotation and that the Nationalist Government has been labelled with that unpleasant connotation? Now the hon. gentleman says “hy is teen diskriminasie en hy is teen vernedering en belediging van mense en teen miskenning van menswaardigheid, maar staan die handhawing van identiteit voor. Hy staan goeie orde en die voorkoming en uitskakeling van wrywing voor, en daarom is hy ten gunste van differensiasie”. Mr. Speaker, there is no lack of common ground between myself and this side of the House, and the hon. gentleman in so far as the preservation of identity is concerned. That is why we adopt a federal policy based upon identifiable communities, because we believe in the maintenance of identity. That is the cardinal difference between the federal policy of the Progressive Party and our own, because they dispense with the maintenance of the identity of communities. Now, Sir, he says he stands for good order, So do we on this side of the House. He says too that he stands for “die uitskakeling van wrywing”, the removal of friction. So do we, Sir, and that is why we adopt the federal policy. But that is no basis upon which to justify the actions of the Nationalist Party in the sphere of discrimination over the last 20 years.

And finally, Sir, in reference to the utterances of the Black leaders and their rejection at this point of time of any idea of asking for independence, he said, “daar sal nog bespreking wees”. He said that there would still be discussions and that one must therefore not give too much attention to the statement of the Black leaders rejecting independence at the present time, with one or two exceptions. But, Mr. Speaker, we know that those discussions have taken place. They are referred to specifically in the summit Press release by the Black leaders themselves. They say that they have considered in depth and at length the question of independence and they know precisely the basis upon which it is to be offered by the hon. the Prime Minister. He has made it clear over and over again— he made it clear yesterday—that is to be strictly on the basis of the 1936 legislation and on the basis of the Government’s existing consolidation plans. That is the only basis upon which the Prime Minister is prepared to discuss independence, and it is on that very basis that it has been rejected, after consideration and after discussions with the hon. the Prime Minister. Now, Sir, how can one then any longer hold out hope in the direction of acceptance of independence by the Black leaders with, as I have said, two exceptions? Mr. Speaker, one has only to state that proposition to realize that it is untenable.

But, Sir, we are involved in a no-confidence debate, and the point has arisen on a number of occasions as to why we were not highly congratulatory of the Government and the Prime Minister for actions and statements, principally statements, which have been made recently in regard to South Africa’s affairs. The euphoria which has been referred to by other speakers from this side of the House should I believe be examined in the light of what the Government has said it will do and what it has done, because a no-confidence debate is the place for the clash of philosophy against philosophy and policy against policy. What we should do is to examine what has taken place, to see where the credit lies, because there is a general desire to give credit for what has been done. I believe that this is the right place to examine what has, been done and to see whether it is the philosophy and the policy of separate development which deserves that credit and that euphoria, or whether that credit lies with a policy and a philosophy elsewhere. I believe the answer will be in the latter respect.

Now, Sir, first of all there was the United Nations speech by our ambassador there, rejecting discrimination. It was a very welcome statement but, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, it was largely directed to a future course of conduct rather than to what has been done in the past. Then, domestically, there have been announcements in regard to the Nico Malan Theatre, travelling on luxury trains and matters of that kind. What has been the policy of the United Party since 1961? It is laid down in the much-maligned “sixpenny handbook” that used to be so derided in this House that it has been policy of this side of the House over the last 13 years, to my knowledge—I only came here in 1961—to review all discriminatory legislation in order to see if we could not do away with that which was hurtful and which impinged upon the dignity of individuals. That was put forward and requested by this side of the House in 1961. We are told today that this is the standpoint of the Government and how welcome that is, but when it comes to where the credit lies for that point of view, I believe that one should be a little more discerning. There is the South African detente that is largely in the field of foreign affairs. It arises largely out of the intelligent and sensible negotiation by the Government— I give them credit for that—in respect of the needs of South Africa, the needs of Zambia and the needs of Rhodesia. I believe that in the field of foreign affairs credit can legitimately be said to lie with the Government.

But let us come to the negotiations with the Black leaders. What were the points that were raised? There was a request— not only from those Black leaders who refuse independence, but also from those Black leaders who accept independence— that those urban Bantu of the second or third generation who did not actively associate themselves with the homelands should be accepted as permanent in White South Africa. At this meeting with the Black leaders I think it is fair to say that both on the credit and the debit side, the honour and the glory if it is there, or the reverse if it is there, rest not only with the Prime Minister, but also with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his two deputies because they were all involved in these negotiations and in what transpired. But what came out? As a result of the request for permanence and civic rights it was said that leasehold would be examined for the urban Bantu in the urban areas, that trading rights would be reconsidered and that a committee would be set up to minimize the hardships of influx control. There would also be a reconsideration with the Minister of Labour of trade unions in urban areas for the Black people. The position of professional men in the urban areas would be revised and civic rights would be looked at in the sense of greater powers for the urban Bantu councils. As regards leasehold in the urban areas, it would be very interesting to see what evolves from that. Freehold was asked for but this was declined. Leasehold is to be looked into. They have leasehold at the present time because a monthly tenancy is a leasehold. If this is to be looked into, it can only be looked into on the basis of long leases. Anyone who has experience of the principle of long leases in the older British colonies, especially in cities like Durban and Pietermaritzburg, will know that today the leasehold, the long lease, of those areas is treated akin to freehold tenure. That holds interesting developments for us and in that regard I wish to ask in respect of whose philosophy is credit to be given, that of separate development or that of others in this House?

What is the present position in regard to trading rights? It is in effect one man one trading licence, and this applies only in respect of the day-to-day needs of the people. What is asked for and what is to be investigated is trading rights to cover the whole gamut of trade in the urban areas. The minimizing of the hardship of influx control is something we have debated over and over again as along as I have been here. Trade unions were dealt with by us last year to great effect, and particularly by the Leader of the Opposition. The position of professional men in the urban Bantu areas and greater local government rights for their local authorities are matters in respect of which one can ask in terms of whose philosophy is the credit due in view of the predicted changes—that of the hon. gentlemen opposite or ourselves? I believe the answer is clearly ourselves.

Let us go to the Coloureds. Here the responsibility is shared between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. We are to have an investigation of Cabinet responsibility for the Coloured Representative Council with power to originate legislation. They are to have extended executive powers. There are to be standing inter-Cabinet committees or councils. I read this with great interest. I do not labour the point that the idea of the communal council, which this is, originated with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; but it is being developed, and every one of these factors finds its origin in the philosophy of the United Party. No wonder it is a matter of drawing praise! There remains the issue of parity of salaries. Who has debated this question of narrowing the gap and parity of salaries over and over again in this House? There is the question of Coloured representation on statutory bodies. I wonder if it is known how many provincial statutory bodies in Natal are multi-racial bodies at the present time? There is also the request by the Coloured people that unnecessary discriminatory legislation should be scrapped, and that was agreed to. If one goes through that list, as far as the Coloured people of this country are concerned, where does the credit lie? With separate development, which for years has brought about the negation of these things, or with the philosophy of the United Party, which over the years has pleaded that these things be done?

However, let us not get carried away. I should like to ask a further question. If a United Party Government were in power at the present time, or any Government that did not subscribe to the policy of separate development, and if it were to come out with a series of announcements that these changes were envisaged, would there be a chorus of euphoria from the political commentators and observers outside? I doubt it very much. What one would get would be a vigorous attack on the United Party Government because it was only now coming out with tardy measures of this kind which were too few and too late. The only reason why there is this atmosphere of euphoria is because for so long we have had from this Government the very antithesis of what is now envisaged. The position was very well put, I think by the hon. member for Von Brandis, when he said that for the most part this was merely a promissory note. We know what promissory notes are like. They are fine as long as they are moving quickly from one sticky palm to another. It is only when they come to rest in someone’s sticky palm, and he is called to account to pay them, that there is usually trouble, and this is what the country will be watching for in respect of these changes that have been suggested. It is not sufficient these days to promise. What is required now is to be able to see the results of those promises. As I have said, credit is due for the changes of direction, changes in emphasis if you like, which have been foreshadowed. For the philosophy behind this, I see no credit for the Government. I am sufficiently a realist, and sufficiently human, to give the Government credit for making the necessary changes they are. We are told by the hon. member for Vereengiging that those of us who sit on this side of the House are unfair because we do not refer to the advantages which have accrued from separate development, such as the building of houses, the building of schools, the provision of sports fields, the advocating of better wages, the advocating of better working conditions and other matters of this kind.

However, it is absolutely naïve to suggest that these are attributes that belong solely to the philosophy of separate development. Any Government worth its salt—I emphasize “any Government”—in the decade preceding 1975, would have felt obliged and compelled to improve circumstances such as these. We now have the money to do this. We live in an era in which it is necessary, if it were not necessary before—and I am not suggesting that it was not. However, the compulsion, the will and the wherewithal to do this are now there. Any Government, whether it is a Government that stands for the society in which we believe or whether it is a Government which stands for separate development would, if it had the right view of things, have felt obliged to do these things. It is quite unrelated to separate development, and it is no reason to praise the philosophy in its workability or in its morals to say merely that these things have been done. Separate development did these things, but the one thing that separate development cannot do in the society of today is to provide a political solution, particularly as a result of the summit meeting of Black leaders where once again I emphasize that independence was rejected “at this point of time” and in the very next paragraph of their statement “at this point of time …” to use their phrase as stated in that document, “… federation was considered as a possibility”. The two are juxtaposed, he one against the other in their statement, viz. a rejection “at this point of time” of independence and an acceptance of the possibility “at this point of time” of federation as providing an answer. Why is it preferable? Because as I have tried to indicate we know the terms upon which independence is offered by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is known to the Black leaders and it is rejected by them. The federal principle, whether it is ours or whether it is one similar to ours, not only provides the day-to-day necessities which I have already enumerated—schools, hospitals, sports fields, etc.—necessities which I concede separate development can also provide, but it has some hope of providing a solution to the politically vexed question in South Africa and that is the question of political representation of minority and majority groups in a multi-racial country.

I want to mention one final point. Even if the Black leaders had accepted independence at this point of time, separate development offers no solution as to the political future of the Coloureds and the Indians. Only under a federal principle of some kind, preferably ours, even with the acceptance of independence for the rest, is an answer provided to those two important communities. So I say that despite what has taken place recently and despite all the congratulatory remarks which have been uttered in that regard, when it comes to measuring policy against policy and philosophy against philosophy, very little indeed of real importance for the future by way of political comfort is to be found in the policy of separate development which this Government still follows. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who has just resumed his seat, has spoken very appreciatively of our outgoing Minister of Finance. I wish to thank him on behalf of this side of the House for the friendly words he has addressed to the Minister and I can assure him that we accept his words as being genuine.

The hon. member also had something to say about differentiation and discrimination. I hope that before I sit down today there will be some time left for me to deal with those two concepts. The hon. member will just have to wait a little should he like to listen to me. I think, however, he has already heard what I had to say in that connection in the past.

This motion which was moved here yesterday, was moved under the flag of détente. In several ways the motion also refers to the relationship between Whites and Blacks and, of course, the other race groups in South Africa. The hon. member for Mooi River has also spoken about these relationships and I must say that his speech was stimulating. As a matter of fact, also the hon. member’s speech stimulated me to take part in this debate. However, as far as that hon. member is concerned, I cannot do more than admit that. He expressed certain sentiments and referred to certain standards in his speech concerning race relations. However, his words were only hollow sounds; he came with clever and perhaps a little pious phrases. I shall point this out as I deal with this particular matter in my speech today. His statements yesterday cannot all stand the test of reality, and in politics we have to do with reality above all else. His statements cannot stand the test of principles and of high ideals as our policy is able to. The hon. member for Mooi River especially mentioned, freedom from fear and want—he referred to a fear complex—and the desire for stability. Fear and stability are two very important concepts. I maintain that our society is not at all characterized by fear, neither in the ranks of the Whites nor amongst the Bantu people or the other non-White groups in South Africa. What fears do we as Whites in South Africa harbour? I am genuinely convinced that we fear nothing at all. We are not at all motivated or driven by fear in South Africa.

*When I say that the Whites are not driven or motivated by fear, I want to add that there is, in particular, one great positive urge or motive among our Whites and that is the urge to which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also referred here today. i.e. the urge for self-preservation, to maintain one’s own as a group or a species. We’ want to maintain our selves in South Africa. We want to develop and maintain our own being, our own identity, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana called it. In the strength of many years of experience—I should almost like to say of every minute and moment of my waking day— I believe that among our Bantu and other non-Whites groups as well, there are far more positive aspirations than there is a fear complex. Among our Bantu there are far stronger aspirations to achieve certain things than there are feelings of fear.

The White man’s urge for self-preservation is very definitely linked to the other concept which the hon. member for Mooi River raised yesterday, i.e. that of stability or permanence.

I spoke of Africa to the North …

I want to speak about South Africa here. For the stability of the Whites the realization of our self-preservation is of the utmost importance. We as Whites in South Africa have no stability if we cannot realize our self-preservation, if it cannot be placed beyond any danger for us. Why? For one single and distinct reason. If we know that our self-preservation is not endangered and we are able to realize it, then we as a White group are reassured. Reassurance is the very first concept a society wants so as to be able to see clearly the road ahead and to be able to develop without fear, as was said by the hon. member. We should feel reassured about our continued existence, our possessions, our civilization and our freedom, reassured about everything which is dear to us. Therefore reassurance is, above all else, a pre-requisite for stability and we as Whites in South Africa very definitely have—far too little is said about this on the opposite side—a right, a claim to reassurance and to stability in South Africa. The policy of the National Party is really the only policy—even if it has its shortcomings—which makes provision for the Whites to be reassured. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side are awakening from their dreams now that they hear me using the word “shortcomings”. I say that the policy of the National Party, even if it has some shortcomings here and there, is the only policy which holds out stability for the White man in South Africa and which gives them that assurance as a group and as individuals.

That is only your opinion.

It is not only my opinion. This is the experience we in South Africa have expressed at the polls. This is not only the experience borne out by the voters at the polls; it is also the experience of many former members of the United Party, members who came to us such a long time ago that some of them have already passed through our Cabinet while others are only entering the Cabinet now. According to the policy of the National Party we want each one of the Bantu peoples and the other non-White peoples in our country—the Indians, the Coloureds, and so forth—to have in equal measure everyone of those things I have just mentioned and which we insist upon for our own White survival and stability, i.e. this reassurance and stability. We say that each Bantu people will have its own development in future, that each one must be assisted in achieving it. [Interjection.] Why does that hon. member opposite sneer and jeer and scoff when I say that we grant a Bantu people its own development in future? Does that hon. member not want the Bantu peoples to have that?

We shall tell you ourselves.

I am not speaking to that hon. member. I am speaking to, the hon. member sitting behind him. Why does the hon. member sneer and jeer at that? Is it because he begrudges. I the Bantu peoples that, or is it because he wants to incorporate the Bantu? No, Sir. We say we want each one of them to have this and, what is more, we do our utmost to assist each one of them along that road to find their own future. As I said a moment ago, we want them to have that which we claim for ourselves as a pre-requisite, that they should also have that assurance, that assurance which is so essential for one to feel secure, to know that one has security, to know that one, is on the road towards one’s future.

On a discriminatory basis.

We also want them to be assured of their own future. It was said in this debate by the hon. member for Mooi River that the Bantu are our only allies, I just want to say in passing that I do not agree that they are our only allies; we have many other allies, Sir, but I shall leave it at that, since it is not quite within the purview of my speech. But what I want to demonstrate here, and demonstrate very emphatically, is that, according to the policy of the National Party and on the basis of what the National Party has done up to now through its Government and through all the bodies at its disposal, the Whites of South Africa are the main and especially the most essential ally of each one of the Bantu peoples and of the Indians and the Coloureds. The hon. member is agreeing with me now; he did not want to say so himself yesterday. Sir, each one of those Non-White peoples must realize that not one of them has more genuine allies than we who have been placed here with them by our Creator in one geographical context. Our policy does not only reassure each one of those peoples; we help them to develop; we guarantee, as we claim for ourselves, the self-preservation and future peculiar to each one of those peoples in so far as we are able to have a share in it. But the old fact and truism remains: A nation saves itself. Each one of those peoples must contribute their own share to their own development, for without their own efforts they cannot procure a future of their own.

As citizens of South Africa?

As citizens of their own Bantu homelands, with a common link with us here in the White areas. Sir, we guarantee them a future of their own, as far as we have a share in it, but then they must make their own contribution towards that future.

The National Party in South Africa is pre-eminently the party which recognizes and professes nationalism in its pure and natural form, i.e. as the essence and soul of a nation: that is what nationalism is, and whoever denies, conceals or ignores this, acts contrary to nature. Sir, that is why we also recognize the nationalism of others, not just that of the Whites in South Africa; that is why we recognize the nationalism of the Xhosa, the Tswana, the Zulu, and soon. The National Party is the only one of our political parties in South Africa which is acquainted with avenues and channels for the nationalism of these other peoples, just as is the case with ours. It is because the other parties do not want to accept the nationalism of the other peoples and do not want to assist in designing avenues and channels for them, that the other parties in South Africa are unable to make a positive contribution to our mutual progress.

Do the Coloured people also have a nationalism?

Yes, the Coloured people have a Coloured nationalism which they still have to develop a great deal.

Where is their homeland?

The National Party, as I have said, is the party that recognizes nationalism in peoples; we are the ones who are prepared to identify peoples; we are the ones who are prepared to help each one of them to reach a destination of their own; we are the ones who want them to have channels of development of their own and help them along that road. Sir, this, and this alone, is separate development; this is multi-national development, i.e. the natural development peculiar to every people on its future road towards its own destination. That is our policy; this is the guarantee for every people of its continued existence; this is the guarantee for security, for that stability which is so great a prerequisite. This, I say, is separate development.

In this regard a serious warning must be issued against emotional and false appeals, a few of which we unfortunately also heard from the hon. member for Mooi River yesterday. There are false appeals; there are emotional appeals with fine sounding words we had to listen to and also many things that are false, an example of which we heard yesterday. We heard the United Party referring to a division of power, or rather, the sharing of power, the sharing of wealth and the sharing of land.

I did not say that.

I did not say the hon. member said it. I say we hear about it. I know the hon. member did not say it, and I hope it is because he shares my belief in respect of land that he did not say it. But there are people in that party who say so and there are many who write about it. This misconception of the sharing of power, the sharing of wealth and the sharing of land, is a false value which is being held out. Sir, people who have to live as close to each other as we are living here, cannot share power. Where does one find that peoples share power and authority with each other? Where does one find that? The sharing of power and authority among peoples leads to conflict and the use of force between peoples and not to peaceful co-existence. I should very much like to hear where in the world peoples in one national context share power and authority with each other. [Interjections.] Where attempts are made to share power and authority, it will lead to subjection; it leads to subversion and it leads to the disappearance of one or the other or of everyone. It must necessarily lead to all these things. It has led to those things in the past. What must peoples that co-exist do with each other? They can only do what we as individuals have to do with each other. Peoples can only accept one another; peoples can only tolerate one another. That is all they can do. There are only those two objectives, and that is what our policy does. The policy of the hon. members on the opposite side is not to accept peoples. They are forever tampering with the existence and the future of separate peoples, peoples who were placed here in South Africa by the Creator.

What about the Coloured people?

I have said this so many times before. The moment I start speaking about my work on the basis of principles, hon. members start discussing the Coloured people. I made a remark about it a moment ago. I am quite prepared to speak to the hon. member about the Coloured people, but then one must have the time to do so and this is not the time now. I just want to remind hon. members that I was briefly dealing with the sharing of authority and power. The policy of the United Party, which is a dangerous policy, is one which will ineluctably lead to these things. I have mentioned, such as the subversion of one another and the subjection of one to the other and eventually to the disappearance of one or the other.

In connection with the sharing or the division of land, I should like to point out that, historically, land in South Africa has, through the years and through the decades, already been divided among the peoples, between the White and the Black peoples. The land has already been divided and we cannot share land with each other just as we cannot share power and authority with each other. All we still have to do now— and I hope we are going to proceed with this in this session this year—is to round off allocations in respect of that land still further. We hope to be able to do so during this session. The other matter that is mentioned is wealth, money, earnings. I also want to emphasize that income or earnings is not something which can be shared with one another either, as has already been said and written. In an orderly society, income or earnings is something which has to be earned by those who desire it. It cannot be received in the form of gifts from the entrepreneurs. These are things which must be earned.

But surely the opportunity to earn it should be there.

There must be opportunities and there must be proper remuneration and proper arrangements in connection with the earning thereof, but there is no such thing that someone who desires funds or money or earnings can receive it as hand-outs. Income must be earned. This is a cultural concept. This is a Biblical concept which dates back to the days of the Creation. [Interjections.] I am very pleased when the hon. members say that. It points to progress.

In regard to these things it is quite essential that we in South Africa, as different peoples who co-exist here, should be understanding peoples who can understand and accept one another. Secondly, as I have said, these peoples should be tolerant peoples who can tolerate one another. Arising from this, there is the desirability for us to remain in contact with one another so that we can talk with one another or, to use the modern idiom, so that we can conduct dialogue with one another so as to understand one another’s aspirations and standpoints, to learn to tolerate one another, for it demands a great deal to learn to tolerate one another. Individually, we all spend a lifetime learning to tolerate one another— as peoples and as members of those peoples. But this is essential in order to ensure security and stability for everyone. In this connection we recently had a very important conference of the Bantu homeland leaders with the Prime Minister, with me and others. No matter how important this was, we simply must remember it was by no means the only instance of dialogue that was conducted on the part of the Government with the Bantu homelands and with the Bantu peoples. As far as dialogue is concerned, this is the most important event, i.e. that the Prime Minister holds talks with them, but there is far more dialogue than that. Since that meeting, in the past 14 days, I have already made contact, at my level, with two or three other homeland governments.

Conducted dialogue?

Yes, dialogue.

You speak and they listen?

No, on the contrary; it is not I who speak and they who listen. I think the talking comes mostly from their side. At this most recent interview which took place between the Prime Minister and other peoples—this was the second that has taken place in the past year—great progress was in fact made. Progress was made, even compared with the first one. I want to say to the credit of our hon. the Prime Minister and likewise to the credit of the Bantu leaders themselves that, contrary to the prior desires and subsequent sorrow of certain newspapers, that interview with the Prime Minister was conducted in an atmosphere of complete calm and relaxation, or détente. They were conducted in a very fine spirit and concluded in the same way. Basic concepts were expressed throughout, from their side and from ours. There were in fact understandings which developed between us. I just want to mention a few; examples, since I cannot deal with everything now. There is the question of land tenure and home-ownership to which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred this: afternoon. The views of the National Party were put to them very clearly, i.e. that just as the land in the Bantu homelands only belongs to those Bantu peoples themselves, so the land here in White South Africa be-, longs only to the Whites. In cases where land of one particular group still belongs to another group, the matter is gradually being put right.

And they accept it?

I just want to tell the hon. member that on that day we said very little about land tenure to the non-White leaders. Consequently, the sharing of land tenure is unthinkable in our policy. This must be understood very clearly, since it reaches down to the roots of every people’s assurance, security and stability. These then are the principles we spoke about a moment ago. In respect of the ownership of homes I myself furnished statistics to the conference in order to show that at present, in South Africa, 30% of the homes in the urban Bantu residential areas in White South Africa are owned by the Bantu inhabitants of those homes. It is in respect of this policy of home-ownership in the urban Bantu residential areas which has been applied by our Government in the past that the hon. the Prime Minister announced—it was referred to this afternoon—that we undertake to go into that aspect of the matter again. In this regard we must not lose sight of the fundamentalism of our policy, i.e. that there are separate homelands for these different peoples and in those homelands these peoples have their own exclusive rights, of which land tenure and voting rights are probably the most striking. This applies in respect of the Bantu as well as here in the White homeland. The second fundamentalism of which I want to remind hon. members, is the ethnic concept, concept that the people of South Africa are not just beings such as the birds in the skies, although even they can be divided into groups. The people of South Africa are all, groupwise, connected with their own particular people and country: The Xhosas with the Xhosa people; the Zulus with the Zulu people and we, the Whites, with the White people of South Africa. We must understand this ethnic concept. We spoke, for example, about influx control. Hon. members may perhaps be able to grasp that this is an extremely difficult matter to discuss. The hon. the Prime Minister stated the crux and the essence of the objects of influx control to the meeting. After all, there is an object with influx control. It is not something which was just fabricated for the fun of it or for the sake of a few officials who wanted to do something administratively. The Prime Minister put it to them in a very tangible way. There is, for example, the quoted situation of a town where there is employment for 10 000 Bantu persons. What happens when 30 000 Bantu come streaming in to take up that employment? They realize that this would lead to chaos. They were asked what should be done in a case like this. One of the leaders —I am not going to mention names—said things that made almost everyone laugh. One of the leaders said that those 20 000 surplus workers should be transported back. The Prime Minister and all of us laughed and said that this method had already been tried in the past and that those people were back where they had came from even before the vehicles were back. These leaders sensed the basic problem, the dilemma of the situation. That is why, when we discussed the situation with them, seven of the eight were willing to take part in further dialogue at departmental level to try and devise and propose something here to deal with that situation and to prevent those 20 000 superfluous workers from taking the work out of the hands of the 10 000 who are entitled to it, and causing all manner of other chaotic conditions. In this way we had a very fruitful discussion —I have to race against time now—about trade matters as well, about the urban Bantu councils and the urban representatives’ councils to see whether one could reorganize them in respect of management affairs, in regard to education and transport in the urban areas. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana discussed these specific matters this afternoon. I want to tell him that the changes which will come, and there will undoubtedly be changes, will take place within the policy of the National Party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development’s speech, I would like to associate members in these benches with the comments of farewell and the tributes which have been paid to the former leader of the House, the Minister of Finance, on the occasion of his departure from this House, presumably for higher office. This gentleman has served this House and this country over a long period. He has come a long way. I happen to have an association with a small village in the Free State from which he comes. He has come a long way from Hobhouse to the State House. He came into politics in the 1930s as a fiery young Nationalist with a burning ideological mission, and over the years he has mellowed. He has become an elder statesman, and while he has never lost his feeling for his cause, he has mellowed in his manner and he has been able to meet his political opponents with tremendous dignity and with understanding.

*He is a man who, in the thirties, fervently believed in the economic upliftment of his less-privileged Afrikaner countrymen and became a man who is accepted in the international sphere as an authority on the subject of international finance.

†However, it is in this House that he appeared to be most at home. His speech this afternoon was the masterpiece of a man who has been in this House for many years, a man who has become a part of this House. I think it is as a member of this House that we shall remember him, for his Budget speeches with their parables, their fables, their allusions to Confucius, for the dexterity with which he attempted, not always successfully, to reconcile the demands of South Africa’s economy with the ideological policy of the party of which he was a member. As the leader of this House he was fairminded, he was efficient and he was approachable. We would like to wish him and his wife well on their retirement from this House for possibly further and higher office in the service of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development seemed to be surprised that a motion which had reference to détente also dealt with race relations.

No, not at all.

Well, you expressed surprise.

I did not.

Well, I am glad the hon. the Minister realizes this for the reason for the deterioration of our relationships with Africa over the years has been the question of race relations in South Africa, and perhaps the reason why it has improved is the belief of people out side South Africa that there is going to be a radical restructuring of Nationalist Party policy. He talks of realities and principles as the two fundamentals on which politics is based today. However, he denies the realities of the existence on a permanent basis of millions and millions of Black South Africans working and living in the cities of South Africa. He talks of principle, and yet what is the principle in saying: “You, the Coloured citizens of South Africa, can be born here, can live here and can die here but you can never have any say in the Parliament that governs you.”? Is that a principle? Of course not. We shall deal further with various other aspects of discrimination during the course of this debate. However, I want to refer to the motion before the House and to say that while we in these benches share with members to our right a lack of confidence in the Government, we do not believe that the motion before the House adequately expresses the reasons for which we have this lack of confidence. Therefore as an amendment to the motion, I move—

1. (a) achieve its stated goal of eliminating race discrimination;
2. (b) provide for the sharing of power by the citizens of South Africa; and
3. (c) enable it to govern without depriving citizens of their civil liberties.”.

Naturally this debate takes place against the background of detente. There has been widespread relief in South Africa and a welcoming of the détente situation which has developed. We in the Progressive Party welcome these new developments, for even in opposition we have worked for this kind of détente over the years. While leaders to the north and south of the Zambesi have been busy slamming one another, the Progressive Party has argued in favour of dialogue and communication and of identification with Africa. At times when official contact scarcely existed in the north we went to the north to keep open the slender lines of contact and to forge new links with the African Continent. Naturally we are pleased today to find that alongside the informal links which we have already forged, it appears that new and important Government-to-Government links are now being established. I want to say to this House and to the hon. the Prime Minister that we shall continue building bridges. We have no doubt that we shall be criticized by our political opponents as we have been in the past, but just as the recent months have demonstrated, so the future will show that because this party is the only parliamentary party that has consistently opposed race discrimination we are well placed to play a role in trying to improve the relationships between South Africa and the rest of the continent.

In the circumstances in which South Africa has found itself in recent years there is no doubt that the bringing about of détente has been a notable achievement. But frankly, Sir, I am concerned at the state of euphoria in which certain Government members and organs of the Government Press seem to find themselves at present. I believe that this is extremely dangerous because it is causing many people in South Africa to ignore the realities of the situation and the commitments and the dangers which are implicit in détente. Détente is no change of substance, but it does reflect a change of climate, a change of mood. It gives South Africa some time, it gives the hon. the Prime Minister some breathing space and it gives him an opportunity. If he does not use this time and this opportunity, however, détente wil disappear and we shall be worse off than ever before. I believe that implicit in détente—I think the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me—is a commitment by this Government to us its influence to try to bring about a settlement in Rhodesia, to give South West Africa independence on the basis of the freely expressed will of the inhabitants of that territory and perhaps most important of all to make changes within South Africa in order to move South Africa as fast as possible away from apartheid and away from race discrimination. This is a formidable task, but if the Government does not do it, détente will be a passing phase. The Government’s willingness to try to use its influence in a settlement in Rhodesia and the fact that the Government has said it would act in respect of South West Africa have been prerequisites for détente. But the key to make détente last and the key to achieving a lasting working arrangement with the other States in Africa has to be the elimination of apartheid and race discrimination within our country.

In a sense South Africa has been given the goodwill of leaders and States to the north on credit; on credit in the form of undertakings implied in the speeches by ambassador Botha, Minister Koornhof and the hon. the Prime Minister himself. If the hon. the Prime Minister does not deliver the goods by eliminating race discrimination and apartheid within South Africa, he will have forfeited for the people of South Africa the goodwill of the leaders to the north which we and he enjoy at the moment. Because of the importance of this task and because of the consequences to South Africa both internally and externally, we in the Progressive Party, will support the Government in any step that it takes to eliminate apartheid and discrimination in South Africa. But equally, we shall continue to criticize and to attack the Government whenever it clings to policies which we—you and I—know are manifestly discriminatory or which place the ideology of race separation before common human dignity. Much credit for the recent turn of events has been given to those within the Government who have been involved in the delicate negotiations, and to the hon. the Prime Minister in particular. Although I believe that it is appropriate, the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister must not forget that it has been his party’s own race policies which have been applied over the years which have been the prime cause of South Africa’s isolation from the rest of Africa in the past. This has been the cause. [Interjections.] Well, why change the policy if it was not the cause?

I want to mention in particular the patient and dedicated approach as well as the work done by the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I can sense how they winced every time they heard that the hon. the Minister of Defence was going to make a speech that dealt in any way with Africa or African leaders to the north. I think that this is an appropriate occasion for the South African Parliament and those of us in this House to refer to the important and constructive part played in recent developments of President Kaunda of Zambia. Whatever differences the South African Government has had with him in the past, I believe that we should recognize that on this occasion he has shown qualities of statesmanship and wisdom which, together with the efforts of our Prime Minister, have brought about a new and hopeful situation in Southern Africa. Neither should we ignore the contributions made by individual South Africans to this new climate that is developing in Africa. I think of a businessman like Mr. Harry Oppenheimer or of an administrator such as Sir Richard Luyt—men who in the interests of South Africa have maintained close personal contact with the African states over the years. I think, too, of a man such as Chief Gatsha Buthelezi who, in spite of his opposition to apartheid, and in spite of the humiliation which he says his people endure, has gone to the capitals of African states and argued with the people against boycotts and violence in favour of dialogue and communication.

I believe that it is the existence of a growing opposition to the race policies of this Government and the belief that there is a prospect of real change in South Africa away from those policies that has made détente possible. Were it not for that, there would have been no change in atmosphere, and no détente.

The leaders to the north believe that the Prime Minister wants to move away from apartheid and race discrimination. If they for one moment thought that the Prime Minister was going to follow the ideological path mapped out for him by Dr. Verwoerd, there would have been no détente today.

Or by “M.C.”

Yes, or perhaps by “M.C.” But we are talking of his predecessor and not the Minister himself. Last year, following my discussions in Gaborone, Lusaka, Nairobi and Lagos, I reported to the House on this very point. In these words I referred to the attitude of the Black leaders I had met towards the Prime Minister: “Observers see him allowing apartheid to crumble in a natural way; they see political discussion taking place across the colour line in spite of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. They see Blacks doing more skilled work in spite of job reservation and the colour bar. They see our airports, our aircraft and hotels desegregated in spite of apartheid; they see more and more South Africans participating in mixed sport even though it is given another name; they hear his appeals to human dignity. These are all plus factors for the Prime Minister and South Africa.” This is what I reported last year. I said there was a sneaking regard for him not because of policies of separate development but because they believed there was growing opposition to those policies and because the Prime Minister realized that he had to dismantle the ideology of Dr. Verwoerd and move South Africa towards a new attitude.

Why do you not allow one to speak for oneself? Why do you have to speak for me?

I want to make it clear that there could have been no détente nor will the détente last unless there is a clear commitment away from apartheid and race discrimination. I want to refer to the interview with President Kaunda which appeared in the latest edition of Africa where on three occasions this President said that he believed that the Prime Minister, in spite of difficult circumstances within his own country, wants to persuade his people to change, change to implement policy or change away from policy. This is of course a clear indication that this Prime Minister and the National Party want to move away from apartheid and race discrimination. This is the basis of this whole situation at the moment and I believe that it is very important that the Prime Minister should follow this line and should project himself into the future and tell this House where he is in fact going to take South Africa.

There have been encouraging moves away from apartheid recently. We welcome them but I think that hon. members are going to find that you will not be able to get away from race discrimination within the framework of the National Party policy of separate development. Their policy is going to have to crumble if indeed they are going to be able to get away from race discrimination. So the essence of this issue is: What is meant by race discrimination? This was referred to by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. All of us in this House are saying that it must go. However, do we all mean the same thing when we say that we must get rid of race discrimination? The most authoritative and concise statement—the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated this yesterday—on this issue was made by ambassador Pik Botha at the UN. What I want to know is not only whether the hon. the Prime Minister and his party subscribe to that statement—which I presume they do—but do he and the rest of his party also agree exactly on what it means? I have no doubt that people at the UN who listened to that statement, people who read it in newspapers throughout the world, people who watched it being made on television, interpreted it in only one way and that is that race barriers in South Africa are coming down. To people around the world that is what the speech of Mr. Pik Botha meant—race barriers are coming down in South Africa.

I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether that is the import of that speech. Is that the import of the speech? Are we moving away from present Government policies towards new ones where South African citizens will not be precluded or limited on the grounds of race or colour from participating in any way in the social, economic and political life of the country? This is a cardinal point and I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to this House and the country to ensure that there is no confusion as to what is meant by this new concept of moving away from race discrimination. We have had the hon. the Minister of the Interior telling us that in actual fact we are a group of nations. We do not discriminate between races, we are like Western Europe or South America, we are nations and so we differentiate between nations and we do not discriminate on the grounds of race or colour.

Mr. Speaker, at the moment we are all South Africans. We may be peoples or nations or groups but we are still all citizens of South Africa and the Prime Minister can do nothing to change that. We are all citizens of South Africa and the hon. the Prime Minister cannot force people out of their citizenship. Citizens of South Africa who are differentiated against because of their so-called nationhood are in fact discriminated against on the grounds of their race and coolur.

For the benefit of the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on that side of the House I should like to provide a few simple illustrations of this point. A White Portuguese or a Spaniard, or a member of some other nation in Europe, can come into the urban areas of this country where the work is to be found, move freely there and own property there. Yet the Black South African, no matter how long he has lived and worked here may not move freely and may not own property in the urban areas. Why do we discriminate against the Black South African and not the White European?

That is differentiation.

An Italian or a Frenchman can come to this country and do skilled work and he can join a trade union. His child can attend school. Even though that man has not paid taxes, the State will pay R483 per annum to educate the child of this man of another nation. However, the member of the Zulu or Xhosa nation who carries a South African passport cannot do skilled work, cannot join a trade union and his child cannot go to a school of that nature.

May I put a question?

I am afraid I do not have the time. A German or an Englishman can come to this country and lead the life as a full citizen and eventually become a South African and vote for members of the South African Parliament. But the Coloured citizen of South Africa can live here from the time he is born unti the time he dies and yet have no say in the Parliament of South Africa. Clearly this is discrimination. It has nothing to do with nation to nation differentiation.

It is done on the grounds of colour.

This is discrimination in its most cruel form on the basis of race in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister must explain the statements made by the hon. the Minister, viz. that we do discriminate on the basis of race but on the basis of nationhood.

It was also stated that we are going to get rid of the inequalities but maintain separation. There have been welcome statements about easing job restrictions, improving housing and education and getting rid of the wage gap. All I can say to the hon. the Prime Minister is this: Do not let us have to wait for a further 28 years of Nationalist Party rule before these discriminations are eliminated. I believe that he has to speed up the programme. I believe that he should give us a timetable in terms of which he intends getting rid of this discrimination, in terms of State expenditure, in respect of the various sections of the population. There are inequalities built into the situation. The Separate Amenities Act of 1953 actually made provision for inequality. It gave the State or local authorities specific permission to provide amenities on an unequal basis. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he will concede that the inclusion of that provision was wrong? Will he agree to remove it so that even within the framework of his own policy there can be equality in this regard? There is the Group Areas Act, there is beach apartheid. These have in practice resulted in gross discrimination against people of colour.

Is he prepared to set up a commission on which White, Black and Brown will serve to re-examine the allocation of land under the Group Areas Act, to re-examine the beach allocations and to point out where there is discrimination that should be removed?

And swimming pools?

Yes, swimming pools as well.

Mr. Speaker, the last point is this: Is apartheid discrimination? I believe that enforced segregation or apartheid, except where this is done by mutual consent between groups who are equals, is discrimination. Obviously separation agreed between groups as equals is not discrimination; this is a voluntary situation; but for the powerful to impose separation on the powerless is discrimination, and in the context of Africa where White Parliaments, White legislatures, keep out people, the people who are kept out believe that they are being discriminated against, that they are being rejected on grounds of race and colour. This is their objection. Mr. Speaker, changes have taken place which indicate that the Prime Minister is coming to realize that apartheid in itself, unless it is done by mutual consent between individuals, is discriminatory. What was said upon their return to this country by the gentlemen who went to the United Nations as observers? Mr. Ulster said upon his return that the apartheid—not just discrimination only in terms of wages and salaries—should be removed. Mr. Naidoo said when he returned that all the signs of enforced separation should disappear. Sir, I am not going to argue that this can be done overnight; the hon. the Prime Minister has pointed out the difficulties, but what is important in defining what Pik Botha meant is that he, the Prime Minister is prepared to try to move South Africa as fast as possible to an open society, to a society in which each citizen has the opportunity of participating fully in the facilities and the advantages and the privileges and the responsibilities of that community, and that race and colour alone will not be the criteria for separation. Mr. Speaker, it is important that there should be no confusion between the hon. the Minister of the Interior and us on this side of the House. It is important that there should be no confusion between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Waterberg. It is tremendously important that there should be basic agreement on what is meant by removing race discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, there is a final aspect of détente which I must touch upon before my time expires. The events over the past three months, and especially the Prime Minister’s initiatives in relation to Rhodesia, have, I believe, ushered in a new phase of politics in Southern Africa. I would call this the new phase of the politics of negotiation. I believe that the era of exclusive White decision-making has come to an end and that in Rhodesia and in South West Africa, and in due course in South Africa, Governments representing élite minorities, no matter how powerful they may be in the statutory sense, are going to sit round the table and negotiate a basis for the sharing of power with those who have the confidence of the majority of the citizens. Sir, in the case of Rhodesia I believe that the Prime Minister recognized the realities of the situation. He has said repeatedly that he has not interfered with the internal affairs of Rhodesia and we must accept that, but at the same time all the evidence points to his having agreed with the President of Zambia to back a settlement in Rhodesia based on a non-racial qualified franchise. This may or may not be so, but I think the hon. the Prime Minister should tell this House whether he accepts that this is the basis of a settlement in Rhodesia.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is something much more fundamental. What the Prime Minister did do in respect of Rhodesia was not to interfere but nevertheless to urge the Rhodesian Prime Minister, Mr. Smith, in spite of his statutory authority, in spite of his landslide election victory, to sit round a table with the representatives of African nationalist organizations, terrorist organizations, and with Black nationalists whom his Government had banned for the last 10 years, in order to negotiate with these people a system of sharing power in Rhodesia. I believe that this assessment of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of Rhodesia is going to have a profound effect on the politics of the whole of Southern Africa, just as the Prime Minister’s assessment in January and February of 1973. He was correct in his assessment of the situation when the Black workers went on strike when, in spite of his statutory powers, he said: “Let us negotiate”. This was very correct, but it has made the Black people realize that they do have growing economic power and that the Government is going to respect and acknowledge this. In exactly the same way I believe the events to the north, in which the hon. the Prime Minister played a very important part— and all credit to him for doing so—are going to tell Black South Africans one of these days we will negotiate a future for all of us here in Southern Africa. The Prime Minister says there will be no sharing of power in South Africa. The Nationalist Party is at pains to explain that Rhodesia is different; that South Africa has embarked on a different road of separate development. Sir, separate development may be the policy of the other side of the House, but it is not the reality of South Africa, because we have a single economy. More and more Blacks and Browns are being integrated, both qualitatively and quantitatively, into that economy. We have increasing numbers of Coloureds and Indians and Africans living permanently in the so-called White areas of South Africa. We have the Black people, except in the case of the Transkei, rejecting the concept of fragmentation of independence. We have educational advancement and economic progress, and as the Prime Minister knows that with this and the organizational infrastructure which is being created, the Black people are becoming more important and they are becoming more powerful and we, the White people, are going to have to negotiate with them as far as the future of South Africa is concerned. We in the Progressive Party believe that this could best be done by the decentralization of power along the lines of a geographic federation, of introducing a Bill of Rights to guarantee individuals against discrimination, by having provision for the protection of minorities, by seeing that there is a phasing in during the transition period, from exclusive White participation to the participation of all the people of South Africa in the government of South Africa. Sir, this is why we believe that it is important that there should be negotiation, that there should be a national convention representative of the various factors of power in South Africa, in order to talk about the future and the sharing of power. [Interjections.] Sir, I believe that there is a lesson to be learned from events in the north and that lesson is: Do not think that you can avoid negotiation; do not delay negotiating as people have done elsewhere in the world when they have had their backs to the wall.

Tell us about your policy.

Get together with the Black leaders while you can still significantly affect the results, and while there are still moderate Black leaders, as there are in South Africa today, who want to negotiate with the White people on the basis of a shared South Africa. [Time expired]

Mr. Speaker, in the nature of things, one would like to have time to argue with the hon. member for Sea Point about all the points which he has made here. But one cannot do so in half an hour. Perhaps it is because I do not argue well that I am unable to do so, and therefore I apologize for not being able to devote too much attention to the hon. member. I should, however, like to put just one question to the hon. member. May I first put a question to the hon. member for Houghton? Has there been any change in your party’s policy since we last met?

I will be making my own speech!

The hon. member for Houghton says there has been no change in the policy of her party. Seeing that we are talking about discrimination, last time I asked the hon. member whether she still stood by the qualified franchise. That is her party’s policy. She mumbled, but now I want to ask her leader who has just sat down whether it is correct that he has taken up the standpoint in the last few weeks that qualified franchise no longer is a basis of his party’s policy.

The word is “cornerstone”.

Now you must be a witness to what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has a great deal to say about discrimination …

And he does not have a cornerstone.

And he does not have a cornerstone. [Interjections.] Imagine the one hon. member saying that there will be qualified franchise, while another hon. member, the leader, says that this is not at all the cornerstone of his party! We hear this from two hon. members who have debated very broadly across the floor of this House. One of two things is happening. I have half an idea that the hon. member for Houghton takes up one standpoint to appease the Whites and wants to dupe them as far as the future is concerned while the leader takes up the other standpoint to mislead the Blacks and to dupe them as far as the future is concerned. I do not know which of the two standpoints is the correct one.

Rubbish! [Interjections.]

We must understand each other. We in South Africa, we in this House, may argue as we please when dealing with a delicate matter such as racial affairs, but I think one thing nobody may do, neither we on this side of the House nor the opposite side: We may not be dishonest; our motives may not be such that we are either not understood or that we are inherently dishonest. I cannot understand how a party here in this House can take up two directly opposite standpoints, as happened a few seconds ago in this House. In that event such a party cannot say that it is posing as an honest party with honest motives before South Africa. I cannot see how a party can do something like that under such circumstances.

The hon. the leader of the Progressive Party, who has just resumed his seat, indicated that he, too, had been travelling in Africa. Previously the hon. member for Houghton indicated that she, too, had travelled in Africa. Both have travelled. I do not know whether they have always followed the same course; they have travelled, however. Now the question is what those two have gone to tell the people, their friends, there in Africa. Did the hon. member indicate to them and did she make great play of the fact that she would apply the system of qualified franchise in South Africa or did she fail to mention it? I have an idea that she did not mention it there, but told some other story. However, I cannot image their being able to take up a double standpoint in this House, their being able to go about in Africa and advocating peace without their either having taken up the same standpoint or having indulged in double talk. It is such a mix-up that one cannot make head or tail of it.

I want to say to the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party that if he thinks he can make an impression here or if he tries to make an impression in politics, he must search his own heart. He must see to it that what he and his people say corresponds to such an extent that at least the impression of honesty is created. [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of the Progressive Party indicated that he was able to give us very sound advice in consequence of his travels in Africa. From what he said here today it is very clear that he has gone to stir up things in Africa, while he comes here hoping that that which we are doing here, but which he does not understand at all, actually means that we are engaged in creating an integrated Progstate in South Africa. That is what the hon. member said. As a matter of fact, from what I deduced from what the hon. member said this afternoon, he does not understand it.

Now I want to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There is something which the Opposition parties in South Africa have not understood over the years. The course of the history of this continent and that which we have tried to do here and all that has been written and said in this House, has not made even the slightest impression on them. They still do not understand it. What is happening today, is not something which has its beginnings in the present time. It has its beginnings in the times prior to World War II. It has its beginnings as far back as World War I when the great idea of the right of small nations to self-determination occurred to the leaders. This idea has run its course up to where we stand today in the midst of emotional world politics with hundreds of small communities experiencing this urge. Many have become independent and others still want to become independent. As far as this process is concerned, hon. members on the opposite side have never understood what is happening in South Africa. It is for this reason that they are able to quote so incorrectly. The problem we face in South Africa today, is to try, to the best of our ability—it does not matter whether our ability is good enough or not—and with all the honesty at our disposal, to find an answer to the greatest problem in the world today, and that is how more than one people can achieve peaceful co-existence in the same country. That is basic. When one starts arguing about this, one must realize one thing: Whatever one offers as a solution must basically satisfy one requirement, and that is that it must be honest towards the people for whom one envisages it. If it is not inherently honest, one cannot hope to get co-operation and one cannot gain the confidence of the people in one’s own country. Nor can one create the confidence amongst those people for whom one is trying to implement the policy. In this grand effort the National Party has been making over the years, we have differed with hon. members on the opposite side. We have told them that there are only two possibilities. On the one hand there is the possibility of trying to create an integrated state in this country. History is against that, however, as are examples of something of this sort elsewhere in the world: the knowledge we have gained in South Africa, is against it and our common sense also tells us that it cannot work for certain very fundamental and obvious reasons. Usually there is a clash of deep emotions and interests between people trying to realize themselves in the same state. Cultures, sentiments, ideals and other interests differ, and such differences give rise to tension and conflict.

It has existed for 300 years, since the time of Jan van Riebeeck.

While I am thinking of it, I shall come to the hon. member in a moment. So this is the answer we must try to find here. There are just the two possibilities. I want to say to hon. members of both opposition parties that it is easy to reproach us here with a whole lot of detail concerning millions of people who come into contact every day in so many places and in so many ways in the whole complexity of life, as a result of which conflict arises. In the light of this detail they then forget the great fundamental cause. What is the point at issue? The point at issue simply is that we in South Africa must make provision for all those sentiments which we agree do exist. Over the years we have tried to implement a policy and to bring that policy to fulfilment. I do not want to talk about it and explain what it is. Hon. members know it and if they do not know it yet, they will never know it. However, I want to point out to hon. members their role in this time. This is our difficulty and it is against this that a finger must be pointed. In the course of the debate yesterday, as in previous debates, hon. members reproached us on this side. Now is it right to level the reproach at us in this House that everything we do is a form of discrimination, while the architect of this policy said years ago—this has been mentioned as an example so many times by our own Prime Minister in this house—that this philosophy, if all of us worked at it together, would lead to the ending of discrimination. We are on the way to that. What have hon. members on the opposite been doing, however, during the past few years while this policy was taking shape in South Africa? Their contribution was to try to destroy and to belittle everything, and I am going to mention examples of this. You will remember, Sir, that when the idea of separate homelands was advanced years ago, they were the ones who tried to wreck it with what they said and did. They were offensive towards those people in the homelands. They tried to incite people in the homelands against the possibility of an existence of their own in those homelands. You will recall, Sir, how they contemptuously called the leaders of those people, who are of great value to those people, “Government stooges”. They will remember what they achieved by that. In doing so they did something lamentable. They wounded those people, who mean a great deal to their various peoples.

They were minority leaders.

Minority leaders? You spoke of them with contempt. And when the Government of the day tried to create opportunities for those peoples, with very great effort, those hon. members disparaged the opportunities. Those hon. members disparaged those countries, which should mean a great deal to those people, by saying that they were not viable. What contribution did they make then to get order here? I just want to say that what we have achieved is the wonder of South Africa, and the fact that one of these homelands have come to determine the date on which it will become independent, is now told in history, that history which they do not understand, which they have tried to wreck over the years.

That will be the only one.

The only one? The hon. member is again putting his foot into it. The contribution which they have made over the years was aimed at wrecking what we have done. Therefore I say that what we have achieved over the years, is a miracle, but it is a greater miracle that we have done it in spite of them and without their co-operation. What would the position in South Africa have been today had we been able to look back and say that we have had a joint effort in this country to create homelands and to make a start with the creation of an entity to which people could link their ideals and which, on the road ahead, would bring the independence which are to bring about the peace and security of South Africa? It is not only that which must bring the peace and security, but it is an important element. Rather than helping us, they have been trying to destroy it. What have they achieved by doing so? They have been trying to wreck the only policy which can possibly succeed in South Africa. That is a crime which they have committed against this country. By trying to destroy the only possibility of success, they made a contribution to the undermining of South Africa’s democratic course of development of peace and prosperity. I think they should think back. Today all of them want to climb on the bandwagon. Today they are falling over their own feet to fall around the necks of those same “Government stooges” and to prompt them. Today they give us to understand that we are following their policy and that it is their fruits which we are plucking. Now the whole bunch of them are climbing on the brandwagon I am looking at the hon. member for Hillbrow who is sitting over there interrupting me. I want to tell him that it is not just in this field that he does not understand the history and has tried to wreck it, but also in the field of détente. Does this House not remember President Banda? He is a man for whom we all have great respect, a man who has achieved much for his own country a man who is highly esteemed amongst his own people, a man who has acted honourably towards South Africa and to whom we showed the honour which he deserves when he was here, a man who also showed the same honour towards us when our President was there. After he had gone out of his way, as leader of bis country, to maintain the courteous and correct attitudes towards South Africa, the hon. member, who was being so presumptuous when he said “it will not happen”, also did not think anything would come from that. Was it not the hon. member who spoke with great contempt across the floor of this House of “that little country”?

That is absolutely wrong; I never spoke of Dr. Banda. [Interjections.]

The hon. member referred with contempt to “that little country”. As a matter of fact, by doing so, the hon. member did his country a disservice. I have not yet heard that he has since apologized for that attitude. He ought to do it. I cannot remember that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done anything about that either. But it is so far back in the past, that it will not serve any purpose to do anything about it now. That hon. member did not understand the history either. Now all the hon. members on the opposite side want to climb on the brandwagon of success and now that there is détente, they are all there.

Whatever we have done in this country, it cannot be said of us that our motives are not honest. The hon. member who has just sat down, and all the hon. members on the opposite side of this House have tried to make a point of making apartheid synonymous with racial discrimination. That is their point of departure. When we try in this country under very difficult circumstances to achieve the almost impossible, the aggressive words “racial discrimination” is pushed down our throats, and then the hon. member tries to prescribe to the hon. the Prime Minister what he ought to do. The hon. the Prime Minister will speak for himself. I would like to tell the hon. member, however, that he and his party should be careful in the future about what they say in this House and about the standpoint of their party. The first thing the hon. member can do is to indicate to the world outside, the world in which he travels around so much, which one of the two directions they advocate is the correct one. He can, in the first instance, try to be honest and try not to retain racial discrimination in his own party policy, as the hon. member for Houghton wants to do.

Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to the hon. the Minister who raised, first of all, one important point. He asked for an “oplossing” of “hoe bly meer as een volk in een land saam?”

In peace.

He made the remark: “Om dit reg te kry, is een van die belangrikste vereistes dat daar eerlikheid moet wees tussen die verskillende volke.” I do not know whether he was implying that from this side of the House, from the official Opposition, there has ever been dishonesty in the presentation of our policy. I believe that if we read the Hansard speeches of my leader, speeches which he made over a period of 27 years, we shall find an honest presentation of a policy which can have meaningful success in South Africa. Honesty has been the watch-word of the presentation of our policy. I do not believe that as far as we are concerned there is any problem on this side. I believe, too, that the hon. the Minister must agree that this Government has been fortunate in that it has had—I admit that we have difficult problems in South Africa—an extremely responsible Opposition to help it. I believe that we played a responsible role at all times. When the hon. the Minister said that we tried to break down their policy, that we tried to destroy what they were doing and that we do not readily want to accept the policy of independent homelands, I want to remind him that the main argument we have used all the time is that in terms of Government policy, its policy of independence, they have failed to develop the homelands in terms of the Government’s own Tomlinson Commission’s recommendation. I believe that one of the big problems this Government faces today is that the homelands as such are as yet underdeveloped parts of South Africa. If the Government had taken our advice and done what we suggested, I believe that many of the problems which the homelands have today would have been solved.

*The aggressive word “discrimination” did not originate with us in the debate, but was used by the hon. members on the other side’s own ambassador at UN. He raised the issue. He said that discrimination should be done away with. We fully agree with him, but we only want to indicate how it can be done. It should also be done much more rapidly.

†I want to raise a few other points. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition emphasized that if we are to achieve a better understanding and reach agreement with our neighbouring States in Southern Africa, it will depend not only on the quality of statesmanship that directs those efforts but also very largely on the confidence we can engender in all races in South Africa concerning the policies we are following. With the ability we have and the honesty we can engender, we must make it clear that all race groups will enjoy equal opportunities in this country.

And equal votes?

It will also depend largely on the extent to which the constitutional arrangements or proposals that we put forward will afford them an opportunity to play a role in the decision-making processes.

An equal role?

It will also depend on the extent to which they will be given an opportunity to share power and to accept responsibility.

How much power?

It will also depend on the extent to which we can eliminate hurtful discrimination based on race and colour by the policies we follow. The Leader of the Opposition did right to mention these points. I believe they deserved emphasis. It is also encouraging to note that the Prime Minister and the Government appear to agree with the Leader of the Opposition. In recent days we of the Opposition have noted with satisfaction that great progress has been made in trying to eliminate many discriminatory practices in this country. Many of the steps which the Government is taking or which have been proposed by the Government at this stage are steps that we on this side of the House have been proposing over a very long period of time.

We note with satisfaction the successful talks which the hon. the Prime Minister recently held with the Coloured Representative Council’s liaison committee. We are also pleased to note that good progress has apparently been made. It is pleasing to note, too, from the reports on those meetings, that every proposal put forward by the liaison committee has been accepted in principle by the Government. We note that there is going to be an expansion of power in as far as the functions of the Coloured Representative Council are concerned, and that the Executive Council of that body is to be given Cabinet status. Representation of Coloureds on various statutory boards is something we have pleaded for, and we are pleased to note that this is now going to take place. There will be a greater say in local government and the Executive Council will be given Cabinet status. The establishment of a statutory inter-Cabinet council will serve as a link between Parliament and the C.R.C. This is also a proposal they made. But unfortunately the Cabinet Committee which the hon. the Prime Minister envisaged he would appoint, will only be a contact between the Cabinet and the leaders of the C.R.C. It will not be meaningful contact between the C.R.C. and Parliament. We pleaded, when the C.R.C. was established and the great debate took place, that there should be a link between the C.R.C. and Parliament. I believe that any debate that we have in this hon. House about the Coloured people when the Coloured people themselves have not the opportunity to be present, is meaningless. Hon. members will recall that towards the end of last session we had debates about the future of the Coloured people. But these debates got us nowhere. The reason for this is that there was not meaningful discussion about the Coloured people because the Coloured people themselves were not able to be present. If this link between the C.R.C. and Parliament could be for all parties, so that all parties could participate, we would be taking a step in the right direction. However, we welcome these talks. We are glad that they are taking place, but I must emphasize that the cardinal issue that the Coloured people themselves emphasized, even accepting that the powers and the functions of the C.R.C. are to be extended and that a joint Cabinet Committee is to be established, is that the Coloured people made it quite clear that their best interests and the best interests of South Africa would be served only when the Coloured people received representation in Parliament. It is after all Parliament which is the sovereign authority in this land and I believe that it will be futile in the long term to try to establish two sovereign authorities in one country. One notices with great optimism and interest the Prime Minister’s statement that he did not wish to bind the future of the Coloured people and that the Government’s policy on the future of the C.R.C. was not static. We are hopeful that these first steps which have been taken mean that we are perhaps witnessing the first steps towards the establishment of some federal arrangement. As far as the C.R.C. and the talks and the future negotiations that the Coloured people will have with the Government are concerned, I want to leave the matter there. But we do hope that what we have seen are at least the first faltering steps towards the establishing of some federal arrangement. We ultimately hope that the Coloured people will be granted representation in a parliament, be it a federal parliament, in the Republic of South Africa.

There is another important issue which I would like to raise. We have spoken about discrimination and differentiation and we have tried to describe what those two words mean. As far as I am concerned, they mean very much the same thing.

No, they do not.

I believe that if the Prime Minister wants to do a service to South Africa, he will direct his Ministers —in fact his whole Cabinet—to direct the attention of their departments to see, in whatever fields they operate, wherever they find difficulties, discrimination and things that are causing hardship to people whether they can eliminate them as quickly as possible. The first matter that I want to raise is the problem that we have in Port Elizabeth. I am very grateful that the hon. the ex-Minister of Indian Affairs is here.

I still am.

As the hon. the Minister will know, in Port Elizabeth we have a very broadminded and very successful Indian community of some 5 000 people. I think the people of Port Elizabeth are proud of the Indian community there. They look upon them as South Africans. The Indians have played a great part in the development of our cities. They are mostly traders. At one time they were mostly trading in an area called South End, which has now been established as a White area, and the Indians have been removed from this area. They are now mostly trading in what is known as a free trade area in the northern section of our city. The remainder consists of some 100 to 200 Indian traders distributed throughout Port Elizabeth. They are shopkeepers, barbers, shoemakers, all trading successfully in many different ways. Most of their customers are White because they are trading in a White area. Now what has happened? These unfortunate traders have been advised that in August they have to remove themselves from the premises which they presently occupy and that they must establish their businesses in the free trade area. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is to do something about these people. Leave them to trade in their present premises for the rest of their lives. There is no need to move them. They are not harming anybody; they are serving a useful purpose; they are law-abiding and all they want to do is to be left alone to carry on with their businesses. This is a kind of discrimination, in terms of the Government’s own policy— and I am not going to argue about whether their policy is a good policy or not—they can leave these people there to carry on with their trades until the end of their lifetime, and then perhaps some other arrangement can be made. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to do this, he can buy a tremendous amount of goodwill and do a tremendous amount to establish better race relations between the Whites and the Indians. I want to say to the Minister that these Indians are not people who are moaning; they are not people who keep on telling one about their disabilities or their difficulties; they face whatever comes to them. The Minister has it in his power to try to eliminate what could lead to a good deal of racial ill-feeling if he carries on with the present proposals. There are many ways in which the hon. the Minister can solve this problem. I am sure that he will take a good look at it and I hope that he will then be able to sort this thing out in the best interests of Port Elizabeth and of the country. Sir, this is just one instance where something can be done by a department on its own initiative to help to solve a problem.

I want to come now to another case where discrimination has also been brought about through the ill-advised action taken by a department. I am not going to ask the Government to change its policy in this respect; I am again just appealing to the Minister to see whether in terms of their own policy they cannot do something to make things easier and to bring about betterrace relations in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Transport as Minister in charge of Railways will know that what is happening now with the development of his policy of centralized traffic control, is that many stations throughout South Africa are being closed down; they are becoming redundant. The area to which I want to refer is the Cradock constituency. I do not know whether the hon. member for Cradock is here; he knows about this. In that area a small station called Baroda between Cradock and Rosmead has been closed down in terms of the policy of centralized traffic control and several buildings have been left unoccupied, buildings which cost a lot of money to erect. A Coloured principal of a school in that area decided that he would hire these buildings from the Railway Administration to establish a boarding house to enable the children from the surrounding farms to attend school. Under normal circumstances these people would have to walk 7, 10 or 15 miles to attend school—an impossible situation. So this headmaster did what he thought was the right thing. He rented the premises from the Railways, and the Railways were only too pleased to find some use for houses that were becoming redundant by the hundreds. The principal established his school there and had everything fixed up. The children attended school and everything was going well. The principal was satisfied that he had done the best he could do for the Coloured children in the area. It was not long afterwards that he got further advice from the S.A. Railway Administration that he must vacate the premises because a certain gentleman had asked that this arrangement be terminated because he lived nearby and this was not in the spirit of apartheid. So what happened? The principal was told that he had to vacate the premises. I believe that this kind of thing is bad. If the department concerned had looked at the situation more carefully and considered the implications, this need never have happened. I am absolutely convinced that if the children concerned had been White, there would never have been any request that such a building should be vacated. This is the kind of discrimination which in terms of the Government’s own policy they can do something about. There are hundreds of these cases. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration will know of one case. We had Bantu females selling flowers in Port Elizabeth. They were known as the Bantu flower-sellers. They were there for dozens of years, plying their trade and providing a service for the housewives of Port Elizabeth. One day, in terms of the Government’s separate development policy and group areas legislation, these flower-sellers, who were registered in Uitenhage, were told that Bantu living in Uitenhage could not sell flowers in Port Elizabeth. They were told to stop doing so and their livelihood was cut away from under their feet. I want to say, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister concerned, Mr. Janson, that when representations were made to him the matter was fixed up, but it took two years before they realized that a mistake had been made, and permission was then granted for these people to go on trading. I believe that these are the kind of things that Ministers should look at in their departments. They should have a good look at what is happening and at the implications of group areas, and where circumstances are hurtful, they should try to rectify the situation. In a small village where I have interests—the hon. the Minister of Community Development knows about it and he has told me that the matter will be dealt with and that it will be fixed up, for which I am grateful—there was another case where an over-officious policeman suddenly decided to prosecute White property-owners for housing Coloured people in an area which has been declared a White area, and therefore they became disqualified persons. These people had been living there for years, but suddenly, because of this over-zealous application of a Government law, these people were told to move. There is no need for that sort of thing. I believe that where you get a case like that, where White property-owners are even prosecuted for doing a perfectly normal thing, giving these people work and housing them when they are doing no harm, it can only lead to ill-feeling and racial bitterness in South Africa. So I believe that even in terms of the Government’s own policy—and I do not want to debate whether it is a good policy or a bad one—they can do a tremendous amount to alleviate cases like those I have mentioned here and eliminate ill-feeling and dissatisfaction between the different race groups.

Mr. Speaker, it is always with great interest that I listen to the speeches by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. When he rose today, I listened once again with great expectations, but really, the hon. member’s speech was disappointing. At the start he said that the policy of the United Party contained no ambiguities. He undoubtedly said this with his tongue in his cheek, because even today one of them is stating that the White Parliament will disappear while another states that the White parliament will be retained. The hon. member states that they will give the Coloureds political rights in Parliament on a federal basis, while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout states that they will remove all forms of discrimination. He states that they will remove all forms of differentiation, but where does that lead to? Does that mean that they will throw open the schools? The hon. member devoted more than half of his time to an attempt to explain Government policy on the Coloureds and he could find no fault with it. The hon. member made a plea on behalf of the Indian community of Port Elizabeth, but he could have solved that problem in an easier way. I solved it a better way. I took the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs around Port Elizabeth for a full day. He listened to all the problems and on top of that he attended an enjoyable party with the Indians that evening. That is how things can be done. The hon. member need not come and waste his time in the House on that.

Since we were together last, the hon. member has become the deputy leader of the United Party in the Cape. I should like to congratulate him on that—he is a good man. I think, however, that the reason for his being unable to achieve anything in this debate today is the fact that his heart is not with the United Party; his heart is on this side of the House. He knows that we are on the right path.

Will he also be appointed to the Cabinet?

We have many experts on agriculture; he will have to wait a long time.

All the speeches in this debate thus far have had one central line of thought, namely that we are living in times of change. The world has entered a new era, an era in which the traditional institutions, the overall pattern built up over the past three decades since the Second World War is suddenly being challenged and summarily swept away and in which there is a striving towards new things and new lines of thought. The most important and probably the most characteristic manifestation of this new spirit of the times is probably the large-scale reshuffling of world leaders that has taken place over the past 12 months. One need only think of the major world leaders who were at the helm this time last year, but who are now no longer there. We can call to mind Heath, Papadopoulos, Markarios, Caetano, Spinola, Pompidou. Norman Kirk, Willie Brandt, Golda Meir, Haile Selassie, Richard Nixon and others. Some are dead and others have disappeared from the scene This is a sign that humanity is continually striving towards new things. Here in Africa the striving towards a change in leaders has not, perhaps, manifested itself so strongly. The slight tremor of that kind of phenomenon which we are experiencing here, has now manifested itself in the form of the Pegasus survey which gives evidence of the United Party supporters on the Rand and in Cape Town no longer wanting their leader. We should be sorry if they were to want to get rid of their leaders by means of opinion surveys and opinion tests of this kind. I think Carlisle said: “Change whenever needful is always painful.” To us it is decidedly painful to see how the Leader of the Opposition, a man whom we have always held in high esteem and respect as a person, owing to his integrity and his loyalty, being subverted and undermined by people within his party. We trust that this process, through which the United Party is necessarily on the road to its downfall, will accelerate and will not be too prolonged. It cannot be helped, because the United Party is a sinking ship. The waves are already breaking over it and while the captain stands on the mast and tries to announce his policy in well modulated phrases, there is mutiny on his ship. In these times of challenging world problems, of changing leaders, of inflation, recession, unemployment, monetary instability, energy crises, and all these things, South Africa stands as virtually the sole exception in the world, as the hon. the Minister of Finance again indicated this afternoon. South Africa stands with a sound and prospering economy, with a strong and dedicated Government and with peace and quiet while elsewhere, bombs are exploding. Above all, South Africa stands with a strong and dynamic leader, a leader unassailably strong within his own party, a leader who enjoys the support of all population groups in this country Hon. members need only consult the Sunday Times—even last Sunday’s edition—if they do not believe me. He is a leader who has been called “the statesman of Africa” by the Institute of Conflict in London. He is a leader who, even in the great world outside Africa, has drawn attention to himself and enjoys the interest of the world. In the past it was strong and dynamic leaders who made world history and kept the world on its course. In our time it is occurring to an ever increasing extent that the masses are starting to take over and that mass hysteria and mass emotion determine the destiny of nations. We are grateful that the National Party has again provided a leader who is really at the helm, a leader who is steering the ship of the White nation in Southern Africa through the rocks of the stormy sea. This period and this situation offer a leader what is probably the greatest challenge ever faced by a leader in the world before. However, the wisdom of his statesmanship raises new hope for peace, prosperity and progress in Southern Africa. The National Party and its leader are creating a new order in Southern Africa, a new order in which a group of states will exist which will be politically sovereign and independent of each other and economically inter-dependent on each other. It will be a group of states in which mutual respect and understanding, helpfulness and prosperity will ensure peace. It will be a group of nations in which no nation will have to live in fear of aggression, but in which due cognizance will be taken of the needs and the aspirations of each nation. What a privilege is it not to create order in this challenging country, in these challenging times and out of this challenging diversity. Of course, it requires wisdom, statesmanship, endless patience, perseverance and faith I believe, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister, following the course he does, with the peace ventures he has already undertaken, will lead Southern Africa out of the valley of suspicion, mistrust and bloodshed to the highlands of peace and mutual confidence. It must be very clearly stated that whereas this possibility and the strong probability of détente politics, of détente in Africa, is developing, it has not come upon us suddenly, as if dropped from heaven. For the past 30 years the National Party and its leaders have been thinking and working on the foundations and the basic foundation structures of a policy which has in fact made this occurrence possible. These events over the past weeks and months in Africa have proved unequivocally that the solution of the problem of Southern Africa and peace and progress in South Africa can only be built on the policy of separate development because only that policy guarantees the sovereignty which is sacred to every people. It guarantees the retention of identity which is the pride of every people and it guarantees the realization of the national striving which keeps the national feeling alive. No other policy can or will ever succeed in Southern Africa and this is most clearly demonstrated, too, by the dilemma of minority groups of White persons elsewhere in Africa and the laborious process of achieving peace and finding solutions to the problems there. Let this be a lesson to those two parties sitting there. Let it be a lesson to those who think that they can outwit the Black people by means of ancy flourishes and placatory noises. Let the events in Africa be a lesson to those who think that by means of manoevuvring they can pull the wool over the eyes of the Black people and establish White supremacy forever in a unitary state, a lesson spelt out in letters of fire, that Africa does not allow itself to be hoodwinked by trickery, that in Africa, it is only basic truths that count. The choice facing Southern Africa, therefore, is clear. It is either separate development with full sovereignty for each nation within its own territory, or a unitary state with a majority government in accordance with the principle of “one man, one vote”. The policy of separate development on which the National Party has been working and laboriously building over the past three decades is recognized and understood by most people in South Africa today That is why it is now possible to continue doing away with irksome forms of discrimination on the basis of colour, systematically, purposefully and in an orderly way. This was held out as a prospect many years ago by the late Dr. Verwoed when he said that the day the policy of separate development was accepted by all the peoples in South Africa, discrimination in South Africa could disappear. The emphasis, when we talk about the disappearance of discrimination, must fall on the orderly way. We are not a revolutionary party. We are a party which believes in evolution. We do not believe in drastic revolutionary changes. Of course there will still be differentiating measures, such differentiating measures as are required by every people to protect what belongs to it. I am sorry the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not here. He would like to know what differentiation is and what discrimination is. According to their policy which proposes a multi-racial nation, they cannot differentiate If one applies any differences in respect of multi-racialism, then it is discrimination. However, when one is dealing with a number of different peoples, as in our case here, each people has the right to take such steps in order to protect what belongs to it, its culture and its pattern and philosophy of life. By taking such steps, it does not imply thereby that it is better than any other people, it does not imply thereby that it is superior. All it implies is that it is proud of what belongs to it, of those things which are sacred to every people and which it would like to preserve intact. The National Party believes in a multi-national community. That is why we are able to do away with discrimination on the basis of colour and race, and we can still protect what belongs to us by taking such differentiating measures as will ensure that we do not lose our identity as a people. The benefits and blessings of the policy of separate development enjoyed by hon. members on that side, hon. members on this side and all the people of this country, and which will eventually manifest themselves in Southern Africa as well, are the fruit of the thoughts and work of the National Party. Now I am probably justified in asking: While for the past 30 years this party has been building on a policy of separate development which can provide us with these fruits, what has that party done? What has their contribution been to the political development of South Africa? What has their contribution been to the solution of the problems of South Africa and Southern Africa? The answer is easy, namely an absolute round nil. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that they were the pathfinders, that they were the people who showed us the way. They are pathfinders, of the kind that, when we see that they are indicating a certain direction, we know that the correct path runs in the opposite direction. Today, after 27 years, they are still sitting in the Opposition benches, without a policy on which they are able to agree among themselves and without a policy which they can take to the people. They have made no contribution. What they, with their short-sightedness and lack of vision, have in fact done, is to have created a façade of hatred abroad, not just against this party, but against the country and its people, by means of misrepresentations and distortions and gruesome stories in their newspapers. That façade of hatred is still virtually impenetrable, a façade of hatred which they and their newspapers have created by means of misrepresentations and gruesome stories. I must say that some of them, and some of their newspapers in particular, are today still so blinded by Afrikaner hatred that they are still continuing, through insidious suggestion and dripping insinuation, with the undermining operation and in so doing providing with ammunition the enemies we want to destroy. I should not like to call into question the loyalty and integrity of any hon. member on that side of the House, but we are living at a juncture in which we must choose our words very carefully. We are living at a juncture in which, for the sake of short-term political benefit, people stand up in this House or on a platform and speak about a police state and compare the Government’s policy with Nazism. That is what some people are very prone to doing. Not only do I say that such allegations are untrue, I also begin to doubt the loyalty of such a person. While the hon. the Prime Minister is engaged in this great effort, while he is engaged in the extremely sensitive task of bringing about détente politics in Southern Africa and an hon. member of the House appears on television in the United States of America and, in reply to a question asking about the success that might attend the Prime Minister’s efforts, express scepticism, with a kind of intellectual arrogance, about these efforts. I say that this is nothing but sour envy. Then I doubt the loyalty of that member. When the same hon. member was asked whether she thought that South Africa should remain in UN or whether it should withdraw, she said that it should remain because it was necessary for UN to supervise the dismantling of apartheid. When an hon. member says something of that sort, I doubt the loyalty of such an hon. member towards South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to question the loyalty of another member of this House?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that that is tantamount to accusing me of some sort of treason.

What did the hon. member say?

Mr. Speaker. I never accused the member of having in fact done so, but I want to ask whether my information to the effect that she did in fact do so, is correct. I want to ask her whether, when she gets the chance, she will rise in this House and support that standpoint. Is it the policy of their party that South Africa should be placed under the supervision of UN? Will the hon. member advocate that policy before her voters in Houghton? [Interjections.] I should like to ask the Leader of the Progressive Party in his absence whether it is his policy that South Africa should be placed under the supervision of UN. If that is not his policy, he must tell us here and he must repudiate that hon. member.

We are living at a juncture which makes it essential, in the interests of all the people in South Africa, for us to say or do nothing that will make our hon. Prime Minister’s arduous task even more arduous. We may not hamper or obstruct this difficult peace plan. All of us in all parties must do everything possible to assist the Prime Minister because he enters Africa and holds talks with the leaders of other African states, then he does not speak on behalf of the National Party alone, but on behalf of South Africa That is why it is the task of all of us in this House to support this effort and to do nothing to obstruct it. If this peace crusade of the hon. the Prime Minister does not succeed, what is the alternative? The alternative to peace is surely strife, confrontation and bloodshed.

It is also essential for this effort to succeed because Southern Africa is undoubtedly threatened by the Russian and Chinese Communists. It is strange and also co-incidental that at the stage when through propaganda, colonialism started to acquire such a leprous hue and emotional value that the Western powers, one after the other, made haste to leave Africa, Russia and China were ready immediately to ensure that socialist states came into being in Africa and to provide economic and military aid. Similarly, when the British withdrew their fleet east of Suez in 1968, the Russian navy was immediately ready to fill that void. Today it is calculated that there are more than 25 Russian warships in the Indian Ocean, and since 1971 they have tripled their activities in the Indian Ocean. Russia and China have diplomatic relations with 32 African states, among them Botswana, one of our enighbouring states. Over the past 15 years China has made more than R6,3 billion available to 23 African states, in addition to aid in one form or another. More then 25 000 Chinese workers are working in Africa. China’s motives in Africa are clearly apparent from the innumerable trade and cultural missions, the deputations from China, the radio broadcasts from Peking to Africa, and from the subtle indoctrination of diplomats and technicians. Chou En Lai and other Chinese leaders visit Africa and associate themselves with the radical, revolutionary struggle against colonialism in Southern Africa. It is particularly important for Southern African to take cognizance of the fact that the whole philosophy on which Chinese Communism is based, does not believe in peace, but is based on continual conflict. It is very easy to detect this. In Mao Testung’s little red book he states, inter alia—

That is one of his most famous sayings. He has also said—

Then, too, he states—

At another place he also states—

That is the philosophy on which the politics of these people is based and that is why it is certain that as long as they are in Africa there will not be peace. Fortunately there are leaders in Africa who are aware of this danger and who, together with South Africa are prepared to combat this Red tidal wave. On 23 October 1974, in the Other Place, the hon. the Prime Minister said—

In the light of dangers threatening us, as I have indicated, and in the light of these grave words from our hon. Prime Minister, it is urgently necessary for co-operation in Africa to succeed. That is why I want to make an appeal once again to all members here present, that we should do nothing and say nothing to hinder that effort. In recent months all of us, each South African, has become aware of how decisive and final is the choice which Africa will have to make. We are all aware of the key role to be played by South Africa in this regard. We have all become aware of the task and the calling facing each South African as regards the recognition of human dignity and the elimination of any hint of superiority and paternalism towards our non-White peoples. We cannot all go to Africa and conduct dialogue. That we must leave to our trusted and tried leaders who are exceptionally well qualified to do that. Each of us, in our everyday transactions, can cause detente to succeed through the realization of our Christian charity, through showing simple decency and friendliness and helpfulness towards everyone with whom we come in contact. We who sit here and imagine that we are leaders, also have a task. It is also our task to provide fearless but tactful leadership where our people—not only Nationalists, but also, and particularly, the United Party supporters—have not yet correctly sensed the attitude and spirit of the new era. There, too, we must provide honest leadership. It is my considered opinion that the accelerating changes taking place in Africa offer us in Southern Africa a unique opportunity for the forming of the future here in Africa, a future which will be for the good of all the peoples in Africa. I believe that the National Party has the right man at the helm for that great task.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall react to the arguments which the hon. member who has just sat down used in his speech. At this stage, however, I want to repeat only one sentence and return to it later in the course of my speech. The hon. member said, “Slimmigheid sal nie baat nie.” (Trickery will be to no avail.)

†Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the most difficult tasks facing us in this House, particularly at this time, is to assess in relation to the affairs of our country, those acts, those political acts of omission or commission, those policy changes which are apparent or subtle and which will in future be regarded by posterity as important milestones in the history of our country. We who are sitting in this House find it difficult, I believe, to sift them and to find out which are the important ones, but I believe that in this session, following on the change which has taken place in Southern Africa, there is a responsibility resting on each one of us to assess the events of recent months, the situation in which we find ourselves and the action, urgent or less urgent, which we believe has now been taken in the interests of this country. I believe further that we in this House in the course of this debate must frankly indicate whether we believe, and I must indicate whether I believe and for what reasons, that the Nationalist Government will be able, in adequate measure, in the weeks and months that lie ahead to adapt to the inevitable and necessary change. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in the time that is available I must confine myself to a limited field of Government policy and Government administration, and therefore I propose to canvass the ability of the Government to adapt its policies in a manner which will be effective in bringing about real, permanent and effectual racial co-operation in South Africa. Such co-operation is in my opinion a prerequisite, a sine qua non, to meaningful inter-State co-operation in Southern Africa, and such co-operation is necessary, Sir, if we are to be able to combat with any chance of success the attempts by Communism to infiltrate into Southern Africa and into South Africa itself. I think we can emphasize again that the greatest obstacle that we can establish to combat Communism is a strong State with loyal citizens, who will apply the principle of respect for each other, who will have their freedom in the State in which they live and a citizenship that is based on a broad patriotism to which all the people in the country subscribe. Let me say at once that I regard the statement of our Ambassador on behalf of the Government at the United Nations on 23 October 1974 as an acceptable, challenging, realistic statement which should be supported by everyone in South Africa. It was an unequivocal indication of direction That discrimination based on skin colour alone is indefensible. Sir, this was enlarged upon by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a broadcast in December, when he said, in dealing with this matter, that we must do away with humiliating measures and practices which harm good relations between White and non-White. Sir, these sentiments are being echoed, I believe, in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of South Africans who anticipate and look forward to a new future for this country of ours.

But, Sir, I believe that there must be action. There must be rapid action; there must be change, and these statements which have been made must not be allowed to become pious statements of intent with no indication that they are to be implemented. The people of South Africa are looking forward to that implementation and to what it will mean to us as a nation to have that implementation made effective. But. Sir, the road to the implementation of these declarations is not easy. The statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, followed by the statement of our Ambassador at the United Nations and subsequently by the statement by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he was overseas, provided an opening, a break in the isolation, in the bondage, which has surrounded South Africa because of the use throughout the world of that one word “apartheid” with all its connotations, true or false, that could be used against South Africa. When that speech was made by the Prime Minister, when the speech was made in UN, Black African leaders indicated immediately a preparedness to discus and to accept the bona fides of the South African Government. I want to say that in accepting the bona fides of the South African Government we must be certain that in getting rid of the odium attaching South Africa— the newspapers supporting the Government themselves said that we became the “muis-hond” of the world because of the use of this word “apartheid”—in doing away with that odium which attaches us—which we can now do because of the breakthrough made by the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister and our attitude at UN—we must realize that words are not an effective deodorant.

The public and the world want to see the action and change necessary in this regard. We shah have to accept, as I accept, that these declarations mean fundamental changes in what we have euphemistically called “the South African way of life”. This is a comfortable expression which means that most Whites need not disturb themselves in the way in which we have chosen to live. Sir, why do I say this? I say this because we must realize that the change of attitude from confrontation to communication, internally and externally, is not going to be an easy one. The hon. member for Potchefstroom and others who have sat with me for three years on the Schlebusch Commission, later the Le Grange Commission, will know that if there is one thing that we gained insight into, through evidence and through reading thousands of documents, it was the fact that the attitude of confrontation between White and non-White was conceived, nourished and developed by the word-weapons which we unfortunately as White people to a great extent gave to the radicals and those who wished to beat us, words like the word “apartheid” which could be given a blanket interpretation to any audience to which they spoke.

Sir, I have also learned, and I think my colleagues will agree with me, that equally unacceptable to the non-Whites is liberal paternalism, that spirit in which, as I said, in what we euphemistically call “our South African way of live”, we make concessions as a pale palliative to our consciences. Equally there is the shallowness—and here I wish to join issue with the hon. member for Sea Point—of the hon. member for Sea Point in the Sea Point constituency where I live and other live and who says: “Here you will do this with a public amenity”, and then goes back to Pinelands where he lives and where he enjoys the full and complete separateness which exists there. [Interjections.] Sir, that sort of attitude has got to stop. [Interjection.] The hon. member says it is childish. I hope that the Progressive Party, which has a policy commission consisting of more members than it has Members of Parliament, will at some time tell us what its policy is in regard to race relations. [Interjections.]

I want to say that what is said and what is done must no longer be vague. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said we must be honest in what we do and say in these matters. I welcome the fact, that the hon. the Prime Minister, as he stated earlier this afternoon, will inform us about what is to be done—this is something we have asked for over the years—in regard to the appointment of non-Whites on certain statutory bodies. We will no doubt hear about that later from him, but I want to say this. I keenly anticipate hearing from the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of the Interior what they are going to do in that regard. However, when we make statements and declare attitudes and changes, I want to repeat what the hon. member for Algoa said: “Slimmigheid sal nie baat nie.” For example, when we make a statement, when an official statement is made that the Nico Malan Opera House and Theatre will be open to all races, that is not enough.

We must spell out what is meant because immediately there is the attitude that that statement can be interpreted in several ways. It can be applied by having separate nights for separate races, or it can be applied by having separate seating for the races within the hall. As far as I am concerned. I hope and trust that some member of the Government will tell us that when they say that the opera house is open to all races they mean that it will be open to all races at all times for all performances There must be no niggardly separation or differentiation as regards the seating in that complex. I believe that is the attitude which we have to adopt. We cannot make statements or announcements unless there is absolute clarity on them.

I want to return to one statement which was made by our ambassador to the United Nations. I hope that the hon. member on that side of the House who follows me will deal with this. The ambassador stated that peoples who want to associate with one another may do so but that peoples who do not want to associate with one another need not. Am I to interpret that as falling within the policy of multinationalism and that when the ambassador speaks about peoples he means that the Xhosas may associate with the Zulus if they want to and also, as we believe ought to be the case, that there is the personal choice for individuals to associate with those citizens of their own country with whom they wish to associate, no matter what race colour or creed they are? I believe this is a matter about which there can be doubt and on which clarity is needed.

How do we go about trying to solve this problem in South Africa? Both sides of this House accept that there are changes that must take place. We on this side have approached the problem we have by considering the two aspects of our national life that have to be reconciled. We have stated that in our view it is reasonable for the Whites to want security in a country in which they are outnumbered four or five to one. They want to be sure that their civilization and their achievements will be protected, that their standards, their property and enterprise will be safeguarded. Those are perfectly reasonable expectations. What are the needs of the Blacks and the other non-White communities? Their needs are also reasonable. They want relief from political impotence, from economic stagnation. They want the right to greater opportunities and to self-government, to education, work, medical services and social welfare, and they want a fair share in the progress and growth of South Africa that would end without their contributions. Those are the two needs which have to be reconciled.

The hon. member for Vereeniging said yesterday that we should accent the bona fides of the National Party, I hope we do; I am sure we do. However, the National Party must not say, when we accept its bona fides, that we do not do so when we say that we do not accept that there is infallibility in so far as their policy is concerned. The hon. member must be prepared to argue his party’s policy against the alternative. I believe that if we can have a debate as to how to eliminate discrimination we will be making a constructive contribution towards sorting out the problems of South Africa. However, if that side of the House says that federation in any shape or form is out as far as they are concerned and that the only solution is the development of separate nationalisms then it is futile to argue with them. The concept of federalism is accepted by the Black leaders in this country while the concept of separate national development is not accepted.

Not your federation.

The hon. member says “Not your federalism”. The federation concept is directly opposed to the development of separate nations, and I do not mind how the concept is applied—that can be worked out. The concept of federation is one which is accepted and not separate nationalism and independence as far as the Black people of South Africa are concerned. But let me go further; let us assume that this Government succeeds in its attempts to create separate national homelands or sovereign independent states. What will they achieve? They will achieve a state in which they have hived off from South Africa half the Bantu population of South Africa. Left with us is still an equal number of Bantu people who must have their political future in South Africa.

Is your party still divided on this point?

There is no division on the point of federation and I have told the House that. That is where we want to go. My hon. leader has said over and over again that if these states have reached the stage of independence they will be entitled to their independence, but we want them within a federal state and not as independent states. Let me go further. If we are to indicate bona fides I think we have to look immediately at those steps which must be taken without delay so far as our country is concerned. We must be able to take steps which are indicating in cold reality the way which we are prepared to go in this country. I want to give to the Government today, if I can, some indications of what I believe are the steps that must be taken this week, this month, by this Government to give body and meaning to the undertaking which has been given in the United Nations and elsewhere. The non-White groups in this country are looking for practical indications from us that they are accepted as South Africans, that their personal hopes and aspirations are respected and that they are as much of South Africa as we Whites claim to be, rightfully, of Africa. What is the change that is to take place and which I believe should take place immediately? I want to repeat what I said before, namely that no man has more power in Africa than the Prime Minister of this country. No man has more power, but at the same time the hon. the Prime Minister is shouldered with the responsibility of seeing to it, by his actions, that the faith which is available to him now in the Black people of Africa, is not lost or frittered away by inactivity in certain matters in our domestic scene. I want to specify some of these. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is not here, but is there a single member on that side of the House who does not believe that selection of international teams to represent South Africa must be done on merit and that that will come in this country? If none of them can contest that that is a reality, for Heaven’s sake, let the hon. the Minister declare it tomorrow, that if sporting bodies want to select their international teams on merit they may do so. It has to come.

Let us look at the question of passports and visas. Where over the years the hon. the Minister of the Interior …

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

… has been utilizing his discretionary powers in regard to passports and visas to stop mixed teams, to stop Coloured sportsmen coming here and to stop people who might be critical of the Government from coming to or leaving South Africa. Let him declare that in future his discretion in dealing with passports and visas will be focussed solely upon what is required for the safety of South Africa. Look at the untold harm over the years. There is no law to say that a Black jockey cannot come to South Africa, but a Minister uses his discretion in issuing a passport or visa and to apply something for which there is no law. There is no law in South Africa which says that there cannot be mixed sport in this country. It is the actions of the Minister of Community Development in not granting permits or the Minister of the Interior in controlling passports and visas. As far as the hon. the Minister of Community Development is concerned, I want to remind him that there are 24 289 Coloured families, 10 247 Indian families and 1 257 Chinese families who are on the removals list because of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. They have to move and live somewhere else. The hon. the Minister knows what a task it is to find accommodation for those people. In the meantime they have lived for years, and they have continued to live for years, with this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. If the hon. the Minister were to announce tomorrow that there would be no more compulsory removals, except where necessary for slum clearance and where alternative accommodation was available to the families who are to be removed, he would build a fountain of goodwill. It would be unsurpassed by anything he has ever done in his department if such an announcement were to be made. Let the hon. the Minister say to the Cape Town city council that if they want to provide amenities here and there for their citizens, and that is what their citizens want, they can go ahead. Let him go ahead and, in my constituency, provide amenities for the non-White people at the Green Point cycle track. The voters of Green Point would approve of it; they would send me back to this House. But let the city council decide. It is not a matter for Government decision.

In the Public Service, is there any earthly reason why, in view of the state of the finances of this country with the bonanza on gold income tax in the last year, this Cabinet cannot announce that from next month the professional classes in the Government service will get equal pay for equal qualifications and equal responsibilities? It can be afforded. How many of these people are there? This would be an indication of intent to carry out what the Government says is its policy. Let this Government tomorrow say: We cannot go on with this folly of a situation which, according to the regulations applicable, does not permit a Black man to carry a White passenger in his taxi, if he is the owner of the taxi. If the Black man is not the owner of the taxi, if it is a White man who owns the taxi and the Black man is a driver, the same taxi can carry a White passenger. How can we have these ludicrous situations, these discriminations?

I have already said that I would like to refer to one other thing. It may be just a side issue, but it is a very vital thing in the city of Cape Town. I wonder to what extent this imposition of bus apartheid is responsible for the fact that when a pensioner in my constituency wishes to go half a mile to the library to change a book and back again, and he is too old to walk that far, it costs him 32c. Sixteen cent is the minimum bus tariff for any stage in Cape Town. That is what is happening. How much is the rise in the fare influenced by the cost of implementing this bus apartheid? Surely this is again a matter that the hon. the Minister of Transport and the other hon. Ministers concerned could leave to the bus companies and municipalities so that they can run the best service in the most economical manner for the people of their city. If the people want to have the luxury of apartheid, then run your first class exclusive buses and double the fare if you want to. Let those people pay and not everybody else, not the needy. [Interjections.]

In the time that I have left I would like to say that we have got to live and learn to live in this country, respecting people irrespective of their colour and irrespective of the positions in which they are. I believe that that is what we have to do, and that these steps which I have outlined are steps which the Government can take immediately.

In the light of the reactions I have had, such as those of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, I find it necessary to support my hon. leader and to say that I cannot believe that this Government is capable of making adaptations fast enough and effective enough in South Africa to give truth and import and substance to the words of our ambassador at the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party has brought a motion of no confidence to this House. We have to take a look at the United Party itself in the first place, the party which brought this motion to the House. In the first place, this is a party with a policy which is in essence discriminatory, a policy they are unable to sell to Africa. In the second place, this is a party which is divided internally, divided in such a way that it will never be able to heal this split. This morning we read in the newspaper that the hon. member for Randburg was in trouble, and I should like to know whether he subsequently lost his head, or did not lose his head, or alternatively, whether his head was impaled on a stake.

On 4 December 1974 Oggendblad, under a fairly prominent heading (translation) “Hatred renting the United Party, says Japie”, published a report in which the following was stated (translation)—

Mr. Basson said, and I quote again from that report (translation)—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal and the leader of the United Party in the Cape are too powerful and are using that power to create dissension, which goes against the interests of the party. The hon. front-bencher went on to say (translation)—

I deny this categorically. It is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says he denies this, but I personally went to discuss the matter with the political correspondent of Oggendblad and told him …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? In which newspaper and on which date did it appear? I want to tell the hon. member that I never used those words.

It appeared on page 8 of Oggendblad of 4 December 1974. I personally discussed the matter with the political correspondent of Oggendblad, Mr. Theron, and I asked him whether this was what Japie had said. He said that Japie had said that the people hate one another and that they cannot get on. [Interjections.] He said that certain politicians in the United Party hate one another to such an extent that they are not able to sit down and argue in a calm and logical manner as is the case in the National Party.

Did I say so?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did say so, because this is stated here in black and white in the report I have before me. This report was written two months ago.

I deny every word of it.

The hon. member is free to deny it to the newspaper. In any case he had two months in which to deny it. I now want to know from the hon. member who hates whom? [Interjections.] I now want to know from the hon. member whether or not he hates the hon. member for Newton Park.

It is a nonsensical report.

I should like to accept the denial of the hon. member, but I want to tell him that I was told by the political correspondent that Japie was in a very outspoken mood and that was why he wrote these things. He repeated everything contained in this report.

I shall send you my notes.

What is even more important to us in these times, is to know who hates whom in the United Party. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to tell me who are the people he hates. Does he hate the hon. member for Hillbrow, or does he not hate him? The hon. member for Hillbrow can tell us whether or not he hates the hon. member for Randburg. The hon. member for King William’s Town can tell us—after all, we know him—whether or not he hates the hon. member for Yeoville. I see the hon. member does not want to answer. Perhaps he could tell us: Does he love him? The problem in the United Party is a twofold problem. On the one hand it is a problem of policy; the fellows cannot agree on a policy. The second problem is a problem of personalities. I have to add a third: there is a leadership problem. This report contains a few facts from which we are able to make these deductions. Apart from the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the members hate one another internally—it says so here in black and white …

I never said so.

The hon. member has already denied it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I am quite prepared to accept his denial in this connection, but I am not sure that the people outside will accept it as easily.

I never attended the meeting which was reported there.

I have to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that this is not a report of a speech made at a meeting. This is a statement issued to the newspaper. As I say, the problem of the United Party is a problem of policy; an internal problem of personalities and a leadership problem. In this report we find that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expresses himself in the most severe terms against his own leader. He says in this report (translation)—

Man, that is an absolute fabrication. Words are quoted there, not one of which I used.

Order! This is not in respect of words used by the hon. member in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting very annoyed now. I have a feeling that he is going to have a fight on his hands with the newspaper in this connection because, surely, what he is doing now is to put the credibility of the political correspondent of the newspaper at stake.

Yes, mine is far better than his.

I just want to tell the hon. member …

That is nonsense, man.

The political policy and standpoint of the hon. member have changed so many times in the past that his political credibility is not always of the soundest. After all, this is a well-known fact. Surely, the hon. member cannot deny this.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not accepting my word.

I accept the hon. member’s word.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “credibility”. I withdraw the suggestion; I accept the hon. member’s assertion in this connection, but I want to ask the hon. member whether he will tell us across the floor of this House whether there is a sound personal relationship between the various members of the United Party as they are sitting over there today, yes or no.

Yes.

Is there in every respect a sound personal relationship in that connection? [Interjections.] We know —it is a well-known fact—that a bitter struggle was waged in the caucus of the United Party during the past few days because the hon. member for Randburg used certain interests, his companies, to have an opinion poll conducted to get at the throats of his own leader and the members of the Old Guard in his party. We know that such a struggle was waged. Does the hon. member want to deny this? Does he want to deny that a struggle was waged in the caucus of the United Party recently? A party which is divided internally, as is the case with the United Party, is unable to make any positive contribution to solve the problems of South Africa, because such a party does not speak with one voice. The important aspect as far as policy is concerned in respect of which that party does not speak with one voice, is the question as to whether or not this White Parliament will continue to exist as a sovereign power.