Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. We have just had a budget which has made big demands and called for many sacrifices from all sections of the public, both poor and rich, both Black and White. It is not my purpose today to discuss the reasons for these demands and these sacrifices, or to apportion the blame for why they should have had to be made. What is my purpose, however, is to warn that even if met with the best will in the world, these demands and these sacrifices will not, and I repeat not, achieve their ultimate objectives unless a start is made now in bringing about certain political changes which are essential if those objectives are to be achieved. Defence is, of course, uppermost in our minds. Until recently the hot spot of the cold war between communism and the West was concentrated in South East Asia and the Middle East. With the defeat in Vietnam, the West has lost the battle in South East Asia. Now the communists have shifted at least part of their attack to southern Africa and have already inflicted a severe defeat on the West in Angola. The “ifs”, the “buts” and the “might have beens” are not important. The communists have an effective ally in Angola, with all the attendant advantages arising from it. The next steps—and the communists are saying so openly—are South West Africa, Rhodesia and South Africa itself. How, Sir, do we meet that threat? Obviously we have to rely on our own economic, industrial and military power to protect our borders and to guard our sovereignty. I have no doubt that they are substantial powers. With a population of 25 million people and our present economic and industrial strength only a super-power could possibly think of challenging South Africa militarily. The danger is not military attack from outside; the danger is military attack from outside coupled with subversion from within. To be secure, the public must be able to rely on the loyalty of all its peoples. But can it? I hate to have to pose this question, but it cannot be evaded or ignored or brushed under the table. The times are far too serious for that. We have to be certain of the position, and if it is not satisfactory, we must embark on the necessary steps to put it right.

What do we find, Sir? I am not sure that we find a very satisfactory position, for while I am quite sure that there are hundreds of thousands, in fact many millions, of our Black and White citizens from whom we can expect loyalty and military support, there are nevertheless indications in opinion and social surveys, some of them published with approval in Nationalist supporting newspapers, and from statements from certain Black and Brown leaders, that there is a strong body of opinion amongst our Black and Brown peoples which has no loyalty to the present system and would not be prepared to defend it militarily. The feeling is current largely amongst the younger people. I believe one of the reasons for its existence is the failure to put to them the weaknesses of the communist ideology not only in theory but also in practice, and I believe the responsibility for this lies fairly and squarely at the door of the Government.

Free enterprise is and always has been the credo of the UP, and never was a time more urgent than now to give it support and to prove its worth. For specious reasons socialism and communism are gaining ground at the expense of the capitalist system. Of course world inflation and its exploitation by communism are particularly to blame for this. Increasingly, the faults of capitalism, such as they are, are being allowed to overshadow the tremendous blessings of free enterprise, private ownership of property and the right to individual freedom, which are in essence but another name for the capitalistic system. I believe it is urgently necessary to dispel the cloud that hangs over capitalism and private enterprise.

You see, Sir, communist/socialist type régimes are gaining popularity on the Continent of Africa, in Angola, in Mozambique and in countless other countries on this continent. The fact that the overwhelming majority of those countries cannot even feed themselves is ignored and often overlooked. For those Black men who have nothing or next to nothing the idea of redistribution of wealth has a fatal fascination, and there are many of them in southern Africa. The attraction of the theory fits in well with the tribal system where the security of the individual is a responsibility of the tribe. I believe the real danger lies in the belief that the path of the Black man to wealth and prosperity lies in taking away from the Whites what they have worked for and saved and the State machine must be used to bring about this process. State take-overs, such as those seen in Mozambique and Angola, which are fast becoming amongst the most communistically inclined States in Africa, are sharp reminders that Black communists who possess little or nothing are easily persuaded to choose the shortest route to a sought-after prosperity which, I am afraid, time and bitter experience will inevitably prove to be fictitious and unreal, in most cases leading to an end-condition worse than that from which they tried to escape in the beginning. Yet the frustrations, legislative grievances and lack of experience of our own Blacks make them receptive to the talk of agitators and close their eyes to the evils of the system.

Surely it is time that it was driven home that the free enterprise economy of South Africa is the mechanism which has afforded the Black man the highest living standards in Africa. Surely it is vital to get him to understand that while he may now be on the lowest rung of the ladder, the future holds no limits to what he can achieve. If we cannot get it across to him that a free enterprise economy can be so ordered that it offers him more than the communist/socialist régimes across our borders, we have already lost the battle for survival here in southern Africa. This whole matter, I believe, demands our closest attention. National growth and prosperity, on the basis of a free enterprise capitalistic system, is the only effective and permanent answer to the dangers on our borders at the present time.

However, what is the Government doing? I believe it is playing right into the hands of the communist agitators. First and foremost it is doing so by denying more than half our 18 million Blacks—i.e. those outside the reserves—the right to own property and business. What do these Blacks have to lose? As far as they are concerned the State and the Whites now own practically everything, so what difference would living under a communist state make to them? In the second place, the Government is granting independence—or creating the trappings of independence—for Black States in which private ownership is traditionally unknown and in which poverty is still a constant threat.

Why do you use the word “trappings”?

The word “trappings” is not used in a derogatory sense. It is a very common word used, for example, in the phrase “the trappings of office”. Have capitalism and free enterprise had a chance to prove their value to those people? I believe that the Blacks are, in consequence of their own traditions, and their experience of Government policy, inadequately briefed on the demands of their own situation. Black homelands desperately need private capital and know-how for development. They are not going to get it without offering the security of private ownership, the protection of individual liberty and freedom from fear of socialization and nationalization. But will they offer these things as long as the State rules 99% of the lives of their people through the cool hand of officialdom?

Thirdly, I do not believe that the Government is doing enough to combat inflation. I need not take that point any further. Suffice it to say that I believe that the upshot of this failure will be heavier burdens on those least able to bear them, widening wage gaps, increasing poverty and eventually mass unemployment. These are all the hand-maidens of the protagonists of socialism.

Fourthly, the State, by its own example, is not underpinning our faith in free enterprise. I need not enlarge on this point other than by referring to the increasing role played by big public corporations, the vast percentage of the manpower employed by the State and the small percentage of the gross national product which this produces. But that is not all. Hand in hand with this dismal failure to propagate the advantages of the free enterprise system and to point out the dangers and weaknesses of the communist system, goes the discrimination practised against the Black man in employment opportunities, in education, in housing, in sport, in group areas and in so many other things. It is a discrimination systematically accentuated and institutionalized by the Government over the past quarter of a century and more.

I believe that for the sake of the safety of the State, for the sake of our own security and in the interests of all racial groups, legal, social and economic discrimination must be dismantled as fast as possible. It is rather ironic that it will have to be dismantled for the very same reason for which it was originally imposed, namely to avoid friction. The Government has accepted this in principle. I believe it has a Cabinet Committee examining ways and means of removing discriminatory practices. However, it seems incapable of either appreciating the urgency of the situation or of giving the electorate a meaningful lead in this sphere. The institutionalized economic and social discrimination in our country is not only undermining the loyalty and patriotism of large sections of the population, but it is also having another very serious effect. It is making it impossible for South Africa to be accepted as a full member of the community of Western nations.

How can one explain the inhumanity of not allowing Coloured or Indian patients into private clinics or hospitals to even conservative British Parliamentarians and USA Congressmen? Why can the Coloureds go freely to the Nico Malan Theatre, but not to the civic centre? Why can non-Whites go to certain high-class and expensive hotels, but not drink, dance or swim freely as can other guests?

Do you want integration? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, listen to it.

One need only go to Swaziland.

You still have an address in Swaziland.

There seem to be certain unwise remarks about certain neighbouring States of ours.

Conservative politicians in the West realize the strategic importance of South Africa, of its great mineral wealth, of its industrial power and they know what South Africa meant in the 1939-’45 war. Was it not Eric Walker who wrote that something like 35% of the small arms ammunition used by the Allies was made here in South Africa? However, those Western politicians also regard our present institutionalized discrimination as a standing insult to the non-European world—to the Japanese, to the Chinese, to the Indians and to the important marginal Negro voters in the USA. Therefore, they cannot afford to be seen as official allies of South Africa. For this reason even conservative administrations, like those of the UK and the USA, adhere to the UNO arms embargo. When a perfectly ridiculous motion comes before the Security Council condemning South Africa alone—not Cuba or Russia—of agression in Angola, not a single one of the great powers is prepared to use its veto to block the motion’s acceptance despite their known disapproval of the actions of Cuba and Russia.

The hon. the Prime Minister has, it is true, just completed a spectacular and successful diplomatic initiative in Israel. I offer him my heartiest congratulations, because the agreements reached during his visit appear to give open recognition to the existence of certain important common interests. While there are obvious disparities in our respective situations, our common interests arise both from the past and the present. Historic links have been forged by our sympathy and support for the State of Israel, and the new ties between us give recognition to our need for co-operation in meeting the hostile intent of those who have made common cause—albeit for different reasons—against both of us. What the effect of these new ties will be, internationally, it is for the hon. the Prime Minister to inform the House as fully as he is able when the time comes. Whatever the benefits may be—I hope they will be meaningful—they cannot of themselves solve the main conflicts and problems with which our two countries are faced. The hard realities at home cannot be evaded and it is here in South Africa that the ultimate success or failure of the Prime Minister’s policies, both domestic and foreign, must be achieved.

Let us get one thing quite clear. The Western world is not demanding a “one man, one vote” political system here in South Africa. [Interjections.] After all, there are very few real democracies at UNO, and the hon. members know it. However, there are no States that have institutionalized discrimination on a colour basis. Hence, even if the most bloodthirsty dictatorship attacks South Africa on this issue, no Western power speaks out for us, as we have just seen at the Security Council.

Our ambassador at the United Nations realizes as, I believe, the majority of the Cabinet does, that legalized racial discrimination is the Achilles heel of South Africa. He has therefore been authorized to bind himself and has quite rightly undertaken, on behalf of his Government, to see that it is dismantled, not overnight but step by step. The tragedy of South Africa is that this Government seems incapable of tackling this task to any meaningful degree. One does not have to look far to find out why!

I believe that at this very moment of time the Government are weighing up the dangers threatening South Africa as a result of their policies against the danger of splitting their party down the middle, and it seems that not even a Prime Minister who has been in office as long as the present Prime Minister can see his way clear to taking that risk. How else can some of his recent appointments be explained? How else can the constitution of his Cabinet Committee to dismantle discrimination be interpreted? Yet, if our traditional bonds with the West are to be strengthened and restored, our only hope is to remove legal discrimination as fast as possible.

It is not only in the battle between free enterprise and communism, in the field of external affairs and in the creation of true national unity that legal discrimination is acting as a millstone around our neck—it is also hampering the rate of our economic development. As long as we do not have proper training, technical and educational, for our non-White people, we shall not be able to make the maximum use of our economic assets. To complicate the matter even further, in the present climate we have to spend more on defence. Clearly, this will be highly inflationary unless the Government can cut down on non-productive expenditure. All this is going to mean a period of austerity for our population, particularly our White population.

Already in the last year the standard of living of the White population has dropped. If we want more guns, and more capital to expand our industrial power, particularly in the armaments field, we shall have to spend less and save more. Overseas capital is becoming harder and more expensive to come by because of the political situation in Southern Africa. But we dare not allow job creation to slacken. Sacrifices will have to be made, but they are essential for long-term survival. They need not be endless, always provided the Government so changes its policies that our isolation from the Western world is broken. There is no doubt whatever that, if the political risk in South Africa disappears, it will once again become a magnet for the investment capital of the whole of the Western world. That is why I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that there has been too long a silence since the 1974 address of his ambassador to the United Nations on the question of discrimination. We have heard a reply to a question in this House by the hon. the Minister of Justice indicating the appointment of a special Cabinet Committee “to investigate possible discriminatory measures with a view to their elimination within the framework of separate development”. However, so far there is no blueprint, and as I have said before, and as has been so brilliantly pointed out by Professor Tusenius of the graduate school of the University of Stellenbosch, “In the absence of a clear ‘blueprint’ and an implementation programme, the present positive, but pragmatic, policy of the Government does not only enable right-wing extremists to blame the Government for ‘deviations from the path’, but it also cannot fail but to create the impression amongst left-wing extremists that the Government has lost the initiative and only reacts opportunistically to outside pressure.” He goes on to emphasize the advantage of a blueprint, and he says: “And last but not least, notice can then be served on both left-and right-wing extremists that neither the Government nor the overwhelming majority of South Africa’s Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians want to be blackmailed by threats of violence, terrorism, and sabotage, and should any such acts be attempted, either by the extreme left or by the extreme right, or by both, this overwhelming multi-national majority will stand shoulder to shoulder to resist it with all of South Africa’s considerable might at its disposal.”

Mr. Chairman, as far as the official Opposition is concerned, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister categorically, once again, that whatever real progress he makes in the removal of racially discriminatory laws in South Africa, will have the support of this side of the House. I have told him that before, and I have said that our right to criticize will in such matters be rigorously directed, not to those areas in which he makes progress, but only to those in which he does not. I have also told him that I do not believe that this is a task for one party or for one single race group. I believe it has got to be tackled in consultation with the various race groups concerned, and it is for this reason that I have pleaded so long for the establishment of a council of State, which, though it might be purely advisory in character, can nevertheless be of inestimable value in identifying the points where friction, as a result of discrimination, is most hurtful, and how it can be painlessly removed.

It is not too late for such a council of State to be brought into being, a council representative of all races and charged with the task of advising on how best to remove from our body politic this discriminatory cancer which is weakening not only our mutual resources, but also the will of our people to resist. One cannot mention this topic without regard to the special situation of the Cape Coloured people. They provide, at one and the same time, the most urgent challenge in the field of race relations, and our best opportunity. As far as they are concerned, the tide is most certainly at its flood, and if we miss it through lack of political courage and resolve, the country will suffer bitter consequences.

I know that the Theron Commission is expected to report within a month of two. I know that it is probable that it could provide a “watershed” in an imaginative new quest to create full citizenship and equal opportunity for all our people outside the homelands, but if we are to achieve that, we shall have to be prepared to cast aside old prejudices and obsolete systems. To achieve that we shall have to be prepared to cast aside old prejudices and obsolete systems. We shall have to be prepared to accept that the time has come, whatever our past policies and our old party political commitments, to take courageous new initiatives.

I believe we have an opportunity to prove to our own people that it is possible for each to be generous to the other without diminishing what is one’s own. Sharing, Sir, need not mean the sacrifice of one’s own identity or the reduction of one’s own standard of living. It can and must mean the improvement of the position of all our peoples. But there is one fly in the ointment. What can be achieved if the Cabinet is going to consider itself bound by the terms of reference of the Cabinet committee of which we heard, that change will only take place “within the framework of separate development”? What can take place within the framework of separate development? Possibly a few improvements here, a few economic advantages there and a little more responsibility elsewhere, but certainly not that new vision, that new deal, which is essential to get relations with the Coloured people in the interests of our own security on a sound and proper footing in South Africa. Once again, Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he need have fears that the Opposition will exploit his difficulties or create new ones for him. We shall reserve our criticism for what he fails to do, but those criticisms will be bitter because he may well thereby be failing South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition most certainly has not surprised us this afternoon. Yesterday, and again today, I had a look at the speech made in the same debate last year by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It will also interest hon. members to take a look at it, because with a few textual amendments here and there it is precisely the same speech that he made today. However, there was a tail to it somewhere to which we must definitely pay attention. It was very clear, too, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke with an eye on Durban North, and he spoke to the hon. members of the PRP in particular with regard to Durban North. But if we examine the criticism levelled at the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, there are a few things which come to the fore.

He said that the policy of the NP as expressed under the guidance of the Prime Minister was leading South Africa away from the capitalist system and was making the communist system more acceptable, particularly to the non-White peoples of Southern Africa. Sir, I find it strange that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can make such a statement. I should not like to touch on something which is a sore point with the Opposition, but I should like to come back to a debate we had in this House a few weeks ago, concerning the establishment of a permanent commission on internal security. At that time we were debating the work of the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission, but do you know, Sir, that one of the important findings of that commission was specifically that those people whose actions were investigated by the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission were in favour of undermining the capitalist system, and it therefore recommended that action be taken against those people. Now, I do not want to take the point much further, but I should like to ask the official Opposition this: How can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stand up in this House today and level the accusation at the hon. the Prime Minister that he and his party are following a policy which undermines capitalism, whereas in this very session of Parliament the Prime Minister asked for a permanent commission, the very aim of which was to take action against the underminers of the capitalist system? [Interjections.] No, it is not as rotten as the hon. member may think.

The hon. member for Hillbrow should not look so friendly, because when we discuss discrimination in a moment, he can explain to this House why he wants to discriminate against Israel and does not want us to conclude an agreement with Israel. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also criticized the Government for having supposedly acted in such a way as to benefit communism through our policy.

It is true.

What does that hon. member know about the truth? I want to say in all honesty that if it had not been the present Prime Minister who does these things and carries out the policy of the NP, we could perhaps have had some argument with the Official Opposition on this score. But surely it is now common knowledge in South Africa and in the entire Western World, and in Africa, too, that the hon. the Prime Minister is the very man who is opposed to communism in Africa. Surely that is a generally acknowledged fact. But now the Official Opposition, through its leader, comes along today and accuses the hon. the Prime Minister of furthering communism. This kind of thing is somewhat irritating.

Then, too, I should like to refer to one further point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned today and which, in my opinion, was irresponsible at this stage in our history. Surely the Leader of the Opposition knows that we are at present engaged in preparing for the independence of the Transkei, which is to take place this very year. Only yesterday we heard the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Chief Matanzima, saying at the meeting which is taking place in Umtata at the moment, that there was no other country in Africa which had been led to independence in as peaceful a way, and without bloodshed, as the Transkei, and that he did not have the slightest wish to go back along that road. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and states that he has misgivings about the so-called independence of the Transkei. Yesterday the Chief Minister of the Transkei himself said that it was total independence, independence of such a nature that he could apply to become a member of the UN and could also apply for membership of the OAU. But now the Leader of the Opposition comes along, on the eve of this important event, at which specifically the people of the Transkei are going to hold an election on the issue of their independence, and states that the people governing the Transkei will be a group of officials. Sir, I really think that if there is one thing which the voters of South Africa have already acknowledged, then it is that there are going to be independent homelands in South Africa. Nor is it only the White voters in South Africa who accept this, but the Black people themselves. After all, we have all lived through the history of this matter and seen how some of the Black leaders had misgivings about independence, but at this stage probably the vast majority of Black leaders accept independence for their homelands. No, we cannot swallow it when, just when we are effecting the changes which are justified in South African circumstances, the Official Opposition has to express misgivings in this way and then simply leave them hanging in the air.

If, then, change in South Africa must always be advocated, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did again today, saying that more so-called political changes should take place, I want to state categorically that there is no organization or body in South Africa, which is a more effective agent for change in South Africa than the NP itself, and when I speak about “an agent for change”, I am not speaking in terms of the meaning given to those words by the liberals and the other -isms which are not acceptable to South Africa. Is it not specifically the policy of this Government which has effected that political change which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition seeks? And then he still makes the idiotic remark that the Black people of South Africa do not seek “one man, one vote”. Sir, it is ridiculous of the Leader of the Opposition to make such a statement. I think he is living in a fool’s paradise. Is it not specifically the policy of this Government which is responsible for the coming independence of a large number of Black nations in South Africa? Let us consider this a little. Is it not precisely as a result of the policy of this Government that there are seven self-governing Bantu territories in South Africa at this stage, in which 85% of 18 million people have the vote and in which we have 700 representatives of the people in those legislative assemblies for the various territories? Is it not specifically the policy of the Government which is responsible for the fact that we in South Africa are able to spend 1,19% of our total national income on the development of the under-developed, whereas the UN expects highly industrialized countries to spend only 1% of their income for the same purpose? Is it not the policy of the National Party which has effected these changes?

We should take a brief look at what this policy has done for these people. We know that at this stage we have already invested an amount of R700 million in our border industries. It is the policy of the National Party which has brought this about and which has created employment opportunities for thousands of people. Last year this hon. Opposition, the hon. member for Hillbrow in particular, stated in this House that it was pointless for us to have such a large defence budget because our greatest danger was our own policy with regard to our non-White peoples in South Africa. But if we take the budgets of the South African Bantu Trust, the homeland governments, the co-operatives, the Bantu Administration Boards and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, we find that the budgets of these bodies together comprise a larger sum of money than the amount we are spending on defence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down must excuse me if I do not follow up his argument, but in one respect he has failed to understand the real meaning of my hon. leader’s speech. He spelt it out very clearly here in this House. The point that he emphasized—and I think he did this House and the country a service by doing so—was that unless all population groups of this country could participate freely in all economic enterprise and all activities, and felt part of a united nation, the security of South Africa was at stake. That was his message. I believe that this is something which we must all understand, otherwise we are living in a fool’s paradise, like that hon. member himself possibly is. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the necessity for urgent change in South Africa.

It is with special reference to the Coloured population group that I want to make one or two remarks this afternoon. I want to direct my remarks pertinently to the hon. the Prime Minister because I think that in regard to the Coloured people in South Africa we have reached a situation of impasse and I think urgent steps will have to be taken to rectify the situation. I believe too that the hon. the Prime Minister has a very thorough understanding of the problem. Furthermore, he has the necessary power to take the steps that are urgently needed to rectify this situation that has developed over the past 25 years.

I realize full well that the Government has appointed a commission of inquiry into the problems of the Coloured population group and that that commission has completed its work. If the hon. the Prime Minister says to me that he is going to hold back any major decisions in respect of the Coloured people until he and his Cabinet have had an opportunity to study the commission’s report, I will understand it and will accept it as being a very rational attitude in this matter. Having said that, I am surprised that at this point, when the Theron Commission has barely finished its work, the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations has within the last week announced another committee to investigate an aspect of the work which was part of the terms of reference of the Theron Commission. I felt that he might have waited a while. If the hon. the Minister has problems about management committees and the future position of Coloured townships, I am quite prepared to assist him. I do not think that we need another committee to investigate this matter. I think that the answers are fairly simple. I am quite prepared to help the hon. the Minister if he finds himself in a little bit of a dilemma. If he wants to find an answer in terms of his own policy—I would concede that it is a difficult terrain—he might consider allowing certain management committees to nominate people to represent those management committees on the town councils or city councils concerned. This he can do within the framework of his own policy. He can also solve the problem of those Coloured people who are not represented by management committees and who are living at the present time as disqualified persons outside group areas. He can allow them to be represented in the normal manner as the case was before they were taken off the municipal voter’s roll. There is no problem about it. I would recommend that the hon. the Minister consults with me before he takes this matter any further, because he has created the problem. The problem is not what the future of the management committee or the Coloured townships is. The problem is that he is trying to find an answer in terms of his policy of parallel development. He is creating the problem. I can only describe parallel development as “ ’n knelpuntbeleid met geen toekoms vir die Kleurlingbevolking nie.” If he gets away from his parallel development policy, then his problem is no problem at all.

My hon. leader has made reference to the question of the question of statutory discrimination based on colour and has asked that where this exists, it must be removed in the interests of better race relations in South Africa. I am aware that the hon. the Prime Minister knows what these problems are. His Ministers are speaking about them repeatedly. I have a speech here made by the hon. the Minister of Health in which he highlights the very fact that race discrimination is one of the most serious problems that is disturbing good race relations in South Africa.

We also have the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg West in which he put exactly the same point of view—appealing that race discrimination must be eliminated. Here we have an authoritative report by one of the leading Afrikaans writers, Mr. Willem de Klerk, pleading for exactly the same thing: “Ou grondplan moet drasties verstel word.” These are the things that have to happen, but what happens is that each one that speaks, whether he is a member of the Cabinet or a member of Parliament, stops short and refuses to say what measures must be eliminated. The time has come for the Government to spell it out, and my request to the hon. the Prime Minister is to tell us which statutory measures which discriminate against the Coloured people at the present time, he intends to remove with the utmost urgency. The question to which he must give attention is, first of all: Why must we continue with job reservation; what purpose does it serve; what need is there for it? It stands as a stigma against South Africa and is retarding the development of the Coloured people. The hon. the Prime Minister can do it today, in this very debate. Why does he not remove it from the Statute Book? Why can the hon. the Prime Minister not at this very moment say to the Coloured people of South Africa that he is declaring a moratorium for all those disqualified Coloured people living in reasonable houses and who will have to be shifted in terms of the Group Areas legislation? I am referring specifically to a place which is close at hand, Somerset West, where there is a well-settled and well-housed Coloured population who has been living there for more than a century. There is no need to move them; they do not want to be moved; the local people of Somerset West do not want them to be moved. Why not remove the uncertainty and have the hon. the Prime Minister say that he is imposing a moratorium on their resettlement until there are houses available for these people one day?

What about salary disparity? If ever there was an urgent need then it is to eliminate at this moment of time the salary gap, especially in respect of teachers. The hon. the Prime Minister will know that the cardinal, the key issue in regard to helping the Coloured people, is to establish their education on a sound basis.

We have made progress in that direction.

At a time when there is a drastic shortage of teachers and when we would like to encourage people to go into the teaching profession, to get Coloured children trained and educated so that they can play a full part in the development of the economy and other fields of activity of this country, teachers’ salaries are a vital issue. However, in the Budget we have just had, there is no provision whatsoever for eliminating the salary gap which exists at the present time. I would appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to look into the matter and give us an assurance that, if it cannot be done this year, we can be quite sure that in four years’ time that salary disparity will be eliminated. It will not cost an exorbitant amount of money and it will be the best investment that the Government can make in respect of this particular population group. Not only will it be an investment in the sense that they will be able to participate more fully in the affairs of our country, but it also will buy the goodwill that is so urgently necessary at this time as far as the Coloured people are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising because I want to participate in the debate, for I do not think it would be fitting for me to participate in the general discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. I am on my feet simply to reply to a matter which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has just raised and which in my opinion is indicative of complete ignorance of a matter of which he as a member of the Erica Theron Commission ought to know better. The hon. member reproached me …

What did the Chairman of the Theron Commission say about it?

Surely we speak only one at a time. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that I had announced the appointment of a committee of inquiry into full-fledged local authorities for Coloureds and reproached me in this regard because the Erica Theron Commission was considering this matter. It was announced in the Press that the commission had already concluded its consultations, that the report was being processed and printed and that it would become available to us at a later stage. As a matter of common sense, I should like to ask whether my announcement of the committee of inquiry can affect the activities of the Theron Commission in any way at this stage.

Is this something which the Erica Theron Commission had to investigate?

I am dealing with the hon. member who raised the point. That hon. member has failed to give me an answer. I should like to ask him a further question. Does the hon. member, who was a member of the Erica Theron Commission, know what section 29(1) of the Group Areas Act of 1966, as amended last year, provides? Section 29(1) of the Group Areas Act, 1966, instructs the Minister to do certain things, inter alia, to appoint a committee of inquiry into this aspect when progress has been made to that point. It leaves me no alternative. I must do it. But now the hon. member reproaches for doing my duty by taking such an early step in the interests of the Coloured population of South Africa. I am merely following the statutorily prescribed way. I am not appointing a committee on a casual basis so that the hon. member may think that I am trying to take the limelight away from him. I am not appointing a committee at a different level, but one specifically constituted as prescribed by section 29(1) of the Group Areas Act.

Why did you dawdle so much?

An hon. member is asking why I dawdled so much.

He is just as stupid.

He is even more stupid. I may inform the hon. House that my predecessor, Dr. Van der Merwe, progressed a long way in connection with this matter. Last year, on 29 April, after negotiations with the Administrator of the Cape, which were conducted over a long period, he reached the stage when he approved in principle the appointment of the committee in terms of the Act. Shortly afterwards he decided to leave the matter at that for the time being since the Erica Theron Commission might possibly discuss the matter too in the course of its inquiries and in the process enter the field to be investigated by the committee. However, today is the 21st day of April 1966 … [Interjections.]

He does not even know the date!

If the hon. member for Durban Point tries to derive pleasure from that, he is welcome to do so, because I know his pleasures are few these days. Today is the 21st day of April 1976, a year later, and early this year the Administrator of the Cape contacted me once again in connection with this matter. Other bodies and persons have also been in touch with me continually, including local authorities. I want to tell the hon. member, in case he did not know it, that it is my prerogative and task in terms of section 29(1) of the Group Areas Act of 1966 to appoint such a committee, and this committee will not take the limelight away from the hon. member or from the Theron Commission. I believe and it is my honest conviction that it has never been the intention that the Theron Commission—which was engaged in its great task for three years, and for which I extended my personal thanks to the members—would in the course of the three years of its existence and work, restrict my predecessor, myself and my department from doing what must be done in the interests of the Coloured community. I want to inform the hon. member further that earlier this year I said in this House that the Bureau for Economic Politics of the University of Pretoria, commissioned by my department, had made an in-depth study of the fiscal aspects connected with the C.R.C. This is a field which, to the best of my knowledge, the Theron Commission might also have entered. However, the hon. member did not object to that. What is more: The Public Service, at the request of my department, made an in-depth study of the extension of the Administration of Coloured Affairs to a full-fledged Public Service of their own. However, the hon. member did not object to that and say that this meant entering the field of the Theron Commission. But despite this and despite other matters which were not held in abeyance in the course of the three years of the existence of the Theron Commission, I make an announcement about a matter which has been dragging on and waiting for a long time. Since the Theron Commission’s task has been concluded, I cannot understand the hon. member’s dismay. What I can understand even less, is that the hon. member, who was a member of the commission, was not aware of the things I have just mentioned to him.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is a matter of stealing the limelight. That was not the intention of the hon. member. What the hon. the Minister has displayed is an extreme sensitivity about this matter. He is sensitive enough to rise during the debate to give this explanation. The facts presented by the hon. the Minister are that for 10 years he has had the power to appoint such a commission, but he has not done so. Yet he now announces the appointment of the committee one month before he receives the report of the Theron Commission. The hon. the Minister nevertheless has not explained the correlation between the announcement of the appointment of his investigating committee into local authority matters and the Theron Commission. However, I want to leave that matter for a moment and devote my attention to another subject. We are all aware that since 25 April 1974, when the Caetano regime was toppled in Lisbon, southern Africa has been in a state of tension and often in a state of conflict. It is against that background that we have had to work out our policies. When Parliament met at the beginning of this year we were concerned about the trauma of the Angolan war. However, it does appear that temporarily—and I hope permanently—the position on the northern border has been stablized, although it is certainly not without its dangers, as is apparent from the statements that have been made ex parte in other parts of the world regarding the Calueque dam.

The issue of Mozambique, the other country affected by the toppling of the Caetano regime, I have said before the Government has handled with great tact, both at the time of the handover to Frelimo and subsequently. I think the Government’s firmness and its tact have again been demonstrated by the way in which it handled the issue of the Frelimo soldiers who crossed the border into South Africa.

The focus of attention, however, has shifted for the moment from those two ex-Portuguese colonies to Rhodesia. It is Rhodesia which gives us—and I should imagine also the Prime Minister—cause for serious concern. We share in the sense of shock at the wanton killing of three innocent South Africans on the road between Beit Bridge and Fort Victoria. I believe I speak for hon. members on both sides of the House when I say that we in these benches condemn violence as a means of attempting to solve the political problems of southern Africa or South Africa. What this event, with its human tragedy, has done is to have made us again acutely aware of the tensions in Rhodesia and the fact that a lack of a settlement there constitutes a threat not only to Rhodesia but also to the peace of southern Africa as a whole. In 1974-’75 the Government of South Africa, largely through the hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, played an important part in trying to create the conditions for a possible settlement of the dispute in Rhodesia. Parliament has had various reports from the hon. the Prime Minister. There was his statement in the Senate in November 1974, his reporting of the Pretoria agreement, of the Lusaka agreement, of the subsequent meeting at the Victoria Falls and the break-down of the talks there, and the subsequent talks between Messrs. Smith and Nkomo. The hon. the Prime Minister did play an important role as a peacemaker in southern Africa and I think he was given credit by all sides of the House for those efforts. He made it clear that he was in touch with Zambia, Botswana and Tanzania, and said—

He went on to say that there was agreement on a number of issues. I quote—

With respect to talks succeeding, he also said—

The hon. the Prime Minister played an important role in trying to create these circumstances, and it must be as much of a disappointment to him as it is to us in the House that settlement has not been reached. There is no doubt that this has immediately led to an acceleration of tensions within Rhodesia and unfortunately, outside of Rhodesia and in southern Africa, to a hardening of attitudes. We have evidenced the very tough line now being taken—on the questions of a settlement, peace in that part of the world and the backing of terrorism—by the President of Zambia, President Nyerere, President Samora Machel and even President Sir Seretse Khama. There has been a very sharp and unhappy deterioration in the situation. This does have an effect on the human beings there and on the whole of southern Africa, on trade relationships, diplomatic relationships and the physical safety of people which are all bound up with the Rhodesian situation. During the course of this debate we would like the hon. the Prime Minister to make a statement on this matter, giving us his evaluation of what is an extremely difficult situation. I would express the hope that he will be able to assure the House, as he did last year and the year before, that he is attempting actively and positively to play a role as peace-maker in southern Africa. I should like to know whether he is in touch with Mr. Ian Smith or Mr. Nkomo in an attempt to try to bring reconciliation. I should also like to know whether he has maintained his contacts with Zambia and other countries in this matter. If, as it appears, he has contacts elsewhere in Africa, is he using these contacts to get Africa itself to prevail on Whites and Blacks in Rhodesia to reach a peaceful settlement before the catastrophe of Rhodesia spills over to the other countries? I trust that the hon. the Prime Minister will be in a position to respond during the course of the debate.

The other feature of external policy has been the hon. the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel. He is aware that we welcome this move and the subsequent pact as being imaginative on the one hand and adopting a commonsense approach to international affairs on the other. It is quite clear that while the two economies of the countries complement each other and there is going to be an exchange of scientific information, the pact will be of benefit to both the people of Israel and of South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe the hon. the Prime Minister could not help going to Israel without an impact being made on him by that society. He and I as others who have been to Israel on previous occasions, on going to Masada, to Jericho, seeing the Dead Sea scrolls, wandering through the Garden of Gethsemane or visiting Bethlehem or Nazareth were brought face to face with the fundamentals of our Judaean Christian faith. This must have been struck time and time again. Man is born in the image of God, and with all our frailty, we have to attempt finding policies which will regulate the lives of people on a moral basis. He would also have been impressed by the attempts of that country to create a nation out of people coming from all the corners of the world, speaking different languages, having different colours and yet having a common faith and a common desire to work together within one society.

I would hope that this important pact for South Africa and Israel is the forerunner of the development of a new interesting international trading and economic bloc. I believe it has a potential for countries who are non-communist, countries which have developing economies each desiring to complement one another, countries which are strategically placed and countries which want to be outside or are outside the big power blocs of the West, the big power blocs of the communists or the big power block of the Third World, because of their disappointment in the cynicism which has been adopted by these powers in their international relations. I would like to hope that countries like Iran and the Ivory Coast will in due course join with South Africa and Israel to create a new important economic factor in international affairs.

Apart from the impact of this pact on our external relationships, there is no doubt that it is also going to have an impact on our internal relationships. It is evident from statements made, for instance, by the Minister of Defence, Mr. Peres, that one of the backgrounds to Israel entering into this pact was the fact that it anticipated that South Africa was going to embark on new policies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point dealt with the Rhodesian issue. This is a very sensitive matter and I personally believe that the less one says about it, the better. It is so, of course, that Rhodesia has landed in a very difficult situation as the result of the policy which has been followed in Rhodesia, the very one which is advocated for South Africa by the party on the opposite side. Rhodesia has the right to determine and work out its policy and I believe that, if there is no intervention from outside, Rhodesians, both Black Rhodesians and White Rhodesians—one must put it very clearly that White Rhodesians just as Black Rhodesians also have a right to continue to exist in Rhodesia—will eventually solve their problems. However, it must be emphasized that as far as South Africa is concerned, the Progrefs, and, to a certain extent, the official Opposition as well, advocate that very policy which is being implemented in Rhodesia, for the Republic of South Africa, a policy which has led to Rhodesia finding itself in a constitutional crisis. If the policy of qualified franchise and of power sharing had been implemented in South Africa as well, we might have been in the same situation as Rhodesia today, not because we would have been involved in criticism from outside regarding the merits of our policy of distinctive development, but because we would have been plunged into a constitutional crisis, one which we would have found very difficult to solve. Therefore it is important for us to tell the world that that is the result of a policy of power sharing between White and non-White.

The hon. member also referred to the agreement with Israel. We should like to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister most sincerely on his visit to Israel and on the agreement concluded there, about which we may still hear more. It is so that in the past the Western world has left South Africa badly in the lurch. Especially Western countries such as the USA and certain European countries have been withholding certain arms from us which we need to defend ourselves, in all sorts of unfair ways. They have been doing this for inexplicable reasons if one thinks that the USA, which is a great country, prides itself on being the leader of the Western world and being anti-communist.

While we are involved in a life and death struggle and are being threatened by communist expansionism, Russian expansionism and imperialism in Africa, the necessary arms are being withheld from us by the USA as well as European countries with the exception of a few to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for the fact that they are still helping us. The USA, however, is withholding such arms from us, whereas we have always told the Western world that we stand by them in an unqualified way and put our facilities at their disposal. Therefore it is a good thing that the hon. the Prime Minister was able, in the face of that position, as it were, to make a break-through and conclude agreements with Israel.

Like the South African people, the Israeli people is surrounded by all kinds of hostile forces, and we have already learned a great deal from the Israeli people. Their will to survival has carried them through difficult years. In the times in which we are living, it is that will of a people to survive, which carries it through these problems. Therefore, in spite of the apparently wholesale dismay in the Western world about the visit of the hon. the Prime Minister to Israel and about the treaties concluded there, we are nevertheless very grateful that these two peoples are the very ones who may perhaps form the nucleus or the pivot of a new alliance of middle-rank peoples. These are two peoples who still have the will to survive, in spite of all sorts of problems, two peoples who are not simply prepared to constantly make all kinds of concessions. I do not want to elaborate on and speculate about countries and peoples who may possibly join such an alliance of middle-rank peoples. I do want to add, however, that there will be such peoples in Africa as well. Black peoples of Africa will be able to join such an alliance, because there are many countries, many leaders, in Africa who are concerned about the communist threat and Russian imperialistic expansionism directed at this continent. There will also be such peoples in South America, in the Far East and perhaps in Europe as well. It will be possible for such an opportunity for the creation of a new alliance of peoples to form a bulwark against Russian imperialistic expansionism.

The Western nations, with all the fine things which the Western civilization has produced, the things for which one is grateful, the things which have flowed from the so-called Western civilization over many years, are however, becoming characterized in recent times by a weariness and an apathy about which one should certainly be deeply concerned. We who up to the present time, for so many years, have linked all of our expectations for the future to the West, must definitely hesitate to a very large extent in entrusting our future and our fate to people by whom we are simply left in the lurch at the most critical time, people who are not honest enough either to explain afterwards why they did so.

To continue, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on the success of his visit to Israel and on the agreements concluded there. I am sure that much good may flow from that for South Africa. Not only am I sure that there will be great mutual advantages in the material sphere for both countries, but I am also sure that we in South Africa can learn a great deal from the Israeli people. They are people who have learned to work and to exert themselves. They have learned to live less luxuriously and to lead a normal life in the face of constant dangers threatening them. Therefore closer contact with Israel may certainly mean a great deal to us, especially since we here in Southern Africa are no strangers to threats, threats which possibly may also give rise to major crises. We can argue as we like, but the situation in Angola and the handling of it by the Americans and other Western Governments, may in all probability be a water-shed in the future of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Algoa will understand that I cannot follow him except simply to associate myself, broadly speaking, with his views in regard to the achievements of the people of Israel and the importance of the agreement that has been concluded between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government of Israel, an agreement which, as my Leader has indicated, has our unqualified approval. However, I wish to comment briefly on the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations by pointing out that I think that he understood the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central incorrectly. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central objected to the fact that the hon. the Minister had taken action in regard to a matter which fell within the scope of the terms of reference of the Theron Commission, and that the hon. the Minister could have waited until the report in that regard had been submitted. I want to add that I gained the impression from what the hon. the Minister said that section 29 of the Act leaves him no discretion in regard to this matter. All that I want to say is that as I read the section, it appears to me that his interpretation is not correct because the section states quite clearly that the Minister may at any time and not that the Minister shall. Accordingly, the hon. the Minister could have postponed action of this nature until such time as he had the Theron Commission’s report available.

However, I actually want to revert to the crux of this debate and I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the essence of which is that there is no doubt that we here in South Africa find ourselves in a very serious position. That position is due to developments in Southern Africa, for example the war in Mozambique, in Rhodesia and Angola, and it is due in a large measure too to the isolation in which South Africa finds herself. It is also due to the obviously considerable measure of division that has arisen between White and non-White in South Africa, and further, to the greater threat of communism and to the unwillingness on the part of the West to take action in this situation. In these circumstances it appears to me to be necessary for us to determine our priorities. I want to suggest that in the light too of the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, there are three particular priorities which we have to put first. Firstly, to create a position of racial peace and co-operation domestically as well as a common loyalty and allegiance on the part of all the people in our country; secondly, to improve or normalize our relations with other Africa states so that we will be accepted by Africa as a member of this continent which can co-operate with them for the development of this continent; and thirdly, to try to improve our international image and position at least among the non-communist countries of the world in every possible sphere, in the sphere of diplomacy, sport, culture, trade, the supplying of arms or whatever the case may be. These appear to me to be the three priorities which we ought to set ourselves at the moment.

I believe that we can only achieve these priorities if we move away from any form of statutory discrimination and from compulsory racial separation, and further, if we move away from a position of White domination in the political sphere. I readily agree—we all know this—that all these problems are not easy to solve. From the nature of things it is unthinkable that we can undo the results of 300 years’ development in South Africa in one day. That we all realize. In fact, in theory we have already shown some measure of progress in that the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Pik Botha and other spokesmen of the Government have indicated that in principle we ought to move away from discrimination on the basis of race or colour. I want here to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and say that in my honest opinion to tackle this matter by way of a Cabinet committee is not the proper way to do so, i want to emphasize the fact that a few weeks ago, in order to get away from sterile debate and sterile accusations and counteraccusations across the floor of this House, we suggested that this matter could perhaps best be resolved by the appointment of a select committee. I still want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister at this stage that I shall be pleased if he will consider whether such a step will not have a far more positive impact and enable us to progress more swiftly along the path which he himself has indicated it is necessary for us to follow.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the question of political rights is concerned, I also just want to indicate that apart from the independence of the Transkei—a matter which we shall discuss in broader detail at a later stage this year—it is still very clear that the problem of the urban Bantu is not going to be solved by the becoming independent of the Transkei. Anyone who has read the speech which the Chief Minister of the Transkei made yesterday, will know to what I am referring in this connection. Besides this we have the position of the Coloureds and the Indians, and in this respect I just want to say that the idea which the hon. the Prime Minister mooted, namely, that there should be common responsibility and decision-making in regard to matters of common interest, already indicates great progress. However, we do not believe that the answer of a joint Cabinet Committee is the one that complies with all the political aspirations of the Coloureds and the Indians. There are these aspects in regard to the approach to which we differ greatly with the Government.

What I do however want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister is the fact that there are other matters of very great importance about which the parties in this House are concerned and in regard to which the people at large, in large numbers, have also reached a reasonable measure of unanimity. What we ask in this connection is an action of vision on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister to give guidance to our people, guidance in the sphere of co-operation between all the groups in South Africa. I take the liberty of associating myself with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I want just now to indicate what I think the hon. the Prime Minister can do in this connection. However, let me first indicate how great some of these spheres are in regard to which no difference of opinion exists in South Africa. I think of the combating of communism, of the socio-economic development of the homelands and the establishment of the necessary infrastructure, of the necessity for the creation of a common allegiance and loyalty, of the defence of our country against aggression, and of the prevention and combating of terrorism. I also refer to the necessity to develop our economy so that we can create job opportunities for our whole population and so that we can make it possible for our whole population to share in a high quality life; to the maintenance of a Western community with Western standards in this country; to the necessity to bring all the states of southern Africa together into an economic unit in an atmosphere of peaceful and political co-existence; to the desire to maintain the identity of each group; and to the necessity of finding a modus vivendi with all the other states on the continent of Africa and of winning the goodwill and friendship of the non-communist world. I believe that there is no difference of opinion in regard to these matters among all responsible people in South Africa. What I ask is that machinery be set up through the medium of which it will be possible for our whole population, for people of all political parties and also for people who do not have representation in this House, to co-operate with the Government to give effect to these communal principles, points of view and ideals. I want to suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister should consider the idea expressed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the setting up of a national advisory council for population relations—the Council of State to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. If we had an economic advisory council I just want to say that we in this country would have an even greater need for an advisory council of this nature in this sphere. I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to give some thought to this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since the House met in February, there have been important events almost every day and the news media have been able to report them every day. I do not want to differentiate in regard to the importance of the various events but want to say that the events which occurred were of the utmost importance to the world as a whole and therefore also to Africa. I just want to confine myself to a few matters which since the beginning of this session have, I think, been of the utmost importance to the Republic, to all the parties here and to all the people of South Africa. One can differ on the importance of each; therefore I want to mention some of the more recent matters and others which have been emphasized more but all of which indicate to us the direction of the polarization that is taking place unobtrusively in this country.

In the first instance I want to say a few words about the by-election in Alberton. I do not want to say anything disparaging about it but simply refer to it because this election and the confidence of the people were mentioned here. Secondly, I wish to say a few words about the tragic events at Nuanetsi and at Katatura in Windhoek, and lastly something about the hon. Prime Minister’s visit to Israel.

When I speak of Alberton, I think somewhat nostalgically of the passing of a party. However sorry I may be to say this, I said it last year and want to repeat it this year. When I appealed to people such as the hon. member of Mooi River and others to think of the direction in which they were heading, I said that if there was one great danger to South Africa, it was not the members, because I respect them, but the policy of the PRP, the party sitting to the left of the UP. I want to reiterate today that the times have already indicated that the statements by Black leaders and others have highlighted what the hon. Prime Minister warned against and with which others have associated themselves. This is something of which we must take cognizance. It is tragic to realize that the UP is in reality involved in a fight to the death with this small party which has recently come into existence. If I had to choose today between the party which is represented by the Leader of the Opposition and the PRP, if I were forced to make a choice, then I would say a thousand times “No” to the policy of the PRP for South Africa.

Shame!

I repeat it, “shame” or not. I say it in the clearest possible way. If Alberton is to prove something to the UP and to people who think conservatively it is that Alberton has indicated that the time of the UP as it exists presently, has expired in South Africa, however lamentable this may be to loyal members of that party.

The Vote of the hon. Prime Minister is being discussed here and Alberton has proved something else against which the hon. Prime Minister warned years ago. He warned against the danger to this country if a party such as the HNP should gain ground here. The hate campaign that was waged in Alberton by the HNP, the sowing of suspicion and everything that was promoted there, is a warning to the whole of South Africa that there are dangers from the questions which the hon. Prime Minister had indicated of which we dare not lose sight. The hon. member for Pinelands said that this Government, and I quote—

His leader added to that, and I quote—

Alberton has proved the truth or the untruth of that statement. The fact remains that the policy advocated by the HNP which endeavours to stir up hatred among the White people against the Black people of South Africa, is a policy which is nothing less than a horse from the same stable as the PRP, a horse which is helping to pull the cart of hatred and suspicion-mongering between the two main colour groups in this country. On the one hand we have the HNP which is teaching White people to hate Black people and on the other hand the PRP which is telling the Black people that the White people hate them. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands over there at the back that he need not point his finger at me; I will say it slowly so that the can hear me quote what he said in this regard, namely that this Government, the Whites, are busy tearing them—the Black people—in two. As the hon. member for Pinelands has pointed his finger at me, I just want to read to him what he said here so that the newspapers can tell it to the world at large. The hon. member must tell me if the following is the truth—

That is what the hon. member said.

That is absolutely right.

The hon. member admits that he said it. He does not even regard it as shameful. The hon. member does not regard it as shameful but I know of nothing that can cause more harm to the relations between people of different colours than in fact statements of that nature. I can also tell the hon. member that this hatred is being stirred up between Black and Black as well. The hon. member and the hon. leader of the PRP spoke of bus boycotts, etc. and I want to tell him that these are matters which I also regret because I have dealt with bus boycotts in another department. I want to quote to the hon. member from this pamphlet I have in my hand and point out to him that there are others who are like-minded and who also stir up hatred. This pamphlet states: “Chief Gatsha is a seller-out to Whites”.

†These were pamphlets threatening Blacks which were distributed by other Blacks in that area during the bus strikes. I want to read out to the hon. member that the mayor of Madadeni who was against strikes and came out in strong support of orderly protest instead of the throwing of stones, the pulling of knives and the using of weapons was threatened. It says here—

That is the type of language which we hear from several leaders. I think it is about time that we realize that what we say is heard all over the world and that we should be careful with the words we use when we talk about race relations.

I now want to deal with the sad happenings at Nuanetsi and at Katutura in Windhoek. I think it is accepted that a nation is only as strong as its leaders and I think it is tragic to know that leadership elsewhere in Africa has brought about so much bloodshed as it has done. It is also tragic to know that innocent South African tourists were killed. These were innocent people—not Nationalists, I presume—immigrants who came from overseas to make this their country, but they were killed indiscriminately. Those people who want to kill will not ask me whether I am a Nationalist or an immigrant; they will kill, as they have done already. I am glad some people came out in strong condemnation of it. When we condemn these acts let us not add the “buts” and the “ifs”. Let us say outright that we condemn all words which will incite people to this type of thing.

We must also remember that at Katutura, as the hon. the Prime Minister has so often pointed out, it was not a question of Black v. White. At Katutura where the suspected murderers were caught, a Black man died doing his duty. It should be realized by all of us that in this country polarization is coming between those who love law and order and those who advocate the opposite. There are Black men who will be glad to join the Whites in getting a better deal for themselves, because they deserve a better deal. Everything is not right—I have said it before and I repeat it today. But we need time and the money to improve conditions and it is no use holding out promises which we cannot fulfil.

In conclusion I want to say that during all this talk that has been taking place and all the sadness, positive things were being done. I have listened to a speech made by the hon. leader of the PRP and by several of his lieutenants in those benches, speeches in which they claim that the détente attempts of the hon. the Prime Minister have fallen flat. The hon. member for Sea Point is reported to have said the following about détente—

Just before that he said the following—

What does the visit to Israel prove? Will the hon. member stand up and apologize to the hon. the Prime Minister and thank him for continuing with dialogue, notwithstanding the ruins which people on the other side of the House are trying to bring about of his attempts to do so? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just spoken is one of the people in this House whose sincerity one need not doubt. The hon. the Deputy Minister states his case with earnestness and the sincerity of his words should be conspicuous to every hon. member in this House. Consequently one must accept it when the hon. the Deputy Minister says that when it comes to race relations in South Africa, each one of us ought to be very circumspect in what we say, because no one wishes to injure race relations in South Africa.

The hon. the Deputy Minister launched a major attack on what the HNP had supposedly done in Alberton. The hon. the Deputy Minister is correct. Any right-minded person has to admit that that particular political party has no right of existence in South Africa. However, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should accept some responsibility for the fact that a party such as the HNP does exist in South Africa today, because for many years, while this side of the House was pointing out to the Government that we should be circumspect, that we should be tolerant and that we should seek the co-operation of all race groups in South Africa, that side of the House was the very people who were following a policy of “baasskap”, a policy of exploitation of the feelings amongst the various race groups in South Africa. I do not want to act like a clergyman towards hon. members on that side of the House who tells a person that he should abandon his sinful ways and then, after that person has been converted, points out to him every day what a terrible sinner he used to be. We on this side of the House welcome the attitude of hon. members on that side of the House. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is correct in saying that our friends to the left of me are the right Opposition for the HNP. They, too, are prepared, like the HNP, to exploit the fear which the White man has of the Black man, and vice versa, a fear which is exploited by the HNP. These two political parties have, to my mind, become an anachronism in South African politics in any event. The way in which the hon. the Prime Minister and we handle our affairs in South Africa, will determine whether there will be any viability for the HNP and the PRP in South Africa. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister and his party, of the Leader of the Opposition and we on this side of the House to handle the situation in such a way that no other political party has the right of existence in South Africa.

I want to come back to a point which has been raised here, and that is the question of the removal of discrimination on the basis of race. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made the proposal to the hon. the Prime Minister on several occasions that we ought to have a council of state, a national council, which, although it may act in an advisory capacity, may assist him in this regard. There is also the proposal which was made earlier this year by the hon. member for Edenvale, viz. that we ought to have a Select Committee. Even if the hon. the Prime Minister does not listen to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or to the hon. member for Edenvale, I do not think it is beyond him to have some form of thorough investigation into the matter of moving away in a proper manner from discrimination on the basis of race.

The hon. the Minister of Justice told us that a Cabinet committee had been appointed. At one time a commission, the Tomlinson Commission, was appointed to investigate the Bantu issue and the development of the Bantu homelands, and a few years ago the Theron Commission was appointed. So, if the hon. the Prime Minister does not want to avail himself of our services in this regard, if he does not want to make use of our proposal regarding a Council of State, I want to ask whether it is altogether impossible to make use of the services of interested parties, even representatives of the political parties, as in the case of the Theron Commission, to conduct a proper investigation into what may possibly be done to move away from discrimination on the basis of race alone. To do so is the stated policy of the Government and these are the sentiments of this side of the House as well. General agreement exists in this regard. One is faced with the situation, however, that the Government has, in a one-sided manner, in a political manner, written discrimination on the basis of colour and race into South Africa’s laws, aided by the Government’s majority. I want to ask him whether it is correct that the Government, who has made the mistake of giving legal sanction to discrimination, removes discrimination on the basis of colour, again in a one-sided manner, with its majority? Today the Government admits that mistakes have been made during the past 27 years. But if we now want to do away with discrimination on the basis of colour, is that side of the House not going to make the same mistake in that regard?

Is it not essential that the people most affected by discrimination, the non-Whites in South Africa, be consulted in this regard? Under these circumstances, if the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept the proposal of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or a Select Committee, should he then not follow the same procedure which he followed in the case of the Theron Commission and again appoint a commission in which interested parties will serve to decide how to move away from discrimination? If a Cabinet committee is appointed for this purpose, what information will this side of the House receive as to the progress which is being made in this regard? How will the various population groups in South Africa know what success is being achieved? This can only be done if this is a public commission of inquiry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park will pardon me if I do not follow up directly on what he said, but I shall nevertheless refer in the course of my speech to certain matters which he raised. I should like to express a few thoughts with reference to a word which is on the lips of many people these days, viz. the word “change” and I shall also be able to relate to that the concept of moving away from discrimination, about which the hon. member for Newton Park has just had a few words to say.

Under certain circumstances change is salutary as well as beneficial. I want to state categorically, too, that the National Party is a dynamic party. The National Party keeps pace with the demands of the time, and because it keeps pace with the demands of the time and is realistic, the National Party is not ashamed to say that changes will in addition be effected where these are necessary. However, this will happen under specific conditions. The first condition is that change will take place and will indeed be salutary if it is in the interests of South Africa and all its inhabitants. Consequently this change will take place in an orderly manner, for only if that change takes place in an orderly manner will it be salutary and will it be able to be beneficial to everyone involved in that change. Not only will it take place in an orderly manner. The development of any friction as a result of the change which will take place will also be prevented. This change has to take place in the interests of South Africa and all its people, and not in the interests of other people who have no love for our fatherland and who do not mean well with our fatherland.

The National Party has been in office for 28 years already. Because it adapts itself to the demands of the time, without abandoning any principles, it has been able to remain in office for 28 years. The past was a course based on principle, and the future will also be a similar course based on principle. Therefore the change will also have to be measured against specific principles. The change has to be in the interests of South Africa while, at the same time, respecting and ensuring the identity of each population group, inter alia, by means of a separation of areas, political authority and the general way of life which is reflected in separate residential areas, churches and schools. It is important that this change will also have to take place in accordance with the preservation to ensure the sovereignty of the Black nations in their future areas. As has already been said, this should not create friction either. It should also ensure the continued existence of all the peoples in the Republic of South Africa.

Those who talk so frequently and so easily of change, should do so with responsibility. What do they really want to achieve with the changes they are propagating? This is a question which everyone has to ask himself. If those who use that word wish to create better ethnic relations through it, without any surrendering of identity and without tampering with language, traditions, culture and religion, then I agree, and I call it salutary. However, if the change which will take place would deprive me of all those things, I shall fight it to the last. It is already my objection that the change which the Opposition is propagating— particularly the Progressive Reform Party— frequently does not take this into consideration. What does the hon. leader of the PRP contemplate when he states, inter alia, and I quote—

Or what does he mean when he goes on to quote long passages from a speech made by Chief Buthelezi in Soweto, a speech in which Chief Buthelezi, inter alia, advocated a Black majority government? The hon. the leader of the PRP said he differed with Chief Buthelezi in one respect only, viz. he was not in favour of a one-party state. I ask myself whether this does not mean the undermining of the continued existence of the Whites. I should like to know what the hon. member for Albany meant by it when he said in a speech in this House before the recess that we should free ourselves from the anchors to which we have been clinging up to this stage. I ask myself whether this is not to gamble with the national identity and with the pride of every Afrikaner.

In the times in which we are living, it is imperative that the various peoples in South Africa should accord one another respect and mutual recognition. We should recognize one another’s human dignity, but we should also recognize one another’s personal anad national identity. Everyone should jealously keep watch over the preservation of that national identity. We should endeavour to normalize relations. I believe that the Opposition parties and others who do not mean well with the Afrikaner may not be allowed to incite the non-White peoples in our country against the Whites. However, I wonder whether the interviews which are sometimes conducted by the hon. members of the PRP, and also by some hon. members of the official Opposition, with certain representatives of non-White peoples, are conducted with a view to acquiring knowledge or with a view to devising plans to embarrass the Government and, if possible, to bringing about its downfall. Statements which are frequently made are definitely not in the interests of South Africa. In support of this submission I want to refer to a speech made by Prof. Werner Pheifenberger of the University of Münster in West Germany, in which he said, inter alia, the following—

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not have time for that now.

Is the hon. member aware that he is quoting from a report which was denied by the hon. member for Rondebosch?

I accept it if the hon. member says that he denied the report. The fact remains, however, that certain statements have been made by hon. members on various occasions, statements which causes one to wonder whether they mean well with South Africa. I want to continue and refer to what happened recently in this House. I am referring now to the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already referred to certain things which he said, but I want to elaborate on this. He said inter alia,—

But surely this is an untruth.

No, it is the truth.

By interceding in such a manner for the various population groups, the sound relations which exist and have to exist between the White community and the various other peoples in the Republic of South Africa are prejudiced. I think it is high time these various hon. members also decided for themselves whether they are speaking as patriots ought to speak. I know that hon. members raise objections every time the word “patriot” is used. I maintain that it has become important that the hon. members give consideration to whether their statements are conductive to sound relations or whether it is not perhaps the case that their statements are already playing off the various population groups against one another.

I want to conclude by pointing out that it is our task to accord recognition to and respect other peoples, but we must not deny our ownselves. If the Whites in South Africa do not continue to exist, the continued existence of the other peoples in South Africa is not assured either. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it has become the vogue lately, in this House as well as outside, to make all sorts of prophecies of doom about South Africa’s future. We find that people vie with one another in their eagerness to paint a dark picture of the Republic’s future. The statement is made with great assurance that we are in fact in a crisis situation already or that we are headed for one in the very near future. Then all kinds of distorted arguments are used to blame this supposed crisis situation on the Government and its policy. I think the time has come to get some perspective in the situation again, for the one thing we cannot afford in South Africa today is a feeling of panic and a lack of self-confidence among our people. I reject with my whole being the idea that a crisis situation exists in South Africa or that it is developing and I strongly censure the actions of those who try to create a crisis psychosis among the people of South Africa.

In the forefront of this here-comes-the-bogeyman exercise are the hon. members of the Progressive Reform Party and the Press controlled by them. In various ways the morale of our people is undermined by means of attempts to make them believe that the circumstances in which we find ourselves require a radical change of policy and action if we are to escape an imminent catastrophe.

One cannot help asking oneself whether anything would remain that would be worth defending if the radical changes advocated by some of these people were to be made. What do these people think they are doing? Do they not realize or do they perhaps not care about the implications of their actions?

During the Second Reading debate on the budget, the allegation was made repeatedly that the Government’s so-called ideological legislation and actions are responsible for the alleged unfavourable financial situation of the country as it is supposedly reflected in the budget. The fact is, however, that the estimated increased expenditure of R1 145 million is chiefly the result of the following increased appropriations, i.e. R379 million for Defence, R82 million for provincial administrations, R73 million for the Railway and Harbour Fund, R58 million for industries, R41 million for community development, R37 million for mining, R34 million for agriculture and R25 million for national education. And what have these items to do with the Government’s so-called ideological legislation and actions? It is true that the Republic’s balance of trade is not as it should be, but two of the most important reasons for this are the lower gold price and the increase in fuel prices— factors over which the Government has little if any control. In any case, neither of these factors has anything to do with Government policy.

Hon. members of the Opposition also made a great fuss about the rate of inflation which is still rising and the relatively low growth rate. In the process they belittled the Government’s attempts to control the inflation rate, without expressing any acknowledgement of the fact that the inflation curve is already beginning to show signs of flattening out. All they wanted to do was to exploit South Africa’s economic difficulties for party-political gain. The magic recipe which the hon. members of the Official Opposition advocated for economic prosperity was the abolition of job reservation, economic integration and the immediate elimination of the wage gap, without any attempt on their part, however, to consider the socio-political consequences of their proposals or to justify these in any way.

The hon. members of the PRP, and specifically the hon. leader of that party, came alone here with the ridiculous idea of a redistribution of wealth. When asked what he meant by that, he made no attempt whatsoever to motivate or to define his outrageous proposal, and he has not done so up to this moment. Hon. members of that party have been even less capable of explaining why they do not apply a redistribution of wealth in their own ranks. They seemed to believe that they could make an impression with another cliché which they either do not understand themselves, or do not dare to explain the implications of.

The present Government has been and still is prepared to make the adjustments which are required in the best interests of South Africa. This is in fact being done in every respect in practice. However, the Government will not be prevailed upon by blackmail, by denigration and by politicizing to deviate from its declared policy. In spite of all the talk about confrontation and the attempts by certain elements to bring about a polarization and confrontation in South Africa, the Government’s relations policy is making one breakthrough after another.

Far from detecting a crisis situation, one may state very gratefully that a new day is dawning everywhere.

South Africa is indeed fortunate in having a Government such as the present one to govern it in the prevailing circumstances, to meet the challenges of the moment and to lay down clearly and confidently the guide-lines for the future. At the head of this Government is the hon. the Prime Minister, to whom, with great seriousness and respect, I want to apply the following words of William Shakespeare—

Truly, he who has seen John Vorster has seen greatness in our time!

Sir, I also want to ask all hon. members to reflect on the following words of the Hon. Richard Fitzpatrick in this connection. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the Opposition must pay attention. I believe that they also have a duty, even if they do not seem to realize this. I quote—

Sir, with such a leader, with such a Government and with such a policy, I cannot help agreeing with the words which the late General Smuts once used—

I conclude by stating categorically that if we analyse correctly the political situation of our time, we find no indication of a crisis situation, but only a bright future for the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Mossel Bay into his flights of poetry. I wish to come back to the remarks made by my hon. leader this afternoon and to identify myself with his appeal for a council of State to discuss and consult, something which in South Africa will offer an open forum and not a closed committee, whether it be members of the Cabinet or whether it be heads of departments. I believe it is necessary because I propose to deal with certain areas of dissatisfaction in South Africa which I believe give cause for grave concern. I doubt whether the hon. the Prime Minister or some members of his Cabinet or the majority of the members on that side of the House are really aware or informed of the growing bitterness, frustration and impatience which is evident among the Asians, the Coloureds and the Bantu in this Republic of ours.

Are you not overemphasizing?

No, if you listen to me you will hear what I have to say and then you may agree with me. If they are aware, then the visible reaction does not give us much cause for hope. We in the UP accept that unrest, strife, dissatisfaction and subversive elements are in evidence throughout the world today; it is a world phenomenon. We in the UP, however, believe that Government policy has been a major cause of the hostile attitude of the rest of the world to South Africa. When symptoms of unrest and dissatisfaction are displayed by people in South Africa who by their very nature and calling are committed to peaceful coexistence, then I believe that the danger signals cannot be disregarded.

Both the hon. the Prime Minister and South Africa’s ambassador at UNO have promised change and have indicated a movement away from discrimination, but the feed-back from those in daily contact with all races is disturbing indeed.

Last recess I as an Anglican and a member of Parliament was approached to address a group of Bantu in an African township outside Durban. I was asked to speak on the subject “living together”. I regarded that as a tough assignment and I chose for my theme the seeking of common ground and not of confrontation. I was unaware before I got there that I would be called to give my message through an interpreter because the audience, although they were urban people, did not have sufficient knowledge of English to understand what I was going to tell them in that language. Sir, I found the reaction frightening, not so much from among the people themselves, but from two people who made their opinions very clearly felt. There were two African priests present. One was a youngish man whose attitude was hostile. The older man was courteous but he made it his business afterwards, during the tea interval, when we were alone together, to say to me, “the people are at boiling point.” That was approximately nine months ago. Confirmation of this comes from another source, a first-hand report of a retired Bantu churchman, a dedicated man, a great South African who has defended South Africa’s cause overseas and at synods in South Africa, a man of great wisdom, great tolerance and understanding. He rose from being a parish priest to hold high office in his church. He was invited, when he retired from his clerical calling, to involve himself in homeland politics, and he accepted the challenge. This is what he stated to me—

Now let me quote a White person, a man who has spent as far as I know the greatest part of his working career among the Bantu people. He is still involved with them at high level in an administrative capacity. He states—

Then we had a very forthright editorial from Beeid on 20 March this year which contended that the obligation rested upon the Government at all levels to come forward with concrete measures on matters which have a bearing on the declared policy of moving away from discrimination. The question is, they asked, how long has the long-term leasehold home-ownership for Black people in urban areas been dragging on? The article concludes by saying that action is urgently necessary.

Now I come to antagonism among the Coloureds. I want to quote a personal experience. A professional man and a practising Christian buttonholed me at a social function some time earlier, this year. He indicated to me that it was the intention to organize an athletic function for secondary Coloured school-children. He said that the only suitable place to hold a function of this nature was the Green Point Stadium. “But,” he said, “that is in a White area and it will be necessary to get a permit. The municipality of Cape Town is prepared to apply for a permit but we object to the principle of a permit and therefore we do not wish to hold the function.” Sir, how much bitterness there must be, and how deep that bitterness must run, if the sponsors of that function were prepared to deprive pleasure to tens of thousands of young Coloured school-children, and how much more bitterness would have been engendered in the minds and hearts of those many thousands of school-children if for that reason and for that reason alone the contest did not take place.

Then, in the short time left to me, I wish to refer to another section of our community, the Asians, and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the frustration and distress, nay, even danger, that respectable and responsible members of the Indian community are exposed to because of discrimination. Many upper-income group Indians live in the suburbs. Police protection is not always near at hand. Not every applicant can get a telephone at short notice. But there is yet another area of discontent among them. I am led to believe from two authoritative sources that Indian applicants for licences to possess a fire-arm are seldom successful. That applies in some cases to people who were prepared to lay down their lives for South Africa and who volunteered to serve with the South African forces in North Africa during World War 11. Some have sought five times to get permission to own a fire-arm and only at the fifth application have they been successful. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that an instruction was issued by the caucus of the UP to harp on one subject in this debate, i.e. discrimination. Every UP speaker who participated in this debate, repeatedly made accusations about discrimination. The word “discrimination” is an ugly word. This is a highly emotional word. It is a word which can create an atmosphere both here and abroad. It is a word which can incite people if it is continually suggested to them that they are being discriminated against. It is a word which can cause the hatred of the outside world to build up against our country, and it is a disservice to our country to say this same thing repeatedly. If there is one thing which the hon. the Prime Minister and other speakers mentioned repeatedly, it is that we are moving away from discrimination, and if there is one thing this Government has never done, it is to go back upon its word. This Government’s word was its honour, and we are doing so. I say again that it is a disservice to our country to repeat these statements. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Berea, who is a very pleasant person in general, used extremely unbridled language this afternoon. He spoke of “the bitterness and frustration of the Bantu and the Coloureds”. He spoke of “the intensity of Black opposition”. He spoke of “danger signals”, “dissatisfaction”, “a boiling point”, and he used a whole lot of other adjectives. In the course of my speech I should like to indicate that this is not the case at all, our people, in all sections of the population, have never enjoyed greater prosperity than in the past ten years. In his reply to the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill yesterday, the hon. the Minister of Finance drew a comparison between 1966 and today, and indicated what immense progress had been made over the past ten years. I should like to follow the hon. the Minister on that theme. It seems to me that the time is very opportune to do so, because our Prime Minister has been in that high office for ten years today.

Sir, I should like to confine myself to the progress which took place in three spheres, i.e. the political sphere, the educational sphere and the economic sphere. I also want to deal with those matters which can be reduced to quantities and presented statistically.

In the political sphere South Africa is the one country, perhaps the only country in the Western world, where there is political stability in the world of political instability. At this moment there are more people who subscribe to the policies of this Government than at any other stage in history. Even people who do not usually vote for us, make no secret of their admiration and their loyalty towards the Government. This is the one refrain we heard over and over again in our canvassing in Durban North. The people say that although they are not yet psychologically ready to vote for us, they have boundless admiration for the things which we are doing.

The Bantu peoples have made the greatest progress on their irreversible course of constitutional independence over the past five years. Over the past three or four years every one of our homelands has already had a general election, and they have self-government. There is self-government by 700 elected representatives, for their own people. Sir, no nation—neither our nation—is good enough to rule over another nation. We are living in those exciting times in which a dream expressed several years after Union by the three generals, is being realized, when they envisaged the Bantu peoples to having self-government one day. Over the past ten years our population has increased from 20 million to 25 million. This represents an increase of 25%. I mention this figure because the information I want to furnish now must be viewed against this background.

During this period the school-going population increased by just over 3 million to almost 6 million. There was not only a quantitative increase; there was also a qualitative increase. Pupils of all race groups remain at school longer. The Bantu have three times as many pupils in secondary schools than ten years ago, four times as many in matric, two and a half times as many students at their teaching colleges, four times as many students at the Black universities, four times as many graduates. During this period, when the Bantu population increased by 30%, their matriculants, their students and their graduates increased by 300%. The progress was tenfold. Spending on White universities alone increased tenfold over the past ten years. In the economic sphere development caught the imagination of the world. Our gross domestic product increased threefold, mineral sales, fourfold; export almost fourfold, electric power, almost twice as much as ten years ago; agricultural production doubled itself; industrial earnings increased threefold; investments in the Railways increased from R2 milyard to R4 milyard over a period of ten years, and in the rest of the public sector, including the State corporations, the increase was three times as much. This is an immense infrastructure which has been built and the result of this was that in the private sector investments increased by more than threefold during the past ten years. One of the most important criteria with which to measure the prosperity of a nation, is to consider the number of telephones and also the number of motor vehicles on its roads. Both doubled over the past ten years. Whereas our population increased by 2,7% per year, our motorcars and telephones increased by 8% per year. This is three times the rate of the increase in population. In the economic sphere life became easier for all of us during the past decade and then hon. member comes along and speaks of “frustration”. The Government did things which made life more sophisticated and pleasant for us and all sections of the population shared in that prosperity, even the poorest section of the population.

Do hon. members know what happened to the poorest section of our population, the inhabitants of the homelands? Ten years ago the per capita income in the homelands was R60 per year. Last year it was almost R180, which is an increase of 200%. With his inspiring, stimulating and challenging appeal the hon. the Prime Minister called upon us to fulfil our vocation. The Government set the example and created stability, security and the climate in this country upon which that prosperity in which all of us share, can be built. The ten years which are past, were five years; they were blessed years; they were prosperous years; they served to prepare all of us to fulfil our vocation with greater efficiency and with greater zeal, both here and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, at this late stage of the afternoon I should like to devote my attention for a moment to the Progressive Reform Party, and to the role they are playing in the present-day politics of South Africa. I want to refer right at the outset to an article which appeared last Sunday in the Sunday Times. This was a very interesting article written by a foreign journalist who visited South Africa and who apparently wrote a series of articles for the Sunday Times. I quote the following passage from what the man found in his travels in South Africa—

[Interjections.] I go further—

And then the writer continues—

The reporter concluded—

This is the internal political situation in South Africa as far as White politics is concerned.

I think that everyone in this House as well as those outside the House agree that for the foreseeable future—and we may as well look far into the future—the National Party has been called upon to govern South Africa. And in these times we find time and again a cry, and it sometimes becomes almost a boring cry, that calls for change. One gets the impression that some of the cries were born of panic. The National Party is and has always been the party of change. The National Party has since its first years given expression to White nationalism in South Africa. Because it takes one Nationalist to identify another, the White Nationalist in South Africa also foresaw the emergent Black nationalism in Africa and in South Africa and made provision for the unfolding of this policy of nascent Black nationalism. Therefore the White Nationalist—and I include English-and Afrikaans-speaking persons in this term—are not panic-stricken at this stage of our history because the National Party and the White Nationalist foresaw a long time ago that Black nationalism would come into its own in Africa.

However, we are now dealing with a Progressive Reform Party, and I want to confine myself to them. One could almost say that they have become panic-stricken in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and that they are making great play of there being a need in South Africa for dialogue between Black and White. In that way they are trying to imply that there is in fact no dialogue between Black and White. There is dialogue between White and Black in South Africa, but on the correct level, i.e. between the leaders of the White people in South Africa, specifically the Government of the day, and the lawfully elected leaders of the Black nations of South Africa. This is the correct level on which dialogue ought to be conducted. The question I should like to put to the PRP this afternoon— and I almost want to say to the internal wing of the PRP—relates to their negotiations with the Black people. When they speak to Black people, they tell us and all the world afterwards what the Black people said. However, the PRP never tell us what they say to the Black people in their negotiations with them. I want to say, as they are so fond of saying: “We have a right to know”. Does the PRP imply to the Black people of South Africa that they are prepared, against the will of the majority of the Whites in South Africa, to make common cause against the majority of the Whites in South Africa?

Common cause with whom?

That is a question the PRP has to answer.

Common cause with whom?

The hon. member knows with whom.

The hon. member must take care … [Interjections.]

I think White South Africa is entitled to know what the PRP says to the Black people. We also know the Black man of South Africa and the Black man of Africa. The Black man of Africa respects authority, the lawful authority of any country and nation. If I may address a word of warning to the Progressive Party, I want to tell them that they should take care that some of the Black people with whom they are so fond of negotiating do not see the shady side of the Whites in them. I also want to warn the Progressive Party that their spiritual forefathers, their spiritual economic forefathers, underestimated the strength of White nationalism in South Africa in the past. In the times in which we are living they should not underestimate the experience and strength of Black nationalism either. The Progressive Party is fond of making references to majority government, and I think reference was made to this, this afternoon when the hon. the leader of the PRP said that he was an advocate of Black majority government in South Africa or Africa. What is meant by majority government in South Africa? Does he mean by that the majority of the nation that is numerically superior in that country? Does the PRP deny the differences between the Black peoples in South Africa, or does the party wish to despise and negate the differences which also exist between Black peoples? If you are advocates of a Black majority government in South Africa, is it then a majority government by the Zulu, the Xhosa or by whom? If the rest of the world, and I am referring to overseas countries now, demands majority government, what does it mean by majority government? If we consider Angola, are we in fact dealing with a majority government there today, or is the rest of the world and the PRP content to forgo the demand for majority government if that Government is Black? If the Government is White, however, we hear the cry of majority government. I want to conclude by saying that the PRP in South Africa is a threat not only to the Whites, but also to the various nascent Black peoples in South Africa. Although the PRP has temporary representation in this House for the next three years, we believe that the voters of South Africa will deal with them at the next election in those few seats, too, which they happen to represent in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to reply to the innuendoes, the suggestions which were not stated outwardly but which nevertheless left the impression that we were doing things behind people’s backs. Let me say this to hon. members on the other side: No matter how much we may disagree and no matter what differences of opinion there are between us, just accept that we on these benches and, I believe, many other individual members of this House, speak the way we do because of a deep concern and love for South Africa. We are concerned about the prospects of polarization which are taking place as a result of the policies of the Government. We are concerned South Africans, we are not “opstokers”, when we try to convey to this House what Black people have told us of their feelings and their free nations. We have never tried to speak for Black people; we have merely passed on, as we believe that one should, views expressed to us in sincerity, as was done by the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Berea expressed, in his own terms, the frustration he had encountered amongst the Black people. I believe that legislators in a multi-racial country, whether they like it or not, should take account of the frustrations, humiliations and problems affecting the majority of the people of the country. This is our objective; we are trying to avoid confrontation in South Africa. We are indeed expressing a point of view so that out of the collective views presented to Parliament there will emerge a picture of an orderly, progressive South Africa.

I now want to come to what is in a sense the key aspect of this debate so far. In my comments about Israel I mentioned, that I hoped the new arrangement or pact with Israel would not permit us to slip into a position where we did not believe it was important to change internal policies. Let me quote from a statement by the Israeli Minister of Defence. He said—

I think there are many people who read what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he spoke in the Senate and when ambassador Pik Botha spoke to the Security Council, and who consequently believe that South Africa is moving towards new policies embodying a moral and political promise. From the point of view of external relationships, and from the point of view of neighbouring States in Africa, but more particularly from the point of view of goodwill and peace and the elimination of polarization within South Africa, I believe that the question of getting rid of race discrimination is absolutely cardinal as far as this Parliament and the people of South Africa are concerned.

I am not going to say that nothing has been done. Moves have, of course, been made. Oddly enough, every time there has been a move away from discrimination, it has also been a move away from separate development or apartheid. [Interjections.] Well, ask the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation whether moves in sport away from discrimination have been moves towards or away from apartheid. [Interjections.] If that is the watering down of apartheid, and if that is what we have to do to get rid of discrimination, let us find more water and water it down even more. I am raising this issue because we believe the position is critical. What concerns me as a South African and as a parliamentarian, is the fact that whenever we on this side of the House raise with the Government the issue of getting rid of race discrimination, which is after all a promise the Government has made, this immediately arouses tremendous tensions on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Instead of hon. members on that side of the House meeting our argument saying that we are quite right and acknowledging that they are going to get rid of discrimination, indicating at the same time the steps they are taking, all we get is vilification and abuse from that side of the House. We believe that the Opposition and the Government should try to find each other on the issue of the elimination of race discrimination. Given the present seriousness of the situation in South Africa, I believe that a collective effort is required to get rid of discrimination because, discrimination is not only dependent upon Statutes in South Africa. There are many practices—over and above the Statutes—in commerce and in industry which also contain elements of race discrimination. We therefore believe that this issue is vital. We are not impressed by the concept of a Council of State per se, as suggested by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but we nevertheless believe that there is a case to be made out for setting up a joint council or committee—even if it is on an ad hoc or transitory basis—which would spearhead the campaign against race discrimination in South Africa. It could consist of the representatives of the various racial communities; it could consist of educationalists, religious leaders and representatives from commerce, industry, mining, agriculture and the trade unions.

There should, in fact, be a collective attempt by Black and White people in South Africa to identify, first of all, the areas in which discrimination is most hurtful to the people against whom it is applied. I believe the Government would be helped if a body such as this could give the Government a timetable of priorities, in other words define the priorities in terms of which the Government should act. I believe there are many instances of discrimination, outside the sphere of Government policy, which must be put right. I believe that a body like that could point to these areas of discrimination. Furthermore I believe that there is a vast job to be done in public education, public education of all sectors in our community. By using, in a constructive way, the radio, television and the Press and by doing what the collective action programme has done for fighting inflation, one could educate South Africa and focus the attention of all the sectors of the South African public to move away from discrimination. I believe that such a programme along the lines of the collective action programme to fight inflation in South Africa would be of tremendous benefit, not only to the Government in carrying out its commitment—it is not carrying out its commitment fast enough—but it would also be a benefit to the whole of South Africa in trying to move away from a difficult situation of the past to a new and hopeful situation in the future.

In an earlier debate the hon. the Prime Minister, trying to describe our economic policy, used the phrase “the redistribution of wealth”. The hon. member for Mossel Bay described it as a cliché. It may well be— because the hon. the Prime Minister used it and not me—that he got it from the hon. member for Durban Point. If it is a cliché for that reason, well then it is a cliché. We have not used that phrase; it was the hon. the Prime Minister’s phrase, helped therein by the hon. member for Durban Point, to describe our policy. The hon. the Prime Minister asked whether it is true that leaders of the PRP are saying to people in this country that if the PRP should come into power, they would take property away from certain people and give it to others. Of course that is not true. [Interjections.] Our policy is not the redistribution of the existing wealth—the cliché to which the hon. member refers—it is the proper distribution of the available wealth in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. members laugh, but they should realize that there is a tremendous difference between just taking what there is …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, but on condition that I get additional time afterwards.

By whom is the available wealth owned to which you have referred?

The available wealth is the potential wealth of a society like ours. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister may be very fully qualified in politics but in economics he displays an ox-wagon approach. If we allow the economy of South Africa to reach its full potential, all the people of South Africa will become wealthier. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us take a simple illustration of which the hon. members will be aware. Let us take the disadvantage of the Afrikaner in South Africa in the 1910s, the 1920s and the 1930s in relation to the English-speaking South Africans. When the Afrikaner came to the city, he was given opportunities in education, in employment, and he has risen … [Interjections.] The important aspect is that although the Afrikaner advanced economically the English-speaking South African did not become poorer; the whole of South Africa has become richer as a result of helping people along or allowing people to use their talents and skills in a free society. In South Africa you do not need to make certain people poorer in order to make others richer. South Africa is a country of tremendous untapped potential, potential in the field of human and natural resources. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, allow me in the first place to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the hon. the leader of the PRP for their congratulations in regard to my visit to Israel. I do not intend dealing with the implications of what we agreed to this afternoon; I shall do so tomorrow. I simply want to inform the House in passing now that my colleague and I, and those who accompanied us, were received in a particularly cordial, courteous and pleasant manner by everyone with whom we came into contact in Israel. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate that I am of the opinion, as I also stated there, that my visit bore the goodwill of all the people of South Africa—White, Coloured, Indian and Bantu—and that I went there with the good wishes of all. I want to express my special thanks and appreciation for the way in which, as I have already said, we were received by my colleague there, the Prime Minister of Israel, and by other Ministers who acted as our hosts on occasion, and by dignitaries with whom we came into contact and who received us. In particular I should like to express my thanks to the President of Israel, whom I found to be exceptionally pleasant and eminent person when I paid a courtesy call on him and conveyed to him the greetings of our President and all our people. I believe that it was good that we went there. I believe that the agreement which we arrived at holds great potential for both countries. But, as I have said, I shall return to this tomorrow.

Naturally there were discordant notes in this regard as well. I committed the protocol sin of not asking Mr. Den Uyl for permission before I went. There were discordant notes in South Africa itself. I want to say at once here that I am very sorry that the hon. member for Hillbrow allowed himself to be inveigled into making the remarks which he did make, i.e. if he was correctly reported by the Press. Let me rectify this at once by saying that my visit had nothing whatsoever to do with mutual defence or attacks on our respective countries. In the communique which we issued no reference was made to this, not even by way of insinuation. Surely the hon. member can understand that it is grist to the mill not only of South Africa’s enemies, but also of Israel’s enemies when he poses this completely unfounded question in the public Press in South Africa—

Surely this was never under discussion. This is not to be read in the communique, but the hon. member nevertheless came out with this absurd comment in our daily Press. I honestly believe, for the sake of South Africa and for the sake of our foreign relations, not only with Israel, but also with other countries, that it is time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition disciplined the hon. member for Hillbrow. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that there have been previous occasions on which the hon. member made similar statements. There was the snide and unnecessary remarks which he made in this House with regard to Malawi, statements which subsequently had their repercussions, as the Chamber of Mines would be able to testify at any time. There were other occasions as well. It is high time—particularly now that the hon. member occupies a position in the front benches of this House—he grew up, if he is in fact capable of doing so. [Interjections.]

I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to hon. members for their good wishes in this regard. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition began with a philosophical exposition of the times in which we find ourselves. I have no fault to find with many of the things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. I shall leave it at that, however. But when he began, I wondered where it would lead to and where he would in fact end. Because I have been listening to my hon. friend for years now, it was very clear to me that we were merely following the same old course and we were again going to end up where my hon. friend did in fact end up in his last sentence, i.e. that we will in fact get nowhere, that we will not solve our problems, and that we will not be able to extricate ourselves from the difficult position in which we find ourselves as long as we have as policy the policy of separate development. This, says the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is the real problem-situation—if I understand him correctly. We must scrap that policy and accept their policy.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to see how our politics has developed in recent times. We could consider for example the article by Mr. John Robinson in today’s Cape Times. He writes hon. members off. I think he is going a little too far. I do not think they are really to be written off to such an extent as he wants to imply. On that score I think he is reading the books incorrectly. In any case, it is his own business. He went on to make an appeal to me—if I understand it correctly—to accept a quarter of the policy of hon. members of UP and three-quarters of the policy of the PRP. If I were to accept this as my policy I would be a great man in South Africa.

If I were to take that advice it would not be difficult for me to adopt a quarter of the policy of the Official Opposition, for at least I know what it is. But it is going to be very difficult for me to adopt three-quarters of the policy of the PRP, for I honestly do not know what it is.

We will send you another pamphlet! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not the most intelligent person in this House, but I am not entirely dumb. I have read through this policy statement—it is in fact not a policy statement, but a speech by the hon. member—and I must say candidly that I am none the wiser for it. However, I came across a very lovely sentence, on page 12, and I quote the hon. leader of the Progressive Party …

Which one?

The Progressive Reform Party. [Interjections.]

Sir, it seems to me that it is a party with three dimensions. We have heard about the internal Progressive Reform Party and therefore, obviously, there must be an external one for that matter. Sitting here as I do I decidedly note a left wing and a right wing even in that party. But the joyful sentence that I came across on page 12 is where the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party became lyrical and said: “But I do not want our party to be just a party of leaders”. [Laughter.] In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, who in his sound and sober senses has ever accused them of being such a party? I have never come across anybody who voiced that opinion.

Why are you so worried about it?

No, I am not worried about it at all, I am highly amused, as I dare say the hon. member in his heart of hearts is too, because I rather think that this was written before he joined that party. He says: “But I do not want our party to be just a party of leaders, I want it to become a party of the people”. If you want to become a party of the people, why do you not stand up and fight? How many by-elections have there been since 1974, and in how many of those by-elections has the Progressive Party, and now the PRP, taken part? I know of only three: two provincial elections and one parliamentary election. If I am wrong, please correct me. But the hon. member for Houghton would have corrected me if I were wrong; so obviously I must be correct.

Tell us the results.

They say here in their pamphlet: “We must go out and seek support among the voters”. I put the question to them again: Why do they not do so? Why do they now want to force their policy on us in this way, and then force it upon us in another way as well? Let them realize that they have no chance whatsoever of selling their policy to the voters of South Africa, not today and not tomorrow either.

The hon. member referred to our position in the world, and I now want to tell in all honesty and fairness that through his actions abroad he is not making it any easier for South Africa. He is not making it any easier for me in the position which I occupy, not as individual but as Prime Minister of this country, owing to the way in which the hon. member presents South Africa to those countries and the importance which the hon. member attaches to himself and to his party. And he may accept it now, or he need not accept it, but I have come across this on two occasions. I am not saying for a single moment that the hon. member said this. However, the hon. member gave the impression, for this was the impression which those people had, that his party was the alternative Government in South Africa. He also gave the impression that it was merely a question of time before all this ugliness, all these unpleasant things which the present Government was doing, would be a thing of the past for then the hon. member and his party would be the party which would manage affairs and govern in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that I did not come across a single positive thing which he did in Africa. Let me say in all fairness to the hon. member for Houghton that she is acting correctly. In Australia, for example, she has acted very correctly. I think she was at her best when she rebuked Curtis, the little chicken she protected here in South Africa.

I always correct exaggerations abroad.

What is the basic problem of that hon. member, and of my friend, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition opposite me here as well, and of other hon. members, inter alia, the hon. member for Berea, who participated in this debate? They have never rid themselves of the old Unionistic mentality. They still don the mantle of their in fact being the people who have the knowledge and the right and whose prerogative it is to speak in this House on behalf of the non-Whites—the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people. They are, so they believe, the champions of those people, champions against a Government that knows nothing about them, that wants to know nothing about them, a Government that does not care a rap about what happens to them and that deprives them of their rights and tramples those rights underfoot. Has time passed those hon. members by? The Coloured, Indian and Black leaders are far better able to state their case than those hon. members are able to do, and they are in fact doing so for this Government created the opportunity for them to do so. This Government created a platform for them on which they can stand to speak on behalf of their people, and not simply to speak on a casual basis on behalf of their people either, but with authority on behalf of their people. This Government created the channels through which they may direct their representations to the Government, and they are certainly making use of those channels and are certainly bringing their problems to the attention of the Government. On no occasion do they hestitate to direct representations to the Government. From those channels and from the opportunities that have been created for them, great benefits have ensued for the non-White population groups.

I listened to the hon. members again today, and what they said here was without rhyme or reason. It makes no difference whether a person is a member of the National Party or whether he is a member of the United Party or whether he is an ordinary member of the Progressive Party—I am not referring to the elite corps of leaders now; they are past redemption, I am referring to the ordinary people—one may do many things in South Africa, but the main concern of all the people is that one may not do anything which is harmful to the identity of any national group in South Africa. One may experiment with many things, but one may not experiment with people’s identities, for that is an exceptionally delicate matter. In the second place one must keep in mind that in a multi-national country like South Africa there is one thing one cannot afford, and that is friction which leads to discord and may subsequently give rise to violence. I listened to the hon. member for Berea, to mention only one speech. There are exceptions because there are hotheads and there are agitators, but I move about among these people far more than the hon. member for Berea does. I have had more talks with them than the hon. member for Berea could ever have. Surely there is no hatred between the White man and the Black man, between the White man and the Brown man, or between the White man and the Indian in South Africa. There are other parts of the world where there is naked hatred between population groups. Surely that hatred does not exist in South Africa, and I shall tell the hon. member in a moment why I believe that that hatred does not exist. Hatred between people exists if one attempts to break down a person’s identity and to destroy that which is his own. In that way one engenders hatred. But when one’s policy is positively aimed at protecting identity, fostering self-respect, and affirming belief in what is one’s own, surely one cannot be engendering hatred.

Differences may in fact still arise, misunderstanding may still originate and at times there may even be harsh words, but one can never arrive at a situation of hatred. I want to state categorically now that there is no situation of hatred in South Africa. There are people who are attempting to foment such a situation. There are all kinds of Black people who are attempting to foment such a situation, but they are not succeeding. My hon. friend referred here to the standpoint which we should adopt towards communism. Correct. I endorse everything he said in that regard. Our non-White leaders, the responsible ones, have all proclaimed themselves opposed to and have adopted an unequivocal standpoint against communism and terrorism. There are still a few who refuse to take sides and there are even a small number still who take one side only, but the vast majority of the corps of leaders of the Black, the Brown and the Indian people are as strongly opposed to communism as we ourselves are. My hon. friend states that we should propagate the system of free enterprise. We are doing so. Not only are we propagating it; we made it possible. What chance did Black people have of establishing their own businesses and of finding their feet in the economic world if it had not been for this Government that made it possible for them?

In the homelands.

Not only in the homelands, but in other areas as well. In their townships they have a monopoly of business establishments. The hon. member may argue with me if he wishes—I am open to arguments—when he says that there should be more business establishments.

That section is responsible for 2% of our economic activities.

It makes no difference to me now what percentage it represents, but the fact of the matter is that at the time when those hon. members were governing, it was zero. That is what is important. These people had a backlog, and we are doing everything in our power to eliminate that backlog. Take the Transkei as an example, where we have spent millions on buying out Whites precisely in order to give the Black people the commercial privileges in their own country which the White people previously had. If that is not encouragement of free enterprise, then I do not know what is. The essence of the policy of separate development is to my mind the protection of the identity of each national group. The hon. the Leader of the PRP knows this as well, and in spite of the fact that he knows this it is he who stated in his speech—

According to him it is discrimination. Forget about the minor matters now, for in the main separate development means that the Whites go to their schools, the other population groups go to their own schools, and that they are offered all the chances and opportunities in education, right up to the top. Is that discrimination according to the hon. member? Is that one of the things we should eliminate? It is an integral part of separate development that each of the population groups resides in its own residential area and has its own facilities there. I am not prepared to throw that overboard, just as I am not prepared to throw the question of schools overboard. The most important and greatest aspect of separate development is that it enables Black people to become independent in their own territory and to be as independent as any state in Africa or in the world. In October the Transkei will become independent in terms of the policy of separate development.

Will the hon. member say to the outside world that this, too, is discrimination? Just imagine, we are now discriminating against the Transkei by making it independent. We are saddled with the problems, and I have no illusions about this—I have said this before and I have said this to Chief Minister Matanzima—that the Transkei might not be recognized by certain Western countries, except if it declares war against us on the eve of its independence! Then they may recognize it the following day. But to do so in a peaceful way will probably not entail recognition for it. And it is not difficult to seek the reason for this. Unfortunately the policy of separate development has been presented quite out of context, and suspicion has been cast on it, by hon. members on the opposite side of this House, by certain newspapers and certain commentators. One has already read in the Western world Press that there are now certain countries that adopt the standpoint that recognition of the Transkei will inevitably mean recognition of the Government’s policy of separate development, while in this regard the two in fact have nothing to do with one another, except that without the policy of separate development I personally cannot see how it could have been possible for an independent Transkei to have been established.

My hon. friend stated in this House that the world is not asking for one man, one vote. They will not demand this in so many words because they know that it would be a foolish demand. However, we were not born yesterday and we know what the Western world wants from South Africa. It does not want a federation flourish here and a federation gesture there. The outside world wants representation of both White and Black in this Parliament. That is what is wanted. The outside world will try to catch us with a hidden snare by saying that we should bring only a few Black representatives into Parliament. That is not only the thin end of the wedge, it is the abandonment of the one principle which I am not prepared to abandon, viz. that one nation, whether it be the Black nation or the White nation, should not give the political power over itself to another.

I do not discuss these matters behind the backs of Black leaders. When I hold consultations with the Black leaders—and as busy as I am and have been this week, I held a consultation with a Black leader as well—I have the courage to state candidly to them that as far as this Parliament is concerned, only the Whites in South Africa will have representation in it in terms of the policy in which I believe. This applies not only to the Black people, but also to the Coloureds and to the Indians, to whom I have said this. Why should I conceal it? Surely everyone knows that it is my policy. If I were to leave it at that, hon. members opposite could reproach me for doing so. However, I have not left it at that, for as a result of the channels established by this Government I am aware of the feelings of the other coloured groups in South Africa. That is why we have developed this policy. What does this policy have, which according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be pushed aside?

I want to put a candid question to him: If it had not been for the chances and opportunities which in fact ensured from the policy of separate development, opportunities of which the Bantu, Coloureds and Indians have availed themselves, where would they have been today? Surely he is aware that before the policy came into operation the State—this applies to the old United Party—did not accept responsibility for Black education. The State did not tire itself with that, but gave certain ecclesiastical and other bodies a subsidy. As a State, however, it did not concern itself with Black education. Surely my hon. friends know that the Indians in Natal had to pay for it themselves and that no facilities were established for them. They had to establish such facilities themselves. Surely it is known that, as I have been told, science as a subject was a closed book to them. Surely it was this Government which created these possibilities for them, which created these changes and opportunities for them. It is this Government which made promotion to the highest level, that of rector of their own university, possible for them—positions which they could only have dreamed of in the old days, but which they could never have achieved owing to the system which prevailed here. Do hon. members want us to return to that? It is terribly easy to speak at random about discrimination that has to be eliminated while, to mention only one example, the elimination of discrimination means to the PRP the total abolition of the policy of separate development. When I last heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discussing the matter, he wanted to retain something of it at least. However, I do not know what his present standpoint on the matter is. As far as I am concerned, I truly believe—otherwise I would not have been standing here today—that there is no other way in which one can resolve the relations position in South Africa to the satisfaction of all the national groups. One would create chaos, one would create hatred and envy which would have very dire consequences for South Africa if one were to do so. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition requested for the umpteenth time that we establish a “Council of State”. The hon. member for Edenvale indicated that he wants a Select Committee to decide on the matter. I want to repeat that there is no need for us to have a Select Committee of Whites. The Indians, the Coloureds and the Black people themselves are far better able to discuss their problems in this regard with us, and do so directly. And their representations do not fall on deaf ears. There are times when we state candidly to them: Look, we are sorry, we cannot do this or we cannot do that.

But surely the Coloureds could have spoken directly to you as well. Why, then, was a commission appointed?

I shall tell the hon. member why I appointed the commission. I do not want to be nasty and I am not saying this disparagingly of the hon. member. However, he is just as aware as I am of how many people pose as authorities as far as the Coloured people in South Africa are concerned. In fact, the hon. member is one of them. How many people, omitting you and I, profess to speak with authority on the Coloureds in South Africa and their position? We discussed this matter at a conference table with the Coloured Persons Representative Council and we felt that there should be an authoritative report which could give us the real position of the Coloureds, the position as it is. We have a need for such an authoritative report, for if someone from abroad pays me a visit and asks me what the factual position of the Coloureds in South Africa in all the various spheres is, there is no document or book which I can give him, and I hoped that I would be able to obtain such a book which would enable me to say: “Here is an authoritative report on the Coloureds which portrays all the various facets of their lives.” That is what I wanted in the first place. In the second place, I wanted a commission that would identify the bottlenecks objectively, after they had established the facts, so that they could bring them specifically to my attention, and so that all the facts could be contained in one document.

However, I want to repeat what I have already stated previously in this House, viz. that I did not appoint a commission to work out a political policy for me. A political policy will be worked out by my party’s congresses. We must understand one another very clearly. It is part of the responsibility of that commission to state alternatives in the light of the constitutional position. I do not know what is stated in that report. I do not have the faintest idea. I shall read the report when it appears. However, I have a very high regard and great appreciation for the members of that commission, and for the many years of service which they have rendered in this regard. However, there are hon. members who seem to be labouring under the wrong impression, and if I am wrong, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must say so. He is apparently under the impression that this commission has to work out a political policy for me. With all due respect, as a member of the United Party he will know that I shall not ask him to work out a policy for me. The speeches of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other hon. members who spoke after him abounded with references to “changes” that have to be made. I want to repeat what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said, i.e. that the National Party is a party of change. This party has already made the changes that are worth making in South Africa, as it will continue to make the necessary changes in future. However, this party is not prepared to turn South Africa upside down in the process and allow chaos to arise in South Africa. Our old people had a saying. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition probably heard it many times from his father, as I heard it frequently from mine. It went: You should not distribute your possessions among your heirs before your death. This side of the House is not prepared to do so either. Listening to hon. members on the opposite side one would believe that they are the only people who know what the problems of those people are, that we on this side have never heard of those problems, and that it is their task and responsibility to come here and tell us about them now. We can debate these problems. In fact, we have to debate them, but then hon. members should not adopt the standpoint that they are the saviours and the know-alls in this regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if I understood him correctly, did South Africa a disservice when he commented in respect of the Black people that “99% of their lives are ruled by the State”. I do not know precisely what he meant by that. I do not believe it is correct, and I do not think he did South Africa a service by saying that.

The hon. the Leader complained that South Africa is not fully accepted by the Western world. I also complain about that. However, the hon. the Leader should not only complain about that; he should also ask himself what the immediate cause of the Western world adopting that attitude towards us is. One could conduct an entire debate on this question as well. When we complain about it, we are also aware that it is the official attitude of many Western countries. However, we also know that the official attitude of Western countries is changing, and if I read the signs of the times correctly, it will change to an ever-increasing extent. But when I consider the number of international congresses which have been and are being held in South Africa—almost three per month during the past three years at the present rate—it is clear to me that we are not so isolated and so ostracized by the Western world as has been implied here today. If one had listened objectively to the debate today and had not known better, one would have sworn that South Africa did not have half a friend in the world, and that there was no one who even wanted to talk to South Africa. We have our problems and it will not do anyone any good to try to suppress them. The fact of the matter is, however, that it is not only we who have problems; there is hardly a country that is not confronted with the same problems. In fact, in some cases their problems are far worse than ours. We enjoy the respect of the world and we have a testimonial from the world because they like coming to South Africa for all occasions, inter alia, for congresses, because there is order here in South Africa, and because law and order is being maintained in South Africa. I do not want to say that we will not have disturbances in future. The communists and others are making it their business to create disturbances, but thank God, we have succeeded up to now in maintaining peace and order in South Africa, and as long as this Government is there we shall maintain peace and order in South Africa with every means at our disposal.

Hon. members state so easily that the policy of this Government is deterring investment in South Africa. What is the first question that any investor asks? What does he ask me when he visits me in my office? He asks: “Is my investment safe in South Africa? Are you able to maintain law and order? Can you safeguard me against nationalization and against expropriation?” And if one can reply in the affirmative to this question, he invests in South Africa, and today investors are continuing to invest to an increasing extent in our country. If we were to accept a policy of one man, one vote” in South Africa, or were to apply only half of the policy of the official Opposition in practice in South Africa, three-quarters of the soft Western friends which we have would withdraw their investments the next day. That would be the result. They would be afraid to invest one cent here under those circumstances because they would be afraid that they would lose their money. After all, I know just as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does what those people tell us in this regard.

I want to conclude by saying that we can debate these matters, but if the hon. members opposite expect me to apply a policy in practice which they themselves cannot sell to the voters of South Africa, they are expecting too much of me. I want to give my hon. friend on the opposite side a piece of advice, because I am concerned about his position. I should like to keep him where he is, but I do not want to kill him. I am concerned because he is faring worse in the elections than I should like him to do. But in all humility I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what the reason for this is. The reason is that he is trying to seek a policy for me while he ought to confine himself to his own affairs. He can leave mine to me; the voters are satisfied with my policy. Even his people are satisfied with my policy. I want the hon. the Leader to make progress, and concentrate more on his own policy, on the explanation of it to the voters, for in common with another hon. member on my side who discussed this, I believe that the PRP may not be allowed to become the alternative government in South Africa. Nor do I believe that it will do so, for I honestly do not think the voters of South Africa would ever take such a foolish step.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us on this side of the House are indebted to the hon. the Prime Minister for his advice on how we should conduct our affairs in order to be able to challenge him as the Government of the day. You know, Sir, those of us who are close to nature, have come across, shall I say, “diere wat soms ’n bietjie skelm is wanneer hulle raad aan andere gee”. The hon. the Prime Minister has been extremely revealing in some respects this afternoon, but far from it in certain other respects. He has told us that the Theron Commission, which has been appointed to report on the position of the Cape Coloured people, was not appointed to give him a political policy and that a political policy is something which his party’s congresses would decide upon. In other words, a commission with experts as members, people from among the best in the country, is not to give advice on what political policy should be followed in the best interests of White and Coloured in South Africa. So the hon. the Prime Minister is apparently not expecting any advice from the Theron Commission.

You did not listen to me. I said they could point out alternatives, but not draw up a policy for me.

They can offer alternatives but “hulle soek nie vir my ’n beleid nie”. Are they then not looking for the best policy for South Africa? Is that not one of their jobs? Or does the hon. the Prime Minister think he is the source from which all wisdom flows and is, therefore, not prepared to accept any advice coming from that commission? It seems to me that the most extraordinary expectations which have been, shall I say, engendered by the hope of some new alternatives, some new ideas from that commission, are being dashed by the hon. the Prime Minister this evening. He is making it perfectly clear that he is really not interested in their finding him an alternative political policy.

He is afraid of what the report is going to say. [Interjections.]

Sir, what worries me is that, while the hon. gentleman took that line, we have heard nothing further from him concerning a Cabinet committee of Coloureds and Whites, of which we have heard from time to time.

The offer still stands.

The hon. gentleman says that the offer still stands. What stands, Sir? Is it just going to be a body for discussion? Is there going to be any moral binding force on each side to carry out the agreements reached? Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to report to this House on what the results of those discussions are, and on whether he feels that there is any moral obligation to carry out the decisions that have been reached? Mr. Chairman, when one talks of governing a country peacefully, when one talks of being a party of change, but a party which is not going to create chaos, one must realize that people have to work together. You can only work together on a basis of being prepared to accept that each side has a certain amount of power and that there is going to be a certain sharing of power, even if not in equal proportions.

Sir, I have pleaded for change here in this House on many occasions, because the changes I want are the changes which would be involved in my policy. I believe that, unless the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to face up to the fact that discrimination as it is practised today has to be minimized and done away with, as he has indicated to the United Nations, he is going to get chaos in South Africa, whether he likes it or not.

I want to tell him something more, Sir. That is that, unless discrimination is done away with timeously, we are going to know hate in South Africa, hate of the kind of which he is talking. Hate is not engendered only by attacking people’s identity. Hate is engendered by a feeling of injustice. [Interjections.] Where there is injustice, where people feel that their dignity is being attacked, where people feel that their freedom is being limited unjustly, hate grows. It is just that hate that I want to see avoided here in South Africa. We on this side of the House have offered the hon. the Prime Minister on many occasions a constitutional solution which would enable him to remove discrimination painlessly. He is not interested in it. He has his own ideas. But, let me warn the hon. gentleman that while discrimination continues to exist as it is practised at the present time …

Such as?

Such as the very fact …

Job reservations!

No, it goes further than job reservation, Mr. Chairman. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he regards it as non-discriminatory that this Parliament should be the sovereign Parliament in South Africa, and that the CRC will never have a say in respect of the matters which this Parliament controls, that they will never have a say in respect of such matters as peace or war? Does he regard it as non-discriminatory that the Indian Council will never have a say in respect of peace or war in South Africa, or have a say in this Parliament which controls its destiny? Sir, that is discrimination. I can go on, but I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister knows it only too well. [Interjections.] Sir, what worries me, is that the hon. the Prime Minister speaks of this Cabinet committee, and yet he talks of all the dangers of the creation of a council of State.

Now, I agree that a council of State is but an interim measure in the direction of what I would like to see, namely a federal council or a federal assembly in which there would be representation for all races in South Africa. But I have asked the hon. the Prime Minister to establish here what he has established in South West Africa, to have an advisory council, perhaps more representative, a council of State in which matters concerning discrimination and concerning race relations can be discussed. The hon. the Prime Minister tells me that if he were to agree to that, half the investors in the world would withdraw their money from South Africa. Did they withdraw money from South West Africa when he appointed that advisory council? [Interjections.]

But I was speaking of your policy.

The hon. the Prime Minister says he spoke of my policy. My policy is a federal council, but I told the hon. the Prime Minister that since I accepted that I was not in power, I could not get a federal council and therefore I suggested that the next best thing was a council of State on which there would be representation of all races in South Africa, and whose powers he could limit to purely advisory powers, if he liked, but in which there would be free discussion for all and an understanding of each other’s points of view. The hon. gentleman tells us that were it not for separate development, the position of the Coloureds and the Indians and certain others would not be as good economically as it is today. Sir, in all honesty, is job reservation not part of the policy of separate development? Does the hon. the Prime Minister think that job reservation has been to the advantage of the Cape Coloured people or to the advantage of the Indian people? The hon. the Prime Minister has spoken of the educational position of the Coloured people and of the Indians when the United Party was in power. Yes, Sir; they were controlled not through the central Government; they were controlled by the provinces. But does the Prime Minister not know that here in the Cape there were plans afoot for the introduction of compulsory education for the Coloured people before this Government came into power in 1948? Does he not know that it was applied, I believe, in two places, one being Simonstown and the other Cradock and that the idea was that it should be extended further? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now on both occasions come back, in his speeches, to the work of the Theron Commission, about which I, as a member of that commission, do not want to say a great deal. But I do want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in my opinion he would do very well to take another look at the terms of reference of that commission. If he does so he will note that the terms of reference of that commission embrace some important points. In the first instance, the commission was directed to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the whole way of life of the Coloured population and in particular, to give an account of the progress made by that population group in recent years, particularly since 1960, to indicate bottlenecks and to make recommendations to the Government in the various fields. This is well known, and without in any way wanting to discuss what the commission could or might have found, I just want to point out that we must confine our discussions to that, and that we must bear in mind that the commission had specific terms of reference. Personally I think that the hon. the Prime Minister is quite correct when, on the basis of those terms of reference, he makes the statement here today that that commission was not appointed to work out a political policy in detail, and this is not expected of it. I want to set the mind of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at rest. I do think that the report of the Theron Commission will make a very important contribution with regard to the development of the Coloured population. In fact, as the hon. the Prime Minister and other speakers have already indicated, it has been this party and this Government which has been responsible for the important changes which have taken place in South Africa on the economic and political level over a period of more than a quarter of a century. It is this Government and this party which has been responsible for this and the fact that it is prepared to bring about sensible and meaningful change with regard to the Coloured population as well. We certainly acknowledge—and we are all aware of this— that this population group is one which is going through a stage of development. It is a fast-maturing, growing population group. It is a population group which is achieving a place for itself in our society to an increasing extent, and I may say a better place, a more meaningful place, and in so doing is making an important contribution towards the development of South Africa. However, I regret that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants to intimate in advance that what the hon. the Prime Minister said here represents a kind of invalidation of the possible value of that commission’s report and the contribution it could make.

Furthermore. I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that not all change necessarily signifies improvement. Many changes have taken place in the world in our lifetime, which have been disastrous in the extreme. One need only call to mind the communist system which has taken shape in the world. One reads the books of a man like Solzhenitsyn, and Solzhenitsyn estimates that since the start of the Russian Revolution, 110 million people have suffered violent deaths at the hands of communism. In other words, a system has taken shape, a vast revolution has taken place, but many, many millions of people have paid for it with their lives. Nearer home, when we look at changes which have taken place in Angola and Mozambique, I think there are many inhabitants of Mozambique and Angola who, looking at the present situation, would definitely say that that change has not meant progress. This reminds me of a statement which, I am told, was made by a Black man on one occasion, to the effect that this “uhuru” was a very good thing, but it really was lasting too long. In many cases it has not brought them any progress. There has been no economic progress, and many of the elementary facilities, privileges and services which had been at their disposal went to rack and ruin. That is why I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the change which the NP and our government strive for and bring about is that change which also means progress, which necessarily means the improvement of the people’s living conditions, improved educational facilities, improved economic standards, improved employment opportunities and even improved political rights and privileges as well. We can prove to anyone in the world or in South Africa how the position of the Coloureds, the Indians and the various Bantu peoples has changed noticeably in any of those spheres in the past few decades, and not only changed, but improved and progressed.

It is of the greatest importance that we take note of this. That is why the change we are working towards definitely involves improvement. We cannot do this if that change is not also linked with stable progress. If that change does not mean that economic stability, too, is maintained, what is the point, and what is the good of that change if the fruit or the outcome of that change is chaos in every respect? In the nature of the matter we must understand this, and this is what we tell the world. We are not opposed to change; in fact, we are continually bringing about change, but it must be planned change. It must be planned change resulting in improvement of the standards of living and the facilities of all people in South Africa. Looking back over the last quarter of a century and more in South Africa, it has been the various Prime Ministers of this Government and this party who have been referred to by the Opposition and other ill-disposed people as men of granite, as people who have refused to move forward, but it is this party and this Government, after all, which has brought about that change with the necessary stability. That is why, in spite of the economic and financial problems of the Western world, we have in our time a relatively low rate of inflation in South Africa. Let us attempt to answer the question: What would happen if we in South Africa were to create an unplanned political dispensation in which the people who can make demands but cannot accept responsibility could make demands and seize what they wanted, unchecked? What would happen then? We should have uncontrolled inflation. One has the situation today that so many people talk about the same salaries, the same pensions, etc., but when people make those demands without wanting to accept financial, economic and political responsibility as well, one’s whole economic and political structure collapses in ruins. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in these times of political turbulence in Africa and especially in South Africa, it is necessary for me and every representative in this House, as well as every inhabitant of South Africa, whatever his colour or race, to search his own heart and to ask whether he is still a patriot and whether he is loyal to that which is his own, i.e. his nation, his culture, his religion, his history, his language, his customs and his institutions. For that reason I want to devote my attention tonight to the word “patriotism”. It is derived from the Greek word “patriotics” which means “countryman”. It is an indication of devotion to one’s fatherland which caused one to attach supreme importance to one’s fatherland, sacrificing one’s own interests, but which at the same time causes one to recognize and respect the patriotism, national pride and racial unity of other nations as well.

Patriotism is the conviction of a person who depends on the preservation and expansion of the power and culture of his community for his own welfare and for the advancement of that which belongs to him. Patriotism is the motivating force which sets one on a fixed course. It is an invisible flame which bums but which does not consume. It is a flame which inspires people to strive after ideals which they set themselves as a people and as a nation. The question now arises whether patriotism is universal. Judging by the definition, the answer is “yes”. People always organize themselves into groups, one of which may surely be recognized by way of a distinctive culture.

How do people feel, how do they act and how do they judge when they are inspired and motivated by patriotism? In a nation which is a community of persons, they are aware of their natural unity and they seek to preserve this unity. They also seek to preserve and to develop their distinctive character. During the development of this distinctive character, a connection arises between a people and a homeland, and this plays a major role in the development of national awareness. At the same time, the close connection arises and develops between a homeland and the people who inhabit it. In the developed mind, the beauty of the well-known homeland, its historical associations, and its fascination are associated with a general feeling of devotion to one’s people. Quite naturally the homeland becomes the symbol of the ideal of a people. As far back as the 18th century, Sir Walter Scott said the following—

Through his awareness of his natural unity with his fellow-man, a patriot is a source of energy and joy and of great value to his community. The national history, literature, institutions, language and customs all belong to him because he helped create them and he himself was created by them. He is deeply attached to them because they are his own and he seeks to make them perfect. He defends them with an almost personal passion. The essence of intensive patriotism is devotion to the national character, the desire to promote this national character and to protect it from attacks from inside as well as outside its homeland. A nation threatened by political downfall will enthusiastically exert itself in the interests of its national language, its literature and its customs, and it will devote great attention to the education of its young people, to its language, country, economy and the protection of its country precisely when it is being threatened. There is only one force which can form a national character into one firm, resolute whole, i.e. the indestructible love of a race and a country of one’s own. This love inspires people to unprecedented achievements and undreamed of heights.

Intensive patriotism does not depend on the condition which we call national independence. When a person becomes self-supporting, he can survive, even if he is surrounded by foreign communities. A very good example of this is the fantastic vitality of race and character of the Jews. The Jews were subject to Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. They survived all their conquerors and retained their strong national unity through the centuries without sacrificing their distinctive character. A good example of this is Nehemia bringing his people back from exile, but also exhorting them to be faithful to the past and forbidding them to marry the heathen. It is the salvation of a people to preserve its identity. Daniel remained loyal to his own people in a foreign country, in spite of luxury, and even in the lion’s den he was a patriot. As against this, we have the unpatriotic Judas who betrayed his fellow-Jew and then committed suicide. Our own South African patriotism runs like a golden thread throughout history. The Great Trek of 1936 dispersed the population, but precisely by doing so it laid the foundation for a spiritual union and a national self-awareness. Devotion to a national past became an important quality of our Afrikaans nationalism. Ancestors were glorified and heroes honoured. From them the young people had to derive inspiration. All these things had to help foster patriotism.

What is the future of a nation which is patriotic and whose young people are patriotic? A living nation works at its future. A nation is always on its way to the future, to what it believes to be its destination. A nation works at its political future. We had a share in creating the Republic of South Africa, and now we have to share in building our policy as well by means of study, vision, labour and sacrifice.

A nation also works at its cultural future. Our cultural heritage is fine, and we must guard and preserve it. If we are to live, we have to continue developing it. A nation also works at its economic future. A nation which is poor and subordinate cannot fully develop its physical and spiritual powers. Through vision, creative work and effort, we must ensure the nation’s economic future.

A nation also works at its religious future. A nation’s religion is its greatest weapon, its nuclear bomb, its firing squad. It must not slave for the world, but for heaven. It must not build castles, but churches. A nation which builds in this way is building its personal religion, its altar, its temple. Such a nation may live.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to welcome the hon. member for Alberton and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. He can now sit back for a while and relax and feel happy that this experience is now behind him. One can honestly say that he has a very safe seat … [Interjections.] Therefore I shall not wish in a short stay here.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon, in replying to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to my mind evoked a certain measure of sympathy for himself. Members mentioned change and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said that the NP was one of the biggest agents of change we had ever had in South Africa.

That is true.

It is certainly correct. I quite agree. The fact of the matter is that what we have seen happening to us in this country during the time the NP has been in power is nothing less than a world revolution. We have seen a complete change in the attitude of people in the outside world as well as in South Africa. All the relationships we used to know in the old days—between White and Black, master and servant, youth and age, parent and child—the whole attitude of discipline and authority, everything else that was in the world in the old days has changed. And what has happened? The Prime Minister governing this country carrying out NP policy has had to change against a background of a policy that has been slowly building a one-way street, a dead-end, built up block by block and patiently by previous Prime Ministers and previous actions of the NP to the point where change has become the most difficult thing in South Africa for the hon. the Prime Minister. It is something that has been brought about by the party in power itself over the years. The attitudes of that party have changed, and nobody is going to tell me that they have not. The attitude of that a party has changed from the days when they used to talk about “Blanke baasskap” as being the policy of the NP. This attitude has changed totally. Today we hear of multi-racialism, of “veelvolkigheid” and all this kind of thing. There has thus been a change in attitude.

One can only say one welcomes the fact that the NP is capable of changing, because if it were not, there would be absolutely no future whatever. If the world outside did not believe that the NP was capable of changing, the investment the Prime Minister talks about would be withdrawn tomorrow. It would not even last through the night. I think one should at least pay a tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister for being prepared to change where he can, provided he can get away with it without upsetting too many of his own people. [Interjections.] This is just the old policy of the NP unfolding a bit here and there.

The hon. the Prime Minister was given the advice to take a quarter of the policy of the UP and some of the policy of the PRP. Only a quarter was mentioned because he has the rest already. He has already taken over so much of the policy of this party that there is only a quarter left that he does not have in his policy as yet.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h15.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted by the dinner gong I was pointing out to the hon. the Prime Minister that the NP has got itself built into a cul-de-sac of its own creation. With all the changes they may be attempting to make, and which they may in fact be making, they are tied to the one thing which they will not abandon, and that is that all the changes are made within the framework of separate development. I want to state as a categorical fact, which I am not even prepared to argue about, that in South Africa a federal system, a federal arrangement between the different racial groups in this country, is an historical inevitability. It is going to happen. However much the party on the other side may wriggle and however much they may try to deny it or get away from it, a federal arrangement is an historical inevitability. It is going to come. The hon. the Prime Minister himself was this afternoon talking about the identity of the peoples in this country. In order to preserve those identities intact in the situation in which we live today, it is going to be absolutely imperative to find an arrangement which will allow the various groups to co-operate and work together and live together. Without some kind of federal arrangement that will be impossible. One of the most significant things said by a member of the NP was said during this session by the Deputy Minister of Information, who said the other day that the NP had never rejected the idea of a federation. He said that they merely rejected the two proposals put forward by the two parties on this side. I say that this is something which is going to come, and the sooner this is realized the better it will be for everyone in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come to a question which was raised by my leader, namely the question of socialism. The hon. the Minister of Finance, in his reply to the Second Reading, said that there was a world-wide trend towards State involvement. Sir, he could not be more wrong. In fact, there is today a world-wide trend against the involvement of the State at the expense of the individual. Even in a country like Great Britain under Harold Wilson, which has been the most socialist country in Europe for a long while, they are discovering today the absolutely essential nature of private investment and the individual drive of people to develop that country. They are now finding it necessary to recognize that fact, and they are going to turn back towards private investment and private initiative. It is a state of mind; that is what worries me about the NP. The hon. the Minister of Finance gave us a lot of figures relating to fixed investment and the gross domestic product and the State’s portion and that sort of thing. It is the state of mind of people who say that the State can do things better than the private individual which concerns me. That is the problem we have, and I appeal to the NP and the Prime Minister to realize now that the future of the White man and of the Black man in this country depends on that individual initiative and investment. It depends on the person who goes out to build a life for himself and a career for himself in the economy of this country. The members of the PRP have mentioned the redistribution of wealth. When they are questioned as to what they mean by the redistribution of wealth, it appears that they do not mean that at all. They mean what we have been talking about for a long time, namely the creation of new wealth, wealth which is going to satisfy all the people of South Africa, so that the slice of the cake is going to be big enough for everybody.

May I ask a question?

No, I am afraid I have only two minutes left. [Interjections.] When the members of the PRP were questioned the other day about this question of the redistribution of wealth, the hon. member for Orange Grove replied that they were going to redistribute wealth by means of taxation. I have said before, and I say it again, that the one mistake that must never be made in this country is for the Black man to think that he can tax the White man to enrich himself. You cannot enrich the Black majority by taxing the White minority. In other words, what you have to do is so to create and shape your tax policy as to put into the hands of the private sector the maximum amount of reward for drive and initiative.

The word “profit” is the one word which must be put back into the vocabulary of this country as fast as possible. The relevance which this party, the UP, has in politics in this country today is that we stand 100% for private initiative, for the sort of people who will get this country growing and save even the NP. This is, I believe, the most important thing that we can possibly do. One wonders, when we face the situation we are facing, why we do not go out amongst the Black population to a greater extent with the message that we have for them, in order to rouse them up to realize what we mean for them. We must bring home to them what communism means for them. We must bring home to them the godlessness, the mindlessness, the inefficiency and the stupidity of communism, which has made even socialist Russia, with all the tremendous assets they have, the most inefficient industrial nation in the world. That system has almost crushed the whole productive capacity of Russia, which has led to harvest failures and which has led to that country having to buy millions and millions of rands worth of food every single year. What evidence is there in this country that the Government is attempting to bring this message home to the Black people? What evidence is there that the Government is trying to show that the system which we have is the one which will bring them redemption and salvation from all the plagues of Africa, from the ignorance and the poverty and everything else that afflicts them [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry for the hon. member for Mooi River, and with reference to him I want to say that if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. That is exactly the position as far as he is concerned. He does not know where he is going and he is taking any road. Right now he is even taking the side-tracks.

*The hon. member referred to separate development, and the idiom in which he did this, was that discrimination was basically and inherently built into that policy. If I understand the hon. members opposite correctly, all of them advocate, in some form or other, a situation of integration. I want to tell the hon. members opposite that integration does not eliminate discrimination, because when one moves towards a situation of full integration, one again discriminates against the minority groups, the Ndebeles and the Whites and the other minority groups in South Africa.

Sir, I should like to refer to the question of patriotism, which has been raised on various occasions in the course of this session. I should like to refer to the hon. member for Sea Point, who is not present at the moment. He held a meeting on 6 April in Johannesburg and on that occasion made sneering reference to the “plastic patriots” in the NP and the UP. I think the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Yeoville, too, are the last people who should speak of patriotism, and especially of “plastic patriots”. Sir, I should like to take you back to 30 January of this year, when the customary motion of no-confidence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was before this House. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to the motion of no-confidence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I quote what he said on that occasion (Hansard, col. 355)—

And the following Monday—and I am now referring to the weekly editions of Hansard, Vol. 2, of 2 to 6 February—the hon. member for Yeoville spoke and said, “We also believe that there is a threat from terrorism and we are opposed to terrorism” (col.453). I find this strange. It reminds me of the man who has a certificate in his pocket to the effect that he is not insane. I do not know why it is still necessary for a party to say that it is opposed to terrorism. But the hon. member for Yeoville went on to say (col. 453)—

Now let us look at what game the hon. member for Yeoville was referring to. The amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister reads as follows—

And the PRP voted against this, and then they have the audacity to speak of plastic patriots. But this party did not see its way clear to vote for an amendment in which our people, in which South Africa, asked that its borders be defended. Sir, when it came to deeds, when they could vote for South Africa, they were not prepared to do so. Then the hon. member described this as games. But I want to go further. Point 5 of the amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister reads as follows, and now hon. members should listen carefully—

And the hon. member for Yeoville called this games, and his party opposed it. Sir, I want to state categorically that this was an act of disloyalty to our country, South Africa; it was a down-right public scandal to vote against a patriotic amendment such as this. [Interjections.] I want to go further.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Is it proper to allege that hon. members in this House, by voting against an amendment, committed an act of disloyalty against this country?

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg may proceed.

I can understand us differing on standpoint but this was an unpardonable sin towards South Africa.

Are you aware, Sir, that Mr. Speaker has ruled that to allege of any member that he is disloyal to South Africa is unparliamentary?

I ruled that myself, but that was under different circumstances.

I abide by your ruling, but I would ask your indulgence to address you. Sir, the allegation has been made that what has been done in this House by certain hon. members was an act of disloyalty. If that is not directly in conflict with your ruling, Sir, then, with great respect, I would ask you to indicate to me where the difference is.

If the hon. member would read my ruling at that time, he would discover the difference himself. The hon. member for Lydenburg may proceed.

I simply want to say that I have sympathy with the limited intellectual capacity of the hon. member for Yeoville. But I want to proceed, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, is it parliamentary to refer to what is alleged to be “the limited intellectual capacity” of an hon. member?

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg may proceed.

Sir, I have great sympathy with the hon. member’s sensitivity and with his political childishness in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members should give the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

I say once again that to vote against the amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister, is to my mind tantamount to an act of disloyalty to the Republic of South Africa and its armed forces.

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

Sir, I feel that the hon. member who has just sat down really needs a little injury time and I would therefore like you to give him a chance to continue.

I want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation towards the hon. member for Mooi River. As I have said, I can understand us differing from one another politically, but I cannot understand, when the hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment in this House, at a time when South Africa was experiencing an hour of crisis, and said that in addition to the need for loyalty to our armed forces in the operational area, for which that party refused to vote … In other words, Sir, that party was not prepared to express its loyalty to the armed forces of South Africa in the operational area. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I raise as a point of order whether it is proper to allege that there are members of this House who are disloyal to the armed forces of South Africa. Sir, with great respect, the issue has been clearly raised in this House and there is a ruling by Mr. Speaker to the effect that to reflect in any way upon the loyalty of any member of this House is unparliamentary. With great respect, if this is not unparliamentary … [Interjections.] Sir, it does not appear that hon. members are prepared to abide by your ruling. What I am trying to say, Sir, is that if it is now going to be parliamentary …

Order! I request the hon. member for Lydenburg to repeat exactly what he said, because hon. members over there were making such a noise that I was unable to follow him properly.

Sir, I concede to your request. I shall repeat it. At a time when the Republic of South Africa was experiencing a crisis, when its armed forces were in peril of their lives on the borders of the Republic, as well as outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment in this House which asked inter alia, that the House “in conclusion conveys its sincere thanks and appreciation to the Defence Force and all officers and men for the courageous and heroic manner in which they have acquitted themselves of their task in the operational area”. That party voted against this and I say that was an act of disloyalty to the armed forces of the Republic of South Africa who were in peril of their lives in the operational area. [Interjections.] And I want to go further.

Sir, I again want to raise the same point of order. You have asked the hon. member to repeat what he had said. He again has alleged that that act was an act of disloyalty to the armed forces of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Has the hon. member finished?

No, Sir, but I cannot go on with the noise that is going on around me. What I am saying to you, Sir, is that to allege of an hon. member of this House, or members of this House, that they have committed an act of disloyalty … [Interjections.] Sir, here we have more interjections. When a member of this House is addressing this House on a point of order, I understand the rules of this House to mean that the rest of the House has to keep quiet.

Order! Hon. members must please give the Chair the opportunity to follow what the hon. member is saying.

My submission, Sir, is that if this is not unparliamentary, then it goes directly contrary to the ruling which Mr. Speaker gave after reconsideration, to the effect that it is improper and unparliamentary to impugn the loyalty of any member of this House. I ask you, Sir, if you have any doubt about it, that the matter be referred to Mr. Speaker or that Mr. Speaker be brought back to this House to give a ruling on this.

Order! I personally ruled in this House that an hon. member might not say of another hon. member that he was disloyal to South Africa. The hon. member for Lydenburg did not put it like that, and for that reason he may proceed with his speech.

I want to repeat that I regard this …

Order! The hon. member should not repeat himself; he should proceed with his speech.

I regard this as an act of disloyalty. I want to proceed and quote para. (5) of the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister to the motion of non-confidence moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of this session (Hansard, 30 January 1976, col. 356)—

I want to repeat this so that it may be placed on record once again. The hon. the Prime Minister moved in his amendment that this House—

It was the blood of South Africans which flowed in the operational area and the hon. member for Yeoville referred to this as games being played in this House. The hon. member and the Progressive Party voted against this amendment. [Interjections.] I must tell you, Sir, that I would not have believed it if someone were to have told me that there was a man sitting in this Parliament who would vote against the blood of South Africa. I would not have believed it if someone were to have told me that there was a man sitting in this House, who, at a time when our armed forces were dying on the borders, would say that they would vote against this and would say that the hon. the Prime Minister was playing games. It is an absolute disgrace; it is a disgrace and I regard this as an act of disloyalty, not only to the armed forces, but also to the next of kin, the parents of the boys who died on our borders for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member for Yeoville call the hon. member for Lydenburg a “dirty smear”?

Order! Did the hon. member for Yeoville say that?

I say that what the hon. member is saying is a dirty, rotten smear.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, if you order me to do so, I will do it.

The hon. member for Lydenburg may proceed.

If someone were to have told me that we would live to see the day in South Africa when people would be sitting in this House who would vote against their own blood, I would have told him that that was an infamous lie.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to allege that members of this House will vote against their own blood?

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg may proceed.

If the hon. members of the so-called Progressive Reform Party—I no longer regard them as a party, with reference to their deeds, because I judge them according to their deeds—have no respect for the armed forces, they may at least have the basic decency …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to allege that a member of this House has no respect for South Africa?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Lydenburg may proceed.

I should like to express my sincere sympathy towards the hon. member for Yeoville on account of his sensitivity and also because he is not capable of taking the hiding I am giving him like a man, because he is not a man. [Time expired.]

[Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, when the welter of noise has died down I should like to say …

Order!

… that I do not intend to spend one minute of my precious ten minutes on the disgraceful speech made by the hon. member for Lydenburg. I do not believe that hon. member is fit to judge who is loyal or disloyal to South Africa.

Can you judge?

Yes, I can judge, because unlike hon. members there, I had my family fighting in the war up North for South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton must please address the Chair.

Sir, I am addressing the Chair.

No, the hon. member is not addressing the Chair.

Very well then, through you, Mr. Chairman, let me tell hon. members that I am very much in a position to judge what is loyal or disloyal to South Africa. Unlike that hon. member, who I doubt has ever fired a shot or donned a uniform in defence of this country, the hon. the leader of the Progressive Reform Party and the hon. member for Yeoville have both served in the armed forces up North. They therefore know what is loyal or disloyal to South Africa. I wish to inform that hon. member that there are two forms of patriotism. The one form is exclusive White Nationalist patriotism, and then there is also South African patriotism, and that embraces all 25 million inhabitants of this country. There is a patriotism that says “my country right or wrong” and there is a patriotism that says “my country when right, keep it right, and when wrong, put it right”. The latter is the kind of patriotism we believe in.

I now want to turn to some of the things the hon. the Prime Minister said earlier this evening. One would have expected a serious contribution to this debate from the hon. the Prime Minister, instead of which he spent much of his time jeering at the PRP. So much time has been taken up in this House this session with jeers, taunts and accusations against the PRP that one wonders whether the hon. the Prime Minister and his party are not getting nervous at the progress the PRP is making and whether they are not perhaps worried about what is going to happen in Durban North. The hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon that the PRP had only fought three by-elections. He forgot to add that we won all three of those by-elections. It therefore seems to me that the NP is running scared in the face of Progressive Party gains. And so they should, because we are going to go on growing. We shall soon be the official Opposition in this country.

I now want to analyse a few other things that the hon. the Prime Minister said. Inter alia he told us … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, may I please have a little quiet from those back-benchers?

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member a reasonable chance to make her speech.

Thank you. He told us that the Government had provided a platform for the Black people. That is quite right. They use those platforms, he says, and they do, but does the hon. the Prime Minister ever listen to anything that is said from those platforms? Did he take any notice, for instance, of the speech made by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi in Soweto only the other day to some 14 000 people? Does he take any notice of what the Coloured leaders say? Oh, no! He told us only this afternoon that the fate of the Coloured people was going to be decided, not by the Theron Commission, not by the Coloured people themselves, but by the NP congress—in other words, the White congress of the NP. What is the good of providing platforms if the views expressed from those platforms mean nothing at all? The hon. the Prime Minister tells us there is no hate between Black and White in this country and he says there is not hate because the Government respects the identity of the different groups in this country and because the Government takes pains to preserve the identity of the different groups in this country. What amazing self-deception that is!

Does he really think that the Black woman sitting in the homelands without her man whom she sees once a year for a month throughout his entire working life if he is a contract labourer, cares at all about her Black identity? Does he think that the Black man who has to get out of his hostel bed at 04h00 in order to get to work by 08h00 to earn a wage which is below the poverty datum line, cares about his Black identity? Does he think that the Black doctor who earns half the amount that the White doctor in the same hospital earns cherishes his Black identity? Does he think that the Black mother who pays for the school books of her child, knowing that the mothers of White children do not have to pay for those school books, is pleased with her Black identity? Does he really think that 200 000 Africans who have been removed from Black spots in South Africa care about their identity or that the 460 000 Indians and Coloureds who have been shunted around by group area removals cherish their identity? Does he think that the 270 000 African men and women who were arrested under the pass laws during the past year are pleased with their identity? Are the 65 000 Africans who were arrested under our medieval curfew laws pleased with their identity? Does he think that the hundreds of Africans trudging backwards and forwards between Kwa-Thema and their places of work week after week because nobody does anything about the bus boycott are pleased with their identity? Does he think that the 22 000 Black men and their wives who have been on a waiting list for a house in Soweto for years and years are delighted with the preservation of their identity? Well, I have news for the hon. the Prime Minister. Those people do not give a tinker’s curse about their identity because they cannot eat their identity and they cannot pay their rents with their identity and, most of all, they cannot enjoy equal opportunities in South Africa with their identity. All that nonsense that the hon. the Prime Minister talks of this preservation of identity, I say, is gross self-deception.

He said there is no hate, but I asked him whether he has ever visited Soweto and talked to the people who live there. Has he visited Guguletu? [Interjections.] Has the hon. the Prime Minister been to New Brighton and asked those people their opinion about his régime? No, not at all! His opinion is based on the opinions of some 200 people who take the trouble to write a letter to the newspaper The World. I want to suggest an itinerary to the hon. the Prime Minister. That itinerary will include the Black townships of South Africa, it will include the Coloured areas of South Africa and he should visit and talk to the sullen students of the University of the Western Cape as I have. He also ought to go down to Natal in order to talk to the embittered students of the Natal Medical School who are incensed that their medical school is going to be closed and that their identity is going to be preserved. [Interjections.] So incensed are they that they are not even going to take part in the 25th anniversary celebrations due to be held at that medical school later this year.

What a pity!

Yes, what a pity! I thought that hon. member would not care. However, he tells us there is no hate in South Africa. I do not think he has ever exchanged a word with a Black person other than on a master/servant relationship and the servant is in no position to express hate for his master. I want to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister has read the Snyman Commission’s report and if he has, can he seriously suggest that there are not ominous warnings of the growing hostility among educated young Black men at the University of Turfloop? I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister a home truth and it is a sad home truth. I believe it to be a home truth. The majority of educated young Black people in this country were pleased about the MPLA victory in Angola because, although most of them are not communists by any means, they are so sick of this régime that they prefer anything rather than this régime. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister also told us that law and order existed in South Africa today.

We have to have laws on our Statute Book which make provision for detention without trial—this has resulted in an estimated 83 people presently being held in detention without trial. Concerning law and order in South Africa, do you know, Sir, what the crime rate was in Soweto last year? There were 10 000 cases of violent crime. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I ask you to give very serious reconsideration to the point of order …

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point cannot address me now on an issue that was raised before and has already been dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order arising out of remarks made by an hon. member where, in very specific …

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, am I not to be given an opportunity of raising a point of order?

The hon. member cannot do so at this stage. The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you …

I warn the hon. member that he must resume his seat or I will send him out.

Mr. Chairman, may I not raise a point of order?

No, the hon. member cannot do so at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has put quite a number of question to the hon. the Prime Minister and he will reply to them authoritatively at a later stage. I should like to come back to the speech made in this House by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I want to accuse him of having attempted to find justification this afternoon for Black people to support the communist ideology as a method of hating the White people in South Africa. He virtually told them to reason like this in so many words.

The hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with the question of hatred between White and non-White in South Africa. For that reason I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that no one in southern Africa has done more for the promotion of good neighbourship and peaceful coexistence between the various nations of this great continent than the hon. the Prime Minister. He has devoted himself to this in such a way that the whole world has taken cognizance of it, as appears, inter alia, from his recent visit to Israel, where he met with a cordial reception, and also by statements made by people who left the country in the past as a result of subversive activities. Those people now declare that South Africa should solve its problems peacably instead of using violence, because the opportunity for peaceful solution has been created in South Africa. Those opportunities have been created by our hon. Prime Minister.

As opposed to the attempts by the hon. the Prime Minister to ensure peace in South Africa, one finds aspirations of a different nature as well. I want to refer to those of communism, those of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, and those of the Progref Party. If time allows me, I should like to refer to all three.

In Die Volksblad of 18 March, there was a report under the headline “Russe bal krygsvuis al meer”. The report contained the significant words of the Russian Minister of Defence, Marshall Grechko. He said—

Mr. Chairman, what meaning do you find in his words? Do you find in them an assurance given by the communists to mankind that they are striving for world peace, or do you find in them the desire for world domination by means of a militaristic imperialism? This last meaning is exactly what I find in them. Consequently I want to say to the Black nations of southern Africa, in a language they will understand, that they must be prepared for the appearance of a new White Chaka in the military history of modern times. The name of that Chaka is communism.

The Black nations of southern Africa know the history of Chaka’s impis, which were nothing but the gangs of murderers of the cruellest ruler in the history of the nations of southern Africa. They plundered and mutilated and murdered hundreds of thousands of people, and today the ideology of this communist Chaka is spreading over the globe just as Chaka’s impis used to sweep across southern Africa. This ideology is prepared to wipe out and destroy everything before it, including the Black people, as appears from the events in Angola, where thousands of resistance fighters were shot down and a country was completely destroyed in the name of a crusade against the so-called White racists in South Africa—as if there has been White racists in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia as well. This new Chaka has no consideration for anything or anyone and he will take away from the Black people their many wives and great wealth of children. Just as in the old days, when Chaka coveted the riches of this country, all the cattle grazing over its wide expanses, and seized them with violence, leaving hunger and poverty and children who laughed no more, in the same way this new Chaka covets the riches of this country. He wants to take possession of its mineral wealth and its natural resources. He will eventually become its master, and not the Black people. In addition, this new Chaka also wants to become the master of the Black man’s children, as is proved by the events in Mozambique, where, according to newspaper reports, all children over the age of six years are removed from their parents. I want to tell the Black people that this new Chaka holds a great danger to them. His aim is to dominate the world and not to liberate nations. What nation in South Africa is not so free that it could gain its independence tomorrow if it should desire it, even Chief Buthelezi?

The Black nations which were plundered and utterly ravaged by Chaka, to such an extent that they almost disappeared from the earth as independent peoples, are only now beginning to grow towards nationhood again under the care that is lavished upon them by the policy of separate development. This is the glaring contrast which exists, for all the world to see, between the policy of separate development and that of communism, which subjects independent nations.

This brings me to Chief Buthelezi. When he says in Soweto that the Whites must see the writing on the wall, in consequence of the events in Mozambique and Angola, and that a majority government in South Africa by means of the transfer of power by the White man to the Black man is inevitable, the question arises: What do these words of his mean? Do we hear in them the promotion of good relations between people and nations, something of which the hon. the Prime Minister sets an example from day to day? He does this in the interests of the Black people of South Africa as well. However, this is not what we hear in the words of Chief Buthelezi. The content of his words is feverish, compelling propaganda. I believe that Chief Buthelezi must be warned that he is playing with fire, fire which will consume this country so that not even the Zulu people will arise from the ashes. I believe that the time has come for us also to say something to Chief Buthelezi with reference to the events in Mozambique and in Angola. This is that the Whites in this country have the will to preserve that which is their own. They have the will to survive as a people. They have the will to preserve their country. I want to tell him that the Whites also have the will to lead the various Black nations of this sub-continent, of Southern Africa, under conditions of peace and order, to their individual destinations to which they are entitled. We have already furnished proof of that will. It is there for anyone to see.

Chief Buthelezi seems to regard himself as the voice of the Black people in South Africa, especially when travelling abroad. However, I want to tell him that he has already become a source of great irritation and embarrassment to other Black leaders. Just listen to what Chief Minister Lucas Mangope said in Die Volksblad of 26 March this year. Chief Minister Lucas Mangope fears another Angola if Chief Buthelezi were to have his way. Mr. Chairman, if Chief Buthelezi is not informed as to the content of this speech, I believe that it would be in his own interests to acquaint himself with it. However, I also want to ask him what his definition of a majority government is. The hon. member for Barberton referred to this earlier today. What is his definition of a majority government? Does it mean a Zulu majority, a Tswana majority or a Xhosa majority? In spite of the fact that these people differ from each other in their language, culture and traditions as much as do the Dutch, Hungarians and Germans, who do not form a so-called White majority government for Europe just because they are White people … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this afternoon that against the background of a changing world and because of her policy of separate development South Africa could never be regarded as a fully-fledged member of the West. I should like on this occasion to dwell for a few moments on this statement. I will admit that we are living in a changing world. It is a changing world in which one irrefutable fact is apparent, namely, that when it comes to action, South Africa does not have many sincere allies in the ranks of the West. We have many quasi-friends but very few true friends. Old friends like the U.S.A., France and Britain refuse against their better judgment to veto an obviously unjust decision of the Security Council. They refuse to do this and by this means they condemn South Africa shamefully for her actions in Angola notwithstanding the fact that her reason for being there was to protect the West and precisely those countries, and to hamper the progress of the steamroller of communist infiltration. There is no open acknowledgment of and no support for South Africa’s inexorable opposition to communist infiltration. There is no such support because these principles have become secondary to a simulated striving for international prestige on the part of our erstwhile friends. They have become secondary to a fear that the world, will associate them with so-called racism. A general laxity has arisen on the part of those countries to translate their so-called anti-communistic principles into actual deeds. South Africa is certainly grateful to those Western countries which are still friendly towards us. However, what are the facts? South Africa’s repeated statements on international political platforms eliminate points of friction in relationships, and to try to improve national relationships domestically on the highest level, and the submission of proof of the actual progress and the creation of new opportunities in this connection, are hardly relevant. Even less relevant is the fact that there is no country in Africa which has created more educational opportunities for the Black man than those that have been established by South Africa The fact is simply that the world dare not acknowledge this progress and this changed attitude of South Africa because such acknowledgment would in fact be a recognition of the success of the corner-stone of the policy of separate development, the policy that has been so dismembered by the world and so summarily condemned.

It is this policy exactly which in a non-static world and in non-static times is being expanded to such an extent that it can harmonize and normalize the levels of contact between national groups, can strive for peaceful coexistence and do so on the principle of the retention of identity and on the principle of the right of political self-determination. Is not the tragedy of the changing world precisely the fact that the free world is no longer prepared to stand by the yardsticks which it used previously? Is the tragedy not precisely that the efforts to eliminate terrorism and to eliminate revolutionary intimidation and the undermining of authority are made subordinate to the communistically inspired world cry for majority government, which is slavishly imitated by the PRP? This is the cry that is raised, irrespective of the results it may have, irrespective of the justification that may exist for it and irrespective of the influence which it can have on a country like South Africa with her multi-national composition and her more than 2 000 religious faiths and more than 12 main language groups. Unfortunately, these revolutionary freedom movements in Southern Africa enjoy greater support among our erstwhile friends than the combating of communism. The conclusions that one must draw from this are that in regard to our future, we can accept the fact that the free world will certainly never accept us as allies unconditionally unless we bow to the application of the principle of one man, one vote, a principle which must eventually lead to the fact where we shall have to integrate as they want us to according to the formula and the recipe which they have prescribed for us.

Against this background I believe that the question is not whether we will survive all these things but rather how we are going to survive them. One thing sticks out like a sore thumb. In order to survive and to continue to survive South Africa will have to work out her own salvation. It is very clear that South Africa will have to safeguard herself as best she can against physical attacks from beyond our borders and that she will have to safeguard herself in the same way against an attack upon the spirit of the people within her borders. It is also clear that we shall have to go forward into the future armed to the teeth and that we shall have to be prepared at all times. In this connection we shall have to make financial sacrifices and there will have to be an urgent change of heart in regard to our participation in national service, first-aid services, reservist services and homeguard services. We shall have to include the other population groups of South Africa to a larger extent in these things.

We need allies. In this connection we cannot rely too much upon the support of Western powers. As far as the future is concerned, what we shall have to do is to extend harmonious relationships with countries of Africa. The time for doing this has certainly never been riper than now. We realize that we shall meet with adversity from time to time on the road ahead but I believe that it will be of a temporary nature. However, the fact remains that never in the history of South Africa has there been a stage in which we have had a Prime Minister who has received greater support from both English and Afrikaans-speaking people than now. The fact remains that there has never been a period in which South Africa has ever been able to make a greater breakthrough in Africa. This is chiefly because of the personal détente efforts on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister over the past 18 months, efforts which have recently culminated in the wonderful success achieved in regard to his visit to Israel. This success shocked the world and left the Opposition and the Opposition Press speechless. I believe that this particular effort in regard to Israel will make its contribution towards breaking down any feeling of anti-Semitism that may exist in South Africa. An important factor in this connection is that the realization of the unbelievable and unheard-of impact of the content of a developing NP policy will penetrate right through to the most vociferous critics of the Government, as well as the realization and the proof of the honesty, the inexorability and the fearlessness with which we tackle and try to carry through our efforts for peace both domestically and abroad, particularly by way of the hon. the Prime Minister’s personal efforts. The realization will also filter through to them that they are dealing here with the will of a small nation which is rather isolated in international affairs, a nation which has its hand on the Bible and which wants to and will survive in a spirit of the development of peace and friendship.

We find that the two so-called polecats of the world, South Africa and Israel, will not hesitate, precisely in the sphere where so many western countries prevaricate and fall, to stand foursquare against the destructive influence of communism and terrorism.

In conclusion I want to say that one can only hope that the West will urgently come to realize that mere “talk” with Russia will not keep that country out of Africa and will not cause it to deviate from its sinister efforts and plans in regard to Africa, and that the West and Africa, South Africa included, will have to combine their forces urgently in order to combat increasing Russian imperialism.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durbanville obviously spoke under the wrong vote. I agree with much of what he said with regard to the attitude of foreign countries, but we are dealing with the vote of the Prime Minister tonight. We are debating the policy of South Africa and not the policy of other countries. That may be done when the vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is being discussed, but tonight we are dealing with South Africa and the domestic problems of South Africa, for which the hon. the Prime Minister is responsible.

†In passing, I want to waste one of my precious 10 minutes—which is far more than she deserves—in replying to the hon. member for Houghton, who dealt with some heat with the Medical University of Southern Africa Bill. I wonder why she and her party did not partake in the debate when the principle of the Bill was before this House. Not one of that party spoke. But now, when they think that they can get some kudos out of it, she refers to it. However, when the Bill itself was debated in this House not a single member of the PRP opened their mouth to speak in that debate.

Having dealt with the de facto leader I also welcome the earlier speech by the hon. de jure leader of the PRP, the hon. member for Sea Point, who repudiated their candidate in Durban North who, when the hon. the Prime Minister came back from Israel, stated, that he was not impressed by this sort of gimmick stuff and then went on to attack the hon. the Prime Minister. I am glad that at least the de jure leader of the PRP has put him in his place. As for the third leader, the aspirant leader of the PRP, the hon. sensitive member for Yeoville, it seems that the wedding bed has a few thorns in it. We notice that the hon. member is a little prickly and has now resorted to denials. A heading to a newspaper clipping which I have here states “Schwarz denies rift in PRP ranks”.

I will leave the three leaders and return to the hon. the Prime Minister, who surprisingly tonight expressed lack of understanding. He asked: “Tell me, what are these problems?” These are problems to which my hon. leader had referred when he dealt with some of the changes, such as the removal of discrimination, which we believe is necessary in South Africa. May I remind the hon. the Prime Minister that it was not so long ago that he, in dealing with the question of inter-state relationships, said that we should talk together. He launched the policy of détente and said the consequences of failure were too ghastly to contemplate. Now, if the consequences of failure with foreign countries are too ghastly to contemplate, surely the consequences of failure to achieve détente within our own country are even more ghastly to contemplate. It is not us who say this; it is the hon. the Prime Minister’s own newspapers, his own supporters, leaders of thought in every field. I do not have time to quote them, but there is for instance the criticism of the house-ownership scheme which the Government pretended to introduce, but has not. There are the 17 questions from a leading businessman. There is the mockery of the so-called open hotels. His newspaper, Die Burger, states: “Oop hotels gee lisensies terug.” And so one can go on and give quotation after quotation from various newspapers of questioning from the ranks of all South Africans—both those supporting the Government and those supporting this side of the House. Professor Danie Kriek is quoted under the heading “New Federation Plan”. Thinking people throughout South Africa are looking for a way out of the cul-de-sac into which the hon. the Prime Minister has led South Africa.

I want to refer to our long-term national security. It is understood by the military leadership, and it has been stated and restated—in fact, it was confirmed in a White Paper on defence—that military force can only win the battle. The task of military forces is to create the controlled conditions in which the civil power can operate. Ultimately, security in its widest sense and in its military sense both depend upon the actions of the civil power. Now, it is this civil power that is in the hon. the Prime Minister’s hands. Does the hon. the Prime Minister, who controls this civil power, and his own military leaders, his own Minister of Defence, and every military expert who has ever dealt with subversion and terrorism, know that it is the civil power that wins the loyalty of the people and determines whether the authority of the State survives or is destroyed? It is the lesson of world history in the only case where this civil power has survived, where peace has been maintained, it was because this civil power won the loyalty of all the peoples with whom it was dealing.

Are you questioning their loyalty?

I am questioning whether the hon. the Prime Minister has won the loyalty of enough of the people of South Africa. He says that he deals direct with the leaders of these people. Surely then he must know why it is that they make these statements; statements attacking the Whites, attacking the present Government and attacking the whole way of government. One reads such statements as “Mangope speaks out”, “Buthelezi flays White man’s stupidity”, and so one can go on. Why is it that when they talk to us—and we have talked to the Black leaders—they tell us another story, a story of frustration, a story of fears that they will be the last generation prepared to negotiate? They state that they are fighting against the pressure of their own young people who no longer want to talk and who are seeking a course of violence. Surely this is a situation too ghastly to contemplate, a situation which the hon. the Prime Minister and all of us fear. This must be getting through to him. The hon. the Prime Minister has on this Vote which we are discussing now, millions of rands available to deal with information, the Bureau of State Security. He must be getting the information. He must hear what we hear. Those of us who speak Zulu and talk to people, talk to them and see the way they react. There are the people on farms who tell you what their people, the men who work for them, are saying. These stories cannot all be made up.

From what they tell you, what do you think they want?

Firstly, they want respect for themselves as human beings; they want respect for individual dignity; and they want to feel that they are being treated as people and not as things. Secondly, they want economic opportunity. They want the opportunity to get better jobs. They want the opportunity to study and to improve their position to enjoy a stake in South Africa. They do not want job reservation; they do not want to be closed off, they do not want to be sent back to the homelands to attend a high school; they want their education where they live; they want their technical colleges and they want the opportunity to develop. Then they want the opportunity to own a piece of ground and to build a home on it where they can put their roots into the ground and they want their families to be able to live with them. And, not at any time do they demand majority rule or “one man, one vote”—except the political leaders. The ones you talk to only want justice and a share, a part in decision-making. Only the UP federal policy can achieve this.

According to you, what is their political thinking?

Their political thinking is not what the hon. the Prime Minister thinks. He is blinded by the Westminster unitary system of government. Under the unitary system, as soon as you share power, the majority rules. Heads count.

I am not talking about what you say. I am talking about what they say.

We offer them a system where we can have a federation of communities where you do not count heads. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister cannot find a solution and cannot make the changes that South Africa needs, because he rejects, he turns his face against the only course which can create change without destroying identity, viz. the road of federation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point gave us a very long list of things which the non-Whites wanted and did not want. However, one thing which the non-Whites do not want is the leadership of the UP and the leadership of the PRP, because that they reject entirely.

On what grounds do you say that?

They use these people as their White agents to intercede on their behalf and meanwhile they laugh at them behind their backs. This applies to both the UP and the PRP.

What do you know about their habits and morals?

I do not have the time now to enter into a private conversation with the hon. Sarge because what I really want to do is address a few words to the leader of the PRP. However, he is not present at the moment, but his deputy leader or his real leader or one of the leaders may as well listen to me because I shall be dealing with him, too. The leader of the PRP saw fit to call a national convention, to take place later this year, for all the leaders of South Africa, after the hon. the Prime Minister had not reacted to a letter they wrote to him. I can understand that the hon. the Prime Minister did not react to such an arrogant and presumptuous letter as it apparently was. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the PRP or any member of the PRP, on whose authority he convenes a national convention? Secondly, I want to ask him what the terms of reference of the national convention are going to be. Thirdly, I want to ask him who he will regard as the representatives to be invited to the national convention and, fourthly—this is the most important point—what are they going to do if their national convention eventually comes up with a plan? How is he going to implement the plan of the national convention? Surely he knows that we will never manage to get a plan of this kind implemented by means of the ballot-box. He can only do this in two other ways: By trying to bring about a catastrophe in South Africa and in so doing come to power in an unconstitutional way, or to obtain outside assistance to help him force the decision of such a national convention on South Africa.

My time is very short and what I really want to discuss further with this party is their getting away from discrimination and, as the hon. the leader of the PRP put it today, “the redistribution of available wealth and the redistribution of land”. I want to ask him, as the hon. the Prime Minister has already asked him by way of an interjection, who controls the “available wealth” in South Africa at the moment? The English say that charity beings at home. I want to challenge all the members of the PRP to be consistent with their clichés about doing away with discrimination and their cliché of “the redistribution of available wealth and the redistribution of land”. We know that the PRP is the political arm of big capital in South Africa, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior told them in the Second Reading debate.

I now want to challenge them to announce that they will make a start with the redistribution of South Africa’s wealth by doubling the share capital of Anglo American and all its subsidiary companies and making the shares available at par to the non-rich public of South Africa, inter alia, the Blacks. I challenge them to make that a part of their programme of principles and I challenge them to resign from their seats and fight another election on that basis. I challenge them—the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Yeoville—to state that if their party were to come to power, they would make a start with doing away with what they regard as discrimination in their constituencies. That they will begin, in their own constituencies, to integrate schools, swimming baths, sports fields, restaurants and also residential areas. They will also put dwellings in their constituencies at the disposal of non-Whites. The members of the PRP represent the richest and the Whitest areas in South Africa, where the people buy their apartheid with money. It is the most wonderful thing in the world to be a member of the PRP if one is sitting tight in the strongholds of Houghton, Rondebosch, Sea Point and those places which are the Whitest spots in South Africa. I challenge them to spell out to their voters what they mean by doing away with discrimination and the redistribution of the wealth of South Africa, and to fight an election on that basis.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that South Africa was going to move away from discrimination.

That is a cliché.

I have nothing to do with your clichés. I shall tell the hon. member what I mean by moving away from discrimination. To me, the most important aspect of non-discrimination is the recognition of the human dignity of a person, respecting what is his and affording him opportunities to live his life to the full in the political cultural, social and economic spheres. To me, non-discrimination does not mean the sharing of everything that is mine with anyone, whether White or Black. To me it does not mean giving up what I have achieved for myself.

I should like to quote to you what the Black people think of the hon. member for Yeoville and of the PRP, as it was expressed by Joe Matthews, a person whom I never expected I should ever want to quote in my life. He said the following about the people on your left, Mr. Chairman, not only about the PRP, but about their sort—

He says this, too, and we must bear in mind that Joe Matthews was formerly a very prominent person in the ANC—

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member can say as much about Matthews as he likes. He should not ask me. I am only telling him what Matthews & Co. think of them. That is all I am doing.

Is your new ally the ANC?

No, they are not our ally …

Well, that is what you are saying.

No? I am only saying what he thinks of you, and I believe that Joe Matthews is expressing the opinion of the majority of Black people in South Africa as regards the PRP and certain elements in the UP.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof made a number of remarks and I am unable to reply to all of them. However, I should like to react to two of them. One concerned the national convention. I think that all the questions the hon. member for Waterkloof asked us could also be put with regard to the conference on South West Africa which is at present being held at the Turnhalle in Windhoek, because the same problems are cropping up there. [Interjections.] The hon. member also referred to the issue of the redistribution of wealth. Any student who failed his first year in economics will be able to tell the hon. member that one of the most important functions of the State is just this, the redistribution of wealth. Surely it is the task of the State to use its State machinery to plan the budget and in that way create opportunities for development in the country. [Interjections.]

It was very clear to me that throughout the Second Reading Debate, and in this debate on the vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, too, there has been a great deal of hot air from that side of the House with regard to the party in these benches. To a certain extent the Official Opposition has played ball. To me the strategy is a transparent one.

Van Zyl, I thought you had more intelligence!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga has always impressed me as a remarkable political phenomenon. When he rises to speak, he has nothing to say, and when he sits down, all he does is make a noise. What is worse, when other people are speaking he makes a noise like a wire-haired mongrel that has taken fright at the moon. Everyone can hear him, but no-one knows what his problem is. Throughout this debate, and during the budget debate as well, it has been the strategy of that side of the House to isolate us and present as a threat and a danger to South Africa.

It is a fact.

If it is a fact, and if they really believe that, then the solution is simple. They can get rid of us as they have got rid of a number of other dangers. [Interjections.] However, I want to ask: When they have got rid of us, will this Government have escaped the basic problems of South Africa in any way, and will they have succeeded in any way in finding an answer to the problems facing all the Whites in our society? I include all of us in this House, because basically, the issue is one of certain problems characteristic of White minority governments in Africa. Let me just spell out the characteristics: There is a White or European minority in control of the political and economic structure of that society; there is a Black majority forming part of that society, which is making increasingly strident demands in regard to a greater degree of participation in the material welfare of that society. In every case where this has happened, one gets the situation that if steps are not taken, these two groups, Black and White, confront each other with unnegotiable demands in a situation of increasing polarization. What happens in such a situation? If concessions are not made, there is no coming to terms in the political sphere, the Black majority tends to make increasingly irrational political demands and to believe increasingly that the only solution of their problem may lie in the magic formula of political power. The whole of Africa bears testimony to the fact that this does not work.

Those are the characteristics which we share with the rest of Africa where these problems are experienced. But in South Africa there are important differences. I want to mention only four. We have a higher level of industrialization than any other country in Africa and that higher level of industrialization merely reflects our richer economic infrastructure. We have a smaller demographic Black/White ratio in this society. We have a higher level of urbanization of our Black inhabitants in South Africa, which means that they are acquainted to a greater extent with modem technology in our urban centres. Last but not least, throughout Africa there is an acceptance of the indigenous nature of the White group here in the southern part of Africa. These are the important differences with regard to the problems we share with the rest of Africa. The question that arises is how we Whites in South Africa are going to exploit those differences in order to bring about a more advantageous and peaceful solution of the basic problems.

Let me put it very clearly: Those problems which I have spelt out are to an increasing extent going to centre around our urban centres and not the rural areas or our foreign politics—in this regard I do not want to level any criticism at the hon. the Prime Minister.

There are just three questions I want to ask, and these questions can be asked whether we are in this House or not, because these problems remain constant. I believe that the three questions I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister require answers, not in the interests of this party, but in the interests of White civilization in South Africa. Firstly, does the hon. the Prime Minister believe that a man’s house should not be taken away from him? The hon. the Prime Minister said so. If that is the case, then what is happening in Somerset West at the moment, and what is happening at Cross Roads? Houses are being taken away there. Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Does he believe that there should be more family accommodation in Guguletu, in Soweto and in Mdantsane? I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to see the reasonableness of this necessity. Unfortunately the hon. member for Marico is not present. His solution is that we should get rid of Guguletu and Langa. Thirdly, can the hon. the Prime Minister now say that in the future—I do say it should occur immediately—a Black urban dweller will be able to work, live and stay with his family wherever he wants to on the same conditions as any other person? If the hon. the Prime Minister cannot answer these questions in the affirmative, then we are faced with exactly the same problems as the rest of Africa. I must say that the Government lacks a policy with regard to the race problems in our urban centres. We must accept that the fact that the Government is without a policy, means that all of us Whites are faced with the critical dilemma that we have no reply to this. These questions must be answered. The hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept our answers to this. He rejects our answers. That is all very well. However, that does not exempt the hon. the Prime Minister from providing his own answers to these problems. If he does not agree with our answers, well and good. But we must have an answer; and the answer has nothing to do with the macabre ritual being acted out in White politics, but it does concern the central question of the continued existence of Whites in South Africa. What reply can the hon. the Prime Minister, as the leader of this country, provide to those questions? We must get an answer. An answer has been given by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who has written a book Credo van’n Afrikaner. That is old language; that is nostalgic language. It is language I can understand. It is language which comes from Verwoerd. But if that is the answer to these questions, then we in South Africa are on the path of death. If that is the answer to the problems I have stated, I want to say …

[Inaudible.]

… and not only I, but the hon. member for Waterkloof, too, will share these problems with me, if that answer has failed. The answer may perhaps be satisfactory as regards the homeland policy, but it is no answer to the problems that confront us in the urban centres.

The hon. the Prime Minister has unlimited time in which to run us down and make us look ridiculous. He can make jokes about the PRP. That is easy. What is more, he is fully entitled to do so. But when he has finished, these questions still remain and they are questions which confront not only us and the official Opposition, but every White South African. If there is one man in South Africa who is in position to answer these questions and who can provide leadership …

Then it is Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert!

Not in the least. If there is one man who can provide leadership in this country, then it is the hon. the Prime Minister. But what is happening? At this stage the hon. member for Johannesburg West addresses the voters of Durban North and states: Before we answer these questions, we ask for more support. There they sit—122 of them. No Government in a democratic political system has had more support than that, and these questions have to be answered now, but what do they ask for? They ask for more support. However, they want to support without providing the answer. Even though it is a struggle, and even though we have to be at odds with each other in the debate, we shall continue to oppose until those answers are provided. We shall continue to oppose until we are eliminated by way of the election process or the Government decides—they are able to do so—that we may no longer sit in this House because we pose a threat. We shall do so because we firmly believe that those questions are central to the question of our continued existence.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken advanced a few arguments which I should like to reply to, but I do not have the time. However, I just want to refer briefly to one of them. He asked how we were going to exploit the differences between the various population groups. I want to tell him that we do not exploit differences; we respect differences and we believe in equal treatment of each in its own sphere. Furthermore, with reference to what the hon. member for Barberton did not quote in full this afternoon, I want to point out to hon. members of the Opposition that the British journalist who is on tour in South Africa at the moment wrote inter alia, the following about the joint opposition—viz. both parties—after having had certain interviews—

I can understand what a difficult task the Opposition has to put up a good show during the day in the debate and then in the evening feel different. In the evening they feel grateful that we have such a good Prime Minister.

However, I want to deal with positive matters. This year is the hon. the Prime Minister’s tenth year in power. He is a Prime Minister with ten glorious years behind him, years in which he has done great things and made great pronouncements for South Africa. For example, I have in mind the Coloureds. The Coloureds have been mentioned a number of times this afternoon and we know how it is that the hon. the Prime Minister will be set down in the annuals of our history as the Prime Minister who made it one of his primary tasks to rectify the injustice done to the Coloureds in South Africa in that they had to be represented in the White Parliament by a small group of Whites. [Interjections.] We know how the hon. the Prime Minister set an example not only to Africa but to the rest of the world, too, of how tension in the world can be relaxed by way of a détente policy, by way of discussions, consultation and proposals for peaceful solutions. We know how the hon. the Prime Minister has travelled in Africa for the sake of South Africa. We have learned of his recent fruitful visit to Israel. We know that the Bantu homelands are going to get their independence in the near future under his rule.

However, I want to dwell on the greatest pronouncement the hon. the Prime Minister has ever made or ever will make in his career. Never will a subsequent leader be able to make a greater pronouncement. I am referring to the fact that shortly after he came to power, the hon. the Prime Minister addressed the following appeal to the people of South Africa—

We know that when he addressed the appeal to the people, he believed and realized, as a pious person that Providence had placed the Whites in the southern part of Africa to perform a great task, viz. to proclaim the Gospel to the heathendom as it was here at the time and to introduce civilization. How is this done? It can only be done when a Prime Minister together with his government, ensures that a country is well governed, that there is internal peace and that the workers behind the scenes can continue to proclaim the glad tidings to the world, those tidings which will be the mightiest weapon when the eventual confrontation between Christian and heathen takes place in the world. We know that South Africa makes an enormous contribution in this sphere every year. We know, too, that South Africa does not get recognition for this work and that its work is virtually unnoticed by the world. What is South Africa’s contribution? To proclaim the Word of God, the Gospel, in Africa and the world. The USA is a big country; it is the richest and most influential country in the world. Last year the USA distributed 644 193 complete Bibles throughout the world. South Africa is a small country compared with the USA but nevertheless South Africa distributed 719 290 complete Bibles throughout the world last year. Last year South Africa was responsible for 43% of Bible distribution in the whole of Africa and 10,5% of all complete Bibles distributed throughout the world. It is the message, the message of reconciliation proclaimed by the Book of Books which will guarantee the continued existence of Christianity in the world and also the continued existence of the Whites in South Africa. On 13 April this year the S.A. Railways loaded 40 000 Bibles with a total weight of 41 tons at the S.A. Bible Distribution Office for distribution among various Bantu schools.

I want to refer to a few achievements of only one church in the Republic of South Africa. I cannot deal with all the fine works of all the churches because time does not permit me to do so. On 1 January last year the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa started to proclaim the Gospel to the Chinese throughout the world. This is described as follows—

One may well ask whether this seed does not fall on barren ground, but here is the evidence—

In this way the people of South Africa, the people of this Prime Minister, who are inspired and led by him, do his work in silence behind the scenes. The people and the world outside are not really aware of this, but in this way we are putting virtually all we have into the struggle for the furtherance and development of the Christian faith and the preservation of Christianity in South Africa and the world.

It is interesting to know that the Dutch Reformed Church started its missionary work in 1899 in Zambia. When Zambia became independent a few years ago, the Zambia Reform Church grew out of the Dutch Reformed Church. So strong was the Gospel proclaimed by the Church of South Africa that I can say today that the Deputy President of Zambia, Mr. A. G. Zulu, is a member of the Reform Church of Zambia. The Dutch Reformed Church gave Zambia its own theological school. I could continue in this vein and point out that the Dutch Reformed Church and our other churches in South Africa do missionary work in every homeland in South Africa. I could also point out that the churches do missionary work far beyond the borders of South Africa. As long ago as 1877 we began to do missionary work in Botswana and also in Malawi, Zambia, Portuguese East Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Swaziland, Lesotho, Madagascar and Japan, and the Gospel is now being proclaimed in various communist countries. Internally, the successes have been so great that whereas the White membership of the Dutch Reformed Church is at present 1 236 000, the membership of the various younger Dutch Reformed Churches—viz. the Coloured Dutch Reformed Churches which grew out of the Dutch Reformed Church for Whites—is 1 640 000. The younger Dutch Reformed Churches are therefore substantially stronger than the Dutch Reformed Church for Whites.

We are grateful to have a Prime Minister who also lives out his faith, a Prime Minister, too, who does not hesitate to make pronouncements in this context, because at the beginning of this year he called upon our nation to join in prayer when conditions in the world and in Africa were critical. We wish him a further ten years in power in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there are probably few members in this House tonight who will not agree with me if I say that the whole Southern Africa is in danger. However, there are many people outside this House who still do not believe that Southern Africa really finds itself in danger. There is the danger of physical violence and the subversion of everything the White man brought to a Black continent and developed here in co-operation with the non-Whites of this country. Here I am thinking of the Western standards, law and order, the burning light of civilization, a vocation to elevate others and to share the fruit of the White civilization with the non-White races of Southern Africa There are many people who believe that this danger will never reach us in South Africa. A short while ago Solzhenitzyn referred on television to the lameness of the West, to the inability of the West to take uncomfortable and difficult decisions, and to their lack of courage. I want to say that there is a kind of guilty conscience among certain Western countries, especially those that were formerly colonial powers. However, there is only one lesson which we in South Africa have to learn, and that is that South Africa stands quite alone at the moment. However, I do not believe that we need be afraid. I believe that we can indeed serve as an example if we put our domestic affairs in order so as to serve as an example to the rest of the world of how a small country with different racial groups in different stages of development does not evade its own problems and does not abdicate either, but sets an example of how different racial groups can work together within one country whilst preserving their own identities. I think this is possible, because I am very optimistic about the future of our country, if we accept the challenge, are not subverted spiritually and are militarily strong enough. We will not be the first country in the history of the world to stand alone. I am quite convinced that the attack on Southern Africa has already begun. It is an attack on the White man to chase him into the sea, an attack which the West will not try to stop. What is the use of chasing the White man into the sea? Do we think for one moment that our Black people will be happier under a Black dictatorship than their brothers in our neighbouring states?

To my mind there is a great need for comprehensive leadership in this time of crisis which will be able to bring about national unity among the Whites and greater unity among all the population groups in South Africa. The way I sum up the present situation, there is an enormous desire for unity outside this Parliament, a desire which is much stronger than any political party. In my experience there is growing impatience with the dividing factors of the past which still complicate our present political setup, and there is a willingness to co-operate, a willingness to find one another.

There are many South Africans today who are cold towards the National Party, who are cold towards my own party as well, but who will never support the PRP. They really want to get away from the old political divisions of the past. They are seeking a new home, a new political dispensation. They are deeply worried about the future of our country and are seeking a common future, a new political order in South Africa in which people with the same philosophy will be brought together. There are disappointed idealistic young people who are frustrated and who have become cynical although it is not necessary for them to feel like that at the present time. They should rather have patriotic feelings and a positive attitude towards South Africa. There are many thousands of young people who have no cause. There are also many old people who are deeply worried, who had become security conscious and who are looking for hiding places at the moment. There are non-White racial groups as well who are very largely isolated, and who are very lonely and frustrated. There are indeed many people in other parts of Southern Africa who are isolated.

†They are people with a very similar way of life to ours, with similar standards which they want to preserve just like we want to preserve ours, White people and non-White people who wish to preserve law and order in their country, who wish to build for themselves a country and a future in that country and who do not wish to be landed in the same chaos as some of their near neighbours in Southern Africa. They are people who are close to us and with whom we have much more in common than with some of their own persecutors. The Rhodesians must be looking with very envious eyes at Israel tonight. I am sure they share in our pleasure at the closer ties in the form of a pact with Israel, a great and a courageous country, but they must surely be thinking, as we are, that the terrorists who are fighting them today will be fighting the South Africans tomorrow.

*There is one thing which we must never forget. Today Rhodesia is at stake. Tomorrow or the day after it will be South Africa’s turn. They are not only fighting against the terrorists; they are also fighting against hostile votes in the world forums who support those powers who aim at toppling everything in Rhodesia by means of a bitter and vicious Press attack. At the moment we have a great need for leadership in Southern Africa to ensure the internal safety of South Africa, to unite South Africans into one nation and to bring about peace in Southern Africa. South Africa is waiting for essential and strong leadership and we expect this of the Prime Minister, because I believe that we are living in a time of crisis, in a time of increasing danger. Thus everybody is now waiting for strong leadership in these times of crisis.

Mr. Chairman, we saw a rather dramatic display this afternoon from an hon. member who broke the record for points of order in the provincial council. When I came to this House, I found it remarkable to see how quietly the hon. member for Yeoville was sitting in this House, while we knew him as a quite different person in the provincial council. While the hon. member for Durban Point was speaking, it seemed as if he saw the hon. member for Yeoville as the aspirant leader of the PRP. I find it remarkable that the UP is now seeing the hon. member for Yeoville as an aspirant leader, because when that hon. member was a threat to the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the provincial council, the UP did not notice it. I think the UP must take cognizance of what they saw tonight; it might be of great importance to them in future.

We are conducting a debate on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister today. That obviously means that we must now consider South Africa’s position in the world and, of course, also our own position in South Africa. Let us reconsider our position in the world. For instance, we have in mind the successes achieved by the Russian-supported MPLA movement in the Angolan civil war—and that whilst the West did not even blink an eye when hearing the appeals for help from the pro-Western movements in Angola—the meaning of the increased communist hold in Africa, the growing, and apparently insoluble, terrorist pressure in Rhodesia, hostile terrorist attacks against Rhodesia from Mocambique, and also the constitutional conference in Windhoek and the implications it has in regard to South Africa’s responsibility towards South West Africa. Considering all these things, we appreciate that the eyes of the world are focused on South Africa.

In the midst of the increasing tension in the world and South Africa’s involvement in it, and also the responsibility which this creates for us, this Government also has a great responsibility in regard to the particular composition of nations in the country; this responsibility which, if not handled in the proper way, could lead to chaos. The time has come for the hon. opposition parties in this House to realize their responsibility and, together with the Government, take responsible steps to render the future of South Africa stable. Also, it is almost time for the opposition parties to stop creating expectations among the Black and Brown people which, as they themselves know, cannot be realized. They must stop creating expectations among those people through their arguments for the division of political power and political integration.

Tonight the hon. member for Houghton spoke about the hatred which exists in South Africa. In the same breath she asks whether the hon. the Prime Minister has ever been to Soweto. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Houghton. If she goes to Soweto so often—and we are aware of the fact that members of her party often make contact with non-White leaders—what do they discuss with those non-White leaders? What are they doing with those non-White leaders? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary for the hon. member for Houghton to put that question to the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister openly shows where he moves about in South Africa and in the rest of the world. The footsteps of the hon. the Prime Minister are there for anyone to see, as are the blows he struck to the advantage of South Africa.

It is now really a time of great responsibility and we expect the hon. the Opposition parties not to hide behind the liability of the Government any longer. During his period of office, and especially during the past year or two, the hon. the Prime Minister, together with his people through his behaviour in South Africa, gave proof of honest intentions towards each individual in this country. The Government is developing its policy of separate development step by step, and as progress is made with it, the Government is creating more and more confidence among the people of South Africa. The Black and the Brown people know where they stand with this Government.

The hon. member for Durban Point wanted to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister was convinced that he had won the loyal support of the Black people in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell you of a minor incidence relating to a Black man from the rural areas. While I was on my farm last week, one of my labourers—a man who grew up with me and who has a particular interest in South African politics—started talking to me about the hon. the Prime Minister and about the hon. the Minister of Defence. He was aware of the hon. the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel. That Black man spoke very highly of Mr. Vorster and of Mr. Botha, and he expressed his confidence in what they are doing for South Africa. He told me in no uncertain terms that he supports the hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Chairman, I know how that man feels and I have never had any reason to doubt his sincerity. Last Monday he inquired with the same interest about the condition of the hon. Minister of Defence after the accident in which he was involved the previous weekend. He said: “Nothing must happen to that man. We need him very much.”

To my mind the confidence of that man reflects the confidence of the rural Black people in this Government. This is something the hon. the Prime Minister should know. This is not an isolated case. This is characteristic of the feeling of the rural non-Whites about the policy of the NP and about the government of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Why does the Black people have such a confidence in this Government? It is because they know that this Government, through its policy, is creating a safe future for them as well. At a recent conference of the National Development and Management Foundation, Prof. Lombard, head of the Department of Economics at the University of Pretoria, foresaw that defence, economic progress and political decentralization would be the predominant policy aims in the Republic of South Africa during the next decade.

Federation.

Oh, no! That hon. member is quite wrong. In regard to economic progress it is important to me that these things must enjoy top priority all the time. If we could succeed in making homelands economically viable and ensure a living to all the Black nations and individuals there, we would be certain that those people are happy. The economic development of the various Black nations in South Africa is so comprehensive and so absorbing for the very reason that their requirements, their abilities and their activities are the focal points of the economic sciences. Only since the 1950s did economists—under the government of the NP—begin to give attention to the problems of the developing nations, while the economic sciences have been practiced by the White nations for centuries. At the moment South Africa is continually giving close attention to these problems in a way which is worth emulating. They consider these to be top national priorities. This is something every South African can be proud of. We can be proud of what we had achieved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelburg spoke at length about the fact that the Government is creating trust amongst the non-White people of South Africa and he referred particularly to the rural Africans, the people he knows very well. He claims that this is the pattern of the African people in the rural areas, particularly on the farms. Having listened to that hon. member, I wonder why the NP has not given those Black people the vote, because according to him, they will all vote for the NP, for the hon. the Prime Minister. I wonder therefore why they have not given them the vote. I want to tell that hon. member why. The hon. member knows that he has been talking nonsense and that he has been attempting to talk some courage into his own people. He should know full well, as he holds the position that he holds, of the tremendous tussle that is going on at the moment within the ranks of the Black people of South Africa, a tussle between the moderates (which he was talking about and which we in this party support) and the radicals who are fighting each other in this country. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions says that we are fighting communism on our borders and anarchy across the land. But that hon. member says it does not exist, while the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions says it does and appeals to us, the Opposition, to join him and the hon. the Prime Minister in fighting communism on our borders and fighting the anarchy across our land. I want to say to him and to the hon. the Prime Minister that we are prepared to defend our country. We have never yet been found wanting, but we do not have to join the NP to defend our land. We can defend our land and be just as loyal and patriotic to South Africa whilst being members of the UP and of the Opposition.

With whom are you cross at the moment?

I am cross with the whole NP, including the hon. the Prime Minister. I am particularly cross with the hon. the Prime Minister, because I believe that in our fight against communism the first thing that every loyal South African should do, is to get rid of this hon. Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I intend telling this Committee why I believe we should get rid of the hon. Prime Minister. Towards the end of last year we had from the lips of the hon. Prime Minister what I believe was one of the most irresponsible statements ever made by a leader of a country anywhere in this world. I am referring to the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made at Lichtenburg at the end of last year, when he claimed that the nationalism of the NP was becoming the nationalism of the White people of South Africa.

Correct!

Yes, listen to the echoes of “correct” all round. I want to say that I believe it was the most irresponsible and most damaging statement that could have been made in South Africa today. It is all very well for the hon. the Prime Minister to talk about détente. But what has happened to his détente? Where is Pres. Kaunda today? He is in Maputo making warlike noises. What has happened to the hon. the Prime Minister’s local détente? His local attempts at détente have failed because of this very attitude. How can there be White nationalism in South Africa and at the same time national unity? Look at what they are putting out in Durban North—this picture of Thousand Hills movement towards national unity. How can this be achieved when the hon. the Prime Minister makes this sort of statement? What is nationalism? [Interjections.] I believe nationalism is an evil philosophy, whether it is NP nationalism, Black nationalism, White nationalism, or any other nationalism. I believe it is divisive, sectional, exclusive and I believe it is counter-productive to détente between the White people and the non-White people in South Africa, because it immediately has the re-action of building Black nationalism up to fight against the White nationalism being fostered by the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions that that it is the reason why we are fighting communism on our borders and why we are fighting anarchy across the land. We are fighting communism on our borders, because when it looks at South Africa, it sees a country divided against itself, a country where the White people are opposed to the Black people. What did the Schlebusch Commission report in this regard? It reported that the people who were trying to create a polarization between White and Black in this country should be dealt with. What about the hon. the Prime Minister, who is creating that very polarization by this sort of statement and policy? [Interjections.]

Of course it is. It is exactly that same polarization which has been created by the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I can see that the truth hurts, because that is what those hon. members are in fact trying to do. They are not prepared to work with the moderate Blacks, but are encouraging the radical Blacks to go back to their people and say that they have got to get together to fight against this White polarization which is developing against them. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister want to hoik White nationalism in South Africa if it is not to stand against the Blacks, against the Coloured people and to refuse to give the Indian people as well as the other moderate people in this country their rights? I believe it is iniquitous that the hon. the Minister of Defence should ask Black people to go to the border to defend South Africa when the hon. the Prime Minister makes statements of this kind and propagates it as a philosophy and policy for South Africa. Why does he ask those Black people to go to our borders? Is it to defend White nationalism, or is it for the sake of patriotism? Why did the Coloured Council and the Indian Council ask the Government to train their men? Was it to defend White nationalism? No. It was because of a feeling of patriotism, and it is exactly that which is being killed by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the Government with the policies which it is following. They are killing the patriotism of those moderate Black people who are prepared to work with us, the moderate White people. That is what they are doing.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. That hon. member can speak himself if his Whips will give him the chance. The hon. the Prime Minister asked why I am angry with him. I am angry with him because I believe he is doing South Africa a disservice, and when the hon. the Deputy Minister asks us to join him in a fight against communism on our borders, then I want to tell him that the first thing he has to do is to get rid of the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us have a responsible Prime Minister who will encourage all the moderate people of South Africa who wish to get together, to make of South Africa the great country that it can and will become when we get a moderate Government, a Government which will put forward a federal concept, which will accept all the people of this country, which will give them their rights and which will allow them a share in the decision-making process here in this House. Hon. members have heard sufficient this evening to know that it is what the UP stand for and that, I believe, is going to succeed in the by-election in Durban North.

Something else the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP must understand, is that the safety of South Africa is not only dependent upon the troops we have on the border. It is also dependent on peace and unity within the Republic, a peace and unity which can be created only if we have the confidence and the wholehearted co-operation of all our people in this country. This can be guaranteed only if we have a just society which guarantees the full participation of all its people in government and in its prosperity. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP have failed South Africa in this respect and that the time has come for us to get another Prime Minister and another Government in this country.

Mr. Chariman, I shall return shortly to the irresponsible remarks which were made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I want to compare the task of the Government with that of a sculptor with a hammer and chisel in his hand and who is chipping at a granite rock. It is a hard task and his hands are calloused, but in his mind’s eye he has an image of the eventual result. He is chipping at the rock to form nations, and it takes this form. This work of art of nations is fashioned on the last of common interests in Southern Africa. This party started this task de novo in 1948. There was no platform for it on which to begin. On the contrary. What they inherited from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and his party was simply a confused muddle of circumstances. They have a lot to say today about the Black cities and the problems of the Black city dwellers within the White area, but we inherited the slums which had to be cleared in Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and in places like Charlestown in Natal. We had to establish places where people could live in peace, quiet and self respect. That is where we started. This Government and this party does not ignore the problems and the challenges. It does not play around with these things either. It has an enormous job of work in this connection. In contrast to the task of this party, we have those two parties on the other side which are also working with a chisel on a piece of rock. However, they work like a prisoner by smashing the rock into pieces, into chunks which are worth nothing. They are smothered by their own short-sightedness and political inflexibility so that they cannot visualize the question of nationhood in this country. There is however a basis of fear behind all this. They do not want to say so, but they are a party which is saturated with fears. That is why they want to hide behind the Black superior numbers in this country. That is why they want to associate themselves with the party structures of the Black people should they come into power in this country. We want to express the hope that the members of the Opposition parties will be able to understand the idiom of the Black man. We want to express the hope that they will really be able to understand the Black man in a deeper sense. I contend that they cannot interpret the language of the Black man. What they know and what they profess to know is what they learn from books.

If the hon. member for Pinelands had grown up among the Black boys of the Bagatla tribe of Chief Pilane, those boys who are ready to attend the mountain school, they would have tanned his hide to a warm glow with the moret canes because he wanted to make their acquaintance by fawning on them. Those hon. members do not understand that the Black man has a deeper respect for and appreciation of the strength and power of his friends. We are not talking about his enemies. If an hon. member were to approach a Black man with a pistol or a rifle, he would create antagonism. However, if one approaches him with a quiet personality—perhaps hon. members know the term “body language”—so that he can interpret what one is trying to make him understand, he will have respect for that person. I can give hon. members the example of a police constable in Durban who pacified a marching crowd of Zulus who wanted to strike, in a quiet way and without drawing his pistol. We do not want to produce a show of force, but we want to talk from a strong point of view with the people with whom we have to communicate.

The persons to whom I am referring have the time, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had the time just now, to make irresponsible statements in this House at a stage where it is certainly urgently necessary for us to act as a unit and take one another’s hands so that we can all work together in a unified way, irrespective of our mutual differences and so forth. This must be done through the medium of openhearted discussion and without insult. I cannot neglect to say that it is from those ranks that we often have to endure the laughter and the ridicule and the hurtful remarks in respect of that which is of particular value to the Afrikaner. They have branded as verkramp the idiom which is close to the heart of the Afrikaner and they have ridiculed it. Hon. members on this side of the House have never laughed at a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to the country at a Table in the House while has had his hat on, because he has been serious about it. We have never laughed at the snake dance of the Venda, because they are in earnest about it, it is their practice. We have never laughed at the rain dance of the Bamangwato nation because they are in earnest about it. At this time when the hon. the Prime Minister is displaying great courage and great sacrifice in carrying on a sensible détente with our people, we want to ask those people to give us the necessary support, and we hope that at this particular time they will also display the necessary loyalty on their part. If there is one particular point of agreement between ourselves and the American nation, it is apparent at this stage when the Kremlin wolf with its grey teeth is loping around our borders and eyeing our country with slavering jaws. What Mr. Ford had to say in this regard, is of application to our own country. He said—

We want to have discussions with our neighbours and the hon. the Prime Minister is succeeding in this. We want to extend that fruitful contact because we are a part of Africa and we have responsibilities in respect of our own nations.

I want to conclude with this specific remark. In the particular time in which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South says that we must get rid of our honourable and respected Prime Minister, the country because of its particular circumstances and at this particular stage in its history and because of its particular problems and challenges, is seeking a leader with leadership qualities to ensure continuity and to give assurance to his people and their undertakings, to establish growth points for people who are standing on the brink of development and growth. At this particular time, this particular country needs our particular Prime Minister. Mr. Vorster is indispensible for many reasons but I only want to mention three of them.

As far as foreign affairs are concerned, the Republic is on the eve of far-reaching breakthrough to Africa in particular and also to other countries. However, in the first place, this holds good for Africa, because this is the crust which divides us from Africa and which must crumble. An open road in Africa will give us our rightful place in the world, a place of which we have been unjustly deprived because we have been wrongly connected with other States in Africa whose arms have always been linked with a mother-country somewhere. We are a State in our own right. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South acknowledged the fact that we make nationalism a basic requirement, when he was born and baptized—thank Heavens, not as a Hefer, but as a Warwick Webber. He has acknowledged this in his own isolation and as an individual.

A second reason why we need a leader like the hon. the Prime Minister is that there are movements afoot locally; certain moves are planned to promote peace. There is bargaining abroad in regard to certain moves. There is the relationship with the Coloureds and the Indians; there is a dependent State which will soon be separated from South Africa as an independent State. That is its own right. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.