Order! Before calling upon the first speaker, I just want to point out that in a discussion of this Vote virtually any matter may be discussed and obviously references may also be made to what was said in a previous debate. However, I can allow no reference to anything which was said and subsequently withdrawn, because as far as the Chair is concerned, that does not exist.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask for the privilege of the half hour. The first matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon concerns the alleged complaints in relation to Budget disclosures and their investigation by the Secretary for Finance. As the hon. the Prime Minister knows, any matter concerning the inviolability of the Budget is a matter of the gravest public importance in a democratic country. I believe that in considering this matter there are three precedents which should be called to mind before one arrives at any decision. The first one was the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hugh Dalton, in England in 1947, a case, which. I think, establishes the fact that a very serious view is taken of such matters even where there is no financial gain to anyone. The hon. the Prime Minister will know that in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on his way into the House to deliver his Budget speech, made certain disclosures to a lobby correspondent which resulted in certain aspects of his Budget being on the streets in the newspapers before he had completed his speech. When this matter was drawn to his attention he immediately admitted that he might be responsible and in due course tendered his resignation which was accepted. The second case is the case of Mr. Jim Thomas who was not Chancellor of the Exchequer but was a Minister. I think this establishes that in a country’s interest, in the interests of the financial integrity of a country, a tribunal of inquiry should be appointed and, in this case, was appointed, even though the information available considered mainly of hearsay evidence and to a large extent of rumour. In that case one judge and two silks were appointed without there being any real hard evidence. The report opened with an explanation of the difficulties of the inquiry because there was no accused, no definite charge and there was the necessity to admit a certain amount of hearsay evidence. When the final finding was made, it was limited to direct evidence. What is so important is the fact that without hard evidence before them the Government of the day thought it right that a tribunal of inquiry should be appointed. The third case concerned a certain Press correspondent in the past, George Heard, now deceased, whom it was alleged had had access to Budget secrets. As you will remember, Sir, he was brought before a court for interrogation but refused to reveal the source of his information and was gaoled for ten days for contempt of court. I believe that in a subsequent Supreme Court case the accused was set free, but it was something of a cause célèbre at the time. That I think is evidence of the fact that where there are rumours, where there are indications that there may have been leaks, democratic countries have thought it necessary to make inquiries and to see to it that the officers responsible for the inquiry are not only impartial but clothed with the necessary powers to ensure that a full inquiry and investigation can be made.

Now, Sir, what were the circumstances here? I presume that there were rumours which led to an inquiry to the Secretary for Finance if there was an investigation, and a firm statement from him that he was investigating it. Following upon this there was a nation-wide disclosure by the Press of the fact that an investigation was taking place. In due course came the debate and the denial by the hon. the Minister of Finance that there could have been any disclosure at all, in reply to a question by me, and his characterization of the entire report as being defamation and scurrilous calumny. However, a day or two later we had a press report suggesting that the original allegation had been made to the Secretary for Finance himself and that it had been made by correspondents of two newspapers in Perskor, Die Vaderland and Die Transvaler. Then we had an article by the editor of The Tribune saying that he knew the source of the allegations but, as a Pressman, would not disclose them, but that so did the hon. the Minister of Finance. Did the hon. the Minister of Finance tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he knew what the sources of those allegations were? I think we should know. Then comes the report today, in spite of the categorical statement by the hon. the Minister of Finance in this House, that the Secretary for Finance states that he has not completed his investigations. Where are we? What is happening? Is this a satisfactory position? We have the Secretary for Finance in respect of whose integrity there can be no possible doubt whatever who is charged with the job of investigating a matter of this kind, possibly concerning his own department, possibly concerning certain newspaper correspondents—if these reports are true—but what powers has he to ensure that he gets at the truth? He cannot administer an oath; he has no power to call a witness who does not want to come; he has no power to ensure that papers are made available to him if he wants to see them. What hope has he of ever completing such an inquiry? I think the public has a right to an impartial inquiry by an official clothed with the proper powers so that the matter can be thoroughly probed. I want to remind the Committee that a judicial officer appointed under the Commissions Act has greater powers of investigation than even the Police. I believe that it is right in the interests of the country that such a tribunal should be appointed and that it should be charged with the duty of getting to the bottom of this whole business.

I was challenged by the hon. the Minister as to my role in this matter. May I say that I was asked to comment on certain rumours. I refused to comment on those rumours. I was subsequently told that there was a hard report that the Secretary for Finance was investigating possible Budget leaks. It was clear that there was going to be a nation-wide disclosure of that fact. Here is the statement which I issued. I said—

That, Sir, is still my view at the present time—

In both those cases, Sir, the responsible Ministers were involved personally. It seems that in this case there is no suggestion of that kind. But what is essential is that the public should know exactly what the position is, where these rumours came from, why the investigation took place and what the result of that investigation has been. Sir, it is not adequate that it should be done by an official of the department, however great his reputation for integrity. It must be done by a judicial officer clothed with the necessary power.

That is the first matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister, Sir. The second matter that I wish to discuss with him …

It is of no consequence whatever.

… is the question of détente in Southern Africa, and here I wish, on behalf of myself and the Opposition, to commend the hon. the Prime Minister in his efforts, in his readiness, to take bold initiatives. I want to tell him that here he has the full support of the Opposition. This is something that we had hoped a Prime Minister of South Africa would do.

You opposed it.

That is not true.

I want also to say that we welcome the hon. gentleman’s growing interest in international affairs, but we do trust that he will remember that détente abroad depends in the last resort upon détente in South Africa, and that détente abroad is inseparable from his responsibility for domestic adaptations and changes inside South Africa. I think the success of the hon. the Prime Minister’s efforts has been proved at Dar-es-Salaam, but I think it was a notable achievement by our near neighbours in Zambia, in Tanzania, in Mozambique and to an extent in Rhodesia itself through the Bishop, and by some more distant participants like Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast and spokesman for Senegal and Liberia, that the day for peaceful consultation, for “contract” as it was called, was carried, as opposed to armed confrontation and armed struggle. For the first time in history the OAU stands committed to dialogue with South Africa and that, Sir, however limited it may be, is a tremendous advance. But, Sir, that great tactical victory was not gained without certain significant concessions to the militants. The final report is not yet available but from periodicals that I have been able to study it seems that the suggestion that the OAU should work through U.N. to deny membership of the United Nations to Bantustans granted their independence by South Africa was one that they felt should be pursued. There were also suggestions that there should be measures to tighten the United Nations boycott against South Africa. There were suggestions that there should be a denial of landing rights to the South African Airways in certain areas and that there should be a denial of over-flying facilities to planes flying towards South Africa, and various other matters of that kind. I think what we have to ask ourselves this afternoon is how much has been achieved. I think when we ask ourselves that, then it has to be clearly understood, so far as one can follow the communiqués from this conference, that détente has been agreed to, but it has only been agreed to in respect of the liberation, as they call it, of Rhodesia and South West Africa. In other words, it has been agreed that time should be allowed for consultation on constitutional change free of the pressures of terrorism, but with those objects in view, i.e. settlement of the questions in Rhodesia and South West Africa. The agreement has been reinforced apparently by concerted efforts to deny Zanu and Zapu the use of hostile bases from which to attack Rhodesia and by strong political pressure on them to recognise the authority of the ANC as a body controlling the resistance or, shall I say, terrorist movements outside Rhodesia. This agreement appears to be for a limited time. There has been some suggestion of a period of six months. Whether it has any importance or not I cannot say, but that is one of the reports. I hope it will endure as long as effective constitutional progress is seen to be taking place. May I emphasize again that this is limited to Rhodesia and South West Africa. The papers read at the congress leave no doubt that if the negotiations fail they regard it as imperative to resume the armed struggle. In other words, a price has had to be paid in respect of South Africa itself. Despite the diplomatic initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister, there still seems to be a firm conviction among these people that White domination in South Africa, as they call it, is the ultimate enemy and that South Africa is the final bastion of racial oppression. The working paper put before the congress by President Nyerere put it this way—

Sir, the declaration seems to have escalated the demands of the old Lusaka Agreement in so far as, shall I say, making life unpleasant as far as South Africa is concerned and the application of tougher sanctions against us. The OAU has acceded to diplomatic pressure that time be granted for peaceful settlement, but it seems only in respect of Rhodesia and South West Africa, and it seems to have served notice that South Africa’s own peaceful future in Africa depends on other criteria which are domestic criteria, and they leave no doubt that what they are fighting against are the attitudes, the demands and the beliefs of White supremacy in South Africa. It was summed up in one paper, The Economist, in the following way—

Now, Sir, one knows that the OAU is a body which has not been easy to keep together. One knows that one of the common interests it had—one might almost say one of the obsessions it had—was its common purpose to attack what they call the colonialists and racialists of the White South. They are unlikely, I suppose, to abandon a common purpose of that kind which has been the cause for the unity in the past, very easily. I suppose only time will show whether it is a political convenience or an obsession with them and that political changes in Africa may lead to changes in this sort of approach. But I think that we must face up to the fact that whatever the political changes in Africa, they are unlikely to see excluded from their dislike of us our internal race relationships in South Africa. Would it not be wonderful if instead of giving them a negative cause for unity, the time would come that we could give them a positive motive for unity because of the success of our own policies here in South Africa? We on this side of the House are all grateful for the respite that has been gained at Dar-es-Salaam, but I think it would be dangerous to assume that because of that respite. The overall attitude of Africa towards the Republic has changed. I believe that the reasons for the change at Dar-es-Salaam were, apart from the hon. the Prime Minister’s own diplomatic efforts, probably due to three things. Firstly, the release of Sithole to attend the conference. Was that at the request of our Government? Secondly, the statement by the Zambian foreign minister, Mr. Vernon Mwaanga, that the hon. the Prime Minister had given the assurance that all South African security forces would be withdrawn from Rhodesia by the end of May. I believe that that statement is not entirely correct. The hon. the Prime Minister will no doubt deal with that in due course. Thirdly, there was the statement by Mr. Mwaanga that South Africa had accepted the principle of independence for South West Africa and wanted no part of it for itself. I think that those were the reasons. I do not think that was symptomatic of a change of attitude over the whole of Africa. It would be dangerous to assume that, and it would be even more dangerous to accept the bland suggestion which was made by a spokesman of the SABC last Sunday in the Weekend Newsroom that the gains at Dar-es-Salaam might be due to Africa’s growing approval of the policy of separate development. No, Sir, I think that is wishful self delusion and I should hate to think that anything of that sort would guide our diplomacy.

What has then been the effect of this conference? I believe the effect has been to polarize the situation for Southern Africa into two distinct aspects: The peaceful liberation of Rhodesia and South West Africa on the one hand and the continued pressure on South Africa on the other hand. As far as the position in South West Africa and Rhodesia is concerned, it seems to me that our first task is to be very careful indeed about our priorities. There seems to be a tendency in recent months to treat Rhodesia as the more urgent of the two problems and, as a result, to lose momentum in respect of South West Africa. Perhaps the pressure of events temporarily left us no option, but it is vital to regain the initiative and to do things in our own time, and in our own way. It seems to me that of the two situations, that of South West Africa is much more amenable to effective and rapid action by South Africa. After all, while in Rhodesia we have influence, but not control, South West Africa is a country under the direct control of the South African Government and our Government is held directly responsible by the international community for that Territory’s further constitutional progress. Therefore it is vital for us to keep the initiative, to lead the Territory swiftly and safely to its agreed destination, a destination as agreed by this Government and a destination to which this Government has committed itself, namely self-determination and independence. Believe me, you do not have to be a prophet to suggest that if we fail to maintain visible progress, there are others who will not hesitate to try to put their oar in. Pressures at the United Nations—as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows —are steadily growing in intensity.

The Organization for African Unity in Dar-es-Salaam has again stated the claim of Swapo as a rightful liberator and claimant to eventual power. Notwithstanding détente and Swapo’s lack of a broad support in South West Africa, and may I say that we as a party agree entirely that it has no broad support in South West Africa—notwithstanding these things, we cannot afford to allow the situation to be bedevilled by external intervention of an irresponsible kind. That is fundamental.

On the other hand I believe that an effective and peaceful settlement in South West Africa under South Africa’s sponsorship, could gain us much goodwill amongst the responsible nations of the Western world and could create an opportunity for them to use their influences and their good offices on our behalf. I believe that we are going to have need of such good offices and the extra time that they can give, if a satisfactory solution is to be found in Rhodesia, because Rhodesia is a far more intractable problem than South West Africa, firstly, because of its population ratios and, secondly, because of the unreliability of some of the leading parties involved. I have seen a report in The Star of 14 April indicating that in 19 areas of Rhodesia, all Native trust lands, there have been no less than 199 incidents all caused by guerillas since the cease-fire in December to 5 April 1975. I have no doubt that there were many more that we do not know about. When you have that sort of situation arising with such frequency and over such a wide area, it makes it perfectly clear that in respect of this organization, Zanu, the Lusaka Agreement exists on paper only and that they ignore it entirely. This makes one realize something else, viz. that it is not at all certain that the time Rhodesia needs for peaceful progress will not exceed the time gained by diplomacy for that purpose. I believe that there is no more priceless asset we could get for Rhodesia than sufficient time to make peaceful adjustments which are inevitable, but, nevertheless, very complex indeed. Already there are those who are accusing us of saying that our attitude is: Do not do as I do, but do as I say. I believe that we would not only have gained more time for Rhodesia, but that we would also have gained more credibility in Rhodesia if we could pioneer the way to peaceful constitutional change in South West Africa. It is important that we should get our ideas about Rhodesia itself clear. It seems to me that there is far too much muddled thinking and far too much at stake for that muddled thinking to be allowed to go on.

As we see it, South Africa, has sentimental ties and common interests with Rhodesia that can neither be forgotten, nor denied. We also have a duty and an obligation to assist Rhodesia in its time of trial. We cannot abandon Rhodesia or be indifferent to the fact that the minorities in Rhodesia have certain rights as do the majorities. It must also be clearly understood that the rights of neither the majorities nor the minorities will be served by conflict and violence. That can only end in disaster, in an endless war of economic attrition and grave destruction on both sides. I believe that South Africa cannot and must not encourage anyone to believe that it will be party to such a situation or that it will give support to those who seek to bring about such a situation. The only enduring solution is going to be found along the path of peace and negotiation. I believe that it should be South Africa’s purpose to use all its influence to secure a permanent solution to this problem. I believe that solution is one in which the rights of all who live in Rhodesia is recognized and respected. It is only along those lines that we can help to guarantee peace and progress in Southern Africa, and it is only in that way that we can truly help Rhodesia. Incidentally that will be of advantage, not only to Rhodesia, not only to Southern Africa, but also of tremendous advantage to the Republic itself.

I have described détente in respect of South West Africa and Rhodesia as one of two aspects of the situation following Dar-es-Salaam. It is a positive and constructive aspect, but as I have said, there is an unknown time limit For how long is there going to be a cease-fire? For how long will Zambia and others continue to deny guerilla forces hostile bases? For how long is there going to be constitutional discussions? We do not think we know these things. I have said before there is a report of six months having been mentioned. That time must be used effectively, and to do that I believe that we have to keep the initiative; we must get our priorities in the right order. I believe that the Prime Minister’s first duty, a duty which is now clearly overdue for it is already mid April 1975, is to tell this House in the clearest terms what immediate and positive progress he has in view for South West Africa. I believe that while the Prime Minister has no time to waste, he does still have some time. I do not know whether the deadline of May 30, laid down by the United Nations, still stands or whether as a result of the recognition of the contributions towards detente made by South Africa, there is liable to be any relaxation. I do know, however, that many of the Western countries of the world recognize that there has been some progress in South West Africa in the field of inter-group consultation. I believe that that is, in fact, so. I believe there is also the prospect of a constitutional conference in which duly nominated representatives of the main communities and tribal groups will participate. I want to say straightaway that it is difficult to see how Swapo can play any useful part in such a conference.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I assume that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet concluded his argument, and if he would like to have more time, I take pleasure in suggesting that he be given more time.

Mr. Chairman, I am greatly indebted to the hon. the Prime Minister. I hope not to abuse the graciousness of the House in that regard. I was saying that it is difficult to see how Swapo can play any useful part in such a conference. It is our information on this side of the House that the organization does not enjoy the support or confidence of any major group at all in South West Africa, not even of the Owambo group. I do not believe it enjoys any support even from any important minority in South West Africa at the present time. It is clear on the other hand that the United Party minority in South West Africa does represent the views of an important sector of responsible South West African opinion and that it exceeds in numbers many of the tribal groups which are going to be represented at the conference. It has firm and constructive proposals that it wishes to make towards the solution of the problems of a plural society. I believe that those views should be heard, even if only in a consultative and not a directly representative capacity. If there is to be an exploratory meeting to seek common ground before a full constitutional conference is held, I believe that that would be an appropriate occasion to test the potential acceptability of a federal solution. There is something else I want to say. While I have no doubt at all that the appointed or elected members of the executive council in South West Africa have taken certain useful initiatives, it seems to me impractical that persons who will be seen to represent the interests of a particular community at an inter-community conference, can successfully play the role of sponsor and regulator at the consultations. I wonder, therefore, whether the Prime Minister would not do well to appoint a person of outstanding status, and I would hope of international experience, possibly someone of ambassadorial rank, to play the guiding role and to act as an impartial arbiter in the complex negotiations that lie ahead and indeed to promote and expedite such a conference which I regard as vitally important in the interests of the future of the country.

I also want to express the hope that in addition to ensuring that the conference will be as broadly representative as possible, it should also be possible to ensure that the more enlightened elements of the Territory are represented because I do not think that there is any time now for wrangling about past ideas and concepts. I believe that the people who should be at that conference should be realists who realize what South West Africa is faced with in the modern world and what its situation is at the present time.

Then there is a third matter in connection with South West Africa and this I think is of particular importance to the hon. the Prime Minister whose portfolio this is. That is that everything must be done to ensure that public confidence in South Africa is maintained. It would be idle to deny that there has been some loss of confidence as a result of the events in Angola and Mozambique and because of the general uncertainty as to what the position of minorities is going to be in South West Africa when South Africa has fulfilled its role in bringing South West Africa to self-determination and independence in a manner not yet specified by the hon. the Prime Minister or by anybody else in South West Africa. I believe that continued investment and consistent progress depend essentially on the confidence of the people and no constitutional solution, however ingenious, will be of any avail at all if economic progress and stability are not maintained. The hon. the Prime Minister has undertaken specific commitments in respect of South West Africa, one of which was, some three years ago, that there would be a completion of this process within a period of ten years. Since then an ambassador of the Republic to the United Nations Organization indicated that that period may be even shorter. It seems to me that time is of the essence and that there is no time to be gained by any further misunderstanding of the kind which led the Security Council to accuse South Africa’s Government of insincerity and double talk on this issue. There are already others who want to seize the initiative. We have seen what happened at the Dar-es-Salaam conference, once again in an attempt to advance the interest of Swapo. It was reported this week that Mr. Kissinger, the American Foreign Minister, may propose that a referendum be held as a basis for further advance. That has subsequently been denied in another news report. It is difficult for us to know what the situation is, and perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister could inform us. It seems to me that it is vitally important that South Africa because of its own responsibility and because of its intimate knowledge of the Territory, should retain the initiative because intervention from other sources, however well intentioned, at this critical and delicate stage, can only complicate the issue beyond words. I believe that it is incumbent upon the hon. the Prime Minister to take the initiative now, to show the firmness of his control and to give proper direction to what is happening.

I may sum up very rapidly by saying that efforts at détente should be continued and intensified and will have the full support of the official Opposition. The time gained must be urgently used and the right priorities followed. That means more rapid and active initiatives in South West Africa and the clarifying of the position in respect of Rhodesia. The strategy of the OAU to continue pressurizing South Africa and to try to use South West Africa and Rhodesia as front-line areas against South Africa when liberated, means ever greater vigilance and ever greater effort to strengthen our own position—economically and militarily—and in developing inter-racial goodwill amongst our own people. In other words, détente abroad, now as never before, depends upon détente at home because no Black country at present overtly hostile to South Africa would be able to hold out for any length of time if it is faced with the full support of our own Blacks for our own Government, our own country and our own institutions. For continued détente to be achieved, it is necessary that those supporting dialogue with South Africa, in the belief that Government policy will lead to peaceful change towards a more just society in South Africa, should see progress made and be able to produce proof that progress has been made.

Those are the views I should like to place before the hon. the Prime Minister in opening the debate on this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage, apart from thanking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for his support, I do not intend replying to the important, indeed the vitally important matters to South Africa to which he referred. I do not think it would be fair if I were to reply to these at once, because I assume there are several other speakers who want to deal with these matters and for that reason I think it would be best if I were to reply to every one on a later occasion, once I have heard all the different points of view. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will realize that there is more than one leader in the House at present. In fact, one of them is not even in the House at the moment.

Japie?

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will excuse me, I should prefer to come back to all these matters at a later stage in this debate.

Actually, I am on my feet just because there is one matter which I want to have done with immediately, and that is the silly story of a leak of the Budget. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently regarded it as so important that he began with it, something which necessarily has to give outsiders the impression that it is of greater importance than the vitally important matters with which we are dealing, the vital problems which South Africa faces. I have referred to this matter as a “silly story”; in fact, I think that it is an unsavoury affair and that it was published—not by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—in a most irresponsible way.

Let me deal first with the relevant report itself, as it appeared in Die Burger of 25 March. For the sake of the record, I want to quote the relevant part. The insinuation in the original report was that Die Burger was in possession of Budget secrets before the Budget was delivered here in this House. What did Die Burger, which had Budget secrets in its possession according to this gossip, actually write? Let me just say in passing that the only basis of the gossip seems to me to be journalistic jealousy. Die Burger wrote (translation)—

Surely a school boy in Std. VI with no more than a passing interest in politics, would have known that pensioners are given relief every year and that relief would come this year as well. Die Burger went on to write (translation)—

Once again, a Std. VI pupil could have written that, for the simple reason that there had been a great deal of speculation and prompting in the public Press that something be done in this connection. The other aspect is the question of the increased fuel prices with which he dealt first. Die Burger wrote as follows (translation)—

Let me say at once that this story about a neutral Budget was foreshadowed in other newspapers as well. Die Burger proceeded (translation)—

Die Burger then quoted further what Senator Horwood had said in this connection and concluded as follows (translation)—

Once again this was a matter which was general knowledge and the newspaper concerned stated the basis on which it grounded this speculation, a speculation which, as I have said, any newspaper could have made and which other newspapers did in fact make. Therefore it surprises me that this newspaper in particular should be singled out, and I ask myself for what reason. It must be borne in mind that no figures were mentioned, neither in respect of pensions, nor the increase in fuel prices, nor the improvement in the tax position of women. In other words, ex facie this report, there is absolutely nothing which can indicate that Die Burger had it in its possession. On the contrary. I want to state it categorically as my conviction that Die Burger did not have it in its possession. As I have said, ex facie this report, there is nothing to indicate that. But the Sunday Tribune, in order to arouse suspicion, without quoting the report from Die Burger, or without first conveying to another colleague the essence of its, report, came along and said—

Sir, that can mean only one thing to the uninitiated reader, viz. that it was correct with chapter and verse. That is the impression which this report was trying to create in this regard. Sir, let us, just for the sake of the record, look at a few other newspapers in this connection. Take The Argus. The Argus also wrote about the increase of the petrol price before the Budget—

But the Argus went much further than Die Burger. The Argus went so far as to say—

It so happens that the increase is between those two figures. But nobody—because that would be absurd—has insinuated that the Argus had the information. Sir, Sunday’s Rapport foreshadowed that there would be concessions for the working wife in Minister Horwood’s Budget. But Die Vaderland of 21 March, several days before Die Burger wrote about this and five days before the Budget, had the following report (translation)—

Sir, if Die Burger were to have had this information in its possession, then various questions arise. One is: Why did it not give the details in its report of the 25th? But, in the second place, if it did have it in its possession, why did it not give it to its afternoon newspapers, viz. Die Volksblad and Die Oosterlig? They did not even have this information there that afternoon, not before their late editions, after the Minister had delivered his Budget speech here. Then surely the whole thing is absurd, Sir. I say that ex facie what Die Burger wrote, there is nothing which indicates that it had the information. But in the second place, I am convinced from the inquiry which I made myself, that there was no leakage. Furthermore, the fact is that that which is known about this does not even justify an inquiry in terms of the Act in terms of which the late Mr. George Heard was brought before Parliament. I have caused inquiries to be made into this matter, and the allegations which were made do not even justify the writer of this article being brought before that court. There is nothing for which one can bring him before that court, otherwise I should have caused him to be brought there. My hon. friend looks for his precedents far afield, while he could look for them close by. He did refer to this as well, to the Heard case, and I quote now from an article in the Sunday Express written by Mr. John R. Neame on 11 May 1971, in which he wrote about this case as follows—

The result was, ex facie the report which Mr. Heard had written, that it was clear to the then authorities, or so they believed, that he must have had access to the Budget, so much so that they summoned him before the court. However, he refused to divulge the source of his information. As a result of that, he was sentenced for contempt of court, because he had refused to inform the court how he had obtained certain particulars of the Budget. The sentence was suspended for a week, because he had lodged an appeal at the time, and from time to time he was brought before the court, but the appeal was still pending. My information is that the appeal was heard in the Cape Supreme Court on 19 April by Mr. Justice Van Zyl and Mr. Justice Davis, who gave judgment on 4 May that the official Secret Act was in fact applicable in South Africa, and that Heard had consequently been found guilty rightly, because the grounds of his appeal were that the Official Secrets Act was a British Act which did not apply in South Africa. But the fact is that the United Party was in power. There was very clearly a leakage of the Budget, so clear was it to the authorities of that time, that the matter was taken to court. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other leaders are priously asking for a judicial commission of inquiry. One was never appointed in this case. Here where a leakage had taken place and where it was clear that a leakage had taken place, no commission of inquiry was appointed. What is more, there were no insinuations that Mr. Havenga should resign. There was no talk in Parliament such as the talk there has been in this case, and no interviews were given to newspapers such as those which have been given in this case. Ex facie the document itself, there is no offence or leak. The department and I know of no leak whatsoever at this stage. The people who have been approached could give no evidence about a leakage. All that we have before us is a piece of gossip. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expect me to ask for a judicial inquiry on the grounds of a piece of gossip? I am not prepared to do so. I did give instructions for a continuous inquiry to be made into this matter, just in case it may perhaps be possible, which I cannot even foreshadow at this stage, that it did happen, and then I shall act, because then I am obliged to act. I want to state very clearly that before and until there is evidence which I can lay before a commission, I am not prepared to appoint such a commission. I honestly believe that it was not in the best interests of anyone, nor in the interest of my hon. friend, to have attached so much value to this matter as to have raised it right at the beginning of my Vote in the way in which he did. I reject any insinuation whatsoever that my colleague Senator Horwood is involved in this matter in any way. In fact, even the gossip does not mention his name and does not involve him. It is only the report in the Tribune which makes oblique insinuations is respect of him.

To me it is very clear that the whole purpose of this story was to prejudice the Minister and also journalistic jealously to prejudice another newspaper. That is the sum total of the truth in the matter at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome the Prime Minister’s initiative in taking this early opportunity to— as he put it—get this thing out of the way. However, we appreciate his intention more than we admire the effect of what he has said because the hon. The Prime Minister has not dealt with the main charge which was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister started by questioning the priority which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave to this question. He questioned us both at the beginning of his speech and at the end of his speech He asked why it should be that on an important occasion like this, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should deal with a matter which, he, the hon. the Prime Minister, himself regarded as so trivial. Well, there is one immediate answer to that, which is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had tried to raise the matter earlier this week. He was able to put two questions to this House which, gave rise to an extremely lengthy and angry reply by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Thereafter the occasion was sought for a half-hour debate but the Speaker ruled this as inadmissible on the grounds that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have an early opportunity to raise it on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. Not only did the Speaker indicate the early opportunity that should be taken; he in fact virtually obliged the Leader of the Opposition to use the very first occasion which was available to him after the refusal of the half-hour debate.

That is the first point. The second point is that this is indeed a very serious matter. The hon. the Prime Minister started off by saying that it was most distasteful and irresponsible to raise this question in the House. I would readily agree that this kind of accusation is indeed distasteful and, if it is proved to be inaccurate, also irresponsible. The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to exempt to some extent the Leader of the Opposition from the accusation, because the record is perfectly clear. At no time did the Leader of the Opposition make any accusation against any person. In his statement he in fact specifically dissociated himself from any rumour whatsoever. He said that he had no information. What he did do, was to take account of two things which are incontrovertible. The first was that he knew that an inquiry was taking place at a high, level. It was admitted that an inquiry was taking place inside the Department of Finance and that it was being conducted by the permanent Secretary of that department, That was a hard fact.

The second hard fact which, is also of importance was that he knew that nation-wide currency was going to be given to that report. If it is not important that an allegation of a Budget leak will be given nationwide currency, then what is important in our public life? What was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s reaction to those two hard facts? Firstly, he dissociated himself from any allegation or rumour. He did, however, say that these two facts were hard facts and, this being the case, the investigation carried out must be such as to reassure the public.

What about the other hard fact that there was no basis for the rumour whatsoever?

I shall come to that. The position is that there were two hard facts available … [Interjections.] May I please continue? There were two hard facts available and, on the basis of these two hard facts, the Leader of the Opposition said: “Let there be an independent inquiry, let there be a judicial inquiry.” It is perfectly obvious that, in a matter of this kind, public unrest, if it is created by the nation-wide publication of this allegation, cannot be stilled if there is a private inquiry into the interests of a particular department by the head of that department. We have the greatest respect for the person conducting this inquiry. In the nature of things it is, however, contrary to the principles of common law that this should be done. There must surely be an independent inquiry in order that unrest may immediately be put to rest.

The hon. the Prime Minister then went on and dealt at very great length with the allegation that Die Burger had published information which was eventually found to be contained in the Budget. At no stage have we on this side of the House based any kind of accusation on the fact that Die Burger made a good guess. We have not suggested that Die Burger was inspired, that it was clever or that it had had a leak. We agree with, the hon. the Prime Minister; it is frequently the case that perspicacious journalists analyse a Budget in advance, and they make some pretty good guesses. Now, this is not the case. This is not the cause of complaint. There has certainly been an accusation suggesting that Die Burger was very close in its guess. However, that did not come from the Opposition. We are asking that this matter be investigated. If Die Burger can show that it was half right and half wrong, that is part of its defence in an investigation. However, that is the business of Die Burger and of the tribunal. It is not the business of this House, nor, I venture to say with respect, is it the business of the hon. the Prime Minister. He cannot sit in judgment in this case. The hon. the Prime Minister is not judge and jury in South Africa. He has a very high responsibility, but he does not have the right or the responsibility to try and to judge people who stand accused of certain things. I do believe that the hon. the Prime Minister was entirely right in causing an investigation to be held, but how can we and the Prime Minister be satisfied, even though this investigation is most assiduously carried out by a most honest man, that that investigation carried out in the corridors of his own Government is necessarily a reliable one?

I am telling you that there is not a jot or tittle of evidence to take to anybody.

I readily accept that in the hon. the Prime Minister’s personal view there is not a jot or tittle of evidence. I would like to know, however, from an independent tribunal whether they also believe so. I should like to conclude by just quoting a very relevant precedent. In the case of Thomas, which was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, there were certain allegations made. There was no hard evidence whatsoever. Mr. Thomas, the colonial secretary, denied absolutely that there had been any leakage whatsoever. His colleagues were also prepared to stand behind him. At that stage there was not even an inquiry by the permanent Secretary to the Treasury. There was not even a suggestion of hard evidence. There was a growing rumour from the “City” of London that someone had taken advantage of the Budget. That is what happened. The Prime Minister of that time took the right attitude, saying that he did not care about the denial and would put the matter right. He said he would clear any doubts in the public mind and appointed a tribunal to investigate that soft evidence, that hearsay evidence.

Because there happened to be a leak in that case.

There was no evidence. The hon. the Prime Minister is putting the cart before the horse. The hard facts were discovered after the tribunal had sat, not before. The hon. the Prime Minister is trying to establish hard facts before the tribunal has sat. That is the difference. They did not believe there were any hard facts but they nevertheless held the inquiry. Because the inquiry was held which could subpoena witnesses, administer the oath and call for documents and evidence; and they discovered that despite all denials and the improbability of the rumour, there was, in fact, an offence. This is what happened, and this is a very important precedent. I believe that this is a precedent that should be followed in our case. I want to add that I am not here to defend the newspaper that wrote those reports. I believe, however, that it is only fair to say as well that a newspaper has certain rights as well as certain obligations. I believe that if a newspaper obtains unproven information affecting public order, or matters of public importance in this country, it has a duty to check whether there is any semblance of truth in such a story before it makes it public. In this case, to their credit, the newspapers did check. They made telephone calls. They tried to get in touch with the Minister, who was out of town. They got in touch with the Secretary for Finance, who confirmed that there had been a complaint and that it was being investigated. It was only then that they exercised their right to communicate this information to the public. I would say that this was an example of what should be done in the case of such rumours.

Mr. Chairman, when a matter such as this arises and a decision has to be taken as to whether a judicial inquiry is to take place, one should first ask whether or not there is any indication of there really having been a leakage of information concerning the Budget. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with this argument in a very clear way, and I think he proved convincingly from the report in Die Burger itself, that there had been no leak. We must remember that the gossip which appeared in the Sunday Tribune, referred specifically to Die Burger. From the report of Die Burger itself, the Prime Minister said, with all respect, correctly that there could have been no leak. I think we can just add this to what the hon. the Prime Minister said here, viz. that Die Burger was actually completely wrong on one specific point, and that is that it said with reference to the increase of petrol prices, “It has been surmised that it will become operative on 1 April”. In this connection, the Budget says, and I quote—

A question which must occur immediately to any objective observer is, if Die Burger did in fact have the Budget, why did it make an incorrect prediction on the facts? In this one important respect, Die Burger’s reporting is wrong and this gives an indication that there was no leakage of information to Die Burger at all. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to what had happened in England. If he goes into that case, he will see that there was in fact a positive, objective indication of a leak before the investigation took place. It was on those grounds that the investigation could be justified, so as to ascertain the source of the leak. In this case, we say that Die Burger’s report as a speculation is party wrong and party right. What is important, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. other leaders must deal with this, is that Die Burger denies this matter. On Monday, immediately after this report had appeared in the Sunday Tribune, Die Burger denied it in a report and said that it was ridiculous. In an editorial on 15 April, Die Burger said the following (translation)—

We must take up a standpoint about this and ask ourselves whether we believe that there was a leak or not. If one does not believe that there was a leak oneself, how can one ask that it be investigated? I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to make a contribution to this debate and tell us across the floor of this House whether he believes Die Burger when it says that nothing was leaked to it. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must come to the point. He asks for an inquiry, but if he himself does not believe that something went wrong, how can he ask for an inquiry except in an attempt to come to hidden motives? I ask him across the floor of this House whether he believes Die Burger when it says that nothing was leaked to it? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not be afraid; he can tell us. Nor does he need to laugh, rather let him tell us across the floor of this House whether he believes that there was a leakage to Die Burger or not. I cannot understand what his problem is. He wants an inquiry, but if he wants an inquiry, surely that must be because he thinks that something is wrong. Does he think that there was in fact a leak? If he tells me that he does not believe Die Burger, I think that he will perhaps be standing on firmer ground. I shall tell hon. members, and I challenge him to deny it, that he knows that there was no leak. I challenge him across the floor of this House to deny that he knows that there was no leak.

That is untrue.

What is untrue?

What you have just said.

Let us be clear about this. Does he believe this denial of Die Burger or does he not believe it—yes or no?

Make your own speech.

I am making my own speech, but I want to come to the facts of this matter. I turn now to the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party, the hon. member for Sea Point. Does he believe Die Burger’s denial or does he not believe it?

Do you believe Die Burger?

I accept the denial of Die Burger. The hon. the leader of the Progressive Party can tell us whether he believes it or not. I shall tell hon. members what the position is. The hon. members who stood up here and asked that a commission of inquiry be appointed—that includes the hon. member for Yeoville— know that there was no leakage to Die Burger in this connection. Now, if they know …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not want to reply to a question from the hon. member. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if one asks them about the personal standpoint they take up on the basis of the facts, we shall find that they know in their hearts that there was no leak. Now we ask ourselves why they want an inquiry. It is important that we know. I believe that this is an opportunistic political action, and that the matter has been raised with the motive of giving the Minister of Finance, Senator Horwood, a slap in the face as they have a special dislike of him because he is an English-speaking member of the National Party. [Interjections.] Their motive is an opportunistic motive. There is another motive as well. We have three Opposition leaders here at present, and the one thought there might perhaps be something to this story. So he saddled this horse, because he was afraid that, if he did not, he would lose the initiative to one of the other leaders in regard to this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knew that the hon. member for Yeoville is very presumptious. So he said to himself, “This man will saddle this horse immediately, and perhaps he will take some more of my men away; so I must beat him to it and saddle the horse myself”. The hon. member for Sea Point also has much to lose in this connection. He came here with the promise that he would be dynamic, that he would achieve things and drive the Government into a corner. That is why they act in this way. But, this thing is a wind-egg; it dropped and nothing but wind issued forth.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member who has just spoken have not satisfied the House that an inquiry into this matter is not necessary. In fact, they have merely stressed the importance of holding an inquiry as soon as possible. What did the hon. member who has just sat down tell us that is new? All he has done is to quote Die Burger. What Die Burger has told us about the matter, he has told us as well. He asks my leader whether he believes Die Burger’s statement or not. The question is not whether the Leader of the Opposition believes Mr. Cillie’s statement or not. I would like to quote something to the hon. member from this morning’s Cape Times. One of the newspaper’s correspondents reports—

What was his reaction? I quote—

Obviously this correspondent must have his doubts as to whether Mr. Cillie or Die Burger had received information beforehand. [Interjections.] The question is not whether Die Burger used the information which it had if it had any information, nor whether it used it correctly or at all. The question is whether it in fact had a preview of the Budget. The fact that Die Burger did not come out with an exact forecast of what the Budget contained is not surprising. Even if they did have the Budget, there was no necessity to disclose it. The Budget is such a neutral one that there is nothing sensational in it. Had there been something sensational to disclose, they would probably have done so. The hon. the Prime Minister says that this is a trivial matter. I cannot see how the hon. the Prime Minister can possibly say that after having listened to his own Minister. What did the hon. the Minister of Finance say? He said the allegations were “very grave, very crisp and narrow”. He used the most extravagant language. He said it was a “ridiculous statement”, a “scurrilous statement”, a “scandalous statement” and “scurrilous calumny”. He was clearly most upset when dealing with this matter. What were the allegations as stated by him? Let me read from his Hansard.

We have heard it all before.

I want to point out why it is so necessary that we have an inquiry. It is because of the very serious view taken by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance considered this a most serious matter. In fact, he said they were going to take action. We want to know what action is going to be taken. The hon. the Minister quoted from the Tribune. He said: “Finance Secretary orders …” and then he interpolated “ ‘how did they know’— probe”. The Finance Secretary ordered a probe and the Minister asked: “How did they know?” How did the newspaper know? The newspaper asked the Secretary and the Secretary for Finance gave it the information. They did not suck it out of their thumb. The hon. the Minister told us that the Secretary for Finance had ordered an inquiry. Therefore, the report in the paper was true that an inquiry was being held; the Secretary for Finance was investigating the matter. What we want to know is: What is the Secretary for Finance investigating? Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us. What is the hon. the Prime Minister investigating? If, as the hon. member who has just sat down says, it is true that there is nothing in it, if the hon. the Prime Minister is convinced and has no doubt at all in his own mind that this is false, what is he investigating?

I am investigating the rumour.

How is the hon. the Prime Minister doing it? How is he investigating the rumour? Who is investigating it for him? The hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the question of Iscor. He said that there had been this type of insinuation before. What did he do about Iscor? He put the police on to the matter. The police made a thorough investigation and after the police had completed their investigations, the hon. the Minister came to us and said that there was no truth in the rumour because the police had reported to him. What happened in the Faros case? Do we remember how the Deputy Minister of Transport behaved in the Senate? He behaved in exactly the same way as the hon. the Minister of Finance behaved in this House. He was insulting. It was exactly the same thing. He was not going to hold an inquiry. He had been assured by his officials that there was nothing wrong. His officials had investigated the matter and there was nothing wrong. What happened then? Eventually the Minister was compelled to appoint a commission. He did this in order to show up Senator Monty Crook for the scandalmonger that he was. He said that he hoped that Senator Crook would have the courage to appear before that commission. What happened? Senator Crook did have the courage. He did appear before that commission and we all know the result of that Faros inquiry. I say, therefore, that it is not sufficient simply to take the assurance of officials that there is nothing behind this story.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said that the issue was a public scandal and could not be allowed to continue. I quote from his Hansard. This is what he said—

He went on to say—

If that is so, what is the hon. the Minister doing? What is the hon. the Prime Minister doing? What are they doing to find out whether the newspaper has behaved in a shocking manner? Is he checking up on the newspaper to find out where they got the information from? You see, Sir, when the hon. the Minister of Finance dealt with this matter in the House he wanted to know what the chairman of The Argus group was going to do and what the board was going to do about it because they had appointed this “shocking” man, this editor Well, “the shocking” man, the editor has replied. He has replied twice, in yesterday’s Argus and in this morning’s Cape Times. What did he say in this morning’s Cape Times? He went even further than he did before. Now we see there is the allegation that Mr. Browne got his information from the correspondents of Die Transvaler and Die Vaderland. There we have another allegation. Here we have a direct allegation as to where Mr. Browne got his information from. It is stated that he got it his information from journalists working for Die Vaderland and Die Transvaler. Is the matter just going to be left at that? How can it just be left? What was the information Mr. Browne got? If a judicial commission is appointed, the judicial commissioner can question Mr. Browne. He can ask him what the information was that he received. Anybody can be supoenaed to appear before that commission and give evidence under oath. They can be compelled to give that evidence. We know that there are people who can be approached. We know that there are people who can be brought before this commission and asked, “What do you know about this scandalous thing?”

Two journalists.

Yes, there are two journalists. If the editor of The Tribune has behaved in such a scurrilous manner, surely he should be dealt with; surely his paper should be dealt with. As a representative of that paper, he can be called upon to appear before the commission and his paper can be dealt with. He can be asked where he got his information, and the whole matter can be gone into. I am surprised, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister should say that this is a simple matter.

It is a silly story.

If it is so silly, why did the Minister of Finance make such, a fuss about it in this House?

†Why did he behave as he did? Just look at the language he used, Sir; he said that this was a sordid matter, and he went on to say—

The hon. the Minister said that the Government was not going to allow this sort of thing to continue and that he was going to take action. What action is he going to take? The Minister made it quite clear that the Government was not going to allow this position to continue. Sir, I ask the Prime Minister: What did his Minister mean when he said that; what action is he going to take? Or is the Prime Minister going to leave the position as it is now in spite of the suggestion of impropriety and dishonourable conduct in our Government? You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Finance said that this was a reflection on Parliament and on the whole democratic institution. I say that the Prime Minister cannot leave the matter as it is now; he has got to take more action than he has.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition persists in stating that there should be a judicial inquiry into this matter. On the basis of what hard or soft evidence is there any justification for calling for a judicial inquiry?

Have you not been listening?

I have been listening, and there has been no evidence whatsoever to justify this call for an inquiry. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Von Brandis spoke of soft evidence and hard evidence in previous cases. In this particular instance there has been evidence of allegations, but there has been no evidence, either hard or soft, of any leakage whatsoever. There has not been the slightest evidence or indication that there has been a leakage …

That is what you hope.

… and nobody on the Opposition benches has indicated that they believe or are inclined to believe that there is any indication at all of an actual leakage. The only evidence there is is that there has been an allegation, but that allegation might have been made for jealous journalistic reasons and for no other apparent reason. Sir, to suggest that on the basis of that allegation there should be a judicial inquiry is absolute nonsense. But, Sir, there is far more to it than this. There is the question of responsibility to the image not of the Government, not of the Minister of Finance, but of authority in high places. Sir, what is happening here is that some journalists are trying to undermine the whole value of authority. In saving this, I am not excusing any section of the Press, either English or Afrikaans. I want to state categorically that not only in the South African Press, but throughout the world, there is a campaign to vilify authority in high places. What is important is that the Opposition should realize their responsibility in this particular role. In reacting in the way they did, or in the way in which they were reported to have reacted, to the questions that were raised by a reporter, they are in fact lending credence to this campaign of vilification. They are lending credence to this campaign of terrorizing authority … [Interjections.] … because it is nothing less. It is not based on evidence; it is based on a campaign of vilification. Sir, let us get this quite clear. The United Party have also been victims of this campaign of vilification and they have smarted under it, so they should not try to play innocent as far as that is concerned. What is most important is that the Opposition should co-operate with the Government of this country to try to stop this campaign that is being waged increasingly by some journalists, not by all journalists, because most journalists are most responsible, but there are some who can be described only as journalistic terrorists. The Opposition has a duty of responsibility in this campaign to try to stop this type of vilification of authority generally. Sir, in a country which is in such a delicate situation as South Africa is, it is most important that there should not be destruction of order or of correct authority. If there is a fault, by all means criticize to the ultimate, but then have justification for your criticism. In this particular instance there is no apparent justification for these insinuations. It is perfectly obvious that there has been a campaign launched against certain individuals, and the campaign against the Minister of Finance in South Africa, against Senator Owen Horwood, appears to be stronger than the campaign against other individuals, for the simple reason that the history of political division in this country requires most English-speaking people not to be supporters, or open supporters, of the National Party. Let the country and the Opposition appreciate this problem which is facing South Africa. In South Africa, as far as the outside world is concerned, as far as Africa and Europe and America are concerned, there is no distinction between English and Afrikaans. What is important is that here in Africa we are 4 million Whites on a continent of close to 400 million Blacks. In this particular position it is most important that on the fundamental issues affecting South Africa’s future, affecting South Africa’s role in the world as such, in Africa and in Southern Africa particularly, there should be no divisive attempts and campaigns in the Press and among responsible people in this country. I call upon the Opposition to play a most responsible role. I also call upon the Press to play a responsible role in this regard because it is important for the future of all of us.

Mr. Chairman, the more I listen to hon. members on the other side the more convinced I am that those of us who call for a judicial inquiry into this matter are correct. I must make it quite clear that I have listened in particular to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister today and by the hon. the Minister of Finance the other day. This is a matter which is serious: everyone has admitted this. I believe that at the time when the call was first made for a judicial inquiry, what was available to me and to other people was undoubtedly a fact firstly, that an investigation was being conducted by the Secretary for Finance and secondly, that this investigation was going to be given widespread publicity in the newspapers. These were the facts and because of the implications, not just to the Government, but to government in South Africa, it appeared to me that it was entirely appropriate that a commission of inquiry should be appointed. Since then both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance have said that there is absolutely no truth in the allegations, but simultaneously the Press published another statement today saying that irrespective of what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say, the Secretary for Finance says that he has not completed his investigations. This contradiction alone is additional reason why a commission of inquiry should be appointed. It is not a question of the Government; it strikes at the whole root of the system of government in South Africa and that is why we believe this investigation should take place.

Undoubtedly Africa and events in Africa will dominate this debate and there is certainly much that is happening in Africa and in Africa/South African relationships which is extremely encouraging. In this sense the initiatives which the hon. the Prime Minister has taken are to be applauded by all sections of the community nevertheless at the moment we should not be carried away. What has been achieved is a breakthrough, a new situation, a new prospect which has emerged before us. However, it is going to take a lot of policy changes and a long period of adjustment before this prospect can be realized. I doubt whether this prospect can be realized under the policy of the present Nationalist Government. I say what is happening is encouraging. It is encouraging for the hon. members opposite to believe that in the debate situation they will be able to promote separate development. It is encouraging for us in these benches because we believe that in a relaxed climate without the ugly pressures from abroad, South Africans will respond to change away from the policies of separate development and away from the policies of race discrimination. That is why we welcome détente.

Clearly the Government will fashion its strategy in the light or recent developments and Opposition members will have to try to evaluate what is taking place. It is quite clear that the conference at Dar-es-Salaam was an important milestone in the determination of relationships between South Africa and the rest of the African continent. I want to say that in my opinion that conference as it emerged in its final resolution was a victory for neither the hawks nor the doves but that it was a confirmation of the tremendous amount of pragmatism which exists at leadership level on the African continent. It was a victory for the pragmatic approach of serious-minded leaders to the problems of the African continent. They have not abandoned their objectives set out very clearly, very positively in the Lusaka Manifesto, but what they have done is that they have confirmed that they are prepared to act in accordance with the procedures laid down in that Manifesto. They have laid down priorities in the form of those goals which are first attainable. It does appear that as a result of the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister together with his colleague, Pres. Kaunda, that it is going to be possible to resolve the Rhodesian situation. The African leaders have defined this as a specific priority. They have also said quite clearly that the next priority is self-determination for what they call Namibia— South West Africa. They have restated that their final objective is to assist in getting rid of race discrimination in the total southern part of the continent—and that includes South Africa. Firstly, they have determined priorities and secondly, they have stated that where it is possible to achieve these priorities without violence, they would prefer to do so. In the encouraging situation which has resulted from the initiatives on Rhodesia, they have said that in so far as it is possible to achieve this through negotiation, through dialogue, through contact with South Africa, they will accept this as an objective. I do not believe that this is a new concept. It was stated very cogently by Dr. Kofi Busia, the former Prime Minister of Ghana, when he was advocating the same approach, the approach of communication with South Africa. He said “This was neither a declaration of peace nor an acceptance of the status quo, but another weapon in the armoury, in the strategy of the elimination of apartheid and the erection of a multiracial society in South Africa.” The meeting in Dar-es-Salaam was an occasion for the determination of priorities and of strategy.

For all that I am pleased that the Government is showing signs, and in particular the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of having learnt certain key lessons about the African continent and the people who inhabit it. These are the kind of lessons and the things we on these benches have been speaking about over the years and which have been repudiated in the past. The Prime Minister smiles. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Defence would smile as broadly, if he were sitting here, if one takes into consideration his attitude towards the things we were saying only eight or nine months ago. We have said it and I am pleased that the Government is starting to give a lead. It has not seeped through to all the members on the other side and to the verkramptes in various parts of South Africa.

One of the first lessons the Government is being forced to learn is that South Africa must identify with Africa. It is no use saying: “We have always identified with Africa”. Emotionally we have tended to see ourselves as Europeans in Africa. This has been the mood, the reaction to the liberation and the decolonization process over the years. Secondly, I believe it is important that we should study the Lusaka manifesto. It appears that the Government has started to pay much greater attention to this in order to understand what has been happening on the African continent. I think it is important that this Government should realize that the African leaders are pragmatists and that they are not only ideologists. I think it is also important that we should realize that they have set as a prerequisite to dialogue with South Africa the resolution of the three ex-colonial problems, namely Portuguese territories. South West Africa and Rhodesia. The Government has accepted this. The Government has used the Rhodesian situation as an initiative to break out of a laager of isolation in the hope that this is going to bring it greater fruits of dialogue and communication as far as South Africa is concerned. As far as Mozambique and Angola are concerned. I must say—and I have said this to the Prime Minister before— that the hon. the Prime Minister’s behaviour has been impeccable from the time the Portuguese regime under Caetano collapsed and it was decided to give these territories their independence. He knows that his attitude has not gone unnoticed. We would like to hear from him, however, what progress he has been making in negotiations with the Portuguese or with the new regimes in both Angola and Mozambique in the field of consular representation, trade, mine labour recruitment and power from the Cabora Bassa.

As far as Rhodesia is concerned, it emerges both from what was said by the Black leaders in Dar-es-Salaam and from the information that comes from other Black states, that the Prime Minister has been fulfilling his side of the bargain and his side of the agreement with President Kaunda. It is also clear that he has been trying to create a situation in which there would be a resolution of the problems in Rhodesia. I do not, however, believe that the Prime Minister has been taking the same initiatives, the same bold initiatives, as regards South West Africa. He has control here, but that he has not been taking the initiatives. I was disappointed in the answers the hon. the Prime Minister gave to two questions which I put to him earlier in this House. I asked him what progress had been made in the setting up of the consultative body for the new constitutional talks in South West Africa. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Community Development said that all the population groups had agreed and in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that he understood that they would all be appointing representatives, not sufficient progress has been made. Likewise, in spite of the assurance that efforts would be made to try to get rid of discrimination, in statements made specifically on behalf of the Government to the Security Council by our ambassador, the Prime Minister did not indicate specific steps to get rid of racial discrimination in South West Africa. Instead of that he said: There may be a difference in the meaning of race discrimination as far as the hon. member and I are concerned. I asked him in relation to South West Africa, what his interpretation of getting rid ofradical discrimination was. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to join the hon. member who has just sat down and say a few words about the movement towards détente. South Africa is on the move. It has taken the initiative in Southern Africa, but even more, it has taken the initiative to a certain extent in Africa as a whole. Everywhere in the world—in Southern Africa, in Africa, in Europe and other parts of the world—Governments, peoples and opinion-formers are looking at the actions of this Government in a new light. In a previous speech I made in this House earlier this year, I referred to this climate of change which was being created in and around Southern Africa. I explained at that time that the change which was taking place in South Africa was not a newly conceived policy or objective of the National Party but was a logical development of the policies which were conceived decades ago and of the groundwork which had been laid over decades. South Africa has been able, as a result of its position in Africa, to break the stalemate of confrontation. This is a new concept; this is a new approach to the problems of Africa. In Africa the lines had been drawn. There was colonialism on the one hand versus the national aspirations of the indigenous peoples of Africa on the other hand. This confrontation between colonialism and the indigenous peoples projected itself as a confrontation between Whites and Blacks in Africa. These lines were drawn bloodily in territories such as Algeria, the Congo, Kenia and the Portuguese territories on our borders. This led to the inevitable conclusion that the struggle in Africa was going to be a struggle between the Black and White peoples of Africa, a struggle for supremacy in Africa of either Whites or Blacks. That conception of the struggle in Africa left our friends in the West very little room to remain friends of Southern Africa. It left them with a choice between Blacks and Whites in Africa, between the 270 million non-Whites and the 4 million-odd Whites. It is through this stagnation and confrontation that the National Party, the Prime Minister and his Government, have to break. Because this is the Government of a National Party and as such has its foundations in the historical struggle of the Afrikaner people for its own independence and because it has its foundations in the concept of being the first White nation in Africa, this Government was able to appreciate the aspirations of the Black peoples of South Africa and of Africa.

*This was the Government that was able to understand and sympathize with the anti-colonial and anti-imperialistic struggle of the peoples of Africa. As I have already said, the political situation in South Africa threatened to crystallize into a White/Black struggle. There were ultra-conservative views on both sides, on the Black side as well as the White side, which threatened to send both these groups over the precipice of bloody struggle and war. It was this hon. Prime Minister and his Government who succeeded in breaking through this rigidity and in changing the threatening confrontation from a struggle between White and Black into a struggle between those peoples in Africa, be they White or Black, who stand for peace and progress in Africa on the one hand those who prefer chaos and battle on the other hand. To my mind this is the immediate goal of the whole détente effort that was initiated by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. It is this détente, a French word, which has now became a household word, which has drawn the attention to South Africa as a country with new concepts and new ideas for the situation in South Africa. This movement has also captured the attention of opinion-formers in the West. In this connection I want to refer to what the hon. member for Houghton said earlier this year in the no-confidence debate. On that occasion she drew the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to certain discussions she had had in the United States of America. She said that the overseas opinion-formers were interested in various matters, but that they were not interested in the Nico Malan and discrimination. I refer to column 188 of Hansard of 5 February 1975, where she is on record as having said—

She went on to elaborate on this “question of civil rights”. I want to say to the hon. member that I also had certain discussions in Europe. I can say that the initiative which South Africa has taken with this movement for peace and economic progress in Africa and for the development of backward areas, is the subject of discussion in the opinion-forming circles in Europe, that the economic power of South Africa is the subject which, is discussed and which receives attention, as well as South Africa’s achievements in the field of nuclear research. What is more, it is the strategic value and position of South Africa vis-à-vis the Indian Ocean which attract attention, it is South Africa’s ability to lead Southern Africa to economic growth and to contribute to the fuller employment of the peoples of Southern Africa which attracts attention. These are the abilities of South Africa which attract attention in overseas circles and not the question of personal rights, not the question of the discrimination which the hon. member for Sea Point has just mentioned. They are not concerned with those matters, but with South Africa’s position of strength at this southernmost tip of the continent, with the vigour with which South Africa is taking the lead in the furtherance of peace and prosperity for all the people of Southern Africa and with the strategic value of this country. I do not want to be misinterpreted; for the National Party and this Government, détente is not simply an effort to influence certain opinion-formers in the West and to convince them that we are presenting a pretty picture here of what we wish to do in Southern Africa. For us in the National Party, détente in fact means that we believe in what we are doing. We believe that we are working in a direction which must lead to détente and to rapport, to rapprochement and to good relations between the nations of Southern Africa. It is a difficult road, of course, because one finds it a difficult task even when one is dealing with developed nations. How much more difficult will it not be on the road which we have to walk in Southern Africa with its developing nations? Our immediate objective in this situation is surely to develop a modus vivendi in Southern Africa, a co-existence of Nations of Southern Africa. Our second objective is to induce the other nations to accept White Africa’s place in Africa. From certain discussions I had with a Kenyan who visited South Africa last year and who was a high official, I can say that this concept is already gaining ground. It is already gaining ground and certain responsible circles on the official level in Africa are already beginning to accept that we, the White people of Southern Africa, are also of Africa. In this regard I think the Government has accomplished its aim. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Bellville said with regard to the objectives we have and the ultimate position we hope to achieve in the relations between states in Southern Africa. However, I think it is wrong of him to suggest that there is only one particular way of achieving this particular objective, or that the credit is in fact due to any farsightedness of any particular party, let alone the Nationalist Government. I want to say immediately that I believe that a great deal of the understanding that has become possible in Southern Africa is due to the work of the career diplomats in the foreign service of this country and not to us politicians. One has found that in various countries in Europe and elsewhere contact is able to be made free from the influences of being in situ in Africa between the diplomatic officials of our Foreign Service and those of other countries in Africa. I want to say that I am not only referring to the officials in the higher echelons of the service but also to our attachés and persons holding comparatively junior positions in the service and the contacts they have been able to make in that regard. I believe that, where such diplomatic contacts have been made, we must be particularly careful that the good relations that have been established are not bedevilled by what is done internally here in South Africa, such as by making statements which are intended for local party political consumption but which do not remain confined within the borders of South Africa and are published outside South Africa. I refer to the bedevilment caused by conflicting policy statements made in this country from time to time and the bedevilment that has taken place in the past through the stop-go attitude in respect of visas and passports. I want to give one example of this. In the New York Times there appeared within the last month a front-page report on a statement by the Minister of the Interior that the Springbok badge would never be worn by a Black in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

That hon. member says “hear, hear”. The following day the New York Times published a report in the same position on the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister that South African teams would be chosen on merit. How do these two reports add up? That is why I say conflicting reports of that nature can undo so much.

Would you mind giving me that cutting?

I shall get it for you. The position is that this type of statement is doing damage to the work which is being done by the Prime Minister, work we all attempt to support.

I have attempted in a personal way to make some contacts in Malawi, Mozambique and elsewhere to settle in my mind what I feel are the priorities for the furtherance of détente which is directed towards peaceful co-existence and economic development in Southern Africa. I believe there are five priorities. I want to develop one of those which was referred to in passing by the hon. member for Bellville. We must, I believe, accept the position that we Whites in the Republic of South Africa are Africans. We are part and parcel of Africa. I believe the time has come that we must stop talking about being White Africans; we are Africans as much as any other national on the Continent of Africa. I believe that that is the first approach which must be adopted. I believe that the second priority is that, within this context, we in South Africa must be prepared to readjust what over the years we have euphemistically called “our way of life”. If we are to have contact with Africa in any meaningful way, Africans of other countries will be visiting our country and we will have to adjust our accepted way of life of the past to be able to accommodate those circumstances. I believe thirdly that we must be prepared to co-operate to the greatest possible extent in respect of the technical and scientific knowhow we have in this country and of our knowledge and expertise in trade and economic development. I believe we must make that expertise, knowledge and technical knowhow available to all States in Africa who are willing to co-operate with us in that regard. Fourthly—this is a most important one—I believe that in our negotiations and attitudes we must not seek for ourselves as Whites any superior or preferential status on the grounds of our colour only on the African continent. Fifthly, I want to say that we must be seen to be implementing the beliefs which we have expressed in the policy that has been enunciated by this Government in so far as the field of human relations is concerned in South Africa, and that is that discrimination on the grounds of colour in the Republic of South Africa is indefensible. We must be seen to be putting that into operation.

I believe that there is a new dimension in diplomacy in Africa. This is an attitude which I find in most unexpected quarters. It is what I might term “economic diplomacy”. I believe that over the past few years there has grown up on the African Continent a greater appreciation of the need for economic development rather than a mere concentration on political philosophies and political ideas. I believe that is a real consideration and that the countries of Africa are looking more and more to economic development so that those countries themselves can look forward to and obtain a better way of life. I believe that to the extent that the Government is doing that now, they are doing it admirably. I said this on my return from Mozambique. They are doing this in Mozambique in the form of the assistance they are giving the Railways there. I believe that the signal system as far as the line to Lourenço Marques is concerned, has now been completed. Other assistance is also being given. This is practical assistance which provides the opportunity for economic development in those countries and it is worth far more than all the talking that we may do on political issues. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is aware that the endeavours he is making in this regard and in regard to détente have the support of the vast majority of the people of South Africa. This responsibility rests on his shoulders and not with anybody else. After all, he is the man who represents this country in view of the position which he holds as its Prime Minister. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will assist in this movement which is desired by the whole of South Africa if, when he makes changes, when he makes the adaptations necessary, when he starts along the road which it is necessary to take to implement the undertakings of the representative of South Africa at the UN, those steps are taken firmly, definitely and vigorously. All the world will know then that they are being taken and there will be no need for him to look over his shoulder in order to see how many of his own or other people in South Africa are not going along with him. In the vigorous pursuit of the undertakings given at the UN we can look forward to peaceful coexistence and peaceful co-operation in Africa in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, both the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party, the hon. member for Sea Point, and the hon. member for Green Point said that we should identify ourselves with Africa. Various National Party Governments, or leaders of those Governments, have identified themselves with Africa in the course of time in the sense that we, as an African State, wanted to co-operate with Africa. Surely we are an African state, an African nation; we are not a colonial or imperial remnant. What is more, we are not an appendage of a foreign power. We are indigenous; we are an African outgrowth; we are of Africa and in Africa we are orientated to Africa and committed to Africa. As a matter of fact, this has already been said by Dr. Malan. This is the policy of the National Party. We regard ourselves as an established African state. The only domicile we have is the home, the fatherland, the territory we occupy and possess legally today, and for that reason we can say fervently: “This is our country, our own beloved Fatherland”. Yes, indeed, we are an African State. We think that, from an historical point of view, we have every right to claim recognition for and acceptance of the Republic of South Africa as African state. Sir, let us understand this as far as the statement of those hon. members are concerned. For many years, Sir, South Africa was virtually regarded as the polecat of the world. Are hon. members opposite not glad that South Africa, viewed in the African context, has recently been made the focal point of public and political and world interest through the actions of the Prime Minister? Everyone looked forward to this debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. We were looking forward to a pleasant odour, but what do we find here? Gossip was seized upon and presented here in an malodorous manner to introduce an unhealthy atmosphere into this debate. I say “malodorous” because the Opposition is in the process of decay. One could smell it in the manner in which they entered this debate. Sir, the years 1974 and 1975 will prove to be the most significant, the most decisive and, as far as I am concerned, the most valuable years in South African history for the establishment and promotion of sound relations between the Republic of South Africa and other African states. I do not think that that which the hon. the Prime Minister and those who supported him so loyally have attempted —or let me rather say have dared to attempt, considering all the difficulties they have to cope with—is an ordinary political experiment or adventure; it is the greatest, most purposeful undertaking for the recognition and acceptance and establishment of the Republic of South Africa as an African state. By means of dialogue the hon. the Prime Minister is in the process of introducing into Africa a peace policy which, in my opinion, will have significant and major and far-reaching results which would be of inestimable value not only to the Republic of South Africa or Southern Africa or Africa, but also to the free world. Sir, this is what we have to realize when dealing with détente and the work that has been done here. But if we want to determine the value of what the hon. the Prime Minister has done in this respect with this breakthrough, as it were, I think we should view this against the background of the awakening of Africa and the emergent African states. Of course, there are various factors which have contributed to the fact that Africa had been startled from its age-old slumber. There are tendencies such as communism, Chinese communism, Russian communism, ultra-liberalism and the emergent nationalisms of the various States. After a long time all these things suddenly stirred Africa out of its slumber, albeit too suddenly, and for that reason Africa is so moody, and perhaps too harsh and for that reason we are dealing with these tumultuous, violent African incidents. But it is because we are an African state, because we identify ourselves with Africa, that we can appreciate Africa in its tumultuous condition, in its violence and perhaps in its instability because South Africa, which is a self-sufficient State, went through a process of development in which nationalism played a part. For that reason it is we in particular who are able to understand the emergent African states. We appreciate their nationalisms in the sense that we, as a government or as a nation, thoroughly recognize the primary claim of Africa—their endeavours towards political autonomy and constitutional independence. For that reason we can also understand their freedom cry, “Uhuru!” calling for full freedom. We can understand this because, as a nation, we have also had some experience of an emerging national consciousness. Did not our own South African nationalism rebel against the tyranny and supremacy of colonial and imperial powers? Did we not rebel against unsympathetic and suppressive governments? I can tell hon. members that our entire history was a series of attempts, rebellions and revolts to be free. It was a struggle for freedom, a struggle for existence, but when we could not succeed with force of arms, we used constitutional means and the National Party has led our people step by step from colonial subservience until we are a free, sovereign and independent Republic today. It is for that reason that we, in our negotiations with Africa, can talk to Africa and when Africa calls, it calls to us and we answer to that call, because we are a fellow African state. We can see today that the forms of nationalism of the African states are manifesting themselves to a certain extent in the sense that imperialism is disappearing. Initially they concentrated their national feeling on the acquisition of political and constitutional independence. This is what we describe as the era of the acquisition of their constitutional independence. They are entering a new era now and this I describe as the maintenance, the development and the consolidation of the acquired freedom those States have today. This is the great responsibility which rests on them. This is a major task because they will find out, as we have, that although a country is constitutionally independent, it is, to a certain extent lost if it does not have a sound economic foundation. This is what we have experienced and what they are experiencing today. This is where South Africa enters into the picture and is able to assist.

I only have a short time at my disposal and it will not be possible for me to deal with the various spheres, the seven or eight spheres, in which South Africa may extend a helping hand in the economic sphere to the African states, and I therefore leave the matter at that. I want to deal with this other aspect. Various speakers, and particularly the Leader of the Progressive Party, told me that this concerns our policy. He says we should change our policy.

You are in the process of doing so.

No, we are not changing our policy, because our policy is the answer to the challenge of change. That party does not have a policy such as we have, and just see what it looks like! It has been fighting against this policy of autogenous development for almost 27 years and there they are sitting over there—a small United Party and two other small parties. They are sitting over there because they have come to grief against this policy which has remained consistent. They are sitting over there now as separate parties to fight apartheid separately. This is the situation we have here at present.

Sir, everyone of us who has the welfare of South Africa at heart appreciates these attempts the hon. the Prime Minister has made towards détente. But I cannot help asking myself this question: What are the contributory factors which obstruct and disrupt this dialogue and diplomacy? Do you know what it is, Sir? No other factor has had a more detrimental effect on the discussions with and co-operation among the African states than that false illusion and bogey the enemies of the people have created in regard to the policy of autogenous development of the Republic of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I listened to the hon. member for Brits—and I have much respect for him— I thought he was a Young Turk in the Nationalist Party, because when we compare what he said today with what he has said during the past years, there is much hope for South Africa. There is much hope when a man like Oom Pottie speaks as he spoke today.

†Sir, it is quite obvious that the concept of détente will dominate this debate, but it is important that we should remember that it is not just détente in respect of the relationship between ourselves and other countries. It is also the concept of peace and harmony in South Africa which will dominate this debate. So far, in the efforts towards détente in Southern Africa—and it is well known what my views are in regard to support for the Prime Minister here—we have got to the stage where we are talking, but beyond the stage of talking, I think, to be realistic, we still have a long way to go. The cease-fire is not yet in effect in Rhodesia, the constitutional talks have not yet started in Rhodesia and it is quite clear that talk alone is not going to be enough in order to achieve détente. I think something concrete should come out of the discussion and this is what I think the average South African looks for. The average South African is obviously anxious that there should be trade, is obviously anxious that there should be cultural exchange, is obviously anxious that there should be diplomatic exchange, but what he is really concerned about is that as a result of all this talk, three essential things should come about for our people. The first is that there should be an agreement, whether express or tacit, of non-aggression in Southern Africa. The second is that there should be an agreement, whether express or tacit, that the territory of our neighbours is not to be used as bases for terrorist attacks upon us. The third is that there should be an agreement that there will be no assistance given to subversive activity within our own territory. This is what I believe the average South African is looking for and is hoping will come about from the talking that is taking place.

The Rhodesian situation is one where quite obviously we accept that we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other States. However, if South Africa is using its influence in order to bring people to the negotiating table, then should we not also create a situation in Southern Africa in terms of which people’s basic rights are safeguarded? I believe that basic rights of the people in Rhodesia should also be safeguarded. I believe that this means that the basic freedoms and property rights of everyone in Rhodesia must enjoy some degree of safeguard in what is to come about. We believe that the best way of achieving this is, in fact, to have a Convention of Human Rights in Southern Africa to which all the States should be party and in terms of which the rights of individuals in all the States of Southern Africa would, in fact, be safeguarded without interfering with the sovereign rights of any independent States.

What is important is that if we ask other people to safeguard the rights of individuals and to respect human rights, we must ensure that that takes place in our own country. What we have to do is not to have a society in South Africa in which human rights are respected because someone from outside wants it to be done, but we must do it in South Africa because we as South Africans want to do it since we believe it is morally right. That means that we have to follow what the hon. the Prime Minister said and what, in fact, our ambassador at the time at the United Nations said, viz. that discriminatory practices must be abolished in South Africa. We cannot ask people to do the same thing elsewhere if we do not set the example ourselves here. The question which I believe the hon. the Prime Minister should answer during this debate, and answer in some considerable detail, is: What are his plans to remove discrimination in South Africa in the future?

If I may, in the short time that is available to me, I want to talk in particular about the Black people in our urban areas. The Government’s solution is that, in fact, the establishment of the homelands means that the Black people’s political rights should be exercised there. However, we are entitled to receive some answer on what, in fact, will be the rights of people who, if the homelands become independent, will be foreign citizens in the territory which will remain and which we will call, for the sake of convenience, White South Africa. It will be called White South Africa even though, in fact, it will still be a country in which Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians will be living. What distinction, if any, will there be in South Africa between a Black foreigner and a White foreigner? What distinction will there be between a Black foreigner who comes from a newly-created Bantustan State in Southern Africa which is independent and a Black foreigner who comes from elsewhere? What distinction will there be between a White foreigner Who wants to buy land in South Africa and a Black foreigner who wants to buy land in South Africa? May a Black foreigner be naturalized in the same way as a White foreigner may be naturalized? May a White foreigner become a member of a trade union as he can now and a Black foreigner not become a member of a trade union? How does the hon. the Prime Minister see the relationship between people in South Africa? Does he believe that we are entitled to have friendships across the colour line? Does he believe that we should, in fact, have business associates across the colour line? Does he believe that we should share cultures and respect our mutual cultures across the colour line? Does he believe that, if we can have joint business ventures in the homelands between Black and White, we should also be allowed to have joint business ventures between Black and White in White South Africa? Will it be permitted in White South Africa that, if we want to, we can go to a theatre together —a White and Black person—not only in Cape Town, but also in the other territories and also in the civic theatre in Johannesburg? If we want to do business together, shall we be allowed to do this? Shall we be allowed to go to a restaurant together? If we want to catch a train and sit together in that train, shall we be allowed to sit together in the same way as we may sit together in an aeroplane? These are vital questions that must be answered for the South Africa of tomorrow. These are questions to which we require answers if we are, in fact, going to be enabled to solve, not only the relationship between our country and other countries in Africa, but also between Black people, Coloured people and Indian people and White people in South Africa. That is what is necessary and that is to what we require answers from the hon. the Prime Minister during the course of this debate.

Mr. Chairman, once again, today the hon. member for Yeoville came along with his usual gimmicks. He wants a “convention of human rights” in Southern Africa. That kind of thing does not work. The alternatives did not work and consequently the Rand Daily Mail wrote the following on 13 May 1974, viz. after the election—is that not the hon. member’s birthday?—

Who said that?

The hon. member’s friends said that. They are the people with whom the hon. member is negotiating at the moment. It is they who said that. That is what they think. There are more interesting things about this hon. member. On 10 April 1975 the hon. the Prime Minister said at Welkom: “I predict that within a year Harry Schwarz will join the Progressive Party or found a new party.” On 11 April, at Klerksdorp, the hon. member reacted with bravado when he said: “I challenge anyone to bet R1 000 on my resignation from the United Party.” The hon. member went further and said haughtily, like a man with something to be proud of, “I challenge the Prime Minister. If I am still in the United Party in a year’s time, the hon. the Prime Minister must resign.” He went on to say, “No, it would suit me better …”—this is where I get the date 13 May from—“I give the hon. the Prime Minister until 13 May 1975. I could not want a more outstanding birthday gift than the resignation of the Prime Minister”. When, subsequently, we asked the hon. member in a debate what the reply was, he said “He did not take me on.” It can be seen, therefore, that this gimmick did not work.

I have before me a cutting from Die Vaderland of 11 April 1975. The article is entitled: “Harry challenges us to a bet for R5 000.” The price is getting higher and higher. By means of a challenge to accept a bet of R5 000 he is intimating that he will not resign from the U.P. before 13 May.

He has been out for ages.

Yes, he has been out for ages.

Give him a discount.

Just give him a fiver.

The hon. the Prime Minister made a further statement that evening. He said: “I do not think I am wrong when I say that the name of the new party is going to be the South African Party.” I wonder whether we could not take a small bet on that. I see that the people are now talking about the possibility of a Republican Party. That would be outrageous. There is not a single republican among them.

Probably “Herstigte Republican Party”!

Yes, it will probably be the “Herstigte” Republican Party. Now the hon. member is negotiating with the lady and gentlemen on his left. The question as to what those people’s policy consists of, occurs to one. I have here another interesting cutting. It is from Die Transvaler of 17 March 1974.

[Inaudible.]

Grandma, just be quiet for a moment.

Just wait a little. The hon. member for Orange Grove, neatly dressed, is sitting talking to a lady. With a high and mighty air he is discussing his policy. The lady asks him, “Why has the national executive committee of the Progressive Party never submitted amended property and income qualifications to its national congress to be discussed and voted on? Since 1966 the national congress has requested that at every session. This occurred again recently at the recent recess at the Bloemfontein congress, too.” You know, that kind of rather informal congress they hold there with “Hallo dear”, and “Yes, darling”. A decision was made in advance to entrust this particular subject to the “New Golden Boy”, He had to solve this matter.

Banana Boy!

What, however, was the reply with which the hon. member for Orange Grove furnished this lady? He said: “The majority of the members of the national executive committee have up to now always been of the opinion that the national congress is not qualified to decide on this. It would have to be left to a judicial commission which, the Progressive Party can only appoint when it is asked.” The congress is not qualified to decide on that. There are other matters, too. There was the question: “The Progressive Party is in favour of equal pay for equal work. Would the Progressive Party introduce this at once, no matter what, as is now being advocated?” The reply was: “This depends to a large extent on whether there will be enough money.” There is one further question, but first I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville one other thing. These are the people with whom he is negotiating. Hon. members know that Langenhoven wrote a book called Herrie op die ou Tremspoor, but it seems to me that what we have here is “Harry on the wrong track” (“Harry op die dwaalspoor”). [Interjections.] Here is another question.

That is nonsense.

Wait a little now. The hon. member must not be concerned. I can quite understand that the hon. member for Houghton should be disturbed …

You are talking rubbish.

There you have it—it is “rubbish”! [Interjections.] I agree that it is rubbish, but this is an interview which the hon. member for Orange Grove gave a newspaper. It is not I who am talking rubbish, but the hon. member for Orange Grove. Wait, here is another good one. I quote again (translation)—

How would this policy be carried out in practice in regard to residential areas? To this the hon. member replies, inter alia, that everyone will be able to live where he wants and that everyone will be able to stay where he wants. He went on to say—

He concedes that they would be dissatisfied about this, and I quote further (translation)—

According to the policy of those hon. members, the residents of each residential area would be able to decide themselves. Of course the people of Houghton would decide that they wanted to live by themselves! Of course the people of Sea Point decided that they did not want to swim in the swimming bath with non-Whites! Of course the people of Pinelands objected to the Bantu walking through, Pinelands! After all, that is the kind of hesitant fighting they are engaged in. If there must be an endeavour to bring about détente in Africa, I want to warn the hon. members opposite that the biggest problem they could cause would be by linking the efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister with which he has already achieved so much success, to petty politicking, as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to do. By doing that—and under no other circumstances—the hon. members are endangering détente. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fauresmith must have enjoyed his own speech. We on this side have enjoyed it because it is quite unusual to find a debate being carried on between the Government and an “ineffective” Opposition. We wish him luck with his speech, but I do not intend to follow him. If he had a couple more good ones we might even have proposed an extension of his time.

*The hon. member for Green Point referred here to Africa and to us, as White members of the society in Africa. Some of our friends on the other side asked him: “Are you Afrikaners now?” I shall return to that point later in my speech, but I just wish to mention another matter now. While serving on a certain commission, I asked my friends on the other side very pertinently how I, as an English-speaking person, can become an Afrikaner. My friends on the other side stated unequivocally and clearly that it is impossible for me, as an Afrikaner. I am of the opinion that this matter is one of the matters one should discuss in this debate. I hope that I shall later, in the course of this speech, have the opportunity of raising this point again and discussing it with the hon. the Prime Minister.

†The Bible says that one must know one’s enemies. I want to say that we as White people in South Africa tend to look at the OAU as being enemies. I think this is an incorrect approach. I think we have to understand quite clearly that there is within that organization a great potential not only for friendship and for constructive co-operation, but also for the sort of thing that we should be doing in Africa, the sort of thing the hon. the Prime Minister is attempting to do in Africa and the sort of thing which professional diplomats under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs are doing in Africa. I believe that we should rather look at it in this way that the OAU are perhaps competitors with us for the minds of Black South Africa. I think this is a point I would like to make very clear. We, the White people in this country—I made this point also in an earlier speech are trying to lead the Black people in South Africa in a certain direction, but we see the attempt we are making and making in all sincerity, to lead those people in that direction, being attacked and denigrated from beyond our borders. We find suspicion being cast on all our motives and everything we are trying to do being attacked in the United Nations and ourselves being boycotted and pilloried to the point where, as the hon. member for Brits said this afternoon, we have become “die muishond van die wêreld”. Looking at the OAU, one wonders at the disparate collection of people it consists of. There are Arabs and Africans; Moslems and Christians; people under British dominion; people under French dominion; people who have freed themselves from France by war, as in Algeria; and the people of Ethiopia, a country which is trying to catch up a backlog of centuries in a single afternoon. These are the sort of people who are attempting to prescribe to us what we should be doing here in our country. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned economic diplomacy. I think that is one of the key points in the struggle which faces us. I think we must realize that in the OAU there is today one unifying force and that is enmity and hostility directed at us in South Africa, specifically the White man and more specifically the National Party Government, that rules in South Africa. This is the unifying force which binds those people together when there are so many other things they should be thinking about. They have all kinds of problems. For instance, they have the problem of where their population growth curve is going to cross their expectation curve. Nevertheless, they are using us as a means of binding themselves together while the organization should rather concern itself with different interests. The members of that organization would normally not be in agreement on so many of these issues.

We have heard in the recent past the voice of the OAU in the Lusaka Manifesto referred to by my leader. I think that that manifesto was passed by that organization more in hope than in anger. They hoped the metropolitan powers would be able to intercede in South Africa to bring about change. They hoped that Great Britain would bring about change in Rhodesia and that Portugal would change its policy in Africa. That was the distant thunder that one hears on a summer’s afternoon. We did not particularly listen. It was not taken very seriously here in South Africa. We tended not to regard it in the serious light in which it would be viewed today. However, recently there was a conference in Dar-es-Salaam, a conference which is the thunder on our doorstep. There can be no doubt that in the case of that conference something was passed more in anger than in hope. I think we must take serious cognizance of the fact that we have here evidence of the acceleration of the pace, an escalation and a new edge to the voice. This represents a new realization that there is in that organization the power to do us harm. We face a totally new situation in Africa since the old bulwarks of metropolitan Portugal on two sides of us have collapsed with Rhodesia being on the point of reaching some kind of settlement. The OAU is today taking it upon itself to set deadlines, take initiatives and make demands. Obviously they feel that they are in a position to make these demands with, a very fair chance of carrying them out. The focus of the particular attempt they are making is South West Africa, which is totally under our control, and Rhodesia, which is peripherally affected by us. Rhodesia is indirectly affected by the decisions we take. It may well be very directly affected, but that is something on which most of us cannot comment because we do not have inside information of the facts concerned. What has happened, is that the neighbouring States—Zambia, Malawi Portuguese East and West Africa or Angola and Mozambique—have today become absolutely crucial factors. They cannot now be and they can never again be client States of South Africa even if they were that in the past. It can never be that; we can never regard them as that. If we reach, out a hand to them it must be on the basis of complete equality and complete integrity of purpose. I think we must realize one thing. The pace of change accelerates and the curve rises; it does not flatten out; it continues at an increased pace once that change starts. One no longer has the choice then in relation to the position which one might have dopted four or five years before. The pace is accelerating. I think that in this situation if the hon. the Prime Minister is to reach accord with the OAU—not perhaps with the whole organization but with certain people in the OAU, people with whom we have had contact, the people who can be influential in that organization—then that accord is going to have to be reached in a situation in escalation. The demands are going to become harder, they are going to increase. There are going to be more and more demands. As I say, the things that might have satisfied a few years ago are no longer going to be able to do so. I think that there is one thing more than anything else that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to have to do. He is going to have to persuade these people that the Nationalist Party is prepared to change here in South Africa, to reach the point where the legitimate aspirations of all the Black people in South Africa can be met here in our country.

That is the task the hon. the Prime Minister faces. He has a policy which his Government is following. If he is able to persuade those people in that Organization that that policy he is following will bring the Black people of this country to the full realization of their legitimate aspirations, then he will succeed. That is what he is attempting to do. He is trying to convince them that the policy he is following is one which will give to all people in South Africa, Black and White, full satisfaction on a political and economic basis. This will have to take place not merely in the homeland areas. It must affect everyone, the Coloured people, the Indian people and the Black people living both in the urban areas and in the homelands. I am convinced of one thing and that is that the hon. the Prime Minister has in front of him an almost insuperable obstacle. I am referring to the creaking, antediluvian albatross of a policy which has been wished upon the Nationalist Party out of the past and is something that has to be changed. It has to be adapted to modern times. I give him credit for making adaptations where he has. However, I believe that one of the prices that is going to have to be paid, is that if we are to adapt albatrosses that the hon. the Prime Minister is carrying with him are going to have to fly the coop. [Time expired.]

Why spoil a good speech?

Mr. Chairman, the first seven minutes of the speech by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, were very constructive I, too, share with him the feeling that there are influences behind the African States that are spurring them on: that there are influences that are encouraging them to continue to act as the reports we read tell us they are acting. Unfortunately, like all the other members on his side, the hon. member fell back once again into a pattern which gives me the impression that they are unsure of themselves. In this matter one must never be unsure of oneself.

Looking back over the past few months, one wonders what has really happened and where South Africa really stands today. In the first instance—in my opinion this is what is most important—we find that Africa and the world recognize the fact that the Republic of South Africa is an independent sovereign African state, and that the Republic has also accomplished the African task, of Uhuru. It is understandable that far-off countries have apparently not yet accepted this, but what is of importance is that countries close to our borders, such as our neighbouring states, do in fact understand this now. One can only hope that the Western world, with whom we have been closely linked through the centuries, will also realize this in future. Secondly, countries in Africa now have a better understanding of our history and they are beginning to understand that we were born in, and originated from colonialism and that we have developed from that into nationalism in the true sense of the word, namely love for what is ours. It is encouraging that even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in those terms in the no-confidence debate, and I want to quote him (Hansard, Vol. 55, col 27)—

Those are fine words. But, typical of the United Party as we know them and as the previous speaker proved, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes on—

This brings me to the third point we have found over the months, and it is that if one doubts oneself, one’s right to exist and one’s future in any way, one cannot expect others who have been unfailingly prejudiced against one ever to recognize one. To me this is one of the outstanding characteristics of the hon. the Prime Minister in his deliberations, both at home and abroad, viz. that on each occasion he has known exactly where he was going. He created no doubt in the mind of any person with whom he negotiated, whether at home or abroad. However much one may differ with such a person, one thing is certain, and that is that one must have respect for him. He stated his standpoint very clearly and it was the path of peace, progress and development.

The fourth point I want to make arises from the fact that one should never create expectations in anyone if one is unable to fulfil them, if one does not intend to do so. The statements concerning South Africa uttered by African leaders in recent months indicate that this is the case. They fully confirm it. In the same sense they realize, too, what the alternative is, namely that if one does not have progress, peace and development, escalation of violence must follow. On the other hand, it is just as important that one should not read into the expectations what they do not contain. This is what we have been hearing ad nauseam over the past few weeks from hon. members of the Opposition in regard to the interpretation of the words of our ambassador at UNO. One’s striving to move away from what one does not like definitely does not mean that one should fall flat on one’s nose when starting off. In our endeavour to normalize relationships between the various States, this must not be left to the politicians alone. Each of us, whether individual, businessman, manufacturer, tourist or whoever, have a bounden duty to cross of those bridges that are being built. Political leaders can only lay down the guide-lines, and these guide-lines have been clearly determined by the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet. I just want to mention a few matters in this regard. Apart from financial support, South Africa provides assistance to the developing countries in the field of trade, labour, agriculture and energy. Surely these are basic matters without which a people is unable to move ahead. That is why we are justified in putting to those countries from which, historically speaking, we originate, and with whom we have built up firm links through the years, the question: What more must we do? Lastly, in this connection, I should like to quote these words uttered by the hon. the Prime Minister on one occasion (translation)—

Sir, our faith is strong. We believe that through our relations with our neighbours we, too, will succeed in conveying the conviction that we mean well, not only in regard to them, but in regard to the entire free world.

I conclude, Sir, by calling on the hon. Leader of the Opposition to be courageous and to stand up now in this debate and give his full support to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister during the no-confidence debate. We shall not take note of the reaction of the hon. member for Yeoville to that. This would serve as an indication to us whether the Opposition is honest and sincere when they say that they support our efforts in Southern Africa.

Sir, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the hon. the Prime Minister has amazed and dumbfounded the world with his spectacular actions, achievements and successes in recent months in regard to the normalization of relationships in Southern Africa. It seems to me as if the dark future that has been hanging over this continent has become lighter. It is as if a dark curtain over Africa has opened and the world has seen a new dawn breaking. To me it is as if the pulse of Africa has quickened. There has been greater excitement among the positive leaders of the world because they have heard the voice of reason, the voice of a statesman who wants to save Africa from a bloodbath. Sir, there has been a new song of hope and it has crossed the borders of many countries. We are grateful to be able to attest to this. But what has happened in South Africa, in our own fatherland? When, on 18 November 1974, after delivering his inspiring message at Nigel, the Prime Minister called out: “Give South Africa six months and you will be amazed where it will stand”, what did we find? Firstly, certain members of the Opposition, and certain newspapers, put words into the mouth of the hon. the Prime Minister which he had not uttered. Sir, I wonder why that was done. I think that this was a sickly attempt by these people to try and cause distrust of the Prime Minister among his own people; to try to cause a split in the ranks of the National Party.

Maliciously.

Yes, maliciously. But, Sir, they did not succeed in this for one primary reason, and that is that South Africa, and we who are on his side, believe and know that this hon. Leader of ours can be trusted and has already proved that South Africa can trust him, and that is why we are solidly behind him. Sir, when this attempt by the Opposition did not succeed, what did they do then? They began to criticize this process of normalization; they began to say that these efforts would fail. They said that these efforts would fail “because South Africa’s policies are unacceptable to any country or government outside our borders”. According to them, then, this is the reason it is going to fail. Sir, I am going to name two hon. members opposite as examples to illustrate my point. I want to make the point that we detect an extreme lack of patriotism on the part of hon. members opposite in this whole process. I know that as soon as we use the word “patriotism”, they are going to ask us the question: “But where were you in the war; what were you doing then? We were fighting. Where were you?” Sir, I should like to give those hon. members a definition of what I regard as patriotism. Patriotism does not only concern the defence of what one regards as good in one’s country; patriotism also concerns involvement with that which is wrong and unjust in one’s country. Patriotism does not demand perfection as a condition for love and faithfulness. In essence, patriotism is a creative love of one’s country and its people, not only for what they are, but above all for what they can become through work and prayer. When we say that we stand for South Africa, then we stand for a vision of South Africa as it could still become—never through force of arms or violence, but through evolutionary development. Sir, I have said that I want to mention two examples of conduct which, in my opinion, is unpatriotic. On 22 November 1974, the hon. member for Wynberg made a speech in which he advocated that South Africa should establish relations with Red China and Russia. Sir, these people are constantly telling Africa that the Whites in South Africa are racists, that we are oppressors, that Whites in South Africa must be ejected. But the hon. member for Wynberg—I have the extract before me here—states that we should establish relations with Red China and Russia. He goes on to say (translation)—

He goes on to say—(translation)—

Sir, I want to accuse the hon. member for Wynberg of a high degree of disloyalty and lack of patriotism towards South Africa.

I still think so.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout often has a great deal to say about what we do and what we do not do. I want to quote from Hansard of 1973 (Vol. 42, col. 1132) from what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said when speaking about the division of political power. He states—

Those are the words used by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He states with approval that that is the situation in plural societies in other parts of the world, where peoples strive for the retention of identity, where peoples strive for the retention of their own sovereignty. He states that this works well in other countries, but not in South Africa because according to him, we Whites in South Africa are ill-mannered. He states that we are oppressors. He states that we are destroyers of the human dignity of people. Sir, I say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is disloyal. I say that he is unpatriotic. He is cold towards his people and his fatherland.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member in order in calling the hon. member for Bezuidenhout disloyal?

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

Sir, I shall withdraw the word, but in the context in which I used it…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it. Sir, who are they, this Progressive Party and this United Party, to be so full of criticism? I do not even want to refer to the “bits and pieces”, as the hon. member for Durban Point refers to the Progressives and the Reformists. I leave them at that. But the official Opposition is so fond of criticizing us and stating that we are the cause of frustration and unhappiness in South Africa, and then they announce to the world that they have the ideal solution in South Africa, namely their federal policy. I have before me three standpoints which the hon. members opposite have adopted concerning what is going to happen to this Parliament which we are in at present. In 1973, the hon. member for Green Point said (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1153)—

The hon. member for Durban Point supported him and in the same debate stated (Hansard, Vol. 42, Col. 1200)—

This is the one policy in regard to their federation, which they expound in the platteland, probably in the “deep” platteland. In other words, they expound a policy of political frustration among people who are unable to obtain their own rights, but who will have to remain under a White Parliament. But the hon. member for Durban Point has another policy, too. This is just like the man who is selling something and asks whether one wants it. When one says “no” he asks whether there is anything else he can sell you. The hon. member for Durban Point has on alternative policy. This very year he was still saying that the White Parliament would hand over the “keys to the security of the State” to the federal assembly and—

This, now, is the new story given out by the hon. member for Durban Point. First he said that we should not hand over our future to the Blacks. Now he does say it.

You are twisting your own words.

Sir, I quoted from his Hansard. His first speech appears in column 1132 of 1973. The other Hansard I have here before me; it is in respect of a debate that took place this year. I say that this is the second policy. But now they have a third policy, too, a policy which their congresses have apparently not yet considered. It is the policy which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is expounding these days, viz. that they will take the non-Whites back into this Parliament. Whether he has approval for that policy as yet I could not say, but that is what he said very recently. Now we know about the formation of blocs and the friction which will follow. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Worcester amazes one. He quotes from Hansard—he read from a piece of paper, but I accept that it is from Hansard—from a statement I made in connection with the timetable for the development of our federal policy, in which I supposedly said that we were not prepared to say that we would destroy ourselves at such and such a date. But a minute later he came back and tried to make out that it differs from the end result of our policy, that which we are aiming at. Is he not able to understand? How can the hon. the Prime Minister endure having to try and move forward and achieve détente if he has people like the hon. member for Worcester in his team who make it impossible for him to move forward by trying to play petty politics with the major problems of South Africa? [Interjections.] I am not prepared to waste my time with such pettiness when there are more important questions. But there is one point to which I have to refer and that is the reference that hon. member made to patriotism and unpatriotism.

†I want to say. Sir, that it would be for me the most shameful day in my life, the day when I would hide my head in shame from everyone if I had to take my example of patriotism and my test for patriotism from that hon. member. Sir, by what right does the hon. member accuse the Opposition of being unpatriotic? I reject it not only with contempt, but I say it would be for me a matter of shame if the history of his party were to set for me the level of my patriotism. If I want to test patriotism, I accept the motto: My country right or wrong. He used the words “verbondenheidmet eie kwaad”. But then I would set as the highest test for patriotism the trying to put right of those things which I see wrong in my country, whereas that hon. member sees that they are wrong but tries to hide them and pretend that they are not there. We believe that you try to put wrong things right and then move forward.

I want to turn to another aspect of détente. I have wasted too much time already on that hon. member and I shall have to be brief. I want to look at another aspect. We spoke in the no-confidence debate of one of the aspects to which we should move, that of mutual defence treaties and mutual security. I accept the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister that this was the end of the road, that you first built up goodwill and then sought mutual defence treaties. Equally, I accept that if détente fails, then the alternative is one too horrible to contemplate. What happens then is that military security becomes the highest priority. I hope. Sir, that the hon. the Minister of Justice will give me an opportunity to address the hon. the Prime Minister, because he too is concerned with security. As I have said, military security becomes a matter of the highest priority. That is why there is on this Budget R1 000 million for this purpose. We accept the need for this, because whilst we hope with all the sincerity we have that we will succeed, we must succeed from strength. So we accept this. We accept that defence is one of the factors we must consider against the possibility of failure. However, one facet of defence extends beyond “Defence” itself. The details of Defence can be discussed under that Vote when it is before us. The exception is the announcement recently of the formation of a Transkeian military battalion. This raises issues outside the sphere of defence and I want to raise them with the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe that we have a duty to raise these matters here.

Under United Party policy we believe that all our communities should share in the defence of South Africa, and therefore we welcome the thought, as we would with any other community, that the Transkei is prepared and willing to play its part in defending our country. Under our policy it would be with a common loyalty, a common purpose and under a unified control. Equally, we would want to help a friendly neighbour who sought our help in training its forces, because it is better that we do it than that someone hostile to us should do it. The Transkei is still part of South Africa and so we welcome a Transkeian force, and we welcome their participation.

But in this case Government policy is leading to the separation of the Transkei into a foreign State, and therefore it will be a foreign force, and South Africa is entitled to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what agreement he has made with the Transkei in respect of this military force. This is a direct consequence of Government policy and the Government owes South Africa an answer.

As I see it, a Nato type treaty is called for, an agreement of mutual self-defence giving to South Africa the right of access and specifying for the Transkei the acceptance of specific responsibilities and, above all, unified under one command of the South African Defence Force. We are dealing with a vast stretch of coastline and a large slice of territory, the borders of which comprise difficult terrain with limited communications. The area forms an essential link in the defence and the security of South Africa. One battalion of Transkeian troops, or even two or three battalions, would be meaningless as an effective defence force. They would be effective, however, if they were not isolated, if they were, in fact, integrated into the total strategy of South Africa’s defence. In fact, they would only be justified if such a force was part of a total defence pattern in South Africa because one battalion could not protect the coastline. It has to be integrated with our air security and our naval forces. We ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell South Africa that in the decision to create a military force which is to become a foreign military force, agreement has been reached on how that force will co-operate and fit in with the overall defence of our country. We ask him this, and we hope he will be able to tell us and South Africa that this is part of the basis on which any future independence agreement will be negotiated. In that context— under a unified command, with a unified strategy—we welcome the creation and the training of such a force. We believe it will be in the interests of South Africa if in all our Black communities we find a willingness, similar to that of the Transkei, which we welcome, to share the responsibility of defending our country. Political promises of friendship are not enough when you are dealing with the question of the rights of a military force in a foreign country. If we are to have a unified defence system, there must be an agreement on the Nato basis which will ensure particularly the right of access and the unity of command. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to assure us that that agreement has been reached and that it is a prerequisite to the creation of any force which is going to become a foreign military force.

Mr. Chairman, while I do not profess in any way to be able to reply to any of the questions posed by the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to make it quite clear that I believe that had he raised this subject at a stage when this matter was being dealt with officially by the Government of the Republic, it could have been discussed much more fruitfully. It is very clear that while the Government from its side has taken no official action in this regard as yet, this is in fact an unseasonable debate. It was very clear from the hon. member’s speech that he was seeking the course of development from a basis of friendly negotiations along economical lines up to security. Consequently he put forward, as opposed to the idea of a military unit of its own for the homeland, the possibility of the policy of the United Party in terms of which there would be military control over all units. It is also very clear that the hon. member likewise attached the security aspect to that, i.e. that if there was no unity of control, security would be prejudiced. It is also clear to me that the hon. member exercised great care in dealing with the matter and tried to put it in such a way that we would not gain the impression that the hon. member was necessarily opposed to the establishment of a unit of that kind. At the same time, however, he did not want to leave the note of warning unsounded that security aspects were involved. He also mentioned the long coastline and so on. From the point of view of our side of the House, it is a logical development that the Transkei and any other homeland following the road of independence to its end, will develop a military unit in one form or another. While we do not have the facts from our side as yet, we may discuss them because they are logical and in line with what we have in mind, and that is that a homeland will be able to develop a military unit to the extent determined by its needs. It is the prospect of this that I am holding out in this regard, i.e. that it will be possible for a homeland, with a view to its becoming independent, to develop a unit which may assist it at ceremonial occasions such as retreat ceremonies, standing guard, etc. It may also be that these people, like us, attach great value to a military band. So this means that such a unit may be very useful for such a development. Such a unit may also be employed very effectively in combating national disasters, just as we call in the Army as a last resource. It is quite possible that such a unit may also be employed as far as general defence is concerned. It is very important, in terms of the philosophy of this party, that we orientate the development of the military initiative in the homelands in the same way as was done by, for example, France, viz. orientated towards the country from which the independent state developed.

To proceed, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that this development should not be seen as a threat to South Africa. It is more probably a logical development. If that unit does not eventually come under the military command of South Africa itself, we must accept it as such. After all, we are engaged in dialogue in Africa, and we shall have to live with our neighbouring states, some of which are heavily armed militarily. We shall have to handle that situation. As I have said, every one of these states will be able to develop militarily in accordance with their needs. Their needs are such that they need not develop to great heights in the military field. From whom may they expect aggression? Perhaps aggression may come from the interior, but they need not expect it from us. I want to point out that the hon. member’s approach seems to be that we should keep this military unit part of our military set-up, under our own military command. This is in keeping with the philosophy of that party throughout the years, namely to keep the Black man integrated with us. Why? Because their basic philosophy is that the Black people may be controlled in that way. This philosophy differs from ours, a philosophy which acknowledges the nationality and the identity of the man who wants to maintain it. The hon. member’s speech is perfectly in line with the philosophy we have come to know over the years as their philosophy. Seen from our side of the House, our approach is that we recognize nationalities. This enables us to recognize the development of a military unit according to the needs of a State.

The philosophy of the United Party and of the Progressive Party to keep the Black man with them so that they may control him, is typically liberalistic. It is the basis of the argument between two former extreme liberalists like Nadine Gordimer and Alan Paton. Nadine Gordimer said, “Liberalism is as dead as a dodo”. The reason why Africa wants to have dialogue with us and we are able to have dialogue with Africa, is because we understand these people and not because we want to accommodate them or because we want to share with them, in a condescending fashion, the privileges we enjoy. That side of the House, on the other hand, does it in a way which amounts to accommodation, in a way which will result in the humiliation of these people. For this reason one finds a virtually hostile attitude towards the political approach of the United Party in respect of the multi-national situation in South Africa. And that is why they will make no impact in Africa either, because that which arises from the approach of the hon. member for Durban Point, will also be applicable to those in Africa. Their point of view is this: Accommodate these people; do not recognize their nationalism, but accommodate them; come and enjoy the advantages of this civilization. Mr. Chairman, this idea is dead. That is why there is no future for the Progressives either to have dialogue with Africa. They cannot talk along the same lines and in terms of the same philosophy as this side of the House, in days to come the Opposition as a whole will see logical lines from this side of the House in respect of all our actions, tied to our philosophy of recognizing the nationalism of the Black peoples of Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring this debate back again to the matter of détente. I want to indicate a few factors as to why I believe it is imperative that the matter of détente politics in South Africa should succeed.

The sleeping colossus, Africa, has today become the focal point of an unparalleled power struggle between Russia and China for the control of this continent. This is a power struggle which constitutes a threat to South Africa and the Black States of Africa. Russia and China have both established diplomatic relations with the same 32 States in Africa. They supply most of Africa’s military arms and advisers. They also provide significant economic aid. In 1973, for example, China spent an amount of R673,4 million on economic aid to Africa. China’s strategy is twofold: To promote sound relations and to foment subversion and revolution. African countries must form a basis of influence from which local leaders may expand China’s worldwide revolution. China’s strategy is aimed in particular at the mineral wealth and the food of Africa. She is already firmly entrenched along the east coast in Tanzania, and now even in Mozambique.

In this way communism is systematically moving down the east coast of Africa to achieve its objectives in the south. In West Africa they have already entrenched themselves in Algeria. The Russian influence in the Indian Ocean is already predominant. With its gaze directed at Mozambique, Angola and the Cape Verde Islands, Russia can cut off the Persian Gulf and control the oil supply lines of the West around the Cape. In the meantime the two communist powers are continuing to expand their influence on land and sea.

It is precisely as a result of this power struggle between Russia and China that there are now African countries which are altering their opinions on Communism. After all, these African countries have, in their history, known the yoke of colonialism. Is this strategy of China and Russia not simply a new form of colonialism? For that reason the penetration of Peking into Africa, through the Tanzam railway line for example, is now beginning to be regarded with suspicion. The question is now being asked: How permanent will the Chinese presence in Africa then be?

At the time of the signing of the Tanzam agreement it was accepted that Peking’s labour force would never exceed 3 500. Today this force in Tanzania and in Zambia is estimated at between 33 000 and 63 000. It has always been professed that when the last Tanzam cross-tie is laid, the last Chinese railway worker will depart from Africa, but now it is known that the Chinese will be responsible for the maintenance of the railway line for 25 years after the completion of the Tanzam railway line. According to the Tanzam Agreement Zambia must sell copper to China for a period of 30 years in exchange for Chinese goods. In theory this means that the Chinese will already have an economic grip on Tanzania and Zambia which will last until well after the turn of this century.

The power struggle between Russian and China is another very important reason why terrorist activities have not yet ceased, despite the promises of the ANC leaders. It is interesting to note that these terrorists are in most cases being trained outside their own country. I could mention Angola as an example. The FNLA, under the leadership of Holden Roberto, at present has 5 000 terrorists in training camps in Zaïre who are being trained by 112 Chinese instructors. It is in fact these terrorists who are beginning to become a threat to the Black States in Africa. In Zambia, for example, the large number of terrorists who are being accommodated there and who live there constitute a major threat to Zambia’s national security. Last year, for example, it was calculated that the number of terrorist fighters in Zambia from other parts of Africa exceeded the numerical strength of its own permanent force.

By way of summary I want to say that the presence of the enveloping Soviet imperialism in and around Africa, in competition with Peking, has not only become a threat to South Africa but also to the Black States in Southern Africa. If Peking and Moscow are going to be allowed to consolidate their stranglehold of communist imperialism unhindered, these States are going to be subjugated into economic slaves, and economic subversion and terroristic disruption is going to embitter the future of Africa. South Africa and the States of Africa are now being threatened by one and the same danger. Therefore détente politics will be of the utmost importance to them and to us.

Because all these facts were known to him, the hon. the Prime Minister, with his far-sighted statesmanship, made an unambiguous offer of peace to all the States of Africa. With insight and realism he spelt out the choice for the States of Southern Africa: To the left, the fork leading to chaos and violence, and to the right the fork leading to peace, progress and development. South Africa has knowledge and skills to export, and it constitutes no threat to Africa. It is not able to, nor does it want to develop a grabbing imperialism like the Red powers. Africa, by practising détente politics, can only win. Confrontation will bring South Africa and the Black States of Southern Africa nowhere. If confrontation comes, Russia and China will not be able to afford to stay out of this struggle. The words of the hon. the Prime Minister are words which call out from Africa to Africa. These words are a message of hope to its own people and to our Black neighbours, but they are also a message of hope to all the people who want to share the continent of Africa as a permanent residence with us.

The hon. the Prime Minister has taken the initiative, and therefore it is our hope and our belief that in Africa there will be ears to hear the message of hope and hands to clasp this hand of peace, but also hold on to this hand of peace so that the stranglehold of a powerful communist onslaught can be broken for good.

Mr. Chairman, before coming to the hon. member for Geduld, I do want to express my deep disappointment at the way in which the hon. member for Bloemfontein West reacted to the speech by the hon. member for Durban Point. I regret to say that whereas the hon. member for Durban Point handled this ticklish matter responsibly and with great circumspection, I really got the impression that the hon. member for Bloemfontein West was unable to resist the temptation to make of this a minor party-political issue.

What has he said now that you take exception to?

His whole approach that what the policy expounded here by the hon. member for Durban Point amounts to, is that we just want to keep the people on our side with a view to always being in a position of baasskap, as I understood him …

He never used that word.

No, he did not use it, but that was his intention. That was the tenor of his speech.

Why do you have a guilty conscience about that?

Surely it is very clear that there can be other relationships between countries that are independent or are becoming independent, on the basis of a Nato, relationships which will fit in entirely in the kind of pattern which the hon. member for Durban Point tried to put forward here. I think that he really put it very clearly that we must move in that direction. I want to repeat that it seems to me that this, surely, is a possibility that clearly lies before us in terms of co-operation in Southern Africa. I want to add in all honesty—I hope to be able to come back to this later—that the alternative proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West gave me the impression that he was living in a mental world that came very close to being one of fantasy.

I want to tell the hon. member for Geduld that I greatly appreciate the way in which he stated the problems that have been and are being created by the Chinese and Russian penetration in Africa. I think it is a very good thing that we here should take cognisance of that penetration and I am grateful that the hon. member drew our attention to this afresh. I believe that the African countries have already shown that they are far less susceptible to the Communist ideological infiltration than most of us had feared. I also want to agree with the hon. member that it is clear that in this regard South Africa can make a very major contribution. I am pleased that he broached this matter.

I want to associate myself with the appreciation expressed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the attempts to carry on détente politics in Southern Africa and for the general acceptance, on the part of hon. members on the other side of the House, too, that we can only succeed in bringing about good relations with other countries in Africa if we are able to bring about a good relationship with our own non-White population groups, in whatever way.

Then too, I just want to say that whether or not détente politics succeed, it will remain our primary responsibility in South Africa itself to attempt to bring about good relations. It is undoubtedly far better —I do not think this is in dispute—to do these things and to strive for these ideals because we believe that it is right for ourselves and because our own interests are at stake in this regard. We must do this, not only because pressure is being exerted on us in one way or another. In other words, our priority must be to create circumstances in South Africa which will guarantee, as far as possible, the continued peace and co-operation among all groups in the country. It seems to me that there are three priorities in this regard to which we shall have to give attention. Firstly there is the removal of discrimination on the basis of race and colour; secondly, the removal of unilaterally determined and unilaterally enforced separation of people on the basis of race and colour; and thirdly, provision must be made in one form or another for all our population groups to be involved in all decision-making processes where their interests are at stake. I say in whatever way, because we can probably disagree as to the methods. However, this remains the basic approach we will have to display if we want to maintain peace in South Africa.

It is generally conceded that we ought to get away from discrimination on the basis of race and colour. I think that that is generally accepted in responsible circles, and that I need not refer to what our Ambassador at UNO said. However, I do want to say that I am amazed, and somewhat shocked, at the unwillingness on the part of so many of our people, in this House, too, to acknowledge that discrimination does exist. If we cannot make this fundamental admission then we cannot make the necessary adjustments, and if that is so we cannot do the things that are necessary to effect those relationships in terms of that priority. I have often said that if we really doubt that discrimination exists, then surely it is not difficult to reach finality on the matter. We ought to be able to determine this easily and I shall come back to it later.

In this regard I just want to take the liberty of drawing attention once again to what I regard as probably one of the most serious problems we have to deal with, namely that of the urban Bantu. I have frequently objected to the ideology in accordance with which we refuse to recognize the permanence of those people in our urban areas. I want to add that I believe that it is a misconception that their interests can be effectively and adequately served by their becoming integrated in homeland politics. I do not believe that we shall be able to develop any stable urban population with the necessary peaceableness as long as we prevent those people from owing land.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.