Mr. Speaker, the major part of next week will be devoted to the discussion of the Railway Budget. In the short time that remains, we shall deal with the shorter Bills on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The situation in Angola has been debated on previous occasions in this House, but I believe that the catastrophic nature of the establishment of communist and Cuban aggressors in Africa has not been sufficiently highlighted. From the nature of the case, the situation in Southern Africa is extremely delicate and very fluid at the moment. I shall try to be very careful in what I say and I trust that other hon. members will do the same.

For many years Africa suffered under imperialist and colonialist exploitation, because every European country took part in this scramble for Africa at some stage. That the colonial powers brought civilization, religion and development to the people of various areas cannot be denied. Nor is there any argument about the fact that there was exploitation as well. The condition in which Angola and Mozambique were left after 500 years of occupation is proof enough of this. It is interesting, nevertheless, to see how the colonial powers of the previous century took their stand on the noble motive of christianizing the heathen in an attempt to disguise their rapacity. Just as the present-day aggressors advance the so-called liberation of the Black man as a pious motive for their aggression, those powers used to advance religion as a motive. So the attempt to camouflage covetous imperialism and militarism with foreign and noble motives is no novelty of our times, no more than it is a novelty for a modern imperialist power to use lackey soldiers in an attempt to disguise its greed, as Russia is doing with the Cubans. As far back as the previous century, Britain used Gurkhas from Nepal, and the French used Sengalese from Africa.

The world must be told repeatedly that the White nation at the southern tip of Africa was the first nation in Africa to resist colonialism and that it fought against it for almost 150 years. In our battle against the imperialist powers of Great Britain, our land and farms were destroyed and our houses burned down. However, our desire for freedom was never appeased until we got an independent republic of our own. There are no bounds to our condemnation of colonialism and imperialism, our loathing for bullying and violent intervention by great powers in the affairs of smaller nations, our aversion to the greed and expansionism of other nations from other continents who are intent on exploiting Africa in their own interests and on deriving military advantage from it. We love freedom and for that reason we want every other nation, big or small, to be free. We love Africa; it is our only home. For this reason we want to identify ourselves with the people of Africa and we want to co-operate with them and to fight with them against aggressors where this may be necessary.

We were grateful when the colonial powers withdrew from Africa one after another in the face of Africa’s desire for freedom. We watched the establishment of new young states in Africa with great interest, perhaps with too much detachment. Nevertheless, our hand of friendship has always been extended to such states. In particular, we have offered technical, scientific, veterinary and medical assistance, and many of the states benefited from this. We were grateful, along with the rest of Africa, when the last remnants of colonialism withdrew from Africa quite recently. However, our joy was short-lived, because the Russian bear sank its teeth into Africa with greater greed and greater presumption than any other colonial power had dared to display in the past. For this opportunity to get a foothold in Africa, especially on the West coast, the Atlantic Coast, Russia had been waiting for a long time. However, it had always been a part of its long-term strategy in order to make the Cape sea route more vulnerable. Since 1958, Russia had been supporting the MPLA in their fight against the Portuguese. Having infiltrated and undermined the Portuguese army, Russia knew that Portugal’s days in Africa were numbered, and when the collapse suddenly came, it was ready to step into the vacuum.

Unfortunately, world conditions combined to give Russia a fairly free hand in Angola. Western European countries, almost all of which are faced with strong communist parties in their own territories, would have found it difficult to counter the Russians in Angola, because this could disturb their internal peace and order. In addition, it seems as if Western Europe has decided to leave military matters to the initiative of America. Communist China—which keeps a jealous watch over Russian imperialism—was caught at an unfortunate moment. The death of Chou-En-Lai on 8 January caused a serious leadership crisis in communist China and for this reason China’s actions abroad were probably paralysed by an internal struggle between the so-called revolutionaries of the left wing and the pragmatism of the right wing. America—the leader of the Western world—will be paralysed for practically all of 1976 by the presidential election. In addition, America is still suffering under a Vietnam psychosis of which it cannot be cured.

Consequently, Russia could be virtually sure that it would be able, in the name of the MPLA—which represents a small minority of the population—to get its hands on Angola without any trouble and international obstructions. If South African soldiers had not entered to protect South African interests, the world would probably not even have known that approximately 12 000 Cuban soldiers with modern Russian weapons were trampling upon the native population of Angola and shedding the blood of the people of Africa. It is time Africa woke up and refused to be deceived any longer by cunning Russian propaganda. Africa faces its darkest hour and its greatest bloodbath if it allows itself to be convinced by expert Russian propaganda that the White people of the south are the greatest enemy to be destroyed. Such a battle would be no racial war, but a battle between people who love the freedom of Africa and the imperialism which wants to destroy this. Of course Russia wants to destroy the White people here in the south, because its greedy desire for world domination has long been causing it to look at the strategic advantages and natural riches of Southern Africa with covetous eyes. For this reason its propaganda is aimed at isolating South Africa and at continually stimulating and intensifying the Black man’s hatred of the White. As against this, Russia is regarded as the great redeemer and liberator of under-developed nations in Africa. In this sustained and continuous propaganda campaign Russia has been largely successful, because it has succeeded, with the aid of poisonous and irresponsible reports from South Africa, in distorting our policy of separate development and presenting it to Africa and the world as a monstrous form of oppression, enslavement and racial domination. To what extent misrepresentations from the benches on the other side of the House have contributed to this is a question on which I do not want to go in any further.

†I wish to repeat: Africa must wake up before it is too late. Africa must identify its real enemy and must stand together before it is too late to counter Russian imperialism in Africa. Russia never made any secret of her ambition of world domination and of her ideal to spread the ideology of communism over all parts of the earth. Anybody who takes the trouble to read Marx and Lenin will find it all there. The basic doctrine of Marxism and Leninism is that a continuous state of war exists and that the Communist Party is there to win this war. Not long ago, Brezhnev said: “Anyone who thinks that we have forsaken Marxism or Leninism deceives himself. That will not happen until the shrimps learn to whistle.’’

The question must, however, be posed: To what extent has Russian imperialism in Africa superseded its ideological aims? Some people argue that Russia has over-reached itself by its Angolan venture and that it will develop into a long, Vietnam-type war. The answer is that Russian militarism does not believe in halfhearted wars. America’s agony in Vietnam cannot be described as military incapability, but rather as political indecision and bad judgment. The Brooklyn Institute in Washington recently published a report entitled “The Soviet capability for an armed attack on Western Europe” wherein, inter alia, the following paragraph appeared—

Mr. James Schlesinger, former U.S. Defence Secretary, and General Alexander Haig, military commander of Nato, recently called for urgent attention to what they described as the threat of growing Soviet military and naval power. They claim that the atmosphere created by East-West détente has given Western powers and Western leaders a false sense of security. Soviet military power is increasing, and Mr. Schlesinger pointed out that while the U.S. Navy had 976 ships in 1958, it had only 485 today. On the other hand, the Soviet military establishment has grown from 3 million men in 1960 to 4,4 million men today. What is even more worrying, however, is the difference in the state of mind between these two super powers. While the United States is a nation apparently withdrawing from the burdens of leadership and power, Russia is always more aggressive and on the look-out for political and military advantage wherever in the world it may be found.

*Only last week, Brezhnev elaborated very piously in Moscow on his ideal of détente, and his ideals of general disarmament. At the same time he reserved for Russia the right to provide continuous support to groups that are fighting for their freedom by means of revolutionary, anti-imperialist movements, wherever this may be necessary in the world. He has said very clearly that détente does not mean the end of the continued and inevitable battle between capitalism and communism. If one has a quick look to see what progress Russia has been making in its aspirations for world domination in the past few years, there is no doubt about the fact that Russia is preparing itself behind the very friendly mask of East/West détente which it holds up to the West. It is preparing itself to become the new imperial power of the world. It already has the most powerful navy in the world.

†Soviet destroyers and trawlers, equipped with sophisticated electronic devices, Soviet tankers and submarines of the Delta 1 class, equipped with 12 FSN-8 rockets with multiple nuclear warheads, are today plying the Indian Ocean as well as the South Atlantic. According to the U.S. Defence Department, the Soviet Union has access facilities to 16 ports and airfields around the rim of Africa. According to the same source, Russia has spent more than $2 200 million on arms aid in Africa and has 3 000 military advisers in different African countries, apart from Angola.

*I have adduced sufficient proof that Russia is developing into a super-military power and that it is using détente with the Western world only to keep them in a state of uncertainty while Russia itself is purposefully pursuing its aim of world domination. That Russia is determined to get hold of Luanda as a harbour and of the mineral resources of Angola is very clear. The invasion of Angola by Russian and Cuban powers is nothing but naked and blatant aggression. The provision of sophisticated armaments to one section of three different movements fighting for the independence of Angola, the importation of thousands of trained Cuban soldiers to fight on the side of that faction, these things add up to one of the most reprehensible manifestations of imperialism which Africa has witnessed. It has not only completely destroyed the existing infrastructure of that country, but has also caused endless suffering, deprivation, disruption, loss of life and bloodshed among the local population. Of course, these things have nothing whatsoever to do with liberation. It has just as much to do with liberation as the destruction of the Czechs and the Hungarians in Eastern Europe had to do with their liberation. There it brought only enslavement, and it will bring only enslavement to the people of Angola. One can only speculate about Russia’s plans in Africa in the immediate future. Havana has announced with great self-satisfaction and with great pride that the Cubans will remain in Angola, and according to the latest Press reports, more Cubans are on their way to Angola.

In Lusaka, Addis Abeba and Luanda, different speakers have announced during the past week that Angola will serve as an effective bridgehead for accelerating the liberation of Rhodesia and South West Africa as well as for making an end to apartheid in South Africa. Consequently one may accept that Russia will use the well-known super-nationalistic slogans of liberation to identify itself with fifth columns and with terrorist activities in these countries, as well as in other countries, such as Zaire, Zambia and other States in Africa which offer resistance to the Russian rapacity and imperialism in Africa.

It is believed in many circles that Rhodesia’s turn will come first, whether or not an agreement is reached with Mr. Joshua Nkomo. In the same circles, the expectation is that constantly increasing terrorist skirmishes will gradually escalate into a conventional war, in which the Cubans, with their Russian weapons, will again play a part. The recent closing of the border between Rhodesia and Mozambique is seen as the first step in a strategy which has been carefully planned beforehand.

Moscow is obviously in a hurry and gives high priority to establishing Russian dominion over the largest possible part of the Southern African subcontinent before the American presidential election is over, before the West awakes from its sleep of detachment, before South Africa achieves greater success with its détente in Africa and before the real image of South African policy of separate development is clearly exhibited to the rest of the world when the Transkei becomes independent. The suffering, bloodshed and loss of human lives which this is going to cost in Africa are of no concern to Russia.

What can be done to ward off this catastrophe? Whether any resistance whatsoever will be offered by Western Europe is doubtful. A few voices have been raised. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, the leader of the Conservative Party, has issued a serious warning against the Russian arms build-up. The Belgian Minister of Defence, Mr. Paul van der Boeyantse, recently said that Europe could no longer feel secure in trusting the Americans. He appealed to Europe to do something for itself. However, most people doubt whether Europe still has the dynamic leadership or the will-power to seek a confrontation with Russia. Several European states have been so much undermined by communists and extreme left-wing liberals that they cannot afford a confrontation with Russia. Love of ease, the good life and perversion have also played a part.

For this reason we have to accept that Europe will continue to avoid a confrontation with Russia. Such an attitude was apparent quite recently in a speech by a British Minister, when he referred to the criticism expressed by a member of the Opposition against Moscow as “unnecessary provocation”. In this connection I believe that he spoke for all of Europe. Russia is not to be unnecessarily provoked and nothing is to be done to incur its wrath. In the meantime, everyone knows of the hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers stationed in Eastern Europe, not only as troops of occupation, but on a stand-by basis.

America, the leader of the Western world, is similarly paralysed at the moment by domestic and foreign restrictions, so that any vigorous action from that source against this creeping Russian imperialism is highly unlikely. There are serious doubts in the USA itself today about the question of whether too high a priority is not being placed on the success of detente and the prevention of a nuclear war between Russia and America, while Russia has been preparing itself silently and has considerably improved its potential striking power for a conventional war. A recent opinion poll in the USA which was held at the end of last year showed that the majority of Americans believed that America would only become involved in a war with Russia if Russia were to attack Canada. So they are not even prepared to get involved if Russia were to invade Europe. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian writer and thinker, who spent many years in a Russian labour camp, recently said in London, with reference to the Angolan situation—

Still, there are signs of reaction in the USA. Daniel Patrick Moynihan has contributed a great deal to this. President Ford said this week that he wanted to replace the word détente by the term “peace with authority”. Consequently one would hope and trust that the great American people will accept its calling and will produce a leader who will be prepared to say: “Thus far and no further,” as the late President Kennedy did in 1962. The continual warnings, as published in the newspaper again this morning, by the present American régime, warnings which are not backed up by real action, are creating doubt about American credibility, and in Moscow, mocking references are already being made to the toothless bull-dog. So South Africa must accept that it is to a large extent dependent on itself in the crisis forced upon it by the neo-colonialism of the Kremlin. Meaningful aid from outside cannot be relied on. The way the situation is at the moment, the West will probably remain a hypnotized observer.

As far as the Republic of South Africa is concerned, we are prepared, in the words of our hon. Prime Minister, to stand up and be counted when it comes to the battle against communism. We desire to live in peace and we shall make every possible attempt to ensure peace in Southern Africa. Only when Russian expansionism and militarism wants to strangle our survival and threatens the integrity of our territory, we shall hit back with our full forces—mercilessly. We have fought imperialism before and we shall do it again if we have to.

In saying that, Sir, I have no intention whatsoever of being alarmist or of encouraging people to panic. On the contrary. We have so many things in our favour. We have a recognized and dynamic leader, something which is extremely scarce in the world of today and which is a very valuable article. We have a sound economy. We have a good infrastructure. We have mineral resources, but our greatest asset is the high quality of our human material, and when I say that, I include Brown, Black and White. We have a strong Government, which places a high priority on internal security, which does everything in its power to bring about good mutual relations and to accelerate the orderly socio-political development of all groups, but which at the same time will not hesitate to exterminate as quickly as possible any attempt at stirring up internal unrest and at damaging the relations between the races.

Everything indicates that Southern Africa will be at the centre of international political activities during the next few years. The hon. the Prime Minister has often said that the next two to three years will be absolutely decisive for Southern Africa. New groupings will arise and new borderlines will be drawn, which will be final and decisive. Consequently, this is no time for panic, but a time of realism, of faith and confidence and of dynamic challenges for everyone in South Africa. We have no room for alarmists, sceptics and cowards in the present set-up. We need people who will perform their daily tasks with calm determination, with faith and confidence and with renewed dedication.

But we do not want to think of ourselves only. We are Africans and as such we are an inseparable part of Africa. For this reason we want to speak to those people and those leaders in Africa who are also resisting the threat of Russian colonialism in Africa. It is high time Africa grasped the realities of Africa and got away from the emotional clinchés with which it has attempted to establish an artificial unity. We can understand that there are misgivings about our domestic policy in Africa as a result of distortions and misconceptions, but what do the domestic policies of other African States look like? We can understand that Africa’s best and perhaps its only bargaining weapon in the world is its bloc vote at the UNO and that their solidarity is very important to them. But the reality of Africa must cause them to realize now that the use of this very weapon will eventually be turned against them. We have good cause to ask Africa whether its bargaining power in the world and its influence in the world could not be greatly improved if it could include the economic power, the strategic advantages and the mineral wealth of the Republic of South Africa in its organization for unity. Africa must realize in this hour that Russian neocolonialism is the greatest threat with which it is faced and that it will bring the continent no freedom and no liberation, but only enslavement and suffering, except for a small clique of leaders. This has been the pattern in every country which has been invaded by the Russians, and why should it be different in Africa? I know there are several African leaders who feel exactly the way we do, but who are prevented by circumstances from expressing their opinions. But the day comes when a good leader can no longer be silent. Africa does not need Stalin organs, or projectiles and Migs. Africa needs technicians and scientists. That assistance we are prepared to give them. Before we can do so, there is one matter which has to be rectified. The Cuban and Russian aggressors and colonialists must be driven out of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Algoa consists of two parts. In the first place, he requests this House to express its “perturbation” at the intervention of the Russians and Cubans in Angola. There can be no objection to that, except that we find that the word “perturbing” is too moderate. We prefer to speak of our condemnation of, our opposition, our resistance to the Russian and Cuban intervention in the internal affairs of Angola and of Southern Africa. The United Party has always resisted ideological forces that seek to enslave the human spirit, that wish to subjugate nations and restrict normal human liberties. There is a thread of active opposition running through the history of the party, opposition not only to communism but also to Fascism and National Socialism, which all sought to achieve world domination. Nor was this resistance mere words. In the late ’thirties, when Hitler attempted to carry out a coup d’etat in South West Africa and almost succeeded in taking Windhoek, it was the United Party Government of the time that intervened with a vengeance in South West Africa, banned the Nazi Party there, and sent a large police force to South West Africa to maintain law and order in the territory. Strangely enough, the party that most vehemently opposed the internal security measures of the United Party of the time was the party that is today sitting in the Government benches.

The second part of the motion of the hon. member reads that countries in Africa as well as in the West are being called upon to stand together in an attempt to combat this Russian and Cuban imperialism. There can be no objection to that either, and we on this side are quite prepared to join the hon. member and that side of the House in making such an appeal to countries in Africa and in the West, for what that may be worth to us. However, I think it is over-optimistic of the hon. member, in view of the kind of struggle which is now developing in Southern Africa, to expect that any appeal which we make to countries to range themselves at our side, will be very fruitful. He should rather have requested in his motion that this House appeals to the Government to introduce measures which will ensure that countries in Africa and in the West will help our part of the world against aggression by communist forces from beyond our borders. As matters now stand in Southern Africa, the picture is anything but favourable. A few evenings ago I had occasion to re-read the speech made here in the dining room of the House of Parliament on 3 February 1960 by Mr. Harold MacMillan, the then Prime Minister of Britain. I and other hon. members were present, and I can still remember the stir which his speech caused at the time. I want to quote the following few paragraphs which, in my opinion form the gist of the message which he conveyed to us here at the time. He said—

He then said that our country had in fact been “the first of the African nationalisms”, and added—

This is extremely interesting, particularly the last few words. As he put it: If adjustments are not made in the light of the growth of this African consciousness, this African nationalism, the balance between East and West will be disturbed. It is interesting in view of the fact that the fear which he expressed there, is indeed being realized today. France adapted itself, but not without rebellion and bloodshed in Algeria, for example, and in other places. I am referring only to Africa now. England adapted itself, but not without war and not without the Mau-Mau terrorism in Kenya. Belgium adapted itself, but not without an aftermath of hate and revolution in the Congo and its other territories. Portugal’s leaders refused to adapt themselves. They retained too strong a faith in their “Empire” of 500 years. But after between ten and 13 years of terrorism had been directed against them, they themselves, together with their empire, met with great national adversity. Precisely what Mr. Macmillan feared would happen, did happen. I repeat his words—

on which the peace of the world depends. Hon. members will agree that the victory of the MPLA in Angola was a Russian and Cuban victory. The impact of this victory has been world-wide, and it has dealt a further blow to confidence in the West and has seriously disturbed the balance between East and West. The tragic aspect is that the White Westerners in Africa have acquired the image—I say the image—that Black human dignity in Africa will only come into its own through force of arms. It is the effect of this that we see in Africa today. As every national movement anywhere in the world demands that it should come into its own, so Black human dignity in Africa also demands that it should come into its own everywhere in Africa. There are few African countries that do not, in this process, prefer the path of peaceful methods. In fact, there are African leaders who have endangered their own positions, and are still endangering them, by leaning over backwards to advocate the path of peace to the utmost. As I analyse the situation—this is merely a matter of opinion—the debate in Africa has been won by that school of thought which advocates violence or revolutionary force as the only or the best means of achieving their southern objectives. Their hands are strengthened by the diabolic role which the leaders of communism are playing in Africa. From the nature of their philosophy they are always ready and able to intervene whenever violence is involved. They have the advantage that they do not have a colonial record in Africa. They have the added advantage that they can feed on the unfavourable image which the West has left behind in Africa. The hon. member pointed this out. Another advantage which counts in their favour is that it has always been the easiest thing in Africa to gain credibility by becoming an active participant in the campaign against Rhodesia, South Africa and South West Africa, countries which are seen as the last stronghold of Black domination in Africa. I believe that that is where our danger lies.

One need only listen to a man such as Mr. Joshua Nkomo, who is the leader of the more moderate faction of the African National Council in Rhodesia. A day or two ago he made a speech in Copenhagen. I am quoting what he was reported to have said—

It is not communism as such which is making progress in Africa, and it is not communism as such which is being welcomed. In my opinion, therefore, that is not primarily where the dangers to us lie. From the nature of their circumstances we must expect most African states to feel attracted to “African socialism”, as it is called, or some or other form of socialism.

Persons who are so frequently called communists or Marxists are in fact adherents of “african socialism”. No state in Africa has yet moved behind the iron curtain, and I think it is unlikely that this will happen and that African states will easily submit to a new colonialism or a new imperialism. The essence of the danger to us, as I see it, lies in the fact that the Russians and their underlings are offering assistance in what most of the African States see as a struggle for freedom against White domination in Southern Africa. They are succeeding in causing themselves to be seen in the role of freedom fighters—a blatant case of the devil in the garb of an angel. Nevertheless they are succeeding in this deception. That is why I said to the hon. member for Algoa earlier that mere appeals to countries in Africa and the West, are not going to get us very far.

The situation in Southern Africa creates serious problems for the leading Western countries, for they form part of a greater world community in which they want to maintain themselves. Their interests follow a wider course than ours. We note what Britain’s attitude, as well as that of other countries, is in regard to Rhodesia. They are prepared to give Mozambique financial and material assistance if it applies sanctions against Rhodesia to its own detriment and overpowers Rhodesia in this way. If it should happen that Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo do not arrive at a settlement, thus enabling Whites and Blacks to stand together against foreign intervention in a new Rhodesia, it does not seem likely that any country in the West will come to the assistance of the White Government of Rhodesia. The way can easily be open, in this instance as well, to the Russians, the Cubans and others to intervene and again be welcomed as liberators, as Mr. Nkomo indicated in Copenhagen.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, which is also facing an onslaught from beyond its borders, it is known what the attitude of countries such as America, Britain and France is. At a conference which our present ambassador in Washington, Advocate Pik Botha, addressed in Windhoek in October, he referred to the drastic resolutions adopted by the Security Council of UNO against South Africa, namely that we must get out of South West Africa by a certain time. He told his audience there that since the resolutions had received the full support of Britain, America and France, a situation had developed in which we should no longer expect these countries to take preventive action if steps are taken against South West Africa. On the contrary. Both countries support active steps against us. As I said previously, it is my impression that the prophets of violence have won the debate in Africa and that, unless fundamental changes are rapidly effected in the internal politics of our countries in Southern Africa, that violence will be directed in turn against Rhodesia, South West Africa and South Africa. The Russians and their followers will try to intervene everywhere, and do so in the garb of freedom fighters, and unfortunately they will be welcomed as such.

It goes without saying that it is not going to help us to become panic-stricken. Nor should we allow our vision to be obscured by petty political considerations, but we should take steps in time which will ensure that there will be countries in Africa and in the West that will find it in their interests to support us against communist infiltration from beyond our borders. However, we shall have to take drastic measures. We shall have to shake off the image of White domination in South Africa, and we shall have to do so without delay. We shall have to wipe out any impression that we are delaying the emancipation of South West Africa. In the words of Mr. Macmillan—

I want to refer again to the speech made by ambassador Pik Botha in Windhoek. In this regard he adopted a very appropriate standpoint, for what he said represents the essence of what we ought to do. He said—

We agree with that. In addition he said—

The hon. member must not point a finger at this side of the House. Advocate Botha went on to say—

We have been saying these things for a long time, but it is a good thing for us that our overseas representatives are also saying them now, and laying their finger on the source of the ailment. They, in common with us, realize that our future salvation, our future security, is not situated in an outward military role, but primarily in an inward political change which will accord full recognition to Black human dignity. It is only the Government which is still refusing to act.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has given his support to the motion, and we are grateful for this. If there is one thing which we cannot afford at this stage, it is to have differences in South Africa and in Southern Africa concerning the need for averting the new threat to Africa by concerted action. I agree with the hon. member that our relations with Africa will ultimately be determined by the position in South Africa itself. Therefore I believe that the steps which the Government has already taken to show the direction in which it is moving will lay the foundations for good relations with Africa in the future. The fact that today in our embassies throughout the world not only White officials are employed, but also Black officials, people who will eventually act as representatives of their own countries when they gain their independence, is sufficient proof that as far as our actual position is concerned, South Africa will give full effect to the principle of freedom. Accordingly, it is the basic philosophy of this side of the House that human dignity can only mean anything if it is based on something larger, such as goodwill between different nations. That goodwill can only be created if every nation receives its full freedom. Therefore we on this side of the House believe that after independence has been gained by the Black nations of South Africa, closer and closer ties will be forged between White South Africa and the Black nations of South Africa. This will then eventually form the foundation for what we hope will ultimately be a group of nations in Southern Africa which will conduct themselves according to the principle of peaceful co-existence. I believe that it is only a question of time before the true aims of this side of the House will be clear to the whole world.

Therefore I do not want to say much more about what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, except to express our thanks for their support of this motion today.

If we look back at what the position was in Africa a year ago and compare it with the conditions today, we see that a great change has taken place. A year ago the two former provinces of Portugal stood on the threshold of obtaining their full independence as sovereign states. In South Africa itself a dialogue began between the White nation of South West Africa and the Black nations there. In Rhodesia the first talks were announced between the White and the Black people of Rhodesia. But the image also arose of a great leader who carried a message of peace from South Africa deep into Africa and made it his life’s work to apply the principle that peace can only be established by means of discussion and dialogue. This was the picture a year ago. I think that all of us, and I believe also the greater part of Africa, believed that peace and progress could be achieved in Afrika on the foundations which we saw then. Accordingly, President Kaunda responded to the speech made by our hon. Prime Minister in the Other Place the year before last by calling it the voice of reason. Everyone who had the future of Africa at heart gained the impression that Africa was moving towards a period of advancement based on peace. But since then one great change has taken place, and that is the intervention by foreign powers trying to force certain forms of government upon the countries in Africa by means of naked aggression.

If we look at the history of Africa, we see that attempts have been made over the centuries to liberate Africa. In past centuries, the great powers regarded Africa as their natural hinterland. They saw the African countries as countries which had to be bound to them for the purpose of ensuring their own safety, as far as raw materials and general living space were concerned. Africa was also the continent which had to provide labour for the world in the form of slaves who were exported to South, North and Central America. The whole struggle until the middle of this century was a struggle by Africa to have its right to freedom recognized. But it was only after 1950 that this striving for freedom obtained great momentum—so much so that at the beginning of last year there were approximately 50 free nations in Africa. The great dream of absolute freedom in Africa and of all nations enjoying their freedom here and working out a peaceful co-existence for themselves was then practically realized. At that stage, however, a great frustrating factor arose, namely a new imperialist power which intervened to exploit the weaknesses in Africa, merely to further its purpose of world domination by establishing its power in Africa as well.

I think we should consider at this stage how great the danger to Africa really is. All that the sovereign states in Africa have achieved up till now is their national freedom. As nations we all have rather a short history of nation-building and the establishment of independent states. Ethnic differences still cause a great deal of discord in practically every African country. Therefore we have a very fragile unity in those countries which have become sovereign states, and any one can destroy that fragile unity merely by laying sufficient emphasis on the ethnic differences.

There is a second great weakness which every nation in Africa has, and this is that the standard of living of practically all the nations is among the lowest in the world. For this reason it is easy to make the populations of these countries fall a prey to promises. I have said that the fact that we have a very short history of national freedom upon which we can found independent states is the one great weakness of Africa, and the second is the low standard of living which still prevails in all countries of Africa. The third great weakness is that not one country in Africa has enough economic and military power of its own to protect itself against aggression by a great power from outside Africa. Consequently we have the position that if an attack should be made on the freedom of any state in Africa, it will not be able to withstand that onslaught alone.

In this motion today, therefore, we ask the nations of Africa to realize their own weakness, their own inability to defend themselves against naked aggression from outside, and to realize that the only answer to this is that by standing together, they should muster sufficient political and military power to defend their freedom.

It is also necessary for us to ask ourselves where these possible onslaughts on the freedom of African states will actually come from. I think that we can categorically maintain that there will never be any aggression on the part of the former colonial powers. The mere fact that the Western countries, as the former colonial powers, recognized Africa’s aspirations for freedom by granting freedom to the various nations of Africa is sufficient guarantee that they will not become the new imperialists in Africa. I think that we can categorically maintain, therefore, that there will never be any onslaught on the freedom of Africa from the ranks of the former colonial powers. Secondly, we can say that there is sufficient land and resources here in Africa for every nation in its own sovereign state, so that no aggression need be feared from the one African state against another. Those of us who have had the privilege of travelling through Africa and of seeing the potential there still is in the various fields for the development of these countries simply cannot believe that there will ever be any need for aggression by any state in Africa against another. The resources and the land are there. All that is missing is the ability fully to develop what they have. Therefore I think we can categorically say that there should never be any onslaught upon the freedom of any free country in Africa from within Africa itself.

Should there be an onslaught on the freedom of any country in Africa, therefore, it can only come from other powers outside Africa, powers which are striving for world domination. In this connection the hon. member for Algoa indicated what the aspirations of the Soviet bloc are and showed that what happened in Angola was not a new phenomenon, but one which had been the policy of Soviet Russia for many years. For this reason I think that anyone who looks at events in Africa with open eyes will realize that an attack on the freedom of Africa can only come from one source, and that is from Russia. Now the question arises: Since it should be clear to everyone where the aggression may come from, what are the concrete steps which Africa itself must take to ensure its freedom in the future?

In the first instance every responsible leader in Africa must accept his co-responsibility to keep foreign aggressors out of Africa. Every responsible leader in Africa who has observed the struggle of the people of Africa over the centuries until the present time must accept it as his greatest responsibility and must realize that the freedom in his own country and its preservation are not all that is at stake, and that he must also accept co-responsibility as an African country for ensuring that foreign aggression will never again make any African country subject to another country.

A second realization which must take root in all countries in Africa, including the Republic of South Africa, is that no super power, whether from the East or the West, should ever be allowed to regard Africa as part of its political sphere of influence—no matter how well this may be intended. Should this thought ever take root in any African country—that is, that it must become part of the political sphere of influence of any super power—then it will merely serve as a temptation for others also to subject other parts of Africa. Then the great continent on which we live will become a place where the super powers will fight out their attempts to establish their power in the world.

A third important fact which everyone in Africa must accept is that every country is entitled to its sovereignty and that differences which may arise between the nations of Africa must be settled by discussions and by dialogue. In this respect our Prime Minister has set the best example. He has indicated his willingness to act as mediator in the most difficult disputes. He has made it very clear that he is only doing this for one purpose, and this is not to force his view upon anyone, but to gather the parties concerned around a table so that negotiations can take place. I believe that the historic bridge conference of last year must be seen as a turning point in an attitude in Africa, an attitude founded on the belief that confrontation will provide solutions to the problems of Africa. It is now realized that only consultations like those will be able to solve the problems between nations and countries in Africa in the future.

What are the true needs of Africa? In my opinion the first great need of Africa is to ensure an orderly population growth. In 1971 Africa’s population was 365 million. At the average growth rate of 2,8% per annum, the population of Africa will increase to approximately 750 million by the end of the century. So Africa is faced with the following great problem: how can it create the opportunity for the increasing population to realize their dreams, that is, personal happiness in the fields of education, health, housing and every other aspect of life? This can only happen if a higher standard of living is established and maintained in Africa.

If we only look at what has happened over the past decade in South Africa and is still happening, then we can imagine what may happen in Africa in the future. In 1970 the available income of the Black people of South Africa was $1 500 million. By the end of 1974 it had risen to $2 200 million. If this trend merely continues in the normal way, we can expect that the 17 million Black people of South Africa will have a potential income of more than $3 000 million within a few years. This means that over a period of only approximately ten years, the income of the Black man in South Africa will have increased by more than 100%. Over the same period, in spite of their relatively high rate of increase, the Black people of South Africa have only increased in numbers by approximately 39%. Within a period of ten years the Black population in a country like South Africa, where largely the same conditions prevailed until recently as in the rest of Africa, can reach a much higher standard because their available income is increasing more than twice as fast as their growth rate.

I believe that the things which have been happening in South Africa over the past few years, and which would normally continue to happen in the future, give a faint indication of what may really happen in the rest of Africa. Just as we have already seen great advancement in the standard of living of the Black man here, this may become the position of the Black man in the rest of Africa. However, this will only be possible if we accept the challenges with which we are faced. Firstly, we must ensure that stability, peace and quiet will prevail in Africa. Only then will the skill and the capital be invested here to make this advancement possible in Africa.

It does not matter where we are at this stage; all that matters is what we are headed for. In South Africa we have seen a situation developing which can be repeated in the rest of Africa if we as African countries are prepared to stand together to keep foreign aggression out of Africa as the motion requests, thus ensuring peace and order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vasco has covered a very wide field. There are many points on which I agree with him, particularly those in which he emphasizes the need for stability and peace in Africa for the necessary development that must take place in this great awakening continent. The hon. member also pointed to the weaknesses which are inherent in Africa because of its history. He motivated the reason why it was so absolutely essential for the States in Africa to work together, stand together and to co-operate.

The motion before us is a very important one, and already events which have taken place in the last weeks, have overtaken even the motion which is before us. The first part of the motion stresses the concern which we in this House and South Africa have at the presence of Russia in Angola. We, too, would agree as strongly as we can in expressing our grave concern at this presence, and in opposing it in the strongest terms. I would like to remind the House that during the no-confidence debate the leader of the party which I represent stated in the House on 27 January (col. 104 of Hansard)—

It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that the Government has not always been as concerned as it is today at colonialism within Africa. For example, it never criticized Portugal in its colonial role, prior to its withdrawal from Africa. Indeed, Portugal was looked upon as one of our few remaining allies, as great friends …

Good neighbours.

And neighbours, that is right. This Government stressed this many times. Colonialism is colonialism wherever it comes from and I think that is a fact we have to be aware of. By contrast, Frelimo in Mozambique and the MPLA, FNLA and Unita were regarded as terrorist movements. Certainly not even Unita was, at that stage, regarded as a liberation force seeking to remove the yoke of colonialism. Therefore, it is doubly ironic to find South Africa rushing into Angola to assist Dr. Savimbi who, only a few months ago, was nothing more than a leader of a terrorist group in the eyes of this Government. This was compounded by the fact that whilst we were openly on the side of Portugal, far more than merely as a good neighbour, China and Russia had been assisting Black groups in an attempt to reach self-determination for more than ten years. This support against a colonial power has, I submit, given the Soviet Union a certain respectability in the eyes of Black States and enabled them to gain a position of domination. It is to be hoped that the large-scale recognition of the MPLA by African States will not blind them to the dangers of exchanging one colonial master for another. If they do, I believe that the last state of Angola, or any other African State which submits to Russian imperialism, will be worse than the first. Another lesson which we in South Africa have to learn in the rapidly changing situation is that we must be extremely careful and sensitive in the judgments and the statements we make and words we use. I can give at least two examples of this. One is reminded of the words that were used in 1974 by the hon. the Minister of Defence in this House when he referred to some Black leaders and to the visits paid to African States, namely to Zambia and Zaire, by members on these benches. He said amongst other things—

Then further, referring to the hon. member for Rondebosch, he said—

He went on in this line, condemning certain States which we now seek as allies. The only point I want to make is that it is of the utmost importance in a rapidly changing subcontinent, to be very careful indeed of the words we use about leaders and about countries and about the attitudes we adopt. That should of course be some sort of indication to us that, in the case of the MPLA itself, despite our strong objections to them, the fact of the matter is that they have gained the ascendancy in Angola, that they are gaining recognition from almost every quarter of the world and that we will have to reckon and do business with them as well, I submit, over a table rather than with guns.

The second half of the motion calls upon States in Africa, as well as those in the West, to stand together in an attempt to combat this evil with all their might. We wish to support this half of the motion as well, but also with certain qualifications. In the first instance, we underline that South Africa and Africa need the friendship and assistance of the West. One recalls almost wistfully the many friends this country had prior to 1948. Nevertheless, we go on to say that ideally, Africa must be encouraged and allowed to solve its own problems. Here I again want to refer to the hon. member for Vasco’s speech today and also to a statement he made in a similar debate which took place on 7 March 1975, when he said the following (Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 2160)—

I think that these are very wise words, and it is well that this House should heed them. Of course we need friends from the West and of course one would like to see far greater awareness in the West of Russian imperialism in Africa and other parts of the world, but it is of the utmost importance that we do not become a battleground for the forces of the West and the East in Africa, and specifically the southern part of this great continent. We should rather do everything we can—and here we want to lay special emphasis on the second half of this motion—for the absolute necessity for African States themselves to work out their own salvation and their own liberation. That is the one qualification which I referred to.

The second is that if African States are going to work together, I think it cannot only be in terms of opposing some force from outside. Reference has already been made to the necessity for States to combine for economic development and for the raising of living standards, so I shall not cover that ground at all. All I would like to stress is the necessity to have some—even if it is in fairly wide terms—mutually accepted basis upon which States in Africa can work together.

We have often from these benches expressed our regret that South Africa has never seen fit to sign the Declaration of Human Rights. We believe this was a mistake. But even more serious was the Government’s initial reaction to the Lusaka Manifesto, which was issued in April 1969—almost seven years ago. At that time this manifesto was ridiculed and derided. Yet it remains a fascinating document and as one reads it again in the light of present developments in southern Africa, I believe that it has, in essence at least, something which can offer that kind of basis upon which we in Africa can learn to live and to work together. What does the manifesto say? In essence it provides for all men to have equal rights to human dignity and respect, regardless of colour, race, religion or sex. There will surely be no one in the House who opposes that. Secondly, it provides for government by consent, and I think we all will agree with that as well. There is, thirdly, the frank recognition of their own imperfections, something which we so seldom are aware of. It further provides for a definite and positive rejection of racialism, whether it be Black racialism or White racialism. Here I would like to quote from the manifesto itself—

When this was first presented seven years ago, we were not as terribly vocal then as we are today in acknowledging that we belong to Africa and that we are part of Africa. It is all well and good that we have learnt that lesson, and it is a great tragedy that we did not take up this document as the basis for discussion and deliberation. The document goes on and talks of an awareness, a frank awareness, that transitional arrangements may be necessary, an awareness that this cannot come overnight. There thus was a recognition and an acceptance of a transition period. They make it clear that they will prefer peaceful to violent change. They even appealed to the leaders of the so-called liberation movements or terrorist movements or guerrilla forces—whichever term we might use—and to say to them in the document—

Nevertheless, the tragedy is that we never heeded this magnificent opportunity to do the kind of thing that this very motion suggests we ought to do.

The manifesto goes on to say that without an acceptance of the commitment to the principles of human equality and self-determination, there can be no basis for peace and justice in the world and, by implication, in southern Africa as well. The signatories of the manifesto believes that the effective administrations at that time, namely 1969, of Mozambique, Angola, Rhodesia, South West Africa and South Africa were not struggling towards the goals of human dignity and freedom, but were actually fighting against these principles. Much has happened in Mozambique and Angola, and negotiations are under way in South West Africa and Rhodesia, and all of us hope desperately that those negotiations will bring about peaceful change in both these areas. But what about South Africa? It is true that this document speaks very strongly against South Africa. It says, inter alia—

It goes on to add: “Nor if you are White.” We have to convince the signatories of the Lusaka Manifesto, we have to convince the African States that we are in a struggle for human rights, that we are in the* struggle for equal opportunity and that we are in the struggle for self-determination, that we are not against these things, but for these things. But how on earth do we do this when there are people within South Africa, many Black and Brown people in South Africa, who share the opinion of the people who signed the Lusaka Manifesto? Let the Government, in the spirit of this motion, and in order to implement it, agree, if they refuse to accept the Lusaka Manifesto and if they refuse to sign the Declaration of Human Rights, to draw up an internal declaration of human rights with leaders of all groups within South Africa as co-signatories. It may then be possible to find considerable common ground with other States in Africa as a basis for peaceful co-existence and co-operation. It will not happen unless we are prepared to do this, because it is very clear that unless we are determined to change the situation within South Africa, we will not get the kind of co-operation which is so absolutely essential if we want to work together with the Black States, whether it be against Russian imperialism, for economic growth and development or for the raising of living standards. In order to give credibility to this motion, in order to give it substance and flesh on the bones, I suggest that the Government must determine now that the only way we are going to have peaceful development in southern Africa, when one sees the seriousness of the situation—not only in Angola, but also now in the closing of the borders between Mozambique and Rhodesia—is going to be a coming together of all the peoples of this country and a new internal declaration of human rights as a basis upon which to work in co-operation with other States.

Mr. Speaker, I am entering the debate at this early stage because other official obligations unfortunately make it impossible for me, as was explained to the Whips on the opposite side, to be present in the House this afternoon. The hon. Minister for Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations has agreed to stand in for me this afternoon.

The new manifestation of colonialism and imperialism in Africa, as evidenced by the Russian and Cuban action in Angola, may still develop into one of the most important events in the history of Southern Africa since the landing of Jan Van Riebeeck 3¼ centuries ago. The opportunity which this House is being afforded of debating this issue, of expressing its alarm and condemnation and opposition to it, is therefore to be sincerely welcomed. Also to be welcomed is the opportunity this House is being afforded to make an appeal to Africa and the West to stand together and to attempt to combat this evil with all their might. The mover of this motion and the speakers on both sides up to now made a thorough study of the subject and dealt comprehensively with almost all its aspects. They brought important but also alarming facts to the attention of this House, and it will not therefore be necessary for me to add very much to the information that has already been furnished and the points of view that have already been stated.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout indicated that his side of the House supported the motion. The hon. member for Pinelands indicated that the same applied to his side. There were of course certain reservations on both sides, but I am nevertheless glad of their support. It is indeed in the interest of South Africa that the outside world know that we are in agreement on this important motion. Nor are we going to quarrel with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because he wants to use stronger language.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went further, however, and suggested that this House request the Government to change conditions in South Africa in such a way—and that an announcement to this effect be made here today—that we would be more acceptable to Africa. Mr. Speaker, surely this is constantly being done. It is being done in the normal course of events, in the normal application of the Government’s policy, inter alia, as was brought very specifically to our attention by the hon. member for Vasco. He pointed out that the economic position of the non-Whites in South Africa has recently shown a vast improvement.

If a miracle were to occur, and the party of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout were to come into office overnight, what would that hon. member and his colleagues in the Government do to satisfy the States of Africa, particularly the militant states? Would the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, if he were to become Minister of Foreign Affairs, make it his endeavour to satisfy the demands made by Africa? Would he submit to the demands that we should introduce boycotts against Rhodesia? Would he heed the call made by Africa for us to vacate South West Africa this very year? Would he give ear to the voices from Africa which insist that South Africa should be converted into a unitary state, on a basis of one man, one vote, as so many demand from us?

Mr. Speaker, all of us in South Africa should guard against our becoming obsessed by the charge which is constantly being made against us concerning the so-called disregard for human rights and political rights. This applies not only to all of us, but in particular also to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Pinelands. These hon. members, and all of us, should remember that those who are in fact threatening us today pay no heed to the things which are dear to all of us. They are not interested in the domestic policy of South Africa. They are interested in our country, its strategic resources, its strategic situation. The great threat to South Africa today is the new imperialism. Our great threat today is not Africa. We are to an increasing extent speaking the same language in Africa, regardless of the colour of our skins. Our interests are becoming increasingly similar.

As far as the improvement of our relations with African states is concerned, progress has already been made, and continues to be made every day. Already there are strong ties with various African states. New ties are constantly being forged. However, I do not think that this is an appropriate occasion for me to dwell on that. I want to return to the theme of the motion, for there are certain aspects of the motion which I should like to emphasize and underline.

In the first place, it would be extremely unrealistic and short-sighted to view Russian and Curban intervention in Angola in isolation, to regard it as an isolated incident. On the contrary. It should be seen in its historic perspective, in its wider international context. It should be seen as something of tremendous magnitude, as part of a global strategy, as a well-considered step resulting from a purposeful endeavour to achieve world domination to which Russia has been applying itself since the Second World War.

†Ever since the Russian domination of Eastern Europe, which has been established over the years since the Second World War, it has been evident that the plum which Russia would most dearly like to pluck is Western Europe itself, Western Europe with its advanced technology, which Russia seriously lacks, with its sophisticated labour force, economic experience and managerial knowhow. That would be a prize which would place the Soviet Union in such an impregnable position that it could be a match for the rest of the world, including the United States. Russia has endeavoured to achieve this by various means such as confrontation, subversion and creating division amongst the European powers themselves. Considerable progress towards the achievement of this objective has unfortunately already been made. I need not go into details. I need not remind the House of the overwhelmingly powerful Russian military forces in Eastern Europe. If it had not been for the nuclear deterrent posed by the Americans, a quick victory over the diminished Western forces could have been achieved long ago and Western Europe would have been at the mercy of the Russians, for it is no secret, as has been indicated here today, that the Warsaw Pact’s conventional forces far exceed those of NATO. But, apart from their military activities, the Russians are active in many other fields. I am thinking, for instance, of subversion by their agents. This is proved by, for example, the misfortune of the former German Chancellor, Willie Brandt. An important development in favour of the Russians is the growing strength of communist parties in several Western European countries. The Russians also scored a major victory at Helsinki just over a year ago. How far they are prepared to carry out their promises made at Helsinki remains to be seen. It is, however, a fact that they largely got what they wanted, in particular the legitimization of the present European boundaries. Considerable economic advantages, as well as advanced technological know-how from Western Europe and the United States, were also achieved. In the meantime Russia has effectively maintained her domination over her Eastern European satellites. She has not hesitated to make use of force by unscrupulous military intervention in the internal affairs of those satellites who were not prepared to toe the line, or by applying economic and military blackmail.

*In addition to the success achieved by Russia in East Europe, the decolonialization process in the post-war period and the tendency to increasing isolation on the part of the West, which went with it, made it possible for Russia to proceed almost unimpeded with its policy of expansionism. This happened in Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa, in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Indian Ocean. Wherever possible the Russians exploited problem and crisis situations in their own interests. In Africa they intervened under the cloak of their doing so for the sake of the liberation of oppressed peoples. Only last month, on 24 February, Brezhnev emphasized this again at the 25th congress of the Communist Party when he said—

This approach gives the Russians carte blanche as it were to intervene at will wherever it suits them. Events in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and also in Angola have proved beyond dispute that the wishes of the majority of the people who, according to them should be liberated, are by no means a prerequisite of Russian intervention. In other words, Russia reserves to itself the right to decide for itself and on its own which people or section of the people in question are fighting for their freedom and should therefore be helped by the Russians. Previous speakers pointed out the progress Russia had made in Africa, in what strategic places they had established their bases, that it was becoming easier for them to threaten and gain control of the vital Western oil route around the Cape, and how the expansion of their power in Africa and elsewhere could lead to a situation in which the West might be deprived of its important raw materials.

Lenin is claimed to have said that the road to London and Paris passed through Africa. If there has ever been a time in history in which cognizance should be taken of this statement, it is now. That the Russians still believe that statement to be true today is demonstrated by the way in which they are entrenching themselves in Africa. During the past five years they have spent almost two and a half thousand million dollars on military aid to Africa. This is more than twice the amount they have spent on economic aid in Africa. It has already been mentioned that according to the Pentagon there are no fewer than 2 848 Soviet military advisers in Africa. According to Radio Moscow there were 5 000 students from Africa studying in Russia in 1974. During the 1973-’74 period the number of Radio Moscow broadcasts to Africa in Portuguese increased by 200%. Therefore, Russian objectives in Africa are obviously military, and their aim is that of ideological indoctrination. It is noteworthy and significant that Russian aid to Angola has so far been limited exclusively to weapons of destruction, in spite of the appalling need for humanitarian and economic assistance to alleviate the lot of the people of Angola. Their object is quite obviously not decolonization nor national liberation, for Angola had already been assured of its independence when the Russians and the Cubans intervened there on a large scale. Nor were the Russians interested in a settlement among the three national groups in Angola. They had only one object in mind and that was to entrench themselves there and gain a stranglehold on the country in order to use it as a base from which they could continue their expansionism and aggression.

†May we for a few moments look at the action of Cuba? Cuba’s role in the Soviet strategy is twofold: Firstly, to act as the Russian cat’s paw—they must do the dirty work—and, secondly, to pursue certain of Cuba’s own objectives. In this way Russian can remain fairly aloof from actual fighting and retain its “peacemaker” image in the Third World. By intervening in Angola, Cuba can work off part of its enormous debt to the Soviet Union and can win for itself a pre-eminent place in the ranks of the revolutionary powers. In addition, Castro can detract attention from his own poor domestic performance.

As indicated by speakers on both sides of the House, Russia’s and Cuba’s intervention in Africa in general and in Angola in particular, has far-reaching and serious implications for the free world and for Africa. Their ultimate security is directly threatened by Russia’s unopposed interference in Angola, and the success which has been achieved for Russian imperialism. Dr. Kissinger voiced the grave concern of many when he said the following on 3 February—

The primary and very real threat is to the security of those African countries bordering on or in the vicinity of Angola. There is indeed grave concern about the Russians’ and the Cubans’ next move, and about the question of who is going to be their next target. I want to repeat that seen against the background of, firstly, Russian’s skilful tactics since the end of the Second World War, secondly, the huge arms build-up by the Soviets, including the strengthening of the Russian naval and mercantile fleet, thirdly, the advantages to Russia as a result of her lip service to peaceful coexistence and détente, and, fourthly, Russia’s proclaimed policy and record of successful intervention in conflict areas where it can consolidate its position and undermine Western influence, it is evident that Russia’s interference in Angola is not an isolated move, but a well-planned and logical step on the road to a world-wide victory for Russian imperialism. In other words, it is part and parcel of Soviet global strategy to achieve world domination.

The West has so far failed dismally to respond effectively to the Soviet Union’s world-wide challenge. The West is disunited and lacks moral purpose and direction. Its leader, the USA, is unable to act effectively in the international forum owing to factors on which I need not expound and which have been mentioned by some of the other speakers. Let us hope—and I am indeed hopeful—that this is only a temporary state of affairs. It is true that encouraging statements have been made, grave concern expressed and serious warnings sounded by leaders in many parts of the free world.

*Some of them have been quoted. I am thinking for example of the serious warnings voiced by the USA Under-Secretary of Defence; its Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Schaufele; its former Secretary of Defence, Mr. James Schlesinger; Mrs. Margaret Thatcher; Lord Home and Mr. Ted Heath, who referred to Russia’s intervention in Angola as the result of “cool calculation”. I am also thinking of the statement made a few days ago by Mr. Ennals, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain. Statements were also made by other persons in key positions. In this regard I have in mind the Secretary General of Nato, Mr. Luns, the President of France, and the Foreign Ministers of the nine member countries of the EEC who recently condemned intervention in Angola in a joint statement and made a strong plea for the restoration of unity in that country, unity which is required for the rebuilding and development of the country and for the happiness and prosperity of its people. I could also refer to the Nobel prize winner, Solzhenitsyn, who went so far as to allege that the West was through its weakness in fact helping to strengthen the Russian tyranny, and he ought to know what he is talking about.

Statements such as these, as well as the attitude of influential newspapers and other world media, indicate that most well-informed and responsible people throughout the noncommunist world are deeply shocked, profoundly unhappy and dismayed at the intervention of the Russians and the Cubans in Angola. During the past few weeks I have spoken personally to such people almost every day, many of them in top positions in many parts of the world—in Europe, the USA, Africa and the East. All of them feel a grave concern at the far-reaching implications of the events in Angola. In spite of that concern, and in spite of all these statements, there have not as yet been any meaningful, concrete results. One can only hope that these will not merely be empty words.

†Not only has the West so far done nothing or very little to halt the Russian and Cuban aggression in Africa, but it is actually helping the Russians by continually sniping at South Africa, by giving support to Swapo, by urging irresponsible action in South West Africa. This is indeed most disturbing. Instead, the West should be doing everything in its power to support responsible South African initiatives for détente and peace in Africa, in South West Africa and in Rhodesia, initiatives which are in the very real interest of the peoples of these countries and in the interests of the West itself. The West must realize that the bell which tolls for Angola, tolls also for most of the other States in Africa. It tolls also for Latin American countries with radical factions and ultimately it tolls for Western Europe itself.

*Unless there is more meaningful action on the part of the West it is highly unlikely that the Russians and Cubans will abstain from further intervention in Africa. They will only be halted by strong and co-ordinated action—and there is not much time left. Let me say at once that I believe the attitude of the West is already undergoing a change for the better. Take the USA for example. It is very clear that public opinion there is swinging to an increasing extent in favour of firmer action by the Administration. I believe that this will eventually have a beneficial effect in practice. In this regard, however, there is a very great obligation resting not only on the West, but also on all of us in Africa. It is imperative that the African States that are aware of the threat of Russian imperialism should realize the danger it presents. I have reason to believe that there are many of them that do realize it. It is imperative that those African States should make a co-ordinated and concerted effort to resist the common threat.

†If such an effort is made, I am sure that any action which might be taken will soon gather momentum because I simply cannot believe that African States, which became independent after centuries of foreign domination, will be prepared to run the risk of once again being subjected to an imperialism which will undoubtedly be much worse than that which they have just shaken off. I need not stress that nobody in Africa, or anywhere in the world, can have any doubt whatsoever about South Africa’s unwavering opposition to imperialistic domination, be it Russian, Cuban, Chinese or any other. The African States should also know that, as far as combating this new threat is concerned, they can rely on us. Fortunately a growing number of them realize that we can make an important contribution in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pine-lands, referring to the Lusaka Manifesto, said it was ridiculed. It was certainly never ridiculed by myself, because I am on record as having stated in this House and elsewhere what the merits of that declaration are and also what the negative aspects of it are. I think I must furnish the hon. member with copies of those statements.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us here sincerely hope that the message from the South African Parliament contained in this motion before the House will reach the Western world and also the leaders of Africa. We sincerely hope that they will take this message to heart.

*But regardless of what the reaction of the outside world may be to this appeal which we are addressing to them, South Africa, as the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, will with calm deliberation take whatever steps might be necessary to protect the interests of our country and its peoples.

Business suspended as 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I regard this debate as one of the most important debates since the hon. the Prime Minister made his speech of 23 October 1974 in the Senate. That speech is regarded as the reason for peace, prosperity and development in Africa. This debate goes even further. This is an appeal from this side of the House, reasonably supported by the other side of the House, not only to Africa, but also to the free world and especially to the peoples of the West. However, there are a few other aspects I would like to stress as far as this debate and this motion are concerned. Where we are faced with this infiltration into our fatherland, this country of Africa, there is also the aspect of the material value of Southern Africa, mainly its material value in respect of the strategic raw materials it has. When considering the statistics of the Western world, statistics which have been compiled by highly qualified geologists, we find that the USA is already in the position that it has to import 22 of the 74 non-energy-generating minerals it needs to maintain its industrialized society on a high level. As early as 1970 the USA had to import 100% of its chrome, columbium, mica, tantalite and tin, 90% of its aluminium, antimony, cobalt, manganese and platinum, 50% of its asbestos, fluorite, nickel and zinc, and 30% of its iron, lead and mercury. This is the position, besides the downward trend in its own reserves of energy-generating materials such as oil and uranium, which are not in great supply, and coal. This is one of the most important factors which should be taken into consideration in an attempt to find the reason for a new awareness that we in Southern Africa are the larder of these essential minerals which have to be retained for the free Western world. It has already been pointed out in this debate as well as in previous debates that, apart from these materials, there are also the lines of communication. We have discussed the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean on numerous occasions. If the free world does not keep these lines of communication open, it must expect implications when the Russian imperialists take over this country and Southern Africa. I regard this motion as a motion for us to stand up and be counted. As far as this is concerned, we are prepared to be counted. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already referred to many of the voices which are being raised. I am also referring to what was said by Lord Chalfont, former Minister of Disarmament and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Wilson Government. He said, inter alia, in an article which was published in The Star—

Reference has also been made to the Russian author in consequence of his television interview. As one of the reasons why the West is on the brink of capitulation, he mentioned, inter alia, the following—

Here is another aspect I want to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands and he will be well advised to listen to this. On Russian strategy and their actions one consideration always comes to mind to which I, as a representative of a Christian nation, must always give prominence. If we were to allow communism and if all of us are not all prepared to stand up and be counted, I will forfeit the free will of being able to worship my God. I say this in all sincerity and in all earnest. The right to worship freely we do not find in the communist satellite countries. It does not matter whether one is a Christian, a Jew or a Moslem; it concerns any person who believes in God. For that reason this debate is also very important to us, because this is an appeal to any country, where there still is freedom of religion, to stand up and be counted. We pose this question: What is the position of the Church in Russia, not to mention Cuba? I want to content myself with saying that every nation, whether it be Moslem or Christian, or whatever the case may be, has to make this choice at some time or other: One cannot worship God and Mammon. The hon. member for Vasco also referred to the fact that there are countries in Africa which, in a few moments, in a few days or a few years, had gained their nationalism to maintain it for ever. They are not going to allow it to be destroyed by any international power.

Unfortunately my time has almost expired, but it was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that every one who supported revolution and violence had succeeded. However, I want to contradict him. While we are dealing here with the Cuban leader, I can, in the two minutes still left to me, briefly point out where he failed every time. In April 1959 he failed in Panama; in May 1959 he failed in Nicaragua; in June 1955 he failed in the Dominican Republic; in August 1959 he failed in Haiti and at the end of the same year in Peru, Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela. This is the man who said: “Violence for export; revolution for export!” He also intervened in Angola. Under the guise of being mulattos of the Cape Verde Islands, his soldiers tried to infiltrate Angola. Unfortunately my time has expired now—I only had nine and a half minutes—and I conclude by saying that this debate is an appeal to the Western world: Stand up and be counted.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brentwood will forgive me if I do not take up the subject which he covered in his speech. He had a few words to say about the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but at the same time he said his time was limited. One should realize that the time of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was also limited and that he, too, was unable to enlarge on the subject as he had intended to do. It is difficult, in a debate of this nature, to debate in detail such important matters as are covered by this motion. My time, too, will unfortunately be limited, but I shall attempt to make a positive contribution. The hon. member for Algoa said that we love South Africa and that this is our only home. I think everyone in this House fully agrees with those words. I have often said in this House that I am a member of the White tribe of South Africa, and I believe that all of us are members of that tribe. He went on to discuss on the open and flagrant aggression in Angola and the hon. member for Pinelands agreed with him and made it clear that the party on my left does not agree with that either.

†I believe that one must go very much further back in the history of the 20th century to examine the imperialism of Soviet Russia and the ineptitude of the West to cope with that imperialism. One can go back to 1918-1919 when, with the best will in the world, the then President of the United States, President Woodrow Wilson, through the capitalist United States, presented $300 million to the Kerensky Interim Government. The Kerensky Government did not last; it fell very soon, and this became the nucleus of the Leninist Bolsheviks. One must go into the Second World War and look at the strategy. One has only to read Churchill’s history of that war to realize that when it was possible for Alexander’s armies to go through the Ljubljana gap and take the whole of the Balkan States, which would have made a vast difference in the map of the world and to the present advance of Soviet imperialism, it was decided by the Allies that half those forces should be withdrawn, and Alexander sat on a winter line. Time was lost and the Russians came in. One can go beyond this. The ailing President Roosevelt, who had done his best for the West, was advised by people like Mr. Harry Hopkins and Mr. Algar Hiss, at Yalta and agreements were entered into with Russia, Stalin’s Russia of that time. One can remember the advance of Montgomery’s armies into Denmark to liberate that country at the end of the Second World War and the forced withdrawal, under the Yalta Agreement, of those forces on a 400-mile front for a distance of 150 miles. That is the vast area which today forms part of Eastern Germany. One thinks of Patton’s armies going on to liberate Austria. These armies were held back in order that Russia could take up the positions agreed to under the Yalta Agreement. This is all part of the history which we are facing now. When the onslaught on Africa began, that great Prime Minister, of very brief tenure, of Great Britain, as it was then, Anthony Eden together with the French and the Israelis, endeavoured to secure the Suez Canal for the Western world. That was in 1956. I think the United States should recognize their mistake. When the Sixth Fleet was sailed into Alexandria harbour, the Allies were told to stop and that there should be no further attack on Egypt. That was the turning point in Africa, and that was when the colonial map of Africa rolled up with the snap which is hitting us in the face today. This snap has made us realize that we have to come face to face with facts. It was very easy to have all sorts of strange policies in this country and in other countries of the Commonwealth in the days of Pax Britannica and in the times when Britannia did rule the waves. Britannia no doubt wishes she could rule the waves, but does not at the present time.

She waives the rules now.

This is the background to what we are facing today. We in this hon. House agree that we should protect the Kunene scheme and the Ruacana hydroelectric scheme and the pump station at Calueque against the communist aggression which is at present taking place in Angola. We agree that we should clear our borders of terrorists by hot pursuit and by reprisal. I believe that there is great agreement in this House that we did provide tangible support to an anti-communist Black force in Africa. I believe also—and this is part of the motion—that we cannot alone defend Africa against the beach-heads and the bridgeheads of communist imperialism. I believe that this motion is important because it calls on the West to wake up and it calls on Africa to wake up in its own interests. I believe that it is of the utmost importance, particularly when one faces a United States which is paralysed by a presidential election every four years. I believe that the United States should look at its constitution again in this connection, because during this time no foreign policy can be attended to. I say this in sincerity and not in antagonism. I believe that it is an important factor to that country to have continuity of power and a continuity of foreign policy. Every time that there is a presidential election in the United States, the Russians have taken one step forward in their drive towards imperialism in the world. They are doing that in Africa today.

I want to come back to the debate. The hon. the Minister launched an attack on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout merely because he said that we should take steps to make ourselves and our policies more acceptable to Africa. I want to deal with two aspects which have made us unacceptable. I want to lay them at the door of the hon. members on the other side, and I believe that they must accept them. One of the things which has made us most unpopular in the world is the coining of the word “apartheid” in 1947 and 1948. The accepted policy in the world at that time was segregation. [Interjections.]

I want to say to the hon. ex-Chief Whip that separate development came very much later, but that that particular word was coined at a time when the world was reeling from the Second World War which had been fought against Nazi Germany, not against Germany but against Nazi Germany. It had a germanic connotation to the Western world, which had been our ally. It was coined at a time when there were emergent nations in Africa and in Asia of different colours to us. I believe that that word alone did more harm to our image in the outside world than anything else. The second point which made us unpopular—and Government members must accept this—is the fact that we proceeded from then on to introduce statutory apartheid. I am not saying this in denigration of South Africa, because I believe in South Africa and I believe that we must fight for it. The introduction of accepted practices into statutes is something that is not accepted in the Western world. This was what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was talking about, that these are the things that we in our foreign policy, in order to remake those friends who are basically our friends, should move away from. These are factors which, let us face it, came about in the days of a world which was, as many of us thought, controlled by the Britannia that ruled the waves and the all-powerful Uncle Sam, the United States. Today we stand alone. We are not members of a commonwealth; we are the Republic of South Africa, a part of Africa, and I say thing with the deepest sincerity. Things are being done to move away from these things, but what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was aiming at, was a revision of statutory discrimination. This is the best way to fight communism and to regain our friends.

What is the position with Rhodesia?

I do not want to discuss Rhodesia at the moment. I may well come to that during the course of my speech, but these points, I believe, must be made and be accepted.

[Inaudible.]

If that hon. member would read the speeches by his brother, he would see that his brother agrees with me entirely.

Are you in favour of integrated schools?

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. Minister wants to talk about enforced integration, he should go to the United States. That is not the policy of his party or of my party. When he starts talking about schools, I know what is on his mind. He is talking about “busing” and about integrated schools, but if he wants to talk about that, he must go to the United States, and not talk about it in this hon. House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the Angolan situation. There are certain points that we have to accept there too. It is our belief that that scheme on that river has to be defended as long as it is militarily and economically possible for us to do so. There we must stay and defend the scheme.

I believe—and it is the belief of my party—that we are entitled to defend the borders of South West Africa. And that we shall do. We believe that the militant wing of Swapo has been dealt some fatal blows by the action that was taken. We believe that the militant terrorism that could have come from them, has been dealt fatal blows, and this we agree with. Nobody in this hon. House or in any other hon. House should be afraid of defending our borders and of taking such action as is necessary to make our borders safe. I believe that action was taken in Angola. I believe that it was necessary and that it was in the interests of South Africa and of South West Africa.

The refugee problem affects us probably to a greater extent than our financial interests in the water and hydro-electric schemes. This is a human problem which the United Nations refuse to face. It is our belief that Western Europe, the United States and the whole of the Western world, as well as the United Nations, should recognize the fact that those refugees have nowhere else to go. This is a pathetic problem, the problem of displaced persons, of people who cannot be placed with any effectiveness in any country in the world. These people are Angolans by birth. We are endeavouring to keep them in Angola and I believe that the West should overcome its fears of Russian imperialism, and state that they are going to assist South Africa in looking after those people. It may even be necessary—and I am not speaking about policies of either side of this hon. House—for the Western world, in the cause of humanity, to establish a buffer zone there under the control of the United Nations, because this is an important problem.

The hon. member for Pinelands made great play of the Lusaka manifesto, which, being a manifesto of Africa, is a complicated manifesto. It has, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, its good points and its bad points. I believe that we in this hon. House should base our policies and our projection to the world on the fifth clause of the Atlantic Charter. I believe it is a magnificent clause. For the benefit of the House, Sir, it reads as follows—

That, I believe, should be a charter with which this country should go out into Africa today. This should be an acceptable charter for every country in Africa, and this is where I fail to understand the action of the President of Mozambique—I do not want to attack a friendly country—in the closing of his borders with Rhodesia, when his people at this present time are going hungry, when he is receiving grain from Rhodesia and when, I am told, the total income of his country from Rhodesia and from South Africa is some R500 million a year.

On fails to understand, and the mind boggles, when one hears that the British Commonwealth, of which we were once part, welcomes this action and wishes to subsidize Mr. Machel. I would like, however, to point out to the hon. president of our neighbouring territory that it is all very well to receive a financial subsidization, but when one closes a railway line and when one closes a port, one is closing jobs to one’s people. This is a point that should be borne in mind by African leaders. The need for work and for employment facilities, and that essential thing, social security, I believe, are so important, because by the closing of the border the social security of many Mozambicans has been totally lost. It cannot be restored by subsidization by the Commonwealth or by the United Nations. They cannot create jobs by subsidization.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain points, I believe, that we in this House, speaking to this motion, can agree on. Firstly, I believe we can agree that our territorial integrity will be defended to our fullest ability and in every way. Secondly, I believe that we can agree to the protection of South Africa’s national interests by means commensurate with the threat or the damage. That means that we can do it by diplomatic means, by means of sanctions or by military means. Thirdly, I believe that we should stick to our policy of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other States or territories. Fourthly, I believe in the fulfilment of obligations and of treaties or other international commitments aimed at collective security. I believe that this should be accepted by every member of this hon. House.

In conclusion, I want to say that this side of the House—and I believe the whole of this hon. House—resents, and bitterly resents, the forces that are loose in South Africa today that are endeavouring to undermine the morale of our boys on the border and of our forces who are defending this country. This, I believe, should be scorned by this hon. House, because this is not the time or the place for that sort of undermining.

You have spoiled a good speech by hitting at apartheid. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to be able to move the motion printed in my name, as follows—

The discussions on the motion moved by the hon. member for Algoa dealt with a great diversity of subjects throughout the world, with communism and the dangers thereof to our country, and so on. I am going to attempt to draw the attention of members of this House to this House itself, and to draw the attention of every member of this House to himself as a member of this House. Sir, I have been a member of this House for ten years now, and a member of the Other Place for two, and I say in all humility that this motion is one of the most important motions dealing with the ordinary member of this House, more important than any other motion I have had to deal with since I became a member of this House. I just want to make the point that, in my opinion, the whole intention and idea of a private member’s motion is for a member who is deeply concerned about a certain matter to be able to come to this House to set out his ideas here, make suggestions and ask the House to consider such suggestions with an open mind so that we can exchange ideas and, when we differ, to have an opportunity to iron out these differences to see whether we are able to do something to improve and tighten up the functioning of this House wherever it may be necessary.

I want to say at the outset that this motion is not in any way of a political nature—not in the least. I shall deal specifically with the business of this House, with the position members occupy in this House, and the position they have to occupy in the national economy and in the business of this House. I am now asking this question: What is the position of members of this House vis-á-vis the departments which have to spend the money with which the country has to be governed? What worries me is that it seems to me as though the ordinary member of this House has degenerated into a kind of mail-box through which are channelled letters of complaint from his voters against departments, letters of complaint against a Minister or whoever it may be, and that the only duty a member of this House has, is to sort out complaints and find things that have to be rectified. To my mind the duties of a member of this Parliament go much further than that. I regard it as the duty of a member of this Parliament to keep his finger on the pulse, his hand on the reins of the activities of the departments to assist the Ministers in their work wherever possible and, where it is necessary to do so, to criticize them. Sir, one of the most difficult things for a member of this House to accomplish is to obtain information.

What my motion amounts to, is that there should be a profound change in the procedure of this Parliament in the interests of the members of this Parliament in the first place, and subsequently in the interests of the country.

†Mr. Speaker, if one analyses the functions of Parliament, one finds it is basically a mechanism for taxation. That is what Parliament does and that is our business. Our business, through taxation, is to finance and fuel the operations of the Government. Anyone who knows, as we know, that we stand here in the shadow of Westminster, and anybody who knows the history of Westminster, knows that where we stand goes back to the time of King John and the Magna Carta, to the time of Simon de Montford and to the time of Edward I. One of the most significant events in the history of the English people was when Parliament in 1297 forced from King Edward I the undertaking that he would not impose taxation upon his people without the consent of Parliament. At a time when King Edward I was faced with wars in France and in Scotland he conceded, in order to secure the support and the willingness of his people to pay taxation, that he would not levy taxation without their consent. From that one decision stems the fact that we sit here in this House today in the fashion in which we do, and that we debate the matters we do under the shadow of Westminster. Because, Mr. Speaker, from that one decision came the whole development of Parliament through the civil war, the resistance to the Stuarts, the fact that the Stuarts tried to govern without Parliament, ship money—all the subterfuges to which they were reduced in trying to govern without Parliament, because Parliament meant the redress of grievances. That was the function of Parliament; to obtain the redress of grievances from the king, and the counter to the grievances was the right to vote taxation.

When I say that Parliament is a mechanism of taxation, I want to stress the point that the whole British tradition, the whole development that led to Westminster, was a means of checking the power of the king and checking taxation to see that the money was not spent wastefully, and was not spent on unpopular causes and was not spent to oppress the subjects, but that it was spent beneficially in the interests of the people. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, the duty of members is not a political duty. The duty of members of this House is to keep an eye on expenditure, to look at the departments, to understand what goes on in the departments, to have a basic understanding of the motives and the priorities and the operations inside departments, all of which comes down to the spending of money. Basic to every single thing done in a department is the spending of money. I pose this question to every hon. member sitting in this House: Can we do our duty across the floor of this House? Is this Parliament as it functions today a efficient mechanism which allows us as members, charged as we are by the people, to do our duty? Mr. Speaker, you pray every day that we who are charged with such an important trust in this land should get guidance to do our duty. Can we in the way in which Parliament operates today cope with the trust that has been laid upon us by being elected to this House.

The main financial debates—the budget debate and the part appropriation debate—all start off financially to a certain extent, but afterwards become political debates, and it is inevitable that it should be so. They are not financial debates where members of Parliament can get information about the operation of departments. Sir, each party has a few speakers only. The ordinary member of the House gets no chance to take part in a big debate, in those big financial debates. Only a few members can take part, and they are all politically charged. In committee, where we have 100 hours of debate divided into 10-minute speeches—I ask hon. members to consider whether that is not in itself a political debate. What chance do ordinary members have to get to grips with the problems inside departments and the relationship of the department to the people outside, when you may get one or perhaps two or three 10-minute speeches in the course of that 100 hours? What can the ordinary member do within that time to put across his point of view when he has something that he carries in his heart and wishes to make a contribution to his country? All he has is 10 minutes and even that often degenerates into a political debate. So how can a member play the part which I believe an hon. member of this House has a duty to play? Take the Department of Bantu Affairs and the Department of Sport as examples. These are two extremely important departments. However, theirs are political debates. We know it and, what is more, we enjoy it and like to get in there for 10 minutes to have a go at the other side. But what does the ordinary member of this House learn thereby? When there are immense sums of money to be spent, every time you are spending that money you commit yourself to more money being spent the following year, because every time you start a new programme you include a new group of people amongst those receiving pensions, for example. Inevitably you are committing more money to be spent the following year than you are spending in the current year.

I believe that the committee system through which we get 100 hours to debate the budget in the House, is totally inefficient and totally counter-productive to what the task of members of this House should be. I have posed a question to this House and I have put it in the form of a motion in which I ask that the matter should be referred to the Standing Rules and Order Committee, the committee which deals with the operation of Parliament. The committee is to consider whether it is not necessary to subject the affairs of some of the departments, if not all of them, to the consideration of a small group of interested members constituted as a committee. I am not asking the House to take a decision, on this now, but I am requesting the House to think along those lines. Let us face the facts. In the calm atmosphere of a Select Committee members would be able to argue out and resolve problems, get to know how everybody else thinks on both sides of the House, and to get to know the problems of the various departments.

Hon. members may ask which problems I have in mind. To my mind our problem arises basically from the insufficiency of information supplied to members. I would like to ask every single member in the House what he knows about the inner problems and the workings of the individual departments. Let us, for argument’s sake, take the departments of Water Affairs and of Forestry in the charge of the hon. member for Nelspruit, the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry. The capital expenditure of the Department of Water Affairs for the last four or five years exceeded R100 million, and in the House we get 3½ hours in which to discuss that expenditure. As the spokesman on water affairs on this side of the House, I am privileged to get half an hour out of the three and a half hours. The rest of the members therefore have only three hours, divided into 10-minute speeches, in which they must attempt to make a contribution to influence the course of events or to make some kind of constructive contribution in regard to the expenditure of such an amount of money. We must bear in mind that the R100 million commits us to approximately 12 years of expenditure. We are not spending the R100 million for one year and “finish en klaar”. When we spend R100 million for one year, we are at the same time committing ourselves for the future, for example where we deal with schemes like the Orange River scheme, the cost of which has escalated out of all proportion since the scheme commenced. Only something like R45 million was voted to initiate the scheme and in the meantime there has been an astronomical escalation of costs. I can also refer to other schemes, such as the Berg River scheme and the Tugela/Vaal scheme, every one of which is committing the country to an escalating of expenditure. I do not believe that under present circumstances, members can get a real insight into the actual operations or into the problems which are involved. The House should know that if one if confronted with a number of really tough problems and one puts them to the Minister, he does not have to answer them then and there if he does not want to. He promises to send you a letter afterwards, and one has to keep on chasing the department, without getting the satisfaction one tries to get with the one chance given to you, the 10 minutes can speak on the Vote in the House.

I hope you will get satisfaction this year.

Well, I hope the hon. the Minister is not casting any reflection on his predecessor, because I would say he was actually a very good Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry. I think the officials of the department also would welcome a body of members who are informed on the subject of their department. I am sure that when they sometimes sit in the gallery and listen to some of the debates that take place, they must feel that members in the House are basically out of touch with the problems of their department. This is not the fault of members. In the nature of the functioning of the system, no member can be in touch to such an extent so as to be able to come with constructive criticism, with an informed opinion and with real alternatives. As it is today the country is inevitably run by the Civil Service. They work out all departmental programmes. For a Member of Parliament to come to this House and make any kind of constructive criticism or to suggest an alternative approach is, to my mind, virtually impossible.

He must first do his homework.

I agree 100% with the hon. the Minister. However, what I want to do is to create a sort of mechanism through which homework can be done properly and where one can have a real informed opinion, not from your own side only, but also from the department, about what is going on.

I believe a committee of members sitting for four or five years can build up a body of corporate knowledge. The members sitting together on a Select Committee will, therefore, have a body of knowledge which will be of immense assistance to the Minister, to the department and to the country. One will then have information, one will know the personalities involved and one will know the trends which manifest themselves in the departments. One will also know what future planning looks like, I believe that is something which is absolutely vital for the future operation of the whole of the State machinery in South Africa.

Let us for a moment look at the Department of Forestry. In the House we discuss forestry for about an hour and a half in committee on the estimates of expenditure. I do not think any ordinary member of the House can know anything about that department. I honestly think that if you take any 10 or 12 ordinary members of the House, you will get a bare minimum of basic knowledge of the operations, the expenditure and the workings of a particular department. The Forestry Department is a department that is revenue producing. It is one of the departments that pay money into the State. I have inquired what the value of timber was which was sold from State forests over the last five years for pulping purposes. I do not really have full clarity about the matter, but it seems that R3 800 000 was earned in this respect. The figure for timber sold for saw-milling purposes from State forests was R39½ million and the figure for creosoting, R2½ million. This is money which comes to the State from the operations of this particular State department. However, I am convinced that the average member in this House really knows nothing about it at all. To the officials of the department themselves this must be a source of great frustration if they should be listening to the debates in the House, because they see us passing a budget and voting money for the expenditure of the department without knowing what is going on in the department.

There are all sorts of questions which arise. One could, for example, ask what formula is being used for the selling of timber from State forests. The figure I have here is 15% on production costs. That is a reasonable commercial margin which is generally accepted. One could also ask what the ratio is between the value of timber sold during the past five years and the capital investment of the State in sawmills. The figure I have is 1 000% in respect of five years. Over a period of one year this would be 200%. How many members know what the investments of the State are, what the housing situation is and what is being spent on wages in a department? This particular department has millions of rands invested and there are many millions more to be invested, because this department has a long time ago realized the strategic importance of timber and are buying farms at the present moment so that they can obtain more timber. Further investments in land are also planned. In addition the department has problems with staff, hail, fire, etc. Recently allocated to this department is also the question of the wilderness areas. There is not one member in the House who is not interested in wilderness areas, conservation problems, etc. But only nine members can take part in a debate of 90 minutes. Where does the ordinary member in this House get the chance to discuss the wilderness areas in this country, something which is going to play an important part in tourism, internally and externally?

And Sandy Bay!

I know what the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is worrying about. He has a thought in the back of his mind that we may build up a pressure group in a Select Committee and that that pressure group of the Opposition may start riding it.

I think individual members should get a chance to get down to a thorough and sensible discussion in quiet, away from the differences of opinion which manifest themselves in this House. I maintain that this House is not the place where one can have a thorough, impersonal and sensible discussion on problems relating to the department, because as soon as we say something, a member on the other side is bound to say the opposite and give us a go, because they must defend those things we are attacking. I believe that more than anyone the members of the Government stand to benefit from this. I often wonder what it is like to be a backbencher on the Government side. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I can forgive them their nervousness, I know they feel a bit bad about it. I believe, however, that the morale of Members of Parliament is involved. There is locked up in the members of this House a great deal of creative and constructive thought that would be to the benefit of this country, our South Africa, if we could find a way of loosening it and letting it operate. Again, I must say, that this House is not the place where the ordinary, average member can make a real contribution. In the attempt to unlock …

Join the Schlebusch Commission.

I know the hon. the Minister is jealous of the fact that he could not serve in the Schlebusch Commission. I know he tried hard, and I can understand why he was not put on. Those of us who were privileged enough to serve on it, have learnt a lesson about what one can do with co-operation of people who can get together, think about things and discuss things. The opportunity for members of this House to make that real, positive and creative contribution to government is not over the floor of the House. What is more, we have to—even if some of the hon. Minister over there may look indestructible—find new Ministers all the time. How do members of the House get the chance to know what is going on and to know the inner workings of departments as such?

Other members on this side of the House will deal with other aspects of the subject. I have come before the House today merely to ask that the matter be received in a sincere fashion. I did not come here in an attempt to make anything political out of it, but because I believe all of us can do a lot more for South Africa than we are able to do under the present system. I am looking for a key whereby Members of Parliament can free themselves from the shackles of Westminster, the present system under which we labour, to look for a more modem, streamlined and up-to-date fashion of governing South Africa. I hope this will be received by members on all sides of the House as a positive contribution that can help us all to do something more than we are doing at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with particular attention to the hon. member for Mooi River, who moved this motion. I want to say at once that I have a great deal of understanding and appreciation for many of the arguments which he raised here. We also have appreciation for the fact that this, naturally, is not a political motion. I accept that it is a genuine and honest attempt on his part to make a contribution towards improving our parliamentary procedure, as he sees it. Certain aspects mentioned by him I cannot quite see as part of this motion. Amongst other things he referred to the ability and opportunity of members to make contributions. There are indeed opportunities and channels, and in this respect I am thinking in particular of our study groups, where every member is able to acquaint himself very thoroughly with everything concerning the departments, their methods of operation, the particulars and the composition of their finances. There are also other Select Committees for this purpose. I am the last one who would want to suggest that we have a perfect system. At the outset I should like to say that the more one thinks of changes and improvements, the more one must bear in mind the fact that the system we are applying today is a well-tried parliamentary one. It is not a system which is based on antiquated ideas or which is being applied because it is short-sighted. It is a system which has evolved over a period of many years and has brought forward concepts which we may apply fruitfully today. For example we think of the fact that the system we apply today has been taken over largely from the British parliamentary system. It is a standing and well-tried system, one which has gained acceptance and which has been worked out over many years, over virtually a century.

If I understand the hon. member’s motion correctly, he proposes that the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the Votes, and that the reports of the Select Committee be tabled before the consideration of the Votes, be referred to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. What is the desirability of that which must be considered here? The hon. member gave me a memorandum in advance and said what was envisaged was “to improve parliamentary participation in expenditure procedure”. He said this would be effected through a Select Committee which would be authorized to discuss (1) expenditure, (2) departmental policy and (3) priorities. If the hon. member proposes this, I come back to what I said originally, viz. that what the hon. member envisages here is indeed a very drastic proposal in respect of our entire parliamentary system. It affects the basic idea of “the granting of supply”. My own standpoint is—and I have more than sufficient grounds for this—that it is basically the task of the executive to initiate expenditure. This is then appropriated by the legislative authority, that is Parliament. In this respect I refer to page 41 of Kilpin’s work. He is a leading authority on our parliamentary system and with reference to the other leading authority, Erskine May, he says—

This is with reference to England—

The State initiates expenditure and Parliament appropriates the money. This is the same system as that which we are applying here. This is indeed an old historical concept. It has gained firm acceptance in our parliamentary system and is specifically included in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I admit that this principle of demand and appropriation has been a very provocative concept over many years. It is a very old problem and is therefore not new to South Africa. The first problem which arose in this respect, arose as long ago as the days of the Dutch East India Company, when the inhabitants refused to pay their taxes because they had no representation. The drastic measure of keelhauling was applied to leaders who advocated this. It has been, as I have said, a problem throughout the years and is therefore nothing new. As far back as the year 1922 it was a problem, as we may read in the reports of the Committee on Public Accounts of that year. The Committee on Public Accounts considered the matter at that time and found that the financial budget of that time was far too large. I wonder what they would have said if they could have seen today’s budget. That Select Committee raised another aspect as well. They said there had been an excess of £1 800 000 every year. This was the case. I think that Messrs. Burton, Merriman, Sir David Harris and Abe Bailey would turn in their graves if we had to tell them that our excess was R246 million this year. However, they decided as far back as that year to consider the matter and recommended the establishment of this type of committee for which the hon. member is asking now. The recommendation was that a committee of this type be created—

That recommendation has apparently never been implemented, in my opinion because it was asked that that committee have the right to settle “questions of policy”. Even further back, in the United Kingdom, in the British Parliament, there was also more or less the type of committee which the hon. member proposes now. It was known as the Committee of Estimates. That Committee had, however, no authority or power in respect of policy. What was the outcome? That committee simply disappeared because it was totally impotent and because as it was said—

That committee was then replaced by another committee, viz. the Committee of Expenditure, which still exists in England today. This Committee has wider powers and does have the power to deal with matters of policy. It may also deal with long term planning, and may call Ministers to account. It may put a Minister on the carpet and tell him that he has erred. In my opinion this is a creation which has many dangers. Those of us who listened to the news this week, could hear the proof of this. In England this committee is completely at loggerheads with the British Government because it has arrogated to itself the power to differ with the present Government on aspects of defence. One can imagine what an intolerable situation is now being created by a committee consisting of a few members of Parliament arrogating to themselves the power of venturing into a direct confronting with the Government on certain aspects of policy without their having a complete picture. The committee does not have all the information. That is why this committee has already experienced adversity in Britain. I shall read out what has been said of this committee, which, incidentally, has not been in existence for a very long time. I quote from an article “the Expenditure Committee, a Preliminary Assessment in Parliamentary Affairs”, by Paul Byrne. The following is said—

He continues—

In conclusion this writer quotes from what an authority has to say, namely—

This, I think, is the essence of the matter, and this is why we shall have to reflect very carefully before agreeing to accept an idea such as that suggested by the hon. member for Mooi River, in spite of his very good intentions.

However, I have other misgivings too. If something like this had to be done, this Parliament would have to sit until the cows come home. We would simply not be able to complete the work. We would have to sit until the end of the year merely to deal with the budget. This can be done in Britain where they sit all year long. However, it cannot be done in South Africa. The other question is how binding the recommendations of such a committee would be, especially on ministerial level. What would the position be if there were to be conflicts? Which powers would be delegated and entrusted to this committee? We all know that the deliberations of a Select Committee are confidential. No one need be admitted there and nothing may be published beforehand. There is no minority report either. Another question is whether full discussions would take place or whether a system such as the one in the United States would be created? In the United States there is a committee consisting of specialized people who have all the knowledge, and when the matter comes before the House, there is nothing more to be said about it. I do not think that we would accept this and therefore I want to agree with Kilpin. On page 58 he says the following in connection with our system—

Then he says—

I conclude by admitting that there are shortcomings; but then there is the old joke about the professor who was explaining to his class what a dictatorship and a one-party state were and who said, This is a democracy—“that is the worst of the lot, but it works’’. That is the position here too: “It works.’’

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Ermelo for taking this motion as seriously as he has done, for having investigated the implications of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Mooi River and for discussing this with us in the manner in which we intended it should be discussed. Having said that, I would go on to say that the hon. member for Ermelo has in fact got to the nub of the problem, and in this I include some of the remarks he made by way of objection. I shall deal with those as I go along. I do believe, however, that despite his seriousness of purpose, he has perhaps misunderstood the proposal in the sense that he regards it as being of so fundamental and radical a nature as to change the existing system of parliamentary government in this country. It does not nearly do that. There is no question of a radical change in our parliamentary system. It is a streamlining of method that is proposed, the extension of a principle which already exists in this Parliament. There is nothing fundamental involved. What is fundamental about the proposal is that, if we make the proposed changes, this Parliament will be better able to get to the essentials of its duty and obligations in its capacity as the representative of the people. It is true, of course, that similar systems have been tried in Britain. The hon. member for Ermelo referred to these. It is true that the Committee of Estimates was in fact abandoned and that the Committee of Expenditure, which now operates, is something of a different sort from the former Committee of Estimates. However, when he quotes authorities against the way in which the Committee of Expenditure functions, I would say to him that there is also very strong authority which favours the kind of work and the kind of contribution that the Committee of Expenditure is now making to the system in Britain. I shall deal with that in the course of my speech.

I think we all agree that it is important that we members of Parliament should keep under constant review the methods and procedures of Parliament as times change and conditions alter, and should seek to ensure always that Parliament will perform its functions as well as possible in accordance with the requirements of the changing circumstances. It is necessary, for example, that Parliament should at all times be seen to be relevant—relevant as a legislative authority and relevant in the performance of its duty—so that those people who put their trust and confidence in Parliament will see it performing the kind of function in which they could place their trust and which would command their confidence. It is essential that the prestige of Parliament should be maintained as it is a valuable and, in fact, an essential bulwark of public order. Secondly, I think it must be seen that Parliament is effective. It is all very well for Parliament to continue performing its functions in a traditional manner, to be admired for its antiquated ceremonies and a certain degree of pomp with which it conducts its affairs, but if we are to command the confidence of the people and especially of the younger generation, it is also necessary that Parliament should be seen to be an effective organization. These things really add up to the maintenance of the confidence of the public. Why do we essentially need the confidence of the public? In the modem state Parliament increasingly is making demands on the ordinary citizen who contributes, by way of taxes, to the running of a most complicated State machine. In order that this should run smoothly, it is quite clearly necessary that Parliament should have adequate and modem machinery to ensure that what in fact amounts to a constant redistribution of income, for that is what taxation is about, should be done in such a manner that people will have confidence that it is being correctly and properly done.

The hon. member for Mooi River has reminded us this afternoon that Parliament was originally established through the determination of the people that their representatives should be consulted about State expenditure. There was a cry at one stage that there should be no taxation without representation. That historic cry has perhaps been overtaken by another slogan or demand, viz. that there should be no supply without redress of grievances. These add up to very much the same thing. As the modern State advances and becomes more complex, it becomes necessary for Parliament to review and reconsider its procedures in order that it may ensure that these ancient demands are met in a modem way. We must, therefore, ask ourselves to what extent Parliament is organized to meet this purpose. Can it satisfy these modem needs? We have many procedures in this House which have been proved by experience, which have been hallowed by tradition and which we value very highly. It is no part of this motion that these procedures should be abandoned.

Nevertheless, there are questions which arise. We must ask ourselves these questions. The first question, I think, is whether Parliament effectively controls expenditure. Does it, for instance, meet a criterion that was set as the main conclusion of the report of the Lord Plowden Commission which investigated the very question we are discussing this afternoon? The Commission on the Control of Public Expenditure reported in 1961 and its main conclusion was—

This report was really a watershed in the consideration of public expenditure in the British parliamentary system. While I do not hold for one moment that what applies there necessarily also applies here, I believe there are certain principles, which were very thoroughly examined in that report, which are indeed relevant to the consideration of similar matters in our own Parliament. I have no doubt that the Treasury does in fact consider such matters which, as Lord Plowden says, are of great importance. The question is whether this Parliament does so. That is what we have to consider today. I believe it would not be a right or an honest reply to say that Parliament, according to the present system of plenary sessions in this House, is in a position within the time limits available and within the procedures available, to give the Estimates of Expenditure the kind of consideration which the commission to which I have referred has defined as being essential.

This brings me to the second question which, I think, we must ask ourselves, viz. whether Parliament is best able to do this kind of work in plenary sessions. That is to say, can we best do this work in a full session of this House or even in Committee of the whole House; or would it be better if we were to divide ourselves up into smaller expert groups specializing in certain subjects, to meet in a committee room and undertake a more detailed examination and cover more ground in that these groups will be meeting separately to discuss various subjects? Would it not be better if that were done and if these groups then came back to the House in plenary session and report their findings, conclusions and recommendations to the full House? This would surely be more efficient and would allow a far greater saving of time.

I come to the third question. Is our Select Committee system, our structure at the moment, designed to the purpose which we have in mind? We have in this House 11 Select Committees, of which six are in fact related directly or indirectly to the study of matters relating to the budget. For example, we have Select Committees on Irrigation Matters, Bantu Affairs, Railways and Harbours, Pensions, State-owned Land, and of course the Public Accounts Committee itself. But what about defence and foreign affairs? What about trade and industry? What about education and the arts? What about the interior and the environment? What about employment and ancillary services? What about the public corporations which take up such a large part of our Republic’s finances? What about science and technology, on which I myself proposed a motion some four years ago? These are vital matters in the development of our country. They absorb ever-increasing quantities of money. They have a growing impact on the life, shape and growth of our country. I believe that this Parliament should in fact enable itself better to look at the way in which money is devoted to these purposes.

We cannot decide all these issues today. The hon. member for Ermelo has rightly raised a related issue, namely that of time. He says that you can do these things in the British Parliament because they sit all the year round. We sit for a single period each year and therefore we cannot afford the time to examine the estimates of expenditure and the implications of these expenditures adequately. I believe that the time has come when we must also think about this. The system that we have here of sitting five months a year and then going into recess for seven months is one which grew up owing to the nature of this country, long before the advent of the aeroplane, the motor-car, the development of telegraph and telex systems, telephone systems and all the modem aids which we have today. I believe that the complexities of modem Government are such, and that the demands on this country because of pressures—internal and external—will be such, that this is also one of the things which we must look at very seriously.

I believe that it might be better, it might be possible, for this Parliament to phase out its time into a series of sessions which would also allow time between the presentation of the budget, for example, and the eventual consideration of Votes for the kind of work to be done which we propose in this motion. These things are very complex issues and we certainly cannot solve them here this afternoon. What this motion suggests, however, is that we should agree that there are matters in this Parliament and its procedures that need review, and that these matters certainly include, amongst the most important, this question of a proper consideration of the finances, the Votes of this House. Let us go forward and support this motion. Let the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders examine these implications and let them decide what it is that needs to be done. Let us refer this matter, if necessary, for further study and further investigation, but at all costs let us ensure that this Parliament, which we so much revere, should remain relevant, effective and continue to command the confidence of the people who have sent us here.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much fault to find with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Mooi River, but I am a little disappointed that he failed to go into more detail. The request here is for a committee system, but he failed to indicate in any way how such a committee might carry out its functions. Reference has only been made to the lack of information which members obtain or can obtain, but I should very much have liked to see something more positive from the proposer of the motion with regard to how, in his opinion, such a committee system would function. I must say that I have a very high regard for the ability and sincerity of the hon. member for Mooi River. That is why I am a little disappointed that he did not take the argument somewhat further. Then, too, with reference to what the hon. member for Ermelo had to say, I want to say that I am very doubtful whether such a system would work. I should like to refer the hon. member to the system adopted by the city councils. In the old days, the city councils, too, had a system of committees. There was a health committee, a parks committee, a financial committee, a review committee and so on. City councils, through the provincial councils, saw fit to replace the committee system with the system of management committees. To me the management committee system is like a cabinet of the city council, and from what I hear and infer, city councils function far more efficiently and with far less verbiage with the management committee system than they did with the previous system, when city councils had these different committees which had to do the work.

Mr. Speaker, in this House there are 171 members, of whom 18 are in the Cabinet. There are six Deputy Ministers, and in addition there are other officers such as the Whips, the Speaker himself, the Deputy Speaker—not many more than that. Forty-five departments appear on this list and have to be discussed at the committee stage of the budget. I should like to ask the hon. member for Mooi River how many members he envisages for each committee. It seems to me that there are not enough members in the House of Assembly. Does he, then, want us to increase the number of members of the House to a 1 000? For these 130 to 140 members to act as watch-dogs for a Public Service consisting of ten thousand people, will be attempting the impossible.

We are doing it now.

Yes, I know we are doing it now, but we are doing it in accordance with a different system. I am only asking; I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member. Does he think that hon. members will have the time? I feel that a reliable and hard-working hon. member—and I know that the hon. member for Mooi River is such a member—hardly finds the time to do the work he has to do now. It seems to me that one would have to have more members among whom this work could be distributed. Then, too, I want to know whether there must be a committee for the hon. the Prime Minister’s department? A great deal of money is spent on that, too. The hon. member must give me the opportunity to ask questions, because he asked a great many. Does he also want a committee for defence, on which a great deal of money is spent? What about foreign affairs? In view of the problems of recent times, I doubt whether one could give committees these drastic powers to acquire such an intimate knowledge of those matters.

With reference to the motion of the hon. member for Mooi River I want to draw attention to the way in which the activities of the national economy have increased in the course of a decade, and the figures I want to quote relate to the decade 1960-’61 to 1970-’71. It may be said that these figures are five years old, but the trend remains unaltered. In the 1960-’61 financial year, the central Government had a budget—and this includes the Revenue Account, the Loan Account, the Bantu Education Account and the South West Africa Account—of R786 million. Ten years later, viz. in 1970-’71, this had increased to R2 466 million, an increase of 214%. As far as the Railways and Harbours Administration is concerned, this increased by 127% on the revenue account, by 143% on the expenditure and revenue services and by 63% on capital services. One can produce figures of this kind. Actually, I want to draw attention to the expansion of the Public Service machinery in all its aspects during that ten year period. Since 1961 the following departments or sub-departments have been established: the Department of Immigration, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Statistics, the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Department of Planning, the division of Civil Defence—which has now been included in Defence—State Information, an autonomous Postal Administration, Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs. These are the various new departments and sub-departments which have come into being, over and above those which already exist. A total of nine departments have been established in this way.

Then, too, new boards and statutory bodies have been established during that ten year period, inter alia, the South African Wool Commission, the Milk Board, the Peach Board, the Hotel Board, the Mohair Control Board, the Armaments Board, the National Film Board, the Abattoir Commission, the External Procurement Fund, the National Metallurgical Institute, Advisory Committees on Air Pollution, the Drugs Control Board, the Karakul Board, the Human Sciences Research Council, the South African Medical Research Council and the Boland Disaster Committee—15 in all. During the same period, self-government has been instituted for the Transkei, the Tswanas, the Ciskei, Lebowa, the Matshangana, the Venda, Basuto Qua Qua, Owambo, Kavango—a total of nine. This shows how the national economy has developed over this period of ten years. Then, too, there has also been an extraordinary expansion of existing Government departments, inter alia—

And now my question is …

Table it.

My question is whether the House of Assembly has the manpower, the technical knowledge and the time to keep an eye on all the activities of the national economy with regard to the expenditure of funds. I am by no means opposed to us modernizing the national economy, or to members of Parliament perhaps having to be able to spend their time more fruitfully. But the system advocated by the hon. member seems to me a little vague and, as the hon. member for Von Brandis states, it should perhaps be more carefully scrutinized. I want to agree with him that one should not reject it out of hand, but that one should definitely give it consideration. Will it not be appropriate, in view of the limited number of members of Parliament, in view of the limited time at our disposal and all the duties we have no perform—even to serve as a postbox, as the hon. member for Mooi River said—to seek a solution by way of existing machinery? Here I have in mind the Select Committees that are already functioning, and functioning very effectively, in my opinion. Perhaps these committees could go into more detail, since at present they take only a general view of the matters they consider. The hon. member behind me here mentions state security, but I do not think I should take that up because possibly there is a political aspect to that at the moment. I have in mind the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The accounts of a large number of departments, sub-departments, control boards and statutory bodies are audited annually by the Controller and Auditor-General and his reports are submitted to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The time of this Select Committee is very limited, too, and it is therefore unable to attend to all these matters in detail. I wonder whether a solution could not be found by extending the life of this Select Committee to the full year and thereby enabling it to investigate Government expenditure more searchingly and exercise control over it. Perhaps one should seek a solution along those lines. This applies to other bodies, too, for example the Bantu Affairs Commission, which assists the Minister, the Select Committee on State Land, etc. I therefore ask whether we should not seek a solution along those lines instead of introducing a radical change, as the hon. member for Ermelo said, which will in fact give the Opposition a joint say in the policy as regards expenditure. In conclusion I just want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Von Brandis when he said: “Parliament is looking for the confidence of the public.” I just want to tell him that this side of the House has enjoyed the confidence of the public for many years. This is not meant in a political sense. The chief aim of Parliament is to set policy against policy, and if the policy of …

We are not arguing about that.

The hon. member states that he is not arguing about that. Parliament is the forum where policy has to be set against policy and this need not be a predominantly financial matter. Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a very fruitful discussion and I am pleased that the hon. member for Mooi River introduced the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the contributions that have been made to this debate so far. As a relative newcomer to this House, it may be a little pretentious of me to endeavour to criticize the present operational procedure of Parliament. I have listened with interest also to the contribution made by the hon. member for Germiston District. He dealt with the many difficulties that would confront us if we instituted the sort of operational procedure that is called for in this motion, as a result, inter alia, of the ramifications because of the proliferation of Government departments, that there certainly were not enough members to cope with all this, etc. I think the point that must be remembered is that members should have the right to ask questions about what they consider to be fit. At the moment I do not believe that they always have the opportunity to do so. There is no doubt at all in my mind that it has become necessary to review the present method of operation of this Parliament, because like the hon. member for Mooi River, I believe that the effectiveness of our present procedures, specifically when it comes to the control of expenditure, leaves quite a lot to be desired. Just as much as the hon. member for Mooi River, we have also experienced the frustration of being unable to discuss Government expenditure and policy in any sort of detail, because the time laid down is inadequate. With the ever-increasing scope of Government activity, outlined by the hon. member for Germiston District, pressure on parliamentary time has become acute. The Committee Stage of the budget, which allows 105 hours of discussion on the departmental estimates, clearly does not permit of adequate discussion of the estimates. Hon. members tend to find it more profitable to discuss departmental policy and administration rather than the details of expenditure. In other words, the Committee Stage tends to follow along the lines of Second and Third Reading debates, which are, generally, debates of high political and topical interest rather than a detailed examination of projected departmental expenditure and the policies which dictate the necessity for such expenditure. I would like to say at this stage to the hon. member for Ermelo, who discussed this whole question of criticism of policy, that it is often unclear to members on this side of the House exactly what the policy is in certain respects, and there is not always time to give an answer during the Committee Stage debate. I believe that the Committee idea is a possible time when policy can be discussed, not on an argumentative basis but purely on an informative basis. There is no real time at all for members to make positive suggestions towards how the policies implied in the figures of the estimates of projected expenditure could be carried out more economically. In particular, the debates on matters which do not have great political significance or discord, receive very salutary treatment indeed, and they are given minimal time for discussion. The hon. member for Mooi River quite correctly referred to the debate on the Department of Water Affairs, where last year the estimates for this department involved an amount of R112 million on Loan Account, R34 million on Revenue Account and R23 million on South West Africa Account—a total of R169 million. Water Affairs is not a highly contentious matter, but nevertheless a considerable amount of money is being spent. The time allocated for discussion on the spending of this R169 million last year was three hours. Three hours is given for the detailed discussion of estimates involving R169 million.

It is up to you to ask for more time.

One looks at another department, Social Welfare and Pensions. I cannot hear what that hon. member on the other side is mumbling about. He is certainly grumbling about something. If he wants to ask a question, he is perfectly welcome to do so.

He usually sits there mumbling.

Yes, he is only mumbling.

†Let us look at the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, where estimated revenue expenditure alone is something like R308 million per annum. This is not particularly contentious. I believe that everyone in this House desires to better the position of pensioners, improve the lot of those people who need welfare assistance, and so on. It is not highly contentious. Arguments frequently occur in this House, because people are unaware of the details of policies laid down by the Government on the other side. Public Works, which was to spend in the region of R200 million last year, was allowed 1½ hours of discussion.

Mr. Speaker, it is patently ridiculous to imagine that anything like adequate attention could be given to detailed estimates in these circumstances. I do not believe that any member of Parliament can properly discharge his responsibilities towards his electorate under these circumstances. Theoretically any member can call for an explanation by a Minister on any item of the estimates in which he is interested, but in the time allowed the vast majority of the members are not even given the opportunity of speaking. In practice, in the short time allowed, members have tended to make speeches which are an extension of the political debate of the Second Readings, and the details have been largely forgotten.

I believe that if public money is being spent, any member of Parliament should have the right to consider and to discuss the motivation behind the estimates of any department, as well as the amount involved, because it is part of the responsibilities of a member of Parliament to consider and to assess firstly how the policies implied in the figures of projected expenditure can be carried out more economically, and secondly, the priorities on which such expenditure is based.

In answer to the hon. member for Ermelo I want to say that I know that priorities are a matter of Government policy and that this is a matter that does not necessarily need argument, but at least a discussion as to why those priorities are in the situation in which they are could, I believe, be of enormous benefit.

The whole question of control over public expenditure is particularly important in an inflationary situation, and I believe, like the hon. member for Mooi River, that all members of Parliament should be able to play a real part in influencing departmental decisions outside the strictly political sphere. Of course, I must hasten to add, as other members have, that politics must be part of our whole parliamentary system. Different attitudes, philosophies and policies have to be debated. However, I believe that it is important that these debates should take place against the background of a total in depth knowledge of any situation. In this way a debate could acquire a depth which it frequently lacks at present.

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned earlier, parliamentary procedures have developed over the years. Since the days of Magna Charta in Britain there has been a constant process of development and of improvement in the matter of procedure in legislative bodies throughout the world. As new situations have developed, procedures adopted by the South African Parliament have changed and evolved, and although the hon. member for Ermelo has suggested that we have a system that works—certainly it works at the moment—situations change all the time and I believe that it is necessary for evolution of our procedures to take place at the same time. I believe that we can always improve on things. I think it is worth while to have a look at what other democratic legislatures elsewhere in the world are doing, in deciding whether their procedures could assist us to improve our own modus operandi. There is no doubt at all in my mind that our present system, as I have said, leaves a lot to be desired, and I do not think that we must sit back complacently. I think we must take a long, hard look at ourselves, recognize our shortcomings and attempt to do something about it. It is interesting to note that in New Zealand where, like us, Parliament does not sit throughout the year, committees of members sit right through the recess.

A motion is introduced into the House that, for example, the defence committee or the labour and mining committee, or any other committee, may have leave to sit during the recess. I think we should seriously consider the possible establishment of similar committees here in South Africa, and it may well be that it may be necessary for part of the work of such committees to be done during the recess. I am not at this stage saying that it is necessarily so, but I think that consideration should be given to this sort of thing, too, if we are going to make Parliament that much more effective. I was interested to hear the comments from, among others, the hon. member for Mooi River, the hon. member for Von Brandis, and the hon. member for Ermelo, on the procedure operating in the British Parliament. As in our Parliament, of course, select committees are appointed, but there are two committees which assist the House of Commons to discharge its responsibilities for national finances. The first of these is the Public Accounts Committee, which, I suppose, is the counterpart of our Select Committee on Public Accounts, although I believe that its powers are somewhat wider, in that it has the power to investigate whether full value has been obtained for the money spent by departments. It also has the power which our committee has, to examine cases in which the administration appears to have been faulty or negligent. It is an instrument for the exposure of waste and inefficiency. It might interest the hon. member for Ermelo to know that the chairman of that committee is invariably a member of the Opposition. This is so in the Canadian and other Parliaments, too. Interestingly enough, I have also discovered that at one time in the history of our Union Parliament—I think it was in the early twenties or just after the First World War—our Public Accounts Committee too had a member of the Opposition as its chairman.

In Britain, this committee embodies its findings in reports which are regularly debated each session. I know that theoretically we debate the reports of the Committee on Public Accounts, but I have never heard any major discussion in this hon. House as to exactly what transpired in that committee.

Probably of more interest to us, in the light of the present motion today, is the second committee controlling finances in Britain. That is the Expenditure Committee, to which the hon. member for Ermelo has referred. I agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis that something along the lines of this Expenditure Committee might be a way in which we could go. I, like the hon. member for Von Brandis, have heard not only adverse comment, like the hon. member for Ermelo, but of a considerable body of opinion which believes that this committee in Britain is doing a very fine job—within limits, of course. It has been designed to improve control by the House of Commons over the pattern of public expenditure. Instead of the estimates going first to a committee of the whole House after Second Reading, they are sent to the Expenditure Committee which examines those, and only those which it considers require attention. It does not have to go through every department’s estimates in detail. It examines only those estimates which it considers require attention.

In particular it is charged with the study of how the policies implied in the estimates can be carried out more economically. Now this committee has established six functional subcommittees which cover the whole range of public expenditure, and the hon. member for Von Brandis has mentioned some of them. There are subcommittees on defence, external affairs, trade and industry, education, arts and home office, in other words an interior committee, an environment committee, social services and employment committees and a general public expenditure committee which goes through the smaller departments. These committees then submit reports and when these reports have been submitted they are then presented to the Committee of the Whole House, which can then debate and pass the estimates in the light of the reports. In other words, our Committee of Supply, our budget Votes, would receive the same time; it would not take up any additional time, but the in-depth background to that debate will already have taken place and many questions will already have been answered. What interested me is the fact that the Opposition then has the right to choose what matters should be debated in Committee of Supply of the full House. Matters which have been examined by the Expenditure Committee, if they are not contentious, need not be debated by the Committee of the Whole House at all. They are not debated in our House at the moment if they are not contentious. But matters on which the Opposition wants to tackle the Government are debated and these tend to be matters of political and topical interest. Now if something along these lines were applied to our procedures the estimates and the rationale behind them could be discussed in a reasonably calm atmosphere and I think this is important. Any Member of Parliament realizes that when he is on the floor of the House speaking as a member of the Opposition or as a member of the Government, he is in a position of confrontation. I am convinced that the scrutiny of detail of expenditure can take place much more suitably in a small committee, possibly in private, where matters can be discussed on a reasonable basis without people having to take public postures about what they are doing. If members are still not satisfied, the matter can be taken up in Committee of the Whole House at a later stage. I am certain that the consideration of this sort of possibility for our procedure is very necessary and for this reason we are going to support wholeheartedly the motion of the hon. member for Mooi River. It intrigues me, incidentally, that he should be the member to move a motion of this nature. Looking back, I saw in The Sunday Tribune of 23 November 1975 that the hon. member was advocating a getting together of “moderates”, which is, I think, the term he used to describe among others himself and the Prime Minister, and he said—

Well, I would not go quite as far as the hon. member, but today he talked about the Committee Stage of the budget as being sometimes counterproductive, and in a memorandum he circulated among some of us who are participating in this debate he described the Committee Stage again as a farce. I must say that his recently expressed attitudes towards Select Committees and their functions give me no particular reason for confidence that the role which he feels should be played by Select Committees is the same role which I have in mind. However, I believe that his motion and his speech today, calling for the referral of the whole question to the Committee of Standing Rules and Orders, could lead to constructive change.

Sir, I found it very interesting that one of the sessional Select Committees appointed by the British House of Commons is a Committee on Nationalized Industries. The function of this committee is to examine the reports and the accounts of these industries, rather along the lines of our Railways and Harbours Select Committee, and now the Post Office Select Committee. I think it would be fruitful to take a look at this system and perhaps apply it to our situation, not only as far as the Railways and Harbours and the Post Office are concerned, but possibly also the semi-Government organizations financed by public money. I refer of course to organizations like Iscor, Escom and Sasol.

All in all there is a very wide field for us to consider and I feel strongly that we must not be complacent about our present procedures. I am sure that improvements along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Mooi River would allow individual members to play a far more meaningful role in Parliament’s deliberations. I think consideration should also be given to integrating Senators, possibly, into the deliberations of some of these Select Committees. This might well answer the point raised by the hon. member for Germiston District, who indicated that the numbers we have in Parliament would never get anywhere near supplying enough members for all the Select Committes that might be suggested. Over the years the Senate on occasion, I think quite incorrectly, has been described almost as a rubber stamp. This sort of Select Committee would bring Senators right into the earlier stage of the decision-making process, it would give them considerably more to do and it would involve them far more than they are involved at present.

In conclusion I would just like to quote a paragraph from our own Franzsen Commission on fiscal policy which, in its third report, dated November 1970, in chapter 2, paragraph 157, recommended the following—

Sir, I believe that this House should give urgent consideration to this recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is comforting to have the support of the hon. member for Orange Grove and his colleagues, and I find we have support in other quarters notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Ermelo and the hon. member for Germiston District have indicated that they cannot support the motion. I must say that I am disappointed to hear that.

I never said that.

The hon. member might not have said so in so many words but he certainly gave the impression that he was unable to support it. Now we have the situation where the hon. member for Ermelo has suggested other ways whereby the same objects could be achieved. He suggested that this should be done through study groups. Now, I know that we have this opportunity, and that heads of departments have on frequent occasions co-operated with us and have discussed with our study groups various matters affecting their departments. But that is not what the hon. member for Mooi River is asking for. He asks that we go further than this and that the whole question of the policy of the department must be discussed—the policy regarding expenditure, that is, and not the political policy; we must separate these two aspects. Let us get this quite clear, Sir; politics must stay out of this altogether. Not the political policy, but the financial policy, the expenditure policy, is what must be discussed in these Select Committees. This is where the whole question of priorities and necessities should be discussed. How do we in this House have an opportunity to discuss whether a particular item really is necessary or not, and whether it should be spent now or whether it could be spent in three years time? When you take particularly the Public Works Vote, with which I will deal later, there is the question of priorities, the time-table for the expenditure. These are the things which must be discussed and which we cannot discuss at the moment in our study groups. The hon. member mentioned the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member for Von Brandis has agreed with that hon. member, but on the basis that this is expanded, because at the moment Public Accounts deals with expenditure in arrear, with past expenditure. It is an audit committee, but if it were extended and perhaps divided into sub-committees, as was suggested by my hon. friend, then it could carry out the function which was suggested by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member for Mooi River has asked simply that this matter should be referred to the House Committee on Standing Rules and Orders for investigation and further report. I believe that this is a perfectly reasonable request and I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance, who has a hand in this matter, should accede to this request this afternoon.

The hon. member for Germiston District asked whether there would be a Select Committee on matters relating to the Prime Minister’s Department. The hon. member for Mooi River has asked that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders should investigate whether in fact there should be such a committee. The hon. member for Von Brandis has pointed out that we do not have to have 45 Select Committees. I believe that there are only seven in the United Kingdom. There the departments are grouped together and that can happen here as well. The hon. member for Germiston District ruined his case completely by talking about the tremendous expansion we have seen in the Public Service since 1961. I believe that the very facts which he mentioned here this afternoon go to strengthen the case of the hon. member for Mooi River. The questions we have to ask ourselves this afternoon as the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa are, firstly, whether we are satisfied with the present situation and, secondly, whether the situation can be improved. If we are honest, the answers to both these questions will be in the affirmative. I believe this is a sincere and genuine effect to find a solution, a way of improving the present situation.

Are you satisfied with the present situation?

The hon. the Minister asks whether we are satisfied with the present situation. I believe the answer is “no”.

You said the answer to both the questions was “yes”.

I beg your pardon. The answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second one is “yes”. The hon. the Minister is awake and I thank him for putting me right.

As I have said earlier, I find that the hon. member for Mooi River has support at the highest level from the Government benches. I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to col. 4399 of Hansard, 1970. The then Minister of Public Works, the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee, at that time considered a proposal from my friend, the hon. member for Green Point, that a Select Committee be appointed to deal with the Department of Public Works. The Minister said—

I commend that view of the late Minister to the hon. the Minister of Finance who will reply to this debate a little later.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked: Can we, as M.P.S, cope with the trust placed in us? Can we handle the expenditure under the present system? In other words, can we handle it, as we do today, across the floor of the House? I want to refer to the Department of Public Works. In last year’s budget we were asked to approve R72 million on Loan Account, which was a portion of a total expenditure of R635 million, involving the tacit approval of a further expenditure of R371 million. We were also asked to approve R68,5 million on Revenue Account. These are tremendous figures we are dealing with. How much time did the House spend on this matter? There are 172 members in this House and they were allowed one hour and twenty-six minutes to deal with that matter. Even more significant is the fact that after the members had discussed the matter for one hour and twenty-six minutes, the hon. the Minister concerned replied to the debate in the short time of 18 minutes. I do not believe that that is the way in which we should carry out the trust which has been placed in us by the people of South Africa. We owe it to the people of South Africa to pay more attention to these matters and to do more to protect their interests in the governing of the country.

Let us have a look at the situation in this particular department over the five previous years. In the five previous years a total of R365 million was voted on Loan Account. On South West Africa Account a total of more than R11 million was voted, and on Revenue Account over R280 million. This means that a total of R650 million was dealt with by the groups on both sides of the House. Across the floor of the House expenditure amounting to a total of R650 million was discussed and voted over a period of five years. How much time was spent on that? Members used a total of seven hours and 13 minutes. I might mention that in 1969 no time was devoted to the discussion of the Vote for Public Works, while over R100 million was voted. Seven hours and 13 minutes was spent by members, and that gives an average of one hour and 27 minutes a year. One hour and 39 minutes was spent by Ministers on the Vote, viz. an average of 20 minutes a year. This works out at expenditure at the rate of over R1 million for every minute devoted by the Committee of the whole House to these matters. That is not the way in which to conduct the affairs of South Africa. I do not believe we can do justice to our duty as members of Parliament if we are asked to work under the present system. That is the reason for the plea of my hon. friend, the member for Mooi River.

The hon. the Minister of Transport is quite right: We are not satisfied with the present situation; we must look for another way in which to do it. I believe the hon. member for Mooi River has given us an opportunity this afternoon to set the wheels in motion perhaps to find a better way, a more efficient way, of dealing with this matter.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that ordinary members had no opportunity to do their duty. I tried to show in the case of one department that members are not given the opportunity to do their duty in terms of the rules. If a Select Committee were appointed, what difference would it make? Not only would more members be directly involved through participation as members of such a Select Committee, but everyone of us as members of this House would be entitled to sit in on sessions of that Select Committee. I should like to tell the hon. member for Ermelo that we are not asking that such a Select Committee should consider the Estimates before the Budget is presented. This can only be done after the Budget has been presented. I agree with him entirely that secrecy cannot otherwise be preserved.

That is not in the motion.

How can the hon. member say that? We believe that the Select Committee will sit even after the Budget has been dealt with here in Committee. The Select Committee would not only deal with estimates in a given year, but it would deal with the whole question of priorities and a time-table for the following year. This is where every member of the House will have an opportunity of participating. To come back to Public Works, everyone of us is affected by that department, everyone of us has a Government office of some sort in his constituency. It is the one department with which everyone of us is concerned. However, how many of us can participate? Four or five of us can participate in the debate each year. Instead of hon. members having to go to the hon. the Minister concerned individually on an ad hoc basis, to plead for a particular post office, police station or whatever, this will be done through a Select Committee where, first of all, the necessity for the expenditure can be discussed. The whole economic policy of the department can be explained there so that we on this side of the House, particularly, can have a greater insight into the economic policy of the department. Priorities and a time-table can also be discussed there. I believe the hon. member for Mooi River has done us a great service this afternoon. I urge the hon. the Minister with all the persuasion of which I am capable at least to consider the motion and to refer it to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders so that they may investigate the matter.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one man who is responsible for the fact that insufficient members in this House get a chance to speak, then it is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. For proof of this we need only look at the 1975 debates from 24 March to 16 May. In that time, that hon. member spoke no fewer than 46 times. In other words, this shows that the hon. member cannot complain that members do not have sufficient time to discuss departmental affairs.

I want to say at once that one should not reject the idea of the hon. member for Mooi River out of hand. When new ideas are advanced one should not simply say at once that they are wrong or weak. It is a good thing that we should exchange ideas. I have in mind now one practical problem which we in South Africa are going to have because we sit for only five months of the year, viz. that if this system which the hon. member would like to have introduced—and which I should like to call “specialist committees”—we shall have to employ a large number of additional staff. They will be people who will work flat out for six months of the year and will have to sit here for the remaining six months without work to do. The system advocated by the hon. member for Mooi River is already in existence in certain countries. When the possibility of such security committees was investigated in Britain, the advice of various experts was called for. Before these people gave their opinion on the merit of such specialist committees, one of them made the significant statement—

To date it has not been necessary for us, when considering what other countries do, simply to follow what they do blindly; we in South Africa have analysed our circumstances and considered whether we should in fact bring about a change. The hon. member for Orange Grove, who has only been in the House for a short time, in the course of ten minutes wants to disparage as unsound and weak a system which has existed for centuries. I do not think that that is right.

Throughout the debate the idea has been expressed on the Opposition side that Parliament has insufficient time and information at its disposal to prevent the abuse by the executive of its powers. They state by implication that the authority of Parliament is disappearing or dwindling. In this regard I want to quote the opinion of a person for whom we ought to have respect. He is the leader of the British Lower House, the hon. Fred Peart, who was the leader in the days when the investigative committee in Britain had to determine whether they should introduce a specialist committee or not. The leader of the British Lower House had the following to say—

Those are the words of the hon. the leader of the British Lower House. He goes on to state—

In other words, that the powers of the executive are increasing and the power of Parliament diminishing—

I think that the point which the hon. gentleman wants to make is that Parliament and the electorate are good watch-dogs and will see to it that no Government will do things which are not in the interests of South Africa. I may not bring politics into this debate, but in lighter vein, I could perhaps say to the hon. member for Mooi River, with reference to what the hon. member for Germiston West had to say, that in the 28 years gone by we have kept our ears to the ground and that is why we are still on this side of the House. The question I should like to put to the hon. member for Mooi River is whether he is really convinced that he has insufficient time and information to debate meaningfully the programmes of departments, their achievements, their line of thought and activities in the year that lies ahead. I think the answer is “yes”. There is sufficient time and information for debate. As a member of this House, I have at least ten sources from which to seek information. In the course of the year I receive White Papers and annual reports from departments, appropriation accounts, explanatory memoranda, Select Committee reports and replies to questions asked in the House. Then there are group discussions, information meetings, a well-equipped library for one’s own research and, from this year, the cuttings service here in Parliament. Consequently there are many sources of information available. I have said that one of the sources of information which appears on our desks is the reports of the Select Committees and perhaps I as a member do not avail myself of the opportunity, when a Select Committee report is tabled, to debate it. When the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts was tabled last year and the House was given the opportunity to discuss it, only two hon. members discussed it, and both their speeches together run to less than one column.

I say that when Committee reports are tabled, we have the opportunity to debate them in the House. However, this opportunity is not made use of and perhaps it is we ourselves who are guilty. A senior member of the British Select Committee on Public Accounts had the same experience. He states that when a Select Committee tabled a report after the committee had deliberated for 30 days, eventually only two members who had served on that committee discussed it when it came before the House for debate. That is why I think that we do in fact have the opportunity to conduct discussions. The question I want to put is: What does parliamentary control really involve? What do we in Parliament want to do in order to exercise control over the executive authority? If I may define “Parliamentary control”, I would say that it consists of influencing and not directing governmental power; advising, but not controlling; criticizing, but not obstructing; examining more closely, but not initiating, and providing publicity but not secrecy. That, in my opinion, is the function of Parliament and our function as members of the House.

I have one objection to the idea of specialist committees, viz. that eventually we shall have two classes of members in the House. The one class will comprise those members who are members of such specialist committees and who, owing to their participation in those discussions, will acquire greater and sometimes intimate and confidential knowledge as a result of which they will be in a privileged position. This is the case in other countries. Such members will become a club within a club. I have before me a book, The Growth of Parliamentary Scrutiny by Committee, arising out of a symposium held in Britain with regard to these matters. One of the findings of this symposium was as follows—

One class of member is therefore going to be privileged. Then there are the other members who do not serve on the specialist committees. They will become the class 2 members. They are going to be uninformed and will not have the opportunity to take part in the discussions. They could easily develop an inferiority complex towards the colleagues who occupy the privileged position. A second danger which such a system may involve—I am here quoting the words of a well-known historian—

Not only shall we incur the danger of dividing our members into classes 1 and 2. The greatest danger is undoubtedly that Parliament, as the central centre for national debate, will become less effective. Here I should again like to quote from a speech I have before me, a speech delivered at that symposium by another expert. He stated—

That is why I do not reject the idea of the hon. member for Mooi River out of hand but say: Let us make haste slowly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred, inter alia, to class 1 and class 2 members in the House. He intimated thereby that those members who served on a Select Committee would really be class 1 members. He referred to the two groups of members who would be created in this way. If that is true, then we already have class 1 and class 2 members here, because we have a Select Committee on Railways, a Select Committee on Posts and Telecommunications, etc. What it really amounts to is that we do not all have exactly the same degree of interest in a specific matter. If, according to that hon. member, a member can become a class 1 member by serving on a Select Committee, then does he not think that it would be far better if we were all to become class 1 members, by having all of us serve on various committees? The hon. member states that Parliament must be the watch-dog. But all that this proposal really seeks to do is to make Parliament a better watch-dog. I think it should be said right at the outset that this is not a request for the establishment of a specific Select Committee. What the motion really states is that the desirability of such a Select Committee should be referred to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. In other words, we are not in a position to furnish many of the details which hon. members expect us to provide because we want the matter investigated by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. The Committee on Standing Rules and Orders may then decide.

I want to try to indicate, against the background of one of our departments, the Department of National Education, to what extent such a committee could in fact be an asset to us. I think we will all agree that education and training are important to us. This is something which, basically, affects every person and every community intimately. Because this is so, people become very emotional about it, and when one gets emotional about any matter, then it is very easy to try to make political capital out of it. The hon. member for Mooi River indicated that it was very harmful to continually discuss non-political subjects in a political atmosphere. As far as education is concerned the situation is still less favourable, because education is not a non-political subject, but a subject about which people can get emotional and which one can make political capital out of. That is why I believe that many of the discussions which take place here under such circumstances can be detrimental to that department. Often a motion introduced by one side of the House—irrespective of who introduces the motion, a frontbencher or a backbencher—is placed under suspicion by the other side of the House, even though the member in question on the other side knows that the motion can be justified. I have often seen this here. The hon. member on the other side simply cannot afford to say: “You are right, old chap.’’ Some way has to be found to criticize the motion or set it aside. I am not pointing a finger at members on the other side only now, because it sometimes occurs that when members opposite propose something which has merit, then for political reasons they get an unfavourable reaction from this side. This is something which must be eliminated. I believe, too, that it can in fact be eliminated if we have a better system—the details can be worked out later. That is why I simply cannot see why hon. members opposite do not have the courage to state that they support the motion and that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders should investigate the desirability of a Select Committee.

Hon. members referred to time. Let us take the National Education Vote as an example. We spend about four hours per annum on this department. Within the confines of those four hours we have to act as watch-dogs in respect of the activities of the department and we must let the spotlight fall on the activities of the Minister as well. We discuss widely diverse matters. In one and the same debate one has to discuss universities and zoos—I do not know, though, in what way the two correspond—and we have to discuss reform schools and the SABC—perhaps there is a connection here. We have to discuss the money to be voted for the issue of birth certificates and the maintenance of war graves. Speeches are limited to ten minutes, and one or two minutes must be devoted to replying to the arguments of the previous speaker. Sometimes a member has to reply to the arguments of two or three speakers. As a result, in many instances the speaker is unable to round off his argument properly. The Minister then replies and he may provide further information or perhaps other hon. members may provide further information. The first speaker is then unable to take the debate any further in this House, because he has already had his turn to speak. However, if that hon. member had only a minute or two—he need not speak for ten minutes again—then in the light of the new facts at his disposal, he may perhaps be able to make a valuable contribution, perhaps far more valuable than the contribution he had made with the ten minutes he had had previously. In this way misunderstandings can easily be cleared up, and I have seen before misunderstandings can be created here, particularly in regard to education. Often a member introduces his motion with honesty and sincerity, and the motion is wrongly interpreted, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. It would be very easy to eliminate any misunderstanding if a member were only to have the opportunity of adding one or two points at the end. A question or interjection here and there is not enough. One often finds, too, that in the light of the new facts, one can amend one’s own plea in such a way that there may be agreement on the point. These are things which we do not have here in the House. It is not so much a lack of time. Even if we had 12 hours per annum for National Education, we should still be unable to conduct a discussion on the basic level. That is where our major problem lies. It is expected of us to talk politics, and we do talk politics. As the hon. member for Worcester quite rightly said, Parliament is a watch-dog, but we must try to make it an even better watch-dog. Looking at last year’s budget, one sees that R213 million was voted for National Education. If one goes through the annual report of the department and analyses it, one sees that it is attempting the impossible to try and cover everything in a discussion.

Let us leave at that the fact that the hon. the Minister in fact has control of his policy in regard to education from the stage of the toddler to the students at university, and take a look at the other matters involved here, a host of other cultural bodies. We have, inter alia, 14 museums, a zoo and a library for which we vote money. Then, too, money is voted for the furtherance of specialized cultural services. Money is voted for youth work, performing arts, etc. If one looks at subhead H—“Miscellaneous contributions, grants-in-aid, subsidies and bursaries”, one finds that a host of cultural institutions and other important projects receive money, but one virtually never gets the opportunity to discuss them in the House. For example there is the Afrikaanse Woordeboek, the Table Mountain Preservation Board, the Simon van der Stel Foundation, the Africa Institute, the National Film Board, and so on. I mention only a few. The list is too long for me to refer to all of them. Money is voted for all of them. Questions, such as whether sufficient or too little money is made available, or whether the money is spent soundly or wasted, simply cannot be replied to here in a well-informed way. Let us take, for example, the case of the zoo, which I have mentioned before. Every year we vote R500 000 for it. Even if hon. members were to visit the zoo so regularly that they were on first-name terms with the chimpanzees, and even though they could come here and debate in the House with all the knowledge they had gleaned from every baboon and monkey, they would still not be experts in regard to financial expenditure on the zoo. It is not enough simply to go and take a look at the place.

Then, too, there is a large number of statutory bodies which fall under the department. For example, there is the SABC. We know from experience that it is very difficult to ask questions and get answers about statutory bodies. One simply does not get the answers. If there is a difficulty in this connection and the veil cannot be lifted here in the House, then I believe that a way should at least be found to lift the veil and give hon. members the opportunity to investigate the matter further by way of a Select Committee.

One cannot simply explain it away; the present set-up has certain definite defects. As I have said, it is difficult to furnish the House with full details as regards a statutory body, for example. However, if we can introduce the system proposed by the hon. member for Mooi River, then I believe that there would be three things which would be to the benefit of the business of the House. The first would be better communication between the members of the House; the second, better communication between, for example, the members of the House of Assembly and the Government departments, and in the third place, better communication between Parliament and the statutory bodies. What would the end result of this be? All of us would be first-class watch-dogs, first-class members, as the hon. member for Worcester would like it to be. Some of us would know more than others about certain subjects, but that would not matter. Possibly there must be differentiation here in the House as well.

Mr. Speaker, the more I looked at this motion, the more I realized that the person, or rather the authority who is able to speak on this matter the most authoritatively was you yourself. I do not know whether I shall be able to convince you at this late stage to take my place here, but if I do not succeed, I should like to express the hope that you will agree with me that the debate on the important motion which the hon. member for Mooi River introduced here, was conducted on a very high level. Therefore, I want to congratulate all the hon. members who participated on their respective contributions. I am pleased that the hon. member for Mooi River thought fit to introduce this motion. I think it is good that Parliament should from time to time reflect on this important aspect of its business and functioning. I should like to congratulate the hon. member on the way in which he introduced this motion. I shall try to discuss this matter as objectively as the hon. members who preceded me.

In the first place I want to try and sketch the underlying philosophy which can be discerned in the present parliamentary set-up and functioning.

†The motion under discussion clearly reflect some concern over the effectiveness and adequacy of the control which Parliament, particularly the Lower House, exercises over public expenditure and the spending proposals of the Government of the day. As hon. members know, the right, privilege and duty of this House to control the finances of the Executive is fundamental to the parliamentary system of government. Nobody in the House, I am sure, has any quarrel with this basic constitutional principle.

Against the constitutional background and given its composition and resources, the important issues, as I see them, are Parliament’s ability, its inclination and choice of emphasis in controlling a Government’s spending proposals. In this regard it is generally known that, under the parliamentary system of government, once the estimates of expenditure are presented, they rarely, if ever, undergo reduction. This I think is a fact of life. Many critics in many countries have lamented this, and the literature on parliamentary control over the executive’s finances makes very interesting reading.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to just one or two authorities on this important point, so that we can perhaps see this in perspective. The late Paul Einzig, a prolific writer on these matters, had this to say a few years ago about the situation in Great Britain—

Perhaps my hon. friend may say that that goes for us as well. As a matter of fact, I think it is implied in his motion. In his authoritative work entitled Parliamentary Grants, A. J. B. Durell commented as follows—

As far as the Opposition is concerned, this may sound rather familiar. Allow me, Sir, to quote one further passage from a memorandum submitted by the Controller and Auditor-General to the Select Committee on Public Accounts in Britain in the early nineteen-twenties, when the very issue now before this House was under consideration there. I quote—

So, Mr. Speaker, I think one can say that the uninitiated may have problems in reconciling this seeming discrepancy between the formal constitutional principles and their practical implementation. While the concept of parliamentary control over the executive’s finances is admittedly illusive, hon. members will be fully aware of the modifying, although informal, influence the development of the party-political system has had on the traditional formal constitutional arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I must ask your leave to make use of one further quotation, because I cannot improve on Durell’s description of the ultimate result. He explains that under present conditions—

I think, Mr. Speaker, one can say that Parliament’s record in amending and discussing the financial details of the estimates is apparently the motivating force in seeking parliamentary reforms such as the one now before the House. Admittedly, the appointment of a Select Committee, or Select Committees, seems an attractive, and perhaps to some people, even obvious proposition. However, in considering this proposition it is important that we do not delude ourselves as to the role which Parliament, in its present form, with its existing resources and against the background of the present-day relationship between the legislature and the executive, should, could or is even prepared to play in actively and meaningfully curtailing and controlling the financial detail of any Government of the day’s expenditure proposals. It seems to me, Sir, that it is a question of what Parliament really wishes to do and what it has in fact devised as an instrument to allow it to do precisely what it wants to do, even in connection with the discussion of financial proposals. It may or may not be a matter for regret—it depends on one’s point of view—but I doubt whether there has been any real change, either in attitude or as a result of new developments in the system of parliamentary Government, which alters the situation I have just attempted to describe or, at this stage, justifies what would be a fairly drastic revision and reform of our parliamentary procedure regarding the consideration of the estimates. It seems to me that the views of A. J. Balfour, one of the greatest parliamentarians Great Britain has had, on the role of Parliament in examining the estimates of expenditure, expressed as far back as 1896, are not inappropriate at this stage. This is what he said—

*Mr. Speaker, to my mind Balfour’s point of view is correct. This House is a forum for debate, and what I have just quoted to you is pre-eminently the role for which the House of Assembly is suited by virtue of its nature, its composition and its function. The need for a committee or committees of the nature under discussion is usually based on the absence of proceedings in the Lower House relating to a truly detailed financial examination of the estimates of expenditure. The opportunity for this does exist, but as I have already indicated, the examination does not take place in practice. Mr. Speaker, in doing so, has the Lower House in its wisdom not made sure that its time and energy would remain concentrated on the major and important considerations and prevent it from becoming entangled in a labyrinth of detail? After all, what we need under modem circumstances more than anything else today is the opportunities to debate in this House the political, social and economic advantages, disadvantages and implications of the Government’s spending proposals, and therefore its policy—those two always go hand in hand—and not so much the technical financial detail thereof. I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that this House seems to have chosen its priorities correctly.

Suppose this House were to appoint a Select Committee on the estimates of expenditure, as has in fact been done in Great Britain. If such a committee were to have the power, as it has in Britain, to examine the policy underlying the Budget figures, the committee would, from the nature of the case, have to operate on the political level and, as in Britain, obtain the right to hear evidence and explanations from Ministers who, incidentally, are traditionally responsible to the whole House and not to committees. I ask myself whether such a committee meeting is the place for such an examination of policy. Is this not in fact the responsibility and function of the whole House, and do hon. members, by means of the existing caucus study groups, not have ample opportunity to conduct a thorough study and evaluation of the policy underlying the various Votes? Is this not a step in the direction of the American system of Congress committees, the relationship of which vis-à-vis the legislative and the executive powers is completely different?

If the proposed committee or committees—the Select Committee on Public Accounts, for instance—were to divorce themselves from matters of policy, they would be dissociating themselves from some important aspects of expenditure, amongst others, from relative priorities of expenditure and the question as to whether expenditure in respect of a specific policy would offer the so-called value for money. The committee would practically have to confine itself to an investigation into the minimum amount which could be allocated to carry out effectively a given policy. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that such a committee would still be dealing with a difficult matter because, in the first place, it would hardly be able or technically equipped to make a better estimate than the department concerned, which is, from the nature of the case, a specialist in its own sphere. In the second place, such a committee would be dealing with a difficult matter, because it would have to operate in the planning and management spheres. The third reason is that the real major possibilities for economizing are normally to be found on policy level. The end result could, to my mind, very easily be superficial and sterile investigations, investigations which would be able to contribute very little to the budgeting process, and, yet, would still require considerable extra time and work.

To my mind a further problem would be created for budgeting committees of this nature by the time factor, an aspect which was also discussed today. Hon. members’ time is quite limited and therefore it is inevitable that they would divide their attention on a basis of priorities. My own opinion is that the proposed committees, especially if they were to be excluded from policy matters, would not enjoy the desired high priority among members. Although this was not really debated here today, it remains a very important aspect. We should also bear in mind that unlike the position in other countries—Parliament in South Africa is in session for only part of the year. The Budget speech will be delivered on 31 March this year and, even if an earlier date could have been arranged for it, it is strongly doubted whether there would be sufficient time to enable committees first to complete their investigations in a thorough manner and to bring out their reports before the Votes are discussed in this House. After all, this is what the hon. member for Mooi River has in mind with this motion of his. This factor is certainly one of the major stumbling blocks in the way of the motion, unless the time for discussing the Votes in this House is reduced considerably.

Mr. Speaker, nor do I believe that it is realistic to expect a committee of this nature—especially when the time factor, the extent and complexity of modem Government practices are taken into consideration—in any way to be able to function effectively without the support of a powerful body of staff, staff who, moreover, are independent upon the Government. However, before the appointment of staff for this purpose is proceeded with, there would obviously not only have to be far stronger motivation of the need for such parliamentary investigations but also signs of greater success and enthusiasm in other countries. I am referring here to countries which also have a parliamentary form of government and which are also thinking and experimenting along these lines.

Hon. members will appreciate that I, realizing the particular role allocated constitutionally to the Lower House concerning the control of State finances, do not want to oppose this motion lightly. My honest opinion, after I have investigated the matter and have listened to hon. members on this subject, is however that there are too many problems attached to the introduction of the proposed committee or committees and that the game would therefore not really be worth the candle. My advice to hon. members is that they, and the Lower House as an institution, could still make better use of their limited time and energy at this stage by concentrating on the political level of policy matters and by doing so in this House, and not in Select Committees.

In conclusion I also want to mention that the Government is prepared and is already, after consultation with the Select Committees on Public Accounts, taking steps to assist the House in this matter. With effect from the 1976-’77 financial year the Estimates of Expenditure of five departments will be submitted in an amended form to give hon. members a better insight into the broad policy objectives the Government will strive to achieve with the funds that have been asked for, as well as in the programmes and activities—together with the costs attached thereto—which are introduced and implemented in order to achieve the policy objectives. The Votes of the other departments will likewise be amended as soon as possible. This new dispensation is, of course, still in its initial stages and, as such, far from perfect, but I hope that it would furnish hon. members with novel, useful and meaningful information for discussion on policy level.

Mr. Speaker, although I feel that the motion is a very important one, that it has a great deal of substance and that it is good that it was in fact introduced, I regret, for the reasons I have tried to advance in my speech, that I cannot accept that which was moved by the hon. member for Mooi River.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to make a speech of at least another half an hour in order to reply to the points made by the hon. the Minister! Nevertheless, I welcome the announcement he has made to the effect that the estimates of certain of the departments will be presented in a different form in future. I hope that will give us a chance to have a different look at things. I was very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister quoting a certain Mr. Durell, because it appears that that gentleman and I think very much alike. It is said that great minds always think alike. I was very pleased indeed to hear my view so well and thoroughly supported. I would like to thank all hon. members who took part in the debate. To my mind it has been a debate on a high level, and I thank hon. members for the trouble they took to do research in order to take part. I would also like to thank hon. members on my side for supporting me in the motion. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.