Mr. Speaker, the business of the House for next week will be as indicated on the Order Paper. I should also like to furnish hon. members with the following information. The Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill will be moved on Monday, 17 February. On Wednesday, 5 March, the Railway Budget will be introduced. On Tuesday, 18 March, the Post Office Budget will be introduced. On Wednesday, 26 March, the Main Budget of the Central Government will be introduced. The Easter recess will commence on Thursday, 27 March, and will continue until Monday, 7 April. The election of the State President will take place on Friday, 21 February. This will mean that we shall not sit as usual that morning. I shall subsequently introduce a motion in this regard. The inauguration of the new State President will take place on Saturday, 19 April in Cape Town.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I had at my disposal last night, I referred, against the background of the problems within the United Party, to its founding in 1934. I also referred briefly to the fact that not long after the founding of the United Party it became clear to General Hertzog and some of his followers that it was accommodating people with varying standpoints concerning matters of importance in South African and foreign politics. I also referred briefly to the fact that it was impossible for a party to resist crises when that party had to accommodate people with varying points of view concerning cardinal standpoints. Without wishing to show off, I referred to the fact that owing to circumstances I was very close to the party leadership in those days and that as a young boy I became acquainted with circumstances within the United Party and the circumstances that followed. I began by saying that those movements were within the party, but owing to strong party leadership it was possible to effect reconciliation within the party for a time. However, the test to which the party was put on 4 September 1939 was too much.

The United Party split in half from top to bottom. The motion of the leader of the United Party was defeated in the House of Assembly and he had to step aside as the first leader of the United Party. The fact I want to state this afternoon, is that the first leader of the United Party spent the last days of his life as a tragic figure, on his farm in the Witbank district. The United Party continued under the leadership of its new leader, the former deputy leader, Gen. Smuts. The United Party lost much of its support, viz. Gen. Hertzog and his followers, but gained a mass of people, from Col. Stallard to Mr. Madeley, from the other side. Whereas there had previously been two distinct schools of thought in the United Party, there were now half a dozen. This fact remains true, that one cannot have people with varying standpoints concerning certain matters in one and the same party. During the war the United Party, under the leadership of Gen. Smuts, came to the fore as a strong party. It achieved an overwhelming victory in the 1943 election.

However this party carried within itself the seeds of destruction owing to the reasons I have just mentioned. We thought that Gen. Smuts was in an unassailably strong position. And yet, in the 1948 election, he lost not only the Government but also his own seat at Standerton. This second leader of the United Party, who was a mighty South African world statesman met his end as the second leader of the United Party and he, too, ended as a tragic figure. Then the United Party came under the leadership of Mr. Strauss. Under his leadership the United Party was still a party consisting of people who were not like-minded. There was soon a murmuring and a rumbling within the United Party under the leadership of Mr. Strauss. He entered the 1953 election with that important slogan that we still remember: “Vote for the right to vote again.”

Notwithstanding that slogan Mr. Strauss lost the election. The rumbling in his party increased and, as if it were already a well-trodden path, Mr. Strauss again succeeded in losing an influential section of his supporters. Within the United Party there was dissatisfaction. They said: “We cannot go on with a leader who is unable to lead us to victory in an election.” While Mr. Strauss was abroad, members of the United Party here at home saw fit to carry out a coup d’etat within the United Party; something which became fairly common in Africa later on. Fortunately Mr. Strauss injured his ankle skiing while he was abroad since later this spared the members of the United Party a great deal of embarrassment. When he returned to South Africa and they met him at the airport, they were able to look at his injured leg instead of his eyes. [Interjections.] Thus the third leader of the United Party also ended his political career as a tragic figure. Each of the three leaders of the United Party ended his career as a tragic figure in South African politics.

When they got rid of Mr. Strauss, their slogan—and now I am only talking about my United Party friends in the Smithfield area—was: “Now we have a leader; he was born to rule; with this leader we shall win back the power and glory of the United Party.” At that time the Leader of the Opposition had everything on his side: A pleasant personality and he was a strong leader. What this hon. leader and these people forgot, was that one cannot lead a party comprised of people with differing points of view concerning matters of cardinal importance.

To me, who was close to Gen. Hertzog as I have said, his expulsion and his tragic end were terrible to experience. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to have had this opportunity. As an impetuous young man in those days I set myself the task, however, great or small my contribution would be and for however short or long a period I should be able to make a contribution, to co-operate with the National Party and its leaders in bringing about the destruction of the United Party. I just mention this in passing and I shall come back to it shortly. Sir De Villiers Graaff, the present leader of the United Party, had to lead this party from victory to victory, but instead he has led it from crisis to crisis and from split to split and in this way he has gradually been losing his best men. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is leading this party from election defeat to election defeat and now we have come to this motion of no-confidence which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has thought fit to propose against the greatest leader in the Western world and his Government.

While this motion has been under discussion, certain things have been happening. While we have been occupied here with a motion of no-confidence, the United Party, according to the evidence of the hon. Leader and the hon. member for Yeoville, has come to realize that it has once again lost one of its very best men. When I look round, I see that the hon. member for Yeoville, the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, is not here to support his leader, the Leader of the Opposition. He, who also has some knowledge of this House, knows what his Leader and his Party will have to endure this afternoon under the lash of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I do not want to hold up the House any longer this afternoon. But I do just want to tell you one thing. We shall find that the evidence is already there that the Leader of the Opposition, the fourth leader of the United Party, is already a tragic figure in South African politics. It is as if there is a curse on that party to make each of its leaders walk this well-trodden path. I think that all of us can say that we have great respect for him as a person, but as a political leader, this we must tell you, he has failed hopelessly. What happened yesterday about the young people in the United Party, not the Young Turks sitting here, is already history. And it seems to us as if the United Party has been weakening steadily while this motion of no confidence has been in progress.

I made a personal confession in order to tell you what I undertook. I am going to sit down now. I have here in my hand the last speech, already a little yellowed, made by Gen. Hertzog. In the pouring rain, and while we were all getting soaked, he said (translation)—

He made his great speech at Smithfield and he referred to the United Party. Here, in his own handwriting, is what he said—

On 4 November 1939 Gen. Hertzog said that the party was dead. I believed it then. But, like a decapitated chicken they go on kicking, and the time has now arrived when I may tell them that they should stop kicking; they are stone dead. I have lived to see the day when a self-imposed task, however slight my contribution may have been —that is neither here nor there—has been carried out and the United Party destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, we had to sit and listen here this afternoon to the hon. member for Smith-field telling us how he waited for the death of the United Party during his childhood days in Smithfield. He has been waiting for 40 years, Sir. He is also keen to attend the funeral, and at that funeral he will be prepared to play any role, except that of silent witness. Sir, when one listens to his eloquence, especially on this matter and related matters, then one wonders what the other reasons could be which prevent the hon. the Prime Minister from promoting that senior member to a higher post. Perhaps I could make a suggestion: I think the point really is that the humoristic member for Smithfield is at his funniest when he is trying to be serious.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to refer very briefly in the time available to me to a concept of image politics which appears to dominate the political scene at the present time. It was the custom years ago for politics to be conducted on the basis of policies clearly stated and clearly understood. The modern trend, Sir, under the pressure perhaps of the public media, has been to move towards an image politics where in fact voters vote for symbols such as, shall we say. Heath versus Wilson, or Nixon versus Kennedy, where in fact they symbolize each party and take their votes accordingly. Sir, I believe this trend has reached South Africa; I believe that there is a tendency in South Africa to judge parties by symbols, by images, and not by their policies. Sir, this is something which has its impact on parties, and I believe it has had an impact on his party, an impact which has caused some of the difficulties from which we now suffer. My time is limited and I cannot pursue this matter at any length, but I want to say that so far as this party is concerned, none of the difficulties that have arisen affect its basic aims or principles, arise from its basic policies or involve any challenge to its leadership. Sir, these are the elements which bind this party together, and despite what the hon. member for Smithfield has said, that we have elements in this party that cannot sit together, I believe that there is a binding force, a view of life, a concept of South Africa, that will continue to bind this party together for many years to come. The hon. member for Smithfield looks forward to attending the funeral of the United Party. I wish him a long life. Sir, it is on the basis of these fundamental policies that we have criticized the Government’s conduct of affairs on the basis of three main points in our motion. Briefly, the first was the Government’s failure to grasp the real nature of our opportunities and responsibilities in Southern Africa; the second was the Government’s failure to act decisively in creating conditions in which people in South West Africa may proceed to self-determination; and the third was its failure to attend to discriminatory policies in South Africa that impede our advance to peace and security. Sir, on these three points in the motion we have had a very slight, inadequate reply to the first leg. We have seen that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken his defensive position on the basis of a list of achievements in Southern Africa, and we recognize and applaud those achievements. But, Sir, they are no more than a list of achievements and there has been no evidence whatsoever of that greater vision, of that greater purpose, for which we plead.

He came here like Don Quixote riding the gaunt nag of domestic jurisdiction. When he deals with these matters, as when great issues such as those relating to matters of energy or minorities were presented to him, he immediately takes refuge in the old traditional defence that any such action could be thought to be an interference in the domestic jurisdiction of other States or of our own and should, therefore, be dis carded without more ado. Sir, this is a threadbare policy; it is an out-of-date-policy. I believe that contracts or treaties between self-governing States, freely accepted, do not constitute domestic intervention and I believe that it is entirely illogical to argue against the expansion of our Southern African interests on the basis that this could lead to intervention in each others’ domestic affairs.

He was followed, Sir, by Sancho Panza riding a donkey. This Sancho Panza is the Minister of the Interior, who has certain views on foreign affairs. It is he who descries giants and finds out that they are windmills. I believe that Sancho Panza could take advice from Cervantes, who wrote the story and who said: “Would it not be better to stay peacefully at home and not roam about seeking better worlds and better bread than is made of corn?”

On South West Africa we wait to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister what his reply is to our criticisms. We sincerely wish him well in the progress that we feel must be made in reaching a solution of this stormy and difficult problem. It is a grave impediment to the advance of South Africa. We have not yet had a satisfactory reply, Sir, and we look forward this afternoon hopefully to hearing from the hon. the Prime Minister.

On the third leg of the accusation, discrimination, we have heard many speeches, both offensive and defensive, but the real question remains. In South Africa the overwhelming factor is the growth of this country. We do not approach this thing in a mood of prophecy. I believe that anybody who can do arithmetic and calculate compound interest can play this game. The facts are there. They are available from the Department of Statistics and they are available from the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Is or is not this country going to proceed in the next quarter of a century from a population of 25 million now to a population of 50 million? Will we have to increase our economy at an even greater rate of growth? Is it a fact that if we have a population of 50 million we will need at least something like 5 million occupying the higher managerial, technical and professional occupations in the country? Is it not a fact that the White population, cannot supply more than 2 million, at the highest, of these people? That leaves 3 million people to be supplied within 25 years from the ranks of our Brown and Black people. Where are these people to come from? Do you realize, Sir, that if these people are aged 40 in the year 2000 they are already 15 years old now? Where are the technical schools, where are the universities, where are the technical colleges? Sir, these things have to be done and they have to be done urgently. We cannot conceal the sense of urgency which we feel is required to deal with this situation, because if we do not deal with it we are going to join the Third World. We will slip back. These things have to be done. These social, economic and political adjustments will have to be made. I have said that the people who will be 40 years old doing these jobs, the economically active people in our country by the year 2000, are already 15 years old. Yet we find a total lack of urgency. We have heard replies from the hon. gentlemen from the frontbenches. Sir, it was like listening to a row of extinct or semi-extinct volcanoes.

Disraeli said that a hundred years ago.

Those volcanoes are rumbling away at their old dogma, occasionally belching up political cliches and large puffs of smoke. But we heard nothing to satisfy us on these critical questions.

Time is advancing and we look forward hearing from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon whether there is any real solution to his problems, any real answer. We have not yet heard it and we look forward to hearing it this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was advised, on this of all occasions, to move a motion of no confidence in this Government, and consequently in me. In doing so he demonstrated that neither he nor his advisers seem to have any knowledge of the realities of South African politics today. While elementary courtesy requires me to confine myself to the motion of no confidence, I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will himself concede that neither the needs nor the realities of today really require one to pay any attention to it. When the Leader of the Opposition introduces a motion of no confidence at this particular juncture, something to which I shall return, what should be taken into consideration? What should be taken into consideration is the feeling of people outside this House. I make so bold as to say—and I am standing here, because the responsibility is mine, as a profoundly grateful person—that it is not only the Nationalists, not only the elderly people outside, but the vast majority of our people, young and old, and in particular the young ones in these days, who have appreciation and respect for and confidence in the way in which this Government is directing South Africa’s affairs. In addition it is not only our people, Sir. I think the hon. the Leader must be as aware of this as I am, for even people who normally supported him, even people who would normally perhaps vote for him again tomorrow, or the day after, or when an election is held, have confidence in the way in which matters are being handled today.

Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has laid a charge of no confidence against me, you will pardon me if I speak very frankly to him on this occasion. If the hon. Leader is not being informed as to what the feeling outside is, then I consider it my duty to tell him: My opinion— this is what I have experienced—is that the people outside are not angry with you. The people outside are not saying ugly things about you. But do you know what the people are saying? They are saying that you cannot look ahead because you have: to keep glancing over your shoulder. They are saying that you cannot look ahead and you cannot adopt a standpoint because you first have to glance over your left shoulder and then over your right shoulder. They say that you have lost your political personality in that process, and I think there is substance in that charge. They do not despise you, but what is happening to you —and this is the worst thing that can happen to a politician in South Africa and, for that matter, in any country—is that they are ignoring you. The hon. Leader has, I make so bold as to say this, demonstrated with this motion and the way in which he introduced it that he has lost contact with the realities of South African and world politics. This is the reality with which I and all of us in this House this afternoon are faced. The hon. the Leader began with a motion of no confidence in me, and ended with a crisis of confidence in himself. I think it is fitting to say, when one has to summarize the political situation in this House today as a politician who is interested in it, that the dilemma of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that the left-wingers do not know where they stand with him, while the right-wingers are equally ignorant of where they stand with him. Consequently he cannot lead. Under those circumstances—I am simply asking this now as one politician to another—can he blame clever back-benchers, or rather, people who think that they are clever, in his ranks if they play the old, old game of asking: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of us all?” That is what the hon. member for Randburg did. The wrong face appeared in the mirror. This brings me—I think this is also fitting—to the hon. member for Yeoville to whom one of necessity wishes to put certain questions in this regard.

Before I come to the questions which I want to put to the hon. member for Yeoville, there is another little matter I first want to raise. The hon. member had a great deal to say when he came to this House last year. He had hardly taken his seat when he had almost taken over this House. At that stage the hon. member was an authority on everything, and he acted the prophet. He was still prophesying on 17 October last year when he addressed a meeting in Johannesburg and said the following with reference to the party which I lead, the National Party. His words are given in quotation marks here—

I believe that it changed yesterday evening, and that we will probably hear about it again at a later stage today. Do you know, Sir, and have you ever noticed—you have been sitting here for years, and you have the experience—that every time the United Party or its Press has up to now predicted that there will be a crisis in the ranks of the National Party, a split occurs in the United Party? This has become axiomatic in the ranks of the National Party. So much for the hon. member as a prophet.

But now a few questions to the hon. member, as a politician. The hon. member spoke piously yesterday, but in those pious words of his an ultimatum was being offered to his colleagues, an ultimatum was being offered to his leader. The hon. member intimated his support of the hon. member for Randburg. One appreciates this, and it is a good thing, but did the hon. member consider that his colleagues had, after a very long hearing, according to the Press and according to all other indications, found the hon. member for Randburg guilty of the worst crime of which a politician can be found guilty, namely disloyalty. There is no greater crime which any member of this Parliament can commit against his leader than that of disloyalty. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that not only was the hon. member for Randburg found guilty by his colleagues of disloyalty, but, in the words of the Chief Whip of the Opposition, of “the grossest disloyalty”. For the sake of us all as politicians in this House, and for the sake of our status— for this concerns us—the hon. member for Yeoville must tell us whether he agrees with this finding that what the hon. member for Randburg had committed was the grossest disloyalty.

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow may not sit and read a book in this House.

It was a fine and a good thing for the hon. member to have affirmed his personal friendship, but he must reply to us on a few other questions. Did the hon. member for Yeoville know what the hon. member for Randburg was engaged in doing? We know that the hon. member for Randburg is not unaccompanied. He is accompanied by certain persons. He is accompanied by the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Bryanston. I read that the hon. member for Bryanston said at a report back meeting that he would “tear me limb from limb” during this session of Parliament. I got a fright when I read this for it is a terrible thing if a person wants to tear one apart in this way, the more so because he did not say whether he was going to do this with his bare hands or with his teeth. No, the hon. member is not unaccompanied. He is accompanied by those hon. members whom I have mentioned. He is the advance scout of the hon. member for Yeoville. Rather sluggardly behind him follows the hon. member for Edenvale, and a little way further behind them sits the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with a telescope, looking to see what progress is being made. That is the reality as I see it now from the outside. However, I am now asking the hon. member for Yeoville—and I think it is incumbent on him to furnish us, or the Press at a subsequent opportunity, with a reply—whether he knew what the hon. member for Randburg was engaged in doing. If he says he did not know, I am entitled to put another question to him: If he had known would he have stopped him? I am putting this question because it is equally important to measure integrity in future.

In my humble opinion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has allowed an opportunity, such as is seldom granted to a Leader of the Opposition, to pass. The hon. the Leader should have made use of this motion to strike a blow for South Africa. He could have struck a blow for South Africa and in that way a blow for himself and for his party, for the spirit which is prevailing in South Africa today—among the Whites as well as among the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians— is that no opportunity of doing something for South Africa should be allowed to go unutilized in these days, because the climate for doing so has never before been so favourable. I am aware of this because I am occupied with it day after day. But do you know, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the only discordant note in the entire array of persons and bodies! While there is confidence and appreciation among others, the only discordant note is sounded by my friend on the opposite side of the House, because he is telling the world that whatever the Government is doing and whatever the appreciation he has for that in his way, the Government is nevertheless not a government which is deserving of confidence at this stage of our history. Surely this is not the time for petty disparagement; surely this is not the time for suspicion-mongering and the scoring of debating points. The times in which we are living make it imperative that we present a united front to the outside world. In spite of our political divisions, the division into National Party and United Party, and in spite of the division within the United Party, we could all still on this occasion have presented a united front to the outside world. It is the endeavour of this Government and it is my endeavour—you have been hearing me say this from the first day I held this office—to commit ourselves to normalizing relations with all non-communist countries Hon. members have heard me say that I will go out of my way, particularly to normalize relations in Africa and more particularly to do so in Southern Africa. Hon. members are aware of the attempts which have been made. Hon. members will recall that to a lesser extent these met with success, and hon. members will recall that to a greater extent perhaps these met with failure, but this did not cause this side of the House to flag in its zeal to normalize those relations. In addition, I committed myself, and this Government committed itself, to placing relations in South Africa on a sound basis. On the basis of the reproaches which have been levelled at us, let us now consider the position of South Africa in the outside world. There are certain things which one has to place on record and has to accept as facts.

The first is that there is at present more contact with leaders of peoples in Africa and in the outside world than ever before. It is true that the outward movement, which was mooted many years ago, did fail at times. Hon. members will recall how the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rubbed his hands together from sheer satisfaction as a result of those failures. There was a time —I said it here in this House—when the climate was against it and we had to wait for the psychological moment to move forward specifically and prominently with this matter again. A second fact which we have to place on record is that today there are more responsible leaders in the world than ever before who are prepared to listen to South Africa’s case. What is more, there is today a greater understanding of South Africa and its problems than there has probably been in many decades. There are various reasons which may be advanced as to why this is so. Firstly, there was the financial and economic crisis in the monetary world; there was the energy crisis and all the misery which it brought in its wake; and there was the food crisis with all the endless misery which it caused for peoples throughout the world. All this contributed to placing South Africa in its true perspective. Secondly, there was in addition the situation of uncertain peace, and the unbridled violence which occurred in other parts of the world. Thirdly, the appreciation of the unlawful actions against South Africa and of the futile vendetta that had been waged against South Africa in the U.N., led to South Africa being seen in a better perspective than had been the case for many years. Fourthly, the initiative on South Africa is part to help create a situation of peace, relaxation of tension and cooperation in Southern Africa, has made an exceptional contribution in these times. In the fifth place there was the growing realization, a realization which was also in part a recognition, that in spite of standpoints which had previously been adopted, more and more leaders were asking themselves —and at this stage I am not putting it any higher than this—whether there was not perhaps another solution to South Africa’s complex problems than those they had considered in the past. In other words, I am aware that more and more leaders throughout the world are asking themselves whether separate development, unlike their former opinions, is not the solution to the problems of a country such as South Africa. In the sixth place it is clear to me that the successful way in which the Government has been able, by word and deed, to bring home the integrity of our standpoint and our policy to our critics, has to a growing extent contributed to our success. In the seventh place—I think that on this point even the hon. member for Von Brandis will agree with me—the stability and the fundamental soundness of South Africa in all kinds of spheres, in contrast to what is happening in the rest of the world, has stood South Africa in very good stead. In the eighth place the calibre of our people and the quality of our products, our integrity in the field of commerce and science —for this I want to express my gratitude to all our people—has made an exceptional contribution in this regard. Our faith in our cause and in our calling—I was pleased to hear the same sentiments expressed in English by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he said: “We have a destiny in this part of the world”—has had a great deal to do with our ability to maintain the position we are maintaining today. Because I have experienced this so frequently, I must also say here that we have recently received generously of the grace of the Lord in preserving this nation and country. It is remarkable how much good has been born out of evil at this time. When people thought they were doing us an injury, they were actually doing us a favour. Depriving South Africa of its rights at the U.N. not only illustrated this visibly to the world, but the world finally admitted that an injustice had been done to South Africa all these years. Recently this has come to the fore very prominently. However, another aspect was also brought to the fore, namely the futility of the U.N. while it continues on this course.

This brings me to the charge levelled by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the actions of my colleagues and officials and myself in regard to South Africa and its image in the outside world. This also brings me to the conclusions which are drawn for personal purposes from speeches which are made, without those speeches being set in their true perspective. Sir, in this debate you have heard what interpretation has been attached elsewhere, in the outside world, to the speech made by our ambassador to the U.N., the former member for Wonderboom, Mr. Pik Botha, and how it was in fact noised abroad that we had renounced our policy, and that we had in fact adopted a new policy. It was said even by a newspaper such as the Financial Mail that we had misled the world with the speech which Mr. Botha made. When it suits hon. members they try to present Mr. Botha’s standpoint, which he stated on behalf of this side of the House and which I and every member on this side, without exception, fully endorse, as a new note which we sounded merely for the purposes of window-dressing at the U.N., and claim that we do not mean it and that we have no intention either of doing what is foreshadowed in it. In this way, for example, I had supposedly announced a new policy at Nigel. Sir, let us set the speech made by Mr. Botha in its true perspective. I wonder whether the hon. members who have already discussed this matter, ever went to the elementary trouble of reading that speech. I want to quote what he said. Far from shying away from the policy of this Government, far from announcing a new policy, the premise and the basis of his speech was the policy of separate development of this party and this Government. He said—

This was after he had furnished a historical survey—

He then continued. Sir, this is all the hon. members quote, and even then they do not quote it in full. He then went on to say—

At that moment when he was speaking, Mr. Speaker, we were in the process of repealing some of that legislation in this House, a process which we did in fact complete— old laws from Natal, the Transvaal, the Cape and the Free State, which had been standing on our Statute Book since the previous century. He stated a fact, and he was stating a fact which each one of us have also on occasion stated. He then went on to say—

For this is the charge which is being levelled at us there, i.e. that of race hatred. His reply to this was—

This what Mr. Botha said and this is the standpoint of this side of the House, the standpoint which we have been stating over the years and to which I shall return at a later stage. Mr. Botha was not only stating the standpoint of the Government there; he was also stating the precise standpoint which the hon. the Leader of the House, who has a great deal to do with those matters, adopted. He was stating the precise standpoint adopted and stated by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Information, both Ministries which deal primarily with those matters.

We are not shying away from our policy of separate development, and I now want to tell hon. members here that in all the talks I had with leaders of other peoples and nations, and I have had a great many in the eight years I have been sitting here, and particularly last year, I have never tried to run away from separate development. On the contrary. I find my justification in separate development and I believe —otherwise I would be wasting my time and would no longer be standing here— that we can bring home an understanding of separate development to peoples and nations if we are in fact granted the opportunity to do so.

When we say that we are moving away from discrimination, we are not for one moment saying this because discrimination is inherent in or is or was part of our policy. It is not only since today that we have been saying that. Only yesterday you heard from the hon. member for Brits that my worthy predecessor had said, in season and out, that when we are dealing, as Mr. Botha also said, with historical discrimination on many levels, we should do something to get away from it, and the only way, as I see it—and I really do believe in this—is by means of the policy of separate development, otherwise we will never be able to get away from it. And if hon. members now tell me that as far as I am concerned it is a new concept which has been forced upon us now by circumstances, then I should like to refer you, Sir, to a speech which I made on 10 March 1973 at Kroonstad, in the presence of the then M.P. for Kroonstad, Mr. Schlebusch. I said the following, referring to the National Party and its actions for the future (translation)—

And it goes without saying, Sir, and I spelt it out there, that we often had to take very negative action during that decade to achieve the goal which we set ourselves, and we had to achieve that goal if we wanted peace here in South Africa. I said that that was the first decade, and then I went on to say that after that decade had passed, the decade arrived in which the emphasis did not fall in the first place on apartheid but on separate development, and more specifically on the development which there has to be for the separate peoples, and in that process we created governments, gave people status, gave Coloured people chances and opportunities which were not possible under any other policy. I went on to say—

I then to the best of my knowledge substantiated my reasons for believing in that. I then came to the third decade, the decade with which we are now occupied. In this regard I said the following—

Mr. Speaker, I laid the foundation for this third phase outside and in this House. I did not simply—and this is an accusation which is frequently levelled at us—sit down and devise the policy in regard to this third phase for the Blacks, the Coloured and the Indians without consulting them in regard to it. I laid the foundation with the Whites in the first place, and I made the general propaganda which was necessary. But what is more, Sir, I constantly took my place around the conference table, together with the various leaders, to consider these matters with them, to give them a say in these matters, to see what we could do to make it easier for us all to stabilize peace and sound relations in South Africa. I am very grateful to be able to tell you today that the recent discussions which I had with Black, Coloured and Indian leaders were the most fruitful I have ever conducted with them. I believe, Sir, that they were fruitful for those of us who are sitting in this House, and they were also fruitful for them. I can report with satisfaction not only that those discussions were fruitful, but also that with few exceptions they were conducted in a particularly responsible manner. I do not want to shy away from that, for this is the point which hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Green Point, do not always understand very clearly. I conducted talks with these people on the basis of and within the framework of the policy of the National Party. If hon. members want their policy and their principles to be discussed with these leaders, they must first come into power; then they will have every opportunity to apply their policy in practice. But in the meantime it is the policy of this side of the House which is under discussion. Can you imagine, Sir, if we were now to do what hon. members opposite are requesting, namely that we convene a conference involving everyone, including the Opposition—of whatever nature and party this may be—to discuss relations in South Africa, what would happen then? Surely it would result in the greatest chaos one has ever had in South Africa. What is more, it would not only result in chaos, but would also be an admission to the outside world of political bankruptcy, for we would in that way then be telling the world that the people in South Africa have no policy. I do not know how matters stand with hon. members opposite—one is usually more familiar with one’s own affairs than an outside observer—but my party has a policy and it is on the basis and within the framework of that policy that I am seeking the solution for South Africa and its problems.

It is true that requests were put to me during those talks to which I had to reply with an immediate “no”. For example, if I am asked at such talks for representation in this Parliament, I tell the leaders concerned—and they know that this is my standpoint—what the policy of the National Party on representation in this House is. If they discuss federation with me, I tell them: “You are knocking at the wrong door; you must wait until my friend is in power and then discuss federation with him”. If they discuss freehold with me, I tell them what the policy of my party is and that I regret that I am unable to do what they are asking, but that I shall consider other ways and means, ways to which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has already referred and to which I shall also return at a later stage.

I also want to place it on record again here today that I do not for one moment want to say that all the leaders with whom we held talks were necessarily in agreement with me, or that we are always in agreement on all the matters we discuss. But, Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be able to tell you today, for in terms of the position which I hold I am accountable to you, that Black, Coloured and Indian leaders have appreciation for the standpoint of the Government, even though they do are necessarily in agreement with it. Not only do they have appreciation for it, but I am grateful to be able to tell you that in spite of differences which exist and in spite of standpoints which they will adopt in future which may run counter to the policy of my party and my Government, there is acceptance on the part of the responsible leaders of the position as I have now sketched it here.

I am convinced, and I must report this to you, that despite the actions of certain agitators, we are entering a period of peace and order in this decade. It goes without saying that when one discusses these matters, one has a very wide field to cover and one cannot do so in a short space of time here. But my Vote still has to come up for discussion; we could then examine many of these aspects further. Nevertheless I do think that we could place a few facts in this regard on record.

The first is that the homeland policy and the eventual independence of homelands is an accomplished fact, and that no one can stop it. I am convinced, in spite of what they themselves may say, that even those homeland leaders who have at this moment not yet decided when they want to become independent, will all accept independence. This is historically inevitable; they cannot escape it. I now want to place a second fact on record, and tell the hon. member for Houghton that she can do her best to persuade them otherwise, but she will not succeed with the Black people of South Africa. They will demand independence from their leaders. There is no doubt in my mind about this. What has also emerged—and this hon. members must bear in mind when they discuss the question of the urban Bantu—is that these homeland leaders never dissociated themselves from their people in the cities, not in any talks which I conducted with them, and pre-eminently not at the latest talks which my colleague and I conducted with them. On the contrary. Not only did they recognize those people, they also claimed them to be their people who are working and living in our cities, even if it has been for many generations. There is no dispute or friction between us on that standpoint. A third fact which is worthwhile placing on record on this occasion is that on no occasion when I discussed matters with the homeland leaders did they ask for separate representation for the urban Bantu in this Parliament. On no occasion when my colleague and I were with them, did this standpoint emerge. They accept that the future of the urban Bantu is situated in the homelands to which they owe their allegiance.

What do the urban Bantu themselves say?

It is interesting that the hon. member should ask me this question now. On one occasion the hon. the Minister and I held talks for three days with the urban Bantu of various residential areas. We discussed everything. They had the opportunity to complain about everything. They were able to pose any questions. But not on any occasion did one of them ask for representation in this Parliament. Not one of them asked for that. I can well imagine that there will perhaps be some of them who will come forward with such an idea after they have spoken to some hon. members, particularly to the hon. member for Durban Point. However, it is wrong to say that those people entertain such a desire. They see their political future among their own people. It must be borne in mind that these talks were convened at their request to discuss only the urban Bantu. They discussed commerce, home ownership and freedom of movement with us.

I now want to report on this so that it can be understood what we are dealing with. In particular they discussed influx control with us. There was not a single argument which hon. members on the opposite side of the House, not a single argument which the hon. members of the Progressive Party, have ever enumerated, which the homeland leaders did not advance in respect of influx control. There was a great deal of criticism on their part of how the measures are being applied, and criticism concerning the question of whether there should be any measures at all. I listened to them, and not only I. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development in the person of my colleague in particular, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, listened to the arguments of these people. There was substance in a great deal of what these people said, with the result that I told them that we should first identify the problem, and that having identified the problem, and decided that there is in fact a problem, we could discuss a solution to it. They associated influx control with discrimination, and I had to convince them that it is not discrimination. I told them that the problem was not only South Africa’s problem, but that it was also the problem of Lusaka, Nairobi, in fact of every city in Africa. If hon. members had read The Argus of two or three evenings ago, they would have seen what a problem Lusaka now has in this regard, how they have to pick up the people to convey them to the rural areas because there are no more opportunities for them in the city. I am telling this House what I told them. I want to inquire of you whether this was not put in a fair manner. I told them that my problem was that there might be 10 000 work opportunities in a given area. Suppose 30 000 Black people arrived who wished to avail themselves of those 10 000 work opportunities. I asked them whether this was a problem, yes or no. Naturally the homeland leaders told me that this was a problem. We then said that since we all admitted that this was a problem, we should give thought to how we could solve the problem. I told them that since we agreed on the problem and they criticized my way of solving it and said that it was not working well enough and had all kinds of faults, we should give thought to how that problem should be solved to the satisfaction of all. I told them that I believed that the only way of doing this was to appoint three of their number who would, in consultation with the proper officials of the department, go into the entire matter and produce a better method of solving that problem. In other words, we did not dictate to them what they should do, but created for them the opportunity of finding for themselves the solution to a problem affecting their people. I have to report to this House that only one homeland leader, i.e. Chief Buthelezi, said that he was not prepared to co-operate in this regard because, so he said, this was a White man’s law and he had not had a part in the making of that law. For that reason, he said, he was not prepared to co-operate in that regard. I am very grateful to be able to inform this House that the other seven homeland leaders adopted the standpoint that they accepted the invitation with thanks, and that they would co-operate with the department and would try to find a solution to this matter. I am mentioning this to hon. members on the one hand as an example of the attitude of the homeland leaders, and on the other I am presenting this to illustrate how we are, in the third phase, seeking a solution with these people and not for these people, and how we wish to place more and greater responsibility on the shoulders of leaders and peoples themselves, instead of doing everything for them. You can take it from me, Sir, that this is the procedure we shall adopt in future.

I come now to the Coloureds and the Indians. On previous occasions I have stated, in general, that what applies to the Coloureds, also applies to the Indians. We discussed the question of political representation in this House. I told them frankly, and they did not take offence at hearing it from me: “That is my party’s policy and I am unable to negotiate with you outside my party’s policy.” You will recall, Sir, that it was no less a person than myself who said years ago in this House when we did away with the Coloured representation—and I accept full responsibility for that—here: “We are going to be faced with a dilemma in this connection in future; we are going to create Parliaments for the Coloureds and the Indians and we are going to be faced with the dilemma that sovereign Parliaments cannot exist side by side in the same country.” That is a dilemma. That is the dilemma to which I had to find an answer. Once again it was not a question of only I having considered the matter, found an answer and told the Coloured and Indian leaders: “There is the answer, take it or leave it.” Unhurriedly I sat down with them around a conference table and, in a calm and responsible manner—there were particularly responsible discussions on this question-discussed this matter with the leaders concerned.

I now want to state certain facts in that regard. This Government is not trying to shy away from that dilemma, nor shall we ever do so. On the contrary. We are facing it squarely. However, I want to say that not all forms of separation, whether imposed by law or not, are necessarily discriminatory or humiliating. This we must understand very clearly. My most important witness in this connection is my friend, the hon. member for Durban Point. Who am I to want a better witness than him? The hon. member is a “star witness” for me, for in the course of this debate I asked him a question. When hon. members opposite accuse us of discrimination, it depends on what one means. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana advanced a valid argument in this connection. To be specific, it depends on one’s attitude and on the meaning one attaches to the word. The law compels White children to go to a certain school and the Coloured children to go to their school. The same applies to the Indians and the Bantu. Surely the United Party are not going to tell me that they believe in discrimination of that detestable kind. They are with me, then, in endorsing it. I do not know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout always endorses it. I doubt it, and my doubt is justified. However, I do know that the hon. member for Durban Point endorses it because he told me so across the floor of the House.

I said the communities must control their own education.

Yes, but the law compels them to do so. They do not have a free choice.

Within the community there is in fact a choice.

Yes, but they do not have a free choice. They are forced to do so by the law. The hon. members opposite accept this as their policy, too, because they would not repeal it if they were to come into power. They have already told us so. The same applies to residential areas. They believe in it, and it takes place in terms of the law. In other words, it is surely unsound to argue, taking their own standpoint into account, that enforced and statutory separation is immoral and wrong. Why, then, do they accuse us before the outside world while endorsing it themselves? What is more, why do they accuse us before the outside world while they bask in the glory of what we are doing in practice in this regard?

You miss the essence of the federal idea.

This matter may have to do with many things, but it has nothing to do with federation.

Our policy has to do with it.

One will have to deal with these matters whatever policy one follows in South Africa. However, the principle which we must consider and decide on, and on which we must obtain clarity, is that not every form of enforced separation is necessarily humiliating or discriminatory in the bad sense of the word, or abhorrent. I want to state as my considered opinion—I am not just talking loosely to hon. members now; it is in a considered way that I talk to other nations and people—that all nations and people have the inherent right to separate themselves from other nations and people at times if they so choose.

I come now to the dilemma I foresaw with regard to the various Parliaments.

†I want to say, as I said to the Indian and Coloured leaders when they raised this issue with me and said that they want meaningful political power in South Africa, that they had every right not only to ask that from me but also, in fact, to demand it from me and that I would have no quarrel with them whatsoever when they say that to me. I concede straightaway that they have the right to meaningful powers and meaningful right to co-responsibility in decision-making as far as it also affects them. I am not going to argue with anybody about this.

It took you a long time to arrive at this point of view.

No. This is not a standpoint which I only adopted today; this has been the standpoint I have been adopting towards these leaders over the years. I identified the dilemma and said that we would have to find a solution to that dilemma, for there is common ground and one dare not, without giving those people themselves a say, make laws and take decisions concerning that common ground.

But now you are speaking our language. [Interjections.]

I am slowly getting a little tired of that argument. Does the hon. member realize what it implies? It is the greatest motion of no confidence he can move in himself, for what is the hon. member again saying now by implication, something which the hon. member for Newton Park is so fond of saying? He is saying that we have taken over their policy. But we have been growing over the years and last year we grew even further, but the party on the opposite side has retrogressed. If we have supposedly grown with their policy and they were the first to see and to make the policy, do hon. members know what this implies?—That the voting public think that as people the hon. members are so weak that they are not to be trusted with that policy! [Interjections.] After all, this is the only deduction I can make, that the voting public say yes, the policy of the U.P. is a sound policy but, good gracious, do not give it to a U.P. man to implement; he will make a mess of it. [Interjections.] I do not think I will get that reproach from the hon. member again; I think that era has passed and that phase has ended.

I identified the dilemma and placed it in the lap of the Coloured leaders. Surely the hon. members can recall this. I told the leaders that they had to help me solve that dilemma. What is more, I told them that they had to find the solution to it. They then came forward with the idea of a liaison committee. My hon. friend must admit that the liaison committee idea worked effectively and was productive of a tremendous amount of good for the Coloureds. Hon. members will also remember that I said that, I, as a realistic politician, knew that it would not last for ever and that a time would come when we would have to reconsider it. Sir, we have discussed the matter, and the time has come for us to reconsider it.

It has come rather quickly.

No, Sir, it did not come as quickly as the crisis in the United Party, and you know yourself Sir, how long that crisis has been in progress.

You must make a statement again, Hughes.

We considered this matter as adults, and I ask any unprejudiced man sitting in this House to suggest a better solution to me. It serves no purpose to argue with me, on this occasion, about whether, it is right or wrong that Coloureds and Indians are not represented in this Parliament. That is a matter on which the voters gave a decision, and it is the policy of this party. Sir, we then discussed the matter and I want to tell you how I argued with them. You saw the reactions in the Press, Sir. I said to them: “I can give you representation in Parliament if it is the policy of my party, but it is not the policy of my party.” It so happened that when we came to the discussion of this matter, we had just finished discussing housing, and I then said this to them: “With reference to the case of housing, while we are now discussing ‘meaningful political rights’, if you have representation in this Parliament, then according to the policy of all parties, a few of you will come and sit here; you will sit here in the back benches of Parliament; housing will then come up for discussion and it will then appear from the Estimates that R100 million is available for housing. What are your rights as members? It is your right to criticize it; to criticize it to the extent to which you are afforded opportunities to speak in this House on this matter.” But, Sir, surely hon. members know as well as I do that an amount in these Estimates has never been changed, not in all the years the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been sitting here, and he has been sitting here for five years longer than I have. I then said to them: “That amount will remain as it is. So if you speak of ‘meaningful power’ in respect of housing, this is what representation in this Parliament will bring you, i.e. you will be able to criticize the amounts here”.

That is an attack on the parliamentary system.

But those are the facts. [Interjection.] No, Sir, I am not even attacking the Leader of the Opposition on this particular matter let alone the parliamentary system. The fact of the matter Sir, is simply that development has brought this about. In years gone by all these matters were decided on in Parliament. In the early days Parliament not only decided that R100 million had to be made available for housing, to mention an example; it indicated where it had to be spent, how it had to be spent and for whose benefit it had to be spent. But, Sir, surely modern governments no longer function in this manner, and with the advent of cabinet government and the cabinet system, what am I offering the Coloureds? And now people outside can judge for themselves where meaningful power does or does not lie. What am I offering them? I am offering them representation in a Cabinet Council, for it is in that Cabinet Council that the amount is initiated. In other words, I am giving them a say at the source where it is decided whether it should be R100 million or R120 million. I am giving them the opportunity to state the case of the housing needs of their people at the highest level, in the intimacy of a round table meeting, where the Coloured person can state the needs of his people at the highest level. But if he is not satisfied with the amount, what else am I offering him? I am offering him his own council, where he will be afforded many more opportunities to speak than he would be in this Parliament, where, if he has complaints, he will be able to air these far more effectively than he would be able to do in this Parliament. In other words, when it comes to criticism, I am giving him many more opportunities to criticize than he would otherwise have had. But I am going even further than that. Any hon. member in this House may criticize; it is his right, but he does not have any say where the amount is spent.

That is not the system.

Well, that is why I am telling you now what I am offering the Coloureds, and the hon. member is so taken up with it that he is going to support me. I am not only giving the Coloured and the Indians a say at the beginning, where it origninates, but also the right to representation at the end point, where the amount is spent.

May I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister? May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he has put it to these groups that if they were to become members of this House, it would also be possible for them to be on the Government side and become Cabinet Ministers?

I did not discuss with them such elementary things as that hon. member turns over in his mind, for I think every Std. 6 child knows the answer. Consequently I did not discuss it with them. The hon. member has interrupted me now, Sir, I am giving them the opportunity to obtain a right to have representation at the very end, at the point where the money is spent, so that, if there should be complaints that it is quite in order that Parliament has voted R100 million, but that the Whites have obtained too much of that amount and that the Coloureds and the Indians have a far greater need and have obtained too little, I am giving them the opportunity, at that point, to raise a complaint around a conference table, to discuss it there and to be co-responsible for and be instrumental in deciding how that money should be spent. And what is more, is they do not obtain satisfaction there, the matter is put into the pipeline again and they can come back to the Cabinet Council and say that things are not going smoothly, that they are still being discriminated against or that they are not getting their due. Then we can investigate the mater and discuss it.

All he can do is ask; he has no power.

He has the same power as any other member who decides on that amount and how it should be dealt with. He has the same power in the Cabinet Council as any of my colleagues.

But they cannot vote you out.

My hon. friend, who is an authority on everything, ought to know that according to the British Cabinet system, which works very effectively, voting never takes place in a Cabinet. Never in the history of Cabinet government has voting taken place in a Cabinet. On another occasion I should like to give him a lecture on Cabinet government. There are quite a number of interesting things I shall be able to communicate to him, for he will never be able to learn about them from personal experience. Therefore, I say that I am giving him a say at the point where the amount originates; I am giving him the right to criticize it along the way and I am giving him the right to be co-responsible in making a decision about where the amount should eventually be spent. Now I am asking any hon. member: If this is not a fairer way and if this is not more meaningful than anything which has been suggested before by anyone on that side of the House or elsewhere, then I should very much like to know what is. But what is more, in spite of the fact that the Coloureds and the Indians say their ideal is to have representation here, I can tell you that they were very pleased with these standpoints, with this system, which they support, and that it is going to have results that will be greatly to their benefit. There are various spheres, too many to enumerate now, in which we shall apply this. But I also told them, and I must report it to you here, that in the implementation of the policy which I held out to them at Kroonstad, we will give them representation on various boards and councils, and I told the hon. member for Green Point that I am now engaged in compiling that list. They will, for example, obtain representation on the Economic Advisory Council, one of the highest bodies in South Africa. They will obtain representation in those places where it will be of most value to them—such as the Wage Board, the Apprenticeship Board, the Unemployment Insurance Board, to mention only a few, which are intimately bound up with the way of life and the existence of these people. If these are not meaningful political rights, then I do not know what meaningful political rights are. But, Sir, we have not only given them status. We have given them superior amenities and have held out the prospect of superior amenities, and I foresee that much that is beneficial will result from this co-operation between the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. We shall reap those benefits, not only in this country, but abroad as well.

This brings me to the climate of opinion abroad. I have already, I think, told you that we have a more favourable climate of opinion towards South Africa today than ever before. The main object of this Government is the normalization of our relations with the world, with Africa and, from the nature of the case, with Southern Africa. It is here that the question of South West Africa and the question of Rhodesia play a particularly important role. But I should like to say this: Even if these negotiations in respect of Rhodesia should fail and even if we should not arrive at an understanding in respect of South West Africa—and may Heaven forbid that either of these things should happen—I still believe that relations between Africa and our country will never be the same again, for in the meantime we have built up understandings and bridges in other spheres which will remain in existence and will be of significance.

Sir, I think a better understanding of South Africa has developed in the world and in Africa. Firstly, there has been a clear acceptance that we are of Africa. It follows from that that we on our part take Africa into account. But the other side of the coin is that Africa takes us into account. Secondly, we are not a minority group here in South Africa and when we are some times referred to as a minority regime, as President Kaunda recently referred to us, I reject this with all the emphasis at my command, for it is simply not true. We are a people of Africa in our own right and in our own country, and no one can deprive us of that right and that country. We do not interfere, nor do we permit anyone to interfere in our affairs. We shall not attack anyone, but we will most certainly remain prepared to repulse any rash attack on us, and we shall do so with a large measure of success. We, just like the other African States, are seeking understanding and peace, but, like them, not at any price. Although we do not owe anyone anything we will render assistance to the best of our ability. Like them, we are also interested in the development, the order and stability of all states, particularly, from the nature of the case, that of our neighbouring states.

A question which is generally asked and in which each one of us, whatever party we support, is intensely interested, is the following: Can we find a solution for the South West African issue? Can a solution be found in Rhodesia? I have already said, may Heaven forbid that the attempts which are being made in Rhodesia in particular fail.

I am dealing, firstly, with South West Africa. One’s problem is, of course, made infinitely more difficult by the fact that people who have little or no knowledge of it are meddling in this matter. One of these people is my friend, the hon. member for Sea Point, who felt himself called upon to go to South West Africa. If he had gone there as an observer, I would have welcomed it, for then, I believe, he could have learnt something. However, the hon. member went as an authority and returned as an even greater authority. On his return he naturally went to the Cape Times, which reported as follows:

What are the facts? It so happens that I was involved in this. In the South African Survey of 1967, many years ago, we wrote as follows on this same question (page 49)—

However, the hon. member now says that the policy which the people now find shocking is that “South West Africans will decide their own future and self-determination”. Surely this is absurd. Does the hon. member not realize that he is not only creating confusion but also a lack of confidence within South West Africa itself, whereas what is necessary at the moment is confidence? Confidence among the Whites that they will not have to give up their possessions there, confidence that they will be able to make investments there and that, just as South Africa will progress, South West Africa will also progress and will share in this prosperity in South Africa and Southern Africa which the National Party has brought about over the years and will perpetuate.

Since that standpoint was expressed, we have had the manifesto in regard to this election.

I myself advocated this at one meeting after another. I am sorry that the hon. member did not come and put questions to me about it, for then he might have learnt something. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told me that we would have to find a solution to this problem rapidly, but he did not state the crux of the problem. I am sorry he did not do so and I would appreciate it if he would come back to the matter in his reply to this debate and say whether he agrees or disagrees with me on this. In all my discussions with all the individuals and leaders, Black and White, I adopted the standpoint that—as I expressed it in English—“the people will decide their own future”. My standpoint is that neither South Africa nor the U.N. will dictate to those people what their standpoint should be. They and they alone will determine that standpoint. But what is the standpoint of the U.N.? This is something to which the hon. the Leader did not refer. The standpoint of the U.N., and that of our enemies in the world, is that South West Africa does not belong to the peoples of South West Africa, but to Sam Mujoma.

He is the only power, he and Swapo which cannot muster 2 000 supporters in South West Africa, which does not even have that many members. Sam Mujoma is the person who finds favour at the U.N. and is recognized as the leader. It is to him that South West Africa must be surrendered. Now I do not want to be irresponsible, but I want to state the policy of this Government very clearly. Let the world issue as many ultimatums to us as it likes, let there be as many threats as the world is able to make, but South West Africa will not be surrendered to Sam Mujoma and Swapo, not as long as this Government is sitting here. The peoples of South West Africa will decide their future themselves. Because of the nature of the case, I cannot take the discussion any further than that.

I come now to Rhodesia. I am grateful to be able to report, and I am making haste to conclude, that I as the responsible person, together with all my colleagues who sit here, tried to create an atmosphere, and we were successful, within which the parties concerned could discuss their problems and find a solution to their problems. In this connection, there has obviously been frequent contact with Rhodesia in many spheres. When the psychological moment arrived, however, we made contact with Zambia, and Tanzania and Botswana came into it as well. In spite of all which has been said and done in the past, this afternoon I must place on record my impression that Zambia and the other parties are eager, just as are South Africa and Rhodesia, to find a solution and that they have made an honest contribution in this connection. Likewise, since reproaches have constantly been hurled at the Rhodesian Government of Mr. Smith, I must report it here as a fact that the Rhodesian Government has shown a realism and a responsibility which must be appreciated by everyone who is interested in Southern Africa. A solution to the Rhodesian issue Can be found in Rhodesia and in Rhodesia alone.

Because I was concerned with the problem on dozens of occasions I want to state as Clearly as possible that a solution cannot come from one side only; a solution in Rhodesia must come from both sides, from the Whites as well as from the Blacks. There is no solution which can come from one side only. I am not speaking only on my own behalf now. I am speaking on behalf of everyone when I say that we are not seeking surrender, but a solution. It is only when one approaches it in that spirit that one can hope and pray that there will be success.

Therefore I want to state again very clearly that we are not interfering in Rhodesia’s internal affairs. We are not exerting pressure and we are not giving any orders, and as a proud people they will obviously not take orders from us. But I believe that if there is mutual goodwill, a solution can be found in Rhodesia, but because I have attended many talks in this connection, I can place it on record as my conviction that I believe that the chances of finding a solution are minimal if violence does not cease. Violence must cease as a precondition for success. I believe also that no prior demands must be made. There must be no preconditions for deliberations, because if that happens, as I know the climate, the chances of finding a solution are slender. I believe there must be no prescriptions and no outside interference. Whether it is South Africa, or Zambia or Great Britain—outside interference in connection with this matter will be fatal because it is a delicate and a complicated matter. Meeting upon meeting has been held on this matter at Cape Town, Pretoria, Salisbury and Lusaka, and I think that it is only the people who sat around the conference table who will have any conception of how delicate this issue really is.

Because the matter is such a delicate one, hon. members will be surprised at the influence newspaper articles, written here in South Africa, have had on deliberations in the past and the influence they will have on future talks. Therefore I consider it my duty once again to make an appeal to newspapers and speakers who discuss this matter, to speak and write about it with the greatest circumspection. I want to state very clearly that no newspaper—it does not matter which—speaks on behalf of the Government in this matter. I also want to state clearly that the Government does not make use of newspapers to put out feelers. If I want to put out feelers, I shall do so myself; I shall not ask newspapers to do so on my behalf.

I believe that we must do everything in our power to create a climate and to make it possible for the parties concerned to settle matters around a conference table. It is with pride and with gratitude that I can tell you that South Africa has played its part in this connection. I cannot mention names now—there will come a time when I will in fact be able to do so—but officials from South Africa have worn themselves out in connection with this matter, in a way which has compelled my greatest admiration. They will know who they are and I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to them. I myself have lost no time in devoting myself to this matter. Because it was so delicate and in order to keep out of the hands of the Press —because one does not know how irresponsible people are going to deal with the matter—we had to arrange our talks in such a way that they could not have any idea that we are engaged in them.

I travelled down to Durban where I met the Indian Council. I had lunch there that afternoon. After lunch I returned to Pretoria to hold talks on this matter with the Black people, and these talks continued until 12 o’clock that night. We had to select the most impossible times to do the work in this connection, but we did it in the knowledge and in the hope that a better dispensation for Southern Africa would result from it. If hon. members were to ask me what we can do in this connection, I should say that the most important thing we can do, is to keep out of this matter and because it has so many facets, to leave it to the people who are working on it from day to day.

I want to tell this House that we have already achieved success and we are grateful for the success which has been achieved. We have gained the goodwill of Black leaders in Zambia and elsewhere and I think that we shall retain that goodwill. We want to retain that goodwill because it is necessary for Southern Africa in future, because the alternative, to which reference has already been made, is there if things go wrong. Because it will, after all, be my responsibility, and because I must live with my conscience, I want to say in conclusion to this House today— and it does not make any difference to me how much political propaganda is made from it at by-elections or on other occasions—that I, for my part, consider it my duty to work day after day with the object of trying to bring about understanding and peace in Southern Africa. I am grateful that I have been able to make contacts in Africa in the past, and I shall continue to try and make such contacts, because our future demands it of us.

Obviously I cannot tell hon. members that we shall succeed in this attempt. On the contrary. I have always intimated that we should take the possibility of failure into consideration. If it fails, the alternative is there, but then I can say to the young people of South Africa and to hon. members on the opposite side and also on my side of the House: “Here I stand; I did everything in my power to ward off this day.” I shall devote myself to this, and to this, I believe, each of us should devote himself in these days. Because this is the case, I move this amendment to the motion of my friend opposite, although this was not my custom in previous years—

1. (1) is of the opinion that it is incumbent upon every South African to promote sound relations between peoples and races in South Africa and between South Africa and all non-communist peoples and countries; and
2. (2) furthermore notes with appreciation what the Government has done and intends doing in this field”.

I am not placing hon. members in the difficult situation of voting for a motion of confidence in me. If they had had that confidence in me, they would have joined my party. Therefore I am taking into account the fact that they are seated opposite me. But at this point of time in history I have the right to approach every hon. member opposite and say to him: “Look, my friend, we must now create good relations for the future” and “My friend, we have attained a certain goal; we have already made progress; join us now in signifying, with us, your assent to that progress, and let us make further progress on that road”.

Mr. Speaker, in looking back at this debate over the last week, I think I can say that it has been a most interesting debate because this has been one of the occasions when there was, for a change, something for which we could sincerely thank the Prime Minister and congratulate him, namely his initiatives in Africa, the assurances which his ambassador gave at the United Nations and his efforts for peace in Southern Africa. I congratulated the hon. the Prime Minister on what he had done. And yet, today, this hon. gentleman was most resentful that I had not given him more fulsome congratulations.

I never said that.

I know he did not use the word “fulsome”, Sir, but the Prime Minister complained that I had not commended him more warmly for what he had done.

That is not so.

Oh yes, Sir; here is my note.

But it is the wrong note as usual.

It is very much the right note. It is the wrong memory on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. Sir, I say quite definitely that we accept and appreciate what has been done, but the hon. the Prime Minister must not expect me to clap hands and evince confidence in him when I feel that what has been done is only a beginning and is only the first step in the achievement of results. What we have seen so far, in all honesty, is nothing more nor less than an invitation to do business, a putting of the goods in the window, so to speak. It will have achieved certainly not all that is to be hoped unless those goods are sold. The shopkeeper does not get rich unless the customer buys and flourishing commerce is not established unless trade and dealing takes place. The trouble is that I do not believe, and this side of the House does not believe, that the hon. the Prime Minister has the right sort of goods to put in that shop window, the right sort of goods to clinch a deal in respect of Southern Africa. The right sort of goods to clinch a deal in Southern Africa is a change in his internal policies.

We charge the Government with being timid in its approach to Africa, and remaining timid even now. There is an absence of vision; there is an absence of big thinking. The response from speakers on the other side was predictable. It was beamed not at the task ahead, but at lulling the voters into believing that the Government’s policy of separate development could meet the demands of the situation at home and abroad, that the future of White South Africa was safe only in their hands and that the rate and the nature of change was securely under control.

As emerged from speech after speech on our side of the House, this self-delusion on the part of the Government was totally divorced from the facts of the situation. I thought we had a masterly exposition from the hon. member for Hillbrow of how population and economic growth only over the next 10 years would automatically so affect the social and political pattern in this country that Government policies would cease to be relevant, and of how the presence of more than 10 million additional urban Blacks, many of them doing skilled and technical work, would change the whole social structure in the so-called White areas. These will be people earning good salaries, people who will change the whole social set-up and make nonsense of the political set-up as it exists at the present time if they are still totally excluded from the decision-making process within the Republic of South Africa. In advancing those arguments hon. members opposite failed to think back what the situation was 10 years ago here in South Africa. Let me remind hon. gentlemen what it was like 10 years ago.

The Government had an over-my-dead-body stand in respect of job reservation. The Government was still firmly wedded to the magical year of 1978 when the flow of Blacks to the towns would be reversed. Cricket teams were not allowed into this country because there was one non-White face amongst the players; there were no Blacks on any Government advisory boards; there were no consultations of a multi-racial kind at Government level. And now, Sir, what has happened 10 years later? Job reservation is virtually scrapped; the Government is on the verge of recognizing the permanence of the urban Bantu; multi-racial sport has become a commonplace; Nationalist members of Parliament are mixing with non-Whites at a social level, as opposed to their attitude in the past. It is accepted that the Nico Malan theatre is open to all races and many other theatres are following suit; apartheid notices are even coming down in Government buildings, and the Government Press is loud in its praise of what it calls “verligtheid”. The Pretoria municipality has even followed the example of the Johannesburg municipality in dismantling apartheid in some of its municipal areas. These things were not Government policy; they are the result of the facts of life in South Africa, of increasing racial inter-dependence, of increasing sophistication and earning capacity of Black and Brown people, and they have left an indelible mark on Government attitudes in this country. But, Sir, these facts still go largely unrecognized as a permanent influence by the Government; they are still burying their head in the sand like an ostrich when we ask them to consider the future of South Africa over the next 10 years. You know, Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have every reason to believe in the foresight of the United Party and its ability to predict the future. Everything the Government has done in these changes, virtually every one of its grand initiatives, has been advanced from this side of the House.

Are you supporting the amendment?

Let me mention some of them: Dialogue in Africa; the relaxation of the restrictions on the use of Black labour; the training of Black labour in the established industrial areas of the Republic, not only in the Reserves and in the border areas; an Indian Council which is to be elected; relaxation of apartheid restrictions in sport, even though the Government has not yet gone as far as we would like it to go; training of Black diplomats; Black diplomats at the United Nations Organization; arming Blacks to defend South Africa and using more non-Whites generally in the Defence Force. All these things, Mr. Speaker, were asked for by this side of the House and were foretold by us, but when we ask these gentlemen to look into the future, they think they are the only people who can see round the corner. There is even a softening of attitude in respect of the use of amenities by Whites and non-Whites. The hon. the Minister of Defence, now the Leader of the House, delivered himself of this bit of wisdom at the Nationalist Party Congress—

So what?

The hon. gentleman says, “So what?” I remember the look on his face the first time I pleaded in this House for a restaurant in Cape Town that should be open for people of different races.

Sir, what did I ask for in my motion before the House? In essence it was a plain statement of fact. It was a statement that detente, the easing of tensions between the peoples of Southern Africa, was only the first step towards the real goal, and the real goal is fruitful co-operation in areas of mutual interest in Southern Africa. What is our contention, Sir? Our contention is that unless this Government takes steps to produce evidence of that co-operation in concrete terms, then we have not yet achieved anything. So far there is little evidence of the Government taking imaginative action in fields that are going to produce practical results, or even that such action is under consideration. That is our criticism of the Government. That is my difficulty with this motion. I must approve what the Government intends doing. What does it intend doing, Sir? Have you heard? For almost every proposal we made from this side of the House, there was some excuse for not being able to accept it.

Sir, we went further. We said that if the Government hoped to achieve successful detente in Southern Africa, then it was dependent upon achieving detente at home. It was dependent upon the Government achieving racial harmony at home. What do we mean by racial harmony? Acting in such a way that everybody living in this country, whether White, Black or Brown, will believe that this country of ours offers them the greatest opportunity for living out their lives in happiness and security. I believe this Government has failed lamentably to create those conditions. I have repeatedly warned that the greatest area of vulnerability lies in the alienation of people of colour consequent upon the policies of this Government, because of the discriminatory treatment that is meted out to them. Sir, I am afraid that this type of discrimination is unavoidable under the Government’s policy of separate development. You see, Sir, the Government cannot begin to make meaningful change in race relations in this country. It cannot begin to consider other practical and realistic ways of accommodating problems which that policy leaves unresolved unless it is prepared to look at changes in that policy.

I refer here just to one thing, namely ensuring a decent way of life for the urban Blacks. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us this afternoon of his negotiations with the homelands leaders and he has told us that the homeland leaders regard the urban Blacks as their people; they do not want the bond with them to be broken. But. Sir, what he did not tell us is what we on this side of the House know the urban Blacks are thinking about the situation. We have had consultations with many of them, and many of them are utterly dissatisfied with political rights in the homelands. But I go further. Many of them say: “Look, political rights in the homelands we are not going to argue about at this stage, but what we want are civic rights where we live.” Those civic rights include the right to run their own affairs and to have home ownership in those townships. But what does the hon. the Prime Minister tell them? That that is not part of his policy. I pointed out in my opening speech something to which nobody on that side of the House has replied, that if they want to improve race relations in South Africa, why not start by removing the discriminatory practices against the urban Black woman, since this is women’s year?

That has already been done.

Are they going to be allowed home ownership?

May I ask a question? Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition aware of the fact that women are being allowed to do exactly what he asked for in his speech? [Interjections.]

No, I am not aware of it and I am very certain that they are not, because they are not getting home ownership; they are getting leasehold.

No, not ownership.

Is there going to be higher education for their children in the urban areas?

Yes.

The hon. gentleman is coming on. What is the position going to be in respect of a widow or divorcee owning her own home and looking after her children?

[Inaudible.]

I had no reply and the hon. the Deputy Minister had a chance to speak. He spoke after me; he cannot go on like this.

What about welfare facilities, what about job opportunities, what about equal pay for equal work? All these matters were raised and we had no reaction from that side of the House. When it comes to détente at home, what about the position in respect of the Indians and the Coloured people? The hon. the Prime Minister has been telling us of his discussions with them, he has been telling us of the possibility of Cabinet committees, but what say have those people in the Parliament which decides their destiny? It is not Government policy, says the Prime Minister. That is why we have proposed a federal solution in this House time and time again. The hon. the Prime Minister says if they sat here, they would have no say in how much money was voted, because he has never seen a sum of money voted that has been changed by this House. Is the position not that in a federal Parliament they would have a say in the federal assembly where the money was voted and that they would have control of the money voted in their legislative assembly where they go through the work which is necessary in that regard? That is one of the reasons why we have proposed a federal solution, because it gives a say to all groups in this country within that federal formula. There is machinery for a step-by-step installation of that system in consultation with all communities under the regulation and guidance of this Parliament as it develops.

What has been the treatment of members opposite of these proposals we have put forward? I think they fall into four categories. There have been the belittlers who tried to create an image of a United Party that not only had nothing to contribute, but whose policies were a danger to White survival in South Africa. Then we had those who tried to draw a red herring through the debate by trying to blow up troubles in the United Party. Then we had those who advanced policies differing from either ourselves or the Government. Lastly we had those who sincerely attempted to defend the policy of the Government against our criticism.

Let us deal with the first group, those who tried to belittle the proposals which we made and tried to belittle this party. Their objective was transparent. They are the propaganda mouthpieces. They aimed to keep their old scare-tactics alive. However, let me tell you that they are lamentably out of date even if it is through no fault of their own, even if they are the victims of their own indoctrination through the years and the indoctrination in their schools and their newspapers and the Broadcasting Corporation. This approach of the Nationalist Party of “over my dead body we will have change” is one which the Government for a quarter of a century has cultivated amongst its own people and supporters, but it is out of date and they are becoming a millstone around the neck of the hon. the Prime Minister, because they are the cause of the rigidity in policy and the difficulties which we have had in the last 25 years during which they have been in power. It is this indoctrination, that sort of attitude, that has led members like the hon. member for Durban Point to estimate that there must be 37 or 38 members on that side of the House who are not going to support the Prime Minister in the changes that he wants to make and the new policies which he wants to adopt. [Interjections.] The hon. members ask me where is my proof. Look at the division in their ranks, the conflicting statements about South West Africa. Look at their reactions to the opening of the Nico Malan Theatre. Look at their attitude in respect of the opening of parks to non-Whites in Pretoria. May I read them a little extract from an article not in an English-language paper, not in a paper which supports this side of the House, but in Die Vaderland, one of their newspapers (translation)—

*Do they all agree with this? I continue (translation)—

Do they all agree with this? What does the hon. member for Waterberg say?

Read what I have written.

He fully agrees with me.

I read further (translation)—

May I put a question to the hon. leader? I am the boss in my caucus; are you the boss in your caucus?

If I were not the boss in my caucus, I would not be here.

†Look at the fields of conflict between these hon. gentlemen on the Coloureds, on the future of South West Africa, on the future of the urban Black man and on the future of petty apartheid. These speakers attempt to belittle the United Party and to scare the public as to what would happen if United Party policies were put into practice, but they are a millstone around the neck of the hon. the Prime Minister in his efforts to achieve change in Southern Africa.

When I ask myself what the situation is, I am going to examine it against the background of the possibility of attaining peace in Southern Africa. What do we have? We have the contribution of those speakers who attempted to distract the attention of the House by having a field-day over the troubles of the United Party. The hon. the Prime Minister was not guiltless in that regard. Let me tell him that, having wasted the time of the House, when he is finished with them, he is still faced with the problems of South Africa. But since he has raised them I am going to deal with certain of those issues. The hon. the Prime Minister has raised the question of the caucus decision which was taken two days ago and other speakers in this House have also raised it. That was a decision taken for disciplinary reasons for gross disloyalty and the most severe penalty the caucus could impose was imposed.

What does Harry say?

Unfortunately what the hon. member for Yeoville said seems to have been the source of a great deal of confusion if one is to read what is reported in the Press. One headline this morning was: “Schwarz defies caucus over sacking—there was no question of disloyalty by Enthoven”. When did the hon. member for Yeoville say that? I have his Hansard here. What he said was:

I have confirmed that with him and that was what he meant. He meant that there was no question of disloyalty, on his part, to the party to which he belonged or to his elected leader. The hon. the Prime Minister suggested that the hon. member for Yeoville had placed an ultimatum before me and before the caucus. What is that ultimatum? The hon. gentleman said—

I want to say quite frankly that on my instructions … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to have a polite audience for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to say quite categorically that the behaviour of this hon. gentleman is being investigated at my request to the chairman of the Transvaal, and when there is a finding, if the hon. gentleman is not prepared to execute it, or if he is unwilling to do so, there are other channels which will ensure that it will be executed. I have no doubt, however, that the hon. gentleman will support me in any action which I think is necessary to be taken. Attempts were also made to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Randburg himself. All I want to say is that as far as I am concerned, he is beginning to skate on rather thin ice. I hope he will be very careful of what he says in future.

One of the proposals that I made was that steps should be taken and a foundation laid for the development of closer relationships in what I call Capricorn Africa. I made those proposals in some detail and they were replied to, I think, only by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The hon. gentleman had a number of things to say about my speech. May I say to him that his speech gave me the impression that he had written it when he saw the motion and that he had not altered it after hearing my speech.

That is so obvious.

He seemed to have misunderstood me on the stigma which attached to migrant labour. I said it was primarily not due to working conditions on the mines. The hon. the Minister misunderstood me there, as was evidenced by his saying that I had not uttered a single word of appreciation for what the Prime Minister had done. He said “not a single word of appreciation”.

In the motion itself.

I am talking of the speech. I go further. He said that I had spoken of “a few miserable signs of success”. That phrase is not in my Hansard. He also suggested that I had created the impression that South Africa was accountable to the United Nations as far as domestic matters were concerned. I specifically stated, however, that that was not so. I said that it was an implied condition of détente in Africa that certain things be done, but I said I was sure that no conditions were laid down for the use of that veto at the United Nations Organization. Now, the hon. gentleman was being an apologist. He dealt first of all with the question of migrant labour and the possibility of our having a charter for migrant labour, White as well as Black, throughout Southern Africa. What did he do? He countered with a number of individual inter-state agreements which are pretty well known, even to me, which offer no protection whatsoever to the White migrant, and which do not affect the position of the Black migrant in any state except South Africa. At the pace at which this Government moves we are going to be years and years away from a charter which is of general application throughout the states of Southern Africa, and which will give satisfactory status to the migrant labourer whatever his colour and in whatever state he works. That is what we want to see developing. The hon. the Minister gives no indication that he will work or strive for it; all he says is that he has these agreements.

As far as minorities are concerned, Black as well as White, he merely points to the difficulties of domestic jurisdiction which, of course, we know all about; He seems to have no constructive ideas. Our idea is a much more imaginative concept. There should be an acceptance of a convention of human rights in Southern Africa, in which the rights of minorities, Black as well as White, will be guaranteed by inter-state agreements mutually throughout the area. It seems to me as if the hon. gentleman does not distinguish, when we talk of internal interference, between freely negotiated agreements between sovereign states and an attempt to interfere in a state from outside, otherwise than by freely negotiated agreements.

A test of his sincerity is this Sarccus that he talks about. It is a regional agreement; it deals with soil conservation. He told us that the former chairman said that they discussed policy regularly. Is that interference in each other’s internal affairs? Surely we could have something of that kind in respect of minorities. This is something that should be discussed by politicians at the highest level and not by soil conservationists alone.

I spoke about inter-state transport and communication. Once again the hon. the Minister spoke of various agreements and of co-operation at technical level. The sort of planning that I envisage, the sort of cooperation that I envisage, is not something that the engineers and the Railways can be talking about. It should be discussed at the highest level by the representatives of the States concerned. When we come to think of those agreements, the hon. member for Durban Point produced one of those agreements and what did we find? A few two-pence ha’penny clauses which do not give any sort of suggestion of co-operation on a grand scale by people who can grasp the whole vision of a transport and communications network planned for the development of the whole area. We spoke of a co-ordinated transport system and I reminded the hon. gentleman of what had happened at the conference there in Pretoria nearly 40 years ago, of the problems of land-locked countries, of the necessity of such a system to stimulate commerce and to stimulate interdependence. So what have we got? I do not want to deal with each of these matters in turn, but I must say something more about two of them.

One was the question of mutual economic and technical aid. What happened? The hon. gentleman fell back on the B.L.S. customs agreement.

Why not?

Of course, why not? It was merely a start. What about the other countries in Africa? The hon. gentleman knows that there was a stage when we were all under one administration and even in the monetary agreement which took place for the B.L.S. countries, I got the impression that South Africa was dragging her feet and that it was more or less forced on us by the other countries. The hon. the Minister speaks of the possibility of an economic bloc in Southern Africa, but why does the hon. gentleman not get moving? He must recognize that the economy of Southern Africa is indivisible. That is the point; that is where we are losing out at the present time. The hon. the Minister talks proudly of trade worth R700 million with Africa. Surely that is a foundation on which to build. Why not a regional industrial development agency as we suggested? There is no reason for not accepting this suggestion.

In regard to the question of energy resources, it seems to me that this is an opportunity not to be missed. African states are nearly all in desperate trouble about their fuel resources. Oil is playing up hell —if I may say so, Mr. Speaker—with their balance of payments position. The greatest single cause which has led to détente in Africa has been the oil shortage and the difficulties that have been experienced in respect of the balance of payments. This is the cause of their deficits and this is why they are wanting to talk. The problem of replacing oil as a source of energy has become so important that elsewhere individual countries, groups of countries and regions are getting together to try and protect themselves. Why is South Africa, which is the leading country in this region, not itself taking an initiative of this kind? The hon. the Minister talks of the tremendous amount of capital that will have to be spent and of the purchases South Africa may have to make in the beginning to keep these things going. However, this concerns the replacement of energy sources and not the creation of vast new supplies or making provision for a vast new consumption. It concerns the replacement of energy sources because of the cost of oil. It seems to me that this affords us an opportunity that is not to be missed. May I say, in passing, that I did not propose at this stage that there should be co-operation in respect of nuclear power in Southern Africa.

There is a last point; it concerns the question of strategic planning. It seems that there is a lack of a comprehensive view of all that is talked about, a lack of a grand strategy or a vision on the part of the Government as to what can be achieved here in Southern Africa. Sir, imagine it, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Information treat the whole idea as though it were appeasement. I would have thought that binding people to you by stronger bonds should not be regarded as appeasement. Binding people to you by stronger bonds is common sense, not appeasement. That is what I am pleading for. It requires adaptation and courage. What is lacking at the present time, is a grand strategic design for peace and prosperity in a wide regional area here in Southern Africa.

We dealt also with the question of South West Africa. I made it perfectly clear that I believed that a rapid solution of this problem could have a double-pronged effect. It could help to achieve détente in Africa and there is no doubt whatever that it would have an effect on our relations with those other countries. If we got détente, it would secure the position of South West Africa in the area. However, I have had no replies to what I feel is the shortcoming at the present time and that is that South Africa is still the administering power in South West Africa. It seems to me that it is abdicating its responsibility and its international commitments by not having control over the manner, the means and the pace of achieving the agreed objectives in South West Africa. What have we heard from the hon. the Minister of Information, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and others? They are still going around to find out who represents the various race groups. This is an occasion where speed is necessary. It seems to me that this is where the Government is falling down. There are going to be interminable delays because of the state of development of the people concerned, the lack of facilities and the size of the Territory, and unless there is Government guidance, unless something is done to get this off the ground, I have no doubt whatever that we are going to take far longer than the period of much less than eight years of the ten years originally forecast, which is the period the hon. the Minister spoke about. I have had no reply from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what role the United Party in South West Africa is going to be allowed to play in these deliberations. I referred to the fact that the hon. the Minister had spoken in Geneva of the recognition of political parties in this process. Apart from the Nationalist Party, the United Party in South West Africa is probably the most important party in the Territory. But we have from him a refusal to put a federal suggestion before any meeting. They say that we can discuss it with them but we cannot argue it and it has been suggested that we should not argue it with the non-White peoples in South West Africa. I think that this is a tragedy; I think that this is a breach of what the hon. the Minister suggested at Geneva. I think that this is a matter which merits the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister himself.

The hon. gentleman asked me what my attitude was in respect of the U.N. and Swapo. Need he ask this? The United Party has always stood by South West Africa and its peoples and will continue to do so. They are the people to be consulted and they are the people who will decide.

I come now to the question of strengthening the position of South Africa itself. We have said that détente in Africa depends on détente at home. The hon. the Prime Minister has dealt at length with the speech made by his ambassador at U.N. because we regard the removal of discrimination as being so very important in getting détente at home. The hon. gentleman has taken the line that all his ambassador undertook was that discrimination would be removed within the policy of separate development. However, I am afraid that if it is to be removed within the policy of separate development then, I do not have much hope for the end of discrimination. Part of the policy of separate development is that the Coloureds will never have a sovereign Parliament; that the Indians will never have a sovereign Parliament; that we will go on discriminating against people on the grounds of the colour of their skin alone. We will discriminate against them hurtfully and continue to do so under the policy of separate development. The story that all discrimination will disappear when there is independence of the homelands, is a story that can no longer be sold to the public and to the Black man in South Africa today. They do not accept it.

What do we mean by discrimination? I think that this is important because when the hon. the Prime Minister talks of discrimination it is quite clear that he and I seem to see things in a different light. He says that it is not discrimination; he says there is what he calls “differentiation”. I wonder if we can agree in regard to the meaning of discrimination. I believe it is largely an academic exercise for us to talk about it.

Ask the hon. member for Durban Point. He will tell you all about it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says that I must ask the hon. member for Durban Point and that he will tell me all about it. Like me, the hon. member for Durban Point has possibly also been on the receiving end of discrimination. I was a prisoner of war and I know what it is like to be discriminated against. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister has experienced it as well.

Yes, in my own country.

In his own country. Then, Sir, it should have been even more pertinent. I ask what we mean in this regard. I say that those at the receiving end can tell us best. To put the matter in its broadest sense, it is a sort of situation that was headlined in an Afrikaans newspaper recently. Again I wish to quote Die Vaderland—

That is how that newspaper described a decision of the Department of Justice refusing eight Blacks to attend a bank staff part/ while allowing Coloured and Indian staff to attend. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? Sir, is that discrimination or is it differentiation? I think we have got to decide what the difference is between the two. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, differentiation is the acknowledgment of the existence of differences which nature, for instance, has decreed shall exist between people—like between a man and a woman, between Whites, Blacks, Indians and Coloureds who can be recognized as groups. But differentiation at this stage has nothing to do with discrimination. Groups may be treated differently. Women athletes as a group do not normally compete against male athletes; that is differentiation, but it would be discrimination if women were not allowed to participate in athletics at all; it would be discrimination if they were not allowed to be members of certain clubs of which men were allowed to be members. Discrimination, Sir, is always an action, a decision, that goes against the wishes and interests of the group concerned, while differentiation could be recognized only in order to protect or further the interests of those concerned. Sir, I believe, that we have to get this meaning quite clear because if we do not, we are going to find ourselves in more and more difficulty in arguing for the things that we feel should be removed in accordance with the Government’s policies and its undertaking. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has used the term “differentiation on the grounds of colour”. What criterion does one apply? When he was asked what this criterion was, he said: “The test will be derived from the multi-national (veelvolkige) concept in South Africa.” In other words, people will be differentiated in terms of their nationhood. Mr. Speaker, if they are differentiated in terms of their nationhood, then obviously all foreigners who came to South Africa should be treated in the same way. But, of course, they are not. If they are Black or Brown they are treated one way, and if they are White they are treated another way. So it has nothing to do with nationhood at all. The true criterion of differentiation as well as of discrimination remains race or colour and not nationhood, and that is the difficulty in which the hon. the Prime Minister has landed, and no attempt to call these things by different names is going to get him out of his problem. Sir, as long as we have discrimination so long are we going to have difficulties with our race relations, and we are not going to get racial co-operation until that is recognized and we have a pattern in which it can be worked. Sir, I think the appointment by the hon. the Prime Minister of members of other races to various boards shows his recognition of the fact that there are areas where the Whites should not decide alone. I think his concession to the Coloured people and the Indians, that they have a right to demand meaningful power, is an acknowledgment of that. I think the creation of a cabinet committee is also an acknowledgment of that. But the problem is that while he acknowledges it, he gives them no meaningful say. He consults them; they can advise but they have no power. Until he is prepared to give them some power in the decision-making, he is going to find that he will never get their full co-operation.

That is exactly what I am giving them and they understand it.

The hon. gentleman says that that is exactly what he is giving them and that they understand it. What power are they getting from the hon. the Prime Minister?

Go and ask them; they will tell you.

I have spoken to them and I am perfectly certain that their views have not changed. What will happen? The hon. the Prime Minister will meet them; he will discuss things with them round a table but, as in the case of a Cabinet, when it comes to the final decision, the Prime Minister will decide.

And I told them so …

Exactly. Where then is the power that is given to them? No power at all is given to them. Sir, with whom was the Prime Minister consulting? He was consulting with the minority party in the Coloured Representative Council, the party that had a minority of the elected representatives. What would have happened if he had consulted with those of the majority?

I would have told them the same thing.

Yes, but what would they have told the Prime Minister? They would have told him that this was no sharing of meaningful power, that they were not satisfied and that they demanded representation in this House of Parliament. That is what they would have told him. Hon. members opposite keep coming up with the suggestion that if we were to have a federal solution it would mean the sacrifice of sovereignty. Sir, there is no sacrifice of sovereignty. The whole essence of federation is that each group has control of its own affairs, and when it comes to matters of common interest there is power in the hands of all the groups concerned. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to do something of that nature there is no argument whatever that he will not get the co-operation of these people.

When I look at the effect of what he is doing on the possibilities of détente in Africa, when I know what a problem discrimination is when one talks with other statesman of the world, and particularly in Africa, when I know what the problem is when one talks to the leaders of certain African states in respect of discrimination, when I know what the problem is when one talks to the homeland leaders here in South Africa on the question of their rights to some share of power, then I feel that the hon. gentleman is falling down in his efforts to bring about détente in Southern Africa. He is handicapping himself before he starts. It is like a man entering a race and carrying a big lead weight with him which prevents him going at full speed. I am afraid the position is going to remain the same as long as we have that sort of policy. Now the Prime Minister has asked for support for an amendment. He says that we support his plans for the future in Southern Africa. Sir, those plans are inadequate. There is no grand strategy, no grand plan or vision for peace and progress in Southern Africa based on mutual dependence, based on policies which have been developed, planned and built on powerful foundations. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that détente in Southern Africa will depend on his ability to achieve détente at home. While he fails to achieve détente at home, while he fails to get full co-operation at home, how can he say that we can support his plans for the future? He is tied down all the time. He is handicapped before he can start running. What undertaking have we got in respect of the removal of discrimination within the policy of separate development? What hope has he in respect of race relations? What hope has he while he denies a federal structure within which to develop? What hope has he in guiding South Africa through the socio-economic revolution which is coming and which he cannot stop, within the confines of the policy of separate development as it is applied at present? What hope has he of peaceful change in South Africa while he follows this policy to which he has got himself wedded at present? What hope has he of fulfilling that destiny in Southern Africa which both he and I believe is something which is South Africa’s responsibility?

You know, Sir, when we started this afternoon we listened to the hon. member for Smithfield who said that this party is “soos ’n hoender wat se kop afgekap is, maar dit skop nog”. May I remind the hon. gentleman that this particular chicken has been kicking pretty hard for the last 36 years. What a chicken, Mr. Speaker! One would have thought that any reasonable man would come to the conclusion that it was still very much alive and kicking hard, but this Government will not face realities. They will not face realities and that is one of the main reasons for our lack of confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.