Mr. Speaker, today I tabled a report by the Board of Trade and Industries entitled “Investigation into the Division of the Proceeds of the Sugar Industry in South Africa’ ’ in this House.

The Afrikaans text of the report is unfortunately not yet available, but will be laid upon the table after it has been translated.

As hon. members know the Van Biljon Commission of Inquiry into the Sugar Industry in 1970 made recommendations regarding the basis of remuneration of the different entrepreneural groups in the sugar industry. After the adoption of the recommended basis of remuneration representations for the improvement thereof were lodged by the sugar industry on various occasions. Portions of the net proceeds have thereupon been granted to the industry on an ad hoc basis as and when sugar export earnings made it possible.

As a result of increased representations that the basis of remuneration of the sugar industry had become unrealistic in view of present-day circumstances and should be revised, I requested the Board of Trade and Industries to investigate and report on the matter. The report which I laid upon the table contains the Board’s findings.

The Board recommends that the entrepreneurs in the industry be remunerated on a basis which is considerably more advantageous than at present. The most important recommendation in respect of sugar millers is that the present return of 14% on depreciated historical book values be substituted by a return of 12% on replacement values, which in fact means an increase of approximately 6 percentage points in the present rate of return. In respect of cane growers the Board recommends that the return and managerial remuneration be combined and that an amount of R145 per hectare be paid in respect thereof.

I have understanding for the arguments put forward by the Board in support of its recommendations. It is however beyond doubt that the proposed increases in the remuneration of entrepreneurs in the sugar industry will cause a sudden drain of the sugar price stabilization fund and, unless the overseas price very soon increases beyond expectations, this will necessitate a drastic increase in the price of this essential commodity.

Mainly for this reason the Government is not prepared to implement the Board’s recommendations. I have however taken due cognizance of the Board’s point of view and the industry’s representations and should the sugar export price increase and for long enough a period stay on a level which makes it possible to accommodate the industry in one way or another without a substantial increase in the domestic price of sugar, I will be prepared to reconsider the matter.

Order! Before calling on the hon. the Prime Minister to speak I want to refer to the debate which took place yesterday evening when the word “disloyalty” was used by the hon. member for Lydenburg. Hon. members know that I have pointed out on a previous occasion that the words “disloyalty to South Africa” in relation to another hon. member of this House who has made the oath of loyalty to South Africa, is unparliamentary. Amidst the noise and confusion which prevailed at times yesterday evening, it was difficult to follow from the Chair every word the hon. member for Lydenburg was saying, and I rejected the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. This morning I had the opportunity to consult Hansard and there I found that the hon. member for Lydenburg had said the following (Hansard manuscript, 21/4, p. UU.2)—

After that the hon. member for Yeoville raised his point of order. I said then that the hon. member for Lydenburg could proceed and after that the hon. member for Yeoville raised a further point of order. I quote from Hansard:

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.

After I have seen Hansard, I now rule that the hon. member for Lydenburg used words which I had ruled to be unparliamentary on a previous occasion. I therefore ask him to withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly withdraw the words and with due respect to the Chair, I should like to say, on a point of a personal explanation, that what I really meant was that to vote against the amendment of the Prime Minister, was an unpardonable, a disgraceful, and an objectionable act of disloyalty to South Africa and her armed forces for any South African outside this House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Chair: I qualified my statement by saying “for any South African outside this House”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! I now wish to refer to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Sea Point last night. The hon. member for Sea Point last night tried to raise a point of order after the speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg. I want to refer the hon. member for Sea Point to the rules of this House. If a point of order is not raised immediately, the presiding officer refuses to deal with the matter. I refer the hon. member also to the Debates of 1959, Vol. 102, col. 8300, and the Debates of 1965, Vol. 14, col. 4316. I mention this also for the information of all the members of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to reply to certain questions which were put to me and to certain statements which were made by hon. members opposite. But before I come to that I want to deal with certain other matters and make certain announcements.

Hon. members, in common with me, are aware that international relations are exceptionally delicate in these days in which we are living and that distorted, incorrect or false reports can do untold harm and can very easily lead to relations being disturbed on a large scale. As it is, not a day goes by without such reports appearing in the Press. I do not want to blame the Press for all the cases, for sometimes the Press receives information from erroneous sources, and sometimes incorrect reports are published in good faith. Unfortunately, however, reports are frequently published which are entirely fabricated or based entirely on speculation, and then put out as feelers. Subsequently one is continually asked for one’s comment on such reports. Consequently it does not matter what comment one makes on them. The reports are usually of such a nature that one’s comments can only cause further damage.

Such a report appeared this morning on the front page of the London Times. The report dealt with certain military assistance which South Africa had supposedly rendered to Rhodesia in the past, according to this report, assistance which South Africa had allegedly cancelled at a meeting last month, something which led inter alia—this is the inference—to a meeting with Minister P. K. van der Bijl of Rhodesia. I am not going to make any comment whatsoever on what we are giving or are not giving, had allegedly given or had not given, to Rhodesia. I shall leave it at that. But I do want to make it very clear that no such decision, such as the one referred to in the said report, was taken. Nor did any such meeting take place. While Parliament was in session Mr. Van der Bijl was here in South Africa, but he was up in the north and no talks whatsoever were held with him by any member of the Government or any other person in a position of authority. Considering the wide field of influence of the report, I felt that I should furnish this explanation.

Yesterday afternoon I said that I would discuss the agreement concluded between the Government of South Africa and the Government of Israel in greater detail today. For the sake of the record I shall read the statement on that agreement which I made at the Press conference in Jerusalem on Monday, eight days ago—

1. (a) encouragement of investments;
2. (b) development of trade;
3. (c) scientific and industrial co-operation; and
4. (d) joint utilization of South African raw materials and Israeli manpower in joint projects.

From this it follows that committees will be established in both countries. As far as South Africa is concerned, several Ministries will be involved in this and the necessary groundwork is now being done to give effect to this agreement. After that periodic meetings will be held on a ministerial level, as indicated in the agreement. I say again that I believe that this will take place to the mutual benefit of both countries. However, I see something else in this as well. I see in this a classic example of co-operation between two countries which are situated a great distance from each other, countries with divergent differences as far as their outlook and policies are concerned, but which are able to co-operate with each other in the economic sphere, for it has been our standpoint over the years—a sound standpoint, a standpoint which one cannot sufficiently emphasize in these times—that a difference in political policy, a difference in outlook ought not to be an obstacle to sound economic co-operation. If there should be economic co-operation only between countries which are in agreement with one another in all respects, I am afraid we would be making of a difficult world an even more difficult one. But I believe that there can be cordial economic co-operation between non-communistic and anti-communistic countries in spite of differences in internal policy and in spite of differences in outlook on matters of any nature whatsoever. As far as this agreement is concerned, Sir, I want to point out that trade already exists between South Africa and Israel, but I believe there is scope for increasing and improving this mutual trade. Consequently that is what this agreement seeks to achieve. It is also true that an ad hoc exchange of knowledge between the two countries is already taking place, but I believe that both of us have enough to offer, and that it is worth while doing so on an organized basis. Technical skill on the one hand and raw materials on the other can be successfully combined to the benefit of both countries. One need only consider that both countries have a water problem, South Africa in greater measure than Israel—which has at least one perennial river on which it can rely. We in South Africa can develop only as far as our water allows. The desalination of seawater on an economic basis is of material importance to both countries. In the sphere of agriculture, in the sphere of stock diseases, and in so many other spheres which need not all be enumerated now, I believe there can be sound co-operation to the benefit of both countries.

As far as I personally am concerned, there is another matter as well, which is that in this world in which we are living it is simply the case that the big ones, the rich ones, are able to look after themselves, and in general do not experience many problems in getting by as far as their financial means are concerned, except of course in recent times when everyone has been very hard hit. The poor ones in turn receive in very generous measure from the big countries, from the international funds and from other existing organizations. But I think hon. members will agree with me—this is in fact the case in private life as well—that those countries which frequently have to bear the brunt of economic problems are the middle-rank countries, just as the middle-class individual is frequently the hardest hit. I believe that this is an example of co-operation between middle-rank countries an example which can be emulated by other middle-rank powers. One is greatly tempted to mention the names of countries here, but it would not serve to further the cause. However, hon. members are just as well able as I am to think of a dozen or so middle-rank countries which, because things have become so expensive, could very profitably conclude an agreement of co-operation with one another to the benefit of all. I on my part, will most certainly go out of my way to promote the idea of economic co-operation between middle-rank powers to the best of my ability. I know that it is a difficult task. Perhaps one could even say that it is an impossible task, but this still does not alter the fact that someone has to try to accomplish this task.

I also feel myself called upon to say a few words in regard to the position of southern Africa. Hon. members will recall that I spoke in the Other Place in October 1974. The theme of my speech was peace in southern Africa. On that occasion I issued a warning against the escalation of violence and its significance for southern Africa as such. If it was necessary to issue that warning in October 1974, it is doubly necessary to issue it a second time now, in April 1976. At the time I committed myself to seeking peace in southern Africa. Because hon. members know that it is true, I can say without fear of contradiction that this Government, and I who am responsible for it, went out of our way to seek peace. Wherever it was possible, I went out of my way to try to normalize relations and to seek peace, and we made progress along that road.

There are people who say—some of them are in this House—that the latest developments have led to that road becoming a dead end. That is not true. What is true is that there have been setbacks. As a realist I always expected those setbacks. Those setbacks occurred, sometimes minor ones, sometimes major ones. In spite of that the attempt, the initiative, is not dead at all, but definitely alive still. In spite of the fact that the graph was forced downwards in places, the tendency is still an upward one. When the dust of certain events has settled, the upward tendency of that graph will continue even further. As far as I am concerned, it was worth while to seek peace, and I shall continue to seek that peace, in spite of what is happening at the moment and what might still happen in future.

I am not saying this because I am a pacifist. I say again that when I speak on behalf of South Africa, I am not speaking out of weakness or out of fear. I believe that every responsible leader has a duty in this respect. I believe it is the duty of every responsible leader to seek peace as long as possible. In my case—because I realize what consequences escalation could have for southern Africa—I have made a promise to the young people of South Africa. I have done so on more than one occasion. My promise to them was that I would leave no stone unturned in my efforts to seek peace. However, if this is not possible— and may God forbid that this should happen—and if it becomes clearly apparent that this is not possible, I shall, in accordance with my promise, be able to say to them with a clear conscience: “I failed in my attempt. May God have mercy on you.” This Government, its Ministers and I, are not seeking war, but unfortunately there are leaders in Africa, therefore in southern Africa as well, who talk very easily of war, in many cases knowing full well that they cannot afford it economically and otherwise. There is nothing which is as expensive today—not only expensive in the financial sense, but expensive, too, in every other sense of the word—as war. I want to make an appeal to those leaders who talk so easily of war to reconsider. I note that, in recent times, South Africa has also come under fire in the process. I do not intend to react to that now. I simply want to issue a warning and say that it can go too far and that I therefore feel myself called upon—because I have achieved a good understanding with him, and he will know in what spirit I am saying this in this Parliament today, a spirit of goodwill, a spirit of appreciation for what he has done—to say to the President of Zambia that he should in his statements please refrain, as I have said before, from drawing the bow too taut. I must issue a serious warning, Sir, and I want to trust that leaders, in southern Africa and elsewhere, will take cognizance of this. The killing of innocent men, women and children is not only barbaric and detestable; it can ultimately be dangerous for the perpetrators as well as for their inciters. Whether they are tourists from South Africa or other tourists, or whether they are inhabitants, Black or White, of Rhodesia or of any other country, such deeds can only unleash forces which could have far-reaching consequences. They could arouse unbridled emotions. They could have far-reaching consequences for southern Africa. I want to trust that people who have control over this kind of thing will consider, and consider very earnestly, what the effect of this could be on the southernmost point of the continent of Africa.

South Africa is not, and has never been, involved in Rhodesia’s internal dispute, nor have we ever been asked to become involved in that internal dispute. It is a matter for Rhodesians, White and Black, to settle and that is also how they see it. Consequently I want to trust that other States will adopt the same standpoint as South Africa in this regard, for the good of this subcontinent in which we are living. Sir, South Africa’s policy in this regard has always been clear. During the past ten years South Africa has not participated in boycotts or the closing of borders, nor does South Africa intend doing so in future. Recently I have seen several reports. I have seen several demands and appeals that were made to me as head of the Government in South Africa. Now, I want to say with the utmost goodwill that South Africa’s foreign policy towards a neighbouring State—any neighbouring State, including Rhodesia—will not be determined by the UN, nor by any Government in Europe or elsewhere, and least of all by any Government in Africa. South Africa will at all times take its own decisions on its own foreign policy. I also note that an appeal is being made to me by leading British newspapers to do something about the Rhodesian dispute. What South Africa has done in the regard in the past is well known. Therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat it now, except to say once more, for the purposes of the record, that we have never prescribed to anyone, that we have never tried to twist anyone’s arm, and that we have never given orders. Our standpoint has always been that decisions have to be taken by the Rhodesians themselves, and we have no intention of deviating from that policy. We have issued warnings where it was necessary, and we have given advice where it was necessary. We pointed out alternatives, but it was always in a good spirit of neighbourliness, and in that spirit we shall continue in spite of the fact that there is a world of difference between politics in Rhodesia and the policy we follow here in South Africa. I said that I note, now, that British newspapers are making an appeal to me. It is well and proper that they should do so. I think, however, that they should rather make an appeal to their own Government. The British Government has always adopted the attitude that it has certain rights in Rhodesia. Without arguing the question of whether or not this is true, I just want to say that if its premise is that Rhodesia is its territory and the Rhodesians living there its subjects, then I believe that the British Government is under a special obligation in that regard. Then it is not only the neighbouring States that are under obligations; the British Government is also under a special obligation as far as that matter is concerned.

I now want to make an announcement in regard to an entirely different subject. On 27 August 1975 when I made an appeal, in the course of a radio broadcast on our inflation problem, to all our people and asked them each to make their individual contribution to the collective fight against inflation, I also pointed out, inter alia, that South Africa’s stability in every sphere of life—social, economic and political—would be seriously endangered if we did not succeed in our attempts to reduce the rate of inflation to a more acceptable level.

At the same time I also stated that it was not possible to fight this enemy with dramatic methods, but that it would only be possible to master it with the help of the personal self-control and discipline of all our people.

The commendable manner in which all sections of the community reacted to the appeal I made at the time and gave their support to the collective fight against inflation has contributed significantly to our having succeeded in keeping the inflation rate in check during the past six months.

I want to thank all our people for this splendid co-operation, and also express the hope that the success we have already achieved in the fight against inflation will inspire all our people to further, and even greater, efforts of this nature.

All the considerations which led up to the signing and application of the Programme of Collective Action against Inflation are just as valid today, if not more valid, as they originally were.

Every informed observer will know that it is far from possible to regard the fight against inflation as having been won. Therefore the exercising of a considerable measure of personal discipline and self-control by all our people still remains the deciding factor in our collective efforts to avert the dangers of inflation.

I turn now to the position of the employees, of all population groups, in the Government sector.

These employees—Whites, Coloureds, Bantu and Indians—last received a general increase in salaries and wages on 1 July 1974, while employees in the private sector have in fact received adjustments to their wages and salaries since that date—adjustments which, and this I readily want to concede, were, since the commencement of the Programme of Collective Action against Inflation, implemented in accordance with the principles of this programme, but which nevertheless compensated the employees concerned to a considerable extent for the increases in the cost of living, while the employees in the Government sector have not received any such concession since 1 July 1974.

This group of employees has therefore been absorbing the full increases in the cost of living for almost two years now without any improvement in their earnings, with the exception of those who had not yet reached the top of their scale, and I should now, on behalf of the Government, like to convey a special word of appreciation to them for the great measure of self-control which they have displayed in this regard.

No one will deny that it would of course be preferable to postpone all increases in wages and salaries, in both the Government sector as well as the private sector, until we have won the fight against inflation. But since such a step is not practicable, the Government came to the conclusion, after careful consideration—I want to inform hon. members that it was an exceptionally difficult decision, considering its repercussions—that it would be unrealistic as well as unfair, in the collective fight against inflation, to peg only the earnings of certain groups of the community in a way which virtually amounted to a freezing of their wages and salaries.

I am aware that this is a matter on which the Ministers of Transport, of Posts and Telecommunications and of the Interior have already conducted, and are still conducting, negotiations with employee’s organizations in the Government sector.

But in the meantime the Government, having duly considered the country’s present financial and economic problems, as well as the particular circumstances of the employees in the Government sector, has decided to increase the wages and salaries of employees of the Public Service, the provinces, the Railways Administration, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, as well as the salaries of all teachers, by 10% on 1 July 1976 and, if the general economic and financial position of the country does not materially deteriorate and permits of this at that stage, to grant all these employees a further increase of 5% in their wages and salaries on 1 January 1977.

In the implementation of this decision an amount will be added to further narrow the wage and salary gap between the various population groups.

The Government is fully aware that this might not be regarded as adequate, having regard to the import of the provisions of the anti-inflation programme, but the fact of the matter is that our present economic position simply does not permit us to go further than this at the present moment.

I therefore, in the full awareness of my own responsibility to our country, and also with all the earnestness at my disposal, want to make an urgent appeal now to all employees and employee’s organizations in the Government sector to accept these wage and salary increases in this way. At the same time I also want to make a serious appeal to employees as well as employers in the private sector to discipline themselves to an equal extent as far as increases in their earnings are concerned.

In addition to and in supplementation of the announced increase in salaries which also—as I said—apply to teachers, the Government has moreover considered, and accepted in principle, the need for the revision of the salary structures in the teaching profession. The extent and further particulars of this structural revision requires further study, however, and the full or partial implementation thereof will inevitably have to depend on the financial position in future. The Government has done this not only because it has, as I believe all hon. members here present have, a very high esteem for and appreciation of the great work which is being done by the teaching profession, which is rightly called the mother of professions, but also because of our appreciation for our young people and our appreciation for the importance which all of us attach to the education of our children. I believe that since the world has been particularly hard hit, far harder than most people imagine, by the recession we have recently been experiencing, all our people will understand that what I have announced today is as far as the Government as a responsible Government is able to go under the circumstances. Once again I want to make an appeal to our people, because the signs are only just beginning to indicate that there is a possible upswing on the way, to exercise the utmost caution. Each one of us—it makes no difference whom—should endeavour to the best of his ability to live within his means. In this regard I want to associate myself very wholeheartedly with the appeal which the new British Prime Minister recently made to his people.

I now want to reply briefly to certain questions which were put to me. The hon. member for Durban Point made four statements, statements which, according to him, brought into prominence the actual fundamental difference between the point of departure of that side of the House and this side of the House. In the first place he referred to “respect for dignity”. Surely this is not a matter in respect of which the hon. member, or his party, has the sole right. On the contrary. I can say without contradiction from the hon. member that I do not know of many people who went further out of their way than I have done to urge people to respect one another and not to disregard the dignity of other people. I am on record—and I want to repeat this once again in this House today—that I have on many occasions said: Who am I to say that I am better than anyone else; who am I as a creature of God to elevate myself above another creature of God? I added that I do have the right—and I say this again today—to say that there is a diversity in Creation, and that I am entitled to take the difference which exists into consideration at all times. This is done throughout the entire world, among all peoples and nations.

The hon. member also referred to “economic opportunities”. The hon. member is aware that during the past three years the salaries and wages of the non-Whites have been increased by 92%, while the consumer index rose by 38,7%. Calculated in real terms it therefore means an increase in salaries of more than 38,9%. In addition the hon. member ought to be aware that education and training is a prerequisite for economic prosperity. I have referred to the backlog which existed as a result of circumstances, circumstances in which hon. members on the opposite side also played a part. If the hon. member would take the trouble to look at the report of the Department of Bantu Education which has just been tabled, he will see that the number of secondary pupils in Black schools shot up by 52%, to more than 300 000, during the past year alone.

The hon. member then said that the Black man “wants to own his own piece of ground”. We are dealing here with a basic problem, a problem which lies at the root of matters not only in southern Africa, but in the rest of Africa as well. This problem is that Africa does not believe in private landownership, while we believe that it should form the basis of development. I have discussed this problem frequently with local as well as with foreign African leaders. It is a fundamental problem. Only last year I discussed this problem with all our Black homeland leaders. From the discussion ensued the property ownership which they are now able to acquire and to which effect is now being given. This is being done in accordance with the decision which we arrived at in talks held with the homeland leaders.

It is not a proprietary right, however.

Yes, I know that; it is not a proprietary right in the true sense of the word, but he does not even own land in his own area. I made it very clear to them that it is our policy standpoint that the Whites may not own property in the Black areas. We are maintaining that policy. Consequently we are maintaining it in our own area as well, but in terms of the arrangements which have been made we are for all practical purposes giving him possession of that property without—this I readily want to concede—his being the owner of that particular land as such. This is not a system which is strange to South Africa. It is not a system which is strange to the outside world.

But then the hon. member came to the political aspect and told me that it was only the leaders who wanted “one man, one vote”, and that the others did not want it. The hon. member then presented his federation plan. He did not tell us whether the Black people to whom he spoke understood it or did not understand it. I do not think they understand it. What they do understand is that they are able to obtain full independence in their own areas. The hon. member will recall that he was one of the people who said that our policy was not a feasible one. The hon. member will recall that he was one of the people who said that we were not in earnest with this policy.

It is not feasible.

The hon. member says it is not feasible. In October the Transkei becomes independent.

Apart from the Transkei. [Interjections.]

Sir, I shall go further. The hon. member will recall that he said that if there was no consolidation, so that an area became contiguous, there could be no independence. In spite of the fact that the Tswana territory is divided into several areas, the Tswana have, in terms of their own decision after they had debated the matter in their own Parliament, decided to ask for independence on that basis.

And then unite with Botswana.

Yes. That hon. member always speaks out of turn, but I shall come to that. The hon. members said that no Black leader would think of asking for independence under those circumstances. The Tswana have done so. The hon. member, who is called “Madam Rose”, now espies in his crystal ball that the Tswana will want to unite with Botswana. Sir, I have not heard of a single Tswana leader who has said that they want to unite with the Botswana. I have not heard anything of that nature. Nor do I believe that it will happen. But let me make it very clear now—and the hon. member may use it against me if he likes; his party or other parties may use it against me if they like—that when these countries are independent they are independent in the fullest sense of the word. What they then do with their independence after that is their business. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever about this, for as regards this independence, there are no strings attached to it whatsoever as far as South Africa is concerned. We must understand one another well on that score.

As I have said, the hon. member lost sight of the fact that there are thousands of Black students at universities today. There are more than 9 000 of them, if one adds the University of South Africa, at which there are just over 4 000. The others are attending the residential Black universities in South Africa. In other words, this Government has already done more than its share to accomplish what the hon. member advocated.

The hon. member for Rondebosch also put certain questions to me. He asked me whether I agreed that a person’s home should not be taken away from him. My reply is that I am in full agreement with that. The fact of the matter is that this has unfortunately had to happen in South Africa, to Whites as well as to Indians, Coloureds and Black people. Whites were deprived not only of their homes, their farms, to which they had been devotedly attached for generations, were also taken away from them. Without being disparaging, I want to say that it is one thing to take a humble dwelling away from someone, and a completely different matter to take a developed farm, which has been in the family for generations, away from a person.

However, there is another side to this matter. I do not know of any people who have been taken out of their homes without having been provided with alternative and better accommodation. If this has ever been done, it was wrong, and if the hon. member brings such cases to my attention, I shall take action. This is our policy and this is what has been done all these years. Why present only one side of the picture, and say that people were taken from their homes? People are being taken out of slums in all countries of the world, and that is what we did as well. However, this is being taken amiss of us. Hon. members will recall the case of Sophiatown. There we took people away from the most deplorable conditions, and then it was Father Huddlestone—the spiritual father of the PRP—and others who took the lead to prevent it. Why state only one side of the matter, and not the other side? People have in fact been moved from certain areas. I am not making any apology for that. It is the policy of this Government to establish a well-ordered society and to make a decent community life possible for people. As far as the accommodation of non-Whites is concerned, this Government has nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary. This Government has much to be proud of.

The hon. member asked me whether I did not believe in more family housing. I do believe in that, and I repeat that this Government has gone out of its way to achieve that. This Government has also gone out of its way to make freedom of movement possible. The Bantu administration boards are playing their part in that regard.

A very poor part.

That is the opinion of the hon. member now, something which is not really worth very much. The hon. member will know what the policy of his party is, i.e. that influx control should be completely abolished. If that is the standpoint of his party, all I can say is that the Bantu leaders are displaying infinitely more responsibility than he and his party are doing. I discussed this matter with all eight Bantu leaders. We considered the matter for a very long time and tried to identify the problem. We were all in complete agreement—Buthelezi as well—on what the problem is. It is a problem which is not peculiar to South Africa only; it is peculiar to the whole of Africa. There are only a certain number of posts available in a large urban area, but twice and three times as many people come to fill those posts. This gives rise to all kinds of calamities, for it is impossible for one to provide all those people with housing.

They cannot earn a living and consequently have to get up to all kinds of iniquities simply to be able to subsist. We discussed that problem and came to the conclusion that if there are 10 000 work opportunities, one should not allow 20 000 or 30 000 people to flock to those opportunities. The Bantu leaders were in full agreement with that. It will be recalled that I said in this House that they undertook on their part of devise machinery in conjunction with the department to be able to do this, according to their judgment then, in as decent a manner as possible.

Mr. Chairman may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

Sit down!

The Bantu leaders nominated three persons from among their number to go into this aspect of the matter. The hon. member asked me whether I did not want to agree that the Black urban-dweller should be able to live with his family. My reply to that is: As far as this is possible, yes. However, the hon. member knows that physically, economically and otherwise it is impossible to do this. How many hundreds of thousands of foreign Black people are coming to South Africa to work here? Should they all bring their families here? Should they all be accommodated here?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he knows how many family housing units have been constructed in the three residential areas in the Western Cape during the past two years? Not one has been constructed, but there is a waiting list for 500.

I do not have the statistics in front of me and I readily concede that I do not know what the position is. If he wishes to debate the matter, the appropriate manner is to debate it when the Votes of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are under consideration. I am discussing the principle with the hon. member now. I want to agree with him readily that where this is possible, it ought to be done. However, it costs a vast amount of money. If one had to allow the family to be brought along as well, it is in most cases simply an impossible task. In many cases the family does not want to come, for the worker is perhaps a temporary worker who only wants to come for a certain period because he merely wants to earn a certain amount of money to be able to purchase certain things. In many cases there are too many wives to bring along. [Interjections.] We have to face up to this as well. In many cases it is traditional not to bring one’s wife. Apart from that, far be it from me, wherever this is possible, to place obstacles of any kind in the way of this happening. What is more, this Government has at all times displayed sympathy in this regard. As a result of the great industrial revolution which took place, we have an enormous housing backlog to eliminate, and first things must come first. It is very easy for the hon. member for Houghton to be very pious about these matters. Now, let me say at once, that I have a dislike for this piety of the PRP as I have for few other things. The PRP is always trying to imply, in a sanctimonious manner, that they are the only people who care about the welfare of the Black people in South Africa. Allow me, with reference to the tirade of the hon. member for Houghton, to quote two passages to her. These come from the book by Allen Drury …

You have read that about three times.

The book is entitled A Very Strange Society and on page 424 it is stated—

I repeat: “He will contribute to the Progs, and she will do charitable work … in the Bantu townships.”

So what?

Mr. Chairman, one can observe her sensitiveness. She is quite correct. I quoted the other passage to her years ago.

Over and over again. The liberal editor bit.

There is nothing wrong with her intellect or her conscience. The other passage is on page 426. I quote—

[Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must contain herself.

The liberal editor is quiet too. I begin again—

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the second half-hour.

This afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with four very differing groups of subjects, all of which require some measure of comment before I proceed with certain lines of the debate which were outlined yesterday. The first I wish to deal with, has to do with the report we have had from the hon. the Prime Minister concerning the arrangements made with Israel. As far as that is concerned, I can only say that it carries the full blessing of this side of the House. We should like to offer him our congratulations on what has been achieved. There has been speculation for some time amongst knowledgeable people on international affairs that, where the big powers and the small powers seem to have failed, the time has come for what is called the “Sixth World” to start looking after itself. They have called it the “outlawed world”. I think that that is somewhat unfair, but there is no doubt whatever that there is vast scope for a group of, shall we say, middle-powered countries of the world to seek support and assistance from each other, and to build up a group which could be strong enough to challenge even the strongest of the strong powers, with assistance from others. As far as that is concerned, it is pleasing to know that this country has taken the lead with Israel, on a basis which can obviously be mutually advantageous. What should be particularly stressed, I think, is the tremendous technological knowledge which is available in both these countries and which can be put to enormous use in the interests of the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

A second matter which the hon. gentleman raised is the question of increases in salaries of civil servants, of teachers, of provincial employees, of Railway employees, of Post Office employees and others, something which obviously has been in the offing for some time. What is surprising and disappointing is that within only a few weeks of a budget having been presented to this House by the hon. the Minister of Transport, by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and by the hon. the Minister of Finance, there should come a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister which makes the entire balance of expenditure against income in respect of those budgets look very different indeed. It is quite obvious that additional sources of revenue are going to have to be sought from the public to meet those commitments. I do not say for one moment—nor would I say for one moment— that these increases are not due, are not overdue. [Interjections.] There has been a delay of some years and even what is offered now, is not keeping pace with the increase in the cost of living. It was obvious from the beginning of this session that this step was going to have to be taken. It was obvious that the Government owed this to the civil servants, to the Post Office and railway workers. We on this side of the House said that something would have to be done in that regard.

What seems extraordinary, however, is that we should have three responsible Ministers from the Cabinet presenting budgets to the House, knowing—they should have known if they did not—that this was coming, something which has placed those budgets on an entirely false basis. [Interjections.] I wonder what the position would have been if the board of directors of a company had gone to an annual general meeting and produced a set of accounts in which it did not make provision or gave warning to its shareholders of what it knew was coming in the current year. This was only five or six weeks ago. It seems incredible that this situation could be allowed to pertain in the bookkeeping and accounting systems of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister also dealt with the position in southern Africa. In that respect I want to say quite honestly that I have found myself to a tremendous extent in agreement with what he had said and to a tremendous extent appreciative of the efforts which I know he has made on behalf of South Africa to ensure peace in southern Africa. I believe that there are those of us on this side of the House who appreciate the fact that certain warnings have been given to certain countries which, as I have said before, cannot even feed themselves, cannot afford wartime activities, but who are nevertheless making threatening noises, are inciting others and are taking up very dangerous positions indeed. I am afraid we have to face present realities in that regard. The hon. gentleman has made mention of the appeals to him through the British Press to bring pressure to bear on the Rhodesian Government to seek solutions of various kinds. He has pointed to the responsibility of the British Government itself, but surely, Sir, I am not wrong when I say that the British Government to a large extent abdicated those responsibilities when it took the matter to the UN, and we said so at the time. Surely I am not wrong. What responsibility have they? They have abdicated already and I am afraid that the hope that Great Britain is going to play any real role in assisting to solve this matter is grasping at straws and will not be of much assistance to us.

The other group of matters which the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with concerned his answers to queries put by the hon. member for Durban Point. Those queries were put not as individual queries, but as part of the discussion of the whole question of discrimination and what was discrimination in South Africa. There is no point in arguing whether the wage gap may be increasing or decreasing, the fact that it exists is discrimination. There is no point in arguing as to whether the present system of long leases amounts to home ownership or not. The fact is that there is discrimination, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows it. The hon. the Prime Minister talks of the future, of the differences between independence, sovereign independence and federation. I wonder whether he has been reading the statements made recently by Chief Kaiser Matanzima, to the effect that he sees that the relationship of migrant labourers with the homeland in the future will become something like the relationship between the Jews throughout the world and the State of Israel? In other words there will be ties of blood and there will be matters of common interest, like religion and cultural background, but they will be seeking their political home and their political future in the countries in which they are settled. The hon. the Prime Minister must face up to the fact that if that is the sort of situation which is going to develop here in South Africa, then his independence formula is offering no solution.

You are entirely wrong, I have worked with this and I know what it is all about.

The hon. gentleman says he has worked with it, but I have talked to the Chief Minister of the Transkei as well and have read what he has said. I want to say something further. Many of those who today are talking of independence are merely talking of independence as a means to a future federal arrangement with South Africa, and they are talking about it as a means to a future federal arrangement with South Africa because they are not prepared to sacrifice their portion of the economic cake which they have helped to build up within the Republic of South Africa. Sir, the hon. gentleman cannot be unaware of those things.

The problem with which we are faced is the problem which we were debating yesterday and in regard to which we have had no reply yet from the hon. the Prime Minister. Our situation in southern Africa, our situation in the world, our influence with our neighbours, is all bound up with this question of discrimination on the grounds of colour alone. That is why I asked the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday what the position was in respect of the Cabinet committee of his which is considering discriminatory practices, discrimination as it exists in South Africa, and the possibility of removing it within the framework of the policy of separate development. I made the point that so far we had had no indication of whether they were working in isolation, whether they were prepared to hear evidence or accept memoranda or have representations made to them by any group of people or political parties. We have no idea of any blueprints of what their ideas are for the future and what their plans are. Does the hon. gentleman not realize that in the absence of a blueprint there is the encouragement to all the left-wing extremists to take exactly what they can, to increase pressures on as many fronts as possible to try to achieve the maximum number of pragmatic concessions, with the ultimate object of upsetting the existing order in South Africa? Then on the other side there are the Blacks in South Africa who have no idea of what they are being offered.

They do not know what the plan is. Surely the time has come for this committee, through the Cabinet or the Prime Minister—I hope through the Prime Minister today—to tell us what he means when he talks about abolishing discrimination in South Africa. What did his ambassador at the UNO mean when he talked about that? Then the right-wingers can make up their minds whether they want to support those changes, or whether they want to oppose them and try to put the clock back; and the left-wingers can make up their minds that changes are due not to their agitation, but to our willingness to make changes in the interests of South Africa. Then everybody will know what to expect, whether they can be convinced of the sincerity and the fairness of the plans devised. You know, Sir, the emphasis in this debate has not been sufficiently on the fact that we do not have all that time ahead of us, that time is running out in many respects for South Africa. What I mean by “running out” is that things are becoming more and more urgent. What took two years to happen in the past happens in a day these days.

You are playing into the hands of the extremists.

The world is moving at a pace which we could not even conceive of 25 years ago. Having said that, I also want to say that it would be a brave man indeed who would say that after 28 years of this Government racial tensions in South Africa have been relaxed, or that we have better relations with our neighbours than we had 28 years ago, or that we have improved our external animosities from what they were when this Government came into power. [Interjections.]

You would have had Bram Fischer in the Government long ago.

It is amusing for me to hear the hon. the Minister of Justice saying that. I knew Bram Fischer before he did. I knew what he was up to when he was at Oxford with me.

But you did nothing about it.

Sir, he never became a member of this party. He never got elected to this Parliament. Sam Kahn did, under this Government. I want to say that despite the Prime Minister’s efforts at détente, the position is a good deal worse today than it was 28 years ago.

Let us have a look at what is going on. Let me take Angola as an example. What is the real meaning of what has happened in Angola? If we drew up a balance sheet about what happened in Angola, we must conclude, whatever the arguments were for or against intervention—I do not propose to go into those now—that the present situation at our northern borders is immeasurably worse than it has ever been since South Africa became a sovereign independent State. What we have to ask ourselves is why the communists …

You cannot blame the Government.

Listen to the nonsense the hon. the Minister of Justice is talking! Why did Russia and Cuba seek to establish a communist presence in Africa? Why did they choose Angola? What are their objectives? Is it not communist policy throughout the world to pick the soft spots and never to go for the strong points? And is it not so that they found a soft spot in Angola with a possibility of advancing further from there? There is something else we have to ask ourselves. Why do the majority of African countries condone the communist presence in Angola? None of them have been prepared to allow technical or military aid from communist sources to be used as a means of subverting their own authority or as a basis for alien imperialism. What is it other than our own internal racial policies? What makes us the exception? The hon. the Minister of the Interior seems to have his own views on our international affairs. He suggested that Angola left us with a credit balance of goodwill in Africa. He has even suggested that some of the members at the OAU are now seeking our participation. I hope there will be evidence of this new goodwill when our affairs are discussed at the next General Assembly of the United Nations and then we will see what the hon. the Minister’s forecasts are worth. If this is reality, why does the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs not come into the picture? Why is it the hon. the Minister of the Interior and of Information who is making these statements? I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister tonight …

He is the Harry of the Nats.

I shall take a point of order on you.

That speech was written for you for last night.

No, it was not. As a matter of fact it has not even been written out. I want to ask the hon. gentleman whether his diplomatic silence as to what actually was the state of affairs surrounding Angola is not now becoming counterproductive. Has the time not come for the hon. gentleman to give us the hard facts that will contradict the unpalatable message that we are getting from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, namely that despite our rich natural resources foreign investors are pessimistic about their future profits in the South African situation. [Interjections.] It is not easy to make a proper appreciation while there are still so many uncertainties and so many things that are not known. However, I believe what certain countries with goodwill in Africa and elsewhere are trying to say is that South Africa can regain its place in the world if it will only put its own internal racial affairs in order. My difficulty is still the same as I had with the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday and to which I have as yet had no reply. The hon. the Prime Minister and his ambassador made these promises at the United Nations and they apparently regarded them as being subject to the reservation of the removal of that discrimination within the framework of separate development. That is what the hon. the Minister of Justice did the other day.

Yes, I said that.

Yes, of course he said it. Two years ago I quoted in this House, from the records of the Security Council, remarks to show that even our most patient defenders were accusing us of verbal evasions and equivocal promises. That is the effect of what the hon. the Minister of Justice and people like him have been saying. We all know what the hon. the Minister of Justice meant. He means that Black people are entitled to full citizenship and to equality of opportunity, but that they can go and get all that in their homelands. He also means that Brown and Black people who live and work permanently outside the homelands would have to make do with such token concessions as might from time to time be granted to them, even if they do take up the attitude that Chief Kaizer Matanzima is saying they will take up in the future. And in the meantime, as had been so unhappily shown today, things go on in the same old way, for example the enforced evacuation of Coloured people from Somerset West. These are Coloured people who work in two of our most important factories, factories manufacturing explosives and fertilizers. Traditionally they have been resident there. I know what I am talking about, because it was part of my constituency. Now they have to be removed. Why? The Population Registration Act is still causing misery so that one finds members of one family being registered as both Coloureds and Whites.

Are you prepared to accept total integration?

I do not know why I am having this running commentary from the hon. the Minister of Justice. He knows very well that I have never stood for total integration; nor has he.

If you want to integrate we will let you. We do not need a law to keep us White.

What is happening? Unemployment is increasing. I have been told of one brick factory where 80 million bricks are stockpiled and we have a shortage of houses in South Africa because there are not enough bricklayers to lay the bricks. Why? Because of job reservation.

Times are too dangerous for us to go on trying to delude ourselves. I think the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us clearly without these dubious qualifications, where he is going.

There is also another issue. We are anxiously hoping for good news from South West Africa. A successful solution there alone— because of the friction that is being caused by the situation there, and the universal antagonism—could make a vital contribution to the improvement of our position in Africa and in the world. It will be the key to many doors, not only internationally, but also domestically. The same applies to Rhodesia. Here again, what has happened? We stand suspect of special semantics and equivocal promises. Behind the fine words there is stubborn prejudice. When we pleaded for the recognition of Swapo at the Turnhalle conference, we got statements from the hon. member for Middelland, for whom I have the very greatest respect, saying that there were 6 000 members of Swapo outside South West Africa and, possibly, 1 000 inside South West Africa.

That was a very stupid thing to say here.

The hon. gentleman says that what I said was an unwise and stupid thing. It is quite obvious that Mr. Mudge does not agree with this, because it is quite obvious that Mr. Mudge is trying to get representation for Swapo at the conference. What has happened? After independent research by an impartial academic from Stellenbosch, namely Dr. Tötemeyer, what was his reward for a valuable contribution to the discussion? His reward was to get kicked out of the NP’s youth movement by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Surely the time has come for us to get going in what is the only direction for South Africa, and to get going rapidly. There are four things we have to do. We have to fulfil our commitment to remove race and colour from our laws as the basis of inequality and unfair discrimination between people. We have to create an enlarged political, economic and social system which will offer a new deal to the Black and the Brown people permanently living and working outside the homelands. We must defend our free enterprise system against the infiltration of the authoritarian economic dictatorship of communism by ensuring that our system genuinely offers full opportunities for all to share in its benefits. We must advance with all possible speed to a solution of the South West African problem on a basis that will safeguard the interests of all the peoples of the territory and command the respect of Africa and the world. These questions I put last night. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke for nearly an hour, but I received answer to none of them. Let me address myself to the hon. gentleman: For heaven’s sake, let us get the answers now before it is too late in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, to a large extent the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave a summary of the speech he delivered during the no confidence debate earlier this year. He referred, inter alia, to the standpoint of the Black homeland leaders with respect to their constitutional and political future, and he himself adopts the standpoint that for the most part the Black leaders think along federal lines as far as their political future is concerned. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be so kind as to listen to me perhaps I could speak to him. I think that a very great surprise is in store for him because if he has spoken to the Black leaders about this matter, he spoke to them very long ago. My conversations with some of the Black leaders he has in mind were fairly recent, and what they said to me did not tally at all with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. They say that they were not prepared to follow the policy of the UP or of the PRP. They say that in any event the UP had taken no notice of them while they were in power. “Why should we think that they would take notice of us now?” they ask.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout might as well be quiet because after all, he agrees with Mr. Buthelezi as regards the holding of a national convention to set up a new form of government for South Africa. Surely that form of government would be nothing but a majority government. Surely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that that government would be a Black majority government. I shall give the hon. member the answer which Chief Minister Mangope gave to this. Chief Minister Mangope’s reaction appeared in Die Burger of 26 March 1976—

He continues—

He pointed out that the people of Bophuthatswana had their own territory as well as their own language and culture. They want to be completely free, not subject to any other nation, Black or White. I am afraid that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is sitting beside him, are living in an absolute dream world if they think they have the support of these people.

I am not going to comment on the other matters raised because the hon. the Prime Minister will reply to them. I should just like to refer to a few matters which were raised in the House last night, and I regret that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is not in the House at present.

There he is.

I am sorry. The hon. member is over there. The hon. member foresaw the problem which arose after the hon. member for Simonstown had spoken, when he referred with great confidence to the hon. the Prime Minister and asked that the hon. the Prime Minister should take the lead today, knowing that the hon. the Prime Minister was able to do. And this is exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister has done today. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South could not help going to extremes because he said—

He said that the reason was that the hon. the Prime Minister apparently said at Lichtenburg last year—

The hon. member then went on to say—

All I can say is: The poor man! He wants to try and negate the influence of the Wileys in his party, but he allows his nervousness to run away with him. Listening to him last night, one could only say: What a poor, inflated jingo! Is there still such a thing in this Parliament? The hon. member is the only jingo left in this Parliament. The hon. member for Mooi River asked: “What evidence is there that the Government is bringing this message about communism to the Black people of South Africa?” I should like to give the House more information about this.

The Department of Information is particularly active in this sphere as hon. members will probably know if they have read the department’s previous annual report and the 1975 edition of the yearbook. I just want to mention a few examples. The department issues 20 publications weekly, fortnightly or monthly for domestic consumption, publications which are aimed exclusively at non-Whites. The total circulation of these publications is approximately 780 000, and they are aimed, inter alia, at all the Black nations in South Africa. The articles are of an educational and informative nature, especially with regard to community development, education, health, family planning, etc. With regard to the subject which the hon. member raised, I should like to assure him that standpoints adopted by the Black leaders of all the different non-White nations in South Africa, are published prominently in these publications. I am referring in particular to standpoints opposed to communism or communist influence from inside or outside South Africa. Furthermore, the department has prepared a whole series of articles concerning communism and all its facets and these articles will be published in the coming weeks and months in the various publications. The department also makes a special effort as far as the improvement and maintenance of sound human relations is concerned, especially on the employer/employee level. From the department’s regional office in Johannesburg one official alone gave 103 lectures of approximately three hours each during 1975, in which he laid special emphasis on the necessity for sound relations between White employers and supervisors and Black employees. Special attention was given to mines, industries, power stations and hospitals. More than 6 000 people were involved in these conversations and more than 7 000 publications were distributed. I hope that this gives the hon. member an idea of what the department is doing.

The hon. member for Houghton said to the hon. the Prime Minister—

She says this because she is of the opinion that the hon. the Prime Minister has not visited the Black areas, the Black urban residential areas, in South Africa. I can suggest an itinerary for the hon. member, too, and take her on a journey. We might as well start at Soweto, on her doorstep. I wonder if the hon. member has visited Soweto recently. If she had done so she would surely not paint such a sombre picture as she paints for us in this House every day. Today it is a pleasure to travel through Soweto. Naturally there are positive as well as negative aspects. The hon. member for Yeoville shakes his head, but I do not know when he was there last. I should like to tell him that there are not 22 000 families waiting for accommodation; there are only 9 800 waiting for accommodation at the moment, and at the moment there are 2 000 houses in the process of completion.

When were you last in Soweto?

I was there a few weeks ago.

How many houses have been built in Soweto in recent years?

At present there are 2 000 in process of completion and there are 5 300 plots available, and attention is given to making more land available so that more housing may be made available. The hon. member should go and look at what is happening in his own town. Has the hon. member recently gone to look at the beautiful open-air theatre which is being built there, with money donated by the Five Roses Company, amongst others. This is an open-air theatre comparable to the Hollywood Bowl in America. It is a complex which is being erected at a cost of approximately R120 000 for the theatre alone. It will provide seating for 5 000 to 10 000 people and will be used for cultural activities such as music, singing, plays, etc. Has the hon. member recently gone to look at the magnificent sports complex, especially the tennis complex, which is being built in Soweto at a cost of more than R500 000?

You can’t sleep in a sports complex.

Sir, I wonder if the hon. member is going out of his mind? Will he just give me a chance to make my speech? As I said, that complex is being erected at a cost of more than R500 000, but the hon. members of the PRP do not want to take note of this. They want to paint a picture here which is so dark that it is not always the whole truth. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the difficulty which the hon. the Deputy Minister has is that he ignores, for example when he deals with the problems of Soweto, the tremendous shortage of accommodation that there is. No one detracts from the fact that a lot has been done, but the difficulty is that the hon. the Deputy Minister pretends that there is nothing more to do. This is the tragedy of his whole approach and his whole speech.

Sir, I should like to return to the hon. the Prime Minister, even though, regrettably, he is not here at the moment. I should like to draw a very sharp contrast between the hon. the Prime Minister when he speaks on matters of foreign affairs in this House and when he speaks as a politician and when he speaks about internal matters in South Africa. It is like the masks that we see in the theatre. It has one face which smiles and it has another face which is dour. This is in fact the sort of split personality that we get displayed in respect of this matter. We see on the one hand the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government presenting an image abroad of a desire for friends, of a desire for co-operation and of willingness to remove discrimination and of, in fact, a willingness to bring about change in South Africa, all of which we approve. We see that one image which the hon. the Prime Minister presents to the outside world. But then, at home, we see a different image. We saw it yesterday and we say it in the latter part of his speech today. He then becomes the party politician. This is the dramatic difference which exists not only in the hon. the Prime Minister, but also in the policy of the Nationalist Party, because that policy is a schizophrenic policy. It is a schizophrenic policy of presenting one thing abroad and another thing at home. The hon. the Prime Minister has had two opportunities of speaking. He has spoken at very great length on each occasion and he has a further opportunity of speaking, and he has still not told us what he really means by discrimination.

Was that word which you used parliamentary?

Which word?

“Schizophrenic”.

I said the policy of the Nationalist Party is schizophrenic. If you would like to object to that, please do. I can say it is a split personality policy, but it is a schizophrenic policy.

Then I say your policy is a policy of disloyalty.

No, Sir; it is not, and you know that. I am going to come to this very point in a moment. This is where you show your two faces. This is the tragedy.

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw the word “schizophrenic”.

I shall withdraw it, if you require it, but may I ask you whether it is wrong to allege that the policy of a party is in fact a double-faced policy? [Interjections.] Sir, if you want me to withdraw the word “schizophrenic”, I shall do so gladly and say that it is a split personality policy. That is what it is. We do not, however, know what the hon. the Prime Minister has in mind when it comes to making changes in respect of discrimination. We do not know because he has not told us.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that the Prime Minister has a split personality? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member use those words?

No, Sir. I said that the policy of the Nationalist Party is a split personality policy. [Interjections.] Sir, I only have 10 minutes and I should like to use those 10 minutes. We do not know what the hon. the Prime Minister really means.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Mr. Chairman, is it the idea to deprive me of my speaking time?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s entire argument is aimed at indicating that when the hon. the Prime Minister speaks to the outside world, he speaks as a statesman, but when he speaks to us here, he speaks in a completely different manner. Was the hon. member entitled to refer to a split personality in that respect?

Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a deliberate attempt to deprive me of time. However, let me continue. We have not to this day been told what precisely the hon. the Prime Minister has in mind about removing discrimination. What is he actually going to remove and what is actually going to remain?

He is going to remove you.

I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to South Africa …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Yeoville is insinuating that the hon. the Prime Minister is not honest in that he has one policy for internal consumption and another for external consumption. I allege that this is a reflection on the integrity of the Prime Minister.

Order! No, I do not think the hon. member used those words.

Mr. Chairman, may I please have the time that is now deliberately being wasted? I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has an obligation to take the country into his confidence and to tell the country what exactly the South Africa of five years, 10 years or 20 years from now is going to be. How does he see South Africa in that context? How does he see the picture in South Africa so many years from now? That is the picture the South African public wants the hon. the Prime Minister to paint for them.

I have to deal also with what the hon. the Prime Minister said about Rhodesia. There a fire is starting. People are being shot and the public wants to know from the Government what exactly is being done to ensure that this fire does not spread to South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to what Great Britain’s obligations might or might not be as far as Rhodesia is concerned. However, Britain and Rhodesia are separated by thousands upon thousands of miles. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, what will happen to Rhodesia as a result of the fire being started there is a matter of the survival of the White people of southern Africa. That is why we are entitled to ask what precisely is being done. This is not a question of interfering in the domestic affairs of another State. No one is saying we must do that. Our survival in South Africa can be fundamentally affected by events in Rhodesia. That is why we believe that our actions in this regard must be looked at very carefully. Our efforts must not only be directed at talking with Mr. Smith; they must also be directed at talking with the Black leaders. We have to play a role in order to bring about a settlement in Rhodesia before more lives are lost as the fire spreads. At this very delicate time I do not believe that threats to other people are going to help us very much.

I think we need quiet diplomacy, in fact, energy and activity channelled in a delicate and diplomatic manner. I believe that for negotiations in Rhodesia or elsewhere to be successful, those negotiations must proceed from a position of strength and never from a position of weakness. Our survival in South Africa depends on two factors, i.e. military strength and a willingness to change or adapt to new circumstances. What our people seek, in the full knowledge that weakness is not respected, is change with security and safety. The Republic needs to be seen as a colossus standing astride southern Africa, with a sword in one hand and an olive branch in the other. For those who seek to attack us, there must be the simple message that we want peace and will change, but that if they seek to harm any of our people, we will strike hard. Is the time not ripe to display some of our military might, and could Republic Day, 31 May of this year, not be used as a peaceful occasion, since it is a day of celebration, on which to present a massive display of military hardware and troops, not only to give our own people confidence but also to show any aggressor that we have not only the will but also the might to defend ourselves. This should not be seen as an act of provocation or as sabre-rattling; it should be seen as a display of quiet confidence in our ability to defend ourselves since this is required in the present circumstances in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, may I deal with one other brief matter? I refer to the issue of the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on this side of the House attacking this party. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that we see exactly through the plans of that side of the House, because he gave them away since he said here that he is worried about the position of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the UP. He does not want them to get any weaker. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member had to withdraw the word “schizophrenic” and he then substituted for that word the words “split personality”. If ever in my life I have witnessed split personality politics, I witnessed it this afternoon. Yesterday evening that hon. member waxed lyrical in this House when he was attacked by the hon. member for Lydenburg on account of the fact that he had voted against a motion of confidence in and gratitude towards the Defence Force. The hon. member very definitely voted against it; he did not want to vote for it, and he saw to it that he was not here. His party, however, voted against it. In an effort to rehabilitate himself, the hon. member is now advocating a totally different story. Now he proposes that we put on a big display of power. [Interjections.] We should put on a military review on Republic Day as the Russians do on May Day. The unfortunate part is, however, that the Russians will be putting on a military display before we do, because May Day is before Republic Day. If the hon. member’s proposal is not indicative of duality, if it does not reveal signs of dual politics, I have not yet seen anything of the kind. It really does not become the hon. member for Yeoville to accuse the hon. the Prime Minister of something of this kind.

However, I want to deal briefly with a few of the speeches which were made last night. The first one which I found remarkable, was that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, to whom the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. I merely want to remark that the hon. member is succeeding extremely well in making himself an objectionable member of this House.

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “objectionable” in that sense.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “objection-able”.

In contrast with the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, there is the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Simonstown is not here at the moment. I made a few notes of what he had to say in the course of his speech. He said that southern Africa was in danger and that he thought we could set examples to the rest of Africa. He sees danger, but he is not pessimistic. On the contrary. He is very optimistic. He feels a need for leadership. He feels the desire for unity and he thinks people are impatient with the dividing factors in our national life. He is looking for a new political dispensation. I want to point out to the hon. member that there has never before been as much unity in South Africa among the White electorate as at this very time under this Government. The hon. member then went over the head of his own leader—he did not see him as a leader and looked to the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that he hoped we would be receiving the guidance from the Prime Minister the following day which we expect of him. Sir, I think he did receive that guidance. While the hon. member was talking, an hon. member to his left, the hon. member for Albany, repeatedly said “hear, hear”—and all this over the head of his own leader, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Can you see, Mr. Chairman, what the problem of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is within that party? His people are looking for leadership.

Politics can be very cruel. The hon. the Prime Minister told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that he wanted to keep him there for a long time yet. In terms of practical politics, however, I think that there are as many thorns in that seat as there can be at the moment. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been sitting there for so many years—is he not celebrating his coming of age in the Opposition benches today? May I convey my congratulations to him on that. Throughout all these years the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been yearning to assist the Government in governing the country. Now he has again suggested a “council of State”. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has ever considered the possibility of his perhaps not being invited to speak in that council of State. Suppose that were to happen, what then?

I never suggested that.

I think the hon. leader at least expects it.

I do not expect it either.

However, when my hon. leader suggests co-operation to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he says “let us try to safeguard South Africa against its enemies by asking members of Parliament to conduct an investigation into subversive activities”, then what? He wants to participate in discussions on a council of State—that is well and good. Why does he want to do this? Because he would not have to bear the responsibility for everything decided on by that council of State. My hon. leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, will have to bear all the responsibility for his so-called council of State. However, when he himself has to be co-responsible for a commission of inquiry into State security, he is not in favour of it; then he runs away. The reason for that is that another leader is sitting to his right. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was still negotiating; he was still having talks with the hon. the Prime Minister, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout shouted, “We do not want to have anything to do with the whole thing!”

Sir, I feel very sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I can quite understand the hon. the Prime Minister wanting to keep him there, because who else? That is the million dollar question.

Constant mention is being made— throughout this session and again throughout this debate this was so—of the crisis which is threatening South Africa and of the changes which have taken place on its borders. Changes have in fact taken place, but are all those people necessarily enemies? Is there any need for us not to maintain normal relations with Maputo in Mozambique? Recently it was related in this House how many hundreds of thousands of people of Mozambique were still working in our mines today, to what extent we were making use of Maputo’s harbour and how much coal they were receiving from us. So, is it necessary always—I repeat “always”—to base our policy in respect of South Africa merely on what countries abroad expect of us?

The hon. leader of the PRP is for ever quoting people.

Such as?

Chief Buthelezi is one of the people whom the hon. leader of the PRP likes quoting.

When have I quoted him here?

Often! It happens time and again. We forever have to hear what Chief Buthelezi has to say. Mr. Chairman, Chief Buthelezi is not the only Black leader in South Africa. Why does the hon. leader of the PRP not quote Black leaders as well? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, members of the Opposition officially and unofficially praised the hon. the Prime Minister for his recent visit to Israel. Similar praise was bestowed on the hon. the Prime Minister by the Opposition Press and came from quarters from which one least expected it. The publicity which the afore-mentioned visit received in the foreign Press, shows us what a breakthrough has in fact been made. The question that occurred to me involuntarily is why it should be so that when the hon. the Prime Minister acts in the interests of internal relations and internal affairs, he is subjected to the most unfair criticism and attacks imaginable. Especially in view of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has clearly indicated that he places South Africa first, that he places the interests of South Africa first, one cannot help wondering why so much unjustified criticism is levelled at him. One need only examine the proud record of the hon. the Prime Minister to realize what he has done and what he has achieved in the interests of South Africa. We can look, for example, at what he did during his term of office as Minister of Justice, and we need only look back over the past ten years during which he has been at the helm in this country.

This brings me to a matter to which I want to draw the attention of this House anew. It is, to be specific, the legislation concerning the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission. It is as clear as a pike-staff that the Official Opposition and the PRP have not convinced the public that they are correct in the attitude which they have adopted towards this legislation. I like talking to members of the public because I want to determine what they think of decisions which we take in this hon. House. As far as this matter is concerned, I have gone to great lengths to establish what the public opinion with regard to this legislation is. Consequently I am able to state that John Citizen regards this legislation as a protective measure envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister, protective in the sense that it concerns the security of South Africa.

With the greatest respect I now want to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He visited my constituency recently, where he also addressed the meeting in the principal town in my constituency. [Interjections.] He will recall what questions were put to him that evening on his attitude towards this legislation. I am referring to questions which were put, not by people who support the Government, but by people who support the UP. Since that time I myself have paid a visit there, and I can give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that he did not, through his explanation, succeed in gaining the support of his followers there for his standpoint.

There are members on the opposite side of the House who say that they are prepared to co-operate. Usually, however, they attach a small “but” to their offer. I want to put it clearly to them, however, that it does not get them anywhere to make offers of co-operation and, when an opportunity presents itself to translate their words into deeds and to prove to a hostile outside world that that side of the House and this side of the House are at one when the security of this country is being threatened, to reveal their unwillingness to co-operate. We find they do not carry into effect what they tell us they are prepared to do. A great deal was said about the concepts “Select Committee”, “judicial commission”, “standing committee” and “Parliamentary commission”. These concepts and names definitely do not concern the general public. John Citizen asks one question only, and that is to what extent he is being affected by what we are doing here and to what extent he is being protected. The name of the body or commission through which we wish to take such steps, definitely does not concern him. The question put by the public is: What is this Government doing to protect my security at the present juncture, and is there a strong leader in this Government who can give guidance?

Another question which is asked, is: Did the Schlebusch Commission, subsequently the Le Grange Commission, serve its purpose and did it have results? The answer to that is a straightforward “yes”. That side of the House admitted it. Members on that side of the House served on the commission and they did their share, so much so that they recommended that there was reason for passing legislation in order that the commission could be appointed permanently. If the answer to this question is, “Yes, the Schlebusch Commission performed its duty”, the next question is, Very well, if this commission is appointed as envisaged, why should it consist of Parliamentarians? Sir, my answer to this I find in the prayer which is said here in this House every day when we commence our business. The prayer reads, inter alia, “Almighty God, Who, in Thy infinite wisdom and providential goodness, hast appointed the offices of Rulers and Parliaments for the welfare of society and the just government of men …” What do we mean by that? By that we mean that we are asking the guidance of Almighty God and that we regard it as our bounden duty to act in a conservative and protective manner as far as the survival of our country and people is concerned, that the authorities are to be obeyed and that the existing legal order is to be maintained. Because this forms the very basis for the establishment of a commission for State security, that commission must consist of us as Parliamentarians, because the performance of the commission’s task is our bounden duty and task. For that reason that commission should be constituted from our ranks. It is our duty to guard the interests of our State and for that reason we have to assist the established force which exists to maintain law and order. This is the very point at which the welfare of our people and State is involved. This is a commission which is merely intent on gathering information— information which otherwise would be more difficult to obtain—so that this information may be utilized by the executive in exercising its discretion. “Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment.”

Sir, this is not my own quotation; it is from the Bible and I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that it appears in that part of my Bible which is his Bible as well. He can look it up in Ecclesiastes 10, verse 11. The very object of the legislation which provides for the appointment of a parliamentary commission, is to render it possible to investigate organizations, so that it may be ascertained whether a serpent is present and to ensure that that serpent is charmed before it can do harm. This is all the more reason for that commission to consist of Parliamentarians. The legislation will, once it has been passed, add new lustre to South Africa and to the democratic fabric of our country. I am referring to democracy in the true sense of the word, a democracy in which strong leadership exists, in which reason will prevail, a democracy in which national interest will be placed above individual interest and a democracy in which reality as well as the demands of the country and its people will be the first and foremost law. We must achieve this, because in that way only can we bring about peace, happiness and progress based upon stability.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Aliwal about the security of the State. This matter, at least from his angle of approach, has been fully debated by this House during this session, and the attitude of this side of the House has been put very clearly indeed.

I now want to come to a matter which was raised by my hon. leader when he opened this debate yesterday. My leader identified one very important feature of our economic structure which has a bearing not only on the economy of this country and the material well-being of its people but also on the political and social structure of the country, and therefore on the security of our State. I refer to the inexorable drift towards more and more Government control and participation in the economy, and to the trend towards socialism which has been spurred on by inflation—which eats away at the very roots of capitalism—and which has been activated by political and bureaucratic pressures. The hon. member for Mooi River, when he spoke last night, brought the debate back to this subject, and he placed it in very clear and sharp relief. He also placed some important priorities in the right order. So far in this debate there has been no attempt to answer this particular charge raised by those two hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon. the Prime Minister have touched on the subject but they have missed the point.

I have put forward that point time and again in this House.

With due respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, I intend arguing that that is not the position. The basic problem which we are facing is not one of giving more business opportunities to the Blacks, which the hon. the Prime Minister argued was being done. That is only a part of the problem, although it is an important part. The problem is to arrest and reverse the direction of the economy as a whole, the direction it is taking towards more State interference and State control. I know there have been vociferous denials, during this session, that the economy is, in fact, moving towards that of a socialistic State. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, when he replied to the Third Reading of the Trade Practices Bill, expounded the philosophy of the Government in this regard, and again on Tuesday the hon. the Minister of Finance vigorously denied that this was happening. In fact, with his usual knack of pulling figures out of thin air and making them say what he would like them to say, just like in a puppet show, he produced figures to indicate that this was not happening. The fact remains, however, that State expenditure—and this is what matters because it is a measure of State interference—on Revenue and Loan Account has been steadily increasing as a percentage of our GDP, i.e. as a percentage of what we produce, and also as a percentage of our national income, i.e. as a percentage of what we earn.

In 1972 State expenditure represented 23,8% of our gross domestic product. Last year the figure was 26,45%, an increase of nearly 3%. If further proof of this trend is required, let me draw the attention of this House to the 28 largest capital projects at present in the pipeline in this country. R12,1 billion is being spent on public projects, R1,3 billion on quasi-public projects and only R700 million on private projects.

To what projects do you take exception?

Unfortunately in the time at my disposal I am not able to say which they are. My point is that there is sufficient evidence that State participation is increasing. I want to say very seriously that if this trend is not arrested, it will inevitably lead to a brand of socialism. I believe it is common cause in this House that the biggest danger to the State and to our security lies in the infiltration of communist dogma, in communism gaining a foothold amongst a sizable part of our population. This House should be under no illusion at all that the communist economic system is a socialist system. Communism has a lot of appeal where poverty is rife. That is why communist countries have, as some of their main targets, countries in Africa. That is one of the reasons why they have South Africa as a target. It is not because South Africa as such is one of the poorest countries in Africa, which fortunately it is not, but nevertheless poverty is present in South Africa on a fairly large scale. However, what is important is the presence in South Africa of conditions which breed economic discontent. The economic discontent in South Africa is caused and exacerbated by the growing unemployment situation amongst Blacks, a situation for which there is no insurance relief. It is also exacerbated by the many restrictions imposed on Africans, thus preventing them from getting a larger slice of the fruits of South Africa’s wealth. This is what causes hatred. Hatred is not, as the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, the result of a loss of group identity. This is what causes people to turn towards communism.

I think the whole situation points to the vital need to make the free enterprise system work and flourish. We on this side of the House do not want to see any redistribution of wealth. What we want to see, however, is an expansion of wealth so that all the people of South Africa can have more. We want to see a bigger cake so that the people of South Africa can have bigger slices of it. I believe there is only one way to do this, and that is through the capitalist system. This system must be allowed and encouraged to work and flourish. It must be seen by the people to be something that offers them something better than communism. It must be seen as something that offers them the opportunity of acquiring possessions, of acquiring wealth, of achieving better living standards and of achieving a better quality of life. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to what the hon. member for Constantia said or tried to say. I gained the impression that he had been told by his leader a short while ago to participate in the debate. I do not think he was well prepared. In my opinion, he, as the main speaker on economic affairs on that side of the House, gave us nothing of substance. He made minor statements which had frequently been made before. The mere fact that he experienced some difficulty with a question posed by the hon. the Prime Minister, showed us that he did not have the subject thoroughly under control. Mention is frequently made of socialism and the fact that communism constitutes a danger to us as a direct result of the economic conditions in our country. Communism is not only bred, cultivated or caused by economic shortcomings, but also by other factors. We have in our presence our hon. the Prime Minister who, when he was Minister of Justice, eradicated communism and drove it from the country.

Mention has been made of the participation by the State in the economic life of our country. Surely, hon. members know that the State only participates in so far as strategic products are concerned or in cases where considerable capital is required and the private sector in unable to fend for itself. I do not want to deal with this in detail; it is general knowledge. I am not concerned about our economic potential in the future; I am not concerned about the fact that we are chasing away from us people from abroad. It is fact that 50 of the largest American enterprises have investments in South Africa. Over and above the 50 major enterprises there are also more than 600 other American companies doing business in South Africa for very sound business reasons.

I wonder whether the hon. member knows that a body such as the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, consisting of approximately 50 members, exists. The majority of those members are not officials of the State, but people who, on account of their knowledge, are drawn from the private sector to serve on the council advising the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government on the economic policy and economic matters in the country. It is really to be regretted that the hon. member for Constantia participated in the debate on the instructions of his leader. I think he was done an injustice.

Two of the hon. members on my side of the House have already mentioned this matter, but I should also like to refer to the unsavoury speech the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made in this House last night.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should use such words. He must withdraw the word “unsavoury”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “unsavoury”. The torrent of words we had from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did not mean a thing. That is how we have come to know him. An empty barrel makes a great deal of noise when rolling down a hill. I think all the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was last night was an empty barrel rolling down the hill. But what worries me, is that he not only insulted the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech, but I also think South Africa was shocked by the irresponsible things he said. South Africa was shocked when he said that South Africa needs a new, better and stronger leader, but did he not bear in mind the survey I have in my hand? I am referring to an opinion poll conducted a while ago. The results were published in the newspapers under the heading “How South Africa rates the Prime Minister”. Did he not bear in mind that the newspaper report states that the Prime Minister meets with the approval of 83% of the English-speaking people in South Africa? I am quoting to you in English what is apparent from the opinion poll—

The survey, which was conducted on a national scale, elicited enormous support for the Prime Minister from all the sectors of the White population in South Africa. I quote further from the document—

Furthermore, it is stated that—

This is what members of the White population outside think and say according to the survey. For that reason I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said shocking things, things our people outside also found shocking. I also noticed something else in his speech, something I also noticed in a number of other speeches made by hon. members opposite, i.e. that some of them are panic-stricken and that their panic is reflected in their speeches, even in the speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch, but in his case it was worse than panic. From his speech I could gather that he is afraid, afraid that the time of the White man in Southern Africa is past. Then, without much ado, the hon. member for Rondebosch blames the White man because, in his opinion, the time of the White man in Southern Africa is past. He went further and fulminated against his own people, against his White people. He sows division among them and others, and he sows seeds of hatred in the minds of people who are really trying to live together peacefully. What is the tragedy we find in this speech and in others? It is that these so-called saviours of civilization—and now I am referring in particular to the PRP—believe that by presenting the White man as an oppressor and exploiter, they are going to save our civilization and create a heaven on earth in South Africa.

I want to say explicitly today that the National Party and those supporting him have never been suppressors at any point of time in history. They were not exploiters or robbers either. And what would be the reason for it? It is because the ancestors of these people supporting this party and this Government were oppressed people themselves; they suffered oppression themselves. We, as a people, also knew scorn, disdain and contempt; for that reason we know what it means and for that reason the last thing than can be said is that this Government, this Prime Minister and this party are oppressors of those who alledgedly do not enjoy the same privileges as we do. I rather want to put it in this way: The National Party is a party which liberates. I concede that our policy of separate development is not perfect because it is a formulated philosophy by human beings. It cannot be perfect, but it is a policy we are trying to implement earnestly and to grant freedom to those who do not have it yet or have not known it yet.

Our voters like it.

The hon. member for Caledon says here by way of an interjection that our voters like it. Of course, they like it, because, through the years, they saw that the policy we are pursuing does not only afford them security, but also means peaceful coexistence in South Africa. In this regard I want to tell those hon. members of the Opposition in whose speeches panic is to be seen that they should not stare themselves blind against what they regard as South Africa’s threatened situation. Do not storm into emotional trenches and hide there, but rather consider the enormous possibilities which are waiting in future. Consider the possibilities of nations which are becoming or are in future going to become constitutionally free. Consider the nations which have become and are still becoming aware of their own identity every day. Look, appreciate and believe that the solution has to be sought in peaceful coexistence in South Africa. To those who are hiding in trenches of fear, I want to say: Consider the process of evolution which is taking place and which shows promising signs and assist these people who are struggling with this problem to make an even greater success of it. In this process of growth, in this process of moving out of the trenches of fear and self-reproach, God gave South Africa and us a man to lead us. He is not only leading the Whites because they are his kinsfolk; he is also leading the Brown and Blacks on the road to peace and prosperity. I say to hon. members that if they fear or are being selfish, or if they do not have much faith, or if they are attached to traditions which are not principles, if they are self-righteous or militant, they make the task of our hon. the Prime Minister even more difficult. We should not behave like the old Biblical people who made Moses’s task even more difficult. He had a task and a commission, but they often refused to budge and complained. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not reply to the speech of the hon. member for Worcester, because he dealt with matters of a general political nature and it would take all of my time if I dealt with each of the points he raised. I wish to deal with a specific point this afternoon, one which has been mentioned several times during the course of this debate—I may say often inaccurately on that side of the House and also on the left side of this House—namely the question of the redistribution of wealth. I make no apology for raising this subject, because it is in fact a key factor in the conflict between the communist world and the free enterprise world. If one were to examine all the arguments and differences that lie between those two worlds, one would find that it is in fact the dispute about the distribution of wealth which is the key factor throughout, particularly in this day when we have poised on our northern borders communists closer to the South African economy than they have ever been before. They are poised there to exert not only physical impact on our situation, but also to impose a psychological impact, a kind of domino effect because of their very proximity and because of the ease with which people still cross backwards and forwards across our frontiers. It is most important, therefore, that we should know what we are talking about when we talk about the redistribution of wealth, because this is what the conflict is all about. If one were to seek the various means for the redistribution of wealth, the most obvious and commonly accepted meaning throughout all economic systems is that tax is a redistributor of wealth. It goes without saying that when the hon. Minister of Finance introduces a budget and raises revenues by taxing companies and the wealthier sections of the population and then redistributes this through the social services to the rest of the country, a redistribution of wealth takes place. This we accept; this is not in dispute. It is one form of the redistribution of wealth. I should like to turn briefly now to what the communists see as the redistribution of wealth. One goes back to Karl Marx and dialectical materialism and one finds that there are two aspects of this concept. The first might be described as the socialist phase, viz. to remove property as a means of production from private ownership and to put it in the hands of the State.

It is very often an attractive concept to people who possess no property, who see property in the hands of other people, to believe that the communists are going to take property from the rich, from the privileged, and to hand it out to the poor. But this does not happen; it is a misconception. It is most important that in combating this danger, this treacherous concept, this attractive concept to the impoverished, we should make them understand clearly, because we ourselves understand clearly, the deprivation of property from those who hold it does not mean that it is given to other people or that it is spread around. In fact it falls into the hands of the State, where we have seen in the communist experience, that it tends to be less productive than it was in the hands of private enterprise. That is why the Western world, the free enterprise world, frequently has to come to the aid of the communist world because property as a means of production held in the hands of the State, does not produce the same degree of wealth as is possible in a free enterprise society.

The other meaning attached to the redistribution of wealth, in terms of communism, is known as the second or communist phase, where they say, “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs”. This implies that, irrespective of your talents or how much you produce or your degree of productivity, they will take from you as much as they need and as much as you can produce, and they will then redistribute this to others according to their needs. In other words, there is no direct connection between the ability to produce and the need to receive. This is perhaps an idealized kind of concept which might work in a perfect or compassionate world. In fact, it does not work anywhere. It does not work in Russia, it does not work in China, it does not work in any State of the world. There is no such thing. It remains merely an ideal or a concept.

These, Sir, are the two main forms of the redistribution of wealth in terms of the communist doctrine. What does it mean in our own free enterprise society? Most of our modern free enterprise societies are partly socialized. They are socialized to the extent that there is a growth of social services, a greater obligation to look after those who are underprivileged, those who are old, those who are young and those who are sick. In a sense, all our societies become increasingly socialized. An attempt is being made in these societies, in Britain, France, Germany and other countries, to introduce what is sometimes described as an incomes policy. An incomes policy is an attempt to regulate the amount of income received by various categories of people, but in most of these societies it has been limited to ensuring that a minimum base is created in order to avoid hardship to those people who are at the low end of the scale. There has been very little success in attempts so far to narrow the range of salaries enjoyed in the vertical range. I have found some interesting figures which indicate what I mean. If you compare the median or average salary in the top 20% in various countries with the median salary received by the bottom 20% in these countries, you find that in Hungary, for example, which is a socialized country not entirely taken over by communism, the ratio of the top 20% to the bottom 20% is 6: 1. In the United Kingdom it is 7: 1. In the USA it is 8: 1. In other words, people in the top 20% receive eight times as much in wages as people in the bottom 20%. In Sweden the ratio is 9: 1 and in Germany it is 10: 1. If one looks at the countries and the figures one finds that there is no political or other logical pattern in this regard. It depends on other factors. It depends on things such as the degree of education, the natural aptitude of people, and so forth. What is clear, though, is that in the vertical plane there has been no success, if it were intended, to reduce the wage gap as between people in the top categories and people in the bottom categories. What we mean when we talk about closing the wage gap in this country is not to close that vertical wage gap. We are not saying that everybody must be paid the same and that there should be equalization of reward. We are saying that in the horizontal plane, where there are people of other colours working outside and alongside that range of salaries, who are doing the same job with the same responsibilities and the same aptitudes, that horizontal gap must be closed. I am sure that when the hon. the Prime Minister talks about closing the gap, he means in fact that horizontal gap between people of one colour and people of another colour.

I said so specifically.

Yes, he is not referring to that vertical gap between people of different aptitudes. The reason why I have raised this particular subject is because I believe that it is going to become, in our debate in southern Africa, one of the crucial issues. The words “equality of opportunity”, etc., are freely used and reasonably well understood, but the words “redistribution of wealth” are also very freely used and very often badly understood. Sir, we have heard several misconceptions on that side of the House which in fact lead to obstructionism and the rejection of the very concept of narrowing the wage gap which exists. We have also heard from the left side of the House certain uses of these words which I believe are grossly misleading. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis will pardon me if I do not reply to the questions he posed to the hon. the Prime Minister in the form of a lecture. The hon. the Prime Minister will do it himself, and I shall therefore not respond to it any further. When listening to the arguments coming from the opposite side of this House and from both the Opposition parties in the debate on this Vote, one is grateful to see that there is one thing on which there is agreement, i.e. that not one of them, notwithstanding all the complaints they have against the Government which has been governing this country for such a long time, wants to leave South Africa. Notwithstanding all the problems they have, they are prepared to stay on in South Africa. They regard that other world, which always dictates to us, in such a uncalled for manner, how we should govern South Africa, as worse than South Africa. For that reason it can be said that there is at least one common attitude among the members in this hon. House.

Since we are now discussing the vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, I want to point out that South West Africa falls under the Prime Minister himself and on behalf of the inhabitants of South West Africa I therefore want to thank the Prime Minister for the firm and sympathetic guidance we had from him during the past 10 years. When referring to the inhabitants of South West Africa, I refer to all the inhabitants, Whites as well as non-Whites, probably with the exception of a few. We thank him for the fact that he was not prepared to leave South West Africa in the lurch. We also thank him because he was prepared to afford the inhabitants of South West Africa the opportunity to decide on their future themselves. He said he would not allow anyone else to decide on that matter. He would not allow the UNO or any other body, including the Republic of South Africa, to decide on that. For that the inhabitants of South West Africa thank him.

Sir, we have had considerable problems there lately; not so much international problems. We have problems there with parties which are not prepared to fight elections, but hold symposiums instead. There is also another party now acting in the place of the old UP, a party which is also known here in the Republic. In our part of the world we just call it the “eleventh plague”. If that party had existed in Biblical times when the Jews were leaving Egypt, it would have been the eleventh plague. This is how much notice we take of it. As far as the other party is concerned, which was alone initially and then became part of the UP, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took it amiss of the Government in 1970 and said that the Government was really doing South West Africa an injustice because Advocate Niehaus was not in the Cabinet. At that time the hon. the leader had the opportunity to bring him here for a period of four years, but he was subsequently replaced by someone else who is now sitting among that little group of people in the PRP, i.e. Senator Winchester. Percy Niehaus was then exchanged for Senator Winchester. Also they did not see their way open to go along with that party any longer. But now they invite people when they hold symposiums. The present leader does not see has way open to participate in the by-election which is to be held on 26 May as a result of the resignation of ex-Minister Du Plessis. Instead of doing that, they hold symposiums. All one sees, is newspapers full of photographs. It looks like a real karakul ram auction. In the case of karakul ram auctions one does not advertise the sheep itself; one simply publishes a number of photographs and the sheep are sold on the strength of those photographs. In this way they held an auction there in February. They invited a great many people to the auction. I find it interesting to see which members of the House of Assembly they invited. They invited the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Von Brandis, the hon. member for Edenvale and one member of the PRP, the hon. member for Rondebosch.

We did not invite you either.

We do not need symposiums to govern the country. We make use of elections. We did not run away from Windhoek as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had done. I must say I find it strange that the hon. member for Newton Park, the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Simonstown have not been invited either. It seems to me as if only a certain group was invited.

Everyone is aware of the constitutional conference and the fact that it issued a declaration of intent. Despite this people such as these go there, people who have no interest in the affairs of the territory. They have no interest in South West Africa. They do not have a party there and they never put up a candidate to fight an election. What on earth are they doing there?

What are you doing here then?

I assisted the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to be elected in the constituency of Namib in 1950. However, I am still in the same constituency since then. I did not run away to Bezuidenhout. Of course, what those people said there, can only harm South Africa. What I want to know, is why people who have no interest in a territory, should interfere with the affairs of people who do have an interest there. Let us take the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as an example. The Suidwes-Afrikaner of 27 February of this year devoted a whole page to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had to say. According to this newspaper he said, inter alia, the following—

That was his reply to a question put by a certain other gentleman there.

I did not use those words.

However, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should take cognizance of the fact that we are still here. We are here on a legally, elected manner. The voters of South West Africa sent us here in each election since 1950. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should not blame us for this. He should rather tell the members of the symposium that the voters of South West Africa voted for the wrong people. We are legally here. Never in our lives have we run away. According to the report the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also said the following—

I gave you my reply and you know about it.

The hon. member has never repudiated this statement in the Suidwes-Afrikaner. He also said he felt that if Mr. Vorster did not want to do anything, he should appoint experts from overseas or elsewhere to assist the people at the constitutional conference. One does not expect something of this nature from a responsible person. One does not expect it from a person who ought to know better and who is a so-called expert on South West African affairs. Why did the hon. member not mention specific names? Why did he not advise the hon. the Prime Minister further and told him who to appoint? Who knows, perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister should have appointed people such as Mr. McBride or Peter Hain, or who does the hon. member suggest? Since the hon. member advised the hon. the Prime Minister, he might just as well have gone further and indicated who he regarded as experts. One does not behave in such a way towards the people of a territory who treated him so well and gave one a political platform one still has today. I do not want to give any further attention to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I now want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister something. We represent the Whites, and all is well with the non-Whites who are under our supervision. However, we ask that the hon. the Prime Minister should take very firm steps against those ringleaders in South West Africa, the so-called Swapo supporters who do not want to maintain law and order. The Whites do not expect those ringleaders to be allowed to roam around in order to kill innocent people. The Whites have to maintain law and order there and in this regard we have great respect for the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. South Africa is one of the few countries in the world which is still able to maintain law and order under the circumstances. For that reason we ask that steps be taken against those people if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply to all kinds of petty matters during this important debate—the debate on the Vote of the Prime Minister is a very important debate. However, I want to point out to the hon. member for Mariental at once that I have already replied to the points he has just raised. There is nothing wrong with speaking at a symposium. In fact, all the parties, including the NP, were invited to it, but the NP decided not to go; it was entitled not to go. We decided to go because we take an interest in the affairs of South West. The standpoint has been put forward here that South Africans have no business in South West, but I believe that what happens in South West Africa and to South West Africa will affect every person in South Africa. Consequently it is of the utmost importance for us in South Africa to know what is going on there and to take notice of it. The fact that the hon. member for Mariental and other hon. members of South West sit in our House of Assembly and speak on matters affecting the Republic does not, to my mind, constitute interference in South Africa’s affairs. The interests of South West and those of South Africa are so intertwined that it is essential for us to take an interest in each other’s affairs. I shall not apologize to the hon. member or to anyone for taking an interest in South West, because it affects my life and the life of my country.

The point I made in connection with constitutional experts was stated very clearly by me, and I have explained it in this House as well. South West has a plural society and the world has many examples of plural societies in which people of different population groups co-operate in the political sphere. I expressed my regret at the symposium about the fact that there was no one at the conference at Windhoek who had made a study of the way other plural societies solve their problems. Does the hon. member wish to deny that there is no one taking part in the conference who has made a study of plural societies and who has investigated the solutions that such states have found to a situation such as the one in South West? All I added to that in reply to a question was that it would be a good thing if the Government or the Prime Minister could create the opportunity for deputations seeking such advice to be provided with the information they require. They could get this in South Africa, for there are academics in South Africa who have made a study of plural situations. My point was only that it would be a good thing if the Government could provide that information to members of the conference if they request it. I believe that they can obtain that information in South Africa, but if they cannot obtain it here, we have to get it from those countries which have a plural situation so that we may obtain the best possible solution to the problems of South West.

Give examples of such countries.

The hon. member need only study the documents concerning the court case about South West that was heard in The Hague. There he will learn that South Africa’s advocates mentioned 50 examples of countries that have a plural society and from which we could learn. One could start with Switzerland, if one liked.

I do not want to say anything more at this stage about the situation of South West Africa. I merely rose to reply to the allegation which had been made by the hon. member for Mariental. Allow me, in the few minutes left to me, to make a few points with reference to the speech made yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister. He said that this side of the House presumed to speak on behalf of the Coloured people and the Blacks. This is not so. We do not presume to speak on behalf of Black leaders or Coloured leaders. The fact is that this is the Parliament of South Africa. We have to ensure that a just system is worked out in South Africa. This is much more important to the White man than to others; when we say here that there is injustice and there is discrimination, we do not say this on behalf of anyone else. In saying this, we speak in the interests of South Africa. We realize that if we as Whites cannot create a dispensation which can remove discrimination and eliminate restrictive situations, the White man is the one who will be endangered. Consequently our approach in discussing these matters is the question of how we may best safeguard the White man’s position. We can survive safely in this country only if we can work out a just dispensation in this country. This is our approach. The hon. the Prime Minister said quite rightly that nothing must be done to harm people’s identity. Of course not! Who wants to harm anyone’s identity? I do not want to be anything other than I am. All of us who are sitting here are Whites, Afrikaners or English-speaking people or members of whatever cultural group. I do not want to be anything other than I am.

I shall support no system which will deliberately interfere with my identity. But do we need laws to preserve identity? If we do, let the hon. the Prime Minister tell us quite frankly what laws are so essential for preserving cultural identities. Let us take the identity of the White man. The Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people have been co-operating for a hundred and fifty years and this has not affected the identity of the Afrikaner, for example; he is just as much of an Afrikaner as he used to be. He has constantly gained strength. Afrikaners went to live in Angola and in Argentina and after years they have still not lost their identity. A people does not lose its identity if it does not lose its own will to preserve it and if it does not lose its own strength. People do not need laws to preserve their identity. These are matters we have to clarify and we must not confine ourselves to verbal discussions about them.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not believe that a people should share the political power over itself with another. So his party’s standpoint in this respect is quite clear. He does not want the White man to share political power over himself with another people in South Africa. This is a splendid idea. No people voluntarily prefers having to share political power. However, is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to grant the same right to every other people in South Africa— and when I say every other people …

He is doing so.

Is he prepared to grant that right to the Coloured people, for example, so that the Coloured person will also be able to say, “I will not accept a single decision affecting myself which is taken by a White man”? Is he prepared to give that right to the Indians? If he can say this, and if he can tell us how he is going to do it, no one will object to his standpoint. The problem is—and this is the problem of South Africa: It would be very wonderful if we could have a situation in which no nation has a joint say with any other and each one decides for itself only, but what is one to do when there is more than one people within the political boundaries of one country? This is the problem South Africa has to contend with. One of those peoples cannot say: “I want full sovereignty.” If every nation in the country were to say this, how could it be arranged? I am not referring now to those that are going to secede. It is obvious that if a part of a country secedes from the rest, it will be excluded and will no longer form part of the country. But even if the policy of independent Bantu areas were to succeed, no matter how far it is carried, we would still have the situation that there we would not only be a White people living in South Africa. It is no use evading the problem. The problem which has to be faced by the Prime Minister and the governing party, or any government which may come into power, is that there is and always will be more than one people living within the political boundaries of this country. How are we going to make them work together without one being dominated by the other? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as representative of a constituency in South West Africa, I believe I should refer the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to certain statements he made earlier. The hon. member for Mariental has already referred to some of those statements as well. I want to draw the attention of this House to the audacity which the hon. member displayed when he, not so long ago, spoke about the representation of South West Africa in this House. I quote from (Hansard, 23 March 1976, col. 3769)—

Mr. Chairman, in consequence of the statement which the hon. member repeated here a moment ago, and which the hon. member for Mariental also referred to, and with reference to the quotation I quoted a moment ago, I should like to say that it has, to my mind, become necessary for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to consult his conscience. If he does not do so, I shall have to accuse him of a process of polluting his own conscience. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, you know the history of that hon. member in South West Africa. You know it, and I believe that the House is also thoroughly aware of the earlier activities of that hon. member in South West Africa. During the late forties he went from platform to platform in South West to propagate the question of the incorporation of representation for South West Africa in this Parliament. At the time his propaganda was based upon the standpoint adopted by Gen. Smuts at that time. This hon. member propagated that standpoint.

It was the standpoint of all of us, but the circumstances are different at present.

Yes, very well, it was the standpoint of all of us, Mr. Chairman. However, the hon. member now suggests that we who are representing South West Africa, are no longer serving any purpose here and that it would be better for our representation here to be terminated. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I followed that hon. member from platform to platform to listen to what he had to say. What happened there? With the change of government in May 1948 Japie Basson, the extremely strong supporter of Gen. Smuts, stabbed his own leader in the back. He is nothing but a back-stabber. [Interjections.]

Order! The word “back-stabber” has been ruled unparliamentary. The hon. member must please withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, due to the fact that that word is unparliamentary, I shall withdraw it. However, I am prepared to repeat it to the hon. member outside this House. [Interjections.]

Your tirade simply proves how useless your representation here is. You cannot even make a proper speech.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wants to adopt a different standpoint again. [Interjections.] Due to the attitude he had adopted at that time, he was elected as representative for the constituency of Namib and he came to this House on the back of the NP. We know which standpoints he subsequently adopted in this hon. House. He participated in all the discussions on South West Africa in this House. They concerned the fishing industry, the Railways, foreign affairs, and similar matters. He participated in all the proceedings and enjoyed all the privileges this House offers members of Parliament.

He also drinks the coffee and eats the tasty food of this House!

Precisely! He enjoys everything. Just as he participated in the discussion on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, so he participated in the discussion on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister at that time. At that time the hon. member eulogized the attitude and the behaviour of the then Prime Minister, Dr. D. F. Malan, towards South West Africa. I am referring to what the hon. member said on 14 February 1951 in this House: (Hansard, Vol. 74, col. 1267)—

Mr. Chairman, later that same year, on 17 May 1951, the hon. member had the following to say about South West Africa (Hansard, Vol. 75, col. 6977)—

Mr. Chairman, you will know what the position is and how many things of a delicate nature there are. However, what does that hon. member do now? What has he been doing since he changed sides once again? I wonder how many times in future he is going to change sides. It has been asked in this hon. House what that hon. member is doing among the members of the UP. What is he doing there? As far as I am concerned, he is riding on the back of the UP just as he was riding on the back of the NP in the past. The South West African question is a delicate matter. That hon. member said so himself. However, now he adopts exactly the opposite standpoint and, as it seems to me, condemns everything this Government is doing for South West Africa. Nothing this Government is doing for South West Africa meets with his approval, not even those things he agreed with previously. I repeat: He does not belong in the UP. He belongs among those other pharisees sitting to the right of me. [Interjections.]

Order! The word “pharisee” is unparliamentary. The hon. member must therefore withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that word is unparliamentary. I therefore withdraw it. [Interjections.] If we consider the speech of the hon. member, to which the hon. member for Mariental also referred; if we consider every word proclaimed by that hon. member today, also the things he said at that symposium and everything he said about South West Africa today, one can only say that if this is not a form of sabotage against South West Africa, against its people and its future, we have never experienced what sabotage is. The hon. member is speaking here in a manner which I can only describe as hypocritical. [Interjections.]

Order! The word “hypocritical” is unparliamentary. The hon. member must therefore withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! However, I have to point out that the hon. member for Etosha did not use that word in the context I attach to it.

Mr. Chairman, in pursuance of the speech made by the hon. member for Mariental, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a moment ago that this affects the lives of both the people in the Republic and those in South West. After an analysis of everything he says, what does it after, all amount to? If, therefore, I cannot describe it with the word I had to withdraw a moment ago … [Interjections.] … I can only say that it is the most irresponsible behaviour towards South West I have ever experienced from an hon. member of this House. [Interjections.] Everything was fine while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was a representative of a constituency in South West. However, now that he is sitting here, now that the hon. members for Mariental, Karas and other constituencies in South West are here, that hon. member regards everything we do as anathema. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, something which has become more and more noticeable to us is how debates on that side of the House are organized. Yesterday we had a typical example of this. The question of Israel had scarcely been mentioned, there had scarcely been a reference to it when the appointed cheerleaders said that Jacobs was opposed to any tie between South Africa and Israel. It is of course possible that this did not arise spontaneously and secondly, it is naturally complete nonsense. I did not say that. On the contrary. I said the opposite, namely, that any contact South Africa can make with the outside world is something we welcome. I said that we have been asking for this for years now and that the only thing wrong with détente is that it should have begun 25 years ago. It is true that I questioned certain concrete advantages which would flow from this. But I am not the only one to do so. A man like Prof. Mike Louw raised the same questions as I and in much stronger language. He is a man who probably knows more about international affairs than any of the hon. members sitting in this House because he was at the United Nations for years, was the head of the Smuts Institute for International Study at the University of the Witwatersrand and is at present the head of the Institute for Strategic Study at the University of Pretoria. The hon. the Prime Minister then took me to task because I asked if there was a military element in the agreement. Remember the circumstances of this matter. It was late evening and the first news flashes which we received mentioned a pact. What does a pact mean to the ordinary man? It means a treaty. We understood that the Israeli Minister of Defence had attended most of the discussions. All I then asked was whether it meant that there would be a military element, whether it meant that Israel would help us if we found ourselves in trouble and whether we would help them if they experienced difficulties. I do not have to apologize for that because the whole of South Africa was asking that question. If no such element is present, the hon. the Prime Minister can say so. Why does he exhibit such a strange sensitivity in this connection?

The difficulty in this House is that if one is not part of the handclapping brigade, if one does not always simply say “Yes, sir”, and “That is good, sir”, then one is labelled as being unpatriotic. And if one asks a question of this nature, one is of course attacked. I see that some newspapers are now maintaining that I am offered to Israel. I just want to say that I have visited Israel on probably six occasions over the past 30 years, and I think I know more about the place and have closer ties with it than many of the new experts who are now suddenly coming to the fore.

On the second occasion the hon. the Prime Minister attacked me once again and suggested that it was due to something I had said that Malawi withdrew its labour from our gold mines. I know what the hon. the Prime Minister’s source of information is. But once again this is naturally absolute nonsense and I shall give my reasons for saying so. The reference which I made was made three years before Malawi began to withdraw its labour and it really seems to me a case of delayed reaction. Secondly, when I made that reference, I was a backbencher of this party. If at that time I had so much influence as to cause a foreign country to decide to withdraw its labour from our mines, then I ask what the hon. the Prime Minister as well as his whole Cabinet has been doing over the past two years if they have not been able to convince Malawi that it was wrong and that it should send its labour back. Sir, this is once again the usual reaction which we have from the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not care if he attacks me; it would worry me if he began to praise me, because then I would know that I was not doing my job. I think it is a pity—and I say this with respect—that the hon. the Prime Minister found it necessary to bandy names across the floor here because that sort of thing does not raise the tone of our debate. We can all do this and can use names against him as well.

As apologies have been mentioned, I should like to draw the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that he still owes me an apology. When his Vote was last discussed the hon. the Prime Minister also experienced difficulty on that occasion in understanding the term “discrimination”. In order to be helpful, I tried to explain it as follows at the time (Hansard, Vol. 56, col. 4474)—

Shortly after that the hon. the Prime Minister rose to speak. He attacked me and said the following (col. 4494)—

I am simply mentioning this to show that I am still waiting patiently for that apology.

I say once again, with respect, that it appears as though the hon. the Prime Minister did not understand the theme of my hon. Leader. He indicated that the whole world was engaged in a titanic struggle between communism on the one hand and the so-called capitalistic or free enterprise system on the other. For the Whites there is no choice because we are the elite group. We have the possessions. We would never choose communism because this would mean a flattening out of our advantages. The theme of my hon. Leader was: What about the 20 million non-White people in the country?” Under the present circumstances, does communism not offer something to them? Is there not a certain message in it for them? Is there not something in it which they may perhaps want? The reason why we put it this way is because there is discrimination in our community. Then the hon. the Prime Minister says on every occasion that we must give him examples of discrimination. We can understand his problem. On a previous occasion he said that if a White man woke up one morning and found that his skin was black he would experience no difference but merely find himself in a new environment. If one sees the matter in this light, one will not be able to understand what discrimination is. I hope we have progressed since that time. The hon. the Prime Minister has now told our ambassador at the UNO to tell the world that we are going to abolish discrimination. How can one do away with something if it does not exist? But there are hundreds of examples of it. This Government has been in power now for more than 27 years and that party has passed more than 80 laws affecting the Black man alone. Is this not discrimination? Is job reservation not discrimination? Is the wage gap not discrimination? I see that even in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, when a man is buried, the funeral allowance in respect of a White man is twice what it is in respect of a Black man. So there is also discrimination when we bury people. But the hon. the Prime Minister says he knows nothing about it. Take one example, that of home ownership. Over the years it has been accepted that home ownership is the crux of the democratic principle, a stabilizing factor. The hon. the Minister of Community Development quoted Pravda the other day as saying that home ownership is the greatest single enemy of communism. If that is the case, why has this Government deliberately tried to prevent it for 25 years? Do they not want to fight communism? The hon. the Prime Minister wants examples of discrimination. What about our Industrial Conciliation Act, the Government’s best law, a law which they even want to export abroad? In terms of that Act a Black worker is not an employee. If he is not an employee what is he? He does not have the right to join a registered trade union. Is this not discrimination? On what basis is it decided that he may not do so while a White may do so merely on the grounds of the colour of his skin? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we in the House have known the hon. member for Hillbrow for many years now, and we know that he has flights of fancy and makes many predictions. If nothing comes of them, he becomes frustrated and sensitive and then he wants to start fighting as he has started fighting now. If he does occasionally say something positive, as in respect of the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel he said that he welcomed the contact, he spoils it directly afterwards. In this case he did so by adding that he did not know whether any advantage would accrue from the contact. He then went on to stretch the meaning of the word “pact” as far as it suited his interpretation of the word, because one cannot only speak about these things in a positive way. One would then as it were be benefiting the Prime Minister of South Africa and one cannot say anything in favour of the South African Government! The fact that he was taken to task for adopting a standpoint against contact with Israel, is not strange. Everyone knows him to be anti-everything and so people presume that he is also against contact with Israel. The hon. member went further and followed a theme which hon. members of both the UP and the PRP have followed throughout the debate. Blame and reproach are hurled at this side. It is said that everything that is going wrong in South Africa is due to the NP’s policy. Everything that goes wrong with the relationships between people, individuals or nations, the provision that is made for people, for example physical amenities and the treatment and care of people, is blamed on the Government. If everything has to be reduced to one level then the chief problem is the policy of separate development, and, in fact, because it contains two elements, namely, the element of colour and the element of discrimination. Now I would like to tell both parties on the other side of the House that they must not reproach us and accuse us while they themselves have a viper in their bosom. As far as colour is concerned it was this side of the House that was the first to move away from colour within the framework of its policy by recognizing nations where colour is merely incidental. For years the people of those parties drew a distinction upon a racial foundation where colour came to the fore every time.

Let us analyse this further. When they speak of White leadership for which they stand, does this have nothing to do with colour? Does the instrument they want to use within their federal set-up, namely, the White Parliament which has to act in a regulatory manner and be the instrument for all further development, not also deal with colour? They often deal with colour and in accordance with their policy it will eventually amount to White supremacy. There is also White leadership in the NP, but not White leadership as an enslaving supremacy. There will in fact be White leadership as a sovereign last say over its own affairs. Together with this it wants to govern in such a way that it will also give Black and Brown leadership the opportunity to come to the fore. They should not make accusations so readily, and also not in respect of discrimination. When one looks at a speech which the hon. member for Griqualand East made last year about the segregation of residential areas and influx control over Black people, does one not see discrimination in that? Discrimination is built into their whole system. But we are continually accused of spoiling everything by means of colour and discrimination. In respect of their “one nation” idea, I want to quote from a document of 1972—it is therefore still fairly recent—

How can they ever achieve that “one nation” of theirs when they say this sort of thing and at the same time have built-in discrimination everywhere?

I should like to dwell on what the hon. member for Durban Point said. He said that Black people expect respect and humane treatment, etc. There is no Act which has been placed on the Statute Book by the Government which prevents or forbids one acting humanely, civilly and decently towards a fellow-creature. There is too much hiding behind laws as an excuse for not acting civilly or decently towards people. Everyone, whoever he may be and whatever colour he may be, must not hide behind laws in order to act brutally and rudely to people in this way. There may be the idea that there are certain laws which affect the human dignity of people, but I want to tell hon. members on the other side that there is something more dangerous affecting people’s human dignity. One can affect the human dignity of others shamefully by making certain promises in one’s political policy and raising certain hopes which cannot eventually be given effect to through the policy. I make this accusation against the UP as well as the PRP. If they cannot eventually give to the non-White nations those things which they are holding up to them now, and if these people have as it were been made fools of, one finds then that this is an affront to human dignity. I want to tell those hon. gentlemen that they will have to examine their policy because they are building certain things into their policy and talking about them indiscriminately in this House. They are holding up certain things which they will eventually not be able to give when the day of reckoning comes.

Even with the PRP, colour counts. When they speak of their charter of human rights, they make certain distinctions. They say that they want to protect certain groups and they speak of the right of groups, particularly the right of a group “identifiable on the basis of race, colour, religion, language and sex”. They use colour as a sign of segregation and yet they continually accuse the NP as far as colour is concerned. The hon. member for Rondebosch said yesterday that one could remove the PRP from the House but that South Africa’s problems would still remain. That is true. However, I want to tell the hon. member that when they are no longer here my work will become easier. I shall tell them why. In the Cape Peninsula we are struggling with a squatter problem, an immense squatter problem which I do not want to make out to be smaller than it actually is. It is a problem with many aspects and angles for all the people concerned—the employers affected or the people who are in that area illegally. There are certain persons who aggravate the problem for us. These friends are in the ranks of the PRP.

I want to say openly that I gain the impression that they encourage people to bypass existing influx control measures and laws wilfully. If this were advantageous to everyone I would say that it is a good thing. However, that is not the case. It increases the misery which we have to combat in these areas. We must be careful of what we do, and I say this to the hon. friends who sit there. One cannot prompt others to break laws …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is not parliamentary to say that hon. members are encouraging others to break laws.

They must not act in such a way as to give other people the impression that people are being led to break the law. If this should happen, then people will learn to become lawbreakers. Eventually they will also contravene other measures.

It is high time—and I am perhaps going to express it rather coarsely—that members of the PRP put their money where their mouth is. They always have much to say about what should be done. The hon. member for Sea Point said—

We have started a home-ownership scheme for Bantu in Johannesburg and in other residential areas. We hope by this means to solve the housing problem about which hon. members of the PRP complain. I want to ask them now how much canvassing they have already done among the people who have the money— people to whom their own leader referred—to make contributions. Not once this year yet have I heard anything of this nature in this House. There are words, but the purse is kept closed. I may perhaps be expressing it coarsely once again but it is high time that the people who accuse us and who say that there are people who will have to pay, put their money where their mouth is. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.