Mr. Speaker, the business for next week will be more or less as follows: The Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill will be introduced on Monday, after which the debate will be adjourned until Wednesday, when the debate will be continued. In the meantime we shall proceed with the Bill of which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has just given notice, i.e. the last one for the introduction of which he asked leave. Immediately after he has delivered his Second Reading speech the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. We shall then proceed with the Third Reading of the Defence Amendment Act, the Simulated Armaments Transactions Prohibition Bill, the Transkei Constitution Amendment Bill, the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill and the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the motion is not intended to criticize that what is continually being done by the Government to develop South Africa into an economic giant. On the contrary, it could rather be regarded as evidence of great confidence in the most stable Government in the whole of the modem world. The motion also implies that the mover expects the present Government to remain in power for at least another 25 years.

Hear, hear!

I have great appreciation for the Government’s planning of South Africa’s economic objectives by means of the economic development programme as drawn up by the Economic Advisory Council of the office of the hon. the Prime Minister and the physical development programme. The national physical development programme determines the growth points in the Republic of South Africa. It stimulates industrial settlement, economic progress and economic growth in the designated areas. The national physical development programme takes into consideration all the factors necessary for growth in particular areas and is a very well-considered and well drawn up programme. My motion really concerns long-term planning for the Republic of South Africa. From the nature of the case long-term planning cannot contain all the details. It should merely lay down the broad framework, and development should take place within that pattern. That does not mean to say that the Government does not have a fine record in the sphere of long-term economic development over the past 25 years and longer. We have outstanding examples in our economic history which are indispensable to the Republic of South Africa today. If it had not been for the far-sightedness of the National Party Government in the 1920’s and the present National Party Government during the post-war period, we would not have had such fine names in our vocabulary today as Iscor, Sasol, and so on; names which have become household words in South Africa and serve as monuments to a Government which has planned very thoroughly over a very long period.

It can be expected of a government to allow its country to grow to its full economic potential. With the establishment of an economic policy the country’s natural resources, which have to be utilized to the full, have to be taken into consideration. I should like to say something more about Iscor. Iscor fulfils a very important function in South Africa. If Iscor had not existed South Africa would not have been in a position to make the best use of its mineral ores and we would still have been importing steel products today.

In this regard Sasol is equally important and not mainly because of the fuel it produces. Sasol is also a very important milestone in the economic history of South Africa in respect of the establishment of a petro-chemical industry. It can be expected of a government to provide its people with employment opportunities and, through the determination of the economic policy, to ensure that a high standard of living will be maintained in the long term. I think the Government also has a proud record in this sphere. In the planning of a long-term economic policy attention should also be given to the country’s strategic position in the world, and attention should be given to those sectors in respect of which the country may probably be vulnerable regarding strategic material, for example, fuel, in respect of which we are still vulnerable. The Government should also take into consideration the country’s position in the world in other spheres.

Although it does not always concern the economic profitability of a project, it is essential for a country such as South Africa—in fact, it is essential for any country—that thorough and advance planning be undertaken for those sectors in respect of which a country may probably be vulnerable so that it would not find itself in a difficult position when a time of crisis arises. When I consider, in this regard, the phosphor industry and other industries which have been launched by the Government, it is quite clear that the Government has also given thorough consideration to South Africa’s real position in the world.

As we all know, South Africa has for many years been dependent upon gold. There is still confidence in gold. But gold is also an asset that will disappear in course of time. After all, there is only as much gold beneath the earth as has been placed there by the Creator. When that amount of gold is exhausted one day, it will have to be replaced by something else as export commodity in order to compensate for the loss of revenue from gold. I cannot tell you for how long mining will still exist, or for how long the supply of gold will last before it has all been exploited. I have heard people say it will take 20 or 25 years depending on the prevailing price. When this happens, a substitute for gold will have to be found. This cannot be done overnight. It will take quite a long time to find a substitute for gold, and for that reason it is essential for planning to be undertaken long before the time. What I have in mind is to encourage planning in that direction by means of this motion of mine.

One also thinks of sources of energy other than fuel. Energy is the life-blood of any economy in any part of the world. In this respect one learns with gratitude of the process of the enrichment of uranium which is being developed in South Africa. In this sphere, too, the Government has a proud record.

There is also another sphere in respect of which long-term planning has taken place, and that is in the sphere of decentralization. The modem world decentralizes for various reasons. There is, inter alia, the problem of overpopulation in the larger industrial cities with its attendant disadvantages of pollution, transport problems, housing problems and even social problems. It is a fact that the world is moving towards decentralization to combat these evils. Thanks to this Government South Africa also has a policy of decentralization. Decentralization in South Africa is taking place as a result of the industrial settlement in intensively industrialized areas around and near the homelands, as they are known. Although the reasons for decentralization in other countries are of a purely economic nature, it is a fact that decentralization is also taking place in South Africa for constitutional and political reasons. Therefore, we have two reasons for our having to decentralize. In the decentralization of our industries, the moving thereof to border areas as far as is possible, and also the establishment of industries in our homelands, we are taking the labour to the labourers. It is being made possible for these people, in their own traditional residential areas, to work under far easier and more favourable circumstances, to become economically active and to develop into an asset to South Africa. However, I do not want to deal with the policy of separate development at this stage. I am merely mentioning it in passing. Therefore the Government should be given recognition for the long-term planning which has taken place in the past and which is still taking place at present.

I now want to deal with the second leg of my motion. When considering the estimates of demographers of the size of the South African population towards the end of the century, one finds that the population is going to double itself during the next 20 to 25 years. Many things have been achieved in South Africa since the year 1652, when Jan van Riebeeck landed here. One can only consider what has been achieved during the three and a half centuries since the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck when this country, which is known today as South Africa, was a barren and untilled country and Cape Town only consisted of Table Mountain and the sea. All this took more than 300 years to achieve. When one considers all the industries which have been established in South Africa, the progress that has been made in the sphere of agriculture and all other spheres, one has to appreciate that all the existing facilities will have to be doubled during the following two decades to provide for South Africa’s population in 20 to 25 years’ time. In other words, we do not have much time to double the benefits and facilities. If one considers the fact that the population will double itself, one thinks, in the first place, of food, and in passing I want to pay tribute to the farmers of South Africa who have seen to it that food is still plentiful in South Africa today. As a matter of fact, when considering my own weight, I can probably say that there is too much food available. One is very grateful that a small group of people, altogether fewer than 100 000, succeed in feeding a population of more than 20 million, while still leaving a surplus for export. But the agricultural sector will have to double its production during the next 25 years. As you know, agricultural land is limited, and improved management abilities will therefore have to be applied to ensure greater utilization of the available land. When one considers the housing of the population and that as many houses and residential units will have to be built during the coming 25 years as have been erected since the time Van Riebeeck landed here, one appreciates how much remains to be done. Also in the sphere of education there is a need for the existing facilities to be doubled as a result of the progress that has been made by the other population groups in South Africa who, although I do not want to anticipate anything, will be enjoying the best educational facilities in South Africa—if not in the world—in the foreseeable future. In the sphere of transport a great deal will have to be done. In the sphere of communications a great deal will have to be done in order to meet the needs of a far bigger population. Mr. Speaker, I also hope that, during the following decades, there will not only be the demand, but also the need for twice the amount of existing church facilities.

It is obvious that the doubling of existing economic means over the short term is going to make heavy demands on economic planning. One is grateful that South Africa has outstanding people in the sphere of planning as well. I am not only referring to people in the Government benches now, but also to advisers, academics in the private sector and in education, who apply their minds to these problems and are of great value to the Government. Mr. Speaker, it is also essential that we should get our priorities right. With that I do not mean that there is anything wrong with our priorities at the moment, but as far as the future is concerned and in view of all the demands which are going to be placed upon South Africa, it is essential that we do the important things first. In this respect one thinks of defence because we know that the economic growth means nothing whatsoever to a country if the country is not safe and if the pillars of the country are not protected. Therefore, defence is probably going to place far heavier capital demands upon us. In the sphere of the provision of powers, telecommunications, steel, housing and agriculture—all these sectors have to compete with one another for the available capital in order to provide these services. As a matter of fact, thousands of millions of rands will be required. Last week the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs stated in reply to a question that the cost of the development of the factory at Saldanha Bay is estimated at R1 300 million. This is only a minor portion of all that has to be done. The capital requirements of South Africa will increase astronomically during the following quarter of a century, and the capital resources are not unlimited. Capital is expensive and we shall not be able to be too extravagant, because there are also other countries which have to compete.

The more important economic objectives have to enjoy preference to those of lesser importance. If I may put it this way, I want to say that the indispensable objectives should enjoy preference to the essential objectives. This is really the crux of my motion, i.e. that there should be overall planning, that there should be experts who are able to determine which projects should enjoy priority to others. In competing for the available capital it should be borne in mind that local as well as provincial authorities have capital requirements. Furthermore, capital is required for the national economy and also the State corporations, which entail major benefits for South Africa in their respective fields and in their respective industries, have their own capital requirements.

There is also the indispensable private sector with its own and indispensable capital requirements. I want to tell the hon. member for Constantia that I had prepared my speech before I learned of his proposed amendment. I just repeat that we have the indispensable private sector with its own, equally indispensable capital requirements. That is all I want to say about this matter. In addition, there is also agriculture which has to provide us with food.

Mr. Speaker, the State will also have to determine the proper sequence of its priorities. I now come to the last priority, and that is that of John Citizen. John Citizen will also have to get his priorities right. The anti-inflation measures which have been introduced by the authorities in order to combat inflation in the interests of John Citizen, i.e. the public, the consumer, can be regarded as a tablet one takes for one’s temperature. Once the tablet has had its effect, the temperature is still there. Therefore, one has to get rid of the temperature, i.e. the cause. What I am asking now is whether it is not time for all of us to realize that no economy can exist when more money is spent than what is earned. If everyone would decide to contribute more to the economy than he took out of it, we would get our priorities right. Everyone of us in South Africa has a share in this long-term planning. If we cut our coat according to our cloth—and this applied to everyone: the State, provincial authorities, local authorities, the private sector and the ordinary citizens—I foresee an excellent economic future for South Africa over the long term.

Replying to the motion of the hon. member for Germiston District, I must say I do not find myself in the position in which he finds himself in having to give praise to the Government, because I find very little justification for doing so.

When this motion was first put on the Order Paper, I studied it carefully and I had misgivings about its necessity and about its desirability. I had misgivings about the necessity for the type of inquiry that was called for, or the desirability of such an inquiry. Now that I have listened to the hon. proposer of this motion my misgivings are reinforced. They are reinforced because it is clear that he places a very high priority on Government participation in the economy, and that he places a very high priority on the Government’s responsibility for bending the economy to carry out its own ideological policy. Now, in saying that I question the desirability or the necessity for an inquiry of this nature, that does not mean to say that we shut our eyes to the need for long-term projections in certain directions. We do need long-term population projections. We do need long-term projections of the needs of our growing population, the needs of our growing population for housing, food, transport, jobs, education, training and the need to train skilled people to do skilled work. We need a long-term picture, in so far as it is possible to get a long-term picture, of the resources that are going to be available in the long term to be developed and to be exploited. Generally speaking, we need a long-term picture painted in the broadest relief of the essential features of the economy, so that corrective action can be taken where weaknesses exist and positive action can be taken where openings exist. But I would suggest to this House, Sir, that we already have a wealth of information in this regard available to us.

We have the reports of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council and of the Prime Minister’s economic adviser. We have reports by the Department of Planning. We have projections for the medium term in the Economic Development Programme. We have had the report of the Reynders Commission on exports which did extensive research into the relative merits of different types of economic activities, including agriculture, mining and industry. We have had the Franzsen Commission’s report, which examined the financial and fiscal objectives of the country. We have also had much valuable research done into these various subjects by private institutions like the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch and by private people such as Prof. Sadie. I would suggest therefore that any further research or inquiry of this nature would be quite superfluous. But that is not the main reason why I regard this inquiry as being unnecessary and undesirable. I think if you ask the State to set long-term objectives and priorities, there is only one thing that that can lead to and that is to more State intervention in the economy. I say that because if the State were to undertake an investigation of this nature, if it were to set objectives and priorities, it would only be logical that it would also want to see that those objectives and priorities were in fact achieved, otherwise the exercise would be purposeless.

Relate that to the EDP, and argue on that basis.

I will argue on that basis. I would like to say to this House that the fact that the State is actually impotent in seeing that the objectives and the priorities set, as they have been in the EDP, are achieved, is really irrelevant to this motion. It is a fact that the latest EDP projected a rate of growth of 6,4% compounded over a five-year period to 1979. The first year produced a growth rate of about 2%. The current year, which is the second year, is likely to produce a growth rate of a similar order, so that if we are going to get, over the five-year period, a compounded growth rate of 6,4%, we will need in the next three years, from next year onwards, a compounded growth rate of about 9,1%, which I believe is not on the cards. Therefore, to introduce a further investigation into long-term objectives when your medium-term projections are not working and are not being achieved, to me seems to serve very little purpose indeed.

Sir, I would like to go on to a rather different tack now, and I would like to say that there was a time when all parties in this House stood for the philosophy of a free, competitive private enterprise economy. I do not think that that position exists any longer.

The National Party, as a result of the example which it has shown of increasing State participation in the economy, is clearly leading this country, clearly and inexorably leading this country, down the path to socialism. This is proven by the fact that since the Nationalists came to power in 1948 State expenditure has risen by something like 15 times, whereas private expenditure has risen by only something like eight times. Investment by the public sector has been rising at a much faster rate than investment by the private sector, with the result that the assets of the country are coming more and more into the ownership of the State rather than of the private sector, which is another way of saying we are moving down the path to socialism. This party on my left, the Progressive Party, is also moving away from private enterprise even though it is a capitalist backed party, because if its constitutional ideas were to be implemented, which would result in Black majority rule, it would be handing the South African economy over to the African brand of socialism which is so evident in African States throughout this continent. [Interjections.] Sir, it seems to me that we in the United Party are the only party that is faithfully adhering to the policy of free enterprise. We do not need any inquiry to establish what our long-term economic objectives are. Our long-term economic target is to maximize the gross national product. It is to maximize productivity. It is to maximize the national product with the aim of achieving as large as possible a real per capita income for the population. Put in other words, our target is to achieve maximum living standards on a stable basis. Our priorities are clear too. We have three priorities, and one does not need any inquiry to establish them.

Our first priority is that we believe in maximum freedom to entrepreneurs and individuals in the making of decisions. In the last instance, the population is an aggregation of individuals. It is individuals who make the economy tick, and it is the profit motive which spurs the individual on to greater and more efficient efforts and greater productivity. To make the individual subservient to the State, and to remove the profit motive, is to move inexorably towards socialism, in fact the worst kind of socialism. Our idea of freedom of decision for the individual does not, however, mean unbridled freedom such as that which we had under laissez-faire in the last century. It means disciplined freedom.

Who must do the disciplining?

It means freedom subject to the discipline of sound monetary and fiscal policies so that we have a stable and strong rand. It does not mean overspending, allowing the supply of money to get out of hand and allowing the value of the rand, internally and externally, to depreciate as this Government has allowed it to do. It means freedom subject to the discipline of sensible and sound policies of industrial protection to encourage the most economic industries. It means discipline to enforce civilized standards of employment and remuneration. It means freedom subject to discipline to protect the environment and it means freedom subject to all the other disciplines that are or may become necessary to protect other people. However, freedom subject to the disciplines I have mentioned does also mean freedom to employ and train labour, irrespective of colour, and to use that labour in jobs which it is capable of doing. It means freedom to establish businesses in localities where those businesses are most productive, whether those localities are in existing metropolitan areas or in the border areas. It means freedom to put capital to the most productive use without the distortion of the interference we have in interest rates. It means freedom from the kind of red tape we are subjected to, for example, under the Companies Act, or under the administration of controls such as import control.

The second priority that we on this side of the House believe in, is competitive conditions. It is competition which keeps entrepreneurs and individuals on their toes. It is competition which makes them efficient and enterprising and which induces them to innovate and improve all the time. It is competition which protects the public from exploitation as far as prices are concerned, and it is competition which keeps profits down to a reasonable level.

The third priority in which we believe is that there must be maximum scope for private enterprise as opposed to State enterprise. We believe that the role of the State in managing the economy must be very clearly defined and that its participation in the economy must be strictly limited. The State does have a duty in regard to managing the economy. It has a duty to promote circumstances in which there can be stability, including the stability of prices. It has a duty to assist by promoting conditions in which real growth can flourish and it has a duty to ensure that there is participation by the maximum number of people in the economic activity of the country and a maximum sharing in the prosperity of the country. It also has a duty to iron out the fluctuations which are caused by trade cycles. It has available to it the tools with which to do so. It can use fiscal and monetary policy, but it should do so circumspectly and lightly and not on a stop-start basis, to accelerate or put a brake on the economy. It can use its own level of spending to flatten out trade cycles and to encourage activity when private activity is at a low ebb, and vice versa. However, it also has the responsibility to see to it that its own policies do not conflict with the economic principles which are to the good of the country, and it should not try to bend the economy in the way it has frequently done.

As far as the State’s active participation in the economy is concerned, its responsibilities and limitations should be clearly demarcated by guide-lines. We on this side of the House believe that Government participation in the economy is warranted for limited purposes. It is warranted for strategic and security reasons, as for example in the case of Armscor and Sasol. It is warranted when private enterprise has been or is unable to undertake an enterprise, as for example in the case of Iscor. It is warranted where the enterprise requires Government authority, as in the case of Escom, the Railways and the Post Office. It is also warranted where co-operative effort is best channelled through a Government agency, as is the case with the Tourist Corporation. We believe, however, that these guide-lines must be established and adhered to, and that they must be adhered to very much more rigidly than has been the case in the past.

I wish to conclude by saying that the motion before the House would have been of far more practical value had it been a motion asking for an inquiry into the objectives and priorities as far as the State’s own participation in the economy is concerned. This is the nub of the question. This is what is going to decide whether we, as a country, remain a private enterprise country or whether we move down the hill towards socialism. Therefore, in the belief that we are hereby doing the country a service, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

This amendment draws attention to the fact that the future prosperity and the standards of living of our people are dependent, not on the type of inquiry that is called for in the motion of the hon. member for Germiston District, but on the encouragement of private enterprise and all that that entails.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia reminded me of a dog who has been given a hiding and who has taken to biting everyone around him instead of going off on his own to find himself again and to work out a new line of action for himself. The hon. member quarrels with us on this side who have moved the motion, and in the process he takes a swipe at the party on his left which has not said a word in the debate up to now. [Interjections.] If one’s party is deteriorating as rapidly as that hon. member’s party, one should be looking for friends and not for enemies.

We agree to a large extent with the hon. member for Constantia, because we believe just as strongly in private initiative as he does. Just as he does, we believe, not in unlimited, but in wide powers for private initiative. However, there are two extremes in the economy today. On the one hand we find the communist authoritarian state, in which economic planning enjoys absolute priority and in which economic planning determines the whole pattern of life of the people. On the other hand we find the absolutely free economy under the capitalist system, in which only the free economic activities determine the future of the national economy. However, this condition, the so-called laissez faire, no longer exists in the world today. What does exist in the capitalist systems of the world is free enterprise to a very large extent, but controlled by sensible planning for the future. What the motion asks for is nothing more or less than that the State should investigate this. I take it that my hon. friend who moved the motion was thinking of a commission of inquiry to be appointed by the Minister and to consist of persons from the private as well as the public sector. The commission should then be charged with planning the relationship between the private and the public sectors.

It is nonsensical to say that only free enterprise should determine the economic condition of a country, because the State must, after all, provide the infrastructure. A free enterprise cannot be established just anywhere, just as it cannot produce just anything. If a free enterprise wants to produce something which it cannot produce economically, it means that the State has to keep on subsidizing that enterprise indefinitely by means of import tariffs. The State cannot subsidize the free enterprise indefinitely by means of protective import tariffs if it is producing something which it cannot produce economically. For this reason the State definitely has a say in the matter. Likewise the State has a say in the matter when it comes to the place where that free enterprise is to be established. After all, the State is expected to provide the infrastructure, and if the State does not plan ahead in consultation with free enterprise, people could establish an enterprise at a place where it cannot be successfully operated. This is why the motion requests today that the Minister should have an inquiry instituted into the long-term economic objectives and priorities for the Republic.

I have every confidence that the hon. the Minister, who has already proved that he can take dynamic action, will make a success of this as well. I am referring, amongst other things, to the action programme against inflation which he initiated and for which he brought the public and private sectors together round a table and succeeded in inducing the private sector to co-operate in combating this very great economic problem of the Western world, excessive inflation. Just as he succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of the private sector in combating inflation, just as he succeeded in bringing the private and public sectors together round a table and in achieving agreement between them about the priorities in the economic sphere, in the same way I believe that if he were to concentrate his dynamic approach on determining priorities, he would have very great success in this as well.

The hon. member for Constantia made it very clear that one of his priorities was maximum freedom for private enterprise. I agree with that. There must be the maximum freedom—not complete freedom—under control of the State. He also spoke of “maximum scope for private enterprise versus State enterprise”. This, of course, brings me to the question of State corporations. In a developing economy such as the one in our country, where the powerful, established enterprise is lacking as yet, it may happen that for very good reasons private initiative may not be prepared to move in a certain direction in the economy. I do not want to rake up old stories again by referring to the establishment of Iscor, when the hon. member’s political fathers made such a blunder, but the fact remains that in a developing economy, private initiative cannot always supply the necessary capital and does not always want to take the necessary risks, because the market is limited. For this reason it is essential, in a developing economy such as the one we have, for State corporations to be founded in certain spheres. They are established only when private initiative has not been prepared to undertake the development itself. If we had not been given an Iscor in 1928, where would our economic development have been today? We had similar situations with the establishment of Escom, Sasol, Phoscor, etc. Private initiative was not prepared to undertake those developments, and I do not blame them; they had very good reasons for their approach to matters. At the same time, however, I want to allege that if private initiative is not willing to take those risks, and it is in the interests of the country as a whole for that sphere of the economy to be entered into, we have no option and State corporations have to be established. That is exactly what was done here.

I want to emphasize that I do not blame private initiative for not having entered those spheres, for with a market as limited as ours it is a very hazardous undertaking to enter those spheres where the economy of large enterprises is involved. For this reason it was essential for State corporations to be established. For the very reason that State corporations in our country control such a large part of our economy, it is essential for the State corporations and private enterprises to get together around a table and to map out where everyone’s sphere lies. This is exactly what we are asking for in this motion, namely that these bodies should meet and define their respective spheres so that they will be able to plan on a long-term basis what each one’s sphere for the future is. I shall say something about priorities at a later stage.

The State corporations may have entered spheres which they should not have entered. I do not know whether this is what the hon. member for Constantia referred to; I suspect that it is. However, the fact is that when a private enterprise controls a powerful conglomerate—I am thinking, for example, of the production of steel—it can easily ensure markets for the product it produces, excluding a State corporation from such markets. After all, it testifies to good economic insight for the State corporation, too, to enter spheres in order to safeguard its markets. It is inevitable. For this reason I want to repeat that the time has come for these powers in the economy, the State, the State corporations and the private sector, to gather round a table to consider their long-term planning and to analyse their long-term projections.

Because we believe in private enterprise, we also believe that the time has come for this whole aspect of the sphere of the State corporation as against that of the private enterprise to be reconsidered and for the area of each to be defined as far as possible. However, this is not the most important point in this motion. The most important point is that we should determine our priorities. The West has seldom seen an inflation rate as high as the present one. This high inflation rate has caused capital to become scarce and expensive. Because capital is scarce and expensive, and because we have such an enormous capital expansion programme before us, as was indicated by my friend, the hon. member for Germiston District, surely it is essential for us to determine our priorities very clearly. If we do not do that, we shall have great difficulties. We shall have to pay more and more for capital, and if this becomes so expensive, we shall hardly be able to produce economically. This is why it is so very essential for all sectors in the economy, particularly for the producers, to come together and to determine what at this stage are essentials nos. 1, 2, 3, etc., for our economic development.

Unfortunately there is another factor which enters the picture in this whole economic problem, namely political interference. It is true, unfortunately, that the economy is not quite free. Just like the hon. member for Constantia, we too should like it to be free, but the economy is not quite free. Under a completely free economy, a country should produce only those products which it can produce on the most economical basis. What it cannot produce economically it will have to obtain from other nations. Our economy is not quite free, because there is such a thing as political boycotting. We have to give attention to this. We are concerned here not with ideological considerations, to which the hon. member for Constantia referred so disparagingly, but with economic necessities, for if political influences effectively prevent one from buying or selling on certain markets, it is sound economy, after all, to look for other ways of providing the most essential requirements.

Fortunately, these political factors in the economy are being pushed into the background more and more. For this we have to thank our very great leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, who is breaking down those political factors with his détente efforts, so that every country can produce what it is able to produce most economically with its raw materials, its people and its circumstances, and so that it will be able to trade freely with the outside world for its other requirements. I want to pay tribute to a very great leader, someone who is succeeding in breaking down these political factors which hinder our economy. I also have the greatest confidence in the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who has proved, by the steps he has taken up to now, by his action programme against inflation and by his appointment of a commission of inquiry into monopolistic conditions, the members of which he recruited from the private as well as from the public sector, that in this regard, too, he will succeed in appointing a commission consisting of members from the private and the public sectors who will be able to plan and to determine the right priorities. What I am asking here is that he should gather these people around a table, as he has done in the past in other spheres, in order to plan the future of our economy on the long term and to determine our priorities, for then I shall be very optimistic about the economic future of this young country of ours.

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Germiston District and the hon. member for Constantia referred to the fact that planning must take into account the natural resources we have in this country and the importance of rising living standards for all the people who live in South Africa. We are in full agreement with that, and I should like to come back to it at a later stage. The hon. member for Paarl mentioned that he hoped that the members of the commission of inquiry would be drawn from both the public and the private sectors. We also support him in that and, furthermore, we hope to put forward some potential names to the hon. the Minister in the course of this debate. The motion of the hon. member for Germiston District reads:

Let me say at once that we have absolutely no problem with that and that we will support the spirit of it. It is an overt and explicit—there is nothing tacit about it—admission of defeat and failure on the part of this Government and the National Party. Their only justification for this inquiry is that they say they want to set up priorities. We have no problem with the desirability of determining priorities for this country. However, this Government has for the past 27 years had the right to set priorities. For the past 27 years this Government has acted in relation to our economy in a role analogous to that of a doctor to his patient. They have had the power both to diagnose whether the patient, South Africa, was ill or healthy and to prescribe the medicine to be administered. That is, of course, a matter that is of direct personal concern to all South Africans—White, Black and Brown—as we are all cast in the role of patient. I have no doubt that the Government speakers are going to draw comparisons between the economic performance of our country and that of other African countries and, indeed, of countries elsewhere in the world. Great stress will be laid on the present state of the recession in the free world. However, let no one be fooled. Of course we have had progress since 1948. No country is an island and that is equally true for all the other countries with which it is reasonable and sensible to draw parallels in relation to ourselves. Whatever the hon. the Minister may say, all is not well with the state of our economic well-being. For proof of that, we need to look no further than to the devaluation of last September and to read the writing on the wall in regard to the budget that will be proposed in April. We will have a more appropriate opportunity to come back to those matters on Wednesday next week. There is, moreover, another dimension which the Government has consistently and quite deliberately chosen to ignore, and that is the full economic potential which is available to us here in South Africa. To put it bluntly, the Government’s medicine has been consistently aimed solely at preserving the health of the White part of the South African body. In the main it has ignored and indeed deliberately prevented the growth and development of the rest of the body, which happens to be Black and Brown. They have produced a situation where we have an extremely well developed White heart set within a stunted body. We are an economic dwarf compared to what we should and could have been by now, and the sole blame for that is the policies of this Government.

Now, as if that was not enough, this Government wants to split the economic body of South Africa into nine parts. Does anyone on those benches really think that we can afford that, or indeed, that the economic health of all the eight embryonic bodies together with that of the White body will be other than seriously and, indeed, fatally impaired compared to the adoption of a balanced régime to train, to develop and to bring all the parts of the body as it now stands to where it would constitute the well co-ordinated and growing economic giant that South Africa can and should be? I take it that the mere fact that we have this motion and that it is being debated at all means that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is going to accept it. Well and good. As I have said, we are pleased that after 27 years this Government has come and said mea culpa, and we are going to give it our support, subject to an amendment which I will propose shortly. However, since the Government has admitted its failure by putting this motion, then they should accept that in constituting the inquiry as envisaged, they should go outside and invite those, to put it no higher, of proven competence in a variety of spheres to serve in that inquiry. The Government no longer has a right to sit alone in judgment on our economic future. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that I am no believer—and neither obviously is the Government—that for instance the Minister of Finance in any country should be the top available accountant, economist or banker. Therefore, the names that we will now propose are those of men of breadth of vision and of experience. That is how it should be, because there is no more important issue than the long-term objectives and priorities for our economy, because in time, if our economic aims differ from the political ones, then neither will be achieved, with all the implications of the utmost gravity that that holds for the 25 million of us.

As I have said, it is difficult to put too great an emphasis on the acceptance of this motion, since if it is approached with an open mind, with no preconceived set of values such as those held by those who sit on the Government benches, or for that matter, those who sit on these benches, it can be a watershed in the lives of all who now live here, and, more particularly, for the children who will be born in the future. As of now, we as a country stand alone. We have no friend and no ally who is prepared to stand in the sun with us—whatever may be hinted at transpiring in the shadows. The simple question is: Why? Here we stand as a country endowed with riches given to few, if to any others. More important, we have within our land food, metals and minerals in abundance, which are manifestly desired and needed by the industrial countries of the free world. I would be the first to say that it is true that people and other countries are still prepared to trade with us and, I will even go further, that the Government has proved exemplary in its dealings with foreign investors who come to our country.

However, this Government has brought us to the point where all of us are filled with foreboding when we look into the immediate economic future—at least if this Government remains in charge. Indeed, it goes further. It brings into question—and make no mistake, it will be more and more the object of concern to an increasing number of people—the competence, no more and no less, of this Government. In the past people have been lulled by the false concept that to have a strong Government is essential for economic growth. But if that is so, the track record of this Government needs to be examined. I would like to name five or six facts which people should bear in mind when they consider the track record of this Government:

1. (1) This Government has simply lived beyond the means available to it.
2. (2) Worse than that, it has deliberately restricted the growth in wealth which could otherwise have been available to it.
3. (3) It has therefore been forced to devalue the rand, not once, but three times—and I know all about the Minister of Economic Affairs speaking about minor adjustments.
4. (4) It has caused all of us, but more particularly the pensioners and Black and Brown South Africans, to suffer as best we may, a much higher rate of inflation than need otherwise prevail.
5. (5) It has, as I have said, left us without an explicit and overt friend in the world.
6. (6) It has caused increasing frustration and discontent with their economic lot amongst the majority of the people within our land; and in that connection there is a vast majority of South Africans who happen to live at or near the subsistence level as measured by the poverty datum line.

If that is the record of this Government after 27 years, and it considers itself strong, then we need change not only of our Government, but throughout the whole fabric of our society. One is left with a situation as we now stand where this Government, unless helped by factors beyond its control—that is fortuitous events such as the price of gold or the climate—has got itself into the position where the only economic flexibility left to it for 1976 is either growth at a rate below the safety margin and increased taxation, or the two-headed monster of inflation and devaluation. To be quite honest, they have forfeited the right to minister to their patient and the people of South Africa should be allowed to take a second opinion.

In this connection we would, therefore, like to propose that the following people be considered and asked to serve on the inquiry: Dr. Anton Rupert, Professor Van der Ross, Mr. Reddy, Mr. S. Motsuane, Professor Ntanwisi, the ex-Chief Justice, Mr. Ogilvie Thompson, Mr. Grobbelaar of Tucsa, Mr. C. S. Barlow, Dr. Albert Wessels, Mr. C. S. Corder and, to the surprise of the hon. the Minister, Mr. H. F. Oppenheimer.

In order for such an inquiry to serve the purpose that it can and should perform, it is essential that its terms of reference be such that it is not confined within the ideological straitjacket which this Government has imposed on our economy increasingly over the past 27 years. The objective of the inquiry on which I think there would be a general consensus—and I hope the hon. the Minister will support us in this—both within and without this House should be: “To optimize over time the real living standards of all South Africans.” I would, therefore, like to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Germiston District—

1. (a) the present and future distribution of wealth within our land;
2. (b) the definitions section and sections 76 and 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956;
3. (c) the level and priorities of Government expenditure and the interface with the provinces, inter alia in regard to housing, education and pensions;
4. (d) the present exchange control regulations;
5. (e) free and compulsory education for all children and expenditure on training for industrial skill for Black and Brown South Africans and in addition for Whites to increase their ability to take responsibility;
6. (f) the role of the public and semipublic corporations vis-à-vis both Parliament and the private sector;
7. (g) the repeal of all legislation which impedes productivity both in regard to mobility and at the place of work;
8. (h) the creation of an appropriate social infrastructure throughout our land; and
9. (i) the development of one economy for our land”.

When this board of inquiry or commission of inquiry sits, it must not be bound by the present policies of this Government, otherwise we will simply remain in the cul de sac where we now find ourselves. Furthermore, it will serve a limited, if any, useful purpose. The one thing this inquiry should be is colour blind. It must draw no distinctions on the basis of the colour of a man’s skin, because that is the arbitrary self-imposed handicap which has in the past and still does shackle our economic performance.

If such an inquiry is conducted objectively by individuals such as we have suggested, without the constraint of any outworn and outmoded political philosophies, it can point the road down which we can travel and enjoy an economic miracle which will be the envy of all. Those 10 or 12 names we have suggested constitute a team not necessarily of experts in the particular field of economics, but the people whose names have been put forward—it is not a comprehensive list and the hon. the Minister can add further names—would serve two purposes. They would engender public confidence and their recommendations would be accepted in a way that is not available to this Government. It is no coincidence that if we go down this road, it will bring us back into the comity of nations. Let us be clear: We are too small a nation of even 25 million people to have sovereignty in the full sense, standing alone, and to realize both the economic potential open to us and a stable democratic society based on consent, we have no alternative but to have such far-reaching changes within. Economics have been described as the dismal science, but in our case it is the key which can unite us in an increasingly prosperous land. Nor can it be separated from politics. As such the economic policies of this Government must be framed to take into account the long-term interest of the majority of the population, because, if they do not, they will sooner or later have to be changed as indeed will the politics on which they are based. The choice is quite simple. We can either build the economic house of South Africa on the sands of apartheid or we can build the economic powerhouse of South Africa on the rock of equal opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the hon.member for Johannesburg North has moved an amendment which deviates completely from the point. We requested an economic investigation in the motion. To me it seems as though the hon. member now wants to have an investigation into our whole way of life and everything in South Africa. This was not the object of this motion at all. The hon. member went on to speak of the 27 years of Government failure, and to this I want to tell him that the stable Government has made of South Africa a much sought-after field of investment throughout the world. A further point which the hon. member made, was that this Government allegedly looked after the Whites only. However, the Government has done the greatest humanitarian deed in the world as regards the under-privileged people. The hon. member cannot mention any other Government to me that has done more for its under-privileged people than what South Africa has done.

The amendment of the hon. member for Constantia strongly reminds one of the olden days when the U.P. Government allowed everything to take its own course and followed a policy of laissez faire completely. This was the U.P. Government’s economic policy in the past and it seems to me as though this amendment has been formulated on the same basis. There is nobody under the sun who is as deaf as he who does not want to listen. This side of the House has stated its view on free competition, private initiative and private enterprise in South Africa time and time again. Nobody can put this better than our hon. the Prime Minister did when he addressed the Federation of South African Steel and Engineering Industries on 23 October 1973, and said—

This Government’s attitude towards free enterprise cannot be put more clearly.

On several occasions the idea of the establishment of a confederation of countries in Southern Africa has been expressed by our hon. the Prime Minister as well as several members of the Cabinet. An inquiry into long-term economic planning must of necessity keep these prospects in mind as well. The first homeland of South Africa is to become independent as soon as 1976 and there will be others. With the ties of friendship with other countries in Southern Africa the prospects of a future economic confederation is becoming ever brighter. Time will have to tell what countries will participate in this confederation. All countries south of the equator may derive benefit from co-operating in common economic objectives. When speaking of Southern Africa, I mean the countries south of the equator.

A large measure of economic interdependence exists today between these countries and it will continue to grow in future. Consequently I should like to outline a few points in connection with the inter-dependence of these countries in the economic sphere. Modem transport and communications have bridged the distances between countries and increasing contact between countries in the political and economic sphere is being experienced. In the same way ethnologic development, too, has brought nations closer together. We are experiencing this closer co-operation in Southern Africa to a larger extent, to the mutual benefit of the countries concerned. The states of Southern Africa have abundant natural resources, but as yet they have not been developed to the extent that they may be regarded as fully exploited. The urge to develop does exist, however, and it is present amongst all the nations. The obstructions to economic progress in these countries are mainly shortages of trained manpower and this is continually being given higher priority in these countries.

If the countries in Southern Africa were to stand together and succeed in having peaceful co-existence and make this their objective, they could transform this part of the world into a new growth point of progress and prosperity. South Africa is endeavouring at all times to find a common acceptable formula for the peaceful co-existence of these nations without interference in another’s domestic affairs. Only in this manner will the states of this region be able to make real progress and utilize their natural resources most effectively. Less emphasis should be placed on our differences and more emphasis on our common interests, because by doing so we can bring about major benefits for each of these States.

In considering the inter-dependence of the peoples of Southern Africa in the economic sphere, we find that the various economies are in different stages of development. In general they are less developed countries, less developed as the industrial countries and mainly dependent on agriculture. However, they are trying to move from the mainly agricultural and primary production stage to increased industrialization. The per capita income and consequently their standards of living as well, still are far behind those of industrial countries. Consequently they rely heavily on foreign markets for the marketing of their surplus products. This makes their economies vulnerable at times because of fluctuating prices. On the other hand the countries of Southern Africa have the potential to produce substantially more than they are producing at the moment, and their products are required to an increasing extent in a world which is continually yearning for more food. South Africa is the leading agricultural and mining country in this Southern Africa concept and the country also has a high degree of technical skill to offer assistance to these countries. It is also prepared to offer assistance so that these countries may effect a higher growth. When we look at the export markets of these countries, we see that problems have already developed. In the first place, because of the long distances from the markets the cost of bringing these products to the markets is very high. In the second place we find that the traditional export markets of these areas are mainly in Europe and the countries in Europe are trying more and more to meet their own requirements by growing their own products. The result is that the yield from exports may be seriously prejudiced in future.

In these circumstances the countries in Southern Africa must take a very careful look at the possibility of increased trade amongst one another. In future these countries will have to move towards increased industrial development as time goes by. Many problems are being experienced in this field. Problems which may develop, are capital requirements and trained manpower. Even in a developed country such as South Africa, a major shortage is continuously being experienced in this field. There is also the creation of new infrastructures which may create problems. Through co-operation, these problems may be bridged in due course, with South Africa as the economic generator of Southern Africa. Another area of mutual interest is the exploitation of international tourism which remains a profitable source of revenue. Tourism will always be much sought after, especially in Africa because Africa always offers the tourist something new. Some mutual co-operation already exists amongst the countries of Southern Africa so as to promote tourism mutually. This co-operation still has to be extended to a large degree and this can only be done by much closer co-operation amongst the countries of Southern Africa.

A few points have been indicated as regards the economic interdependence of the countries of Southern Africa. Many more speeches may be made on this subject, but I want to stress that when there is a long-term inquiry into the economy of South Africa, this interdependence of countries in Southern Africa will have to be borne in mind. I also want to repeat what was said by the hon. member who introduced this motion, viz. that long-term planning should merely indicate the direction and that the detail should not be stipulated. Consequently I take great pleasure in supporting this motion.

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I should like to admit candidly that I credited the hon. member for Germiston District with far more wisdom and intellect with the motion he introduced than he actually displayed. The two of us accompanied the hon. member for Vryburg on a visit to Iran during the recess. When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I assumed that he would probably say something with regard to the steps that country is taking to plan its entire economy and to move in a socialistic direction in order to distribute the income of that country, which is tremendous today, among the ordinary people. I must say that I am very disappointed with the motion. The hon. member is simply asking something from the Government which, in my opinion, is happening all the time, i.e. the laying down of guide-lines and attempts to determine what will happen in the economy until the turn of the century. I agree with the hon. member for Constantia that we have sufficient information today, and all that is necessary is to consolidate a few matters so that we can go ahead with the plan. I should like to associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia, and as text I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis in which he referred to socialism.

†My text comes out of a speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis on 4 May 1973 (Hansard, 1973, Vol. 43, col. 5765). He was speaking on the attitude of the Prime Minister towards socialism, something to which the hon. member for Vryburg referred. The other day was not the first time that the Prime Minister spoke about socialism. The hon. member for Von Brandis said—

I want to draw very serious attention to what he has said about the redistribution of wealth away from private holding and private enterprise towards the State. This is what socialism is. Mr. Speaker, however one tends to look at the economy of South Africa, one is drawn increasingly to the conclusion that private enterprise is on the wane in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with me, that private enterprise is on the wane in South Africa. I can bring some very convincing proof. Mouths other than mine have said this same thing, including the person appointed by the hon. the Minister to heat up his anti-inflation campaign, Dr. McCrystal. He is on record as having said that private enterprise is on the wane in South Africa. Anybody over there who says this is nonsense, must not come and hold a conversation with me about it, he must go and talk to the man who is advising the entire public of South Africa, and appointed by the Minister, on how to beat inflation.

That puts him in for the chop.

I hope it will not cause him trouble. The point I want to make, for the benefit of the hon. member for Germiston District and others, is that it is a common saying that the State must do this and the State must do that, the State must give direction. But Sir, the State is nothing else but taxation. That is the significance of the State. The State has nothing of its own which generates wealth; the State is taxation, the milking of profit. I think we should get our ideas very clearly on that particular point because. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must try to have a little bit of sense. I am not saying that we must do without taxation. My concern is to support the amendment for the hon. member for Constantia that the participation of the State must be limited, severely limited, and that the contribution of private enterprise and the generation of profit must be accorded the greatest and highest priority, for reasons which I shall mention.

Last year, in the budget debate, I raised the question with the hon. the Minister about State corporations, corporations which I suggested to him—we never had the time to take the discussion any further—should spin off into the private sector operations which they have founded, which they have seeded, which they have started and which are today generating profits. I suggested they should be spun off into the private sector with a recoupment of capital which should come back into the hands of the State. Again I found support for my ideas from Dr. Fred Sollner, who supported precisely the idea that I had enunciated here in the House, namely that those sorts of economic activities undertaken by the State could be spun off from State control into the hands of private people, with great profit to both the State and the private sector. I want to draw the attention of the House to this idea, this theory that the State can do everything, that the State can give all the directions, that the State can control, that the State can inspire, because I think it is vitally important that we should understand one thing. That is that the economy, which funds every single thing that we do, really and truly has its heart, its essence in the private sector.

The State levies taxation, but excessive taxation for the purposes of the State in contradiction of private enterprise is socialism. I want to say, and I support the hon. member for Constantia, that we are today in the gravest danger of drifting towards socialism. The Prime Minister said that he was against it, but we want to see action taken—just, for instance, in respect of the matter I have raised with the hon. the Minister now—to stop the slide towards socialism which is slowly enveloping the economy of this country. It is absolutely vital to realize that this country of ours is a young country, a developing country. We are at square one as a far as economic development is concerned. The hon. member for Vryburg said that we could involve the other countries that are being created around us, that we should serve as the spark of development in other countries. We have to realize that this is a small country developing today with economic help from outside. Our capital comes from outside and we do not have enough capital of our own today to help develop the countries that are being spun off from the heart of South Africa by this present Government.

Sir, I want to refer to the case of Iran. The hon. members here, His Excellency the member for Germiston and His Excellency the member for Vryburg …

Excellent at what?

We do not speak to anyone in this House who does not address us as “Excellency”, after having spent time in Iran.

You have been brainwashed!

Mr. Speaker, we saw there an economy which was in a state of being planned, which the Prime Minister of Iran said to us was a mixed economy. In Iran there is the situation, as we have it in our own country, of a vast mass of people who are making a tremendous leap in this present generation from backwardness into the most modem economic society. We saw there a deliberate plan, which is being enunciated by their Prime Minister and by the planners, in terms of which at the end of this century the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid person in the country of Iran will be a factor of 8:1. There will be no more of a gap than that.

Now, whatever is happening at the present moment with the economy of Iran—and everybody knows that they have overspent rather severely—if we think of the amount of money pouring into that country every year, money which is going to be distributed among the people, the factor of one is going to be a considerable amount of money, while the factor of eight—the highest paid—will be a lot more than that.

They have embarked upon a deliberate plan of industrialization and of spreading this enormous funnel of wealth coming into the country, among the people. But the Prime Minister was absolutely insistent and said that although the State was the receiving agency of the wealth coming into that country, the State was taking all steps to see that private enterprise was the vehicle which was going to build prosperity for the people of that country. I think we must understand the position of our country. If a socialist economy comes into being you have to have a tightly controlled society. The society must be tightly controlled because only certain things can be undertaken and only certain directions can be followed. In a country such as ours, which is so vitally concerned with growth—and it is impossible to overstress the importance of economic growth in this country when you consider the millions of people and the coming millions who have to be catered for—the private enterprise sector of the economy is absolutely all-important. My concern is that the Nationalist Party today is becoming—and I hope the hon. the Minister will deny it and that he will say something about it—a big State, big tax, big corporation socialist party. Sir, this country today cannot afford that kind of Government in the state in which we are where growth is so important. Let me say that growth comes from the efforts of the individual, the man who goes out to direct his business and who sleeps and dreams his business for 24 hours of the day, because he wants to make a profit and he wants to get ahead and he wants to grow. If one draws a contrast between a man who is producing and a person who, with all the virtues civil servants may have, cannot be expected to have the same dedication to profit and to making a success of a business, this becomes evident. I think it is important that it should be realized that personal incentive is the key to all real progress; and the one thing the Government has to do above everything else, no matter how many planning commissions they may have, is to recognize and entrench personal incentive in this country, and that means taking a serious look at taxation; because everybody knows people, as I know people, who sit around saying that they will work two or three days a week only because it does not pay them to work more. And those are the most productive people in the economy. We talk about the productivity of the workers, but what about the productivity of the people who are the inspiration of the economy, the people at the top, the people who have formed empires, the people who have built great businesses but who find today that it is not worth their while to work more than a couple of days in the week, because our friend over there is a permanent partner. [Interjections.] Yes, not only is he a sleeping partner; he is a guzzling partner, and I do not think we can afford that. I think we should have a serious look at taxation in this country.

I want to take it a step further, Sir. Here my friends of the Progressive Party must forgive me, but I think we must understand the experience of those of us who served on a certain commission. We saw organizations which deliberately allied themselves with the aspirations of Black people, and every one of those organizations was driven to espouse the cause of Black socialism. However much the Progressive Party may be a party of capitalists, if you are going to ally yourself with or put yourself forward as the spokesman for the have-nots in this country, there is only one way that you can go, as happened to those organizations. [Interjections.] When you come into contact with the Black militants you are forced to espouse the cause of Black socialism as a means of doing what the hon. member for Von Brandis said, for the redistribution of wealth.

The point I want to make is that however one may think of the Black population in relation to the distribution of wealth and social justice, what social justice actually boils down to is cash. Social justice means being able to provide all kinds of facilities. Though social justice may mean many things, in essence it boils down to cash. Let me now ask how we are to involve millions of Black people in a process which is going to bring them the real liberation that Africa is looking for. We must understand what Africa is looking for. It is looking for real liberation, freedom from the age-old plagues of Africa, be it lack of education, the absence of health services, squalor, disease or poverty—all those things that have kept Africa what it has been in the past.

Can they achieve it?

They can get it in our country because of the system we follow which is a system of private enterprise, of economic growth, and I want to make the point that by bringing the Black man into the private economic sector one is creating the one revolution that is absolutely vital in this country. We need to engage the mind of the Black man to back us up in the system we follow, which is one of private enterprise and initiative upon the individual. Capitalism is a system in which a man is involved with his own money doing his own things for himself and his family and thereby making a contribution to the whole of the society. I think we have to be very clear about this. I believe that the conservative in politics is the real liberator. I think it is important to realize that the people on the left, the revolutionaries and the radicals, the people who cause revolutions, are not liberators. They break down structures, but it is the conservative who takes those structures and puts them back together again in a form that will work and give stability to the people. That is the man who is the liberator. I want to draw this to the attention of this House with all the earnestness at my command. Conservatism means private enterprise. It means the man himself working for himself. It means a man divorced from this idea of the State or group which is supposed to be able to do everything today! We have got so far away from the idea of the individual in our society that I think we stand in very great danger of losing what is the absolute spark and inspiration of the whole of our Western system. On the last day man will stand adjudged as an individual, and I think that we must understand very clearly that South Africa today has undergone a tremendous revolution. A tremendous economic change and a tremendous change in the thinking of the people has taken place. We now stand at a point where the State is heavily engaged in the process of production. I believe, however, that the State is becoming too involved. That is the point I wish to make in what I am saying to the hon. the Minister. Whether the hon. member for Germiston District had that in mind when he proposed his motion, I do not know. I do not think so. If someone were to propose a commission to investigate State involvement, it would have my absolute support and everything I could back it up with. The hon. member for Johannesburg North was engaged in picking teams. He would like a team to investigate this and that. Anybody can pick teams.

Could you pick one?

Well, I could pick one right now but I would head it with Dr. Frans Cronje to start with. Let us face it, every man has his own choice of captain. I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that, to my mind, this Government is heading in a direction that can only lead to danger for the economy of this country. I would like to see some action taken, and therefore I support the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer asked me a number of questions this morning which I misinterpreted. I should like to apologize to him. I have since given him the information.

I find it strange that the hon. member for Constantia should have discerned a sinister attempt to move towards socialism in the motion which was introduced. I do not think that any of the hon. members on my side, those who spoke in support of the motion, indicated in any way that this was the purpose of the motion. It is interesting that the hon. member for Johannesburg North sees something quite different in this motion. He sees in it an admission of failure on the part of the Government.

I appreciate the contribution of hon. members to this debate, and I do so for important reasons. I think there is one aspect on which we cannot disagree, for no matter what our political solutions to the problems of the country, whether they be mine or those of the hon. members directly opposite me, or those of the hon. members of the PP there is one basic prerequisite for success, namely that we must have economic growth and stability in the country. With great respect, I do not believe that an occasion such as this one should be used by hon. members to score political points such as the hon. member for Constantia attempted to score against the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I think it is unnecessary. In my opinion, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia says nothing more than what is in fact the policy of this side of the House.

†The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Mooi River made a very important point, but I submit that that point is not at issue. The Government’s basic policy in this regard has been enunciated many times before.

No, it has not.

Oh yes, it has, but I shall repeat it for the benefit of the hon. member. We have said that our basic policy in this regard is that the economy is best served by the profit motive as it is embodied in the private sector. I subscribe fully to this principle. Naturally the Government’s machinery is not geared to the utilization of the development opportunities which offer themselves from day to day. It is not geared to the maintenance of a buoyant national economy by participation to the extent that certain hon. members suggest. However, I do believe that the Government has a responsibility to build up the broad infrastructure within which private enterprise can progress. In order to ensure the necessary infrastructure, I believe that the resources of the country can best be used and utilized by the private sector. The policy to give the private sector a free hand in its promotion of self-interests as far as it is reconcilable with public interest has, I submit, never been changed or diverted. It still remains a basic consideration for the determination of Government action. I should, however, like to stress that it does not exclude the Government’s right, duty and prerogative to do what the hon. member for Paarl said, viz. to manufacture products of a specific strategic importance where these are required and to move into a sphere into which the private sector does not want to move.

*Having said this, I want to emphasize that hon. members are free to disagree with me if they want to. They can say that there has been too much of it, and for the purposes of my argument I could concede that, but insinuations to effect that the Government has deviated from the basic principle of a free economy are not substantiated by the facts.

†I should like to revert to the hon. member for Johannesburg North for a moment. He knows that group forming and amalgamations which give rise to the establishing of very big enterprises are an increasing phenomenon in our economic life. In fact, I think he has read very well indeed the speech of one of the people who control these big enterprises. He will also admit that he is an apologist of certain of these institutions which have become so big that they have become institutions of national importance. Their duties extend beyond the normal realms of private enterprise. I would advise the hon. member to examine his conscience as to whether they fulfilled their social obligations which are required from institutions of that size. He also knows that management and ownership have become completely divorced in recent developments. I would suggest to him that he read the graduation day speech of the Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and test himself and his motives against those norms.

*I believe that we cannot in all fairness accept that there is no planning or inquiry in the economic sphere. However, I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston for the opportunity he has created for us to reflect on the long-term economic objectives of our country in this House, in contrast to what often happens in another connection. I think that no hon. member will disagree with me when I say that the desirable development of South Africa is the one which is aimed at achieving specific long-term objectives, which—I emphasize this—are able, according to investigation and experience, to produce the greatest socioeconomic benefits for our whole country and all its people. If we have to try and identify these objectives to ourselves, I believe that no one could disagree with me when I say that one of the requirements is a high level of employment—i.e. jobs for a growing population. Nor do I believe that people will disagree with me when I allege that a high priority should be given to a high economic growth rate, a growth rate which will be able to satisfy the increasing expectations and to raise standards of living. Similarly, no one could disagree with me when I say that we have to pursue stable development. By that I mean development in the economic sphere that will be as little subject to interruptions as possible. In the times in which we live, everyone will agree, too, that we must aim at a low inflation rate or a low rate of price increases. This means that we must have price adjustments which do not always incline upwards only, but may incline downwards as well. I think the hon. members on the other side have missed an opportunity, for in their search for ulterior motives they have completely missed the purpose of the motion. Of course an acceptable distribution of income in an objective in this country as in any other. Of course one wants to use it as a means for alleviating or avoiding, in so far as it is possible under our system, the hardships of people, of particular groups. Let me say in passing that I believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg, and the people with whom he works and with whom he is associated, employ many people. So he will be able to say for himself whether he pays them an income which in every respect is above the poverty datum line, as he calls it.

A long-term objective on which he will not disagree with me is that we must protect and conserve the country’s resources, as well as the environment in general, in a suitable manner. I concede that many other objectives could be added to those I have already mentioned, but if we all accept that those I have mentioned should be our primary or principal objectives, most others could be regarded as secondary or tertiary objectives because they limit or supplement the principal objectives I have mentioned. If hon. members agree with me on this point, I believe that they will also agree with me that we should consider at once to what extent these objectives and their achievement are limited and if they are limited, what the limitations are that are imposed on them. If there had been no bounds to our development possibilities, we could all have lived like kings, or at least like the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The fact that man has to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow implies that there are limits to the goods and services and the income which he has available to him. I want us to look just for a moment at the limitations on the achievement of the objectives I have referred to. It is true that these objectives are not always fully reconcilable in the first place. A high level of employment and a high growth rate, for example, will not always necessarily bring about an acceptable distribution of income. The most common limitation upon the pursuit of these objectives is the one which is imposed by our balance of payments, mostly in the form of the lowest limit of our gold and currency reserves, and sometimes even these limits can be stretched by means of devaluation or loans from outside. The achievement of our objectives is also limited by our natural resources or our labour force with its available—or limited, if you like—skills. It imposes limitations, not only upon the setting of the objectives, but also upon their achievement, because the country possesses only a specific number of economically active people at any given moment, and it is usually not possible to bring about any substantial increase in this number, except at a very high cost. Apart from the conservation of our resources, the depletion of particular resources, such as coal, can impose a limitation upon the development of a particular industry, and if cost increases have to be introduced, this may have the same effect. The availability of capital often has a limiting effect on savings for purposes of investment, of course, or it is a factor in the development and in the achievement of the objectives which we set ourselves.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I was dealing with the restricting factors in respect of our proposed economic objectives. It is obviously true that apart from the quality of labour and the number of labour units, human resources have a further facet which is extremely important for achieving our industrial development in particular, and this is the spirit of enterprise which is essential. I want to emphasize that the spiritual element in respect of our human resources is an important factor in imposing a restriction or in pushing our development beyond existing bounds. I think its crucial importance was best illustrated by Lord Chesterfield when he said the following—

This illustrates an important facet and I think that the hon. member for Johannesburg North could contribute more towards propagating this spiritual requirement among our people rather than to keep talking about South Africa and its possibilities in defeatist terms. In my opinion it is essential, when we look at the objectives and when we look at the restrictions upon them, that we should also consider at once the particular demands and requirements of the time within which we are operating.

It is a fact that since the last world war the requirements of this rapidly changing world have made increasing and great demands, not only on our economy, but in fact on our whole socio-political structure as it exists at the moment. This necessitates the reconsideration of long-term objectives from time to time which the hon. member advocated. It also necessitates the reconsideration from time to time of the factors which have a limiting or restricting effect. The first factor to which I referred, the reconciliation between conflicting objectives, specifically requires this. I believe that such a continuous revaluation or reconsideration of priorities and of the changing requirements of our times should take place continually. There must then be a process of rearrangement according to the demands of the times. Allow me to refer briefly to what these circumstances are or can be in terms of South Africa and to place the country in perspective in respect of its economic objectives which we want to pursue. I think that it is important to us in South Africa, as the hon. member for Vryburg said, that practically all neighbouring African states have been politically emancipated. In the opinion of some this has created problems for us, to others it has opened up new prospects. I believe that it contains an element of both. I think the problems consist in the fact that we are faced with new situations in respect of the safeguarding of our country’s borders. I think the prospects consist in the fact that it opens up to us new possibilities of trade relations and negotiations with other states. It offers us the possibilities of economic aid, which will make possible the alliance of states with common objectives.

A second factor which is important to us is that in the outside world, seen as a whole, the danger of boycotts has developed and still exists, particularly because of the rising influence of the Third World after the war. This kind of danger, the boycott danger, is particularly significant when we look at the fuel situation in general, where countries of the oil-producing world and of the Third World are combining in an attempt to enforce boycotts against South Africa. Let us make no mistake. This affects the Republic in many fields. It affects the country in the field of armaments provision. But it forces us to do what the hon. member is asking us to do, and that is to keep subjecting our objectives and priorities to critical consideration and to rearrange them in accordance with the circumstances within which we operate. Similarly it is true that for the achievement of these objectives, the state of our balance of payments attains a specific new strategic significance for us. We cannot get away from this. I want to allege that the following facets of this are important. It has strategic significance because of the important role of products and raw materials as earners of foreign currency and the danger which this holds for us as a result of the overseas markets which have now been afflicted by recessions for two years, for example. Another aspect which makes it strategically important is the particularly difficult technical problems which are arising today concerning the marketing of gold, which my colleague can discuss much more authoritatively than I can. It is also strategic because of the Republic’s dependence on the influx of foreign capital, which, as we all know, has an important part to play if we are to achieve our objectives even on the medium term. It is strategic because of the high tendency to import that we have in the Republic regarding capital goods, but also, and in particular, regarding consumer goods as far as our markets are concerned. And what is important is the need for us in South Africa to seek an alliance with other states in Southern Africa in the economic field, particularly with the states south of the Sahara. This need is increasing. In my opinion it is increasing for three main reasons. The first reason is naturally to strengthen our trade position, especially since protectionism has been built up in the old traditional markets against Southern Africa and its exports. The second reason is to strengthen its international economic and political bargaining power. The third reason is that we all know that economically independent states have very little enthusiasm for military adventures and terrorist excursions.

The final point I want to mention in this connection is that it is also essential for us in the Republic to operate with strength in relation to the outside world, to be able to hold our own in the military field and to be able to hold our own in the international conference halls of the world and of organizations. Seen in this way, I do not think hon. members can find fault with the motion we are considering. Seen in this way, I do not think that the hon. members can find fault with the standpoints I am submitting to you. If we are to do this, then in my opinion it becomes essential for us to incorporate the concept of planning—not, as the hon. member for Constantia alleged, in the direction of socialism, but, on the contrary, to create possibilities in this way for the private sector to play its rightful part in our economy.

To regain.

The hon. member can make his own choice of words, as long as we are agreed about what we want to achieve. In order to determine objectives and to draw up priorities there must be investigations, continuous investigations. If we can concede this, we must ask in what way we can ensure that we achieve the objectives to which the hon. member referred, and if we do not make the desired progress with these objectives, or if the priorities we all accept are not observed, what collective steps we can take. After all, it is the function of the State to ensure this.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Government has accepted that the answers lie in planning. Allow me to make it clear now on behalf of the Government that in determining objectives for a private, capitalist type of economic system, the planning must be adapted to the system and planning must not destroy the system, as the hon. member for Constantia fears that it will. The way I see it, it means that our planning must be founded on the preservation of the market system, and that this in turn, the way we see it in the Government, will be adjusted and will mean that consumers will be entitled to obtain goods and services according to their own choice; secondly, that the instruments of production that we have should be made available chiefly for utilization by the private sector and to private owners, and thirdly that the production factors such as labour and capital should be channelled in that direction if we are to achieve the objectives. I hope I have made myself clear in this regard.

The last question deals with how we should apply planning to enable it to work efficiently in a system of private economy. The hon. member for Constantia explained the essence of the way in which it works, namely that we see it in the EDP, the Economic Development Programme, as medium-term planning. We see it to a lesser extent on the short term in the State’s budget from year to year. We also see it in the other activities of the public sector, where planning is conducted and has to be conducted far in advance to create productive assets so that the private system may function. Finally, we must begin by distinguishing between short, medium and long-term planning, and we know that in our system, which I support, the tendency always exists, naturally, to base all planning on the expected results of the functioning of the market. I think that this is the essence of short-term planning. The characteristic feature of medium-term planning, as embodied in the EDP, is that the demand, which is once again expressed on the market, is predicted independently, while attempts are made to adapt the supply to it and to take collective action. The long-term planning, which I believe the hon. members on this side advocated effectively, is to ensure that the maximum production instruments, the maximum production factors are made available to provide for the growing requirements of our population and also to achieve the objects we set ourselves. Here we naturally assume that by making available the instruments, the factors, we shall ensure that the necessary goods and services are available. It is clear that the hon. members on the other side will not be able to find fault with this approach. Where we are dealing now with long-term objectives and priorities, we all agree that we must bear in mind the change in the social, political and cultural nature of our society in so far as we can see this on the horizon and in so far as we can move and push back the limits of what can be attained. You will understand that we must keep in mind in this connection that the achievement of specific economic objectives has an effect on the non-economic sphere as well, while the latter in turn will have an effect on our economic system and its structure. For that reason I think the hon. member is right, not in the sense that we need to have a commission of inquiry, but in the sense that we shall emphasize the principle that we shall keep taking a critical look at objectives, limitations and planning in order to achieve this.

Mr. Speaker, we support the spirit of this amendment. Can I ask the hon. the Minister, if he institutes an inquiry into the long-term economic objectives and priorities for the Republic, will, or will not, colour play a part?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the answer just as well as I do. I have just said, perhaps he does not understand Afrikaans, that the achievement of economic objectives naturally has an effect on the non-economic aspects, and vice versa …

Do you give up separate development?

No, I do not give up separate development, because if I have to give that up I must give up the hon. member and his institutions as well, because they cannot then exist.

*Sir, it is a fact that we have short-term planning; it is a fact, too, that we have medium-term planning; and it is a fact that the element and the principle advocated by the hon. member already exist in our set-up. Just to prove this: In August 1973, at the request of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, the economic adviser of the Prime Minister inquired into the long-term prospects of the South African economy up to the year 2000, an inquiry which I believe gives a useful indication of the development possibilities of the economy on the long term. I believe that it would serve a good purpose for this study to be expanded, and I believe that it would serve a good purpose if an adjustment could be made every two or three years to adapt the results to the expectations. Seen from this point of view, we shall all achieve what we want to, even if we follow different methods to achieve it, and that is the economic strength of South Africa, a prerequisite for progress and stability in every other field that I know of.

Mr. Speaker, stable growth on a continuous basis probably is the objective and aim of every civilized Government, especially in the times in which we are living. When one starts talking of long-term growth and long-term planning, one must look at the various aspects of planning which a Government can apply so as to make its contribution towards the realization of particular economic objectives. In the first place the Government employs, over the short term, the annual budget so as to achieve certain objectives. In the second place there is over the medium term an economic development programme which is drawn up by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. In terms of this programme it was decided as far back as 1964 that a growth rate of 5½% per annum would be maintained. When a decision is taken that an economy should grow at a particular rate, the classic and historic spending patterns are taken into consideration in order to determine how the gross domestic product is to be spent in future. If one exceeds it and spends too much, the economy grows too fast, and vice versa. It is extremely important, when one accepts a particular growth rate, for the necessary measures to be taken so as to ensure the maintenance of growth rate without bottlenecks arising in the sphere of labour and in the sphere of money. Care must also be taken that balance of payment problems do not develop.

As far as the long term is concerned, the Government can take certain measures to create the necessary climate so as to take long-term planning in a particular direction. In South Africa long-term planning has to contend with a very special problem, and that is the special geography of the country, the location of our Bantu homelands, the decentralization of industries, and so on. Time and again it strikes one as very interesting to see how there are members in this House who come up against, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North has just done, one particular aspect—in this case the socio-political set-up in South Africa. In considering the factors which determine growth over the long term, one must certainly have regard to that aspect of society.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has all the sources at his disposal on the basis of which he could have made a positive contribution today as regards planning, long-term objectives, etc. But instead of doing so he turned this fine motion which was elucidated in a very efficient manner by the Government side, into a political platform.

[Inaudible.]

It is when you come to think of it, a pity because somebody occupying a position such as he does in society, can certainly make a better contribution on many things in this House, than merely talking politics when he is given the opportunity to contribute towards a meaningful and platonic conversation and an exchange of ideas on matters such as the economy and long-term planning in our country.

The Government definitely has objectives in regard to its long-term planning, objectives pursuing for 27 years. The hon. member and his associates feed on them. As far as the long-term objectives are concerned, the Government is giving very close attention to its short-term planning facilities, its medium-term facilities, as well as its long-term facilities, such as the provision of basic research facilities and the establishment of strategic industries where necessary. In so far as the Government has stimulated the establishment of State corporations, this certainly does not amount to interference to the extent to which they want to suggest here today. In this regard we must differ very seriously from the hon. the Opposition. There are many sound, rational and economic reasons for State corporations, but the hon. members on the opposite side are obsessed with other things.

There is also another very important aspect which the hon. member for Germiston District elucidated here today, and that is the role of the private sector in the long-term planning in the country. When one starts speaking of the long term, the Government is not the only one who plans. In this regard it is the private sector, as well, that has to see to its own long-term requirements, for instance with regard to managerial potential—managerial development within big corporations in which members on the Opposition side have a very large share. As an example I want to mention the extent to which these people are investing money and manpower in, for instance, the development and stimulation of econometrical modelling in South Africa. There are the big corporations—multi-national corporations—of which I have knowledge, that have an econometrical model on a quarterly basis of that sector of the country’s economy in which that particular corporation finds itself. It then makes advance estimates with regard to the development of that sector of the economy and of the gross domestic product which it may expect within a particular period of time. Because that company itself puts its hand deep into its research pocket, it is able to determine in its advance estimate of the gross domestic product, what the share of its sector in the economy is going to be in that gross domestic product. Because it is also doing sound market research, it also knows what its share is—its share as company—in the gross domestic product generated by that particular industry. Consequently, on the basis of these things, this company is able to plan, and it feeds the information which it obtains from its econometrical model, into the econometrical model of its own company. In this way it gets to know what its requirements are with regard to manpower, raw materials, financing, etc.

This multi-national company does not look to the Government to do these things for it. It does it itself. We expected a contribution today from that fantastic source of knowledge and of managerial ingenuity and ability which could have assisted us as laymen in this field, as people who do not even understand everything about these things, to gain a perspective which we could have employed usefully in this hon. House in discussions on the economy, on long-term planning and on the matter of arranging priorities. Instead of this we had political tirades, and yet another opportunity to contribute something constructive was lost.

Another extremely important aspect is the question why the hon. member and the Opposition did not speak positively about substitution exports for South Africa. The hon. member for Germiston district spoke about the declining role of gold this morning. Why did we not hear a positive and advisory sound from that direction? Since the question of export has been raised here, I should like to bring something to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I have often spoken to people who import things, process them and then export them again. In terms of the present regulations such an importer—and subsequent exporter—has to pay excise duty and similar taxes immediately on these articles which he imports and subsequently exports. This means that this particular manufacturer has to meet an enormous requirement in financing to tide him over. Is it not perhaps possible for this to be done on a basis of advance estimates, so that that importer will not have to pay tax on that part of his imports which, after all, he is going to export subsequently? In the end the State will get that money without that importer having had to pay at such an early stage, which forces him to shoulder huge financing costs. This could be effected in a way which would oblige him to pay interest at a particular rate of interest, or even a fine, if he is more than, say, 10% out with his payment. In this way it would be possible to eliminate any cheating in the process.

I think that if we had heard more positive contributions of this nature we on this side of the House would have been able to conduct a much more fruitful debate.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this motion speaks for itself, and consequently I am not going to elaborate on the contents. Instead I am going to use my time to motivate this motion. I think it is very clear that we are dealing here with a subject which is of the utmost importance to this House, to the future of our country and its people, and to the cause of ethnic relations in South Africa. It is also very clear that, when we speak of discrimination, we are dealing with a phenomenon which is very old. Consequently I want to devote a part of my speech to some aspects of the background to and the history of discrimination. In the first place I want to emphasize that my colleagues and I on this side of the House earnestly hope that this House will be prepared to accept this motion. In view of this I want to make it very clear that we shall not use the discussion of this motion as a platform, as an opportunity, to attack the Government, or anyone else for that matter, but as a positive contribution on our part to get away from the sterile debates, the accusations and counter-accusations which have become so characteristic of our discussions here on colour and race discrimination.

Discrimination between one individual and another, between one group and another, is probably as old as mankind itself. Very frequently it has its origin in fear and prejudice, often as a result of unfamiliarity, of otherness, of perceptible and other differences, of supposed or real threats on the part of one group to the survival, the security or the identity of another group. Indeed, there are many cases in the world where discrimination is the result, for example, of religious, cultural or ethnic differences in which colour or race plays no part.

The South African pattern of colour or race discrimination dates back to an early period in our history. However, it would appear that our forefathers, when they settled here at the Cape in 1652, were often free of any colour or race prejudice. The distinguishing criteria in society were in the first place those between freeman and slave, and between Christian and barbarian or heathen. In any society in which slavery is found, it is in general unnecessary to adopt discriminatory measures against the slave population. The slave, because he is indeed a slave and therefore occupies, as a matter of course, a completely subservient position vis-à-vis his lord and master, need not be kept in his appointed place by means of legislation or other measures taken by the authorities. Thus it was in the Cape and in other countries in which slavery occurred as an institution. In the initial decades here in this country the difference between Christian and barbarian was the important distinguishing element, and hence the view which was current here for many years that the child of a slave who accepted the Christian religion after instruction and who was baptized in the church, automatically became entitled to emancipation. This view was based on the biblical principle or concept that one Christian may not keep another in slavery. Another consequence of this was the relatively large number of marriages which took place between White colonists and freed Christian slaves. But it must be borne in mind that only church marriages were possible at the time, and that the church was a State church. With the abolition of slavery and the consequent disappearance of the automatic relationship of superiority on the one hand and subordination on the other, it naturally became necessary for the group who were slave owners to continue to maintain that relationship of superiority and subordination in other ways. They did this by creating a socio-economic and political structure by means of which and in which the privileged position of the ruling group would be protected and entrenched, and the rights and status of the subordinate group would be defined and limited. In this way it then happened that when the ruling group felt that the ordinary differences of status in society were no longer sufficient to protect them against the demands and the encroachment of the subordinate group, they turned to legislation to obtain in this way the authority of the law and the authority of the State as well to protect them against that encroachment and threat.

We see this process very clearly in the history of race relations in the southern states of the USA. After the civil war and the emancipation of the slaves, the southern states, when they became self-governing again after a period of reconstruction, deemed it necessary to maintain the relative position of superiority and subordination between Whites and Negroes by means of comprehensive systems of statutory discrimination and compulsory separation. This lasted until 1954, when the American Supreme Court ruled that statutory discrimination and segregation was in conflict with the American Constitution, and therefore inadmissible. Even now, after 20 years, all such forms of discrimination have not yet disappeared in the USA. But it is very clear that what has in fact been achieved in this regard in the course of the past 20 years may in many respects be regarded as phenomenal.

This phenomenon made itself felt in South Africa as well. The development here was, however, overshadowed by the struggle which developed from a very early stage between the Whites and the indigenous population groups, first the Hottentots here in the Peninsula and in the Western Cape, and then the Bushmen, and afterwards the Bantu. This was a struggle not only for Lebensraum and material security, but subsequently became a struggle for physical self-assertion and survival. The fact that the Whites emerged as victors from this struggle obviously led to a socio-economic and political order in which the non-Whites occupied a position of subordination. Contributing to this were the obvious difference in religion, culture, civilization and mode of existence, and of course the externally perceptible differences in appearance in respect of colour and race. Under these circumstances it is entirely understandable that colour and race prejudice would emerge, and that a pattern of colour and race discrimination would develop. In this country as well, as happened elsewhere in the world, that pattern of compulsory separation and discrimination had to rely on a comprehensive system of statutory and administrative measures. This pattern was accepted as normal and self-evident in the White Western world, and has in fact been seen as an outgrowth of the fact that the White nations emerged as colonial rulers of the non-White peoples of the world on a global scale.

In this situation the 20th century brought fundamental changes. The struggle waged during Second World War against the Nazi philosophy of race superiority, the end of the colonial era, the liberation of the non-White peoples of the world and their growing influence and importance on the world scene, the opposition to the philosophy of colour or race discrimination, the application of concepts such as fundamental human rights, as embodied for example in the UN charter on human rights, the importance of the struggle between the capitalist countries of the West and communism, coupled with the tremendous expansion of education, literacy and the means of communication at the disposal of mankind, through which, indeed, the world has become smaller and it has become impossible for any community to continue to live in isolation and to arrange its affairs as though it were not associated with a world-wide comity of nations, all led to it no longer being possible for the old relationship between Whites and non-Whites to continue, nor for the old pattern of discrimination on the basis of race and colour to continue to be maintained in its traditional form. In fact it may be said that most of the 20th century has been dominated by two world streams—the struggle between capitalism and communism on the one hand, and the struggle of the non-White peoples of the world for recognition and equal treatment on the other.

How do these things affect us in South Africa? Naturally we are most closely affected by these changes which have taken place on the world scene. With a preponderance of non-Whites in our own country, who are all seeking self-recognition, self-assertion, equal treatment, and who are, in common with us, established here on a continent which is predominantly Black, it is, after all, clear that we cannot continue to apply a system which is based on colour and race discrimination. And now it is clear that, although there may be considerable differences of opinion between us as to what measures or practices may in fact be labelled discriminatory and how to get rid of these, all thinking people in our country—and I make bold to say everyone in this House—have reached a consensus that we must move away from discrimination. If we do not do so the consequences for everyone in this country will be unpredictably ghastly. It is in this sense that Mr. Pik Botha stated in the Security Council that it was the firm policy of this Government to get rid of discrimination. Here in this House as well those words of Mr. Botha were confirmed by the hon. the Prime Minister and by other Government spokesmen. The Opposition, too, has on numerous occasions advocated the abolition in principle of statutory discrimination based on race and colour.

I began my speech by pointing out how we had lapsed into sterile debates as far as this matter was concerned. Our discussions in this House, and outside this House as well, from public platforms, in the Press and elsewhere, have degenerated into an unfruitful polemic of accusation and counter-accusation, of indictment and rebuttal, of reproach and exculpation, of allegations and denials in an endless stream of words and concepts which are aggravated and made infinitely more difficult by party-politics. Surely it can no longer go on like this. It has become imperative for us to establish the conviction among our non-White South Africans in every possible way that we are in earnest about moving away from discrimination.

No one has who has had any contact at all with the non-Whites in South Africa, no one who has ever taken the trouble, even if only for 10 minutes, to talk to one of those thinking persons, has any doubt at all about how emotional and deep their involvement is in the discriminatory pattern which exists in South Africa, and how totally unacceptable this pattern of discrimination is to them.

What is the hon. member’s definition of “discrimination”?

I began by saying that I wanted to try to make a positive contribution, and I want to tell the hon. member opposite that he would be well advised to read the speech I made last year in which I furnished a definition of discrimination. However, I do not want to debate this point, for what I want to emphasize is the need for us to move. We can no longer continue to maintain the old pattern, and everyone in this House, the Government included, has said this, and has repeatedly stated that their policy and conviction is to move away from discrimination.

The normalization of our relations with the Black States of Africa will only be possible when they no longer have any doubt that it is our firm desire and intention to get rid of discrimination. We know that this matter is of paramount importance in our relations with other countries of the world as well.

The secure survival of all of us in South Africa is at stake. The alternatives are clear. I want to state with the utmost seriousness at my command that the alternatives are clear. They are either peace, security and co-operation on the one hand, or never-ending conflict, strife and unrest on the other. [Interjections.]

It is probable that members on the Government side will say that the Government’s policy of multi-nationalism and Bantu homeland development is in fact a method of getting away from discrimination. However, this is not the occasion to argue that point. But even if one were to accept that statement, an infinitely vast field still remains in which this motion could be made applicable.

I want to make it clear that all of us accept that discrimination cannot immediately be abolished in all its forms, nor will it disappear.

Why not?

I am convinced that we will not be able to make any progress by confronting one another across the floor of this House. I am saying this with all due respect for our colleagues on the opposite side of the House who apparently do not want to give me the opportunity to approach these matters in a positive way. I am convinced that we will not be able to make any progress by confronting one another on this matter here across the floor of this House. It has become essential for us to remove the discussion of this matter to another forum where we can reflect on the entire matter calmly and in a responsible way. Hence my motion for a Select Committee, so that we can get away from the public temptation of deriving party-political advantage from a matter which is of such vital importance to all of us in South Africa.

In spite of what I see here before me on the Order Paper, I want to make an earnest appeal, a plea from the bottom of my heart, to the Government and this House to find it possible to accept this motion. It could indeed usher in a new era, both in White politics as well as in the relations between Whites and non-Whites in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edenvale wants us to appoint a Select Committee to eliminate, as he put it, all forms of statutory discrimination based on race and colour. Long ago Nicodemus was asked: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” At some time or other these words are probably applicable to all of us, but I think that they are especially applicable to the hon. member for Edenvale today. With his knowledge of and background with regard to the history of the contact and the convergence of the diversity of peoples in South Africa, the hon. member ought to know that if he wishes to succeed with this motion of his, he should go about it in a different way, and start elsewhere. The first thing I want to tell the hon. member is that he should free himself from the United Party. The hon. member must bear in mind that we as political parties have representation in this House, each with a policy which is historically grounded. I think it is useless for the hon. member to expect us to hold an academic symposium on these matters while he is sitting here as a member of the United Party. The hon. member cannot free himself from the political philosophy to which he has committed himself. The philosophy of the United Party, as well as its policy, contains a contradiction which will in fact lead to discrimination. The point of departure of Rhodes, an imperialist and one of these spiritual forefathers of the United Party, was the superiority and inferiority of people. [Interjections.] I should very much like to refer you to the book Apartheid and Discrimination by K. L. Roskam, according to which Rhodes had, inter alia, the following to say—

When was that written?

I have quoted this as an example of the statements of the spiritual and political forefather of the United Party. This idea of Rhodes, which is implicitly incorporated in the United Party’s policy, was the cause of Rhodes not wanting to recognize the ethnic diversity in Southern Africa, and consequently he did not care about their right and will to maintain the preservation of their own identity. The dilemma in which the hon. member and his party find themselves is that they emulate the political ideology of Rhodes, for the reality of the diversity of peoples and their will to continue to exist separately, is in conflict with the imperialistic will of the United Party to control and to govern. On these grounds I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I am just as eager as the hon. member for Edenvale to debate these delicate and sensitive matters, which are of deep concern to all of us, on a scientific and elevated level. Before we can proceed to participate in a meaningful debate and a meaningful discussion on the motion of the hon. member, however, I must point out that the hon. member’s knowledge of history and his version of the factual situation in Southern Africa was entirely one-sided. He was so one-sided that even a person such as I. D. McCrone, and various other people, would not accept it. It was very vague and unreal. There are, moreover, a number of fair questions to which the hon. members must reply. Firstly, if the concepts of “race” and “colour’’ are such a problem to them, why are the statements of policy and the promises of the United Party teeming with those very terms? In other words, my question is why do they use the term race, which is a physical-biological concept, and the resulting concepts? I can quote many examples, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so. In their statement of policy on their race federation hon. members do in fact make use of those concepts from which the hon. member now wishes to flee. There is a second question: If the word “statutory” has any meaning, how is the United Party going to govern and differentiate, as it has promised the White voters of South Africa? As recently as the 1970 election the hon. members on that side of the House promised the White voters—

I could also quote the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the book South African Dialogue of Nic Rhoodie in which his entire argumentation on his policy for the solution to the race problem of South Africa is in fact based on the concepts of “race” and “colour”. There is another question which I want to put to the hon. member: What does discrimination actually entail? The hon. member delivered an entire dissertation around the concept of “discrimination”, but what is it? Apparently the hon. member only recently became a member of the United Party, because he does not know the history of the party very well. In 1955 the United Party, during a congress in Bloemfontein, adopted a certain standpoint which Roskam also quotes, but prefaces with these words—

This is followed by the standpoint of the UP—

I want to go further and tell the hon. member for Edenvale that if he is so eager to get away from discrimination, he must realize that the United Party issued another pamphlet during the last election in which, inter alia, the following was stated—

and then this very interesting formulation follows—

In other words, the hon. member wants us to get rid of discrimination. The hon. member himself did not tell us what discrimination is, but in their official documents that party speaks of “unfair discrimination”. In other words, I must deduce from that that the United Party does in fact advocate “fair discrimination”. That is what the hon. member should tell us. When we put these questions to them, it is not for the purpose of playing politics; we want to hold a discussion with the hon. members. We cannot—and this is what I said at the outset—understand the contradiction in the policy of the United Party, i.e. that they maintain in their political philosophy, on the one hand, that there is in reality a diversity in South Africa, but that, on the other hand, they want to introduce an over-all policy which is in fact based on race and colour. Before we can hold a meaningful discussion with them, the United Party must first perceive these things. On the other hand the National Party is in fact the party—and the hon. the Prime Minister said this—which wants to get away from discrimination precisely by means of its policy, but then from discrimination which is not merely based on race and colour, but from all the forms of discrimination which exist. One is also discriminating against a people when one wants to do something that will impair their continued existence and when one does not want to grant them the right to continue to exist.

Therefore it is only by having as a basic principle the recognition of the diversity of peoples in South Africa that one can arrange the points of contact in such a way that one will respect not only the individual but also the individual in his ethnic context, and will refrain from discriminating against him, and nobody is disputing that we in South Africa have many points of contact.

Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this discussion this afternoon, not with the thoughts of Cecil Rhodes, but rather with the contemporary thoughts of an official spokesman for this country, speaking on behalf of the Government, and I take it also on behalf of the hon. member for Rissik at the UNO in October 1974. He said: “We do have discriminatory practices and we do have discriminatory laws.” So why does the hon. member ask us what we mean by discrimination? I have just quoted the official statement by Ambassador Pik Botha, speaking on behalf of the Government of this country, and I would have thought that the hon. member for Rissik would have approached this matter, as I shall attempt to do, by saying: Thank God, at last in this country we have got to the stage that we are not going to say who is right in regard to race relations, but rather, what is right for this country in regard to race relations. If I fully understand the text of the speech of our ambassador, what we in this House are agreed about, is the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of race and colour, as and where it exists in this country. We are therefore indebted to the hon. member for Edenvale this afternoon for the lucid way he has dealt with the historical aspects of the discriminatory laws to which our ambassador referred at the United Nations. The Government’s attitude is clear, according to the statement of our ambassador. He does deal with that historical aspect, and then goes on to say—

That is a correct historical statement. But then he goes on—

He then went on to say—

Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. member who asked why we could not remove discrimination immediately. I recommend to the hon. member that he should read the text of the ambassador’s speech to the United Nations. In effect, what has been said is that discrimination cannot be condoned, it is indefensible, and we must employ our utmost powers to move away from that discrimination. I believe there is a new and appropriate dimension in our political discussions, because the three elements: the rejection of the indefensible, the refusal to condone and the determination to move away, form a common denominator in our discussions and our approach to the problem of race relations. To make our common resolve meaningful, and to show our bona fides, the first thing we as legislators have to do is to identify the objectionable discriminatory laws that have to be amended or done away with. In this respect there is scope for discussion and differences of opinion, but for heaven’s sake, surely the time has arrived for us to go out and identify the discrimination and not to protract it or to stand by and allow discrimination any longer. The second step is to determine the method, as legislators, for removing that discrimination, and the third is a time-table—and I am saying this explicitly—for its implementation. Probably the most difficult is the identification of what is discriminatory in our legislation. On 5 August 1974 in this House I gave what I regarded to be a chronological list of the discriminatory laws that have been passed by this Government since it came into power. Time does not permit me to go through them.

However, I believe we should look at each of those to see to what extent they offend the undertakings given by our ambassador to the world, more than 12 months ago, on behalf of the Government and this Parliament. The other problem is that the question of this identification is not confined to one portfolio. It is not confined to one aspect of our life, be it economic, social, sporting or recreational, and it is not responsibility for one section of our community either. It embraces all sections of our community. It is because I believe that this investigation could be done effectively and speedily by a Select Committee that I support the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale. On such a Select Committee one can sit and receive evidence, consult, deal with the people who complain of laws which they say discriminate against them because of their colour, and find ways in which we can eliminate those aspects that are disadvantageous to our country. This is essentially a matter for a Select Committee. We must accept that one cannot, with a sweep of the hand, say that every discriminatory practice will stop here and now, within 24 hours, because we must ensure the continuance of economic stability as we move into a different phase of race relations, and we must maintain peaceful race relations. We must not disrupt the peaceful race relations that exist. We also have to take cognizance of the necessary adjustments and many of the social customs and habits of the people of this country. There must be a careful development also of a political dispensation to replace the present system. A unitary system cannot continue in the Government’s own policy. The very idea of separate development, the very idea of separate Bantu States, accepts that a unitary system cannot apply to the territorial area of the Republic of South Africa. If we agree that that cannot apply, then surely we are adult enough to make the necessary approaches and work out a scheme which can accommodate the development which must take place, and take place rapidly, in race relations in this country. Where better can that be discussed than in a committee room?

The next is the determination of the timetable. I was interested to see a statement by the hon. member for Pretoria Central recently in connection with the Lusaka manifesto. I agree with him wholeheartedly where he says that he believes the Government had the desire and the will to cut our discrimination on all levels; separation, however, not necessarily being discrimination. I agree. There are certain circumstances where separation is not necessarily discrimination. I now particularly want to quote what the hon. member for Pretoria Central then went on to say. He said—

I accept that. We must have a transitional period.

I now come to the one question I do want to urge upon the House this afternoon. We cannot go on having these long discussions without achieving any tangible result in regard to race relations in this country. It is a long time since our ambassador spoke in the United Nations. He spoke in October 1974 and it is now already February 1976. Exactly a year ago, on 4 February 1975, I said here in the no-confidence debate (Hansard, 4 February 1975, col. 172)—

In the same debate the hon. the Prime Minister replied that he was taking various steps and intimated that one of the steps he was taking was to compile a list of boards and various Government organs on which he felt the non-White people might have representation. He mentioned the Economic Advisory Council, the Wage Board, the Apprenticeship Board, the Unemployment Insurance Board, and others. What has happened in that direction? Twelve months have passed. I hope this House realizes the urgency of this matter and the urgency and wisdom of appointing the Select Committee being suggested by the hon. member for Edenvale. We must be seen to be doing something about this situation. Cases where tension has been created come to me over and over again, especially cases involving the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act. The churches are now saying that these measures must be done away with, but we on our part just go right on applying them.

No, they do not say that.

Certain of the churches do; most of them do.

They say it is not against scripture.

I do not want to argue about it. I am saying that most of the churches say that. This is a matter that requires urgent attention, but the months go by and no attention is paid to it.

We have to realize that, in the promotion of human dignity among the non-White persons, we cannot go ahead and pass resolutions such as the amendment of the hon. member for Rissik. We cannot have a resolution to the effect that we are doing everything to promote human dignity when there are measures such as those I have referred to still being applied. I want to mention a particular case in the House. When I wanted to have lunch with the principal of the University of the Western Cape, Dr. van der Ross, before he was to address a meeting in the centre of this city, a meeting at which I was to preside, I had to get a permit to take him to a restaurant.

Not any more.

This happened very recently.

Not today anymore.

I am glad to hear the hon. the Minister say that that requirement has been withdrawn probably from today. I hope the hon. the Minister will announce that that is so. Then, at least, we are doing something. That is the point I have been trying to make: We must do something.

There are so many similar cases I could mention, cases that are discriminatory. For that we do not have to get down to the fine borderline cases at this stage. I am sure the hon. member for Rissik, for example, could stand up and spell out half a dozen purely discriminatory pieces of legislation on our Statute Book which should be removed from the Statute Book immediately. I am sure he could do it. However, he will not. Instead he fixes his attention on those about which we can argue whether they are discriminatory or not. Let us deal with those at some later stage when we have done away with those measures which we know to be discriminatory. Let us remove those from the Statute Book first. To the extent that the hon. the Minister of Justice will deal with these matters this afternoon, we shall appreciate it. As I have said earlier, I do not believe that this is a matter that rests with one portfolio alone. It could not possibly be so. This is not the sort of subject matter that could be dealt with under one portfolio. It is a matter that affects every facet of our life. It affects it as regards the running of health services, how doctors can or cannot associate with one another, or whether there must be separate Black and White nursing associations with separate control. Similarly, as the hon. member for Sea Point indicated, must scientific societies be kept separate? We cannot go on with this practice in our country, and we cannot say we are going to stop it unless actual steps are taken to put an end to this discrimination. I do hope that within the next few weeks of this session we are going to see that the undertakings of our ambassador, that we are moving in that direction and that we will continue to do so, will become a reality to be seen by the whole world.

Mr. Speaker, every political party has a policy which it pursues and advocates by virtue of which it comes to this House. The National Party, for example, has its policy of multi-national development, a policy which aims to give every race in this country the opportunity to develop itself to the utmost, like every other population group, so that the human dignity of every member of every population group in this country will be recognized at all times and the identity of every population group will remain intact. It is against this background that Mr. Pik Botha spoke at the UNO. He spoke against the background of the policy of the National Party. There was nothing strange about it, because it was the policy of the National Party which he stated there. If there are hon. members who find this amusing, I would like to refer them to opinions of former leaders and of the present leader of our party. I do not want to go back very far. I want to refer to what Dr. Verwoerd said in this House in 1961 (Hansard, Vol. 107. col. 4617) namely that South Africa—

Dr. Verwoerd went on to say that—

We need not go so far back. I want to refer to what the present hon. Prime Minister said. In 1974 he referred to this—I believe that it is very important—and said that he had made it his object to keep moving away from discrimination. Ever since he became Prime Minister, he has pursued this object and said that this would remain his goal. He proceeded to say—(translation)

This is very important. This whole moving away from discrimination and the recognition of human dignity cannot come from one side only, because there are different population groups in this country. This is why I find it strange that the hon. member for Green Point should want to create the impression here that Pik Botha’s speech dropped upon us from the skies.

What did he mean by “discrimination”?

I want to make it very clear that this side of the House does not subscribe to the motion as formulated by the hon. member for Edenvale. He told us that he wanted to keep this matter out of politics, that we should not drag politics into this debate and a whole lot of other stories. I want to say in the same vein and with tears in my eyes as well that we should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rissik in its totality. I believe that it is important for this House to express itself in favour of that amendment today.

Unlike the hon. member for Edenvale, I wish to confine myself to the content of the motion. The hon. member said that he did not want to confine himself to the content of the motion, but I want to confine myself to it specifically and to tell him why we do not subscribe to his motion. In the first place, this whole question of relations politics is a political matter which has repeatedly been discussed across the floor of this House by different political parties. Now the hon. member wants a Select Committee to be appointed on which, in the first place, members of the National Party should serve, a party which follows a policy of multi-national co-existence in this country. Besides them he wants members of the United Party to serve, a party which does not pursue multinationalism, but multi-racialism. With their policy of multi-racialism they are already practising the most serious form of discrimination which exists. If they want to be honest in their intentions concerning multi-racialism they must break down all the barriers between races in this country, otherwise they are not being honest in their intentions and they discriminate. In the third place there will also have to be members of the other party serving on such a Select Committee. This is a party that says there must be integration in the country. On the other hand, it is a party which says that it stands for qualified franchise for all people in this country, based on educational levels and all this type of thing. This means out and out discrimination. We have already discussed several of these matters across the floor of this House. We fight about this every year, so I find it strange that they should now want a Select Committee to discuss these matters on which we have held very different opinions through all the years up to the present day. In the second place the hon. member for Edenvale said that he did not want to drag politics into this. What could be a greater dig at the National Party than the one contained in this motion? He wants to imply that the National Party is not qualified to carry out its policy, but that the United Party should be summoned to help the National Party carry out its own policy. It is very clear that they actually want to move a motion of no confidence in the National Party by means of this motion. The National Party came into power in 1948 with this policy. It has won election after election with this policy It has survived motion after motion of no confidence in this House as a result of this policy through which it has repeatedly emphasized that it wishes to get rid of all forms of discrimination. What is more, this Select Committee which is supposedly requested by the hon. member for Edenvale would have to be a permanent Select Committee. It would not be a Select Committee which would be able to conclude all its activities within a year. There are different people who see matters from different points of view. What one person regards as differentiation appears to be discrimination to another. The opposite is also true. By next year things may have changed once again. Moreover, the policy of the National Party is carried out by the National Party itself with the aim of eliminating points of friction. Now, if we study this motion carefully it seems as if the Opposition wants to try and force the Government to proceed rapidly so that it will be over-hasty and perhaps make mistakes. This is the practical outcome of this motion which is being moved. The movement away from discrimination, our relations politics, is a matter which must be handled with circumspection. Precisely because it is such a delicate matter, points of friction must be eliminated at all times. Also, discrimination must not be implied when there is in fact no discrimination. It is an integral part of the policy of the National Party that friction must be eliminated as soon as possible and that discrimination, if such a thing exists, must be eliminated as soon as possible.

That is the duty, not only of the White section of the population of this country, but also of the non-White section. They too must further this aim. What I find a great pity this afternoon is that both the previous speakers on the Opposition side spoke in such general terms. They do not specifically indicate what discrimination is and is not. They cannot define it. They are taking a wild shot and hoping to hit something. One cannot speak in such general terms about such a delicate matter. One must at least say to what one is referring. There is a difference of opinion about this important matter. What is also very important to me in this motion is that statutory discrimination is mentioned. Now the question immediately arises: What is statutory discrimination? What about discrimination which is not statutory discrimination? What will happen to this? This is very important to me. Discrimination which is not statutory discrimination must be discrimination which is found in the minds of people. This could be much worse than statutory discrimination. This is where elementary courtesy between individuals must be taken into consideration. Is this not perhaps more important than statutory discrimination? This is where each White and non-White member of the population of this country can contribute towards observing those elementary principles of courtesy in their dealings with one another.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Opposition wants to make a purely political issue of this motion this afternoon. Then they say that they do not want to play politics. Should this amendment be accepted, they would have us just where they want us. I think that this is a subtle way of trying to win the favour of various groups of people in this country. Let us understand one another quite clearly. To some people the principle of non-discrimination or of the elimination of discrimination means nothing less than integration. The reason for this is that discrimination is, after all, a form of differentiation, if one were to briefly define it. Discrimination is a form of differentiation, good or bad. It is a generally accepted practice. One finds it in nature. One finds it amongst nations, amongst the people themselves—this form of differentiation. To eliminate all forms of discrimination—I emphasize the word “all”, the word which appears in the motion—is therefore contrary to natural law. It is incompatible with Biblical law. To get rid of all forms of distinction seems ridiculous to me. If Acts such as the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Group Areas Act and the Race Classification Act are considered to be statutory discrimination …

Are they not?

… then the abolition of these would mean the abolition of the policy of multi-national development. It would mean that multi-national development is the highest form of discrimination, derogatory discrimination. [Interjections.] Then, according to those members who are becoming so rowdy, we should integrate immediately. This is exactly what they want. There are even liberals—and I think the hon. member for Rissik quoted from their pronouncements—who say that each race group has a desire to retain its own identity at all times. Therefore I want to say that no one on this side of the House and in the National Party is in favour of any form of discrimination merely on grounds of race or colour. This is a delicate matter. It is especially delicate in our relations politics in South Africa. Since it is a political matter which has historically been made a political matter by this House, I believe that we cannot appoint such a Select Committee. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rissik.

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that the hon. member for Potgietersrus, without really being aware of it, let the cat out of the bag. When he maintains that multi-national development is the highest form of discrimination, he is dead right. That is exactly what it is. He has now come closer to giving us a sort of definition of discrimination than has ever been done before. But he is still very far from it. In another respect he is quite correct when he says we should not stop at statutory discrimination, but that we should abolish all kinds of discrimination. This is quite correct. But, Mr. Speaker, where are we going to start if we do not even know what discrimination is? We have not even heard what discrimination is this afternoon. I support the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale. Unfortunately I am quite unable to support the amendment of the hon. member for Rissik, because this so-called progress—he refers to progress—has been extremely meagre, to say the least—to use a down-to-earth expression, it has been “hopeless”. If the Government, or anyone else—I do not mind who—honestly thinks, as the people on my left and the people on that side do, that these petty changes which have been made during the past few years in this connection, impress or interest the vast majority, approximately 99%, of the people of colour in this country, Black and Brown, or that they have brought about any meaningful change in their standard of living, then they are grievously mistaken, Sir. The policy of these benches has always been that we should abolish all forms of discrimination, from the start. There is one very good reason for this, Mr. Speaker, and that is that if we do not abolish discrimination in all its forms, then our entire future is endangered, the entire future of this country and therefore of all of you. I fully agree with the hon. member for Edenvale, and I wish our friends on the other side of the House would pay some attention to this, that the entire security and peace of South Africa and all its people as well as the acceptance and the credibility of this country in the outside world, depends on whether we are going to succeed in this aim. I am not going to refer again to ambassador Pik Botha’s speech, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point. We all heard it and we know why he spoke as he did. There is one thing we do not know, and that is what exactly he means by statutory discrimination. If we do not get rid of that, Mr. Speaker, then our safety and the future of all of us are in danger.

There is still one other point I must make, one which has not been faced at all this afternoon, and this is that we must realize that the successful elimination of discrimination would have to mean a radical reconstruction of our whole society. There is nothing superficial that we can do in this regard. The reason—actually it is obvious—is that our whole South African society in essence rests upon race and colour and we must accept that this is so. If we say that we are going to effect superficial changes to it, we can eliminate a degree of discrimination, but as long as that far-reaching reconstruction to which I have just referred is lacking, the fundamental and critical categories of discrimination will remain unchanged and then our society will remain essentially an unjust and unequal society.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, I only have 15 minutes in which to speak. The hon. member can put the question tomorrow. Like the clergyman who is opposed to all sin, suddenly all of us are now against discrimination—the whole lot of us. We now want to abolish all discrimination. But nobody can tell us what it is, and I think this is absolutely essential. I should like to give the House a definition which I came across and which satisfies me, but not, of course, the other side of the House. I am referring to an academic who is highly regarded in some sections of the Nationalist Party, namely Prof. Alfred Hoernlé. Here is his definition of discrimination—unfortunately it is in English but I think we shall all understand it—

That is my definition. I am now waiting for your definition. I am now waiting for a definition from the Nationalist Party. No, Mr. Speaker, they have already tried, and here it is. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is becoming so excited now, has read the pamphlet yet. It is entitled “Discrimination”. Here it is—no fewer than 19 pages in this very attractive booklet. I hope everybody will read it. Mr. Speaker, I have read it five times and now I know even less about what discrimination means. It is a masterpiece in the art of evasion. It gives one absolutely no idea of what discrimination means. All kinds of pleasant things are said about separation, identity, separate development, but nowhere are we told what it means. Like other speakers, I accept that there is in fact a difference between discrimination an differentiation, but I think we should realize that as soon as differentiation depends on statutory implementation for its continued existence then the two concepts become practically the same. To talk about moving away from the one and not from the other is then completely senseless. We should go further and ask ourselves who is going to decide when discrimination is discrimination and when it is differentiation. I can say that ultimately a final answer must come from one group of people only, viz. those who day and night experience what discrimination really is, who know what it means always to be discriminated against on the grounds of skin colour. If they, the vast majority of the population, cannot agree with what we mean by discrimination, the whole effort to get away from it is largely in vain and a waste of time. For that reason I say that the Select Committee which is requested in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edenvale should decide at an early stage how it is going to define discrimination, and state exactly what constitutes statutory discrimination. We have not even touched the surface this afternoon. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of the Interior is not present now. He said the other day that if discrimination was necessary to protect the identity of different nations, to maintain law and order and to prevent friction between various groups, then it would be retained. In that case we have a very wide statutory field here which the Select Committee will have to leave out of its reckoning completely. This would be a pity; this would be a great pity, Mr. Speaker, inter alia because any nation which tries to preserve his identity by discriminating against others, is on its way to causing its own eventual downfall. This is a truth of which our friends opposite should take note. I repeat that it is essential for the Government to state without delay precisely which discriminatory measures they deem necessary for the maintenance of “discrimination, White identity, law and order and the prevention of friction between groups’’, then we, and the Select Committee, will know whether there is any discrimination left for us to move away from. But I think that if we maintain all the discrimination and differentiation they wish to preserve, then very little will remain. Only when we are able to realize this can we start to think about things such as unequal pensions and salaries, the so-called “equal pay for equal work”, about employment opportunities, about educational facilities and about housing, things which intimately affect the quality of life of the ordinary person every day and here discrimination is more severe. We find it everywhere, sometimes in the most extreme degree, discrimination which emphasizes the White man’s position of dominance. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to admit it?

In this connection let us take a brief look at the throwing open of public amenities. This party believes that it is the responsibility of the local authorities, backed in some cases by the efforts of the provincial authorities or of the central government, to see to it that there are sufficient public amenities for everyone and that they are situated where they can best serve the needs of the community. We shall strive to create an open society in South Africa in which all citizens will have the right to associate with whom they wish, and to use the existing public amenities. We shall do this, because we believe that this is the only way to recognize the dignity of the individual and to fulfil South Africa’s solemn undertaking to move away from discrimination based upon race and colour. This is the only way. There is no other way to do it. We realize, of course, that the judicious throwing open of public amenities could play an important role in the building up of a feeling of human dignity among people of a different colour, but we should undertake this in a very sober and responsible manner.

This now brings me to what is possibly the harshest and in one respect the most important of the statutory discriminations based upon colour, and one which has not yet been mentioned here this afternoon. If we do not mention this, we are playing with words. I am of course referring to the statutory discrimination in the field of politics. Black and Brown people—Indians included—today have no political rights in the only place where it is and can be of real importance to them, namely in this Parliament.

Is qualified franchise discrimination?

This political discrimination has an effect on virtually every facet of the individual’s life and if we do not do something positive to rectify that situation, any other efforts to move away from discrimination based on race or colour will be relatively unimportant. It is no use not wanting to face these things. Here we have the essence of the political problem in South Africa—the division of political power—and we must face it. This is not the time to enlarge on this. The committee which the hon. member for Eden-vale requests will therefore also have to investigate the entire constitutional set-up in South Africa—a set-up with its separate legislative body, with a racial basis. The committee will have to pay special attention to the laws such as the prohibition of political interference, because this is an outright discriminatory factor. There are, of course, innumerable other statutory provisions which must be removed and revised. I am merely mentioning a few of them in passing. There are the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act, the two pillars of separate development. These should of course be taken into consideration. Then there is the Apprenticeship Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Bantu Taxation Act, the Pass laws—these piquantly enough, are referred to as the “Abolition of Passes” laws: only South Africans could have thought of that. Then there is still the Act relating to the training of Bantu labourers and besides these, a host of other similar laws.

With reference to the question of separate amenities, one can simply say that the dictum of “separate but equal”, to which the hon. members on the other side of the House like to refer, is only justifiable and defensible if it represents the outcome of a joint decision between White and non-White on an equal basis, a decision arrived at voluntarily. Otherwise there is no justification for it. Even here one can ask whether it does not constitute a violation of the rights of those individuals who do not agree with the majority. This House will know that the American Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that separate amenities are inherently unequal. However, let us leave it at that.

In conclusion, however, I want to stress something we should all realize. This is that the elimination of discrimination based upon race and colour should be attacked on all fronts. Here I agree with the hon. member for Potgietersrus—on the statutory, the political, the economic, the social and whichever other areas there may be. This should be done without delay. We have precious little time. I admit that it is basically a political problem, but at the same time it is a problem to which every individual, irrespective of the political party he belongs to, can make a valuable contribution by his behaviour and his approach. I want to say in all seriousness, and here I associate myself with what the hon. member for Edenvale said, that we should all take this seriously, because eventually the future of each of us—White, Black, Brown or otherwise—depends on the success we achieve as regards the removal of discrimination based upon race or colour. There is no problem confronting us in this country that is more real, more urgent, than the removal of this kind of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by referring briefly to the amendment. The hon. member for Rissik will forgive me for saying that the amendment was somewhat negative. If he would read the motion which was moved, he would discover that this is really something positive. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of his amendment. I also want to refer you to the speech made by the hon. member for Potgietersrus, and I say that these two members were actually trying to tell us that we should forget that the Government has been in power for 28 years, for as soon as we remember that we realize that, after 28 years, we are still dealing with a situation in which discrimination actually exists. If the theory of the policy were so correct, surely there would not still have been discrimination after such a long time.

†I think we must all agree that the Prime Minister’s détente efforts have had a certain degree of success, limited as it may be. This success, however, can in the first instance be attributed to the fact that during the latter half of 1974, the world and Africa in particular were led to believe that the political debate in South Africa was no longer on whether or not to end or to eliminate discrimination, but in fact on the when and how it was to be done. I have listened to the speeches of the hon. members on the other side of the House and I must warn them, that if they carried on in that vein, as if there were still a debate about this issue—whether to eliminate discrimination or not—they would in fact be doing a great disservice to South Africa. Irreparable harm would flow from that, because the impression would be created that what had been said in all earnestness 15 months ago, was merely part of a carefully planned lip-service campaign.

It is a historical fact, and I think we have seen it again today, that ever since the South African Ambassador at the United Nations made his statement concerning the elimination of discrimination—and I make no apologies for mentioning it again—there has been a difference of interpretation, especially within the ranks of the hon. members of the other side of the House. We have those who maintain—we have had it again today—that it has always been the intention of the Government to do away with discrimination, that in fact the whole policy of separate development is designed to that effect. Here I have in mind the speeches of the hon. member for Johannesburg West from time to time, and also what he had said outside the House. At the other extreme we also have members such as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who is in the habit of theorizing about this and speaking about positive and negative discrimination. He comes to the unbelievable conclusion that as part of positive discrimination “ ’n volk” has the inalienable right to discriminate against the citizens of another “volk”. This is, let me say, a naïve attitude, but between those two extremes we have a third group, those who say we do not discriminate but only differentiate. Now, strange as it may seem, I do not blame hon. members for being confused. I realize that there are extenuating circumstances, that when we as White people debate such a cardinal issue, we are at a decided disadvantage. We have not had any first-hand experience of racial discrimination. What is to us abstract and theoretical, is to 80% of the population of South Africa something positive, something very real and concrete. They do not have to theorize about what is or is not discrimination. They know from their daily experience exactly what this means.

The motion before us must therefore be seen in its true perspective. If it is accepted it will be a tremendous forward leap for South Africa. This all-White and all-powerful Parliament would have its own members—the representatives of all political parties—serving on a select committee, and those representatives would then be able to investigate the problem without being hamstrung by the unreal political atmosphere we have in this House from time to time. If one reads the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale, one sees that it will be a committee empowered to hear evidence, and from what I have said earlier, obviously some of the most important, worthwhile and valid evidence will, in fact, come from the Blacks and the Coloureds themselves, from a group of people with whom this House does not consult collectively. Now I know that we as a party do consult with Black, Coloured and Indian leaders, as does the Progressive Party, but the Opposition parties are, after all, only Opposition parties. There is unfortunately a limit to what they can achieve. Of necessity, the members of the Government also have such contact, and I do not deny this. They have contact with Blacks and consult with them. However, what worries me is the effectiveness of that type of consultation. It represents consultation in isolation. I think speakers on this side of the House have already indicated that what we need is a mutual effort such that all of us can learn from one another. I want to give an example. The United Party, for instance, is completely and utterly convinced that the statutory provisions concerning job reservation must be removed. We base our arguments on sound economic and moral grounds. As I said before, however, as an Opposition party we cannot make this a reality. It is only the Government that can do this. It is clear to us—and it must be clear to everyone in South Africa—that the Government is reluctant and unwilling to do so. Government members and Ministers have even, on occasion, advanced reasons for not doing so. I do not accept these reasons as valid and legitimate. What I do want to say, however—and I do not think this should be a point of argument today—is that we cannot continue along these lines, with the one side shouting “it is” and the other side shouting “it is not”. It is like children arguing: “It is discrimination”, “it is not”.

May I put a question?

No, not now. It could be that a select committee, after having gone into the fears of Government members—and I can concede that there must be some reason why they are afraid; there must be legitimate fears—and also having assessed the legitimate desires on the part of the Blacks, will be able to report to this House on a modus operandi which will make it possible for the Government to put a complete stop to this particular form of discrimination. I, like everyone in this House, am extremely concerned about the time we have left in South Africa to make the necessary adjustments to safeguard our future.

However, I believe we will never run out of time as long as we are prepared to move forward at the correct moment. I think South Africa has learnt its lesson the hard way in the realm of sport where, for a certain period—quite some time, in fact—we stood still at the Loskop Dam situation, and in the process actually first moved backwards for a few years before we moved forward. People must decide today on the correct time to do something positive about statutory discrimination.

I believe that the correct time to investigate the elimination of statutory discrimination is now. If we do not, we will place hon. members opposite in the invidious position where they must actually justify the existence of these discriminatory practices. It is humiliating to expect members opposite to get up and defend certain things, such as job reservation, in the day and age in which we live. I would like to spare them that. I think the hon. member for Springs, for instance, would find it humiliating. After all, he is a member of Parliament, and we must not place him in the humiliating situation of having to defend these discriminatory practices, of having to get up year after year to say (translation): “Please do not open the sluice-gates. If you vote for the policy of the United Party, the Whites will be ploughed under.”

*What is even more important, is the fact that the longer we defend our statutory discrimination, the more difficult we make it for the Government or for South Africa—it does not matter which Government is in power—ultimately to move away from it. We know, and frequently hon. members on the opposite side also know, that they are wrong when they defend certain discriminatory measures in this House. But they do it, and the misfortune is that there are many thousands of completely innocent Government supporters outside who believe that what their representatives say here, is correct and valid. Consequently the Government is saddled with the problem that, when they do want to get rid of it one day, they will have a tremendous amount of educating to do among their own people, because by justifying and proclaiming these things too effectively, the Government is muzzling itself. If it is necessary, for all our sakes, to move forward, it is they who have to do so. I think that the fact that there is a permanent minority party such as the HNP in our political life today, is largely attributable to the fact that hon. members on the other side did their homework too well at one stage. They succeeded in convincing their own supporters to such an extent of the necessity for and the justification of certain forms of discrimination that when they did decide to break away from it, they found that their most loyal supporters had lost the ability to adjust. Today those people are in the HNP and they are disseminating poison in the country. This is why I say I do not want an hon. member on the opposite side to be placed in the humiliating position of having to rise to his feet in this House and act as a person who indirectly proclaims the progress of the HNP—and that which they represent. Therefore, the choice before South Africa is clear: We must move forward. But there is no advantage to be gained by, for example, digging ourselves into trenches saying that this is once and for all the policy of the Nationalist Party. We cannot agree that, as this amendment tells us, we must not be concerned and that all is well. My hon. friend, the member for Rissik, is probably the only unconcerned person in South Africa, judging by his amendment. No, we must move forward, but I accept that we cannot do so blindly.

Why not?

The hon. member for Boksburg wants to know why not. Particularly when one is dealing with the present Government which has been conditioning its own supporters into a certain pattern of life for years, one cannot move forward blindly, for the problem is that one must take the people with one. The Government must educate and this is where the tremendous value of a Select Committee will come into play. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House did not mention any reasons as to why we cannot appoint a Select Committee. Not one of them can give a definition of discrimination, or really say what discrimination is. Some of them say that their policy has always been a form of discrimination, and others say that the policy has never discriminated. However, they have not yet given a single reason for not wanting to appoint a Select Committee.

I am advancing definite reasons why we must have a Select Committee. I believe that if we were to have such a Select Committee and if we actually accepted the recommendations after it had heard evidence and after it had ascertained how other people felt, it would be possible to make suggestions to ensure that South Africa as a whole would move forward. This would be the result the acceptance of the motion by the hon. member for Edenvale would have.

Mr. Speaker, members of both opposition parties have spoken before me. I should like to begin with the hon. member for Parktown. I am amazed that the hon. member has the audacity to come to this House and talk about the removal of statutory discrimination. I am amazed that the hon. member has the courage to come and say in this House that the progress which the National Party has made in race relations as regards the provision of facilities has been “hopeless”. I should like to ask: “Do you practise what you preach?” If anyone wants to remove statutory discrimination, then this must certainly be done consistently in practice too. If the hon. member for Pinelands wants to put a stop to Bantu walking through Pinelands, is that not discrimination? If the hon. member for Houghton underpays the non-White staff attached to the Union Hotel, is that not discrimination? If the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party does not want Black people to swim in the swimming pool in Sea Point, is that not discrimination? If the hon. leader of the Progressive Party conducts secret discussions with the City Council to limit the number of Black people in Sea Point, is that not discrimination? If facilities are provided for dogs in Sea Point before they are provided for non-White people, is that not discrimination? I want to tell that party that if ever it wants to discuss discrimination and its removal, it must first take the lead itself and implement the removal of discrimination in everyday life.

The Opposition has come along with a motion, and if one considers the wording of the motion, it is very clear that it implies that that which is to be removed is something harmful. I may well ask why the Opposition proposes such a motion. Is there discord and unrest here … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of, order: Is an hon. member permitted to say: “It is a lie? ”

I did not hear that. Which hon. member said it?

The hon. member for Houghton.

Order! Did the hon. member for Houghton say: “It is a lie?”

Yes, I did say: “It is a lie. ’’

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

They are untruths.

The hon. member must withdraw the words unconditionally.

I withdraw and say they are untruths.

Order! The rules require an hon. member to withdraw unconditionally. Does the hon. member withdraw her words unconditionally?

I withdraw unconditionally and I am substituting another word for it.

The hon. member for Durbanville may proceed.

Is there, then, unrest here in South Africa? Is there discord and anger in South Africa, so that the Opposition has reason to introduce this motion? If that is the case, then surely South Africa must be faring badly. If South Africa is faring badly, how do we explain the fact that there was a record number of immigrants to South Africa in 1975? Is that an example of unrest within the borders of this country? How, then, does one explain the fact that the economy of South Africa is stronger than that of any other country in Africa? How, then, does one explain the fact that South Africa is the twelfth biggest trading country in the world—and there are more than 150 trading countries—if there is discord and unrest within the borders of South Africa? How, then, does one explain the fact that the per capita income of the inhabitants of KwaZulu and the Transkei is higher than that of more than half of the states of Africa? How does one explain the fact that the contribution made by UNO to the so-called 38 poor countries of the world over a period of ten years up to and including 1972 is only equal to half of the amount spent during the same period by the South African Government on the developing homelands in this country? How, then, does one explain the fact that over a period of ten years the Coloured Development Corporation has pumped more than R18 million into Coloured business enterprise? Then there is the amount of more than R60 million for the Xhosa Development Corporation. And what about all the other bodies of this kind which have made an exceptional contribution in this connection?

The motion further implies that non-White persons are in fact done an injustice by this Government.

Will statutory discrimination, then, be removed?

And if that is alleged, how, then, does one explain the fact that a higher percentage of the Coloured population, viz. 24%, and a still higher percentage of the Indian population in this country, viz. 27%, are undergoing schooling in South Africa, as against the Whites, among whom the percentage is only 22%? How, then, does one explain the fact that in this country the opportunity exists for any student, White, Brown or Black, to study for any diploma or degree course at a university and, if at this stage the facilities are not yet available at the non-White’s own university, he can gain access to another university as in the case of the 200 non-White students at the University of Cape Town. What Government discriminates against its people and among the population groups in its country when in fact it creates the largest number of opportunities for maximum education?

In this country employment opportunities for persons of all colours are virtually unlimited. Let us dwell for a moment on the Coloured population. It is general knowledge that it is the policy of this side of the House that as regards professional people who render service to their own people and in their own communities, preference is given to people of that particular group to render that service. How does one explain the fact that if more than 100 non-White public prosecutors could be employed to render service in their own community, only two suitable candidates come forward? How does one explain the fact that only 30% of the posts for social workers are filled by Coloureds? How does one explain the tremendous gap in the medical and legal professions? How can the hon. member for Parktown say that no contribution has been made by this side of the House towards making it possible for the non-Whites to play a role at Government level? What about the delegation of powers to the CRC over the past few years by the Administrator and the Minister concerned, not to mention the establishment of that body. There has also been delegation to Coloured local managements. What about the establishment of representation on statutory bodies or even on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council? What about the offer of a Cabinet Council in which Coloureds and people of other races may serve in this country?

I do not want to elaborate further on what the hon. member for Potgietersrus said in his explanation as to why it is unnecessary to establish a Select Committee to investigate this matter further. While I am dealing with this I just want to dwell on the fact that three years ago this Government appointed a comprehensive commission, the Theron Commission, to investigate all aspects of the Coloured community in its entirety, comprehensively and in full detail. Under the guidance of experts among whom there are a number of professors, an investigation is being carried out into housing, the political side, the social side, the income spending pattern and the income earning pattern. Hundreds, thousands of letters and questionnaires have been sent to and received back from leaders of the community and interviews have also been granted them. In view of this it may be accepted that if there was anything which could be termed troublesome, it would necessarily have to appear in these reports. If this should be the case, then surely it is now in the form of a report and can be taken cognizance of.

Probably I must apologize for the actions of the hon. member of Edenvale. The hon. member is a former professor of mine and he is a person for whom I have the greatest respect. I obtained reasonably good marks under him, and I always thought that this was owing to both my intelligence and his, but I must say after the motion he introduced today that there is some doubt in my mind as to how well-informed he is. Are people really being deprived of human rights here at this time? Once again, the whole intention of this motion amounts to that side of the House pretending to be the guardians of so-called civil and human rights in South Africa. That is absolute nonsense, because in the nature of the matter, to what does one link civil rights in a country? Probably each country has its own definition. The UNO says “One man, one vote”. Russia links it to the furtherance of Communism. In this country—I say this with reference to what the hon. member for Durban Central said—our civil rights can be linked to the repeated verdict of the voters over the past 28 years. Time and again it has been very clearly stated that this country recognizes a principle of self-determination for peoples and the preservation of their own identity, particularly the preservation and protection of the identity of the minority group. Any reference to the deprivation of fundamental human rights in South Africa is stifled at birth by this very policy of separate development recognized by this side of the House.

If there were to be no separate ethnic national development, then one would necessarily have enforced integration. It seems that at all times there are only two options, viz. parallel development opportunity for all the nations of South Africa with statutory provisions where and when necessary and for so long as it may be necessary to ensure harmony and to regulate society, or, on the other hand, integration with its necessary correlates, the continually explosive possibilities of friction, clashes and confrontation. Where in the world is a multi-national or multi-ethnic population to be found which does not have deep-seated differences as regards culture, religion, descent, way of life, tradition and political aspirations? There are more than 50 such countries in the world and in most of them, with the exception of South Africa, there is revolution after revolution. After all, in South Africa we have detente, peace and stability. It goes without saying that the world will watch us like a hawk, just as it watches the other countries, because it would like to link us to so-called race discrimination. After all, we know that the world is looking at South Africa because we have certain natural assets and are of a certain strategic value and because we are engaged in a steadfast campaign against communism. Our actions are aimed at the furtherance of peace and stabilities in this country and that is why we are the object of such careful and detailed scrutiny. After all, we must be fair when considering the analysis of our own society here in South Africa. We have 22 million people belonging to 12 major language groups and belonging to 2 000 different religious denominations or sects. Surely that constitutes a highly explosive situation in which harmony cannot be achieved other than by way of rules and regulations. This Government has on numerous occasions, through the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers, clearly stated the standpoint that unnecessary discrimination should be steered away from as often as possible. And after all, that is just what is being done. At the same time we who form part of this plural society may not abandon the principle that peace cannot be maintained without statutory provisions which recognize and respect differences between peoples and wish to protect them peacefully in order to allow each section of the people to develop to its full potential. That is why we have had the privilege over the past 16 months of seeing that we have been able to project abroad this spirit of détente from within South Africa. It is not a question of there being détente outside South Africa and not within South Africa. It is precisely because there is stability within South Africa that we were able to project it beyond the borders of South Africa. It is possible because we have a policy of separate development, a policy which is designed, not to be injurious to people, but to afford status to people of whatever colour and to find a solution in advance to the necessary potential for conflict which may exist. That is why I think the time has come for the Opposition to take cognizance of South Africa, too, to evaluate and appraise it in terms of inherent value, power and objectives. That is why I have no option but to express myself in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rissik, viz. that thanks be given for the progress made in acknowledging and promoting the human dignity of all members of the population groups of our country.

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness and honesty one must say that the reply we have had this afternoon from the Government side has been disappointing in the extreme. The motion introduced by the hon. member for Edenvale was intended, in all honesty and in all sincerity, to raise a matter of general interest in the House and to discuss it. We explained in advance to the Government side that it was by no means our intention to launch a party political polemic. This motion was compiled in a very constructive way. Its aim was explained, but nevertheless we have had to endure the replies which came from that side of the House this afternoon. I say that this is extremely disappointing, because this debate could have contributed significantly to the improvement of race relations and of the entire relations problem in this country.

Let us take another look at the motion. In no way does it represent a general attack on the policy of the Government of the day. It simply stated—

What person in his right mind could really object to a request of that nature? This is not an attack on the Government. We can all admit that we are guilty of some form of discrimination. The hon. member for Rissik also pointed out to us that our forefathers, too, were guilty of this. We admit and accept this.

Rhodes was not my forefather.

Nor was he ours. The hon. member for Rissik comes and makes a political attack and maintains that Rhodes is my forefather or my friend’s, but I simply cannot admit this. However, I shall not become angry about it because we are not here to exchange party political viewpoints. Let us discuss the motion. The motion concerns statutory discrimination in South Africa, and who is there in this House who will deny that statutory discrimination does exist? Of course it exists. We all know it. We cannot understand why there should be such unwillingness and tardiness on the part of the Government to discuss it. We hear all the political arguments, but let us now deal with the facts of the matter. Let us consider whether there is not in fact statutory discrimination which should be removed. As I have said, we are dealing here with statutory discrimination. We admit, of course, that there are many kinds of discrimination, and this is the case not only in South Africa, but in many other countries as well. However this motion concerns statutory discrimination, and as sure as we are sitting here we know that our Statute Book is larded with statutory discrimination of one kind or another. Many of the Acts are old Acts which still appear in the Statute Book. It would indeed be beneficial to go through the old Acts, all the old regulations and the old ordinances to see what could in fact be removed. It would be instructive for us, too, and could improve our legislation substantially. It would be beneficial in many other respects, too, not only for us who are sitting in this House, but also for many other people who are involved in this matter, both here in South Africa and abroad.

Let us take a brief look at what occurred in the previous debate. I shall not refer to it unnecessarily but I just want to make one or two points. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs admitted inter alia that we have a need, as far as economic affairs are concerned, for regular investigation in order to subject our economic aims and practices to a continual critical inspection. If this is necessary in regard to economic affairs, who will say that it is unnecessary to subject our relations policy, too, to a constant, careful and critical inspection. If it is necessary for the one, it must surely be necessary for the other, too. However, the moment we propose in this House that measures effecting statutory discrimination be subjected to a critical inspection, we get a tremendous reaction from the other side. Why? Surely this is not an unreasonable request. For example, we get a reaction like that of the hon. member for Potgietersrus. He states that he is unable to understand why, specifically, there should be a Select Committee. Whereas on the one hand he states that there are not many discriminatory measures, on the other hand he states that the subject is so broad and so extensive that such a Select Committee would have to be a permanent committee. I ask myself what is wrong with that. After all, we have permanent committees for irrigation affairs, railways and public accounts. Those committees sit every year in this Parliament. Who is going to say that those subjects are less important for South Africa, for the peace and happiness of its inhabitants and the security of its future, than the relations policy in South Africa? If it is justified to establish permanent Select Committees in regard to those matters, which are practical matters, why, then, is it so unacceptable that a Select Committee in connection with a matter of the greatest importance for our continued survival in South Africa—and no one will deny that—is justified? It is entirely illogical to reason that way. I now wish to consider specifically the international aspects involved here. We know that there is an extremely hostile attitude towards South Africa abroad and we find this among many people. Others, too, have an aversion to South Africa. In its worst form this hostile attitude is very intense. This applies to a whole series of countries of the Third World in Africa and elsewhere. Furthermore—and we must admit this—even among our Western friends, those countries which we would welcome as allies, there is a degree of aversion to South Africa, and it is pointless to deny it. It is a fact. What, fundamentally, is that aversion or hostility ascribable to? The fact is that owing to its history and its background, South Africa is an unequal community. We all admit this; we know it is so, and it will take a long time before it really becomes an equal community. However, there is another aspect. To a degree—and I emphasize “to a degree”—that inequality is maintained by means of statutory discrimination on the basis of race and colour. I challenge any hon. member to deny that. That is what lies at the root of the trouble. If one analyses the matter, one sees that there are many other countries in which inequality is also prevalent. There are many other communities and societies in the world in which there are also many inequalities, things which one cannot condone, things which are inconsistent with the civilized ideals of the modem world. These things occur everywhere in the world, but those countries are not condemned as we are condemned. The reason is that there are very few countries in which statutory measures are employed to maintain racial discrimination.

Must we do the same as those countries?

No. This motion concerns a single aspect of the matter. Everyone admits that there are various kinds of discrimination, not only in South Africa but in many other countries as well. But we can deal with that on another occasion. This motion concerns statutory discrimination. I am proving that in this context statutory discrimination is particularly important specifically because South Africa is seen as an exception in that we try to maintain discrimination by means of statutory measures. That is the aspect which we must look at and it is just that which is the aim of this motion. The motion asks that we consider that specific aspect. We maintain that there are many statutory measures in South Africa which are unnecessary. They are unnecessary because they are out of date and because errors of judgment have been made. We must consider whether a statutory measure is in fact necessary—as hon. members opposite say—to preserve our identity, or whether it is simply based on a long-standing aversion or rejection. One of the major advantages of a Select Committee of this nature is that it can take a close look at all these statutory measures and will be able to decide whether these old statutory measures, these old ordinances, are really aimed at the preservation of identity and the development of a multinational solution in South Africa, or whether they are not perhaps based on a long-standing and indefensible aversion to or rejection of people of a different colour or race. We must consider that and we must be honest with ourselves. There are a number of such acts, and if we had a Select Committee of this Parliament which was prepared to spend time on this task and look honestly at these Acts, we should have to admit that an investigation of this kind would be at least as important as that relating to irrigation affairs. If we were to admit that, then we should very soon find that there are in fact a number of Acts which are entirely unnecessary and which could easily be abolished. We should then begin to have a clearer understanding of what is really meant by one’s own identity. We should begin to realize that many of the things which we associate with our own identity and which we are inclined to consider to be essential for the preservation of our own identity, in fact have nothing to do with it, but are only based on a long-standing aversion or rejection. Once we had accepted that, then, logically speaking, we could begin to make progress; we could then see what was wrong with South Africa, with its special outlook as regards race relations; we should be in a position to scrap many customs which are entirely unnecessary. We ask in this motion that a start be made with this. There are various points of view in this House. There are a number of members in this House who maintain that there are sound reasons for most of these discriminatory measures. To be specific, they maintain that the measures were brought into being for the preservation of a separate identity. They maintain that the measures are justified because they are bound up with an overall policy of separate development. Well, that is their attitude. There are other members, the members on this side, who state that this is not necessarily the case, that many of these measures are unnecessary and that they can be taken out of our political life by South Africans without much trouble or difficulty and that we shall not suffer much as a result. Let us consider it. Let us investigate and analyse this. Let us consider what is really involved here. There will be a reaction; that is certain. If we were to go over the old ordinances in our Statute Books, and some of the new ones too, with a fine toothcomb, if we were to comb out the thorns and snags, thus enabling us to see what the wool really looks like, who would be hardest hit by that? Who would be adversely affected if we were to carry out that cleansing operation? In the first instance I have in mind one party which, fortunately, is not present in this House, for whom it would in fact be prejudicial. This is a party which is at the moment causing trouble in South West Africa, for example. I know that is a matter which must still be investigated, but according to all the reports I have seen, the problems there have a single source. That party is exploiting an extremely sensitive situation there, and this is something which we cannot afford. If the Acts which are superfluous and need not be in the Statute Book are removed and if the Government states the matter clearly so that everyone concerned with the implementation and administration of those Acts, down to the most junior official, knows exactly what the Government envisages, we should be in a position to carry on far more safely and simply with a policy of race relations which did not contain all these thorns and snags. I believe that the matter should be clarified so that everyone may know what is and what is not in the Statute Book. This should be the task of the proposed Select Committee.

I have referred to the people who would be adversely affected. Personally, I cannot think of any disadvantages which such action would involve. The disadvantages mentioned today in this debate by hon. members opposite are not disadvantages. They defended things which we had not attacked them about. The hon. member for Durbanville reacted as excitably as if he had been attacked by a swarm of bees. We did not attack him; we did not loose that swarm of bees. We discussed a simple motion with a single aim. What, then, are the advantages of the action we are advocating? Many advantages are entailed. One of them is that we ourselves would form a clear picture concerning where we really stand with regard to our race relations and particularly with regard to the statutory measures which still appear in the Statute Book. This is a cleansing operation which, in my opinion, should have been carried out a long time ago. A second advantage applies to our non-Whites in particular. They experience tremendous difficulties in regard to the Acts and the officials who have to implement them. And they themselves do not know just why they should be affected time and again in such a painful way by these measures. If they knew that a Select Committee was sitting in this Parliament with the specific aim of removing unnecessary discrimination from our legislation and facilitating matters, then this would be an enormous encouragement to them too. Thirdly, it entails advantages as regards the outside world. If we were to take the steps which we are advocating, then I predict that in many countries abroad which want to be well disposed towards us, this would be accepted as a mark of our good intentions to really fulfil our promises and eliminate discrimination. It would undoubtedly entail advantages with regard to the outside world if we in this House were to proceed actively to abolish discrimination based on colour. If an example is to be set, it must be the Government that sets it. Much has already been done in the private sector to eliminate discrimination, but unless it comes from the side of this House and particularly from the Government which must set the example, I do not believe that we shall make the progress that we should. This motion is aimed at the establishment of a Select Committee with the specific aim of removing statutory discrimination passed by Parliament and the Government, wherever it may occur. Consequently I willing support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that at least the hon. member for Von Brandis confined himself to the subject. One appreciates that. He advocated that we should, as it were, undergo a kind of cure. We are almost like people attending a church service. We were conceived and born in sin, and now we must go to church to find out what is wrong with us. We must now scrutinize all these statutes, and scrap some of them; we must discard them left and right. Afterwards we will feel good because we have scrapped half of these things; in any event the Government did not know why all those statutes were there. That is what the hon. member said. I want to make it very clear that the Government is completely aware of the statutes which it no longer needs. The Government has a firm policy, and all the laws on the Statute Book are there to emphasize or to complete certain aspects of that policy. When a specific law has served its purpose, it is removed from the Statute Book and discarded. I just want to tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that I do not think it is necessary to carry on to such an extent and allege that we have all erred as far as the making of laws is concerned. I take it he was referring to the days when the old United Party was in office; they also made laws which were perhaps of a discriminatory nature and which are now giving him a guilty conscience.

We did not talk party-politics.

No, I am not trying to make a party-political issue out of it either. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon. member that that is not what is at issue. We know precisely why all the laws are standing on the Statute Book. One may examine them and ascertain what those laws have to do with policy, administration, etc. Therefore it is not necessary for us to get together, as the hon. member had in mind. The hon. member said that it would be a good thing to remove these laws from the Statute Book, for many other countries that are well-acquainted with discrimination but have not incorporated it in legislation, are consequently not as unpopular as we are. I do not want to imply now that the hon. member was suggesting that we should remove them from the Statute Book for that purpose. The hon. member was implying that, if we were to eliminate the legislation in question from the Statute Book and were nevertheless to discriminate a little on the quiet, we would be less unpopular than we are at present.

The State supports discrimination.

That we cannot of course accept. However, I want to thank the hon. member for Edenvale for having introduced this motion. In spite of the fact that virtually all he gave us was the history of discrimination in South Africa, he did so in a very positive spirit. I appreciate it. This is an important motion. In the historical context in which we find ourselves today, this is also a very timely motion. The word “discrimination” is used indiscriminately against us by members of the UNO, and particularly by people whose own countries are so burdened by discrimination and injustice that those countries would not be able to bear scrutiny. This is a very important motion for us because we here at the southernmost point of Africa find ourselves in very difficult times. We are not running away from those facts, and because we have, and will have, possible friends in Africa, and particularly because we ourselves have non-Whites in our country, it is essential to indicate to them that discrimination as such is considered important enough by the highest council chamber in the country to warrant a parliamentary debate. That is why I am pleased this motion was introduced. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat a few basic statements on behalf of this side of the House, statements which have been made before, which have been distorted, misinterpreted, and so on. However, these are statements which may be made over and over again, particularly for the sake of the outside world. I want to admit very candidly to hon. members that I am not a person who does things for world consumption only. I believe that we should do things for South Africa and in South Africa’s best interests, but I also concede that we are not able to ignore the outside world entirely. That is why I say that, even if we were only to say this so that people abroad should hear it from us again, it is something we have to say. The first point is that this side of the House recognizes the human dignity of people. This is the first statement I should like to make. I believe personally that the recognition of human dignity is important. We do not adopt a paternalistic attitude towards our non-White people in South Africa. We evaluate each individual according to his own intrinsic value. This is my view, and also the view of all the members of my party.

Fairy tales!

It is true, Mr. Speaker. I can tell that hon. member something else. She is merely trying to distract my attention now. I want to make it very clear, and I am using the mode of expression of the UNO: “We do believe in the dignity of man.” This applies to this entire party. The hon. member need only go to the trouble of visiting a farm to see how a farmer treats his labourers. If she did so she would see to what an extent that farmer respects his labourers. If she did so she would see that we attach far more value to the personality of those people than many of the members of her party. Sir, we also endorse, unequivocally, the words of our ambassador at the UNO when he said the following there—and I want to quote his words again, for they are being misinterpreted—

It is not being said in that statement that there is no discrimination in South Africa, and when one discusses discrimination, I want to say that there is a great deal of discrimination in the rest of the world as well. I do not want to say that discrimination in South Africa is the only discrimination; there is more than enough discrimination elsewhere too. In fact, we are in very good company as far as discrimination is concerned. This statement by our ambassador does not in any way say that there is no discrimination here, but states as an ideal that we should move away from that kind of discrimination which is based solely on the colour of a person’s skin. Sir, I want to tell you now that it is by no means as easy as people think it is. How long has America not been struggling to get away from the colour of their people’s skin? These are things which date back to the old colonial days. We are only a century away from colonialism in its raw forms. These things date back to those days, and now hon. members expect us to rectify them with a stroke of the pen.

No.

The United Party members did not say so, but that hon. member is. Even the OAU said the following in the Lusaka Charter, from which passages have already been quoted this afternoon—

These are practical people who themselves admitted that merely to cherish ideals is not the same as to convert ideals into fact. They themselves admit that it takes time to rectify these matters. It is not for other people to tell us that time is running out. What is time? How are we able to determine the time now? These are not things which can simply happen overnight. Sir, we accept Adv. Botha’s statement, and we have always done so. As long ago as 1948 Paul Sauer said the following in the Sauer Report on the colour question (translation)—

It has already been mentioned here this afternoon that Dr. Verwoerd also said it. And our present Prime Minister said the following:

In view of these consistent statements we are therefore opposed to discrimination. Consequently it will probably not come as a surprise to the hon. members when I now announce here that the Prime Minister—the hon. member for Green Point asked me this last year—appointed a Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of the former Minister of Labour, the Hon. Marais Viljoen,—at present under the chairmanship of the hon. Minister M. C. Botha—to investigate possible discriminatory measures with a view to their elimination within the framework of separate development. This task has not been disposed of yet, and the Prime Minister himself will, at an opportune time, again have something to say about this matter. I do not want to go into this matter any further because the committee has not completed its business yet. It so happens that I am also a member of the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale for the appointment of a Select Committee.

It comes as a great surprise!

No, it is not a surprise. We had a speech here by the hon. member for Durban Central. What did he tell us? He said: “We are absolutely against job reservation.” This is what the United Party says. They are “absolutely against job reservation.” How can one appoint a person with that mentality to a Select Committee on statutory problems?

Read the entire passage.

He has become rigidly fixed in his views. And now he wants to come here and tell us that he wants to serve with us on a Select Committee while he is 100% opposed to all those measures of ours.

Go and read my Hansard again.

That is precisely what he said. The hon. member for Green Point also said that we should appoint such a Select Committee. I do not want to make it difficult for him. If he were to serve on such a Select Committee, he would soon be in conflict with his party, or there would be internal conflicts in his party, or there would be another tumult, and that because of discrimination. We want to spare the hon. member this.

While we are discussing the abolition of discrimination I want to say—the hon. member for Green Point asked me about this—that the classification of international hotels comes into operation on 16 February. The proclamation has already been promulgated, and the Act comes into operation on 16 February. All the international hotels have already been approved by my office, with the exception of those in a few cities. In the principal cities such as Johannesburg, Cape Town, Kimberley and Pretoria, however, the work has already been done.

How many in Natal?

We are still working on Natal. The hon. member himself will understand that Natal is not an easy province. [Interjections.] From this you can clearly see now that we are moving step by step. Step by step we are moving away from discrimination if it is within the framework of our policy. I want to tell you how one eliminates discrimination. When I sat listening to the hon. member for Parktown—I think it was that hon. member—I realized that to him to eliminate discrimination meant a change to a situation of total, racially-mixed integration. I want to ask the hon. member whether this is so or not. [Interjections.] Tell me whether this is so or not. [Interjections.] According to his speech in this House this afternoon he would only be satisfied with complete and total racially-mixed integration. Yes or no?

We speak of an open society.

What is an open society? [Interjections.] Is it not a society of total, racially-mixed integration? Is it?

The hon. member says “yes”.

He therefore says “yes”, or Helen says “yes”. She does not have the courage of her convictions. She is running away again. [Interjections.]

I said “free choice”. [Interjections.]

“Free choice”? You see, Mr. Speaker, all she does is keep on hoping that the other side will prefer not to sit next to her, not to live next to her, and not to come and live in her hotel where she pays her Bantu so badly. [Interjections.] She just hopes it is a “free choice”, so that she can at least say with a clear conscience: “I gave them a ‘free choice’, but the fellows do not want to come. ”

That is not true.

I say that that kind of society which the hon. member for Parktown envisages cannot be allowed to occur. It cannot be created, because it negates the established rights which the Whites have acquired for themselves historically and socio-economically, even if they have acquired them with the help of the non-Whites. They have acquired certain socio-economic rights during the course of their history. They have also acquired certain established rights, and these cannot simply be ignored by a person who advocates an open society.

Consequently it is necessary, in order to remove discriminating measures, at least to guarantee the Whites their established rights, and to give them the assurance that their position and their identity will not be destroyed with the mere stroke of the pen.

Can you not guarantee that without discriminating?

I say it must be guaranteed. Do you agree with me on that score?

Can you not guarantee it without discriminating?

I say that the established rights of the Whites must be guaranteed. These may well be discriminatory rights.

If you discriminate, you endanger them. The National Party is endangering them.

We are in the position to guarantee these things to the Whites through the implementation of—and with the retention of—the policy of separate development. In that policy you find a guarantee for the preservation of the rights of the Whites in South Africa.

A guarantee of privileges for the White man.

In addition we must not forget either that we are not a homogeneous society, but a heterogeneous society, and consequently different measures must sometimes be adopted for the separate groups. After all, we cannot simply remove discrimination completely. We are not a homogeneous society. We have here a heterogeneous situation. If we were simply to proceed to abolish all measures, surely there would definitely be racial friction. To prevent racial friction it is sometimes necessary to adopt certain measures. Regulatory measures, based on colour as such, are not necessarily discriminatory. Our Appeal Court found this to be the case as long ago as the thirties. I am referring now to that well-known court case of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v. Rasool in which the Appeal Court gave a judgement to the effect that where separate entrances and counters had been designated in a post office, this did not necessarily amount to discrimination.

I come now to that hon. member. To him, everything that is White is discrimination.

Oh please, that is not true.

To him everything that is done by the Whites is discrimination. [Interjections.] After all this was very clearly apparent from your speech. You need only read your Hansard again to realize that you paid no heed to anything else. When we eliminate discrimination we must always remain practical. We must take historical developments into consideration, and we must bear economic factors in mind. After all, it is in all our interests—White, Black and Brown—that we do not disrupt the economy of our country through the over-hasty elimination of all kinds of measures. We must take these things into consideration. We must move within our financial means. Surely it is clear that we must do so. Surely one must also bear ethnic and cultural differences in mind. One cannot simply ignore these, as the Progressive Party is doing. If one does not bear these things in mind, one would be breaking down more than one would be building up. To remove discrimination successfully it is necessary to convince the non-Whites of all the factors which I have enumerated when one considers so-called discriminatory measures. One must take the non-Whites with you, and try to convince them of your good faith. However, it is also very necessary that the Whites in the other parties should accept our good faith, and not constantly try to disparage it and try to arouse suspicion against us, particularly among the Black people.

I make so bold as to say that the hon. member for Parktown clearly intimated in his speech that our good faith is not being accepted in this connection. According to him we are simply discriminating and oppressing people all the time. They are allegedly the only people with a different policy. But what is their policy? Surely they also discriminate. After all, they had to appoint a commission to inquire into qualified franchise, and it still has not completed its task. This is discrimination against the Black people. Let me tell them why it is discrimination against the Black people. Their party’s policy is a great bluff against the Black people, and I shall tell them why. They have realized that there are more than 20 million Black people, and that the White people in their party are very few in number. Now they have to try out all kinds of dodges against the Black people to eliminate the numerical superiority of the latter, so that there will also be a little niche for them in the Government they are envisaging. It is a transparent bluff, and I want to tell them that the Black people are going to rip the mask from their faces. There is one thing the Black people in South Africa have already accepted, and that is that the National Party is not trying to bluff them. They know where they stand with us, precisely because we place measures on the Statute Book; if we must have them on a Statute Book, then that is where we place them, and we make it clear to the Blacks what their position is.

I am in favour, and the Government is in favour, of our expediting certain matters. I am in favour of our affording the Black people chances and opportunities. My entire party is in favour of that. There are already many opportunities for Brown and Black people. If hon. members opposite would cease to be obsessed with discrimination they would discover that there are tremendous opportunities for these people. As I have already said, when I asked for 100 Coloured prosecutors, they were only able to give me two. Therefore there is an opportunity for them to provide me with an additional 98 officials. There is a university waiting for professors; all that these people have to do is to come forward. There are opportunities which may be utilized under the policy of this Government.

The same applies to the Black people. The hon. member makes me sceptical, for everything that is White is discriminatory. But does he know that the Black people in South Africa, on an average, earn higher wages than the Spanish workers? Does the hon. member know that the Black people in South Africa own more motor-cars than the Russians? Our Black people have far more motor-cars than they do.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.