I should like to inform the House of the business for next week. On Monday the discussion of the Vote of the Prime Minister will be continued, which will be concluded between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. Legislation will be dealt with immediately afterwards, for the rest of the day, in the order in which it appears on the Order Paper. The Vote of the Minister of Defence will be taken on Tuesday, and immediately afterwards the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. During the remainder of the week the Votes of the Minister of Information and of the Interior will be dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to deal with matters concerning South, Africa and its relations with the rest of Africa, I just want to return for a few moments to the first matter raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, viz. that, with reference to newspaper reports, the political correspondents of Die Vaderland and Die Transvaler supposedly possessed information in regard to this alleged leakage of th;e Budget. I must inform this House that I have statements from both these correspondents in my possession, written out by themselves. The correspondent of Die Transvaler declares as follows (translation)—

In spite of this, this person’s name, inter alia, was mentioned in the Cape Times report. As far as the correspondent of Die Vaderland is concerned, this person stated (translation)—

This simply indicates once again the extent to which gossipmongering occurs. There will be more gossipmongering, and I shall consider it my duty to trace those further pieces of gossip as well.

Now I just want to say, and this affects the Press, that since 1940 there has been an agreement with the Press that on the morning of the Budget a general survey of the economy, which contains no secrets, is released to the Press on a confidential basis with the necessary embargo on it, and that after 2.30 in the afternoon the remainder of the Budget, under the supervision of an officer of the Treasury, is made available to the Press, with the necessary embargo of course so that it is not possible for any leakage to take place. As I say, this has been the arrangement which has applied since 1940. This was done to oblige the Press so that they could get out their reports in time, with a view to the afternoon newspapers. But in view of what the Press has now done, the Press should not take it amiss of me if I return to the pre-1940 arrangement, viz. that the Press receives everything only after the Budget has been introduced here in the House of Assembly.

Hear, hear!

I shall now proceed to deal with those matters which are relevant to the discussion of this Vote. I want to say at once, and hon. members will readily agree with me, that when we discuss these matters we should display the utmost circumspection and the utmost sense of responsibility for the simple reason that the position, as hon. members know, is a fluid one and there is exceptional sensitiveness in many states of Africa in regard to this matter. I am pleased that hon. members have up to now taken this into consideration. This sensitiveness frequently becomes over-sensitiveness, and one should make allowance for that. Consequently one should at all times weigh one’s words extremely carefully before one speaks, because it is very easy for misunderstanding to arise in the presentation and dissemination of what is said. For what it is worth, I now want to convey my experience in this regard to hon. members. In regard to our relations with Africa, with African countries, one could write a great deal, compile pamphlets and books and present these to the leaders in Africa, but the very best way—so I have discovered from my experience—is to conduct personal discussions in regard to these matters.

We have been saying this for years.

Oh, Sir, the hon. member says that they have been saying this for years, but when, politically speaking, the hon. member was still applauding Popeye cartoons, we on this side of the House were already doing so. [Interjections.] If the hon. member would only look at the first discussion of my Vote in 1966, he will find all the answers there. In the talk I gave to the Autumn School of the University of Stellenbosch I sketched the background as I see it, the background to the backlog we have in this regard, a historic backlog and a backlog for which I do not want to blame anyone. Our development brought this about. I could just point out to the hon. member, who has been saying this for years, that in the years when we were still part of the Empire and the Commonwealth, we did absolutely nothing about Africa. We and Africa each went our own way. We paid no heed to what was happening in Africa. With the exception of a few hunters, traders, travellers, and with, the exception of our missionaries, there was no contact between Africa and ourselves.

During the war years we had full contact with almost all the States in Africa.

We had little contact. The only contact we had during those years was that sons of South Africa died to restore Haile Selassie to his throne. [Interjections.]

Many of them came to Fort Hare as students.

As I said, I am not expressing any opinion in this regard. However, I just want to repeat what I told African leaders, viz. that South Africa received no thanks whatsoever for doing so, neither at that time nor at the present time. I do not want to level any reproaches at anyone in this regard. Everyone who knows the history of Africa, will know that this is in fact the position.

What about the contribution of Fort Hare?

It goes without saying that students from Africa came to Fort Hare, and as far as I know there are people who studied at Fort Hare in various Cabinets today. However, there was little official contact on Government level with Africa. I want to repeat that I am not blaming anyone for this. The circumstances brought this about. Consequently we have developed a backlog in that regard, a backlog which has to be eliminated. I am simply mentioning this in passing.

I spoke of responsibility. I do not think it is wrong of hon. members opposite to visit African States. Nor do I want to condemn this. However. I do want to issue a word of warning in this regard—and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. Visits as such can only serve a good purpose, and useful contacts can be built up in this way. However, I must sound the warning, because I have had experience of this, that hon. members who do in fact do this should be very careful, owing to the delicacy of the situation, what impression they create and what they say on such an occasion. With regard to what the hon. member for Yeoville said—I am speaking to him now because I do not know how soon it will be his birthday—I just want to tell him that if there is one thing we should guard against, it is conveying our political differences as different parties in South Africa into Africa. We should be extremely careful not to do that. Nor do I think the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party will take it amiss of me for saying this, because I found traces of it. The hon. member should not take it amiss of me if I say to him, in all kindness, that I have no objection to his paying visits to African countries. I have no objection to his having a great deal to say there. However, he should guard against creating the expectation in Africa that he will be in office tomorrow or the day after.

I come now to the matter raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, viz. the recent Dar-es-Salaam Agreement. If you were now to ask me what the main objects of the Dar-es-Salaam Agreement were, then I would say that they were twofold. They were firstly, a meeting of the African States to determine their attitude to South Africa. Secondly the object was to salvage and to reaffirm the unity of the OAU. I am saying this on the basis of resolutions adopted and statements issued there. If you were now to ask me what resulted from that, I would say that in the process of the meeting there a whole series of old and, as far as I am concerned, futile resolutions were adopted. These are resolutions which have been adopted over the years in the OAU and at the U.N. and which were now simply being reconfirmed. Those resolutions were couched in the customary language which we have come to know over the years. We find therein the degree of exaggeration to which we are accustomed, and we find therein certain factual blunders.

†In the final analysis, when the hon. members ask me what in fact has been decided in Dar-es-Salaam, then after very careful consideration I would sum it up as follows: Détente and dialogue with South Africa are out, while consultation and contact with South Africa under certain circumstances are permissible. I think that I am fair by putting it in this way. I have referred to the fact that at Dar-es-Salaam they were very anxious to preserve the unity of the OAU. This is clear from the two following paragraphs—

Is that the final declaration of that meeting?

I am quoting from the Dar-es-Salaam Declaration on Southern Africa.

I also wish to refer to another aspect which became apparent, namely the fear in certain African States that the policy of separate development and the ultimate independence of the homelands will become an accomplish fact. There is that genuine fear. To counterbalance that, as it were, and as I shall show in a moment, they decided at Dar-es-Salaam that they would have nothing to do with the leaders of South Africa’s homelands. This is indeed a very important aspect. Just as in the case of South-West Africa, to which I shall refer in detail, where they, with the United Nations, accept only one leader, namely the adventurer Sam Nujoma, so in the case of South Africa there are African States who do not want to know about Chief Buthelezi or Chief Ministers Mantanzima, Mangope, Phatudi or all the others. As far as they are concerned they know only one man and they look only upon one man as the leader of all the Black peoples of South Africa. That man is Nelson Mandela. This appears from paragraph 25 of the Dar-es-Salaam Declaration—

Note the words “the liberation movements of South Africa”—

Paragraph 26 reads—

It is not necessary for me to comment.

I also want to refer to a booklet which was issued in connection with this matter. Therein we find the following paragraph—

And, I am sure, Sir, Amin blushed when these words were read out—

I wish to refer, Sir, in this regard to the actual resolutions that were passed. As I have already said, most of them are old and the contents well known to us. But there are some very interesting new variations which I am sure hon. members, like myself, will smile at. The first is—

We have this, Sir, coming from certain States in Africa. This, naturally, is just a blatant lie. I continue—

That, of course, Sir, is just plain nonsense. But, to crown it all, they then go on to say—

I am sure that whatever they might have heard, even from the Progressive Party, they did not hear this from the hon. member for Houghton. I read—

Then follows a lot of usual resolutions, of which No. 14 reads—

And that is said in spite of the fact that at that very moment there were South African businessmen and technical personnel in various African countries at their request. I read further—

Then they go on and in resolution No. 18 reiterates—

*I am devoting considerable time to these resolutions because I know the circumstances and because I was aware of the circumstances under which that meeting took place. I reject the allegations which were made unconditionally. In fact, in my personal contacts with representatives and African leaders in the past I rejected these with the contempt which they deserve. These are not going to divert me from my course of holding discussions with those African States which desire discussions with South Africa. The reasons are obvious. If it is necessary, I shall elaborate on this. But it is also my duty to tell hon. members in this regard that according to information I have at my disposal there were four states in particular who carried the case against South Africa to extremes. It was in the first place, as one could expect, Libya. This country is not only at loggerheads with us, it is also at loggerheads with Egypt, its colleague. Then there was Sekou Toure of Guinea, a supporter of Communism. To my surprise Kenya was another, as a result of new dispensations which are apparently taking place. And to my regret, the fourth was Lesotho. I have to report to this House —it is my duty—that in this entire regard, Lesotho went out of its way to impede South Africa’s case. It was clear at the meeting of the OAU at Addis Ababa already that Lesotho was playing an important role in this regard. It was to a very great extent the efforts of Lesotho at that stage which led to the meeting at Dar-es-Salaam. Hon. members are aware of the role they played in that regard. It will surprise hon. members—and I am mentioning these things because I want the people of Lesotho, with whom we have no problems because the utmost goodwill exists between the people of Lesotho and South Africa, to realize on what course their Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kotsokoane, is directing Lesotho— to know that it was in fact Lesotho that carried to extremes the argument that our homelands are not viable. If one compares Lesotho’s current Budget, as I shall do in a moment, with the Budget of the Transkei, and with the Budgets of KwaZulu, Bophuthatswana and Lebowa, then one is surprized that this is the case, but one is all the more surprised. Sir, because South Africa had no obligation whatsoever to Lesotho, and yet it was South Africa which came to its assistance. I am saying, Sir, that I want the people of Lesotho to take cognizance of the standpoint and the attitude of the Minister of Foreign Affairs for which Chief Jonathan has to accept responsibility. It is very clear to me that these leaders are completely out of touch with the feelings of their people and that they would do well to take cognizance of the feelings which exist among their people. Lesotho is angry with us, inter alia, over something with which we had nothing to do, which is that we are negotiating with representatives of Botswana, Zambia and Tanzania, and let me say at once, at the outset, that Swaziland and Botswana conducted themselves correctly throughout, and that I have no complaint whatsoever to make about them. I maintain that this was the result of the fact that we conducted negotiations with representatives from Botswana, Zambia, and Tanzania. It is not we who constituted the representation; that was heir own affair. But Lesotho is agrieved now because they were overlooked by those people. Now you can understand, once again, why I spoke at the outset of the over-sensitiveness of certain people. But this does not detract from the fact that I have to be satisfied with their having to hit out at me now because they are angry with someone else. For the sake of the record it is a good thing that I mention these figures to you. Here African States have insulted the leaders of the Black peoples of South Africa, and I have to take up the cudgels for them, whether they agree with me now or not. Whether Chief Minister Buthelezi agrees with me or not, he is the leader of the Zulu and I have to recognize and respect him as such. And this is being done by countries the Budget of one in particular is only R10 million. These are now party to a resolution which states that our homelands cannot be viable. Now I want to reiterate for the record that, whether one considers it from the point of view of territory, or from the point of view of the size of the population, or whether one considers it from the point of view of the total Budget, or the per capita income, or if one considers it from the point of view of literacy—one can apply any test one likes—it is and remains a fact that the majority of our homelands are already at this stage more viable in every sense of the word than at least 30 countries that have representation at the UN. These are the facts of the matter. And Lesotho? According to the Statesman’s Year Book for 1974-’75. Lesotho had an income of R12 409 000 for the 1971-’72 Budget year. It is now more; its current Budget is now in the region of R17 million. As against this, that of the Transkei is R17 million; of the Ciskei. R34 million; of Bophuthatswana. R49 million; of Lebowa, R37 million; of the tiny Venda, R17 million; of Gazankulu. R13 million; of QuaQua, R7 million, and of KwaZulu, R92 million. Therefore you can understand that in all fairness I have to adopt a standpoint when these States are disparaged, and more specifically when their leaders are disparaged. I have to make it very clear now, and I am doing this in the full realization of all my responsibility—in fact. I have put it in this way to all with whom I have held talks up to now; I bold talks on the basis of the policy of separate development the policy of this Government; I hold talks on the basis that the Black homelands will become independent; and I hold talks in the hope of clearing the way for those homeland leaders, as and when they become independent, to take their full and equal place in world organizations. But if there is any person who believes that he can conduct talks with South Africa on the basis that Nelson Mandela is the leader of the Black people of South Africa, then I want to tell them now that they should not waste their time discussing this with me. Just as I am now speaking here, I spoke in the rest of Africa, and hon. members would have observed this from the leakage which occurred in respect of my talks in Liberia. If someone wants to hold talks with me on South West Africa on the basis that Swapo in South West Africa and that Sam Nujoma is the leader of South West Africa, then I say: “Forget it! ”

I think it is time, and I think it could only serve a good purpose, we considered South West Africa a little on this occasion. I am also doing this as a reply to the aspects mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is time the world took cognizance a little of what Swapo really is, for Swapo was conceived and born in sin. It was not even born in South West Africa, in Owambo; it was born in Cape Town, as the child of four communists, viz. Jack Simons, Ben Turok, H. Sa?ks and Fred Carneson. They gave birth to it here in Cape Town in 1957. They were four listed and acknowledged communists. At its birth its name was the Ovamboland People’s Organization, or the OPO. These four communists made Sam Nujoma, who is an Ovambo, the leader of this organization. In 1958 they realized that it was a mistake to call it the Ovamboland People’s Organization and, as such, to send it out into the world. They then changed its name to the South West Africa People’s Organization. That is where the name Swapo comes from. It is interesting to see what the constitution of Swapo lays down, interesting for those people who refer so easily to Swapo. Its aims are threefold:

1. (1) The uniting of all inhabitants of South West Africa into a cohesive, representative national political organization regardless of differences in race, ethnical origins or religion;
2. (2) The establishment of an independent government for South West Africa in co-operation with liberation movements in Africa and other progressive forces throughout the world.

Not perhaps Colin and Helen as well?

No, it is not Colin and Helen now, but other progressive forces. Then comes the third and important objective:

1. (3) The confiscation of land (please note this!) of all Whites and non-Whites who do not support the organization.

Does anyone in his right mind expect me to negotiate with such a person? I want to make it very clear now that I do not even want to be seen with the fellow. In this regard I am speaking plainly and I am not saying this simply because I am on my own stamping grounds. It is my duty to inform hon. members that I told the leaders of Africa: “You must not even try to sell Sam Nujoma to me because I am not buying him under any circumstances.” In these documents from Dar-es-Salaam this again emerges very clearly. I could quote extracts from them, if it is necessary, to point out that they recognize and acknowledge only one person in respect of South West Africa, and that is Sam Nujoma and his organization. Perhaps I should refer to this after all. I am quoting from the resolutions—

It is only they and the hon. leader of the Progressive Party, who do not know that we placed this on record as long ago as 1967, apart from what we have already said in this context. I quote further—

1. (b) respects Namibia’s territorial integrity.

I have stated repeatedly, and I want to reiterate it here, that South Africa does not demand an inch of South West Africa territory for itself, and this still remains the standpoint in respect of that matter. I quote further—

1. (c) recognizes Swapo as the only legitimate representative of the Namibian people. Any contact with South Africa should be based solely on the transfer of power to the Namibian people through Swapo, its legitimate representative. The Secretary-General shall inform member states of the development of the situation.

In their motivation in another document they go on to say that Swapo is recognized by the entire world as the only representative, and Sam Nujoma and his organization as those to whom South West Africa should be handed over. I am not aware that the entire world adopts this standpoint. If Press reports are correct, the British Government, for example, made it clear that they do not recognize Sam Nujoma as the only representative of South West Africa. In this way there are many other States in the world as well who do not do so. But I do not care who recognizes Sam Nujoma, this adventurer, this child of Ben Turok and others, as the only representative. South Africa does not recognize him. I now want to make it very clear here that, just as I am prepared to discuss any matter with African leaders—and I have demonstrated my willingness, and I shall continue to demonstrate my willingness— so, too, I am prepared to discuss South West Africa. In fact, I have utilized the opportunities which came my way to explain our standpoint on South West Africa as well. I shall continue to do so, but I am not prepared to do so via SWAPO, nor am I prepared to do so on the conditions stated herein. I have on occasion said to African leaders, in the same way as I issued invitations to ambassadors in earlier years: “There is South West Africa. If you want to go there to acquaint yourselves with the circumstances, you are very welcome to do so. I shall make the necessary arrangements.” I want to repeat this here in the House of Assembly of South Africa. African leaders who want to acquaint themselves with the actual circumstances in South West Africa, can either come to me themselves and say, or inform me through their representatives, that they would like to see what South West Africa looks like, and I shall take them there. If they want to speak to the people of South West Africa, they may do so, and I want to inform hon. members that there are people who have already availed themselves of this opportunity.

I am issuing an open invitation to African leaders who want to acquaint themselves with the facts to contact me, and I shall make the necessary arrangements. Nor am I simply leaving it at this open invitation; in my contacts I also convey it in this way personally. I want to repeat what was placed on record as long ago as 1967, viz. that the peoples of South West Africa will decide on their own future. I want to repeat that South Africa does not want an inch of South West African territory for itself, for it belongs to the peoples of South West Africa. I repeat that South Africa will do everything in its power to encourage the peoples of South West Africa to come to an agreement with one another on their future as soon as possible, a future in which all options are open, as we have already stated in the South West African Survey of 1967.

In that regard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition feels that a highly-placed person should be appointed to be of assistance in this context. I believe that at this stage it would do more harm than good. I do not want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that a time will never—“never” is a long time—arrive when I may perhaps consider this. At this stage, however, it cannot do any good, for at this stage, precisely because of the sensitiveness and the over-sensitiveness to which I have already referred, it is the peoples of South West Africa themselves who should take the initiative, who have already taken the initiative, and who are progressively reaching an understanding. In this regard I just want to mention … Perhaps I will be permitted to read this announcement verbatim (translation)—

I think that Mr. Billy Marais is an excellent official to take over these duties at this stage, and that this is a post which will keep him fully occupied. I believe that with the development which has taken place there, more and more of these people will designate their representatives who are able to speak on their behalf, and as and when that process has been finalized, the leaders of the various peoples will be able to hold talks.

In that regard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the United Party, a minority party in South West Africa. To my regret I have to inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if we were now to bring all parties and minority parties together and were to think that we were going to find a solution to the problems this simply could not happen, for it would cause such a veritable Babel of tongues that we would be passing resolutions such as those of Dar-es-Salaam. Something like this simply would not work, as my hon. friend from Fauresmith said yesterday in such a striking manner. It simply will not work, for if one invites the one opposition party, one has to invite all the opposition parties, and one would not be able to confine oneself to the Whites only, but would have to invite the various minority parties of all the various peoples, and something like this simply would not work out. The result is that we simply have to adopt the ordinary democratic course here, and accept that the majority represents the population group concerned, and that that population group elects its representatives as it has done. There can, and there will from the nature of the case be liaison with minority parties. They can submit their views to the majority party. Therefore this does not mean to say that they are completely excluded and that they have no way of presenting their standpoint. However, when it comes to the actual negotiations, these have to be carried out by the elected representatives of the majority, for otherwise there is simply chaos, and it will not be possible for this to be done. Perhaps the question will now be put to me whether the Advisory Council will disappear in this process. My answer is “no”. The representatives of the various peoples made it very clear to me that they do not want the Advisory Council to disappear, because the Advisory Council has done useful work and in my humble opinion is still able to do useful work. What is more, the Advisory Council affords me as the responsible person an opportunity of having direct contact and therefore acquainting oneself in a direct way with the feelings of the various people.

I have already been speaking for a long time, and I shall therefore prefer to discuss the second aspect, viz. the Rhodesian aspect and what goes with it, this afternoon or on Monday. To summarize: Resolutions were adopted at Dar-es-Salaam to which we are already accustomed. They do not shock me because they are a repetition of resolutions which have already been adopted over the years. The new ones to which I referred are absurd, and consequently I cannot tire myself out with them now.

As far as I am concerned, whether it has been resolved now that détente and dialogue is out and consultation and discussion in, does not make any difference to me. I am still prepared to hold talks on matters pertaining to Africa with those African leaders who are willing to do so, and I am pleased to know that there are African leaders as well who want to hold talks with me and with South Africa. Therefore I foresee that discussion will continue. For the sake of the record I am simply repeating what I said at Stellenbosch, viz. that I can very easily imagine that there could be a great deal of adversity along the way, that there will be setbacks, that the graph will fall and will sometimes, in fact, fall sharply. Put I have no doubt at all, as I know the situation, that the tendency of the graph is an upward one. I have no doubt at all that circumstances will bring about the development of an understanding between Africa and South Africa, Those circumstances are many. I have already enumerated them, and consequently it is not necessary for me to enumerate them again now.

When I refer to the resolution adopted at Dar-es-Salaam and to what was said there, I think I must in all fairness say that, although the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Zambia hit out at me for understandable reasons, in other respects he made a very sensible and realistic speech, and he not only spoke to South Africa but also to African states. For the sake of the record it would be interesting in this regard to quote only a few extracts from the speech made by Mr. Mwaanga. He said—

That is a remarkably true word in politics. I have reason to believe that the hon. member for Yeoville will take these words to heart. The same applies to the hon. member for Sea Point. I proceed with the quotation—

Then I appreciate what was said by Mr. Mwaanga at the meeting in Dar-es-Salaam. In the first place this affects me as representative of South Africa. On a previous occasion I told hon. members that there is respect for South Africa in Africa. There is respect for its integrity, its stability, development, and so on. Mr. Mwaanga said inter alia as follows—

Then there is another matter which he spelt out on that occasion, in reply to those who are so ready to fight, and who are so ready to make war. Mr. Mwaanga spelt out very clearly there that Zambia—to use his own words—“similarly (we) will not take up arms to fight South Africa”. This was a responsible speech, taking into consideration the circumstances in which and the audience before which it was made. I do not agree at all with the rest of what he said, and I shall in a suitable manner state my standpoint in that regard in unequivocal terms. All things considered, I believe that discussion between us and Africa will continue. I believe that it will, from the nature of the case, continue on South West Africa, but definitely not on the conditions slated here. I believe it will continue on Rhodesia, and I believe it will continue on other matters of common interest to us and Africa. They simply cannot escape that. The times and the circumstances will simply bring this about. As I have said, Sir, I shall first afford other members an opportunity of discussing these matters further, and I shall subsequently discuss the other matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr.Chairman, the speech of the hon. the prime Minister, as important and as interesting as it might have been, was somewhat disappointing in certain respects. I first want to refer to the statements read out by the hon. gentleman in connection with the so-called Press statements. He informed us that two correspondents of Presscor had made sworn statements that they did not have any facts at their disposal indicating that Die Burger …

I did not say sworn statements. I said “statements”.

I beg your pardon, I thought they were sworn statements.

No, as it happens, they are not.

Sir that, too, is unsatisfactory. If it is so that they made statements, did they admit in those statements that they had originally lodged the complaint that they did not have certain documents at their disposal as was reported in certain newspapers? Now we find ourselves in the position, Sir, that the hon. gentleman has not told us as yet what the source of the complaint was. Was it these two gentlemen who were responsible for the complaint? Who were the two gentlemen? And with whom did they lodge the complaint? Is it correct that they lodged complaints with the Secretary for Finance? Sir, I think we have not yet received satisfactory replies from the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not think he took the matter far enough. We would still like to know what the cause of this investigation was. Who was responsible for it? Who lodged the complaints? If complaints were lodged and if there was in fact an investigation, how did it reach the ears of the Press? Sir, there still are many things that are very unsatisfactory in connection with this matter, and I do not believe the hon. gentleman put all his cards upon the table as far as this matter is concerned. I think he has information at his disposal which he has not yet shared with us.

†Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with détente in Africa. He says that he believes that contact and discussion is to continue, although dialogue and détente apparently are not, and that he believes that the graph is an upward-moving one. I think that is good news. I believe that that is the right approach, and I believe that it is satisfactory to know that those commentators who believe it was possible that the Prime Minister would not continue with discussions because of the revealed objectives of the OAU, have been proved to be totally incorrect. I believe that what is vitally important is that the graph should continue to move upwards, and I believe the way in which it can be done is to show our value to Africa in practical ways. We as a country can have a most powerful argument for détente and I think this means that we should never lose out on any opportunity to be of assistance to them in times of disaster, in times when there are opportunities for strengthening economic ties, where we can convene conferences on development projects, where we can provide technical and scientific guidance. I am reliably informed that what made the biggest impression in strife-torn Mozambique was that the food South Africa promised, arrived. The vaster quantities promised by certain other countries did not arrive, and I think this is evidence of the sort of situation which can be used to our advantage.

That is usually so.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that is usually so, but then it also shows that if we can make a few more adjustments in South Africa of a sensible nature, a lot of the propaganda against us would not be acceptable even in those quarters. It is in that direction that I hope to direct the debate later, but first there are a number of points which the hon. the Prime Minister has raised.

Sir, I cannot accept that we were without contacts with Africa over a period of many years. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister knows that up to the time of the fall of the Smuts Government, the Prime Minister himself was persona grata in virtually every country in Africa. Surely he knows that they were all part of either the French Empire of the British Empire and that there were contacts at top level for a great part of the time. [Interjections.] I myself travelled through those lands before the last war, and I can tell you that we were guests of honour in those countries where today we dare not set foot.

Which ones?

Kenya, for one, and Uganda and the Sudan and Egypt. I visited them all. We were guests of honour because we were South Africans. But what is the situation today? It is a very different situation indeed, and that situation is one for which this Government must take responsibility because of the lack of contact during the first 20-odd years of office of this Government. There were the Commonwealth conferences at which there was representation on behalf of these countries, many of them. There was information available. There were study groups. I myself, in my time as a student, was a member of a big study group at Oxford dealing with these African countries. South Africa’s contacts were manifold throughout. I do not think we must run away from the fact that it is the responsibility of this Government that those contacts were lost during the period of what they call liberation and gaining independence, because of the feelings between our country and other countries at that time. Sir, may I say this also. I think it is a source of great regret to us in this House to hear of the role that Lesotho apparently played at this conference at Dar-es-Salaam, and previously at Addis Ababa, but I have before mentioned in this House the unhappiness of some of us at the relations between the Republic and Lesotho, and I wonder whether this matter has received sufficient attention from the hon. the Prime Minister.

Certainly.

The hon. gentleman says “certainly”, but we do not seem to have made much, progress, because it seems to me that the situation is not as good as it should be or as good as it was some years ago. It seems to me that this is something which very definitely needs attention.

The telephones broke down.

I want to say no more about that at this stage, but I think this is something which is definitely worthy of a great deal more consideration.

Now we come to the situation in respect of South West Africa and I accept, naturally, entirely the attitude of the Prime Minister in respect of SWAPO. I may say that I believe Chief Kapuuo, the Herero chief, has actually stated this publicly, that he went overseas and stated it publicly, and that there have been strong views expressed by certain of the different groups in South West Africa in that regard. It is also encouraging to hear that there is now an open invitation to leaders of African States, who want to acquaint themselves with the circumstances, to visit South West Africa. It is rather a different situation from what it was some years ago when there were difficulties about permitting people to visit that territory. That is a step very much in the right direction.

Now we come to my suggestion that a highly placed official should be appointed by the Government to, shall I say, get this conference, this understanding between the peoples of South West Africa, off the ground. I have the same problem with the present arrangements, where Messrs. Mudge and Van Zijl are acting on behalf of the White Legislative Assembly, as I have had before. They represent one community in South West Africa. They do not even represent the South African Government. They represent one community in South West Africa and they are the people who are acting and trying to bring the others together. Not unnaturally it is felt that they are a community which is trying to take the leadership. It seems to me that they are people who obviously have vested interests and who, in my opinion, will probably do their level best to do a good job, but would it not be a very much happier situation if we had a representative of the South African Government, recognized as being, shall we say, an ambulatory ambassador with, the task of visiting these people, persuading them of the bona fides of the South African Government in wanting them to meet by way of conferences to decide their own future, and making suggestions as to how these things should be done?

Then he is shot down immediately as the representative of the imperialists.

It is better to be shot down as the representative of the imperialists than to be shot down as the representative of somebody with a vested interest in obtaining control for a particular group in South West Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to say a few words about this aspect of the leak. When this debate is over and we look at what the different Opposition parties did in connection with this leak, we can only say what a Dutch friend of mine once said:

“Can a gasbag help being full of hot air?” This, then, is also all we can say about this leak.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition as well as other speakers of the Opposition parties implied in the no-confidence debate and again now, in so many words that South Africa’s policy, and in particular the National Party’s policy, is in fact the stumbling block in the way of detente in Africa. This is an interesting allegation which has been made and I want to allege the opposite. I shall allege that it is in fact the policy of the National Party that has, over the past 20 years, paved the way to the progress we have in fact been able to make at this stage with détente. If the Opposition, the United Party, ever really thought in its history of détente politics in Africa, they must have done so when they were in power and particularly during the war years and shortly afterwards, because it was at that time that the liberation movement in Africa took shape. It was precisely at that time that we had the emergence of the so-called Third World. The United Party, however, was unable to give thought to this matter. They did not have the courage of their convictions—that is, if they had any convictions at that stage—to do anything about it, because the United Party still believed at that stage that it was not South Africa’s duty. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the role of the late General Smuts and he referred to how welcome he was in Africa. We however, know what the position was. The United Party believed that it was the commonwealth and primarily Mother England, who had to conduct détente in Africa and take action there on its behalf. It was in fact the National Party who after those years, had to come forward and make contact, but now we are being accused of having allowed 20 years to pass without the National Party having made contact with Africa. It is however necessary for us to place this matter in perspective. What should the National Party have done to bring about real contact with Africa?

You are talking absolute nonsense!

It is the hon. member for Mooi River who is dense, not I. To this hon. member I want to say that the National Party deemed it necessary in terms of its policy to ensure in the first place that South Africa acquitted self-respect and because a separate state with its own Government which could be completely independent and could stand on its own feet. That the National Party had to do first. We first had to disentangle ourselves from those nets which the United Party Government had spread in this country. However we wish to argue the matter and however we may differ with one another in regard to it, it was necessary for the National Party in the second place, in order to gain entry to Africa, and this applies to the rest of the world as well, to cause the standpoint to become accepted that the National Party was leading the Black people of South Africa to independence in their own homelands. After the Second World War a spirit of African liberation prevailed the spirit of the emergence of the so-called Third World. The people of the Third World and Africa, however, do not understand this matter of qualified franchise as we have it here in the Progressive Party. They do not understand the policy of federation of the United Party. Those people in fact argue from the same viewpoint as that from which we in South Africa argue It is for those people far more important— and it is on this point that we will have far more success—that we should be able to go to them and say that we are leading eight or nine Bantu peoples to full autonomy. We did not merely pay lip service to this idea either. The mere fact that a country like the Transkei is being allowed to establish its own army, must contribute to the détente politics we are conducting in Africa. It really proves that we are in earnest, that we really want to lead these people along the road of independence. We have to ask the United Party what they can offer, since they are now levelling the criticism at the National Party that its policy is a stumbling block in the way of détente. The National Party’s policy has allegedly kept us away from Africa for 20 years. I want to allege the opposite. I want to allege that we were constantly at work in many areas in Africa. However, what can the United Party, offer? Can the United Party, to mention just one example, cite that they are in favour of consolidating the homelands for the Black people of South Africa? Can the United Party allege that the people who live in the homelands, will enjoy the same advantages under their federal policy as the people who live in White South Africa? Can they give Africa the assurance that there is no discrimination in their federal policy with regard to the Bantu who live in the White area and those who live in the homelands? Is the United Party prepared to give this assurance?

Yes.

That is very interesting. Then the United Party should tell us what status, in terms of their federal policy, they are going to confer upon the Bantu homelands. Will it still be the provincial status which was mentioned in the past? I think they should consult with their leaders very thoroughly now, because this aspect is of a decisive nature.

I want to go further. Yesterday the hon. member for Edenvale said in this House that in terms of United Party policy Bantu should have permanent residence in Bantu residential areas in White South Africa and should be granted the right to own land.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am not prepared to answer a question from that hon. member at this stage. He can ask me outside. The hon. member for Edenvale said that Bantu in Bantu residential areas should be given the right to own property inside the Bantu residential areas. That in itself is a statement which indicates that he accepts the Bantu in White areas— or in any case, the Bantu in Bantu residential areas in White areas—as being here permanently. [Interjections.] Very well, then we go on to the next question, also in terms of that party’s policy, and this they should tell us now for the benefit of Africa and the rest of the world, namely whether they are also prepared to allow the Bantu who are on White farms, to obtain the rights to own property in White South Africa?

What do you say Nic?

Could we possibly have just a nod of the head from the hon. member for Edenvale? Hon. members on that side of the House think of one thing only when they think of the Bantu in White areas. They think namely just of the Bantu in Bantu residential areas, the White area. I think it is there when one of the big differences arose between the hon. member for Yeoville and that side of the House. We at least want to spell this out clearly when we …

What is your policy in South West Africa?

I am not discussing South West Africa now. I am replying to the hon. member for Edenvale.

I am just helping him a little.

Yes, I will still get to that. It is a pertinent question to me that, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accuses the hon. the Prime Minister of … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the past, as happens even now, South West Africa has often been discussed in this House and one is struck by the fact that so often in the past we have heard the accusation against the Government from the Opposition side that we speak about the Bantu and the Coloureds but not with them. I want to say immediately that this is a totally unfounded statement. However, this statement is true in respect of the United Party and the other splinter groups on the Opposition side, since they are talking about South West Africa, but not with South West Africa. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do well to avail himself of the invitation extended by the hon. the Prime Minister to visit South West Africa so that he would at least display less ignorance in respect of the Territory. I want to say immediately that as far as the representatives appointed by South West Africa are concerned, i.e. Mr. Mudge and Mr. Van Zijl, we are quite satisfied that they are able to say what there is to say and will conduct the conversation as is expected of them. Sir, I wish to point out to you that it has also been decided that, as and when it becomes necessary, the Leader of the National Party of South West Africa will also take part in the discussion.

When one listens to all these things and considers the threats from outside, there is one thing which is quite clear, and one can say that South West Africa is fortunate in being governed by the Nationalist Party. It is a fortunate country which has as its leader a man like Adv. John Vorster, a leader who commands esteem and respect throughout the world. Imagine what the position in South West Africa would have been if, the standpoint of the United Party in respect of Rivonia had to triumph in South Africa. As a representative of this contentious country, South West Africa, I should like to express my gratitude for a helping hand extended over many years, only we who live and work there and to whom South West Africa means home and hearth, are able to express sincere gratitude. Only we who are being threatened, Who know abusive language and see the dangers approaching closer to our borders, know what a friend we have in the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government. Therefore I say it is only we who can really express gratitude. This goes for all population groups, White and non-White.

Surely, when we consider South West Africa, it is correct to ask by whom that territory has been developed. Was it the United Party, was it the United Nations, was it the indigenous population groups? Time and again we shall receive the reply: No, only with the advent of the National Party, did the sun rise for South West Africa as well. What did the National Party find after 27 years of United Party rule in South West Africa? Were there any roads, bridges, adequate school facilities, hostel facilities, hospitals, post offices, telecommunications?

It was only a hunting ground for the wealthy members of the United Party.

Was there any assistance to farmers, to local authorities? No, South West Africa did not know anything of that nature. It was the National Party who developed and worked with unknown zeal. Today we can invite any objective observer to come and see what has already been achieved in South West Africa by a small number of people and in a very short period of time. Therefore it is fitting that we pay tribute on this occasion, not only to our Prime Minister and his Government, but also to the architect and builder of South West Africa, a man who devoted a life time to South West Africa and her people—the leader of the National Party in South West Africa, the hon. A. H. du Plessis. The stated policy of the National Party is clear. This is a dynamic, viable and flexible policy, a policy with sound built-in guarantees, guarantees for everyone. We are thinking of the maintenance of our own identity, the right to govern oneself and the guarantee of peace and prosperity. The overriding thought of it all is: “Do not begrudge others that which you claim for yourself”. This policy also applies in South West Africa. In this way each, population group goes to the conference table without prejudice, with all options open, to consider the suggestions and to consult with one another in an attempt to find a solution which will be acceptable to all.

The Prime Minister of South Africa is drilling tunnels to the hearts of people in Africa, the “hardened hearts” to which the late Dr. Verwoerd referred. True to the example he set, we in South West Africa are also drilling tunnels to the hearts of people. We are grateful for this Prime Minister who has been given to us and together with the inhabitants of South Africa, the inhabitants of South West Africa pray for him, the peace-maker. We pray for his health, for wisdom and that his life be preserved.

We in South West Africa are facing the period of challenge with confidence, knowing that the Government will give strong guidance, knowing that no interference from outside will be tolerated, knowing that each population group will and can retain its own identity and the right to be himself. This is the same right which Lesotho, Zambia and any other nation on earth has. Therefore the principle is the same and all we have to do is find a method according to which a solution can be found so that all the population groups can exist there peacefully. We must, however, always remember that we are not only concerned with a solution, but that we who live there, everyone who lives there, is also concerned with continued existence. South West Africa owes its level of development to the White man, and because this is so, the White man regards himself as much part of South West Africa as the Herero or the Damara, and we are not prepared only to be tolerated there, we are not prepared only to be guests there. It is our right as well to live there and to develop the area as we have done in the past. South West Africa certainly does not want that which has now taken place in our neighbouring state, Angola. We do not want a revolution. We do not want bloodshed. In Angola it is being done with a total disregard for the people living there and the people who have developed that area. Therefore the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister is unassailable, i.e. the standpoint that the inhabitants of South West Africa will decide their own future. Could one want anything more reasonable than that everyone would be able to decide about his own future? Is this not clear enough for the hon. Opposition? But it seems as though they are looking for something more. It is true that not all the bodies agree on the manner in which a solution for South West Africa is to be found. It is true that different bodies view this in a different light. There are also those people who preach violence, as elsewhere in Africa, and here I am specifically referring to Swapo. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have listened with very great interest to the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister about the consequences of Dar-es-Salaam. I shall refer only briefly to another matter before passing to this speech since it deserves closer attention. We shall no doubt deal with it again later. I want to refer now to the information he gave to the students of Stellenbosch at their autumn conference about the history of South Africa’s relations with. Africa. I am afraid that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. members for Schweizer Reneke and Omaruru must go back and read a little more history. I want to mention only one example, but an important one, of our longstanding interest in Africa. It was Gen. Smuts who, before the Second World War, made a famous speech, at Oxford in which he proposed that the European countries should cease to regard their African possessions as extensions of Europe. He pointed out that Africa was one continent and that the abiding interests of the people who lived in Africa were greater in relation to one another than to the European powers which controlled them. It was on his proposal that that great survey of Africa, looked at as a continental whole, was started by Lord Hailey, the African Survey, which remains to this day a monumental work. From that work flowed the further work by Worthington, known as Science in Africa. From that research work was born a commission for technical co-operation in Africa. These things were sponsored very largely upon South African initiative. I think that before one makes these vague statements about South Africa only recently having become interested in Africa, one should look very carefully at the real history of those times. I leave that point.

I want to say that, whilst the hon. the Prime Minister has told us a great deal of interest, I believe it is fair to say—and I think the hon. gentleman will agree—that we have not yet achieved very much détente in the sense that nothing much has been resolved. When I say this I do not by any means deprecate what has been done. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has made some very important contributions. What I do mean is that while a relaxation, a breathing-space, has been obtained, the fundamental problems have obviously not yet been solved. I believe, though, that the hon. the Prime Minister has gained certain important advantages. He has gained Western goodwill for South Africa and for its intentions in Southern Africa. He has gained support in Southern Africa and in parts of tropical Africa for what I might describe as the French-African philosophy, that is that more can be gained by peace in Africa than by war. When I talk of the French-African philosophy, I think in particular of President Houphouet-Boigny’s contribution. Above all, I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has gained time.

Of these three, I think that time is the most important commodity, because time will enable us also to ensure that Western goodwill and African goodwill can be further secured. Time is of the essence and we have referred the hon. the Prime Minister in particular to the South West African situation as a means of gaining time. At the recent meeting of the Security Council in December 1974 our Western friends all stressed the very same thing. It was France, which is an important country to us these days, that expressed this opinion—

The emphasis, Sir, is on “very soon”, because the ambassador went on to say—

The British representative made a similar statement and the Americans said that they were—

From our friends, the people who can give us most support, our Western allies, we get these calls for urgency and for clarity. It was quite clear that the Security Council was not impressed by the statement issued by the executive of the National Party, which was circulated to the Security Council One of the remarks in that statement was—

Mr. A. H. du Plessis is a person who earns respect on account of many qualities, but the fact is that in relation to South. West Africa, his position is ambiguous. He cannot take independent initiatives in South West African matters of this nature when at the same time he is a Cabinet Minister in South Africa, sharing collective responsibility with the other members of the South African Government. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the people of South West Africa will work out their own destiny. Quite right; we agree. But if someone is to take the initiative, then it cannot be somebody who, while being leader of the National Party in South West Africa, is also sharing collective responsibility with the executive Government of South Africa. His position becomes ambiguous. This is why we recommend that an impartial person of undoubted stature, a person whose position is beyond question, and who stands outside the partisan political scene in South Africa, should be appointed to take the initiative. It is no reflection upon the hon. the Minister of Community Development when we demand this. We believe that our case would be better advanced if we had an impartial person of undoubted stature to mediate and to give impetus to these negotiations.

We believe, therefore, that time is of the essence. Time is a means of ensuring that we gain the advantages which the Prime Minister’s initiatives have already opened up for us. It is obvious that through this détente, through this gaining of time, we also provide an opportunity to do those things that need to be done in South Africa, to achieve that internal détente that is the ultimate guarantee of security, peace and stability in Africa as a whole. We are an indivisible part of Africa and our problems in Africa will not be solved until we have also achieved that internal détente.

President Kaunda quite recently, in Colombo, said this—

That, I think, was a fair and generous statement by President Kaunda, but we must make sure that where we have time, we use it well. Time in South Africa, in cur diplomatic relations and in our African relations, is what water is to agriculture in South Africa. Time is as important to our diplomacy as water is to our agriculture. By using it well and conserving it well we will multiply its uses and we will get an abundant return. I think that time is of the essence, and if the hon. the Prime Minister will use time, as in South West Africa, where time can not only be used to his advantage, but where time can be gained in consequence, he will also create time in order to solve those other problems which are essential to permanent détente in Africa.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, 1953 I made my maiden speech here from the back-benches. What I am going to quote here now, I quote with the sole intention of demonstrating thereby that I, as an ordinary member who has been involved with the National Party for years, even then stated the National Party’s policy and point of view correctly. I said on 30 July 1953 (Hansard, Volume 82, col. 636)—

You were better in those days.

Since the National Party was formed this has been a component that has been written into the party’s political system of thought. We have never deviated from this in any respect. Whereas the hon. the Prime Minister stood up here this morning and asked why people directed their anger at him when they were angry with other people, I want to say that I support and endorse the hon. the Prime Minister’s words entirely. He is entitled to say that, because that blow which is aimed at us is not a blow we deserve. We are no colonial power. We did not depart from Africa like a colonial and leave Africa to the Black man in ignorance, poverty and pestilence, as the colonial powers did. We are not colonialists; we did not leave Africa like a bunch of exploiters. We have never been imperialists. We are not people who have left behind what the Black states here in Africa were saddled with when the White people, the colonial powers, left Africa one after the other. We appear in an entirely different guise on the African scene. Why should we have to pay for what was done in the past by other White colonial powers? Why should we have to sustain these blows? We shall definitely not pay Dar-es-Salaam’s account and certain other accounts which they are presenting to us for payment. We cannot do so. The hon. the Prime Minister stated this very clearly here this morning. Nor shall we listen to requests to hold a public auction, as the Progressive Party and the United Party want us to do. We are not selling a system of thought that has been built up and nurtured over the years, nor are we going to squander it. Our political philosophy of separation has a foundation in history. It is morally purified. It is closely bound up with the realities, with realities that take place before us every day. We warned against the Federation of Rhodesia, Zambia and Kenya. No less a personage than Sir Roy Welensky wrote in his book that he was sorry that he had not taken Strydom’s advice. Today that experiment, which the Progressive Party and the United Party are imitating, lies in ruins. Today they are leaning on the fundamental concept of the National Party, a concept which we have been building into the policy of separation through the years. We are not selling it. We shall not sell it; we shall not fritter it away because what is developing at the moment in Southern Africa, is this: Here stands the National Party as the oldest democratic party in the world. There is no other party in a democratic state in the world as old as the National Party, nor one that has drawn its strength from nurturing such a fundamental concept. The National Party is the oldest, although perhaps the smallest in numbers. In the midst of all the confused occurrences here in Southern Africa, the National Party puts forward its image. The Prime Minister is putting forward the fundamental concept of the National Party here for Southern Africa. What took place at Dar-es-Salaam was that the National Party’s fundamental concept and its fundamental ideas received attention there. We are not being accused there of being a colonial power. As against this smallest party, the bearer of this political way of thought, the spirit of Marx has made its appearance in Southern Africa in recent times. It is a party that was formed almost simultaneously with the National Party. It is the biggest party in the world, a party with over 1 000 million people under its dominion and in its strangle-hold. These two powers are now developing against each other here in Southern Africa. That is what is happening today. The idea of the Reformists, the Progressive Party and the United Party are not permanent. They have no value; they embody no spirit; they interpret no projection. They are a passing phase. They have been eroded away; they are getting smaller and smaller. In relation as they become less meaningful as opinion-formers in our fatherland, the National Party is becoming more meaningful. It is becoming the thinking giant, the giant as regards the provision of guide-lines in this great conflict that is developing here in Southern Africa.

What is of significance to us as regards the appearance of Communism here in Southern Africa? There are only a few minor matters. Marx states that there is an inherent built-in conflict within the capitalistic system. Sir, when the hon. the Minister of Finance concludes his Budget speech and states that he believes in the free capitalistic system in which the initiative and the entrepreneuring spirit can enjoy freedom, in which they can develop, and he adds that one cannot make the weak strong by making the strong weak, then immediately he is stating a philosophy in opposition to that of Karl Marx, who states that in a capitalistic system like ours, there is a built-in and inherent conflict. Sir, the second thing he says is important. He says that that built-in inherent conflict must necessarily result in a revolution. Sir, these two great concepts—revolution and conflict—appear here in Southern Africa. Here stand the National Party and what is its past? Consultation, good neighbourliness, non-militance. We do not seek blood; we do not seek slavery. On the contrary, Sir, in the midst of this confusion, in the midst of this search for a political constitutional concept, on the basis of which Southern Africa wants to find stability, we are engaged in freeing peoples. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville has given us a performance here this afternoon with some degree of emotion. But, Sir, I think it is necessary that we should come back to the realities of what politics is actually all about. I think the major problem that the hon. member for Carletonville and, with respect, members on his side of the House will not appreciate is that apartheid, which he preached when he first came into this House, is the word that has got us into trouble in Africa and is continuing to get us into trouble in Africa. When he talks about our paying a price for other people’s actions, he is right, but we are also paying a price for the racist talk that there has been in the Nationalist Party in decades gone by and that has not been forgotten in Africa. That price, on the basis of which the 1948 election and the 1953 election were fought by the Nationalist Party, is a price which all of us in South Africa have to pay in the year 1975. That, Sir, is the price that we have to pay. The hon. member says that the policy of separation is the answer to everything. If there could be a partition in South Africa, a partition or separation on the basis of equity, then there would be merit in his case, but there cannot be an equitable partition on the basis suggested by the hon. member and his party. Sir, perhaps the most significant statement which was made by the hon. the Prime Minister and which is really the crux of what he said this morning, is that détente and dialogue are out and that consultation and contact under certain circumstances are possible. I think that is the most important part of what he said this morning.

I did not say “possible”; I said “permissible”.

I misunderstood the hon. the Prime Minister. Sir, that is the most important part of what he said, because many of us in South Africa were hoping for something more than merely consultation and contact. We are disappointed that in fact it has not been possible —and I ascribe no fault here to the hon. the Prime Minister because I think he has tried his best in this connection—to make further headway in our relationships with the other African States. But I was pleased to hear that the hon. the Prime Minister, despite all the rudeness, despite all the adverse comment, despite all the attacks which we resent as much as he does, said —although these are not his exact words— that he would continue to be available for discussions and for contact with whoever in Africa was of goodwill and was prepared to have discussion and contact with him.

I appreciate that, because I think, with respect, it takes a man of courage to say that in the circumstances after the insults that have been piled on the hon. the Prime Minister. I respect him for it because I believe he is doing that and will do that in the interests of the country as a whole. I want to add, if I may, that I believe South Africa should not become despondent as a result of what happened in Dar-es-Salaam. I believe that this is not a reason why there should be a feeling of helplessness, or why there should be a feeling of White reaction in South Africa. On the contrary, I think we should dedicate ourselves anew to the concepts that may bring about an understanding in Africa. I believe that we should in South Africa be strong militarily. I believe we have to be strong economically. I believe we have to be strong in morale, and I believe that we must be strong morally, in the sense that we will be doing the right things in South Africa in order to create a just society in South Africa. I believe it is at a time when people pile insults upon you that you should keep your head, and I believe this is a time when in a very simple fashion we should continue to go on with the contacts and with the discussions which are possible in Africa.

Sir, the world situation has changed very rapidly in the last little while. We cannot be immune in South Africa in respect of the changes in United States policy that there have been in respect of their actions outside of the U.S.A. itself. We cannot ignore what has happened in South-East Asia and what is happening in the Middle East. If there is one lesson to be learned from all of this, it is the lesson that in fact in so far as South Africa is concerned, in the final result it will have to determine its own destiny. Its own people will have to determine their destiny and all the people of South Africa will have to play a part in this. We must be a part of Africa. We are part of the world. In the final result it is South Africa which will have to protect itself and which will have to take the steps in order to bring about the kind of relationships in Southern Africa that we want to achieve.

Now, we were all obviously disturbed by what the hon. the Prime Minister said in respect of Lesotho. We were not unaware of it before he said it, and it seems to us that what is necessary is that the priority we have to apply ourselves to is to have a closer relationship with all the States in Southern Africa. Sir, I can perhaps get as excited, if not more so, than anyone else in this House when we talk about Libya or about Algeria or countries in that region, but I think our priority is that we should see to it that our immediate neighbours are the ones who are on good terms with us here. Particularly in regard to Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho, we have to take certain initiatives in order to see to it that there is the right kind of relationship. Perhaps what is necessary is a greater degree even of personal diplomacy and personal contact between ourselves and the leaders of those States. I believe that is a priority which we cannot ignore. The hon. the Prime Minister in an aside said to me specifically: “Do not take our political differences inside South Africa into Africa.” Sir, I agree that no political differences which exist in this House should hamper any discussions or any endeavours to come to an understanding, because I believe that the diplomatic relationships are constituted by the Government of the day, and it is their duty, their right and their obligation to see to it that the relationship is a correct one. But it is important that not only Africa but the world as a whole should know that there is an alternative to apartheid and separate development in South Africa, and that a considerable portion of the White people in South Africa do not support the policy of apartheid in this land. This is important. In fact, it is not only important in our eyes, because even the Government sees to it that important visitors to South Africa hear the other point of view as well, and in fact they arrange to make sure that opposition points of view are heard. But it is fundamental for the Black people of South Africa and for Africa to know that there is another view, that there is an alternative to separate development and that it is also a policy which is capable of working. It is also necessary that we who are in the Opposition should assist in opening these doors when we are able to do that. Perhaps these doors are sometimes a little bit jammed when it comes to approaches on behalf of the Government. I believe that it is in South Africa’s interest. One cannot pretend that there is only one view which all White South Africans hold. There is also another view and that view is based on a policy which is not in accordance with the policy of the Government when it comes to the internal relationship in South Africa.

There is not only one view, but about four of these views.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville had much to say about the policy of the National Party, but in my opinion, if there is one hon. member in this hon. House who ought not to express an opinion on the National Party then it is the hon. member for Yeoville. He could not even become reconciled to his former party. The hon. member for Yeoville is an hon. member who belonged to a party which was supposed to be the official Opposition in South Africa and which followed a policy which was supposed to be in opposition to that of the governing party. The hon. member for Yeoville charged here that it was the policy of apartheid which, as he put it, caused the hate and the venom of the world to be directed against South Africa. That was his basic statement.

Yes.

There one of the United Party members shouts:“Yes” I find this tragic, and I think it is necessary for us to bring home a few basic concepts to the three Opposition parties in this House today. It is of interest to consider these three Opposition parties. Two of them were born out of the other one. In other words, we have three Opposition parties whose members originally belonged to one party. It is clear to me that the official Opposition in South Africa has never had a policy which has been acceptable to its members. It is for that reason that we have had these developments and this conflict in its ranks. What we must bring home to the official Opposition is that we in South Africa have a stable Government that enjoys recognition throughout the world. Our political set-up is one of stability. In order to establish such a stable Government, it was necessary for the people of South Africa to have confidence in the Government and in the National Party. Consequently the National Party in South Africa is the will of the people. It is true, and it must be accepted by the official Opposition, that this Government and this hon. Prime Minister must govern South Africa. The Opposition is a small minority with major differences and major disputes within its own ranks. What is the position? I want to put the reasons for détente and dialogue very clearly to the Opposition. They must understand them. The objective is to bring about peace in Africa and to wage a struggle against the danger that Communism represents, not only to South Africa but to the continent of Africa as well. However, the hon. members do not perceive this. The dialogue that is being conducted from South Africa is being conducted from a position of strength, and not weakness. It is being conducted from a position of strength in the sense that we have here an hon. Prime Minister with a strong government and a country that is economically resilient, a country is militarily prepared and a country that can stand independent of the rest of Africa. This the hon. members must realize. They must realize that the dialogue that is being conducted is not being conducted from a position of weakness. If we had had a weak Government and if the dialogue effort had been conducted from a position of weakness, the world would be able to interpret it as attempts to bring about reconciliation and that our leaders were conducting dialogue for reasons that were not positive. But the dialogue concerning détente that is being conducted today is, as I have already said, being conducted from a position of strength. It is not being conducted by telling other countries what they have to do, because we have repeatedly stated that we advocate no interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. This has been stated repeatedly in the past. It is being done from strength in the true sense of the word, in the knowledge that we have a task in Africa. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said this today. The hon. member for Hillbrow has also repeatedly stated, “What you are doing in Africa is but a pittance.” He has also stated repeatedly, “You do too little; you should do much more in Africa.” This is a dangerous attitude. I am going to mention an example. I am going to say that there is a welfare organization to which a large business enterprise donates thousands upon thousands of rands for the sake of advertisement, viz. to get something out of it. If assistance to Africa is seen in that light, the approach is wrong. South Africa has always been prepared to be of assistance. It has always been prepared to provide technical, scientific, political and many other forms of assistance to Africa. Why, then, should an attempt be made to cast this in the teeth of the countries that are receiving it? This is an incorrect approach; surely it seems that an attempt is being made to barter or become reconciled; it looks as if one wants to buy something. South Africa does not need to buy its right of existence in Africa or in the world because we are a strong country. South Africa is a strong country economically. One day it will be written in the annals of history that this hon. Prime Minister did not only succeed with détente, was not only the greatest opponent of Communism that Africa has every seen, but that in the process he also accepted the challenge of the present the challenge to develop South Africa into an economic giant. In this regard there is something I hold against the official Opposition. When announcements are made in this House concerning development in South Africa, such as the stupendous announcement concerning uranium enrichment, the second Sasol and Iscor, undertakings to the benefit of South Africans, one can see the expression on all their faces, except those of a few who ought not to be sitting there. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow is the last one who should say “oh no”.

I did not say a word.

He cannot take it; he cannot take it when something fine and good occurs to the benefit of South Africa. It is tragic that out of pure frustration, the hon. members on the other side of this House do not want to give that acknowledgment. However, it does not matter. They cannot carry out their duties in South Africa; they have never been able to do their duty as official Opposition, Progressive Party or Reform Party. If they were only to show a greater pride in what is theirs …

You can tell them that again!

But although South Africa is economically strong as against the whole world, economic strength has never been static. With our population increase, with the rights of self-determination we are giving other peoples in South Africa …

[Inaudible.]

I beg your pardon?

[Inaudible.]

I do not know what the hon. m?mber is talking about. Do not mumble, but speak if you want to speak. All the things we are engaged in are essential in South Africa so that the country may become economically strong. They are essential for the formation of capital and to promote efficiency. They are also essential to bring about greater production. What does one get from the official Opposition? From the hon. member for Sea Point one hears the word “suspicious”. When they use this word about Iscor, for example, have they ever considered what the impact of this is on the officials of Iscor? Have they ever considered that those people work day and night in the interests of South Africa? When derogatory things are said in this revered House of Assembly, things that give the impression that there are officials that are not honest and do things which they may not or should not do, have they ever considered the impression that creates in regard to South Africa’s economic future? There is one thing that hon. members of the Opposition must realize, whether they belong to the United Party, the Progressive Party or the Reform Party: They will have to display a sense of responsibility and they will have to view this détente in Africa in a different perspective. They will have to see it from the point of view of South Africa’s strength, as a deed and a task in the struggle against Communism. They will have to see the matter in this light and facilitate the task of the hon. the Prime Minister. Détente must not be linked to the kind of allegation made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He said, “Our failure in Africa is due to apartheid.” This is a misconception. We are not ashamed of apartheid; we are not ashamed of self-determination.

Why, then, is the word “apartheid” regarded as a swear-word today?

The official Opposition has made it a swear-word. It is the hon. member’s party that has tried to use it politically and they are still going to be sorry about their approach to self-determination.

Why is the word forbidden today?

The word is not forbidden, but I think “self-determination” is a much better word. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the second half hour?

I think if there was any text to be gleaned from what the hon. member who has just sat down said, it was “dialoog word uit sterkte gevoer”. On what does that “sterkte” depend? I believe that strength depends on détente at home. That strength depends on good relations at home. That strength depends on economic development at home.

And what about stability?

If it is stability as shown by the Nationalist Party, then I would say “no”, but if it is stability as shown in business, I would say “yes”. If it is stability as shown by the hon. member, then I would say: “Let us forget about it.”

Détente abroad depends also upon proof to those in favour of dialogue that they are achieving some progress and that progress can only be achieved by détente at home. Obviously these requirements tend to overlap. All the requirements for détente abroad and détente at home and conducting dialogue on the basis of strength tend to overlap. There is one thing which I think is quite certain and that is that if we are successful in achieving détente abroad, then obviously it is going to mean more Black ambassadors in South Africa, more Black businessmen visiting South Africa and in the end it is going to mean more Black tourists visiting South Africa. The one thing for which they are all going to be on the look-out is whether there is discrimination against men of colour here in South Africa on the grounds of skin colour alone. So far we have avoided any serious incidents with Black diplomats. I believe that in so far as visiting Black businessmen are concerned it is possible that they may get VIP treatment and that incidents will be avoided, but it is not going to be easy, When it comes to the question of visiting Black tourists, I wonder what the situation is going to be here in South Africa …

There have been many of them here.

… unless there is a change of heart, unless there is a difference in the sort of situation that is developing at the present time. [Interjections.] I am talking of Black tourists from overseas and not Black tourists in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. gentlemen opposite whether they are satisfied that there will not be incidents. I think this is going to mean a new approach to the whole question of discrimination on social grounds in South Africa and discrimination on the grounds of colour alone. I need hardly say that in so far as our own Black and Brown people are concerned, the removal of discrimination on the grounds of colour would be the greatest single step towards détente that could be taken by this Government. I have proposed that it can be done within the framework of a federal constitution. This Government has its difficulties, but I think it knows that the removal of discrimination on the grounds of colour alone is an inevitable and unavoidable step towards peace at home. That peace at home is the necessary guarantee for détente abroad.

Would federation achieve that?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks, “Would federation achieve that?” I believe that it would, but the hon. the Prime Minister is in power and at the moment it is his problem, not mine. How is he going to achieve it? Hon. gentlemen are laughing, but how is he going to achieve it?

He has a commitment.

Yes, he has his commitment. His ambassador said so at the U.N. not so long ago. He was going to remove discrimination on the ground of colour. He said so quite some time ago. Has the hon. the Prime Minister forgotten about it? Has that hon. vociferous member behind him forgotten about it?

They would like to.

Considering the opposition the hon. the Prime Minister has from some of the people sitting behind him—not from those who are with him, but from those who are behind him, from those who are supporting him—I think he has made some quite considerable progress. The tragedy is that what is lacking is that spirit of total conviction that these steps are necessary. I would like to say immediately that, unless they adopt the federal system which decentralizes decision-making and allows for a freedom of choice, he is on a dead-end course anyway as far as the removal of discriminatory practices is concerned. What is happening at the moment is a kind of unbelieving acceptance of the necessity of doing something. It is a grabbing at straws in a maelstrom of 40-odd years dead-weight policy standing for the opposite point of view. I believe that we have reached a stage where there has to be a full stop and a reconsideration of the whole situation. I have suggested before that in this field the assistance of a multi-racial council of State, in a purely advisory capacity, would be of inestimable value to the hon. the Prime Minister in isolating the areas where there is friction, in drawing attention to them and in considering in what manner remedies could be introduced.

The trouble today is that, while the Government has given a commitment to the United Nations Organization and while the Government talks about the removal of discrimination, the Government is in fact the biggest sinner and the greatest brake on the removal of discrimination in South Africa. It is in the post offices and Government offices that the notices “Whites only” appear most often. They appear there far more than in the supermarkets, the shops and the banks in South Africa. There is no doubt whatsoever with those of us who have had the opportunity of speaking to the Coloured and Black people that there is far more friction in the areas controlled by the Government than there is in the areas controlled by private enterprise. It is in this movement that the Government seems to be dragging its feet. I have spoken about this matter before. We are listened to in silence and we are told that steps are going to be taken and that the Government is moving in that direction. Their ambassador said that the Government is going to remove all discrimination on the grounds of colour as quickly as possible. It cannot be done overnight, but what is actually happening? The hon. the Prime Minister himself must know from his own conversations with the leaders of the Black people and the leaders of the Brown people and their communities that it is discrimination affecting personal dignity which causes the greatest affront to these people. It is the biggest single stumbling-block towards their affection and loyalty to South Africa. I believe the time has come for a determined new initiative in this sphere from the hon. the Prime Minister himself. I believe that at this stage, when the hon. the Prime Minister is working for détente in Africa, it is the Government that should be setting the pace and setting the example in the removal of discriminatory practices. What is happening? It is the Government that is dragging its feet and that is acting as the biggest brake. Already there is bitter talk—I must tell the hon. the Prime Minister—amongst our own Black and Brown people. They were born here and their parents before them. They contributed towards the economic strength of South Africa which enables us to conduct dialogue from strength. They contributed towards it and yet they are denied privileges and facilities which are allowed to almost any non-White, any Black visitor or any foreigner coming to South Africa. I want to say quite honestly to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he wants détente at home and if he wants to retain the loyalty of the Black and Brown people against those who are trying to subvert them from outside, or even against the persuasive agitators in South Africa, then I believe that he cannot delay any longer. He has got to tell his own people that they have got to forget about their old ideas and their old prejudices and that they have got to tackle this matter with determination. I thought that the hon. the Prime Minister was making progress at one stage. In the speech which he made at Ceres earlier this year, he spoke about “geriewe op ontspannings-en opvoedkundige gebied”. He said that the policy of his party was separate amenities for the different races. He went on to say—and I have had it checked in two newspapers—

I thought that was a step forward, a step in the right direction. That explains why the Nico Malan Theatre was thrown open to all races. Now, I appreciate what the situation is, but then we had refusals in respect of the threatre in Johannesburg. We have had refusals in respect of certain facilities in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere. I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon to explain to us just what his policy is in respect of public amenities in South Africa.

It is the same as his sports policy.

It seems to me to be growing just as complicated as his sports policy and even more harmful to good race relations. I know that it is always thrown back at me: “What is your policy?” We have stated our policy perfectly plainly time and time again. We have said that where public amenities are made available by public authorities, there should be separate and open amenities. It means that there should be separate amenities for the Whites, separate amenities for the non-Whites and open amenities for those who wish to enjoy them together. Where it is not possible to have those separate amenities, then we believe that where they are of a kind that can be shared without friction, they should be shared without friction. That goes for the Nico Malan Theatre and many things of that kind. Where public amenities are provided by private enterprise, then it should be left to the private individual supplying those amenities to decide on what conditions he wants to supply those amenities. That is our policy. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that no matter what he is doing today and no matter what he is being forced to do by some of those people who are behind him, even if they are not with him, by the year 1990 the people in South Africa will not be able to believe that the situation has ever been as it is being enforced by this Government at the present time. If that is not so, there will be no détente in Africa and there will be no more friendship with the Western world.

This discussion brings one inexorably to a discussion of the Government’s sports policy with its many enigmas, its many contradictions and its many inconsistencies. This sports policy has been canvassed in the Other Place fairly recently. It was canvassed in this House by way of a private motion not so long ago and therefore I do not need to cover the ground again. However, I think there is one aspect which is of importance and the importance of which has been underlined by recent events. I refer to the danger of multi-national non-mixed competitions as opposed to competitions between multi-racial or multinational teams. What I am getting at is the insistence that, where there is to be competition, it should be between national teams of the different races. This particularly concerns the playing of team games. There have been warnings of this sort before. After the recent disturbances on the Witwatersrand at a big soccer match I received the following comment:

That was said by Mr. Ken Funston, the old Springbok cricketer, who is the chairman of last season’s soccer champions, the Arcadia Shepherds. He uttered his warning about the racial passions that could be aroused by multi-national sport in a speech he made last October. What he said has now been heavily underlined by events. I think the view of many thinking people is that the hon. the Minister of Sport is on a risky route because the whole rationale of the Government’s resistance to mixed sport has always been that it could lead to racial friction on the playing field and amongst the spectators. I have no hesitation in saying that multi-national sports is a much more risky proposition than multiracial sport. Two mixed teams facing each other in a needle match are unlikely to raise racial rivalries since there are members of both races in both teams. But set a White team against a Black team and the risk is undoubtedly magnified. One has only to notice the explosive emotions that were raised by a racial team such as the soccer team Lusitano to realize exactly what the situation is. I have met Mr. Funston. He is a most balanced and sensible gentleman. He has warned time and again that these rivalries on racial lines must eventually result in an ugly explosion. When it results in an ugly explosion, what will happen? The reactionaries in the Nationalist Party sitting behind the Prime Minister will cry out: “We told you so; mixed sport is dangerous.” The hon. member for Water-berg will then be elected leader of the Nationalist Party. That is what will happen.

The Government seems to have two choices. It could either eliminate all sporting contact between the races and admit that multi-nationalism cannot work, or it could agree that the best bet is multi-nationalism or multi-racialism within teams, i.e. Blacks and Whites playing together as they did for the President’s XI. I believe that that is inevitably going to come. It would therefore perhaps be wise if the Government took the advice of men of goodwill. Arthur Ashe, the tennis player, has seen multi-nationalism fail in his own country. The referee Jack Taylor who had charge of that match, said with impressive simplicity and sincerity: “Mix them; you stand a better chance.”

Where is the Government going? We get no clarity from the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. I think it is time that the hon. the Prime Minister gave his attention to this matter and gave us an indication of what he thinks should be done. Here again the cry is: What are you doing? We have said: Leave sport to the national sports administrative bodies in the country; let them administer sport for themselves. We believe that they will do so in the best interests of those sports and in the best interests of South Africa. We believe that that will lead to far less friction than what is happening at the present time.

The enjoyment of amenities, discrimination and sport are vital to détente in South Africa, but there are certain other matters which are also vital to détente at home. I think two of them which we cannot avoid are, first of all, the treatment of the Cape Coloured people and secondly, the treatment of urban Blacks in the country at the present time. I believe that the Government’s relations with the Coloureds have reached a very low ebb indeed with the introduction of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Amendment Bill. I know that I cannot discuss the contents of that Bill, but I can say that I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister has any conception of the bitterness that it has caused. I think I have some small conception of this.

I and members of my party have discussed it with some of them. We heard the views of leading members of the Coloured community. I think the fact that the Leader of the Labour Party, with, his tremendously popular victory at the election, is nevertheless going to serve as chairman and that members of his party will be elected to the executive, does not signify any change of heart on that part of those people at all. There is no fundamental change whatsoever. They believe quite simply that the hon. the Prime Minister has done too little and has done it too late. They believe that the present CRC is inadequate even for the minimum requirements of the Cape Coloured people. They continually point to the fact that it has no say in meaningful decision-making affecting the Cape Coloured people and their welfare. It is totally inadequate to rectify even their bread-and-butter problems. It can do nothing about getting Coloured people apprenticed because of the problem with the trade unions. It can do nothing about getting its people trained for skilled work because it does not have the funds. It does not have the funds to arrange proper training. It can do nothing about fighting inflation of which they are among the worst victims in the country. It can do nothing about the housing problem of the Coloured people because it does not control those matters.

I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister has any conception of how frustrating this situation is and what a danger there is that the remaining goodwill which still exists among the Cape Coloured people for the Whites is running out at the present time. I have proposed political solutions to this Committee before now and I won’t even bother to discuss them this afternoon. However, if I can get it across to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that the situation cannot continue as it is much longer, then I will have achieved something. So far the hon. the Prime Minister has appeared to be gloriously or ingloriously oblivious of the extremely ugly situation that is building up. If he wants détente abroad, he must carry with him the Cape Coloured people as well. If he wants a united South Africa against terrorism and against internal attack, he has to have the Cape Coloured people with him at the present time. It was not for nothing that the extremists at Dar-es-Salaam were talking about urban terrorist warfare in South Africa.

Does the hon. the Prime Minister realize how vulnerable a section such as the Cape Coloured people would be in a situation of that kind? Does he not realize how necessary it is that he must keep their morale high, their loyalty to South Africa unquestioned and their determination to assist in resisting any attacks of that sort strong?

I have spoken, Sir, about the Cape Coloured people. I want now to say just a word or two about the urban Blacks. They have been called the flashpoint in South Africa in the past. If there were urban guerrilla warfare in South Africa, if there were terrorist urban attacks in South Africa, then there is not the slightest doubt that they would in fact be the flashpoint, and the experience in Rhodesia has shown that it is your urban Blacks who are most easily terrorized by militant movements, who are most easily brought under their influence. Sir, if one considers under what conditions many of our urban Blacks are living in South Africa at the present time, one shudders at the possible effect of urban terrorism upon those people. I wonder what the situation will be and I wonder whether the Prime Minister has considered what the situation will be if large sections of our urban Black population are successfully terrorised or subverted. What would the effect be on the rest of the population if industrial stoppages were caused, if essential services were undermined, if terrorist attacks were made on householders in many scattered districts?

Do not suggest to these people what they should do.

The hon. gentleman says, “Do not suggest to these people what they should do”. Does he think that they are so idiotic that they do not know what is going on in other countries of the world? Is this hon. gentleman living behind a veil of darkness that he does not know what is happening? Good heavens, Sir, they only have to go to any important town to see what is happening. Does the hon. gentleman really think that they do not know? Of course they know. They talk about it and they tell you of the dangers to themselves. That hon. gentleman lives in glorious isolation; he knows nothing whatever about it. Sir, it is against this background that you have to consider the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education in this House last week. He spoke at that time about the tremendous problems he had with squatters in the Flats. He spoke about the tremendous shortage of housing. He spoke about that difficulties with which, they were faced, about the desperate inadequacy of housing. He appeared to me to admit that the problem had reached such dimensions that the Government really did not know what to do about it. [Interjection.] No he did not say that. He did not tell us what he was going to do about it. Sir, if ever there was a confession of failure, then it was the statement by that hon. gentleman. What did he tell us? He was going to be forced to endorse those people out, even if there was employment for them in these areas.

I said exactly the opposite.

Where is he going to put them then?

I said that about illegal squatters.

He says that he was talking about illegal squatters for whom there is work and whom the employers want. You cannot endorse a man out unless he is here illegally.

The employers must get them legally.

The hon. the Minister says that employers must get them legally. Does he remember, Sir, freezing the amount of Bantu labour available in the Western Cape? Does he remember his Deputy Minister, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, talking about reducing the number by 5% a year? Does he remember the difficulties that have been placed in the way of employers getting Bantu labour here in the Western Cape?

We want some in the Railway Service and in the docks.

You get them legally.

Of course, I get them legally …

Well, why cannot other employers do so?

… but sometimes I have to wait for months. Sometimes my stockmen have to work overtime because I cannot get them.

All right.

The hon. gentleman says “All right”; it is not all right, it is all wrong.

How do you get them in then?

You govern by exception.

Does the hon. the Minister not know that there are hundreds and hundreds—I can say thousands—of illegally present Bantu in the city at the present time—not in the rural areas, not where I live, but in this city, working illegally all the time? Why? They are here because employers want them, because those Bantu want employment; because the work is there and because these Bantu have no other way of earning a living at the present time. Sir, that is the situation with which we are faced.

And you condone the illegal employment? [Interjection.]

Sir, the Deputy Minister said the whole question of the control regulations was being looked into. The Prime Minister has appointed a committee on which certain of the homeland leaders are serving to go into the manner in which these regulations are applied. Sir, I can only say that I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister realizes the urgency of the situation. Nearly 1 500 people a day are gaoled for pass offences in South Africa, every day of the year— Sundays and holidays included. That is the situation. Do you imagine that they would risk that discomfiture unless they were desperately in need of employment to supply them with the necessaries of life? [Time expired.]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised quite a number of matters here, but to me the dominant note of his whole approach everytime he participated in this debate, was, firstly, his childish attitude about an alleged leak of Budget details. He was absolutely childish in that respect. In the second place, he also adopted an irresponsible attitude. He was irresponsible by referring to the “explosiveness” of the conditions in the urban Bantu townships. [Interjections.] I think matters such as these ought to be treated with more discretion. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is capable of doing this, but I want to say that I think the way in which he dealt with this issue, where he mentioned the possibility of terrorism in urban areas, is not at issue.

Are you not aware of it?

Yes, I am aware of my problem, but I do not like the way in which this problem has been dealt with and I trust that the Leader of the Opposition will approach these matters with more discretion.

He referred to the urban Bantu here. The approach of that side of the House is that one can draw a clear distinction between the urban Bantu, the urban Blacks, and the Blacks in the rural areas, on the farms, but I just want to tell him that it is not as simple as that. Where one does have some association with these people, is through the medium of their homelands, where they have their political leaders and where they are able to exercise their political rights. There one has a distinct association. But simply to say now that we are going to separate the urban Blacks from other Blacks, is not so easy. I want to tell him what the complications of it are. If one were to grant the urban Blacks certain rights on account of the fact that they had been living here for a certain time without bearing in mind that those people have an association with their homelands, where they belong to distinct nations and that their services may also be required in the homelands where major development is taking place, one would be withdrawing their best labour forces from the Black homelands —for what purpose? To serve the European, and that would cause more disruption and dissatisfaction than may exist a present. I want to make it quite clear that one must not over-simplify as far as this matter is concerned and that we should view this question of urban Bantu in its broad perspective. I want to emphasize again that these are people belonging to nations, people who have traditions of which they are proud. According to him, we should, for instance, separate members of the Xhosa people from their association with that people and tell them they have become an appendage of and subservient to the Whites, while their countrymen in the Transkei or in the Ciskei or in KwaZulu or in Vendaland can go their own way. These are the implications of what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said here today, and this is a matter to which the Government, as has been quite rightly said, is giving attention in a committee in collaboration with the leaders of the homelands. Mention was made here of détente. Here we have an example of co-operation, of how to act and exchange ideas and attempt a task together in the interests of South Africa and her people.

Reference was also made to prejudices, and so forth. I want to emphasize again that our approach is to recognize that which exists, to recognize the different national groups with their identities and their culture. The argument which is continually being advanced as if the Government is responsible for points of friction, is neither here nor there simply because the position we have in this country has developed traditionally and that the Government gave legal sanction to certain traditional practices and concepts.

There you made a big mistake.

No, we did not make nearly as many mistakes as the hon. members on the other side. We carry the responsibility, and a Government that carries its responsibility, must from the nature of the things make mistakes in the process because it is not stagnant, but because it is on the move and does something. Our policy is of such a nature that we have that degree of co-operation between different groups today which has never existed in this country before. I want to state unequivocally that in the light of the difficult situation we have reached in the country today, we are making rapid progress in our efforts to do justice to all the groups on the cultural level.

I want to come back to the question of colour. Colour is an incidental matter and only serves as identification. The important factor is the cultural association of people. The hon. member also referred to sport. Does he not know that there were major outbursts and great friction when different Black teams played against each other in Soweto? I repeat:

He pretended here that the federal idea would solve all problems. The federal idea has created so many problems for the Opposition that they are now only a fraction of what they were a year ago. Every time they disintegrate even further, all because of this federal idea. The basic question about federation which these hon. members have not yet answered, is who is going to decide, what is going to be the relationship and what the standard of education or merit of these people are going to be. The hon. members have already decided that the Whites are going to decide about it. If that is the case, the hon. members cannot persuade the rest of the world that the Black people are involved in a meaningful way in this whole constellation which hon. members foresee.

I suggest that this Government, with regard to every period of five years, makes greater progress and does more for Black and Brown than has been done in the last century. I do not have the time to go into every detail. We need only look at what is happening in the homelands. While reference was made to the Coloureds this afternoon, hon. members may just as well have a look at the University of the Western Cape, where a Coloured person has now been appointed as rector. A Coloured person would not have been able to reach this position had it not been for the policy of this Government. In other words, the policy of this Government every day creates many opportunities for Coloureds they have never had before. The important point is that all these things are being done without friction and with a minimum of problems. There will, of course, always be groups who feel that matters could have been handled in a different way and that we could have been even better off. I can say that we have reached a situation in this country which the parties on the other side of the House did not think would be reached. Therefore we shall make progress, not only internally, but also in Africa, with the approach adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. to inform the people personally of what the real position is. Our problem in this country is not that we are not making any progress or are not taking these people along with us. Our problem is that we have a considerable degree of irresponsibility, not only in Opposition circles but also and especially in our Press and its reporting. If we read the decisions which were taken, it is indeed very clear that the people of the OAU who attended the conference, are ill-informed as far as the real position in South Africa is concerned. They do not know what is happening here. Where do they get their information from? The same irresponsible information was also presented in connection with the Budget, about the so-called leak. These people are saturated with this same kind of irresponsible information and they must then decide on that information. Our task, a vitally important task, has up till now been performed successfully, in spite of many problems. It is impossible to solve all the problems overnight. However, we have this spectacular progress, this tremendous confidence and not only in Africa where people begin to come forward and say that they are prepared to talk and listen to South Africa. Throughout the world we have caused this confidence to take root that South Africa and the peoples of Africa will solve our problems themselves. After all, it is quite clear that the initiative has been taken and that progress has been made which was not foreseen by any of us a few years ago. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now tried, as have previous hon. opposition speakers, to show us here that the efforts to bring about détente must be linked to efforts to bring about détente here in South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville want so far as to say that the concept “apartheid” was the true reason for our finding ourselves in this situation of conflict that is building up in Africa and which the whole détente dialogue is about. I should like to say that it is the greatest injustice the Opposition can do the National Party in South Africa when they say that the tension that is being aimed at South Africa from Africa and the world is the result of our policy. They know just as well as we do that the whole world is pregnant with the emotionally-loaded concept of race conflict. They know just as well as we do that this conflict in the world, this emotional race conflict is funnelled here to Southern Africa. They know just as well as we do that apart from the emotionally-loaded race conflict in the world there is also the great ideological standpoint of Communism as against the rest of the world. All this concerns the situation in which South Africa finds itself at the moment. I think it is extremely unfair to lay the blame for that on the policy of the Government. However, they should ask themselves what is their own solution to these problems. When we consider the extent and intensity of race emotions in the world, we should consider other countries that offer solutions different to those offered by South Africa. The Opposition would do well to take cognizance of the fact that those countries that offer the receipe that all people are equal before the law and the countries with conventions for human rights are the very countries that are experiencing race conflict and clashes of the most serious kind in these times we are living in. If they have only read the newspapers in recent years, they would have read reports of riots in Detroit in America and in Britain. They would have read reports about the hate that broke loose about the British Race Relations Council when it was decided recently in the House of Lords that they would reserve certain clubs for Whites only. They would have seen that in America—and they will admit this to us— there has been one movement after the other established by non-Whites, and this in a country where equality prevails, to ensure that justice is done to them. I have before me a book written by a Black Briton, a Black man who grew up just like the Whites in a White School in Britain. I could quote many extracts from the book. However, I only want to quote the first sentence of this book Black Britain, written by Chris Mullard, to the House. I just want to try and give an idea of the intensity of the conflict and racial tension in the world. I quote—

I could quote, too, from The Australian Quarterly in which they write about “White laws, Black people”. I could quote from a report in The Cape Times entitled “Indians on the warpath” in regard to the Indians in America. I could also quote from a great many other reports. But in all fairness I do not believe that there would be any sense in doing so, because we must understand that when we talk about détente here at home, it means “internal détente”. Détente among the races in Southern Africa does not mean revilement. It does not mean self-revilement. It does not mean that we have to go on our knees before the world and ask forgiveness for scandalous things we have supposedly done to the Black and other peoples in South Africa. This does not mean that we have to grovel before the world when it charges us with contempt of human rights. It seems to me that that is what the hon. members of the Opposition want to do. They are always telling us that it is our policy that is the cause of tension. I want to quote to them from one of the most remarkable articles I have read recently. It is an article based on a speech made by the political bank manager of the Progressive Party, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. The article appeared in the periodical African affairs. The journal of the Royal African Society. I only want to read what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said, because in my opinion, this undoubtedly has reference to our argument with the hon. Opposition. According to that article Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said—

Arising from that I want to say that détente in South Africa, between the population groups here, does not mean that we should be heading for an integration confrontation either. I want to put it to all the Opposition Parties that nothing they can offer the non-White peoples in South Africa, whether in the field of politics or society, involves anything more or less than an eventual confrontation-evolution. It would be the crassest stupidity on earth if we were to adopt that course of action. That is why the voters of South Africa continue to reject them.

They are also very illogical in what they offer to the non-Whites in South Africa as a solution. On the one hand they recognize the reality of the homelands, but on the other they act like the hon. member for Houghton who, in a dreadful speech the other day, campaigned against the extremely poor conditions under which the Black people in Soweto supposedly live. She states—

would have been better than the expenditure on defence. I want to tell her that she and those hon. members are just as aware as we are that whatever we may want to do for people who are in distress and want development opportunities, we need money. If the hon. members would take the trouble to read the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River the other day—it was an outstanding speech—they would see that South Africa is in the midst of the reality of Africa. The hon. member for Sea Point said that we should associate ourselves with Africa. He is quite right. This means, then, that we, too, should associate ourselves intensely with the problems of Africa. It also means that we should take note of the fact that in Africa, too, there are things one could describe as discrimination. It also means that we should take note of developments in Africa, developments as a result of which there are more than a million refugees in Africa alone, refugees who have fled from Governments and conditions in other African territories which they were unable to endure. If we consider all those things and associate ourselves with Africa in that respect, then we shall come to the realization that in Africa, too, there are things which we could describe as discrimination and instances of injustice inflicted on people by people, and that the poverty of which the hon. member for Houghton spoke, is not the result of our policy but the result of realities in Africa. I have before me a report entitled “The World Social Situation”, a report by UNO, and I want to suggest that the hon. Opposition members should read this report by UNO which deals with social evils in Africa, poverty in Africa and injustice towards people—social inequality— so that when we want to “associate ourselves with Africa”, they may know that it is not only we in South Africa who need be accused of “unjustice”. Their own policy is in essence one of discrimination. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as I was listening to the speech of the hon. member for Innesdal and to all the other speeches made here since the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote has come up for discussion, there was no doubt in my mind that the latter half of 1974 and especially this year, 1975, had seen a radical revolution, which, in my opinion, will have far-reaching effects on the political future and development of South Africa. On both external and internal level important changes of emphasis occurred on Government level which set up two new concepts in a central position in our political vocabulary, i.e. the concepts of détente and racial discrimination.

A great deal has been said about détente and about racial discrimination. I think one should try to get past the obscurities or the synonyms for or alternatives to those and should ask what the crux of the political implication of these two concepts is for the political life of South Africa today. When we look at the concept of détente—no matter how we try to justify or interpret it— the single fact of the matter is that the two most important partners in these politics of détente, viz. South Africa and Zambia, who initiated this process, are communicating with each other in order to effect a peaceful change-over from an élite White minority government to a Black majority government in Rhodesia. This is the essence of what it is about. This is the original starting point of détente. If anybody were to have told me two years ago that this would be possible from South Africa, I would have doubted his mental and intellectual abilities. If my memory does not fail me, this is the first time in the post-colonial phase of Africa that two African states are negotiating with each other—the emphasis is on the concept “negotiate”—to effect a peaceful change of government and to extend political participation. Previously this always came about through colonial withdrawal, or through war, as in Algeria, or through coups d’état. Here, however, we have two African states which, as far as I know, are negotiating for the first time in history in order to effect change in a peaceful way. I think that this, if it should succeed, would have far-reaching consequences for the internal situation in South Africa.

This brings me to the question of racial discrimination. The Government’s promise to put an end to this in South Africa, has certain outstanding political implications to my way of thinking. It means, inter alia, that the focal point of political conflict, political dispute and political debate in South Africa will shift from the rural areas where the homelands policy held the attention, to our urban centres where there is in fact a political vacuum as regards Government policy. It is easy to explain this fact, because the urban areas are the very areas in which most problems in respect of discrimination will naturally exist. In South Africa we shall have to deal with the problem of discrimination as far as our Black urban communities are concerned, on three levels in particular. The first level is in the field of labour. I am not going to deal with as a great deal has already been said about it. The second is, of course, the creation of a physical infrastructure for our Black urban community, and the third is that of political representation for that Black urban community.

It is particularly on the political level where the structures for negotiation between the Government and the urban Black man are totally under-developed. Let there be no doubt: The future of every population group in South Africa will eventually be determined in the cities. When we take a look at the demographic ratio of Bantu to White in our main urban centres and we use the figures of the already out-dated 1970 census, we get the following picture: In Johannesburg the Bantu population alone constituted 56,5% of the total population: in the whole of the Witwatersrand area it was 58%; in Pretoria, 41%: in Port Elizabeth. 43%: and in Bloemfontein, 53%. In Cape Town it was only 9,9%, but if one adds the Coloured population, one discovers what a large percentage of non-Whites there is. By February 1974 there were only 23 urban Bantu councils which, let us be frank, tried in a rather inadequate way to deal with the problems of the urban Black communities. I think it has become essential for the Government to stop seeing the political problems of the urban Black community as an extension of the homeland Governments. These urban Black communities are in no way able to deal with the problems which arise in any industrial urban area.

What do you suggest?

At the moment the Government still is in a position where it can establish metropolitan and urban councils in terms of which the Black urban community can deal with its own everyday problems with a larger degree of autonomy. By that I simply mean that these metropolitan or urban councils should have legislative and executive powers similar to those of a municipality or a provincial council, for example, so that these people may become autonomous, urban, viable communities. Only then will they become truly representative bodies able to occupy themselves effectively with the problems of any urban community. This must, naturally, be accompanied by the granting of rights and facilities, such as land ownership, business rights, more educational and health facilities, etc. We have mentioned this repeatedly.

It is my considered opinion that the leadership which will come for the Black people in South Africa in the future, will not come from the homelands alone, but also and especially from our Black urban communities. In this regard the choice before us is a very clear one: We shall either have to deal with leaders who come from ordered and stable, established Black urban communities with whom negotiations may be conducted in a responsible manner, or we shall be confronted with charismatic or populistic Black leaders who will take a stand against us and put the estrangement and frustration of the Black urban communities first. It is dangerous to draw analogies precipitately, but I do not think that it is out of place to take a look at what is happening in Rhodesia at the moment. The question which springs to mind is: What role does traditional Black leadership play in the critical negotiations which are being conducted there at the moment? Where are the chiefs?

The position is not comparable to that in South Africa.

I have said that it is dangerous to draw an analogy precipitately. The actual point I want to stress is that the people who will have to be actively engaged in conducting negotiations there, who are supposed to have talks with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, are urban Black leaders. They are the people who are opposed to the White minority in Rhodesia. As I have said, it is dangerous to draw simple analogies, but one thing, however, is clear, and that is that we in South Africa have the most urbanized Black population in the whole of Africa, that they are only now being drawn into the whole process of economic development and that they are only now starting to feel what it in fact means to be urbanized, and it is in this very area where there is an immense lack of policy from the side of the Government. There are no indications of what the future holds for us. Every time we fall back on whatever provision can be made within the homeland context. Here I must honestly differ from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Nobody believes that any more. I think not even the Nationalist Party believe that they will be able to solve the problems of the urban Black community by means of the homeland policy. As they say, “there is no loss of face” for the Government even to establish in terms of their policy representative bodies which are effective, bodies with autonomous powers, in which these people may develop into proper Black urban communities. There is nothing which will mean a radical revolution in any way, except the emotional satisfaction which evidently is being experienced on that side of the House from bluffing oneself that these people are here temporarily and that they are nothing more than a cultural extension of a rural community. There is nobody in the whole world who accepts or believes this any more.

Mr. Chairman, we have been listening to the hon. member for Rondebosch. It is not only the hon. member for Rondebosch who spoke there, because if one were to regard him as a type in the history of South African politics, then he could have been described in various terms in his person and his thinking. Seventy years ago we should have referred to him by means of a specific term, but for the time being I shall not bring that up. I think that today he could be referred to as a political pawn, because the hon. member for Rondebosch is being used today by a group that is finding it extremely difficult to get Afrikaans-speaking people, in particular, to express their ideas. In other words, he is one of those people in our society who is described by the English newspapers as the “young Afrikaans intellectuals”. They use these people to penetrate our Afrikaans national system and change our young people and force them away. I want to say that in time to come, that kind of person will he dealt with.

Just how?

People like the hon. member for Rondebosch approach the youth of South Africa with great eloquence and with a great display of thought and understanding. It does not matter if it is the Afrikaans-speaking, the English-speaking, the Venda or the Xhosa youth. They present themselves as the great thinkers. I want to tell the hon. member that if he only found out today or recently that South Africa wants to play a role in détente politics in Southern Africa, then he is a novice, he is a beginner. Through its leaders, South Africa has been seeking détente in Southern Africa from the start. The hon. the Prime Minister has not been seeking détente since yesterday. It is not yesterday or last year that he started to work towards it. We have been working towards it for years. The hon. the Prime Minister has been working towards it for years. It is not something new. I want to tell the hon. member that that is the semblance of knowledge with which the so-called “Afrikaner intellectual” comes along. However, when one talks to them face to face, one realizes for the first time their ignorance of their own history and of reality. That is what one finds in respect of them.

I want to deal with the second matter. I refer here to the question of race discrimination in regard to which the hon. member mentioned three points. His third point was the presence of the non-White in the White areas. He referred specifically to the so-called urban Bantu. If the hon. member had used his years at Stellenbosch to slightly better effect and learned to know history, he would quite probably not have made the kind of speech he did today. If he had considered what this group of which he is a member, that élite group of which he is a member, had said about the so-called Bantu homelands 20 years ago, it would have amazed him. Today it accepts the Bantu homelands. They are no longer a problem. Twenty or 25 years ago, however, when the National Party said that South Africa should initially be divided up, not only into a diversity of peoples but also into geographic regions, those people ridiculed the National Party’s so-called homeland policy. They raised all kinds of practical problems in regard to the consolidation. Sir, where do we stand today as regards consolidation, 25 years later? Even in Zululand, even in Natal, these people said: “It is ridiculous; you will never manage to do this because it is impracticable,” and today the National Party can tell the youth of South Africa: We have progressed thus far with the consolidation of the homelands. Hon. members opposite accept this now, but now they come along with this story of the so-called urban Bantu. Sir, that hon. member is a sociologist of background and study, but he has no knowledge of the real processes that are taking place in an urban area. Sir, I am a Van der Merwe and we Van der Merwes have become urbanized, as it is called, but I still have many relations on the platteland. What real difference is there today, sociologically or ethnologically, between a so-called urbanized Afrikaner and an Afrikaner living in the platteland? What difference is there, then, between a Buthelezi living in a city and a Buthelezi living in the rural areas? Surely it is ridiculous to argue that there is a real difference. The fact that one lives in a city, Sir, does not mean that culturally one is totally blunted and cut off. Surely one still has one’s historical and cultural links. There is a difference between westernization and urbanization. Sir, today I want to tell you that the hon. the Prime Minister, whose Vote is under discussion here, is, in the first and the last instance, the man in Africa who started this détente politics and was able to start it because he found his leadership in principles and in a policy which South Africa understands.

He should have done so long ago.

In time to come, Sir, the leaders of the world and the leaders of Africa, stripped of the enveloping clouds of mist with which the liberalists of this world have shrouded South Africa, will learn to know the White leaders of South Africa. They will learn to know the liberalists as they sit over there, but they will also learn to know the leaders of the National Party. As long as the Black people in South Africa learn to know the National Party to an increasing extent, to that extent will there be clarity in regard to the problems of Africa. I just want to quote briefly from a work which, in the nature of the matter I have not yet quite finished reading because it is very bulky but, Sir, I want to quote a short extract to you from this book, Coloured: The Profile of Two Million South Africans, by A. J. Venter. Quite probably he is not a member of my party. Judging by the little I have read, it seems to me that he is in fact a member of the Progressive Party. But in his prologue he says the following, which I find very important—

Whom are you talking about?

You know whom he is talking about.

I do not know whom he is talking about. But in this short paragraph there is so much truth, so much significance, so much content as far as the South African situation is concerned, that for a moment one is unable to grasp it. The hon. member for Rondebosch talks about the elimination of discrimination. Sir, in South Africa, and this, in fact, is what the Progressive Party fails to appreciate, there is a diversity of groups—not only of people, but of groups, of national groups. You know, Sir, that a people is an organism, a living institution, if I may put it that way. That organism is supported by certain basic principles that give content to its pattern of life; and because it is a living organism, one cannot deny its existence. Nevertheless, this is precisely what the members of the Progressive Party do. They deny the existence of national organisms in South Africa. That is why the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party said last year that he could not guarantee the continued survival of one of these groups. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, two things emerged clearly from this debate as far as I am concerned. In the first place it is clear that every member in this House acknowledges and appreciates the steps taken by the hon. the Prime Minister in his endeavours to normalize relations in Africa. In the second place it is clear that the approach of the Opposition differs radically from that of this side of the House as far as détente is concerned. The Opposition evidently sees it as an apologetic approach by South Africa to the African states in respect of matters which centre in our internal policy and relationships between peoples in this country. That is why members on the other side of this House can elevate the awarding of Springbok colours or the allocation of seats on passenger trains to the status of international problems. We on this side see the relationships between peoples in Africa in a totally different context. We see ourselves as being part of this continent. We see the economic future of other peoples on this continent as affecting the economic future of South Africa as well. But especially we see the problems facing other peoples on this continent, as being our problems as well. We see the hold Communism has gained on this continent and the seas surrounding this continent. We see what has happened in Cambodia and Vietnam. We see the attitude of the West towards conditions there, and we become aware of the fact that Communism will make a renewed attack on Africa and that it will start with the developing nations, the nations which have economic problems; for if there is one thing that forms a basis of the policy of this side of the House, then it is an admission that nationalism is basic to the development of any nation. Whoever wants to deny this fact, denies not only the lesson that history has taught us, but also the history of our own nation. We know that national development may take place along revolutionary lines. We have experienced that ourselves. We know the chaos it causes and the bitterness and the economic misery that follow. This is better known to us as Afrikaans and English-speaking people in this country than to any other nation on the continent. It took almost a century for the bitterness that was brought about by the Anglo-Boer War, to subside, but we also know that under the leadership with which South Africa has been blessed, our country has been able to grow in an evolutionary manner into an independent nation which is strong economically. I believe that if there is one thing which this Government and our Prime Minister want to prevent, it is that the emerging nationalism we find in other parts of Africa, be accomplished here in a revolutionary manner, because we know what the consequences of that are. The development of every people and every nation should follow its own course. In these negotiations we do not want to act as leaders of the other peoples. Our Prime Minister stated this particularly clearly in respect of Rhodesia, i.e. that any people with self-respect will not allow another people to dictate to it. It is not our object to do this, and that is why Dr. Verwoerd said as far back as 1961, and I quote (translation)—

That is the basis of the negotiations we, as a nation, are conducting with other nations on the continent of Africa. As far as our internal policy is concerned, there probably are many matters which will have to be rectified. These are not matters we have discovered for the first time today. These are matters which are basic to the policy of the National Party. Our aim is to eliminate racial discrimination and it is imperative that we should avoid giving offence to members of other races in this process. Therefore it is necessary for some of these Acts to remain on the Statute Book. This, however, can have no effect whatsoever on our negotiations with other peoples in Africa. These, in the first place, do not concern the policy in our own country, but relations between this country and other peoples on the continent. As I have said, we are an indissoluble part of this continent. What happens on this continent, cannot pass South Africa by. Therefore, we are not trying to seek friends abroad just for the sake of South Africa, but to find a future for the whole continent in these uncertain times by means of extending the hand of co-operation to other developing peoples. We are living in a time in which onslaughts are not only made by force of arms, but in which onslaughts are also made on the human soul. When these onslaughts are made on people who have not yet reached full development, the danger exists that these may also extend across the borders of our own father-land. Therefore it is necessary that we extend a hand to any nation which believes that it has been established here with a calling, for the sake of peace and for the sake of the further development of the democratic system here in South Africa. Our hon. Prime Minister said when he assumed his office, “Fulfil your calling”. He asked nobody to assist him in fulfilling his calling, but asked everyone of us and every people in this country to fulfil his or its own calling through a process of self-realization. This policy of détente is conducted in this spirit and in this spirit we want to join the Prime Minister in entering the new future awaiting Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great attention and appreciation to the hon. member for Losberg. He revealed a stability and responsibility with regard to this entire matter here. Although I have much appreciation for the positive emphasis throughout his speech, the admission he has made here, that matters should be rectified, certainly places a very great obligation on him and on each one of us to move along that road and to move fast. He referred here to the conflict between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa. He referred to how long it took before the relationship between them was what it should be. To the same extent this also applies to the relationship between the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa. In other words, there rests an even greater responsibility on those of us who know the Afrikaner, who form part of his national history and who know what he has gone through. We must not behave in such a way towards people of different colour groups that we, with our background, might perhaps have to say that if it were us, we would not be satisfied with it.

We realize that only too well.

Thank you. To behave in that manner is the obligation which rests on this hon. member, on me and on all of us.

I want to say that I have listened to the hon. member for Rissik with a measure of pity. He did not reply to a single argument which was raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch. In fact, I think he did himself an injustice for I have always regarded him as one of the “intellectuals” of the Nationalist Party. Now I do not know whether I am perhaps insulting him or the party. One of the basic premises of the hon. member for Rondebosch, and there I associate myself for the time being with the hon. Deputy Minister, was the explosiveness of the urban situation and the fact that the future of this country will be determined in virtually every field by what is going to happen in our urban areas. That basic hypothesis was left unanswered by the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. Deputy Minister. Nobody in this House can have any doubts about the validity of that statement. The hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Rissik did in fact discuss the fact that there is a connection between the urban and the other Bantu. From that certain inferences are then drawn. That there does exist such a connection, in many regards and in connection with many individuals, is certainly not to be doubted. But what on earth does it have to do with things like rights to own land, the right to build one’s own home, the right to carry on a business? The hon. member for Rissik did reply to the hon. Deputy Minister. The connection that exists between the Afrikaner in the cities and the Afrikaner on the Platteland has nothing whatsoever to do with the question whether the Afrikaner in the city should now have the right to own his own home. That cannot be made to sound plausible. The ethnic context has nothing to do with the question of the rights of the Bantu in the cities.

The hon. the Deputy Minister—I am sorry that he is not here now—also said that what the Nationalist Party had done, had merely been to give legal recognition to existing traditions. To some degree that is correct—let us be honest. I also want to say, however, that there is a tremendous difference between our dealing with a tradition as such and with a tradition which is laid down in a law, for traditions come and go and the social, economic and cultural processes alter traditions. That we have also experienced time and again in our own national life. As soon as we fix it in an Act, however, and say that this may be done and that may not be done, we are obstructing the normal processes of social and socio-economic change.

It is not quite correct either to say that all that has happened over the previous 27 years, was simply that we gave legal recognition to traditions. I want to refer to a tradition in many urban areas. The hon. Deputy Minister can take Bloemfontein as an example. Bloemfontein can certainly not be regarded as an example of Liberalism, but nevertheless the Bantu in Bloemfontein have always been allowed to lease land from the municipality and to build their own homes on it. The municipality even assisted them with the building of houses by means of loans and materials. It is we who subsequently changed that policy. We did not have statutory work reservation. We did not have all the present forms of petty apartheid. It is not correct to say that all the Nationalist Party has done, has been to give legal recognition to existing traditions.

In the very short time at my disposal, I wish to agree with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the real, cardinal problem we are facing in our urban areas. It is very obvious that we can no longer continue to treat the Bantu in our urban areas like strangers. I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister realized the seriousness of the situation himself when he undertook to investigate the desirability of enabling the Bantu to lease land in urban areas on a term basis.

That being the position, what is the hon. member’s complaint?

I only hope that the hon. the Prime Minister can give us, an indication of how far he has progressed with the investigation and whether we can really say that the possibility now exists that the position will revert to what it was previously. In the case of the municipal area of Johannesburg, Bantu were able to lease land for a period of up to 99 years.

But surely I said that we were working on that.

Thank you very much. All that I hoped for, was that we would receive a positive reply.

The hon. member should wait until the relevant Revenue Vote is discussed.

Then I shall leave the matter at that for the time being. I also want to point out that the housing position the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to last week, is indeed very critical, so critical that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition justifiably described it as a scandal. That is so, inspite of the application of the most stringent influx control measures imaginable and in spite of the application of what I could term the inhuman policy which has sometimes been adopted with regard to the endorsement of people out of urban areas, and is still being adopted, especially here in the Western Cape.

According to my information, there were 15 000 families on the waiting list in August 1974 in Soweto only. Of these, 6 400 were priority cases. The Government’s reply to the tremendous housing need was: In 1972 only 954 houses, in 1973 only 1 137 houses and in 1974, according to information that was given this morning, just over 1 000 houses. Even if we were to take only the natural increase into account—and in this connection I want to point out that we in Cape Town only according to my information, have about 30 000 children of younger than 16 years of age, in other words people who, in terms of article 10 of the Urban Areas Act probably qualify to be here—it is impossible for us at this rate to meet the essential housing need. All I want to say is that the time has arrived for a new vision in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edenvale joined the hon. member for Rondebosch in maintaining that the bond between the Bantu in the White area, the urban Bantu area, and the homeland, is limited solely to isolated personal links and that the political bond is of no importance. He tried to minimize it or made out that there was no such bond. This concept is of fundamental importance and consequently I should like to quote to the hon. member from this document:“A report-back to the Reef Africans on the conference of Black leaders with the hon. B. J. Vorster, Prime Minister of South Africa, on 22 January 1975 by the hon. M. G. Buthelezi, 9 February 1975.” The latter states—

Here is a leader of one of the Bantu peoples who states that they cannot afford to cause a division between the urban Bantu and the Bantu in the homeland. Then the hon. member comes along and states that there is no real bond of any significance here. One of the most recent elections which has taken place is the election in Basotho QuaQua. This is one of those homelands most of whose citizens live in White areas outside the homeland. There were 40 candidates in that election, and of those 40, no fewer than 33 came from the White area and not from the homeland. Can you tell me now that if more than 80% of the candidates in a homeland election are from the White area, there is no bond, or that there is no desire on the part of the urban Bantu to practise his politics in the homeland?

It is the only choice he has.

The hon. member states that this is the only choice he has. Is the hon. member for Rondebosch wrong, then, when he says that there is no significant bond? He exercises that choice. I want to go further. The difference between this side of the House and that in regard to this matter is of absolutely fundamental importance and I cannot put it better than the hon. member for Edenvale did in the days when he still held other opinions. I want to quote from an artical in the Tydskrif vir Rasse-aange-leenthede, entitled “Our urban Native population”. In it the hon. member wrote the following at the time (translation)—

He put this alternative to the National Party and mentioned certain conditions. He said that the Bantu would have to realize that his interests would predominate there and that the Whites would not be able to practise baasskap there. That is exactly what is happening today. What is more, he said that the interests of the Bantu should be furthered in a forceful manner. I do not have the time to go into this, but I want to say that you should consider the development and income per capita in our homelands and what this Government is spending on the homelands, and compare this with the position elsewhere in Africa. I want to add that we are not a fully industrialized country. If we exclude the South African Railways, the Post Office, Escom and all the other bodies operating in the homelands, and take only what is spent on the homelands by the departments of the Ministers of Bantu Administration and Development, and deduct from that the Bantu’s own contribution in the form of taxation and the statutory amounts he is entitled to, and in fact, therefore, only consider what comes from the Whites to be spent in the homelands, we find that in 1973-74 this comprised 1,19% of our total national income.

In contrast, the United Nations asks the highly industrialized countries of the world to give 1 % of their income to help develop underdeveloped countries. Not one of the states in Europe and North America succeed in doing this, but South Africa exceeds that figure in what is done by one department alone. I could also mention that the gross domestic product of the homelands grew by 63% between 1970 and 1973 while that of the Republic grew by 48% over the same period. This shows that there is more rapid growth in the homelands than in the Republic. Their per capita income is among the highest in Africa.

I want to say that there is nothing in Africa that can be compared with what is being done here in South Africa. All this is an endeavour on the part of the vast majority of the Whites in South Africa— excluding those people opposite—and an endeavour on the part of the vast majority of the Black people in South Africa—the kindred spirits among the Black people of members opposite are also excluded because they do not take part. This massive endeavour to bring about development of territories, countries and peoples is a joint endeavour in which the sovereignty of each people does not become less, but more, in which the identity of each people does not fade, but becomes more distinct, and in which the self-respect of every people does not dwindle, but grows. This is undoubtedly one of the greatest endeavours taking place in the world today.

Let me just deal with the other alternative which the hon. member put forward at the time. He said that if the alternative of the National Party was not adopted, the course would have to be adopted which involved his eventual acceptance as a citizen of equal status. In this regard I want to tell the hon. member that the path he has chosen to follow now, does not comply with that requirement because both his party and the Progressive Party and the other party sitting there in the corner are dealing in 18th century liberalistic chimeras which they want to use as instruments to reduce the franchise of peoples until it is so small that those people will not hold any real power. Where has it ever occurred in the 20th century that a party has come forward with a policy which states that a people may be represented in accordance with its economic contribution? Show me where in the world this is accepted. But they come to Africa with a policy like that—to Africa, of all places. I want to ask that party where, in the 20th century, they have seen anyone telling a man who has passed S‘d. 7 that he may not vote but telling one who has passed Std. 8 that he may in fact vote?

These are obsolete principles which are no longer valid today. The hon. member for Edenvale spoke about discrimination. When the hon. members of the Reform Party broke away from the United Party the question was: “Will this White Parliament disappear or can it disappear?” That was the question. Those members said that it would disappear, and what remained of the United Party said that it could disappear. The Reformists said that it had to disappear. If that hon. member wants to be honest and wants to follow this path he himself has described here, then he and his party must state in reply to that question that the White Parliament will disappear. It must he a settled matter in their ranks. That is the first point. The second point is that that party must then say that there will be a Black majority government in that federal Parliament. Then that hon. member will be logical and will be adopting the existing alternative. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope I will also be allowed to pay tribute to our Prime Minister for the détente discussions he has had with African states. I want to thank him for having done so in a quiet, honest and determined way. Today statesmen pay visits to countries throughout the world. When we read the newspaper reports, we see that is announced in advance with great acclaim that this or that statesman is going to visit this or that State. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we know that he has tackled this enormous task and that he is confident that it will succeed. He also tackled this task in the knowledge that if he does not succeed, he would have done his best.

Mr. Chairman, every nation has its own ways it has to follow and every political party has several ways it could probably follow. There is the easy way one could follow, the way of the coward; there is the difficult and arduous way one could fellow, the road followed by the person who may be regarded as a hero. I want to say here today that the National Party has followed the difficult road, the road it was taught to follow by its history and the road it has always followed. It was a road which involved many difficult days and many difficult problems for the party, but a road it followed with faith. When I listened to the debates and arguments we have had here, I cannot help but say that the United Party and the other parties which agree with them, always want to follow the easy road. It is the road on which one can simply throw open the sluice gates and say: “Come, let us integrate and then all will be well for us. Then we will prosper. Let us take along with us the Black people and the Brown people at the same time.” I say, “No”. I say this is the road to failure. The difficult road is the road which the National Party has defined in its policy. It is the road on which a nation is guided from the initial stages as one would teach a child to walk after it has crawled and subsequently teach it to stand on its own feet. That is the policy of the National Party. Why? It is because we, as an Afrikaner nation, know our history. We have experienced difficult and arduous times. We have also experienced times of poverty and misfortune. Today the Bantu are far more privileged than they were ten or 20 years ago. The Bantu also had to learn to crawl first and have now reached the stage where they can walk. At the present time they are finding their feet to an increasing extent, and they are standing on their own feet. We believe that certain rights will be granted them as they deserve to have them in future. But there is one thing we should never do: It is to follow the road of the coward and to deprive those people of their identity. That we must not do. They have an identity of which they are proud, whether they are urban Bantu or whether they are living in a homeland or in the rural areas. Just as I have my own identity of which I am proud, so I do not begrudge them their own identity, of which they should be proud. Sir, when speakers on the Opposition side say as they have been saying here this afternoon that the Bantu do not have this, that or the other right, I want to say to the world today that the Bantu can obtain everything I demand for myself and for which I have fought up to now. I see the hon. member for Edenvale shaking his head. I hope he shakes the little brains he has into the right position so that he will be able to understand us. The Bantu have already been set on the road to development and I believe they accept this process of development. Today we heard through the hon. the Prime Minister that our homelands, even in this initial stage, have far bigger budgets than many of the African states. This is something we can be proud, of. They have far bigger budgets than Bantu states such as Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, which have never been under this National Party Government, states which have been under the British Crown for all those years, states which are being or have been granted their independence and which are in the process of development. I believe matters will also improve for them with the assistance of the services in various spheres which they are receiving from the Republic of South Africa every day. We, as a Western nation, impart our knowledge to them, and I believe that those nations will also enjoy far greater prosperity in future. But what about the urban Bantu? I just want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that it has always been our policy that a Bantu can have his own house in Soweto, or is the hon. member unaware of this? He can be the owner of his own house, and he can be the owner of his own business undertaking.

Do they own the land?

There are thousands of houses in Soweto and various other Bantu townships of which Bantu are the owners.

Do they own the ground?

The Bantu may submit his plan himself and he can erect that building himself. The hon. member should not tell me that this is not the case. That Bantu may build his own house. There are big Bantu businessmen, who own their own buildings, buildings they have built themselves according to approved plans.

Do they own the ground?

No.

That is quite correct, but this matter, as has been said by the hon. the Prime Minister, will be discussed under the Bantu Administration Vote. Sir, we cannot get away from the fact that the Bantu have certain rights. But the urban Bantu should always be proud of his association with his homeland, with his fatherland from where he comes.

But that is not where he comes from.

He comes from his homeland originally.

Should we then go back to France?

If I were a Frenchman but not born in France, the hon. member cannot tell me that I am not a Frenchman and that if I lived here in South Africa I would not hanker for France. But the urban Bantu have their traditions and their customs and their rights in the homeland, and certain rights, which the course of time will indicate, and as the Bantu develop and as we place more duties on their shoulders, will be granted to them. But we should not confuse the world by pretending that the National Party is the party which simply wants to oppress and humiliate the Bantu. No, in these times of détente I want to make an earnest request that we should do nothing at this moment which might prejudice our success, which is in the interests of South Africa, by making certain statements here which we know are wrong. Our political views may differ, but there is one aspect on which we may not differ, i.e. that is essential that we should do everything in our power to promote the interests of South Africa. We should strengthen the hands of our Prime Minister and those people entrusted with this major undertaking, which should only inspire hon. members on both sides of the House with confidence, so that we can claim our place here in South Africa and can continue to stay here. I know we shall do everything in our power to share with others that which we have, as well as impart our knowledge to others. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member who has just spoken should remember that we are living in the year 1975. We have to approach the problems of South Africa as realists and not dwell in the sentimental atmosphere of years gone by. In pleading that we should see to it that everything which can be done should be done in the interests of South Africa, he has certainly not given us a sound path to follow. I should like to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has the reputation of being a pragmatist, a man who is prepared to look at the realities of the situation and to see how best he can guide the country in the face of those realities. He has been commended on all sides of the House for his attitude and his activities in the field of détente. It would be as well to remember also—and here we must accept what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has so correctly said—that if détente is to mean anything at all eventually, it must take into account peace and harmony in the Republic itself amongst our own people. There is tremendous dissatisfaction in the Republic of South Africa among the various peoples of our country whom the members on the Government side seem to accept as being satisfied with every step taken in the wake of Government policy. Far from it. When the hon. member who has just sat down talks somewhat loosely, I think, about people coming into the towns, about Black people coming into the urban areas, having the right to build their own houses, he does not really know what he is talking about. Does he not well remember that before this Government came into power the Blacks in Soweto, for instance, could build on sites eased to them for 99 years, which was thereafter reduced by this Government to 33 years’ leasehold and was thereafter further reduced by this Government to no period of leasehold at all and no home ownership at all, except for the bricks that were placed upon the site. Sir, the hon. member is talking nonsense. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to make clear to us some of the steps he intends to take to bring about a better understanding, a better atmosphere and a better and quickened sense of goodwill and co-operation here at home in the Republic simultaneously with his endeavours in the field of détente with countries outside our borders in Southern Africa. I should like to tell him, and he knows it, that there are many people in this country with whom the Prime Minister is on an equal footing in many respects A man like Dr. Jan Marais, one of the great bankers of our country, issued a statement recently at the annual general meeting of the South African Foundation on 12 March 1975. One of the high-lights of that printed document is this—

I think this virtually sums up What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition meant when he said how important it is to détente that we should settle our affairs here at home. Black leaders of the homelands, save for one or two, have stated clearly that they do not intend to seek sovereign independence at this stage. One of these persons, to whom the hon. member for Lichtenburg referred, has said that he will go along with the policy of the Government at the moment in order to foe able to do something for his people in that narrow field beyond which foe can do nothing more. In other words, confined as they are, they feel that since life must go on, they must continue. To say that they are satisfied is far from the answer to the question. I do not want to suggest the entire solution to the hon. the Prime Minister at this stage. I want to put certain other points to him which I think are important and which he should bear in mind. When the hon. the Prime Minister has to deal with people abroad —both in the countries abroad and those further north—foe requires the support and the co-operation of the entire community. In other words he talks for the whole of South Africa and not only for one section, particularly one colour section, of our country. He requires the loyalty—as we all do—of all sections of our community because the fact that a person is of a different colour does not necessarily mean that foe is the sworn ally of a person of a similar colour. People do not find themselves in oppositing camps because of colour. In World War 2 allies and enemies were not grouped in terms of colour. Different nations fought over certain principles. They believed in certain principles though they were perhaps misguided in many senses. The fact that we in South Africa want to make a treaty or some pact of friendship with another country, albeit Black, does not necessarily mean that the Black people in our country will side with the Black people of another country. We require the co-operation, the goodwill and the friendship of all the people of South Africa because we all have to live together and we all have to develop a sense of loyalty to defend this country together as this is the country that belongs to all of us who live in it. We all have our sense of pride in and the desire to hold, maintain and develop, this country.

The points I should like to put to the hon. the Prime Minister are, firstly, that I believe that it is important in all matters which affect our public relations in world affairs, for him to find a solution to the sports policy. He has to find some solution to the question of apartheid which, as he himself has stated on more than one occasion, has to be changed in some way or another. He has to deal with the question of human rights. All these are important factors and every move we make in any of these fields affects our public relations in world affairs. Then we have another problem. He is continually being asked what he intends to do in order to alleviate the problem of the urban Black person. He has had meetings with homeland leaders who directed their attention in certain respects to the trading rights of Black people in the urban areas. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he was sympathetic to these problems and that these matters would all be evaluated and laws and regulations affecting this situation would be reconsidered. We have heard it asked where we are to find the funds to enable us to provide the homes, the infrastructure and all the necessities that will help to build up the community to such an extent that it will provide the needs of the 16 to 18 million Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. We have got to do this slowly, step by step. What we are neglecting is to give the Black man the opportunity to generate capital himself by virtue of his own economic efforts, as it may be well-nigh impossible to catch up with the vast economic implications of aspects as housing, rehousing, urban renewal, the provision of schools, technical colleges, universities, recreation and all the other extensive amenities and facilities, such as health facilities, that go with the building up of communities. It is impossible to secure the social needs of any community unless those communities are able to be sufficiently productive to create the wealth required, and in order for them to be sufficiently productive, we must give them opportunities. Here in South Africa, where we have these millions of people and where opportunities are granted very hesitantly, in many senses somewhat begrudgingly, because of some peculiar fear of pace … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppes will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his argument, because I should like to refer to a matter raised here by the hon. member for Edenvale. He said yesterday that détente in Africa would not succeed before détente and dialogue had been successful in South Africa, with particular reference to the urban Bantu. He elaborated on the same theme this afternoon. By doing so he tried to create the impression that we are living in an atmosphere of tension in South Africa, a kind of tension-psychosis, and that the Opposition would like to stress this fact for the benefit of the outside world. When adopting this attitude, the hon. member has only one person in mind for whom détente in South Africa and towards Africa is apparently not a serious matter. I shall refer to this again in a moment. However, the hon. member refuses constantly to recognize positive action, for example that on the part of Chief Minister Kaizer Matanzima, who said that his people owes their awakening as a nation to this Government. I think I should quote a small passage from Die Volksblad of 11 April, a few days ago, in this respect. He referred to this Government as the body “to whom we owe our awakening as a nation”. Is this not positive action? Is this not true? Is this not proof of the fact that the policy of this Government in respect of dialogue and development, not only in South Africa, but also towards Africa, is already beginning to bear fruit and is very successful?

What about Black nationalism?

Here we have the mighty continent of Africa with approximately 300 million people, with a variety of races, colours and creeds, each with its rightful place on this continent. This is a fact which is recognized by all responsible leaders in Africa. These people have a greater need of détente and its advantages than of war and its ravaging consequences. War could raze to the ground the entire Africa from the south to the far north. War in Africa would benefit no one on this continent. It would only benefit foreign powers which have no interest in Southern Africa, in Africa and its people and it would be a good thing for all the people, White and Black, who are living and working in Africa, to take cognizance of this fact.

I can mention quite a few names of individuals, bodies and States that should make a real attempt to promote détente in Africa but that are obviously not doing so.

For that reason I want to come back to the hon. member for Edenvale and his great hero for whom détente is not a serious matter, i.e. Chief Buthelezi of kwaZulu. He is an educated person who holds a special position of leadership. People in his position throughout the world weigh their words and actions very carefully before adopting a standpoint and making public statements which may harm relations between nations. I regret to say that neither his education nor his responsible position as a leader compels the Chief to honour the most elementary principles of circumspection and responsibility, let alone statemanship. Sir, I am not saying this because he is a Black man. I will say this in respect of every White man on the same level of responsibility and in the same position as leader as Chief Buthelezi and who persists in his obvious attempts out of anger for another nation and its leaders as this chief is doing in respect of the Whites of South Africa. Sir, did you read in this morning’s Die Burger what he said his reasons were for attending the proceedings in Cape Town tomorrow? His recent senseless speech about a bloody revolt by Black people mainly in the urban areas with a view to participating in the Government and in the so-called wealth of the country, his extremistic standpoint in respect of the recent labour unrest and his recent statements on the influx control compel me to tell him that goodwill among nations and the desire to have peace and order cannot constantly and indefinitely be a one-sided affair. The aggressive attitude the Chief so often adopts is harmful to South Africa’s attempts to bring about détente in Africa. One even gains the impression that he is indifferent to or not in favour of sound relations between this Government and the various homeland leaders in South Africa. This is all very well; the Chief may have his own views on this matter as long as they do not affect detrimentally the lives of millions of other people, because détente is an honest and sincere attempt to influence the lives of millions of people in Africa in a favourable and orderly manner. Any attempt to oppose this, is a direct assault on the happy survival of millions of people in Africa. In Die Burger of 19 February, I read the following (translation)—

In passing, one gains the impression that the Chief is even opposed to the positive role Zambia is playing in the détente politics in Southern Africa.

But that is factually incorrect.

The hon. member says that is incorrect, but I say this is the impression one gains from the Press statements and personal statements of the Chief himself. I quote further (translation)—

May I ask who gave him the right to claim that he is the person to represent the Black people of South Africa abroad? I quote further (translation)—

Sir, we know from experience what the attitude of Ghana is towards South Africa’s attempt to achieve détente in Africa. It is not only a matter of his being opposed to this. He still remains abastion of the hostility to South Africa. Why are we being threatened with Ghana? Why should the voices of the Black people in South Africa suddenly be heard in Ghana? Is it because the Red Chinese there would listen to them more readily? In this same report the Chief went on to say … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on 4 November the hon. the Prime Minister spoke at Nigel and he said: “Give us six months and you will see where South Africa will stand.” We have had from him and from other speakers today a restatement of the detente situation to the extent that the hon. the Prime Minister has succeeded in opening a verbal communication with certain States to the north. As far as the Rhodesian issue is concerned, and seizing with pragmatic skill on the dramatic change in the strategic position following the collapse of the Portuguese régimes, he has used a change of emphasis or attitude on the Rhodesian issue in order to enter into a communication with the Black States to the north. This is all well and good, but what I hope we are going to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister before his Vote is concluded is, not just how much discussion there has been about Rhodesia, but what in fact, in practical terms, are the advantages accrueing to South Africa. What is the position with regard to increased diplomatic representation between South Africa and the other African States? Has there been an improvement in the question of entry and reciprocal visas for the various States? Has there been a discussion or are we getting any closer to finalizing matters like air-landing rights in other African States? Are we contemplating any new trade agreements? Has it been possible to discuss the question of non-aggression pacts with other States on the African Continent? These will be the hard, concrete issues with advantages accruing to South Africa. I do hope that we are going to hear from the Prime Minister other than merely how he has used the Rhodesian situation in order to enter into this communication with other African States.

The hon. the Prime Minister gave me and others a homily on how we should behave when we go to other African States. He said that we should be cautious as to what we say. I accept this. I think each of us will interprete the scene differently. I believe we have done this. On visiting other States we have behaved with caution taking the situation as we knew it into account. I do not believe we went into those States and maliciously said anything to damage either the South African situation or the relationship between States. I believe that we stated the facts as we saw them and that this has been a contributory factor in the détente exercise. At the last conference at Dar es Salaam one of the key states at that conference and in Africa was Nigeria. I must ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he really believes that the discussion which the hon. member for Rondebosch and I had with Mr. Joseph Iyalla, the Permanent Secretary, or with Mr. Tayo Ogunsulice, the Africa desk-officer, or with Gen. Gowon, was damaging or otherwise to the case of South Africa. The evidence is that the fact that there are South Africans who are opposed to the policy of apartheid and race discrimination is a major factor in the whole détente operation. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister realizes this. When he said we should act with circumspection he was correct, but he must then also speak to the hon. the Minister of Defence. Does the Prime Minister really think that the outburst last year of the hon. the Minister of Defence against the heads of States whom we had seen, helped South Africa? Was it a contributory factor? He should speak to his own supporting newspapers. I have here an extract or a sheet from Die Afrikaner.

That is not a newspaper. [Interjections.]

It contains an imaginary interview under the title:“Hilgard Muller being cross-examined by Dr. Hertzog”. This is a shocking and disgusting article. It is the same article which had been published by Dawie in Die Burger. However, in this article the names Eglin and Slabbert were substituted for Botha and Muller. This is what happened. This is what appeared in Die Afrikaner. However, it also appeared in the paper on the direction of which prominent Nationalist Party members of the Cabinet serve.

†I believe they should be careful.

I would like to raise another issue. It is a matter relating to South West Africa. On a couple of occasions the hon. the Prime Minister showed signs of sensitivity when I suggested that there has been a change in his policy. He has taken some refuge in a statement in the South West Africa Survey of 1967 which said that it was his policy. I am not reproaching the hon. the Prime Minister for changing his policy, but I am congratulating him for doing so. There has been a change, and the hon. the Minister of Community Development knows this because one can take the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister, by the hon. the Minister, by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and by the hon. the Minister of Transport over the years from 1967 right until 1973. They all said that the decision was going to be made separately by the separate peoples of South West Africa. The original statement dealt with the diverse peoples who would decide on their own future and not their collective future. While the South West Africa Survey was being printed, we had: “Mr. Vorster tightened links with South West Africa”. He said, “The Government consideres the time now •opportune. The fate of South West Africa and South Africa is interlocked to such an extent that South West Africa in fact wanted to be an integral part of South Africa.” Take the election manifesto which was issued by the hon. member over there. The whole concept was separate communities making separate decisions, whereas what has happened today, is that communities have taken collective decisions for their collective future. This is what is going to happen in South Africa.

I want to raise another matter with all the seriousness at my command—taking into account the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister that he completely rejects the concept that any one African is the leader of the total African peoples in South Africa. I subscribe to that point of view. I do not believe there is a single leader for the total African community.

I want to raise with him the question of political prisoners in South Africa and I want to raise it because it is a matter which is relevant to our relationships with the rest of Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that not only among African extremists, but among responsible African leaders as well, there is a bond of emotional sympathy between many African leaders to the north and many political prisoners in South Africa. This is understandable as the hon. the Prime Minister will realize, because in the late fifties and early sixties, they were all part of a process of liberation that rolled down Africa. They were all part and parcel of the same political process. Here in South Africa these men were faced by a White society which appeared, to them at any rate, to be committed to the maintenance of race discrimination and to denying them the ordinary rights of citizenship. They then took the law into their own hands. In due course they were charged in court, found guilty and were sentenced to varying degrees of imprisonment, Those are the facts. The hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude, as I understand from the past, is that there can be no amnesty for these people or any remission of sentences, nor can there be any parole. I understand that it is his attitude towards political prisoners. I put it to him that the time has come to see whether circumstances have not changed and whether this attitude should not be reviewed. According to the hon. the Prime Minister, South West Africa is now committed to become an independent nation or a series of nations with all options open. This is the change. The Transkei …

It was said in 1967. You will find it on page 39 of the Survey.

I am afraid that I do not have the time, but we will come back to it in the course of these debates. The Transkei, which was merely a Bantustan, is now on the verge of independence. The Government has declared emphatically that it is going to get rid of race discrimination in South Africa. A Government member for Pretoria Central said that the Government’s philosophy and policy fitted into the philosophy and policy of the Lusaka Manifesto. Government officials and Cabinet Ministers are now talking with the very people outside of South Africa whom they branded as friends of murderers and rapists. They are talking with the leaders of what were for them terrorists organizations. So I believe that circumstances have changed. I also want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that it is possible that the very men who took the law into their own hands a decade or more ago, may also have changed.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I have only ten minutes, I am afraid …

I will give you injury time. Do you realize that Mandela and others were card-carrying communists, that they did not work on behalf of African Blacks but on behalf of the international Communist Party?

They were not charged with being communists. They were charged with acts of treason against South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, there are other people who have been charged with acts of treason against South Africa. The point is that they took into their own hands the right to try to change the society outside of the law, and we do not hold any brief for that sort of action. Sir, I am not pleading for any one individual. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that not all of those individuals belong to any one political party.

Do you include the communist Mandela?

It could well be that some of those people who have been incarcerated have changed their attitude, at least as to the method which they would employ in order to try to get rid of discrimination in South Africa. I am not in any way supporting their political views. I am in no way condoning their previous actions, and I am not suggesting for one moment that the Prime Minister should put the security of the South African State in jeopardy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, could you not allow the hon. member a further two and a half minutes?

Two minutes’ “injury time” will be granted to the hon. member for Sea Point.

Sir, I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to consider, in view of the changed circumstances, whether all these people should continue to remain in prison for the full period of imprisonment to which they were sentenced. Coming at this stage, Sir, I do not believe that this would be interpreted as a sign of weakness. I believe it would be seen as a sign of confidence that the Prime Minister is able to get rid of racial discrimination in South Africa and that he is getting growing Black support for his policies. I believe that this could, to put it at its highest, prove to be a positive factor as far as the internal situation is concerned. I have no doubt that a statement by the Prime Minister to the effect that he is considering the position of political prisoners in South Africa and that he is considering under which conditions he would be prepared to act in this matter, would have a profound effect on the whole détente situation and would bring the Prime Minister into even closer accord with responsible African leaders to the north.

Sir, we have just listened to a speech by the hon. leader of the Progressive Party in which he made a fervent plea for the release of people who made an active attempt to destroy and demolish the existing order in this country, people who were found guilty in the Supreme Court of offences and who were locked up for various terms of imprisonment. Sir, it would be interesting to learn what the attitude is of his party and also the other parties in this House about the subject on which I want to address you. In the first interim report of the Schlebusch Commission the Commission recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of a committee for internal security. The Commission made various recommendations in this regard. In the first place, it recommended that this body should be seen as a Parliamentary organ and that the members thereof should be Members of the House of Assembly. In the second place, it was recommended that this body should consist of six members and that they be appointed by the State President. The Commission recommended that this body should inquire into matters of importance to internal security referred to it by the State President and that it should then report to the State President. A further recommendation of the Commission was that the body should be regarded as an information organ for Parliament, on the one hand, and as a link in the sphere of internal security between Parliament and the Executive Authority on the other hand. This permanent committee on internal security is recommended as a body which would fall under the department of the hon. the Prime Minister and it is felt that such a committee should accept responsibility for the safeguarding of the existing order and should make recommendations to the Government in this regard. Sir, from previous experience I know that there are parties and factions of parties in this House which will agitate most strongly against a committee of this nature. But I think the time has come—we have not debated this matter for a long time—and after the various exorcisms we have had in the various parties, that we should learn once more what the attitude of people in this particular regard is.

I know the first objection that will be raised against this particular committee, is that it is not going to be a judicial commission. But in this connection I want to refer immediately to debates we have had here earlier this year as a result of the report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. Sir, in those debates some members of this House had some unpleasant things to say about this judicial commission. I just want to refer to a few quotations. I do not have the time to read all these quotations, but I just want to mention some of the unpleasant things that were said about this Commission, which—let us be quite clear on this score—was a judicial commission. For example, the hon. member for Durban Central said that the majority of the members of this commission were prejudiced and that he questioned their objectivity. This, Sir, is said of a judicial commission! He went further and said—

He went on to say—

Sir, this was said of a judicial commission which, independent of the Schlebusch Commission, came to more or less the same conclusions the Schlebusch Commission came to. Sir, I say these are unpleasant things which were said about a judicial commission. How can they claim that a judicial commission is the only commission which is able to assess the true value of these things? Sir, I want to refer to one other quotation. This is what the hon. member for Rondebosch had to say about this commission—

Sir, these are statements in respect of a judicial commission. I believe that the appointment of such a commission could make an important contribution to stabilizing the security of the State internally, and I want to suggest in all modesty that the Schlebusch Commission, which will be the pattern on which the permanent commission will be established, has already made a very important contribution in this regard. We must appreciate that the internal security of the State and the political policy and philosophy of a governing party have everything to do with one another. In our particular case the onslaught which is being made against us, is being made against the established order and the particular philosophy of life which manifests itself in the policy of separate development. I do not mean that all opposition against (his policy constitutes a danger. As long as such opposition and onslaught is of a constitutional nature and takes place in public and along recognized channels, no fault can be found with it, but when the policy is used as a pretence to introduce into the country and to promote left-wing philosophies or Marxist ideologies, such an onslaught against that form of government and that philosophy of life is definitely a danger to the State.

The Schlebush Commission and the Le Grange Commission have given ample proof of this. Because the onslaught is being aimed at the current political policy, it is my considered opinion that such matters can best be considered by politicians; that they are the best people to judge in the light of the particular political climate and that it is really unfair to expect a judge to study a particular political situation, to take cognizance of it and then pass judgment within the framework of that particular political ideology. The value and the success of the Schlebusch Commission lies in the fact that they have highlighted certain delicate areas in the entire set-up of State security and that these were pertinently brought to the fore. Sir, I know that, on account of newspaper reports, the criticism will be that the Attorney-General of the Cape Province decided not to prosecute Nusas in the Cape Province. But the success of it should not be measured in terms of the number of prosecutions instituted; the success of the attempt lies in the fact that certain tendencies and dangerous processes were revealed and that people were warned to guard against those dangers. Sir, to the extent that the attempts of the hon. the Prime Minister to bring about détente in Southern Africa are successful, to that extent the threat to our internal security will increase and to that extent the methods will become more covert and sophisticated because if détente succeeds in Southern Africa, the powers responsible for the onslaught against us will to a large extent be thwarted in their attempts. Détente in Southern Africa will constitute a serious obstacle on the road to perdition those people envisage for us. But, Sir, if the attempt does not succeed, it would be too awful to contemplate the future as has been quite rightly said by the Prime Minister, and extremely high demands would be placed on our internal security set-up. On account of what I have said, I should be glad if all the Opposition groups in this House would tell us what their attitude is in respect of this entire matter.

Mr. Chairman, in his speech yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia, the following—

With the hon. the Prime Minister—

These words sound fine, especially when they are recorded in Hansard and especially if hon. members of the Opposition subsequently use them outside to tell people what attitude they adopt towards the Prime Minister when he is promoting détente in Africa. I say it sounds fine, but to me his attitude yesterday was very strange. I say “strange” because it was not the same attitude he displayed during the no-confidence debate and even after the no-confidence debate outside Parliament. Therefore I want to say at once that I do not believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition meant sincerely what he said here yesterday. Let me add, too, that I doubt the sincerity of his words unless, after that which I have now said and am going to say, he apologizes for his attitude and for things he has said outside. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity during the no-confidence debate to express his appreciation towards the hon. the Prime Minister for his détente efforts, but there was not a single word of appreciation for the hon. the Prime Minister or the Government. On the contrary, it was only referred to disparagingly, to such an extent that the hon. the Prime Minister had to point it out to him. Inter alia, he said the following (Hansard, 7 February 1974, column 377)—

He said furthermore—

I think the hon. the Prime Minister summed it up correctly. But what happened afterwards? The hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to the motion of no confidence which was moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It was an amendment which had exactly the same meaning as that which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here yesterday in his own words. Hon. members would do well to go and read the amendment and the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Essentially these are almost the same words with the same meaning. But what happened then? The United Party members voted against the amendment. Why this sudden change of front on the part of the Leader of the Opposition now? Is it because of pressure from loyal South Africans who are still members of that United Party, or is it as a result of the success which has been achieved by the hon. the Prime Minister and the fact that they all want to jump on the bandwagon now? Sir, the only discordant note we have had in this debate up to now, was the hon. member for Green Point. After all, he also paid a visit to Mozambique and The Argus then represented him as the peace dove bringing back the olive leaf from Mozambique. But, Sir, what happened further? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went to address a meeting at Middelburg, and according to Die Vaderland of 1 March 1975 he said the following there (translation)—

Sir, I should just like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether by that he means that the writing is on the wall for the National Party, or whether he means by that the writing is on the wall for the Whites here in South Africa?

For you, Sias, and your Prime Minister.

No, wait a moment. There we have it. He says the writing is on the wall for me and for my Prime Minister, who is to me the symbol of the Whites here in South Africa. That is what he said. One can interpret it in no other way. According to him the writing is on the wall for the Whites here in South Africa. Now, I wonder whom the Leader of the Opposition was addressing there. Was he addressing that small audience at Middelburg, who were probably for the most part members of the HNP, for these days they are the allies of the United Party on the platteland, or was he addressing hostile Black African states or the outside world to tell them that the writing is on the wall for the Whites here in South Africa. Did he want to imply in that way that these Black states are rejecting the hand of peace and friendship offered to them by Advocate John Vorster because he is approaching them out of weakness? What is more, at the same meeting he said (translation)—

I think the greatest disloyalty towards South Africa is implied in those words. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of what he said. Are these words an invitation to the terrorist organizations by saying to them that there is already enough help for them here in South Africa, that they only need to come in, that the Blacks here are ready to begin with a terrorist campaign? I do not believe that it can be held against us if we say to him that not only do we regard his patriotism and his loyalty towards South Africa to be suspect, but we also reject it completely.

Order! The hon. member may not question the loyalty of hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw those words and substitute “his confidence in South Africa”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words he used, i.e. that he regards the loyalty of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be suspect, completely.

Yes, Sir, I withdraw the words “loyalty”, and substitute “his confidence in South Africa”. We can understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition making use these days of these methods and these words as a result of his own frustrations and the disunity in his own party. It indicates nothing else but the complete destruction of the United Party; that is staring them in the face. We do not expect them to have any love for the National Party, but is it necessary to allow hate to develop against South Africa because they do not like the National Party and would like to see it destroyed? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not the only person to whom this applies. This is the whole tendency developing in the United Party. We had the same thing from the hon. member for Hillbrow when he opposed the R849 million which was budgeted for Defence. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.