Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the moment there are 26 firms of attorneys consisting of 38 attorneys (13 White and 25 Black) in the Transkei. Seven are notaries as well. They are, of course, all members of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and the Fidelity Fund for Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers.

The law society concerned is of the opinion that the Transkei attorneys are too few in number to establish and keep up their own law society and fidelity fund after the independence of the Transkei. The law society is prepared to keep those attorneys under its aegis and control and to accept them as members of the Fidelity Fund of the Republic on condition that its supervisory and disciplinary powers are not curtailed. The attorneys of the Transkei have agreed to this.

The Bill at present before this House, Mr. Speaker, provides that the Transkeian attorneys will be able to be members of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and of their Fidelity Fund if this is made possible for them by Transkeian legislation. An agreement between the Governments of the Republic and the Transkei will eventually have to be concluded in this connection. This measure, however, ensures that there will be no problems as far as the Republic is concerned if the Transkei wants to make use of the facilities in question.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is one of many Bills which have to be passed in order to meet the changed circumstances in an independent Transkei. It is being introduced at the special request of attorneys, Black and White, in the Transkei and I want to express the thanks of the Transkei Side Bar to the Cape Law Society for having agreed to meet them in this respect. The measure will enable the Transkei attorneys to remain members of the Cape Law Society, and as the Minister has said, discipline will be exercised by that society. This is in the interests of the profession and the public. Most important, as far as the public is concerned, is the protection given to it by the application of the Fidelity Fund Act to the Transkei.

This is not an innovation as far as the Transkei is concerned because, as part of the Union, the Act did apply to it in the past. All the Bill now does is to continue that position in the independent State. I do not know of a similar privilege given to the legal profession by any other country, but the Transkei of course stands in a different relation to South Africa from any other country. This action by the Law Society is typical of the general spirit to give whatever help we can to make the independent Transkei work satisfactorily, and we express our best wishes to them.

I rise only to say that we on these benches will support all stages of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I move—

This is a new item in the estimates and we are therefore in terms of the Rules of the House permitted to comment on it. I would like to say at the outset that we on this side of the House welcome the expenditure under this item, which covers the increases to the salaries of public servants. In our view this is something that is richly deserved. The Public Servants have borne more than their fair share in the fight to try and cope with inflation. Since the last increase was given to the public servants—which was on July 1, 1974—the cost of living has risen by 26% to date, and by the time the increase which we are now discussing, comes into effect, viz. on July 1, 1976, the increase over the two years will probably be of the order of 28%. Put in other words, the rand of July 1, 1974 will be worth about 79 cents when this increase takes effect. I do not therefore consider the 10% increase which we are now discussing, to be by any means an extravagance. As a matter of fact, in comparison with the formula that was allowed under the collective action programme, which allows trade unions to claim up to 70% of the increase in the cost of living, this is a very lean increase. If the formula of the collective action programme had been applied, the increase would have been not 10%, but 21%.

I consider that the public servants have played their part, and I think that this hon. House—and this side of the House certainly does—will take off their hats to the sacrifice which the public servants have made. We thank them for doing so.

Having said that, and having welcomed this increase, we on this side of the House deprecate the manner in which this increase has been budgeted for. The increase in salaries was announced less than a month after the budget. It is a sizeable amount—R90 million—and it is a sum for which no provision was made in the budget when it was presented on March 31 this year. I cannot believe, I cannot conceive that the Cabinet did not know at the time of the budget that they would have to grant this increase, and that they did not know more or less what the amount of the increase would be for it to be included in the main budget.

Are you talking about the salary increases?

Yes, the salary increases. This sum on its own is large enough to have an impact on the whole structure of the budget. On its own, it increases the deficit which was budgeted for, from R240 million to R330 million. If one takes the other supplementary estimates which are still to be considered, the deficit is increased from R240 million to R385 million. These are big sums, sums which are big enough to make an appreciable difference to the whole financial structure and the financing of the budget. It is also sufficient to make an appreciable difference to the effect which deficit budgeting will have on the rate of inflation.

In my opinion, this way of budgeting for the increase in salaries is a reflection of poor financial management, which is something we on this side of the House are becoming increasingly accustomed to. I would like the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this, to say how he intends this increased expenditure will be financed.

Mr. Chairman, we have had the usual two-pronged response from the Opposition. On the one hand my hon. friend says that he thoroughly approves of this increase in salaries in the Public Service, but having said that, he immediately adds the negative side and criticizes me for bad management for having brought this into the supplementary estimates. The supplementary estimates are, of course, by long practice part of the budgeting system of South Africa. It is deliberately put there, as is done in many other democratic countries, to handle such things before Parliament rises. There is no question of not putting this to Parliament. It is deliberately put before Parliament. At the time the original budget was prepared, wide-ranging and important discussions—not with only one or two people, but with many—about this were still in the early stages and we were not in a position to know what the likely bill or amount would be. We had no clear knowledge of it at that stage. It depended on further negotiations and on Cabinet decisions. The final conclusion reached, is to my mind a very good decision, because, after all, on the one hand we have inflation to bear in mind and on the other hand there is the question of equity and fairness to public servants, who have not had an increase for two years. That is how we reached the conclusion of 10%. I believe it was a very sound decision. As for the effect hereof on the budget, the hon. member ought to know by now that we are making great efforts to economize wherever possible and we shall continue, throughout the year, to make these efforts to economize wherever possible. In that way, wherever we can possibly effect a saving, we shall do so. We are also in the position where the final surplus at the end of March is somewhat more favourable than the preliminary figure at the time when we drew up the budget. That, too, will assist us to meet this amount. I should like to make it perfectly clear that we do not see any great disrupting effects on the budget as a result of this very necessary step. I am confident that we can handle the situation by prudent budgetary procedures.

Votes agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Votes Nos. 6, 15, 18, 30, 34 and 41 of Schedule 1 and S.W. A. Votes Nos. 1, 8 and 26 of Schedule 2.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

Amendments to Revenue Vote No. 6 and S.W.A. Vote No. 1 (Bantu Administration and Development):

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister perhaps give us an explanation for the additional amount of R8 291 000?

Mr. Chairman, this amount is going to the Bantu Governments, so that higher social pensions can be paid, among other things, as was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 18 (Agricultural Economics and Marketing):

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister give us an explanation for the additional amount of R7 270 000 which is required in connection with maize?

Mr. Chairman, the price of maize increased and the subsidy increased to keep the price at R59 a ton. Transport is also paid out of this additional amount. We did not want an increase of more than 16% to the consumer. That is why we are asking for an additional amount of R7,2 million.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 30 (Industries):

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister indicate the necessity for the additional R50 million which is shown in the estimates for the purchase of shares?

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the additional amount of R50 million being voted here, is to enable the State to take up shares in Iscor. Hon. members will remember that I explained before, when I dealt here with the legislation relating to the capital structure of Iscor, that share capital will have to be used to an increasing extent to enable us to rectify Iscor’s liability asset ratio.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments to Revenue Vote No. 41 and S.W.A. Vote No. 26 (Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations):

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister indicate what the extra amount of R6 139 000 is to be used for?

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R6 139 000 that is requested here, is to provide for the increase in social pensions and allowances. This includes the whole series of allowances, as was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech, which will be paid to Coloureds in the Republic. I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to reply in respect of the South West Africa account as well, but it amounts to the same thing. I can split up the amount into the various categories for the hon. member, but I do not think that the hon. member expects that of me. As I have said, this amount is necessary to provide for the increased pensions and allowances.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedules, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to review what we have done during the past session and to evaluate our situation here in South Africa, I hope without self-deception or evasion. I want therefore to suggest that we should take this opportunity to take an honest look at ourselves. As yet it is early to take the full measure of what the tragic events of last week really mean and what their longer-term impact will be in terms of our human relations, our economic stability, our political progress and our international relations. We know these events will be with us for many years, for good or for evil, and that we would be truly mad to ignore them or to pretend they are not what they are. The evil they may do is obvious. I am not going to waste the time of the House by describing the likely consequences of continued conflict. The good they may do depends upon our own willingness to face the facts and, at whatever cost to our political pride and our own destroyed illusions, to find the essential remedies. It is to this task that I wish to address this afternoon.

I think it is common ground in this Parliament that there is unjust discrimination on racial and colour grounds in South Africa at the present time. We may disagree about the causes of it and we may disagree as to the extent of it and we may disagree as to the remedies for it, but we all know that it exists and that much of it has been created and expanded and institutionalized in this very Parliament. We have openly confessed to the international community that we shall do our best to remove it. Because the Government itself has said this, great expectations have been awakened in the minds of our own disadvantaged people and in the minds of all those in the Western World who need us in the decisive world conflict between freedom and authoritarianism. Now, what have we done about that during this session? There have been 134 Bills before Parliament this session, the vast majority designed to impose some further restrictions or regimentation on the South African way of life.

On the positive side—and there has been a positive side—there have been a few measures to close the gap in pay and pensions between people of different races, for the training of Bantu employees in industry, and things of that sort. Imperfect though they were, these measures were positive in their intent and it is right to acknowledge that.

The most important bit of legislation during this session was the Transkei Independence Bill and that did have a positive intent, to give the Xhosa and Sotho people in that homeland autonomy in the conduct of their own affairs, and I have no doubt that the Government will generously disburse taxpayers’ money for that purpose in due course. It also had a negative intent, and that was to deprive more people of their rights in metropolitan South Africa. The future will show whether that was a wise and generous policy. In metropolitan South Africa itself the shibboleths of race and colour continue to permeate our laws and it seems that the inter-Ministerial committee on these matters is no more than a stratagem for delay. On balance, therefore, this session is hardly likely to be remembered as one in which the Government achieved any positive advances in dismantling the vast apparatus of unjust discrimination. On the contrary, as I shall show, it has been characterized by postponement and evasion of the real issues.

I believe this is disastrous, and I believe it is disastrous for security reasons. Many of those who are today endangering the security of the State and public order are no longer motivated by communist ideals. They have seen through them; they do not stand for them. What is motivating them is sectional nationalism, but not sectional nationalism standing alone. There is something else as well and that something else here in South Africa is the burning sense of injustice induced by institutionalized discrimination on the grounds of colour alone. That has been an inseparable part of the term of office of this Government. That discrimination will have to be eliminated if our people are to be unified in their determination to resist aggression and infiltration from outside and subversion from within at the same time. That discrimination is not only handicapping us in the battle between free enterprise and communism, it is not only dividing us internally and undermining the loyalty and patriotism of large sections of the population, it is not only making it impossible for South Africa to be accepted as a full member of the Western community of nations, it is not only hampering our rate of economic development, it is not only making overseas capital harder and more expensive to come by, but worst of all, it has caused a burning sense of injustice which is acting as a motivating force for those causing us the most trouble here in South Africa. We would be foolish to assume that the tragedy of Soweto was not a consequence or that it will be the final consequence of the failure to tackle this problem realistically. It is now being alleged by the Government and its propaganda organs, in advance of the findings of the judicial commission of inquiry, that the entire disaster was engineered by provocateurs to coincide with the hon. the Prime Minister’s visit to Europe. There may be some truth in that theory, although it raises questions about the masterly efficiency of the agitators and the incompetence of State security that stagger the imagination. Whatever the spark that caused the fire, it is perfectly obvious that it fell on material that had been highly inflammable for years. There is no getting away from that.

It is tragic irony of fate that one of the few White victims of the riots was the man who probably understood the tensions in Soweto better than anyone else and who dedicated his life to relieving them. Melville Edelstein was the Chief Welfare Officer of the West Rand Bantu Administration Board. In 1971 he was awarded an M.A. degree by the University of Pretoria for a meticulous scientific survey of the attitudes of Soweto’s matriculants, the young men he identified as the “leaders of tomorrow”. He said that the hostilities revealed by his survey were an “ominous danger signal for South Africa and the Nationalist Government.” What were those grievances? The major grievances, listed in order of importance as determined by the survey, were the following: The first was inadequate political rights, which was listed by 73% of those approached. The second grievance was influx control, and that was listed by 67%. The third was inadequate income, which was listed by 65,5%. The fourth grievance was inadequate educational facilities, which was listed by 65%. Then, in descending order, the following grievances were given, namely, inadequate employment opportunities, inadequate housing, negative White attitudes and restricted rights of movement. But then, perhaps surprisingly, came the most significant answer of all. That answer was that a massive 90% wanted more contact with the Whites and chose multi-racial government above Black government.

Dr. Edelstein was in a key position to give advice and warning. The question is why was his advice ignored and why was he killed in the very violence of which he warned in 1971? This House, and especially the more dogmatic members who think that the homelands policy is the beginning and end of all political wisdom, should think again before even worse disaster befalls South Africa. As long as this Government persists on its course, so long must South Africa stand in dread of new bloody clashes and an escalating chain of violence. Who is there who still believes that the independence of the Transkei, or indeed of other homelands, will halt the growing frustration in our Sowetos, our Mabopanes, our KwaThemas, or indeed in any urban Black community from Sibasa near the Limpopo to Langa here in Cape Town?

I am afraid that the tragic events in Soweto last week told their own story. I would be the last to condone violence as a means of settling any dispute. Violence cannot redress a solitary wrong or remedy a single unfairness. The questions are: Why did the violence occur, and what could have been done to avoid it? The immediate cause, changes in the language of instruction in certain schools, has been well known for some time. In fact, I see that there was a warning by Mr. Cyril Brett, the United Party leader of the Opposition in the Provincial Council in Cape Town, as long ago as in October 1975 as to the dangers of the situation.

How did he know about it?

The hon. member wants to know what he knew about it. He knew enough to warn the Government at the time. He knew enough to warn the Government while hon. gentlemen were sitting here, deaf because they did not want to hear and blind because they did not want to see. There was growing discontent, there were strikes and boycotts, there was the smashing of school windows, there was the damaging of vehicles, there was police action that had to be taken and there were threats to officials of the Department of Bantu Education. The one thing that was missing was that there was no intervention by the hon. the Minister or his Deputy. The harm done to the country cannot be undone. Speedy and properly informed action could do much to restore the situation to normal and to repair the loss of confidence, in respect of future race relations, arising from this affair. There are those who believe that two of the most important things are that there should be local Government status for Soweto and, more particularly, the right to home ownership. But for confidence in the future to be restored, I believe the resignations of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Deputy responsible for Bantu Education seem absolutely essential. I cannot see how they can live down the attitude they adopted in this affair. The claim of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that there has been a misunderstanding of his policy, after all these months of dispute, seems to me to be prima facie evidence of incompetence too gross to tolerate in South Africa.

If this parliamentary session needed a bloody riot to expose the full inadequacy of the Government’s policy for the urban African, we must be grateful that the same service was done with bloodlessly efficient surgery by the Theron Commission in respect of the Coloured people. It was never really expected that the policy of separate development could find an answer for the Coloured people. Even the obsessional dogmatists hardly expected that. But it was expected—and the Coloured people were encouraged to expect—that the Theron Commission would identify the main causes of discontent of this important community and recommend how best they might be resolved. This the commission has now done, in an admirable report completed after three years of dedicated work.

The Coloured people have in the main been content and prepared to contain their impatience in awaiting the results and the Government’s response to the work of the commission. We saw that response last Friday. The Government’s White Paper, described as an interim memorandum, thanks the commission and claims that many of its recommendations “are either in accordance with basic Government policy or acceptable to the Government”. This implies that after three years of investigation the commission was unaware of Government policy and that it was wasting everybody’s time by making recommendations that ‘ ‘have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented”. When one looks at the membership of that commission and sees the distinguished academics who served on it and the leading Coloured leaders who did their duty on that commission, it seems astonishing to me that they could have been unaware of what Government policy was.

The fact of the matter is that the Government rejects the commission’s basic conclusions, which are that the essential policy applied by the Government to the Coloured people in recent decades has proved unacceptable and that it is essential to find a new direction. To this the Government blandly replies that such recommendations “are not conducive to the orderly and evolutionary advancement of the various population groups in the Republic as a whole”, and “that its policy of parallel development, as compared with previous policies, has over the past quarter of a century been very beneficial to the Coloured people themselves and to the Republic as a whole”. It amazes me that someone can speak of a policy beneficial to the Coloured people as a whole when the Theron Commission has made no fewer than 178 recommendations to redress the grievances of these people and the deficiencies of this very policy. In reply to the most fundamental recommendations, the Government agrees that constitutional changes to the Westminster-founded system of government should be investigated—and a constitutional committee of experts is to be appointed to investigate this—but it makes it clear in advance that it will not accept any form of direct representation of the Coloured people in the existing parliamentary, provincial and local institutions.

The interim memorandum advisedly refers to the Westminster-founded system. I think it refers advisedly to the Westminster-founded system because the similarities between the Parliaments of Westminster and Cape Town relate far more to the form and method of conducting affairs than to basic principles. In 1830, when Europe was tom by revolution, and England by riots, the Reform Bill saved England by creating a new order. The principle there was essentially that the people would no longer have laws made and taxes imposed upon them by a privileged class but would, in fact, themselves have the vote, with their own people sent to represent them.

The phrase “Westminster system” is often used incorrectly to indicate a unitary as opposed to a federal structure of government. That is incorrect because the federations of Canada and Australia closely follow practices typical of the Westminster parliamentary system, even incorporating the principle of the direct responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. Even in Britain where Ulster has or had its own Parliament—with a major devolution of power to Scotland and Wales now being contemplated—the Westminster practices are likely to be retained. What is needed here in South Africa, therefore, is not a departure from the Westminster system, as far as parliamentary practices are concerned, but a fuller acceptance of its fundamental democratic principle of direct representation. In a plural society like South Africa this can obviously best be achieved by a federal structure. The Government’s reply is therefore superficial and meaningless, for it states that any real change in the present system, which the Theron Commission has shown to be a total failure as far as the Coloured people are concerned, will be wholly unacceptable to it.

The response of the Coloured people, as expressed this week in two leading articles in the Cape Herald, is equally unequivocal. The editorials state the following—

And further—

And also—

I do not think that anyone who has read the report of the Theron Commission will seriously contend that these words do not represent the feelings of the Coloured people. The commission itself reports that the vast and effective majority of the Coloured people are opposed to the existing dispensation and that there is a considerable measure of bitterness amongst the Coloureds because they feel they have no say or share at the highest levels of decision-making. As a result there is insufficient co-operation to enable the existing representative institutions to be developed further in any meaningful way. Indeed, this is not surprising when it is recalled, as the commission has done, that in the past six years the CRC has passed only three laws after obtaining the consent of the Minister of Coloured Relations in consultation with the Minister of Finance and the four Administrators. Furthermore, it must be recalled that, certainly as far as the budget is concerned, the Minister can perform all the functions of the CRC and its executive. It must be recalled, too, that in the sphere of Coloured interests in which the CRC was meant to be what was called an instrument for self-determination, the phrase “Coloured interests” has never been defined. Finally, in the sphere of common interests, i.e. interests common to both Whites and Coloureds, the Government’s proposals are not acceptable to the leaders of the Coloured people who have the majority in the CRC.

These are the sort of reasons which led the United Party to propose a federal system, in which no one group would be dominated by others; in which group identity would be protected; in which power and responsibility could be shared; in which there would be one loyalty to one State; in which the economy would be retained as an integral whole; in which there would be equality of economic opportunity for everyone; and in which full citizenship would be enjoyed by all citizens. That is why we proposed that sort of system. However, while we stand for a defined federal form of government for South Africa as a whole, we nevertheless want to say here that we shall be willing to give the committee, which has been called for by the commission, every assistance and that we shall support it impartially in any constructive proposals it may make to meet the urgent political needs of the Coloured community, even in the present unitary system. I want to make that quite clear. Nor do we see any conflict between this undertaking and our own federal proposals. As hon. members will know, it may well be that by the time we are able to implement our federal policy, there will be a willingness on the part of White and Coloured to work in a closer political partnership.

We agree, Sir, that the Westminster-founded system has been applied in a way that is no longer suitable for the needs of a modem plural society in South Africa. We agree that the Coloured people, whether politically merged with the Whites or not, should be directly represented at all levels of government and we welcome the appointment of a constitutional committee to investigate how this may be done. However, I remain convinced that the only rational solution, not just for the Coloured community but for South Africa as a whole, is a federal form of constitution.

To sum up, Sir, the recommendations of the Theron Commission are generally acceptable to the official Opposition and they will have our support. But they represent a failure by the Government, as do the riots in Soweto, and in the light of these failures I believe it must be a matter of urgent concern to the Government whether it can still give credibility to the theory that all will fall into place as separate development evolves. The crux of their policy is independence for the homelands. Apart from the fact that independence is no solution for the Coloured people and that the urban Black situation is outstripping, both in pace and pressure, the rate of progress in the homelands, the Status of the Transkei Bill, I believe, has raised real doubts as to whether this latter policy will not itself create more problems than it will solve. The question of citizenship for those Xhosas and Sothos in metropolitan South Africa who have become socially and economically separated or detached from their tribal origins, is fraught with enormous difficulties which seem ripe for the creation of new conflict situations both with the homeland governments and with the Black urban communities. If there is one lesson we had to learn from what happened last week, it is that disaffection and hostility in one urban Bantu community cannot be isolated from the others. We had disturbances occurring in Sibasa, Ga Rankuwa and Witsieshoek. All fell victim to the contagion that spread from Soweto. The urban and the homeland townships may be separately compartmentalized in the files and maps of the Department of Bantu Administration, but it must now be open to serious question whether they are insulated from each other in the minds of the African people. There seems, in other words, to be a real possibility that grievances and disaffection can create a cause far stronger than the ties of separate nationalisms which the Government is trying to encourage. Their disabilities and their resultant grievances may be further aggravated by the problems of exercising national independence in the numerous fragments of unconsolidated homelands scattered throughout South Africa.

The additional complications of government and administration stagger the imagination. Conflicts of law and custom, economic and financial interest, health and moral standards, security and censorship, and of jurisdiction and civil status, will flow back and forth through hundreds of government offices and frontier posts. If these national controls are effective, they will stifle the free flow of people and goods; if they are not, the maintenance of separate laws and standards will become meaningless. The present problems with Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana will be trivial by comparison. South Africa can become an administrative labyrinth as a result of this. Those who suffer most, will be the ones whom economic and political necessity drive back and forth across these multiple frontiers. That is a third area of breakdown in Government policy.

There is also a fourth area and that has to do with our financial administration. South Africa has the resources and economic potential to become, relatively, one of the strongest financial structures in the world. What is the present position? Inflation, once attributed entirely to foreign imports, is running higher than in the United States of America and in most of our European trading partners. The purchasing power of the rand is being rapidly eroded by constant price increases, many of them State controlled or administratively regulated. Despite the fact that we remain the world’s greatest producer of gold, our reserves are chronically inadequate as a shock-absorber against our foreign trade and financial commitments. We cannot risk removing the restrictions on free market transfers and investments, but our exchange controls are nevertheless inadequate to protect us from cyclic leads and lags and sporadic flights of capital. We repeatedly have to resort to devaluation as a desperate expedient, the benefits of which become of shorter and shorter term and the harm of which extends ever further. As a country with, proportionately, a high level of foreign trade, we have at our disposal a monetary unit whose value is at a severe discount.

The hon. the Minister of Finance boasts of foreign confidence in investment here, but if one looks at the weighted average of market trends on the major world stock exchanges, Johannesburg comes very nearly at the bottom of the list. The appropriations in this year’s budget were clearly insufficient to meet the Government’s commitments, including some which the hon. the Minister either failed to foresee or neglected to disclose. He is prevented from creating excessive money by the belated realization that this has been one of the causes of inflation. He has therefore had to fall back on heavier taxation, to the dangerous extent in some cases of getting near the disincentive barrier. What is even worse, is that he has had to go to the unprecedented and authoritarian extreme of demanding the power to levy additional taxes without the prior approval of Parliament. I refer, of course, to the additional savings levy and to the indirect taxes on excise and sales.

This is a power that strikes at the fundamental right of Parliament to demand redress of grievances before it votes money. It is the exercise of this right—the right to have grievances redressed—that has occupied the House, in Committee, for over 100 hours in discussing the Committee Stage of this Bill. Parliament will vote the money if it is reasonably satisfied with the explanations and the undertakings given by the hon. the Minister and his colleagues. Now, he demands the power to levy additional taxes without prior approval by Parliament, and I say it makes a mockery of the system. I know that, in the case of excise duties and sales tax, he has had for some years the power to vary these in compliance with international commitments, in defence of local trade and industry, and in other circumstances of a like nature. However, he has never had the power to do these things without recourse to Parliament, simply in order to supplement his own deficient revenues. The House and the country should take note that he has now taken power to do so “whenever he deems it expedient in the public interest”.

Other speakers in this debate will deal with these issues, but it would not be right for me, in reviewing the major break-downs in Government policy, to leave out of account the weakly dangerous state into which the improvident and incompetent financial policies of this Government have landed us in recent years and this at a time when we face some of the gravest issues in the history of this country all of which depend largely for their resolution on the availability of strong financial resources under an efficient administration. Then, we find the situation which I have just described.

All these gross weaknesses in the policies and practices of the Government would be deplorable enough in normal times. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not living in normal times. We live in times where every minute must be made to count and where every rand we spend, must receive full value. That means that we must get down to fundamentals, that we must decide on priorities, and that we must identify those foundations of our way of life in the defence of which sacrifices can justifiably be asked for. When that question is posed, the answer is that a way of life has developed here—as the result of the leadership, the skill and the know-how of the White man, as a result of the labour and of the co-operation of the Black man—which we call a Western way of life, in order to distinguish it from the African way of life which we found here. In general terms the way of life I have described, differs from the African culture. It differs politically in introducing parliamentary government, albeit with direct representation on a limited basis; it differs economically in introducing the free enterprise system; and it differs socially in emphasizing the importance of the individual in relation to the community.

This way of life is under siege today. It is being attacked on three fronts. First of all, it is under siege in its being attacked by the forces unleashed in the socio-economic revolution in the Western World against the exploitation of privilege and the inequalities of opportunity. It is made much worse today by shortages of energy and raw materials, and by the inability to contain inflation. Secondly, it is being attacked by the communist ideology which is motivating the forces to the north of us. Thirdly, it is being attacked and weakened within the Republic because of our failure to popularize the system amongst all sections of the community at a time when we are, in fact, undergoing a social and industrial revolution.

The Black man in Africa, and in South Africa in particular, is moving from his tribal structure, a system of land usage and group obligations that in some respects resembles a simple form of socialism, into the complexities of a modem industrial society. Therefore, it is not surprising that in many African States, after independence, there has been the acceptance of what I describe as Black socialism. It is a form of government which tends increasingly to develop into an inefficient state-planned economy with dictatorial powers in the hands of a single party. What are we doing here in South Africa to ensure that our own Black people will defend and protect our own more complex private enterprise system? Are they really participating in our system at all? Have they got a stake in it and a real opportunity to enjoy its advantages? Are they allowed the mobility and freedom of choice that is the hallmark of the system? Are they part of the system or mere appendages to it?

The vast majority of Whites in this country are prepared, at the cost of their money and lives, to defend a way of life that they know is immeasurably superior to the compulsory regimentation in communist countries. They are free to go where they please, do what they want, speak as they like, own what they can afford. They are free men in a free society. They want to stay that way.

The Black people have seen the collapse of the Portuguese régimes in Angola and Mozambique. They have watched with relative indifference, in some cases with approval, the emergence of new States with communist economic and military assistance. It is at this point in time that the Government has come with new legislation providing for additional arbitrary powers to deal with internal unrest. The inference is obvious and unavoidable. The inference is that many of our Black people do not believe that a Black socialist system, whatever its dangers and shortcomings, can be any worse than what they now have to accept within our private enterprise system.

I believe in the private enterprise system. I am wholly convinced that it alone can provide the powerful dynamic that will place South Africa with all its people in the front ranks of world economic progress. I am not ashamed to say that I believe that the White man has a right and a duty to extend this system to his Black partners as well. It is precisely because he has been able to install a free enterprise system so successfully in South Africa that he has the obligation to open up all its benefits and opportunities to his fellow citizens. People talk of White leadership. This is the leadership the White man should be giving in South Africa. This is the leadership that is his responsibility. Unfortunately this Government is making no attempt to give it. In the battle for the mind and the loyalty of the Black man this Government is losing out hopelessly. It is losing out hopelessly because it has failed to realize that if it wants to keep this way of life for the White man alone, we will undoubtedly lose it. We can only maintain it by assisting others to accept it and to participate in it themselves and by making them want to defend it in their own interest. That means that we are in politics basically because we desire a better life for everyone in South Africa, regardless of race, colour of creed. We desire that within a free enterprise economy.

Once one has said that, one has said a lot of things. To have a better life within the free enterprise economy one has to make sure that the security of the State is inviolate and one has to maintain law and order. A further vital requirement is respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, and that means a proper respect for civil rights and it means the removal of discrimination on the grounds of colour. There is another aspect which is important.

The White sections of the community have to learn to live together and work together, and there must be built bridges for co-operation and understanding between Black, Brown and White in South Africa. There will also be necessary urgent new programmes on a massive scale for retraining and re-education and increasing the productivity of every existing worker we have in South Africa and every existing potential worker in South Africa, to underpin the economic development necessary for South Africa and this way of life and to support realistic steps against inflation. Lastly, to state it briefly, there must be further steps for co-operation on matters of mutual interest between the States of Southern Africa with a view to joint development of natural resources and the sharing of technical and professional know-how. All these things are part and parcel of United Party policy. We could meet the challenge of our times. We could make the advantages of free enterprise and the system real and worthwhile defending against the insidious claims of communism and the allies it has hoodwinked into supporting it elsewhere in Africa. I do not believe that this Government can. I do not believe the PRP can. They will abdicate to a Black majority.

All these things must suddenly be placed in a new context. They must be lifted out of the limited perspectives which were valid until the end of last year and seen in the broader frame today of an East-West power-political conflict. Whatever the immediate disadvantages are that may have occurred as a result of Angola, the dominating new fact is that Southern Africa has become involved in a world power struggle. That is essentially why the United States has taken South Africa off the back-burner, as they express it, and why Mr. Kissinger and the hon. the Prime Minister have found it necessary to talk. The confrontation between the communists and the free world is no longer concerned so much with ideologies, but is today concerned with power and influence. The communists, after nearly 30 years of unsuccessfully trying to get their ideologies accepted in Black Africa, have started moving in physically. And the United States, as the main protagonist of the free world, can no longer stand aside, nor can it do without the co-operation of South Africa. Whatever influence it may have with the Black States of Africa, it is a hard fact that these are generally weak in the economic sense, and in many cases, they are governed by policies of Black socialism that make them neither efficient nor active participants in the world power struggle. South Africa, on the other hand, is industrially well-developed, possesses a wealth of strategic materials and is unequivocally committed to resist both the communist ideology and its modem manifestations of influence and expansionism here in Africa.

Unfortunately, however, South Africa has a deficiency as far as the free world is concerned. Because of that deficiency it is seen in some quarters as a political liability. As such it is thought likely to estrange more African States than it will attract, as well as many of the uncommitted nations, from the cause of the West, and that it may thus be of negative value in a struggle of this kind. What is the immediate cause of this view? The immediate cause of this view is, first of all, the internal race policies of South Africa itself. Secondly, it is the delay in fulfilling our international commitments in respect of South West Africa. Thirdly, there is the danger that the Rhodesian situation may lead us into an indeterminate racial conflict with Black Africa.

The advent of the United States has created a great new dimension to the situation in Southern Africa. If South Africa can overcome the political liabilities which disqualify it, it can at once gain the willing co-operation of the West in repulsing the grave dangers that are threatening our situation here.

I believe that the problem of South West Africa can be resolved without undue delay. The Government has already committed itself to the self-determination of that territory. There is every reason, and more inducements can be added, to persuade an independent South West Africa to become a willing and co-operative economic partner. So far as the presently intractable problem of Rhodesia is concerned, I do not want to say more than a word or two at this sensitive stage, but there is a distinct possibility that the powerful mediation of the United States may be helpful in this matter, and that adequate international guarantees could be arranged to ensure that the terms of any settlement arrived at could be implemented peacefully and without eventual prejudice to the safety, property and just interests of any minority group.

Sir, I believe even more firmly that we can resolve our own domestic problems. Let the Government continue by all means with the decentralization of power and economic opportunity to the homelands. Let it even, if it must, seek to prove that the advantages of separate fragmentary independence can be made to outweigh the obvious difficulties and disadvantages. But let it no longer commit the folly of persuading itself that these long-term aims can supersede the immediate urgency of giving full citizenship and equal opportunity to our Black and Brown citizens here in South Africa. It is these things, Sir, which are the focus of international censure and it is these things which are the flash-points in our midst. Let us not delude ourselves with words any more. If the tragic events in the Black townships last week and the report of the Theron Commission cannot bring us to reality, and an urgent sense of reality in South Africa, then nothing ever will.

But we must also think ahead. I believe that I have outlined the compulsive attraction of a federal approach in South Africa. I do not expect the Government to change and agree overnight, but I believe they are beginning to see the wisdom of the sort of thing we are proposing. I believe that in the meantime we must do those things that are best suited to defuse the situation, and one of those, I believe, is the appointment of a multi-racial Council of State, on which all leaders of all communities may serve and where we may examine our problems not bilaterally but multi-laterally, so that at least we can talk together about the things that affect our safety and our welfare. Let such a Council of State be advisory or consultative only to begin with, until confidence is gained, but in heaven’s name let us make an immediate start and do something towards getting these people together to talk and to solve the problems with which we are faced.

I believe there are great pressures upon us at present, but I believe that there are also great new opportunities before us. We shall, however, not be able to avail ourselves of those opportunities unless we win the battle for the mind of the Black man in South Africa. We believe that there is a key to our future, and that key is to win the battle for the mind of the Black man in South Africa. Unfortunately that is a key which this Government does not know how to use.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset there is one thing I can say to the credit of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has just completed his speech, and that is that he opened the debate in a calm manner and without much passion, although it is not typical of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be able to become very passionate. If everyone were to want to discuss matters of urgent and essential importance with each other in this way we could get far.

You are usually the first to break the rule.

There are very few hon. members opposite who could teach me a lesson in this regard, and the hon. member who has just made an interjection is most definitely not one of them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition touched on a number of subjects in his speech, some of which I should very much like to deal with, but in view of the limited time at my disposal, as opposed to the time at his disposal, I shall have to forego many of them and confine myself to some of the subjects only.

To begin with, I should like to say something about the theme he touched on towards the end of his speech when he referred to the federation of the UP as a political panacea, the political salvation for everyone. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to realize, sooner or later, as he has realized in the past in regard to his Senate plan and other matters, that he has gone to the voters of South Africa with his federation plan in various elections in the past few years. Did the Leader of the Opposition not grasp what happened to him and his party on those occasions?

Education takes a little time.

I want to assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in this case it will not take just a little time, but a great deal of time. He needs a lot of time because at every general election, and not only at every general election but even at by-elections, his prestige has dwindled and his support has dropped, with the result that for that very reason, already ten or eleven members of the PRP having lived off from his party, are sitting here. Such members are sitting on our side of the House as well. In fact, some of his erstwhile members, people who called themselves the architects of his federation, are in the Cabinet with us. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still thinks he needs a little time.

How long do the Black people need to accept your policy?

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is getting excited. Now he is no longer as calm as he was a moment ago.

I want to deal with two or three of the points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech, and will then come back to a matter he touched on in broad outline, namely the riots at Soweto. On various occasions the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had a great deal to say about unfair discrimination on grounds of colour. However, I find it somewhat surprising that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now professing not to know what the Government’s approach is to the matters as formulated by him. On innumerable occasions the Government has not only said, but has also proved by its deeds that it wishes to do away gradually with discrimination on the basis of colour in South Africa wherever it occurs.

Where are the deeds?

We have taken steps of major importance. Some of them have already been forgotten. One only has to consider the liquor measures in the early ’sixties; remember when, a few years ago, the old master and servant system was abolished. Those were important things, and there are other matters, too, to which attention has been given. I can assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is the considered policy of the Government that every Minister, in consultation with the officials of his department, should gradually eliminate from our society all measures which are totally unnecessary and which could be interpreted as discrimination even though they are not intended as such, particularly measures based solely on colour. These things are being done, but they cannot be done all at once, in the space of a moment. There are all kinds of measures and rulings which can be abolished in terms of the principles we have laid down for this matter, and many have in fact gradually disappeared. I have already quoted some examples of this. It must be very clearly understood that it is inherent in the ethnic policy of the NP as we are implementing it in respect of the non-White in South Africa that there is no intention whatsoever to offend people of other colours, to hurt them. On the other hand, inherent in our policy is a striving to afford recognition to the other nations, recognition to their specific identities as units, to their individual humanity and human dignity. This is why—and history has proved this in the course of more than 300 years—that in the more than 300 years of our country’s existence, the policy of the NP has been the only one up to now to allow each of the Bantu peoples to come into its own as a national unit, to recognize them as such and to provide them with the means of expressing themselves through their self-elected leaders and to have assisted them to adapt their own traditional Bantu democracy to modem democratic procedures and forms of government. It is only our Government that has helped them to realize themselves to the fullest extent as we have now already achieved in the case of the Transkei, which is shortly to achieve the highest form of political development. It is necessary for the various Bantu peoples to express their own pride because they cannot achieve this as non-Whites, simply as individuals, in integration with the White peoples. Every people and every member of that people has an inherent striving to preserve himself, to survive as a member of a people and to multiply himself as a people through its masses. This the NP has managed to do through our Government and no other party, as no other government has ever been able to do in the past.

As Soweto proved.

That hon. member really should not be so superficial. He speaks like a child, and I want to tell him that it attests to the most extreme irresponsibility to make such superficial statements about a matter of this nature.

In referring to the riots which took place at Soweto, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to Dr. Edelstein who lost his life in the events there. I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is most regrettable and that it is very sad and shocking that this man, who devoted his whole life to the Bantu there with so much idealism, should have ended his life in that way. The same applies to Mr. Esterhuizen who served there for many years as a health inspector, although on an entirely different level to Dr. Edelstein. This is very sad, but our history in South Africa is full of such sacrifices which the Whites have had to make. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need only rely on his own historical knowledge to find many other such examples. I am not going to help him think of examples; he can do it himself. There are many other Whites, too, who through the work they have done, have in the past forfeited their lives in this way for the sake of our convictions and views. We can only be grateful to our gracious Lord that it was not one of us who have had to forfeit our lives up to the present. However, we do not know what is going to happen in the future.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and some of the other hon. members over there, too—tried to poke fun at the words I uttered in the joint statement together with the Bantu leaders last Saturday, when we said that it appeared that there had to a large extent been misunderstanding and confusion at Soweto which had given rise to these things. There was; but now the hon. member is maintaining that this is my fault and also the fault of the hon. the Deputy Minister who has only been attached to this department for a few months. Misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge and confusion about the language medium undoubtedly did prevail among the masses, and among the agitators. This was proved by the people themselves. In a moment I am going to quote examples to point this out to hon. members. One example was that they referred to compulsion, whereas there was no compulsion. It is true that there was a degree of choice with adjustments. I want to repeat, in conjunction with what I have just told another hon. member, that we must not adopt an opportunistic and superficial approach to matters of this nature. If ever there was a case where we were required not to exploit an issue for political gain or opportunism, then it is the issue we are discussing here today and which has given rise to certain events over the past week.

We need balance and perspective in this regard; that is what we must have. There are various aspects of this which I now want to discuss in more detail. We need perspective and balance to consider the reasons for those riots having started. In the nature of the matter we cannot go into them in detail in this debate, because not all the evidence is readily available and also, of course, because there is in fact a judicial commission which is investigating the matter. However, I think that those hon. members who made statements as to what they thought were the reasons for the riots on the very first day, are now, after more than a week, convinced that there are far more reasons—far more hidden reasons, which have therefore not yet come to the fore—than the reasons which they originally advanced. After eight to ten days have passed, surely hon. members can see that this was not just a spontaneous development. There was a great deal of premeditation and preparation which cannot, however, be outlined in detail. It did not concern the language issue only. Perhaps there is going to be a loud chorus of protest at what I am now going to say. Pathetically enough, not only Black people were involved in the premeditation and preparation, but certain White people as well. I wish I could know who they all were. I admit that I do not know who was involved. However, we have our suspicions. But there definitely were such people.

I think hon. members all remember the example the hon. Minister of Justice quoted here a few days ago. Nelson Mandela’s wife herself said after the riots that it was not merely an issue of language. The language was therefore only a minor aspect. Other things were also involved here. I do not quote her as a source. I just mention this. I am going to mention yet other examples.

We have warned you over the years, but you did not want to listen.

That hon. member must restrain himself a little. It is said that the language issue is the only, the principal cause.

Who said that?

I should not be amazed if that hon. member had said it himself at the start of the riots.

You said it.

No, I said that there was confusion in this regard. In my statement—which I have before me here—I said that that was not the only issue. I said that expressly.

It was the last straw that broke the camel’s back.

May I now put a few questions to hon. members who are still going to take part in this debate? The debate is long enough for those hon. members to state their case in full. I shall listen. However, I cannot mention all the points because there are too many of them. Consequently I am only going to indicate a few categories. Can the cause of all the following aspects be traced back directly to the language issue: For example, the burning down and looting of liquor stores? This was done by small Black children. Does this have anything to do with the use of Afrikaans as a language medium in the schools? Now there is silence opposite. [Interjections.] A large number of buses was set on fire—I think I saw this morning that there were about 70 of them—and these were buses which conveyed the people to their places of employment.

You do not have the foggiest idea of what is going on.

Does this have anything to do with the language issue? Then, too there was the arson at hotels and beer halls. I saw this myself on my visit there. I ask: What has this to do with the medium of instruction in the schools?

Who said that?

Now the hon. member is asking, like a pious fallen archangel: “Who said that?”

Everyone is saying it.

I say that the impression is being created that the language medium was the decisive reason, but for my part I want to point out that it is not merely a matter of the medium of instruction. There are other, concealed reasons. In fact, Mrs. Mandela and other people referred to the other reasons. I cannot furnish proof in this connection. How can the whole matter be traced back to the issue of the medium of instruction? [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members not to make so many interjections.

Sir, I must at least point out that I am pleased to be able to note that there are so many hon. members who want to associate themselves with my standpoint that there were other causes as well. They may as well help us to seek them.

It has been said that the language medium was the issue, but I should like to point out the following. School hostels were set on fire in the Bophuthatswana homeland—not to mention the universities. This happened at Hebron, which is on the other side of Ga-Rankuwa. There the language medium and the education was fully in accordance with the requirements of the homeland Government. Why then was that hostel set on fire? What has that to do with the language medium in Soweto. Why did the students set their own student centre on fire at Turfloop? What has this to do with the language medium in Soweto? [Interjections.]

Order! Rather than making so many interjections now, the next speaker should rather reply to that argument by the hon. the Minister.

I should like to hear that answer, Sir. Why was a farmer on the farm Rietgat to the North-west of Pretoria molested by a large number of Blacks who ran there? Why were the throats of his fowls and certain animals cut? Why was there stealing and looting of his farm? What has the cutting off of the heads of a few hundred fowls to do with the language medium? [Interjections.] Now the hon. member for Durban Central is laughing about it. That is the kind of superficial approach to this matter which I have just deprecated.

But you are so stupid!

I say that it is absolutely superficial to laugh about something of this nature.

What have the attacks made by Blacks on the property of Indians in Actonville and other places on the East Rand, to do with the language medium in Soweto? I ask this in all seriousness. In many homelands facilities have been interfered with. In the same breath I want to ask another question concerning a matter to which the hon. the Minister of Police also referred the other day. I want to ask, and hon. members would do well to think about this, how it could have happened that some of the buildings were set on fire so effectively. Brick buildings with corrugated iron roofs were set on fire. Large numbers of such buildings were set on fire all at once, and the flames were so fierce that no-one could bring them under control. Surely this attests to the fact that an expert hand was at work. People who saw these things confirmed that this was so. I further state that these events attested to the fact that people were trained in advance to start such fires. They attest to premeditated preparation as I have just said. Much investigation into causes must be carried out and the matter cannot be settled by simply maintaining that the language medium was responsible for it.

When it comes to the issue of the extent of the riots, I must point out that some people are exaggerating it. We read in the newspapers of damage amounting to R30 million and even more. I am not able to mention a certified amount, but I was able to look at preliminary surveys yesterday. Those surveys are not based on the wishful thinking of some people in offices, but were carried out by insurance assessors. The amount is high, but it is far lower than R30 million. However, I do not want to say what the amount is, because that amount is certainly not the final amount. We—by that I do not only mean we in this House, but also newspaper men and speakers of all kinds, because now there are a large number of experts who discuss these matters—must refrain from inflating these things until they assume totally false proportions. In particular, we as politicians in this House, and the newspapers—do not think that there were no newspapers that were politically motivated in regard to this matter—must take note that political alarmism must not be built up in regard to these matters. Politicians have done this and newspapers have exploited these things to the maximum.

The riots have, alas, been used and abused in this House, too, for purely opportunistic political gain, and this has been done by people who so often say that Bantu Affairs must be divorced from politics. In spite of this they are being used here for political gain. Attacks are being made here on the Prime Minister and certain other Ministers purely for political gain. Such accusations and charges are for the most part based on conjecture. They are based on mistakes, mistakes about the language medium issue, for example, as I have already indicated. I hope to come back to this again later. I just want to refer to two matters. I want to refer in particular to the attitude adopted towards the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I should like to say that I think the way in which this hon. Deputy Minister has been held jointly responsible for these things—as has once again happened today, too—is one of the most scandalous and blatant political campaigns I have ever seen in my life, It is being maintained that the Deputy Minister, all on his own, is chopping and changing the policy as he likes, that he is introducing innovations, etc.

But he made the statement.

That hon. member was at his best when he was sitting and sleeping so soundly a moment ago.

It is being made to look as if the Deputy Minister himself laid down the language requirements, whereas this is something which has come into being over the years since the fifties, by means of adjustments. It is being made to look as if it is this hon. Deputy Minister—I have heard people say so—who decreed that mathematics should be taught in Afrikaans. This is not so. Negotiations on how the subjects can be divided between the two languages, have been conducted with school boards in various parts of the country. Apart from that, there are also the departures which are agreed on. Many departures have been agreed on. Hon. members know this. The other day, in reply to a question in this House the hon. the Deputy Minister said on my behalf that six or seven of the schools which started the procession did not even offer half a subject taught in Afrikaans. They are all purely English-medium schools. Why then is a fuss still being made about this? It is even being maintained for absolutely superficial political purposes by politicians and by certain Press media, that I supposedly intentionally snubbed the hon. the Deputy Minister by not taking him with me to the discussions last Saturday. These were discussions which I arranged in the course of a single night without publicity—and a lack of publicity was necessary. Because he was not here in Cape Town, I was unable to get hold of him. It is now being said that he was in Pretoria. I did not know that he was in Pretoria. Nor is that of importance. I did not take the other hon. Deputy Ministers with me either. Did I therefore snub them, too?

[Inaudible.]

No, if hon. members are so bankrupt, they must not sit here and squeal about it, as that hon. frontbencher is doing.

I want to mention yet another example. This argument is just as superficial. The hon. member for Rosettenville put a question to me which was subsequently also used in a most unseemly fashion in this debate by two or three other members. He asked a question about something that happened on 8 June at the Naledi High School. We replied that the department was unaware that any demonstration had taken place there. However, what are the facts in this connection? On 8 June—and my department and I were already aware of this on the day that I answered the question

Is the burning of a car not an incident?

No. That hon. member must listen carefully now. This is the first opportunity I am getting to explain the situation to him, and I believe that I must be afforded this opportunity. What happened there? A police officer—or police officers—went to that school at about 1 o’clock in the afternoon to fetch one of the Bantu pupils there. This had nothing to do with any matter relating to education. It had as little to do with education as the man in the moon. It concerned other suspected offences about which they wanted to question the pupil concerned. The pupil was summoned by the principal and the police officer asked him to accompany him. Apparently he wanted to take the pupil out of the school grounds. At that point the other pupils emerged from the school building and damaged the police vehicle. This was purely a riot by the pupils of the school and had nothing whatsoever to do with education affairs, the language medium or matters of that nature. It was purely an attempt by pupils to try and prevent one of their companions from being removed by the police. That is why I am quite correct when I say that there was no demonstration. This had nothing to do with any matter relating to education; nothing of the kind. It should be noted that this was not a demonstration which was instigated from outside; it was a riot by pupils of the school who rebelled against the action of a police officer. Now, however, all kinds of sinister accusations are being levelled at me. I openly admit that I know nothing about any unrest there which could have given rise to the so-called objections to the language medium. That matter had as little to do with the language medium as the man in the moon. [Interjections.]

I think that the attitude now being adopted by hon. members opposite is a very poor one. [Interjections.] If those hon. members will allow me, I should like to continue. Many other things need to be seen in perspective, for example the people who were shot and killed. The hon. the Minister of Justice presented indisputable examples here of people who had been shot dead and who had not been shot dead by the police.

Hon. members would do well to look at yesterday’s Star. I regret that I do not have a copy here. Hon. members may themselves go and read what The Star had to say yesterday. According to that newspaper a representative of the Pan-African Congress made a statement at the UNO in which he himself said that during the riots in Soweto, Black people had been shot and killed by other Black people, by Black people who had political grievances against those victims. It is stated in The Star in so many words. I read it myself. Hon. members can go and see for themselves. [Interjections.]

That is one of the things that will be investigated. I hope that we shall get to the root of the evil. In the short time at my disposal I should like to try to impress upon hon. members that in these times and with regard to these matters there is no policy crisis in the Government. It must not be suggested that the Government is undergoing a crisis of policy. What we are faced with here are ruthless liberals who find it convenient to publish abroad misrepresentations of these things in order to further their own motives.

The Government will in the future follow the same path which has brought it so far. All the necessary adjustments will however be made; including adjustments such as those the Government has made with regard to the medium of instruction. In this regard the Government has agreed to the use in high schools of only one language throughout—English or Afrikaans—as long as adequate time is set aside for the study of the other language—the language which is not used as a language medium. Furthermore, teaching bodies are permitted to make use of both official languages as a medium of instruction on a fifty-fifty basis if they so wish. In the division of subjects—when use is made of the 50 : 50 basis—my Government consults with the school boards and with school principals and they decide on this matter together with the department. Furthermore, departures from the medium as laid down are allowed, if the language ability of a teacher is such that he is unable to provide effective instruction in the required language medium—Afrikaans or English, whatever the case may be. That is why I maintain that the schools which did in fact decide on the 50:50 basis were allowed to depart from this basis. The departures were such that at the moment those schools only use English as a medium of instruction. Only one or two of the junior secondary schools offer a single subject through the medium of Afrikaans, and this is only the case up to Std. VIII. This is how the Government has implemented its policy. The Government will continue with the implementation of its policy, not only in education but in all other fields as well. At the same time the Government will make provision in its policy for the necessary growth, the necessary adjustments to new circumstances and the necessary development of things in order to keep abreast of the times. But there are the lessons for us, too, to be learnt from these times and from the events which have occurred in Soweto. We must see to it that each of these peoples is afforded the necessary recognition so that they can develop and flourish in accordance with their own needs and character. We must assist them in this connection. Similarly, we as White people also experience the need to preserve our own identity and ourselves in this part of South Africa which is our homeland and in which the Bantu are only secondarily present. In so far as they are in fact here secondarily, we must recognize their human dignity and provide them with the necessary facilities. I was able to discuss these events yesterday with the local bodies responsible for restoring order, and I can assure hon. members that we shall display the necessary responsibility in regard to these matters. Fortunately there is a large measure of insurance cover for many of the things that have been destroyed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, at this time in the history of our country, with its many difficult and unsolved problems, the speech of the hon. the Minister did not shape up very well in comparison with the statesmanlike speech which was delivered here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Minister started his speech by trying to prove that our belief in a federal system of government had led this party to very little political success. If this hon. Minister will look at the situation objectively he will see to what an extent the electorate of South Africa are beginning to realize that his Government and its policies do not offer the solution which South Africa is looking for. People that understand constitutional matters and who have the concern of South Africa’s future at heart, are looking more seriously to the possibility of a federal form of government in South Africa. We on this side of the House have never ever suggested that the language problem was the only reason for the problems that arose in Soweto. We have said that it is a far bigger problem than that. In the course of my speech, I am going to refer to the Erika Theron Commission’s report and I commend this report to the hon. the Minister, because the solutions of the dilemma in which this Government finds itself, are to be found in that report. Many of the solutions that are offered, are applicable to the problems which have arisen in the hon. the Minister’s field of administration. I trust, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will study this report very closely.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate. I do so with the specific object of discussing the recently tabled report of the Erika Theron Commission. The hon. the Minister must therefore excuse me if I do not follow up the subject which he dealt with in further detail. In due course other speakers from this side will do so. In initiating a discussion in this House about the Erika Theron report, I do not only want to express the views of this side of the House about the report, but also my own feelings in that regard. I have no doubt that this report is probably one of the most important ever tabled in this House, dealing, as it does, with the vexed problem of race relations.

The commission, under chairmanship of Prof. Erika Theron, was busy for three years with an intensive and all-embracing study on all matters of importance to the Coloured people. It covers their position in the cultural life, the social life, the economic life and in the political framework of South Africa. I think it is generally accepted that everybody appreciates the fact that this investigation was done on the highest possible scientific level and that the report can be accepted as an authority in the field which it investigated. In the limited time that is available to me, I cannot deal with all the recommendations or with the report in any detail. I rather want to confine myself to my own general impressions. Other speakers on this side of the House will deal in greater detail with the report itself. However, before I go over to dealing with the findings in the report, I want to raise one or two matters and express my appreciation in respect of certain people who were active on the Erika Theron Commission.

In the first instance, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Health for having originally invited me to serve on the commission. I want to indicate to the hon. the Minister that I appreciate very much the opportunity he gave me to play a role in trying to help solve the problem of race relations in South Africa. In the first instance, I found it a great experience to have the opportunity to work on a commission that was multi-racial. It made me realize how effective a joint venture can be between White and Coloured people working together over a long period of time and working under difficult circumstances in trying to find a solution to some difficult problems. I want to say that the venture proved highly successful.

I want to go further and say that when one comes back to a debate in this House on the problems of the Coloured people and one finds there are no Coloured people with whom to discuss their own problems in such a debate, one feels that one is embarked on a rather idle venture. Furthermore, it gave me the opportunity of seeing how the Coloured people live and work and the condition of their housing throughout South Africa For this reason I believe I am placed in a better position to be of use in trying to work for a better relationship between the Coloured community and the White community in South Africa.

Secondly, I should like to place on record—and I think it is only right that one should do this—my thanks and that of all the commissioners for the dedicated efforts of the secretariat. Prof. Du Toit, Mr. Erasmus, the typists and others often had to put in many hours of overtime, and I should like to say that their efforts were indeed greatly instrumental in getting the report tabled before the end of this session. There were also the many co-opted professional assistants from all walks of life who ably assisted the commission in its findings and its research work. I believe that all these people who co-operated so well, were imbued with devotion because they realized that they were working for a cause which could have far-reaching benefits for South Africa. We had excellent co-operation from the public. Everybody who was called upon to give evidence, did so readily. I believe that again, it was the realization that they were assisting not only the commission, but also the Government and the realization that, when the report was ultimately tabled, it should be as complete as possible, which influenced them thus. The biggest task fell on the shoulders of the various chairmen of the groups that functioned within the commission. They were responsible for writing, drafting and preparing eight of the twenty-two chapters constituting the Theron report. Those chairmen were largely responsible for that work and I think that we as a commission should be most grateful to them for it, and not only we, but also the Government and all the hon. members of the House. To the Press, for the way they have dealt with this report, I think one must be grateful too.

But, finally, I want to come to the most important person of all, Professor Erika Theron, whose name this report now carries. I want to say, by way of a word or two of tribute, that this gracious lady for three years gave her all in the ardent desire to promote better race relations in South Africa. All South Africans, I believe, must be truly grateful to her. We must wish her at the present time a restful holiday overseas. She and her commission have produced a report that must be regarded as the most important blueprint for better race relations yet made available to the South African public.

It is a blueprint for change, and it spells out to the Government what changes they must implement. For years now hon. members opposite have been talking about change. We hear about it, but we never see it implemented. Now the Cabinet has a blueprint which indicates not only what changes there should be and what the priorities should be, but how to implement them. I hope that from this point on we shall see the Government reacting to the recommendations of this commission and doing those things which are essential in the interests of South Africa. I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission are the very least that must be implemented if we want to bring about better co-operation and goodwill between the White and the Coloured groups in South Africa. This report has been published at a time—and we all must acknowledge it—when race relations have taken a severe jolt as the result of events which have taken place recently in our country. I think the Government is extremely fortunate that at this critical time in the history of our country they have been provided with a report which contains such far-reaching recommendations. This report has a message for every one of us, for every political party, and I say with great sincerity that any one of us, any political party in South Africa at this time, that ignores the message is failing South Africa, and I am grateful that my hon. leader was able to say in this House today that we, as a party, by and large accept all the recommendations of this report. As far as we are concerned, we as a party will do everything we can, as an opposition party, to see that the recommendations contained in that report are in fact implemented. The message that it brings is clear. It is a clarion call that the interests of South Africa can best be served if steps are taken to bring the interests of the Coloured people and the White people in South Africa closer together. All the major recommendations in that report are designed to achieve that end. Furthermore, there are many recommendations that state in the clearest possible terms that the Government has to remove as fast as possible all those legislative and statutory measures which discriminate against the Coloured people, and which are based purely on the fact that they are of a different colour. When we say that the Coloureds and the Whites must move closer together, we have the message very clearly written out for us in recommendation 153 on page 107 of the recommendations. I quote—

I believe that is a sensible recommendation, and I want to say a word or two about identity. Much was heard in the debate last night about identity, but not a single recommendation in the report of the Theron Commission in any way threatens the identity of any racial groups in South Africa. Nothing threatens my identity as an English-speaking South African. My hon. friend from Rissik and my hon. friend from Malmesbury were speaking about identity and the preservation of identity. I read nowhere in the report of the Erika Theron Commission that the recommendations they are making in any way threaten the identity of any race group. I believe, in fact, that if we implement the recommendations, we will give greater opportunity to the different groups to build up their own identity. The reason why the Government goes wrong when they talk about the identity of the Coloured people becomes evident if one looks at their own legislation. One of the problems we have and one of the things that causes the greatest hurt is the question of population classification. Other speakers will go deeper into this matter. The Government starts by defining Coloured people in a negative way. There is nothing positive about their attitude towards the Coloured people. They are defined, on the one hand, as belonging to the broad category of “Coloured persons”, and as persons who are not White or Bantu. That is not a very positive approach and we, in this report, have made recommendations as to how there can be a far more positive approach to help the Coloured people to develop their own identity and to see them develop as a powerful group in South Africa.

The changes that we ask for are on a rational basis. We do not ask that everything we have built up over the years should be put asunder, but if the Coloured and the White groups must come together, the place for that to happen is at the top, at the apex of the pyramid. Right through the report there is recommendation after recommendation that on those councils that control the destinies of the White and Coloured people in South Africa, Coloureds and Whites should serve together. This includes welfare organizations, cultural organizations, sporting organizations and trade unions. These things should happen so that in the best interests of the country, Coloureds and Whites can decide together how the affairs of South Africa should be managed. I believe that this will all be in the best interests of our country.

The lessons that one can learn from serving on a commission such as this is that the Coloured people as a group have one ardent desire, and that is to play their full part in South Africa as fully-fledged citizens of this country. I am afraid that if one examines the legislation on the statute book they are, in many respects, precluded from achieving this objective. There are many people that think that the Coloured people have antagonism, have hates and have worries about their future in South Africa, but my experience was that the Coloured people are amongst the greatest patriots that we have in this country. They are ready to serve South Africa and they are ready to fight for South Africa, but we have got to be very careful that we do not ask them to defend White South Africa. This is the difference. They must be placed in a position where they can serve together with all South African citizens the best interests of our whole country. If that is done and this Government takes the steps that are recommended in the Theron Commission’s report, they will find that the Coloureds are going to be the greatest allies that South Africa could ever have.

The hon. the Minister has taken steps, I believe as a result of requests from Coloured people, to introduce cadets in schools, which reflects the desire of the Coloured people to participate fully. If the hon. the Minister in the course of time is able to achieve some of the objectives set out in the Theron Commission’s report, so that the Coloured people can fully participate in all the activities of South Africa, he need not be afraid that all the Coloured people will join other political parties. If he will only remove discrimination and do the things he knows he must do, he may be surprised at how many Coloureds may well join the National Party.

It has a good policy.

The NP does not have a policy at the present time. They have got to get rid of discrimination. They are scared to remove discrimination. I do not know what they are worrying about or what they are waiting for. The Government must move and do these things which are urgently necessary. The Coloured people do not want the White man’s wealth. All that they are asking for—and this is borne out in the Theron Commission’s report—is to participate in all activities. They want the opportunity to become educated to their fullest potential. Having acquired that education and having acquired a skill, they want to be able to use that skill to their best advantage in earning a living and serving South Africa. However, there are so many laws. An hon. member asked about job reservation. Of course job reservation must go. That is the kind of thing the hon. the Minister can do forthwith if he wants to assist the Coloured people to fulfil their full destiny in South Africa.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I wish to refer to discriminatory measures that are operating against the Coloured people. I come firstly to the Group Areas Act. Nowhere in the Theron Commission’s report do we say that the Group Areas Act must be taken off the statute book. However, if the hon. the Minister will take careful note of the recommendations of the Theron Commission, he will find that throughout there is a very strong voice against the way that Act is implemented against the Coloured people. On all our tours through South Africa in every community that we visited the first point that we raised was the hardships caused to the Coloured community by the way in which the Group Areas Act is being implemented. One of the first things that the Government will have to do is to have a very close look at how that situation can be alleviated. That is why one of the majority recommendations in the Theron Commission’s report was that District Six, Woodstock and Salt River should be dealt with as a Coloured area. We on this side of the House have certain reservations about that. We believe that Woodstock and Salt River should be an open area. The main point, however, is that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has an opportunity here and that is why we made this recommendation, viz. to try and remedy the hurt that has been caused all these years in the minds of the Coloured people, by doing something about District Six, Woodstock and Salt River.

That is for the Minister of Planning to decide.

You tell him.

This is a decision which has to be taken jointly by the Cabinet and I hope that those hon. members will take note. It is for this very reason that we made this recommendation. One of the biggest impacts that was made on the commissioners—and the hon. member for Piketberg will agree with me—was the hurtful effect of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I hope something will be done to solve this problem. Talking about the Group Areas Act, I cannot neglect …

Are you, in principle, opposed to the Act?

I cannot neglect to stress another matter, i.e. that of Somerset West, which the hon. the Minister can deal with. It is hot too late to get the wholehearted co-operation of the Coloured people as far as this aspect is concerned. It is not too late if he is able to take the necessary steps to improve the situation for them and to reveal that there is a change in the Government’s thinking on the question of group areas. Perfect examples are District Six, Somerset West, Woodstock and Salt River. It is my sincere wish and hope that the Government will be able to do something in this regard.

The commission found—and this is quite clear in its final recommendations—that the present dispensation the Government has worked out for the Coloured people can never work, no matter how it is restructured, remodelled or patched up. I want to state unequivocally—and we must accept this—that unless the Coloured people can have a direct say in those decision-making bodies that control the destiny of South Africa, we will never sort this problem out on a satisfactory basis. I believe that the Government can quite readily accept the constitutional recommendation of the commission—I think it is recommendation No. 178. In no way does that pose the Government any problems. It does mean, however, that there can be an investigation by experts into how this impasse in which the present hon. Minister finds himself can, in fact, be resolved.

I do not believe that the minority recommendation put forward by my friend, the hon. member for Piketberg, goes far enough because there the whole question of direct representation is left out. The cardinal point, however, is direct representation. If we want to meet this issue—and I think this is a very reasonable request—I believe that the constitutional committee that is appointed should be appointed in terms of the recommendations made by the majority group. It has been said in many newspapers that the door has been closed by the Government. I am reasonably optimistic, however, that the Government may have left certain doors open. I am impressed by a leading article that appeared in Die Burger on Monday, 21 June, and I quote—

Having read the Government’s White Paper, it is very difficult not to come to the conclusion that the Government does not intend to accept the majority recommendations in the Theron Commission report. I hope and pray, however, that the Government is going to display sufficient wisdom and statesmanship to leave this whole issue wide open. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the Nationalist Party congresses decide what NP policy will be. I do not accept that point of view. Every major policy decision that has been made in respect of South Africa has been taken, while this Government was in power, by the leadership of the NP and referred back to the congresses for confirmation. [Interjections.] The lead is taken by the Prime Minister.

It leads from the front.

The lead is taken by the Cabinet—by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister asked for this report; he wanted the recommendations. He wanted to know what the bottlenecks were, and I believe this commission has given him a very authoritative report. The test of his statesmanship will hinge on whether he acts in a positive way and accepts the major recommendations in the Theron Commission’s report.

All South Africa will be waiting; the Coloured community, in particular, will be waiting because, as my hon. leader said, for three years the whole question of deploying future policy for the Coloured population group has been held in abeyance while the Erika Theron Commission was carrying out its investigations. Now the report has been tabled, however. Their hopes have been raised and I believe that they expect this Government now to come up to scratch and, by adopting those recommendations, to enable them to play their full part in all the activities of South Africa.

My time is coming to an end. In conclusion I therefore want to say that I believe that if the Government stands by the Coloured people and fulfils its obligations in this regard, the Coloured people will stand by South Africa through thick and thin.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central dwelt chiefly on the report of the Commission of Inquiry into matters relating to the Coloured Population Group. I should like to do the same. It was a particular privilege and opportunity for me to have been able to serve on the commission. I should like to express my appreciation towards all those with whom I worked in the commission. For almost three years we met together, travelled together, listened together and consulted. I should like to mention my appreciation in particular for the work which was done on that commission by the six members of the Coloured community. It proved to me yet again that the Coloured community already has leaders who can state their case with skill and represent them on any board or other body.

Apart from all appreciation towards members as well as towards the chairman of the commission, I should like to make use of this opportunity to express certain misgivings. In my opinion the chairman effected a very poor distribution of work for the members of the commission. I find fault with it because it left me with the impression that a preconceived standpoint had been worked out which had to be confirmed in time. Hon. members will note that the report consists of 22 chapters. The final formulation of 14 of the 22 chapters was left to three academics of Stellenbosch. Other equally able academics were sidetracked to do less important and subordinate work. I can testify at first hand that the chairman criticized certain members of the commission to me as being incompetent. So I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who refers to these people as if they are of an outstanding quality and have high academic qualifications and expertise, that although he may think so, the chairman did not.

I am very sorry that it is necessary for me to mention this, but I feel that I must do so because it gave a certain turn to the report which, in my opinion, was unfortunate. In saying this I do not want to disparage the report unconditionally, but in my opinion it definitely detracts from the scientific character and overall value of the report.

What is more: In the course of the proceedings of the commission a particular pattern developed, viz. that the six members who represented the Coloured community, endorsed a particular view, while six or seven Whites held another view and three or four people—three academics from Stellenbosch in particular—actually held the balance of power or became the deciding factor in the commission. I say that it is a great pity that this was the case. But even worse: In the course of the proceedings of the commission it became progressively more evident that the issue was not arguing a matter, but holding a particular view. When it became evident that one disagreed with a particular view, one was ignored in some way or other. In order to support what I am saying, I want to point out that it happened for example that certain information was made available to some members of the commission at a particular time, while as much as 14 days later the other members of the commission did not yet have that information at their disposal for consideration and study. What is more: That evidence was given in the commission and could not be contradicted. Although the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central accept the report of the commission as is, I am not prepared to accept it unconditionally.

Have you read it?

I may be able to quote passages from the report to the hon. member—from whatever section he would like—if he wishes. He should just give me an opportunity and leave me to carry on. I at least know the report better than any member on the opposite side of this House does. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made this remark, I should like to tell him that he should rather apply himself to his own policy, because only this morning he said, “We have a policy, our race federation. If you now produce a new policy as a result of this commission, we are prepared to abandon our old policy once again.” This morning the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not produce testimony of the policy which they have been advocating for years being a well-considered policy. Today, by implication, and in so many words, he said that he was prepared to abandon it.

In connection with the work of the commission I should also like to say the following: I see in the resolutions of this commission a foreshadowing of the type of Parliament which we shall have when White, Coloured and Indian sit here together. A group of people only vote for a particular school of thought and for the interest of the people whom they represent. So this means, as was the case with the resolutions of this commission, that a small minority of Whites together with the bloc of Coloured or whatever non-White representation there may be, decide who will govern the Whites in South Africa. The pattern is as clear as crystal: Three people determine the balance of power in a commission in which one has a composition like this. I do not have any objection to the composition being as it was, because I think that it is fit and proper for the Coloureds to have had representation on the commission, but it just proves to one where it leads to. It leads to a confrontation between Whites and Coloureds, and a few people who may elevate themselves to the position of the people holding the deciding power, decide. Then they are the arbitrators of South Africa’s affairs. Therefore I should like to say at the outset that we must be very careful of any dispensation of this nature.

The Coloured population and the Coloured leaders are more group conscious than we and members on the opposite side of the House may think. They deem themselves to be called upon, and rightly so, to promote and represent the interests of their people; and to obtain whatever they can. This, however, does not foreshadow responsible, balanced, steady and stable government in South Africa. Therefore, I have serious misgivings about the direction which the commission took, and especially that type of recommendation which was aimed at interfering with the central points of the policy of this Government. In my opinion it was not, in the first instance, a term of reference of the commission.

What is more: I am very sorry that, according to the terms of reference of the commission, we did not pay more attention to—as far as this is concerned, the focus of the commission was not right—what has been achieved in the interests of the Coloured population since 1960. One obtains the evidence from the reports, because very thorough studies were made of many aspects of the life and existence of the Coloured population. In the resolutions and judgments of the commission on many of these things, however, much more emphasis was placed on what was wrong or imperfect as yet, while little account was taken of the spectacular progress which had been made in respect of especially Coloured education, Coloured housing, the development of Coloured communities and the provision of ownership rights to the Coloured within his own community—because previously he practically did not have this.

This is stated in the report.

Yes, the hon. member will find it if he looks for it. It is not emphasized and does not emerge properly.

It is stated in chapter 1.

It creates the impression that those things are not of real importance. People’s tears and complaints are brought forward very well, but the total impression is that those things which have actually been done, those things which have been done upon an enormous scale, are not mentioned, are left out. The perspective of the commission’s report is not clear and correct in all respects.

I should like to pay attention to a few specific matters which are dealt with in the report. To begin with I should like to refer to the fact that, whatever our approach may be—whether it is the approach of the Opposition or the approach of the Government—it became apparent to me from all the evidence that this commission definitely made a contribution, and will continue to make a contribution in future, to the furthering of the interests of the Coloured population. We held many conversations with Coloured people throughout the length and breadth of this country. Their representatives had ample opportunity to put their case to the commission. I believe that there was great appreciation for this on their part as well. There is one thing which I want to state very unequivocally here. There is a clear, unambiguous group awareness, a consciousness of a Coloured identity among those people. They know who they are.

Mr. Speaker, just as you and I sometimes meet Whites of whom we are not quite sure whether they are Whites or Coloureds, or what have you, so there are also many Coloureds of whom it is clear who and what they are; only in their case it happens to a much greater extent. However, there is a clear Coloured identity. Besides that there is a growing awareness of a Coloured identity. I would be able to put it in another way. I could perhaps put it more favourably. There is a growing self-respect, a positive image of themselves among the Coloured population. It is emerging very clearly as the Coloureds take their place in the South African dispensation. I do not have any fault to find with this. All I ask is that we should take note of the fact and take it into account in our approach to and in our planning for the future.

It struck us that Coloureds everywhere, very generally use the expression “our people”. This is characteristic of the Coloured population. Another characteristic of the Coloureds is their loyalty to their own people. I just want to point out that this is also very clear from the report. We find it on page 441, under the heading: “Identifikasie met Kleurlinge as groep.” There we find an indication of the fact that Coloureds even agree with the statement: “I am proud of being called a ‘Coloured’ ” Of the Coloureds who were consulted, 72,2% supported this statement. They admit that they are proud to be a Coloured. Who in all the world has fault to find with this? There is no reason why the Coloured should be ashamed of his identity.

The fact of the matter is that there is indeed an indication that there is a group awareness, a recognition and acceptance of their own identity amongst the Coloureds. It cannot be argued away.

Furthermore I want to refer to the report on page 442, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to make a note of it. There we have the result of the study by Dr. Unterhalter. She is a member of the staff of the University of the Witwatersrand, a lecturer who made a thorough study of the attitudes of the Coloured population group. She gives interesting indications of how the Coloureds feel. She puts it very clearly, as follows—

I attach a great deal of value to the inquiries of this lady and I believe that one should take cognizance of them.

In my opinion we should not only take cognizance of this fact in our approach in future, but should also take it into account at all times. If we want to bring about a dispensation of peaceful co-existence in South Africa—and, in a certain sense, the coexistence of the various population groups—within the borders of the same fatherland, we must never lose sight of these things. Furthermore I want to point out some of the particular requirements and circumstances of the Coloured population group.

I have said this before and I want to say it again today, i.e. that the Coloured population is characterized by their tremendously high growth rate. It is a total impression which has been indelibly left upon me, that in every Coloured community the children pour as it were out of every little house. There are many Coloured children and every possible school is full. In a town like Upington, where there is a Coloured population of approximately 20 000, there are six primary schools of between 1 000 and 1 200 pupils. There is also a high school which has 2 100 pupils. This is an indication that we are here dealing with a community which is extremely dynamic if we take note of its growth rate. They inevitably, therefore, impose a tremendous burden upon the bodies which have to provide the various services. During the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, we saw that when one is dealing with the education aspect alone, it places extremely heavy demands on the Government of the day and the leaders of the Coloured community. This is one of the reasons why the Government can hardly keep up with the provision of all the necessary services. We must always bear this in mind and not only treat it sympathetically, but also try and make provision for that need as far as possible.

A further very noticeable deficiency in the Coloured community which I want to mention, is their backlog in respect of land tenure. In spite of what hon. members on that side of the House may say in connection with what happened in the past, the fact of the matter is that it is the National Party Government that has made a serious attempt since 1948 to grant land tenure to the Coloured population group.

Only not in Cape Town, not so?

This was only possible as a result of the establishment of group areas in South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point says that this is the case except in Cape Town. However, there are many more Coloureds who own property in Cape Town today than there were prior to 1948. At that time they lived here in District Six and in Woodstock and it was other people who for the most part owned the hovels in which they lived. One could almost say that other people exploited them to the utmost and so shamefully that there was no future for them. I admit that many people have been moved, but the group areas policy of the Government makes provision for the fact that the right to own property is reserved for the particular population group within a group area. This has been to the advantage of the Coloured population group, because it is the first time in the history of South Africa that any Government has taken into account the fact that the Coloureds also have the right to own a part of South Africa. Therefore I cannot give any credit to hon. members on that side of the House and to that part of the history which they helped to make. We shall also have to pay more attention to this matter in future.

This Government, in carrying out the decisions and recommendations of the Theron Commission as well, will have to give greater content to the proprietary rights and ownership of the Coloured population. Yesterday the hon. member for Namaqualand referred to a possible subdivision of the Coloured reservations which are at their disposal. This matter ought to be considered and the commission is very sympathetic towards it. Besides a general recommendation by the majority of the commission, there is a minority that recommends that—whatever the decision may be—we should at least extend the Coloured’s right of ownership to larger areas, at least to those bordering on existing Coloured areas, whether rural or urban areas or even farms where there already is a Coloured community at this stage.

The idea of the minority group is that it would be more orderly, that by means of providing educational and other facilities, there will be order, so that certain people will not subsequently have to be told to move again. The National Party Government and even the minority members of the commission are in favour of us giving greater ownership to the Coloured population group in South Africa, for we are convinced that they have deserved part of South Africa. We must therefore not allow them to remain powerless because nobody wants to make provision for them for in the so-called free economy it is unfortunately the case that no businessman or developer can sell plots to the Coloured population group for R2 000 if he can get R4 000 or R5 000 or R6 000 from the more well-to-do White group. Therefore—except for a benefactor here and there and what the State has done by means of certain reserves—practically nothing has been done over the centuries. Over the years the Coloured has been considered to be an employee, a tenant farmer and a dependant. We now tell the Government that this time is past and that the Coloureds should not only receive their rightful share of South Africa, but should actually own it and should be assisted and inspired and guided in order to develop it.

I now come to the next point. I should like to say a few words about the constitutional development of the Coloured population group. In the report there is a specific recommendation, a majority recommendation. I want to say today that I did not vote for that recommendation, and for very good reasons. The commission did not have terms of reference to prescribe another policy for the Government. By means of a majority standpoint in the report, the commission presents a previously adopted formulation of “bevredigende vorme van regstreekse Kleurlingverteenwoordiging en -seggenskap op die verskillend owerheidsvlakke en in besluitnemingsliggame”. It is immediately clear that the commission is trying to prescribe a cardinal principle of policy to the Government. Should the Government accept it, it would have to say tomorrow that what has been done over the years, has now been dropped, and that Parliament is being radically reformed. Then one would not know what one should do in future.

We formulated a minority standpoint to which I attached my name and which indicates that various standpoints emerge in the course of time. This is found on page 513. Various standpoints emerged. Some suggest a homeland for the Coloured population group, others spoke of complete integration and a third group suggested a few other possibilities. We formulated the following standpoint—

This is what is lacking in the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. In dealing with and considering the evidence which came before us, it is clear—and I admit this candidly—that the majority of the Coloureds want something similar. They say: We want representation in your Parliament. I am prepared to concede this. However, we also have Whites in South Africa. We sit here in Parliament exclusively as the representatives of the White population group. Sine 1948 this White population group has repeatedly expressed the opinion—because there has not been a single election since 1948 at which the matter of ethnic relations was not at issue—that we did not want to give up our political sovereignty, our power to govern ourselves. We do not want to and will not give it up. Since the policy of the official Opposition has always been vague and uncertain, they have been rejected to an increasing extent over the past two and a half decades. I am sorry to have to remind them of it once again. However, they have been rejected precisely as a result of the vagueness and uncertainty of their policy.

This does not mean to say that the Coloured does not have a right to his own political rights. However, our members must take note of the fact—even the hon. member for Sea Point—that the White population of South Africa has repeatedly said that it is prepared to give sovereignty, full independence, to the Bantu peoples. With respect to the Coloureds the White population is at least clear about one thing—it is prepared to give the Coloured population self-government.

Where, where?

This is not the only question which has to be answered. Where he is living. Therefore we have made provision for group and rural areas. Therefore we shall continue to develop these things.

This has been the decision of the White population over the years and therefore I, if I have to account for this to myself and formulate a policy for the Coloureds not only in their own interest, but also in the interest of South Africa—as we should like to see in this report and as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also put it—then I as a representative of a specific White electoral division must also take their standpoint into account, and this is our dilemma. Our dilemma is to reconcile in one communal Parliament two population groups with divergent interests and completely different levels of development. We did not say what this should be. The minority report leaves this open. We merely expressed the desire that the Government should, in view of certain ties which exist between the Coloured population and the Whites—the intertwined destinies of the White and the Coloured populations within the same communal fatherland; the historical, cultural and religious ties; the development of a broad South African nationalism and patriotism, etc.—take these ties into consideration and appoint experts. I told the commission that, with all due respect to them, we were amateurs as far as prescribing or working out a policy for the Government was concerned. Therefore, since the commission unanimously recommend that there should be a radical departure from the Westminster concept or form of government, we should naturally leave the matter to experts now so that they, in the light of the evidence before the commission and of its recommendations, may create a new form of State, a new pattern of government. I am convinced that this is possible, no matter how impossible it may seem to the Opposition. However, over the years many things have been established since I have been here which seemed impossible to them. They always say that they believe, but they are rather lacking in faith. If I think now of their opposition to the Republic and to so many other things, then I am amazed at the provenance of their fear and trembling which they displayed at the standpoints which they adopted.

Sir, I am optimistic as far as the future development of the Coloured population is concerned, because I am convinced that the Government, which appointed this commission, is prepared to take a new look at the whole situation, that the Government accepts the principle that the Coloureds have the right to govern themselves and that we in South Africa must develop a form of government, a form of life which will not only protect the future and identity of the Whites, but will also guarantee it, and that we will give the Coloured population the opportunity of governing themselves, the opportunity of having a greater share in the government of South Africa at their own level in future. I may add that, if the hon. the members listened and read what the hon. the Prime Minister said on more than one occasion, we have the indication of specific spheres of interest and in respect of the communal sphere there are terms such as “dialogue”, “participation”, “consultation”, by means of which we can meet one another in South Africa. Indeed, there is no problem which cannot be solved by means of dialogue and continuous consultation, as the hon. the Prime Minister and the various Ministers are doing.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg, I just want to make a few remarks about the merit of the report. It has now become part of the political maelstrom and I think that one must give credit where credit is due. I find it a far-reaching analysis, and I think it is going to remain an important reference work in the future for anybody who wants to do research on the Coloured population in South Africa. This testifies to the professionalism and thoroughness of the chairman, Prof. Erika Theron. A few mistakes slipped in the binding process. For example pages 58 to 91 are missing in my copy, and I think perhaps in other members’ copies as well, while pages 91 to 122 have been duplicated. Then, too there is a great deal wrong with the price of the report.

I should like to come to the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg. In all honesty I must say that I consider it a regrettable speech. The hon. member for Piketberg assailed the credibility of the chairman of the commission.

I stand by what I said.

The hon. member for Piketberg said that the chairman was responsible for a turnabout in the report. I have his words here. He said that she was responsible for a predetermined standpoint and that she was responsible for an intentional division of work which eventually had to lead to a particular standpoint. Prof. Theron does not agree with my political thinking, but I definitely cannot allow her professional integrity to be bandied about the floor of this House. I do not believe that she is the type of person who can be guilty of those motives of which the hon. member for Piketberg accuses her. The hon. member for Piketberg said that the chairman exceeded the terms of reference. After all, the terms of reference are clearly stated in the introduction to the report. What was required was a thorough investigation of the social, economic and political spheres. Recommendations had to be made about the bottlenecks and hindrances in these spheres. This is precisely what this report does. I may perhaps disagree with the findings or recommendations, but then, surely I have to present factual material which will contradict the standpoints of the majority of the members of the commission. After all, the composition of the commission is not just a matter of chance. These are people who were appointed by the Government itself.

They were appointed by the Government at a stage when everyone accepted that a deadlock had been reached in respect of Coloured politics. The credibility of these people was beyond question. The Whites who were appointed, can definitely not be considered people who are opposed to the Government’s policy. Indeed, they are highly sympathetic towards it. The Coloureds who served on the commission, definitely cannot be regarded as militants or hotheads. These are people who are also interested in the gradual progress of the Coloured group. I am just trying to sketch the background. The composition of the commission is important. It is important that we have before us a commission which enjoyed the support of the Government in principle in so far as its composition is concerned. This report was not written by Progrefs or instigators or agitators, but by people who originally enjoyed the full support and confidence of the Government. If one looks at the nature of the findings, then the special merit of it—I am not speaking of the recommendations now—is that the position as regards the society of the Coloured in South Africa is examined as a whole. The commission did not seek to find where the Government was acting as a stumbling block, nor did they seek out certain interest groups or certain less important problems, but tried to consider the Coloured in his total perspective. In this sense we are all involved in the findings and it makes us all responsible for the future of the Coloured, all of us and not just the Government. In this respect I think that what we have in the report is a full structural analysis. The findings and analysis can basically be divided into four categories. There are the findings which concern the individual status of the Coloured, his economic situation, his socio-cultural situation and his political situation. I cannot go into all the findings in detail, but I wish to deal with the most important ones within each of the four categories.

If one looks at the chapters which concern the individual status of the Coloured, we see that on the demographic level, by the year 2020 there will be more Coloureds than Whites, unless we can maintain an immigration pattern of 30 000 per annum. This is a population group whose numbers are increasing by leaps and bounds. If one looks at the chapters in connection with the statutory position of the Coloured, we find that things like the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and the Race Classification Act are responsible for a great deal of suffering and bitterness and frustration among these people. We must accept that this is the case because all the members of the commission spoke to these people and they discovered that it is a source of great personal dissatisfaction among the people, because it affects their dignity. If one looks at the economic position of the Coloured, then the most important theme which occurs throughout, the most important and most noticeable characteristic to be found throughout the report is the extreme poverty of these people as a collective group in our society. To be sure, they have experienced economic mobility during the seventies. It is indicated that the average personal income of the Coloured rose from 10,1% to 16,6% for the years 1960 to 1970. In addition it is said that in real terms the socio-economically privileged group were actually the only ones who benefited. If we read further, we see that the average income of the total Coloured population is one-fifth of that of the Whites. What is more: 30% of the total Coloured population lives below the adjusted standard of living. In the urban areas this is more than 50%. In other words, more than 1 million of these people live below the general economic standard of living. The issue here is not the recommendations; it is the findings.

Something which also strikes one in connection with the economic position of the Coloureds, is his poor negotiating ability in the labour world, that he has no machinery for negotiation which can assist him effectively to experience economic mobility in the labour world. In addition there is his serious lack of technical skill and technical dexterity. An interesting and important aspect of the report is the difference between the Department of Labour’s information in respect of registered Coloured unemployment and the findings of the commission itself. In a speech yesterday I referred to the fact that one can see that almost 30% of the Coloureds, speaking as a whole, constitute unutilized labour potential and are not being channelled into the labour market in an effective way. Indeed, there is a total absence of a labour market for these people. It is ironical because here we are on the one hand with an over-supply of labour and on the other hand, according to the report, there is a shortage of labour in certain industries. What does this mean? It means that the institutional channels by which this Coloured labour should find employment opportunities do not exist. After all, these are important findings reached in this connection.

If we look at the chapters which deal with the socio-cultural position, we see that this affects various aspects. The most dramatic in this connection, however, concerns housing and community development. The main issue—and this is not what I say, but what the report says—concerns the destructive effect which the group areas have on the community development of these people. This is as plain as a pikestaff, and we need not argue about it. Special mention is made of the fact that border business owned by Whites right next to the group areas cancel out entirely any possible advantages which group areas development might have. There is no chance for Coloureds to develop their own businesses in their group areas. Why not? Because Whites—Afrikaans, English, Jewish; it makes no difference—set up their businesses next to those border areas and make it impossible …

That is untrue.

But this is in the report. [Interjections.] The best businesses in Stellenbosch border on Ida’s Valley. Hon. members may go and see for themselves. They are there. Hon. members may as well go and look—they will see it is the truth.

Then, too, there is the total lack and the ability of the Coloureds to acquire community facilities. The section on community facilities must be read together with chapter 19, which deals with local governmental bodies at the disposal of the Coloureds. Yesterday, when I spoke to the hon. the Minister, I referred to the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of local management bodies which the Coloured must use in order to obtain his own community facilities and improve his community.

Then we come to the political situation. Chapters 16 to 20 deal with this and contain a clinical description of the various governmental institutions at the disposal of the Coloureds and how he can use them to improve his position or achieve a better basis for negotiation in the political structure of South Africa. The findings of the commission in respect of all levels of government are consistently that the institutions are inadequate, that they are ineffective. These are only findings; no recommendations have yet been made. If one summarizes the findings, it becomes apparent that many of them are not new. Indeed, we have suspected this for a long time. We had a feeling that this was so. In many cases the findings confirm what we knew in any event. When the Opposition—whether the UP or the PRP—raised these findings in the past and said: “Look, these are the problems,” members of the Government on the other side shouted: “What is your alternative?” But I am stating the alternatives now. Not the alternatives of this side of the House, but the alternatives of the commission itself. This brings me to the recommendations of the minority report.

The first point I want to raise here, links up directly with what the hon. member for Piketberg said. The minority report simply reflects the standpoint of the Government once again. This is what it amounts to. Of course, now the question immediately arises: Why, then, was this commission necessary? Why did we have to wait three years for a minority report which adopts precisely the same standpoint as that adopted three years ago when the commission was appointed? [Interjections.] There is no new evidence which that hon. member provided, and this also applies to the hon. member for False Bay. They just want the Coloured to have his own identity. It is as simple as that. They can therefore be accused of having adopted a standpoint in advance. The facts which are incisively stated in this report surely cannot lead to two such absolutely contradictory standpoints. How is it possible? How is it possible that the same facts—which are set out in 22 chapters in the report—can lead to two such diametrically opposed standpoints? To me the answer is that the standpoint of the minority report is simply a rendition of the well-known Government standpoint, with its typical points of departure.

This brings me to the majority report. There are indeed new standpoints and new points of departure in the majority report.

What are they?

I shall come to them in a moment. These new points of departure attest to a thorough analysis and are linked to the factual material which forms the basis of those points of departure. Two recommendations in the majority report are at the heart of all the other recommendations, and I refer to recommendation 153(a) and (b), read in conjunction with recommendation 178. It has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that recommendation 153(a) and (b) simply says that Coloureds cannot be viewed as a separate cultural entity. Their cultural development must be viewed within the framework of the English-or Afrikaans-speaking Whites. Recommendation 178 says that a way must be found to bring the Coloureds into the political structure of South Africa in all spheres of government. [Interjections.] This of course is in total conflict with the Government’s idea and after all, it is logical that the commission should have decided on its findings in connection with group areas, the Immorality Act, race classification, education, etc. After all, it follows logically. Of course, there is a certain coherence which crystallizes out in this regard. This coherence can be attributed to the findings and the terms of reference of the commission. They have not simply been dreamed up, like the recommendations of the minority report. Those recommendations cannot be motivated by new information which became available as a result of the commission’s inquiry.

For me there are two themes that occur throughout the report—this is my own interpretation: Firstly, the theme that if there are economic forces in South Africa which are centripetal while at the same time there is a political policy which is centrifugal, bottlenecks and conflicts are going to arise. What am I trying to say here? One cannot maintain an economic system which has a centralizing effect upon the social processes of South Africa. One cannot have a system which demands that people should move towards the central economic growth points of society if at the same time one tries to maintain a political policy which requires the people to decentralize. If one does this, bottlenecks in the spheres of housing, education, community life, labour, etc., will be inevitable. This theme which underlies everything, and it does not only apply to the Coloureds. It applies to all population groups in South Africa. In my opinion this is ultimately the source of the political conflict and problems with which we are faced.

The second theme which occurs throughout the report is a very simple but a direct one. I think it applies to the Afrikaner in particular. A group cannot uplift itself economically in this society if it does not have a share in effective political power. This is the other theme which occurs through out the report. One need only read chapter 19. Reference is made here, not to dramatical national forms of government, but to the local form of government. There, the bottlenecks which the Coloureds experience at the municipal level, are set out for us in a clinical manner. There it is clearly indicated why he does not have the ability to negotiate there. This theme occurs throughout all forms of government. It does not help to come up with old hackneyed and threadbare expressions and say that he must just do this, he must accept the position as it is and acknowledge the goodwill of the Whites. The question is how it is going to work in practice, and this is what the report tells us: What we have at the moment does not work and as a result new ways and means will have to be found. In the search for those new ways and means, one thing cannot be ignored, namely that political participation means precisely what it says: A group of people are in a position to use their political power to improve the social and economic circumstances. If this does not happen, we are engaged in interesting, symbolic political games, but we are doing nothing to improve the position of the Coloured.

This brings me to the White Paper, or rather the interim memorandum of the Government. Let me say at once that I do not believe that the memorandum excludes all options. It states, for instance, that it is accepted that the existing political dispensation is not effective. This leaves a door open and I want to concede that. One can now try, not only to get one’s foot in the door, but one’s whole body in order to force the door wider open. The important fact is nevertheless that there is an open door. It is also being stated elsewhere that certain recommendations are accepted in principle. If one looks at the memorandum one cannot but come to the conclusion that in dismissing certain suggestions made in the majority report, basically the memorandum amounts to an acceptance of the minority report. I must honestly say that to me this is regrettable. I find it regrettable, not only for us as the people in Parliament, but for the Coloured population themselves in particular. If there was ever one group of people who saw the commission as a last desperate attempt which could lead to possible change, it was the Coloureds. The commission created that expectation, whatever we might say. It is in these terms that the commission has been written about in the past 18 months and I think it is now the task of the Government, if it rejects the majority report, to indicate in concrete terms what progress can be made in all other spheres apart from the political sphere. We can just leave the political sphere at that and perhaps another commission can be appointed for that, but the Government must now indicate what progress there can be in the other spheres. It must be stated in concrete terms what progress there can be in the group areas, agricultural, labour, and entrepreneurial levels, to mention only a few. As far as these levels are concerned, another commission need not be appointed.

Having said that, I want to point out that I also have criticism to level at the report. I, and we in these benches, accept most of the recommendations. We support them and we think that they make a positive contribution to a debate on the future—economically, socially and politically—of the Coloured, but there are certain points of criticism. I want to concentrate on two or three points of criticism in particular.

I now come to the first of those points. The commission recommends that the Western Cape should again be seen as a priority labour area for the Coloured. To a certain degree I find this to be in conflict with much of the economic analysis of the report, because precisely the same economic forces which affect the Coloureds, affect the Bantu, too, at this specific level. In a speech yesterday I referred to this when I spoke to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. There are forces in the economy which are centripetal and they affect all the population groups that provide low-income labour in our labour market. To this extent I cannot see how this recommendation will solve the problem in any way.

The second point of criticism cannot be ascribed to the commissioners themselves, because it results largely from the nature of the terms of reference of the commission. There is a danger that we may be forced in the direction of buffer politics—if I may call it that—buffer politics in the sense that the Whites must first get the Coloureds on their side and then look at the Bantu problem. This danger must be avoided at all costs because it can only cause an emotional build-up in our own society. I therefore think that we should not consider the report in isolation as referring solely to the Coloureds. We must be aware of the fact that many of the problems touched upon by the report, and many of the solutions suggested, would be equally applicable to the urban Bantu for example. Here I am referring to the social, economic and labour levels in particular. Therefore I say that what we really need is a similar commission of inquiry into the position of urban Black a man in South Africa, a commission with more or less the same terms of reference as this commission. Once again the Government can appoint whom it wants, but I believe that the bottleneck which such a commission of inquiry will identify, will not differ very much in principle from many of the bottlenecks identified in respect of the Coloureds, nor will it differ very much in respect of many of these recommendations.

Having said all this, I come back to the Government’s attitude in this House over the past week. Let us take a brief look at what the newspapers say, the Afrikaans-language newspapers. Here is one report—

They speak of White selfishness. They do not speak about Afrikaners, but of the Whites. We are all included—

The report of the commission goes further. The frustration of the Coloured is mentioned.

What point do you want to make?

I am coming to the point now. Their “bitterness” is mentioned. The bitterness, frustration and selfishness is mentioned. All of a sudden I am worried. Are these not subversive words? Is it not agitation which is taking place here? Is it not incitement? Can Prof. Erika Theron not perhaps be identified with Brown power? Is she not putting words into these people’s mouths? Is she not perhaps creating expectations among them? Are the commissioners not perhaps the lackeys of Moscow? Should we not perhaps ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to keep an eye on these people because after all, they could become a threat? They are bedevilling Coloured/White relations and we must take care that this commission is not identified with Brown power politicians in South Africa. To me, the most terrible thing about this whole session is that after the events at Soweto and after the Erika Theron report, the attitude of the Government is, quite simply, that it is all the fault of others and that it itself has no part in it. Its attitude is that it is not responsible. It is always the fault of other people. It is the fault of the agitators and inciters. The Government itself is not making a mistake. The speech of the hon. member for Rissik last night was a monument of piety, but it came nowhere near the truth. He is the only one who is honest. He alone has all the solutions. But when the Opposition speaks, when the report of the Government’s own commission speaks, we get nothing but the self-righteousness and stubbornness we have noticed throughout the past week. Let me convey a word of warning in this connection. This self-righteousness and obstinacy are among the most important ingredients in the recipe for conflict in South Africa. All we ask of this Government is that it should say: “We have made a mistake and we are going to rectify it.” But no, it states that it has been on the right road for 25 years now. Just listen to what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said today. They have been on the right road for 25 years now. Therefore they do not have to change. It is the other people who do not understand them. Perhaps these people are too stupid. We get the same attitude here, an attitude which reminds me of the Greek idiom: “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they make blind.” The last thing which we as Whites can afford, is for the Government to be struck blind politically when it reads this report and when it considers the events in Soweto.

Mr. Speaker, when some of our speakers become so enthusiastic about this report and about the recommendations contained in it—sometimes even about individual members who were involved in the recommendations—they forget that it was the NP Government who appointed the commission and who appointed the members of the commission one by one because it considered them suitable to make this inquiry and draw up the report under discussion. The scope of the terms of reference to the commission is a reflection of the confidence which the NP Government had in its own ability to lead all the people of this country. Therefore, the commission was not only instructed to determine what degree of progress was discernible amongst the Coloureds over the past 15 years, but the commission was also told to determine—apart from the progress in various spheres; which was one of the main terms of reference—what bottlenecks exist, and also to identify the impeding factors. The Government was very well aware that bottlenecks did exist. Therefore the commission was requested to make certain recommendations. However, the Government never gave any cause for doubt about whether it would seriously consider the recommendations, when these were eventually made. But at no stage did the Government promise to accept all the recommendations. I should still like to hear of a case where there was unanimity amongst all the people concerned, in respect of such a voluminous report.

At our present time, and with the many problems with which we have to live—problems which are recognized problems in South Africa—in our multi-nationalism, in our multi-racialism, in the kaleidoscopic image which we are creating here, it is only the NP who can generate enough confidence among the ruling Whites to have appointed such a commission as this, while there was a risk attached to it. At the present time, considering the many problems which exist in South Africa, it was the NP alone which could generate sufficient confidence amongst the governing White people to be able to appoint a commission of this type. The risk is that the Government is expected to give a final answer to matters, many of which have been elevated from mere customs to principles over the years, matters which could cost so much money and create so many problems that it would hardly be possible to put them into operation within the short period of time which the political opponents of this Government, as well as those people whose problems are being investigated, concede it.

However, the Government can take this risk because the people of South Africa trust the NP. The people are confident that the Government will not sell them out for the sake of an ideology. The Government will not sell its people out for the sake of ideologies, philosophies and principles which will lead to the downfall of our civilization. With access to this report, the Government now has the opportunity to justify the confidence which its voters have always shown in it. The Government now has this opportunity.

Allow me to make a few remarks about what the hon. member for Piketberg—possibly the hon. member for Rondebosch as well—had to say about this report. I concede that I am not in a position to level expert criticism at the report. Unfortunately I have not made a full study of it. I have only read a few chapters from it, and only those which, in my opinion, are important at this stage. This debate was requested; according to my opinion entirely too soon and with undue haste. Indeed I do not believe that it is fair simply to try to analyse or dissect a piece of work on which people spent three years, without further ado and quite haphazardly. It is simply not possible to make an expert analysis of a report, which contains the experience and work of three years, within the space of four or five days. As regards the hon. member for Piketberg’s version of what happened within the commission, I just want to say that I am not acquainted with what happened in the commission nor do I want to sit in judgment on it. Nevertheless it proves to me—from what he said and from what has been indicated by means of figures in respect of the Coloured’s feeling of identity, on page 441 of the report—that the Government acted in the correct way. We must bear in mind that certain considerations are not necessarily of prime importance to the Coloured leaders, but are indeed the most important considerations for some White political parties that have always—I am sorry to have to say this—sought to the Coloureds to bedevil South African politics so that they could then take advantage of the confusion. I have no doubt that we are dealing here with a slowly increasing Coloured identity.

I am greatly indebted to the chairwoman for presenting this report in an orthodox manner to a certain extent by identifying the people, their point of view and what they voted for. I do not hold this against them, because I respect everyone’s opinion. The people, as well as their arguments, have been identified so that we are able to weigh up their arguments against one another and to shape them. Do hon. members now expect the Government to accept minority decisions in all cases merely because they are minority decisions and sometimes not even the decision of the majority of the commission?

I do not want to go into the details of this commission, because I do not think that I am ready to do so at this stage. However, I have already noted certain aspects. The hon. member for Piketberg also mentioned how important it was and what a pity it is that it was not clear from the report itself that one of the main terms of reference was to determine the progress that had been made. Nowhere did this emerge prominently. I cannot hold this against the commission, because appreciation is expressed many times and it is not merely a “complete rejection of the Government’s policy” as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on Monday evening in Sea Point—according to a certain newspaper report—in imitation of certain newspapers. Quite often in this bulky report a few sentences record the appreciation which the commission has for the progress that has been made.

But surely you have just said that they did not do so.

It is unobtrusive, because it appears in two or three sentences. If the hon. member for Piketberg wants to criticize this, I also want to say that it is a pity that it does not emerge more prominently. It has been rendered in such a way that one cannot notice it very easily. For example, I am referring to the appreciation for the progressive introduction of compulsory schooling and to the appreciation for a training centre for mechanics in Bellville. We also see appreciation when the commission remarks for example that they are aware of the large-scale attempts during the past few years to eliminate the housing backlog. We find this on page 498 of the report. Why did the report not make an analysis of where these 20% of people who cannot be distinguished from the Western group, came from? They were not there at the time of the Wilcox inquiry in 1936. Where did they come from? Out of the blue? Where did the 40% who comprise the middle class come from? At that time two-thirds of the people were very poor. They were very much poorer than they are today. On page 500 the commission makes the following remark—

There are several other remarks of this nature. I do not want to bore the House with them, because when I mention these things, some hon. members find it boring. The commission did not completely reject the Government’s policy and what it did. But it did express its appreciation on many occasions. It is just a pity, as the hon. member for Piketberg remarked, that it has been done in such a way that it may very easily be used against the Government because in a manner of speaking it has, been hidden away. On page 459 mention is made of the fact that there was even progress in the constitutional sphere. This is something to consider. There was progress, but it was not elaborated upon.

I do not want to introduce a discordant note into the debate, but I do want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not to continue in the present vein. Since 1948 the UP has been struggling with a crisis of existence. One must probably expect it to do very strange things at times in this struggle. Over the years we have come to know the UP as a party which is extremely opportunistic. Recently, especially after the Angola episode and the disconsolate exhibition on the part of the PRP concerning their definition of what loyalty this country means, I had really begun to think that another type of reaction had been generated on the part of the UP, a reaction which I appreciated. I thought that the South Africanism of the UP was growing and that its love for this country was becoming greater. However, now I have to learn from The Cape Times of 22 June that, after we had the bulky report of the commission—at that time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had probably had only two or three days to look at it—he asked on 21 June 1976: How long is the Government still going to reject the Erika Therons? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this is a short-sighted remark because it is a remark which is used in the editorials of newspapers who are not favourably inclined towards the UP. In this way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he had once again just rushed in precipitately with an excess of anxiety and haste. I must inevitably conclude from this that his purpose is to confuse. The Government stated its standpoint concisely in the White Paper. In this connection Monday morning’s Die Burger contained some sound advice. I am pleased that my hon. friend referred to it. Read the White Paper word for word.

I did too.

Yes, I know. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw the words, but he did not understand them.

I know precisely what is meant.

I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has very good spectacles, and I do not doubt that he saw the words. As a result of the remark of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he saw and understood everything, I want to refer to the circular which was sent to a certain group of people. At the top of the circular the following was written: “If you are a genius, read it twice.” We have so many people who are geniuses and who read a thing quickly, but do not see the essence of it. Let us not be geniuses who know the Erika Theron report in three days and then make a judgment upon it.

One need only read the White Paper. [Interjections.]

South Africa is experiencing enough of a polarization in this time. During the riots we saw that there were thousands of Blacks on our side. There are people who want to bring about a polarization between those who stand for law and order and those who stand for chaos. Political leaders have the great responsibility today of showing great insight when we make statements about such a matter as this, one for which we have been waiting for three years. I thought that it would take 18 months, but I did not hold it against the people for doing thorough work, because they did indeed do thorough work, as is apparent from the bulky report. But we must bear in mind that we do not have enough wisdom: we sometimes feel we do not have it. I definitely do not have it. I then look up I Kings 3, verse 9, and I see how Solomon asked for wisdom. He received it, and we must also ask now and again because, every now and again things appear before us which we cannot solve because they are too difficult for us. We also need wisdom in order to know what moves we should sometimes take in politics.

Sir, I do not want to start a fight with the Press. I have nothing to do with them in this sense, but the Press has, over the past few days, created the impression that this Government rejected the majority of the recommendations of the Theron Commission. This is the impression they created. Why should we have taken the trouble to draw up this thorough White Paper on certain points which have, politically, already been thrashed out thoroughly and in respect of which a mandate has been obtained from the White voters during elections every year over the past 28 years? Why should we have repealed those two Acts and ended direct representation? We have justified it politically and constitutionally and it is being accepted. Do hon. members expect us to commit a breach of trust at this stage as far as this is concerned, especially if we ourselves are not confident that it is the correct thing to do? It is the right of the commission to recommend it.

After all, the sports policy has been changed.

Yes, the best that the hon. member can do is to play golf if he is interested in sport. I am not concerned with sport now. The Cape Times reported what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said, and then we had the point of view in The Star later on that most of the recommendations in the Theron Report had already been rejected by this Government. Sir, is it correct, is it responsible and is it the correct way in which we should approach matters in South Africa? As I put it in the beginning, we see the assessment of our respondents on page 450 of the report. The respondents are the urban population and the group of leaders. They place what is most important for the Coloureds at this stage in order of priority. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a long time ago that they accept the most important, the overwhelming majority. On the part of the Government I can almost say the same, but I recently said that in respect of matters which have been thrashed out politically, it was the duty of this Government to take its standpoint immediately. But here the respondents say that this is their conclusion, this is their priority list of requirements. Housing, land, public services and facilities, the improvement of their financial position and the combating of crime. Only then are political matters mentioned. We shall have to bend or break our economy in order to rectify these matters. The Government’s pronunciation does not amount to a rejection of it, except for the fact that the point of view of the six Coloured members cannot be implemented at this stage. We have expressed a definite opinion on this repeatedly. What they are requesting is not in line with the future policy of the UP either, because the people are asking to be granted immediate direct representation in this Parliament, as well as in the provincial councils and the local authorities. This is not the official policy of the UP either. The UP is prepared to accept the policy, but then hon. members of that party have to change the official policy of their party once again. Even amongst the leaders this aspect is not of primary importance. It is of tertiary importance amongst those leaders of whom more than 50% identify themselves with the Coloureds as a group, while hon. members of that party are attacking primary importance to this aspect. The Government is making it very clear that many recommendations in this report are acceptable and many recommendations are indeed in the process of being implemented.

I can say that as far as appointments to statutory councils, the salary question and many other things are concerned, the Government is proceeding along its course to the extent to which the economy allows it to do and is complying with its obligations in a systematic and purposeful way as far as the elimination of discrimination is concerned. Anyone who has read the White Paper with understanding and attention, would not only have seen the word “unacceptable”. The report probably also contains matters which will be unacceptable to the other side of the House as well. However, the reconcilability of what the Government accepted in the White Paper and what is stated in the report of the commission must be borne in mind and this is that the form of government founded upon the Western type is no longer suitable for South Africa and that a committee of experts is being appointed to give a final decision on this question. In other words, the Government is prepared to change. This is the essence of the majority as well as the minority report, except that there were six members of the majority, the Coloured members, who said that it meant to them that representation on all these councils should be granted immediately. They did not say so, but this is what they meant. However, I do not hold this against them, because it is in accordance with their duty, to see to the interests of their people, and it represents the point of view of the majority of Coloureds who have the franchise today and of whom as hon. members know and as it has been determined, 60% are under the leadership of the leadership group. In other words, there is a large number of Coloureds who can be very easily influenced by political demagogics. Hon. members must bear in mind that it is also important in democracy for an orderly government to have an informed electorate and that they should understand orderly government.

I will not say anything further in respect of the laws, but in connection with the commission I just want to say that the commission consists of people whom I know personally and since I was present at the birth of the baby and appointed the members, I had permission from my hon. friend, the Minister of Coloured Affairs, to speak on this matter in order to gain perspective. As far as the commission is concerned, I have appreciation for what they did, for the work which they did and as far as each one of them is concerned personally, each one of them, I do not have any doubt about their bona fides. We may differ about a few of their recommendations and agree with the majority of them, but I do not doubt, I have no reason to doubt, their bona fides, that they did as their conscience and knowledge dictated to them. The work of this commission is something which teaches South Africa, White and Coloured, something extremely valuable in this relationship situation and possibly for other peoples too. It sets us a tremendous task, but it also presents us with a tremendous challenge. Considered from the practical point of view of the politician and the economist, what one can do is dictated by other factors, not only by politics, but also by factors such as inflation and the funds which we have at our disposal. I myself regret that we cannot make an immediate start with many of these things.

In conclusion I just want to say that we must please not abuse this very great task which has been undertaken for the sake of prejudices, for the sake of preconceived ideas, for the sake of party-political advantages and for the sake of fixed customs which are not principles, to such an extent that it will blunt our comprehension to such an extent that we will not be able to see the horizon. I address this plea to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say immediately to the hon. the Minister of Health that I welcome his contribution to this debate, which to me was somewhat of a rescue operation after the unfortunate speech of the hon. member for Piketberg. The hon. the Minister has correctly stated that it was in his hands to select the members of this commission. Obviously he selected those persons whose integrity he accepted; whose impartiality and objectivity he valued and he then recommended the appointment of those individuals as the members of the commission. They were duly appointed by the State President. It is most unfortunate that the hon. member for Piketberg should now find it necessary at this stage, for party-political reasons and nothing else, to suggest …

How do you know?

I will tell you why if you will listen … to suggest that the chairman of this commission was not very competent in the way in which she handled her responsibility, that the procedures left much to be desired and that really this commission’s report should not be taken in any serious way. It is unfortunate that that should have happened because the commission’s report has now been made public and it has caused a great deal of concern as to whether we as a Parliament are going in the right direction. There has been debate and there has been comment by academics and others on the implications of this report. There have been discussions among the non-White people of South Africa and there have been certain new thoughts, new directions and debate even in the Press which has supported this Government over a long period of time.

It would be unfortunate—and I agree with the hon. the Minister of Health—if we viewed these recommendations in the light of what party political advantage one party or the other in this House could obtain from the report which has been tabled. We are in the unique and responsible position that we are a White Parliament, consisting of White people, having to decide on matters affecting many people, a large section of our population who have no direct voice in this Parliament.

In these times when South Africa is in the limelight on the world stage, I believe we are fortunate that there have been two highly significant and positive contributions made to the political debate within the last week or two. I believe they are contributions which place a heavy responsibility on us sitting in this House. The first is the Erika Theron Commission’s report. I can only say that when I read this report I regarded it as invaluable because of the moderation of its approach to the problems which it was investigating in the South African political context. There are no signs of extremism, of demands, of extreme calls for this and that in this report which has been tabled. There is an acceptance, in this report, of a need for orderly change and a new dispensation which must be found for the Coloured people in South Africa. In almost all of the recommendations there is an acceptance of the attitude that Rome cannot be built in a day. If we look at the recommendations relating to the Group Areas Act, we do not find any appeals to scrap the Act in toto. Adaptations are suggested, however, to remove hurtful and unnecessary provisions in that particular law. This is an issue that has been debated in this House time and again, and I think that all of us in this House can reach a consensus for the hurtful provisions in this legislation to be removed.

Let us look at the issue of amenities. There is no wild claim that all amenities should be thrown open tomorrow to all races, at all places and at all times. There is the request for gradual readjustment with greater regard for the desires of local communities in connection with how amenities should be arranged for people of all races who reside in the particular communities. This issue of access to amenities is an issue I raised with the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I hope that this recommendation in connection with amenities, which appears on page 8 of the recommendations, will receive the urgent attention of the Cabinet, as was promised by the hon. the Minister yesterday.

Then there is the question of sport. What has this report stated? It has echoed the words of the hon. the Minister of Sport. It has made suggestions, to use the hon. the Minister of Sport’s words, “for ‘normalizing’ sport activities between Whites and Coloureds in South Africa”.

There is also an expression of appreciation for what has been done in the provision of housing by the Department of Community Development, appreciation which we have voiced in this House. There are also responsible suggestions for the improvement of the housing facilities, residential areas and home life of Coloured people. There are suggestions on how to meet the needs of the Coloureds. On page 74 of the recommendations, mention is made of the need to provide land and properties so that Coloureds can buy their own land and erect their own homes in the better areas of this country and not be pushed out into distant local authority areas. There is nothing to which we can take exception.

Let us also look at the recommendations on population registration. There are responsible suggestions to remove the hardships which we have discussed here over and over again. There is no suggestion of scrapping the whole issue. There is a suggestion, however, that the rigid classification according to a legal definition should at least be ameliorated by regard being had to the acceptance of the individual by the community to which he professes to belong. The commission recognizes that there is an identifiable community interest amongst the Coloured people in our country.

The socio-economic problems are not pushed under the carpet either. Nobody is blamed for them. They are realistically faced and realistic action is recommended. Above all, in this report there is evidence of clear acceptance by the Coloured people of their responsibility to ensure the welfare of South Africa and to ensure the maintenance of law and order in this country. There is also evidence of the Coloureds’ willingness to accept their share in the defence of this country and their responsibility to contribute to our economic growth and prosperity. In this report, at the same time, there is the unequivocal attitude—which we cannot gainsay—favouring the removal of the hurtful discrimination in the legislation of this country and in administrative procedures which impinge upon the dignity of the individual. Here there is reference to the Mixed Marriages Act, to section 16 of the Immorality Act and to job reservation. It is unfortunate that yesterday the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations should have introduced into the consideration of the report a suggestion, which was opposed by the hon. the Minister of Health this afternoon, that the Opposition was using the report to find some party political advantage. To do that would be a grave dereliction of duty because, as I have said, we have the exclusive political authority at this time to do what is necessary and just in respect of what is drawn to our attention in this particular report. We owe it to the commissioners who sat for these three years and have come with these invaluable suggestions for solving problems of today.

The second significant contribution to political thinking in South Africa, a contribution which came during the recent lawlessness and riots, was the most responsible attitude of the homeland leaders, an attitude which, to those of us who know them, was not unexpected. I refer to their rejection of violence and their affirmation in the belief that dialogue should be used to solve problems to ensure peaceful co-existence.

As we come to the end of this session, I believe that after these two significant contributions towards resolving problems of race relations, the responsibility to reconcile the just needs of Whites and Blacks in South Africa is now firmly in our laps in Parliament. This afternoon when we expressed our views of being able to find peaceful co-existence under a federal system in South Africa, the hon. member for Brits interjected—perhaps he did so in the heat of the moment—that we were living in a fool’s paradise. I can tell the hon. member that we are not living in a fool’s paradise. The federal form of government will come to South Africa in spite of what he or I may say today. It will be the inevitable solution, the political dispensation, in South Africa. I want to say that if we ignore the attitude evidenced by the Blacks and the findings of this commission, we are putting in jeopardy the status of the elected leaders of the Black people of South Africa and the status of the hand-picked members of this commission which was asked to report to Parliament. I believe that our future in South Africa depends, firstly, on our economic strength, secondly, on our military strength and, thirdly, on the maintenance of a political climate which will ensure the stability necessary if we want economic and military strength.

Economically we have achieved much in this country. This country has progressed far. It is a star in Africa. We have an abundance of raw material; we have skills and initiative which are all essentials, but we also have the people of South Africa of all races and colours who have made their contribution to what has been achieved in this country. What has been achieved, cannot be ascribed to the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians or the Bantu, but must be ascribed to all the communities that have been here in South Africa during our economic growth. I believe we must expand the personal opportunities of all our peoples to participate to a greater extent in the economic development and economic welfare of this country. I want to repeat what my hon. leader said this afternoon, viz. that unless we can give the Black people of South Africa tangible evidence of the value of participation in a free enterprise society, we must face the alternative that they will turn towards socialism in some form or other to find what they need for their future. The opportunities which we must provide are the opportunities for every individual, irrespective of his colour, to earn according to his ability, to own a home, to enjoy settled family life and to enjoy the fruits of the prosperity and the way of life which we as Whites enjoy in South Africa today. Our military strength depends on the loyalty of all our people and the increasing physical participation of all our people in the armed forces of our country. To achieve this we must be prepared to so adapt our political structure of government that we can ensure participation in the responsibility of government by all our communities.

The Government and the official Opposition are agreed on the basic approach that the identities of our various communities should be recognized and respected and that all communities should enjoy the maximum control of matters of direct and exclusive concern to themselves. We have, however, not yet agreed as to the method of participation and responsibility in orderly government in South Africa in respect of the matters in which there is an indivisible concern by White, Black, Coloured and Indian. That has not been found under the policies of the Government. We must find that now—and soon—in South Africa if we are to avoid disaster and confrontation. This cannot be left unresolved. My hon. leader has suggested, as he suggested again today, that the first step is to create a multi-racial Council of State which in its initial stages could be advisory. The Government talks about a joint Cabinet Council, and I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Community Development dealt with this in the Senate the other day. I understand from what he said in the Other Place that it is conceded that the Cabinet Council would have in its ranks both Coloureds and Indians, sitting together in that council. If that is so, Sir, that is the first step, and I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has said that. Is there then any earthly reason why that Cabinet Council cannot have the representatives of every homeland sitting simultaneously with the Coloureds and Indians? That, in effect, is exactly what my hon. leader has asked for, namely a multi-racial Council of State, to discuss matters which are of common concern.

You do not understand these things.

No, Sir, I understand what the hon. the Minister of Community Development has said. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has not understood it. I want to say that whatever the machinery, we cannot delay any longer. We cannot continue to attempt to deal in South Africa with the relations of White, Black, Coloured and Indian in compartmentalized and separate committees or forums, because they are matters which affect each one. What is done for the Coloureds affects all the other communities, and what is done for the Whites affects all the other communities. We can no longer have these separate discussions and consultations, we must have them all together, under one roof and in one room.

We are now reaching the end of this session and it is now important to ask what has been achieved. What has been achieved towards the solution of these problems and the attainment of what we know are the essential goals for South Africa? I ask the hon. members opposite what laws have been repealed or amended to fulfil the promise made in October 1974 to the United Nations by the ambassador for South Africa. Can they mention one law or one section of a law which has been amended in this House or during this year in fulfilment of that undertaking to eliminate racial discrimination? I will concede that there have been certain meaningful administrative changes. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and his department have brought Coloureds and Whites onto the same level in regard to their entitlement to assistance in housing. There are certain other aspects of appointments to boards which have been made by the Department of Community Development. I am thinking here of the housing boards, group areas boards and others. However, not one law, not one sentence of any Act of this Parliament of this country has been changed during the session of six months to give effect to the undertakings which this Government gave at the United Nations. I believe that there is one matter that this Government too must accept. I have said it before in the House, and I want to repeat it now. My contacts, my discussions with people outside South Africa—Black and White—people in various political occupations, have shown that their basic concern, their basic complaint, about the laws of this country, is one small provision in our legislation. That is the provision which permits of job reservation. It may not be applied. It is applied to an infinitesimal percentage of the workers in South Africa. However, to the outside world … No, the hon. member for Hercules must not shake his head. In the outside world …

Evolutionary, in consultation with trade unions.

I want to say this, because I have heard it from Black diplomats and others; not in South Africa, but outside the country. What they object to, is that we have enshrined in the statutes of South Africa the power that a man’s progress in the economic life of this country, his opportunity in the industrial and in the economic life of this country, can be restricted because of the colour of his skin. [Interjections.] That is the principle that is enshrined.

For heaven’s sake, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the time has come for that to be removed from our Statute Books. I believe there is a growing feeling amongst the electorate, and amongst the people of South Africa, amongst the churches, amongst the judiciary, amongst those concerned about South Africa, that the time has come that the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act must be repealed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to relate to you an instance of a young South African couple who, because of the rigidity of the race classification, were unable to marry in South Africa. The girl was to have a child, so they proceeded to Swaziland where they married legally; a marriage which is recognized throughout the world, except in South Africa. The child was born in Swaziland. He was registered in Swaziland, and the couple returned to South Africa. To do what? To live in contravention of the laws of the country. To live in an association which is not recognized as marriage, although blessed by the church in another country, and the child to grow up in South Africa—as far as South Africa is concerned—as an illegitimate child. How can we go on having this type of legislation on our Statute Books at this time?

When one looks further into the need for finding solutions to our problems, this Government has the power and the responsibility to act. There has been little or no indication as to the political pinnacle to which our Coloureds and Indians, or our urban Bantu population can aspire. It is all very well to talk about self-determination and separate development. If the hon. member for Brits speaks, I hope he will deal with this matter. Is one granting self-determination when one says to the Black people that they must either accept independence in their homelands or stay as they are in South Africa, with no rights? Is that granting them self-determination? I want to ask the hon. member for Brits to tell us where the Coloured people can reach the pinnacle of their political rights, where they can have a say in those matters of government and of the State which affect them and ourselves and all people in South Africa, and which is indivisible? I am talking now about matters of defence and so forth. Where do they reach that pinnacle of self-development and where do the Indians reach that pinnacle of self-development? If the hon. member for Brits thinks this through, he will see that there is only one way in which the pinnacle of political development and power can be reached, viz. within a federal form of government, where there is co-operation between the races without the one dominating the other. I am not going to give the answers to that in detail, but the concept of federation is the one concept which can work in South Africa and work for peaceful coexistence in our country. The Government has the power and the ability to achieve these ends and, if it is not done rapidly, I feel we shall be doing a disservice not only to the people of today, but also to the White, Black, Coloured and Indian generations that are to follow in South Africa. We cannot delay longer. Parliament will be going into recess for six months. Steps that have to be taken, must be taken now. The first step which can indicate our good intent and our acceptance of the responsibilities of the Parliament of the country, is to accept what has been suggested by my hon. leader, whether in the form of a Council of State or a Cabinet committee, but a multi-racial consultative body of the leaders of opinion of all races in South Africa who can sit together round a table to discuss the future and where they fit into the future picture of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as always I followed the speech by the hon. member for Green Point with interest. I wish I could react to it in full. But the hon. member will realize that he covered a very wide field; he touched on virtually all the possible subjects relating to relations between peoples in South Africa. It will therefore be simply impossible to reply to all his arguments. However, I cannot resist the temptation to reply to two, at least, of his arguments. The hon. member referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s idea of a Cabinet Council. I have spoken about this recently in the Other Place and here because I had the privilege of hearing how the hon. the Prime Minister explained it to the Indian leaders. The hon. member brought it up as a precedent for a Council of State which was to represent all the races and groups of South Africa. The issue of the Cabinet Council illustrates the basic difference between hon. members on the other side of the House and hon. members on this side. Hon. members on that side of the House persist in seeing the future South Africa as a unitary state which will include all 11 ethnic groups in South Africa.

That is the fundamental difference.

This is the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

[Inaudible.]

I am very sympathetic towards the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because he has adopted an entirely different point of view. He tends to support our idea that the Bantu must find their political future and their ultimate realization in their own sovereign states. Consequently they do not belong in such a Cabinet Council. The Cabinet Council was not intended for them, because they have a different destination in terms of the NP’s thinking.

Nor do they believe in the sharing of power.

Yes. They themselves prefer it that way. There are three communities—the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians—which have been linked together by Providence in the Republic of South Africa in such a way that we believe that in their case this direction cannot be followed. They will form a permanent part of the composition of the population of the Republic of South Africa.

It is a different political problem.

It is an entirely different political problem and that is why entirely different political solutions are required. The idea of the Cabinet Council, which will result from separate parliamentary institutions for these three permanent groups in South Africa, is geared to deal with this specific problem and not—and this is where we differ—to meet the needs of a South Africa which will also include the Bantu peoples of South Africa on a permanent basis.

The second point I want to make in connection with the hon. member’s speech is something which is very near to my heart. In common with the hon. member opposite, I believed that job reservation would give rise to all kinds of problems and all kinds of rigid inflexibilities in the relations between worker and worker and the relations between employer and employee in South Africa. I looked up the Hansard of 1955 when “we” on the other side of the House opposed the legislation proposed by this side, and I took note of all the prophecies of doom we uttered. I want to ask those hon. members who were already members of the UP at the time—in those days the hon. member for Houghton played a major role in the UP—whether the prophecies of doom have been confirmed in any respect whatsoever. Has the section of the Industrial Conciliation Act in question not had a far more interesting effect than we were able to foresee at the time? In this connection I refer specifically to the White trade unions. We agree with the UP on one thing. We cannot change the labour pattern in our industries if this will create a situation similar to that on the Witwatersrand in 1922. We must therefore take the White trade unions with us. Has job reservation not had the effect that endless new opportunities have been opened up to all the non-Whites of South Africa in the industries of South Africa? After all, it is easier for the trade unions to say to them: “Yes, we are willing to co-operate, because we know that ultimately we are protected in terms of the job reservation provision of the Industrial Conciliation Act which will prevent us from being forced out of our jobs by people who are willing to compete on the labour market for lower wages than ours.” As an opposition member at the time I struggled with this problem a great deal and I therefore know what I am talking about when I say that job reservation has a positive effect on our problems in South Africa, due to the shortage of labour and due to the rightful claim of other population groups to a greater role in the production processes of South Africa. I could hold an interesting discussion with the hon. member for Green Point on this matter, but that is not my aim today.

I stood up today with a different aim, and that was to deal briefly with a very important paragraph in the report of the Erika Theron Commission. Hon. members on the other side of the House have said nothing about this point, a matter about which the Erika Theron Commission issued a scientific finding, a matter which is giving rise to the gravest concern among the Coloured population of South Africa. I quote paragraph 9.1 of the report—

This is the scientific finding to which I referred—

Not politics, but housing—

That shows how important the housing issue is.

I am glad the hon. member agrees with me on the importance of this issue. It has been neglected so far in this discussion today.

*I quote further—

Sir, we can talk about politics here until we are blue in the face, but if we do not realize that our first responsibility towards the Coloureds of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Free State is that we must help them to get away from what the hon. member for Johannesburg West once described as “the sub-culture of poverty”, of which they form part today, then we fail in everything we have done with such good intentions for this important population group of South Africa. Sir, poverty, misery and hardship are still the order of the day for most of them. It is encouraging to note that the middle class has increased under NP rule until today it constitutes 40%, but the other 60% is something about which we may not rest easy. We cannot sleep with a clear conscience while that matter is confronting us and awaiting attention. That is why I have always said, wherever I have been—in this House too—that we must beware of making the mistake against which one of the greatest British colonial administrators warned us when he said—

The Minister must realize that he is getting his priorities right. In the same context, when I was a prisoner of war, and we were very hungry, we never spoke of the fairer sex.

Sir, I looked through the commission’s report, not very thoroughly, I admit, because I did not have time, but I did not find any articles on fair sexes or anything like that. The hon. member is raising a fundamental issue, but not the type of fundamental issue that we deal with here.

*Sir, I do not want to minimize the importance of this political problem. It is of vital importance, but there are people who are obsessed with politics in the political dialogue of South Africa, as is happening here on the debate on the Erika Theron Commission, and do not attend to what also underlies the solution, something that is a prerequisite for the solution of the political issue, and that is that there must be an end of the poverty which still prevails among these people. That is why I am now standing only to tell the House that one must really feel encouraged when one reads this report, particularly chapter 9, and realizes how the Government is devoting its energies to dealing with this most important bottleneck mentioned in the Erika Theron report with increasing attention and growing determination.

Appreciation for this is expressed in the report.

Yes, there is much appreciation, and I am very grateful for it, but since we must get our priorities right, I want to stress this. The report states that this is the biggest bottleneck. That is why I am pleased to say that some years ago, particularly in the past three years, by creating the Department of Community Development, the Government made a point of eliminating this particular bottleneck by launching an intensive housing programme in consultation with the local managements and with certain other bodies. The results achieved have been mentioned repeatedly in this House, in the discussion on the Squatter Bill and again recently in the discussion of the Community Development Vote. I do not want to repeat this. All I want to say is that I find it striking that even some of my friends in the Progressive Party describe the results as “spectacular”. The commission also noted with appreciation the achievement of the Government, and specifically that of the Department of Community Development, in this field. For example, I read the following on page 204, paragraph 9.4—

Whatever we may differ about in this House, we ought to pray together that in the years ahead it will be possible for the Department of Community Development to acquire funds which will enable the department to put an end to the backlog and eliminate this critical bottleneck in the lives of the Coloured community, and by so doing, to improve the relations between Whites and Coloureds as well. I want to say what I said before, namely that as long as nothing unforeseen occurs, and we acquire the funds to apply the machinery that has already been created, the problem can be surmounted in the foreseeable future. I have already set a period of eight years and I stand by it. However, I want to ask hon. members to co-operate and strive together to ensure that South Africa can afford these essential expenditures, because this is going to cost many millions of rands. I also want to express my thanks and appreciation at once to my fellow members of the Cabinet, particularly the Minister of Finance, for their exceptionally sympathetic approach to this problem. It is clear to me that the Government’s standpoint is that this issue, next to Defence is one of the most important strategic considerations in South Africa in these times. It is interesting to see what has already been done. The task that lies ahead is a mammoth one. What has been done so far?

On page 204, paragraph 9.5, of the commission’s report, mention is made of the fact that more than 90% of the Coloureds in urban areas and townships are already accommodated in state-financed housing. This in itself testifies to what has been achieved. At present people from all over are flocking to the cities because urbanization is one of the signs of the times, and it is creating new problems. However, the achievement is already there because we have foundations on which we are building. Hon. members must consider the quality of what is being done. On page 204 of the Commission’s report I should like to quote paragraph 9.9 to hon. members—

There is a positive aspect, too, in the problem we have in regard to relations between peoples in South Africa. On page 205, in paragraph 9.10, the commission states that the difference between White and Coloured in regard to income limits remains a major deficiency and grave cause for dissatisfaction. These are the limits which must be met when people want to qualify for sub-economic housing or economic housing in Government housing schemes. This is stated in the report, but as far back as March, this difference was eliminated for all practical purposes. My hon. friend also referred to this. As far as the sub-economic groups are concerned, it has been entirely eliminated and in the economic group, the limits for a Coloured family without children are higher than for Whites, although Whites find that their limit is higher than that of the Coloureds in other respects.

These minor differences which remain are being considered. If our financial position permits, we want to eliminate them as well. However, at the moment these differences only affect 6% of the Coloured population, and the situation as regards 94% of the Coloured population is already as recommended by the Erika Theron Commission, viz. that no distinction be drawn between the Whites and the Coloureds in regard to the allocation of houses by the State. There is a positive side which I should like to stress here today. I want to remind hon. members what this Commission has to say about the achievements in the field of housing and the prospects for the future, because in my opinion this serves to round off very satisfactorily some of the rather lively debates which have been conducted in this House during this session. The Commission points out that the Coloured population is almost half as large as the White population, but nevertheless the comparison as regards housing for Coloureds and Whites reveals that in the period 1950-’60, almost 16 000 houses were built for Coloureds, as against 25 444 for Whites, despite the fact that the White population is twice as large as that of the Coloureds.. Look at the progress made over the period 1960-’70 with regard to Coloured housing. In this period, 70 510 houses for Coloureds and 30 691 for Whites were built. In the subsequent five years, viz. from 1970 to 1975, 55 370 houses for Coloureds, and 24 000 houses for Whites were built; this amounts to twice as many houses for Coloureds as for Whites, although the White population is twice as large as the Coloured population. These figures do not include 90% loans which have been awarded, but relate solely to cases in which the State provided what was required.

Sir, I am not drawing attention to this aspect in order to level reproaches at anyone, but merely to indicate what great sacrifices we are willing to make to do these people justice. On page 56, paragraph 3.34, of the report of the Theron Commission it is pointed out that the contribution of the Coloured population to the taxes of South Africa amounts to a mere 1,5%. Therefore, in my opinion there really are things in South Africa of which we need not be ashamed.

Hon. members will remember that on a previous occasion I pointed out that from 1920, when the Housing Commission came into being, to 1960, 32 000 houses had been built for Coloureds in those 40 years. However, in 1975, viz. in just one year, 25 000 were either completed or under construction; in other words, over a period of 40 years—a period in which there were depressions and wars—I am only referring to the achievement and am not levelling reproaches—an average of 800 houses per annum were built, whereas last year, in the space of one year, this Government built 25 000 houses. We have therefore built 30 times as many houses within one year than the average number built every year in the 40 years from 1920 to 1960. Are we not, then, entitled to hold up our heads now and again and be proud and grateful that it has been possible for us to attain such achievements?

These figures have given me the opportunity to make an interesting comparison, viz. to take the figures from 1920 to 1950, viz. up to two years after the National Party Government came into power, and point out that in those years between 16 000 and 17 000 houses for Coloureds were built.

We built them in the course of the last two years.

No, in the course of a single year so many houses were built or were under construction, viz. 40 times as many and as rapidly in the course of one year as the average figure for the previous 30 years between 1920 and 1950. In my opinion a South African ought to be proud of such an achievement. [Interjections.] As fas as the future is concerned, the Theron Commission acknowledges that this is the case and that we shall be able to continue with this, provided the necessary funds are available. Furthermore, we are geared to build an additional 164 802 houses for the Coloureds between this year and 1980. In its report the Theron Commission points out that it will be enough to eliminate the existing backlog. Furthermore, this would signal the end of what the Coloureds themselves regard as the biggest bottleneck they have to deal with. I could continue in this vein. There have been more than merely physical achievements as far as housing is concerned. I could go into the Commission’s comment on delays which have occurred in connection with housing, delays in the development of towns and the housing backlog which are dealt with in paragraph 9 to paragraph 9.31. I could continue, but the story remains the same. We have reason to be proud, and I might also say, in all humility, that our Coloured community have reason to be grateful. However, I do not want to stress this, because it is not our motive to seek gratitude, but to do what is right and necessary.

I now come back to my friend, the hon. member for Green Point. He said that the commission was critical of the Group Areas Act. Although the Commission did not want this Act to be repealed, he said, there was a large number of matters which elicited a negative reaction. However, I gained a little experience with the Indians last year, and this year again, in the implementation of the Act after the planning was carried out. As far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, I now want to quote with appreciation what the Commission—which people are so quick to quote against this Act—said to the credit of the Act. I quote from paragraph 9.36—

They asked for them. I quote further—

That is the positive side.

What about the recommendations? There were certain recommendations.

Yes. I am not arguing with the hon. member. However, I just want to issue a warning. We must not throw out the baby with the bath water now, just because there is criticism of certain aspects of the administration or the implementation of the Group Areas Act. We—and here I am referring to the party which sat on that side of the House 20 to 30 years ago—supported this Bill in principle because we realized that it would entail major benefits for the South African community if we could reduce or eliminate points of friction between races and race conflict on a basis which would guarantee a decent living to all the communities in South Africa, taking into account an individual awareness, an awareness of their own worth and a mutual initiative, and all this in their own towns. We have come a long way in this regard.

I know, for example, that the new residential areas have meant a revolution for the Indians. They are living today in circumstances they could not have dreamt of before this Act was passed. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter at greater length. I am now convinced—and it is not a change of conviction—that as far as group areas are concerned, we are doing something positive for the well-being of the various communities in South Africa, something which is probably unrivalled in any other country in the world with the problems and capabilities of South Africa.

My time is getting short, but there is yet another matter to which I want to refer very briefly, viz. the issue of District Six, an issue which my hon. friend brought up and which was also brought up in the report of the Theron Commission. I am very sorry that the Theron Commission raised this matter again, because this matter has really been investigated very thoroughly. It has been very judiciously and objectively investigated for many years. Last year the Cabinet reached a final decision. After having taken into account all the appeals and considerations, they returned part of that area to the Coloureds and said: “Now this is final.” We must reach finality on these matters because otherwise we merely harm the future of the areas themselves.

Today my hon. friend again referred to the story that District Six had always been predominantly a Coloured area. This is not true. I have before me the figures which have been researched by the Department of Community Development. At the time of proclamation the breakdown of owners of property in District Six in the various race groups was as follows: White-owned, 936 erven; Indian-owned, 528; Coloured-owned, 474; and Chinese-owned, 2. How, then, can one say that it was traditionally their area if they owned a mere 24% of the erven there?

Give 500 plots back to the Coloureds, then.

We have therefore done them justice. I want to say in the interests of the community and in the interests of the development of that region: Let us accept that this is so and encourage everyone involved to accept it as such. Excellent opportunities are occurring, and there will be still further excellent opportunities for all the population groups permanently resident in the Republic, to stay in residential areas and take possession of business areas which will be a credit to them and will make them happy. Let us not use things that have been finalized to sow division among the people and to arouse suspicion and discord among the peoples of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there was much in the address of the hon. the Minister who has just spoken with which one could agree, particularly when he spoke of the priority in respect of housing. I think the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I quote to him today an argument which he used to persuade me in days gone by, an argument to which I have not yet found the answer and which I should now like to put to him again. He said that, as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, this country is as much for them as it is for the Whites.

But I used the same argument today.

Correct. Therefore, if it is the same country for them and if he believes, as he and his colleagues say they do, in the concept of self-determination and if they believe further in the right of people to participate in the determination of their own destiny, what is then the answer to participation by the Coloured people in the exercise of sovereignty if he rejects their having membership in this House and if he rejects federalism? That was the hon. the Minister’s argument at the time. Therefore I should now like him to give an answer to his own argument which persuaded me at the time.

I wish the hon. member had asked me that question before I spoke.

Sir, the difficulty is that there is no answer. Not a single member sitting on the Government benches, from the hon. the Prime Minister down, has ever been able to answer that question. There is no answer to that question, unless they evolve some other means which they are not prepared to disclose to us and which therefore we cannot judge.

There is a second point the hon. the Minister made, a very valid point in respect of housing. He stressed the need for Coloured housing. I think there will be no argument about that in the House. That need exists and the hon. the Minister is right. However, the hon. the Minister then became very dramatic and said: “You must not in a moment of crisis when the people want bread, offer them a vote.” Let me test what he said. I want to test in two ways. Firstly, I want to test it against his own words about District Six. Why do people want the vote when they are deprived people? They want it in order to improve their position and to bring about the changes which they feel ought to be brought about in the present system about which they are dissatisfied. That is what they want. People do not want the vote because it is some magic thing that gives one status or some feeling of exhilaration. The ordinary man in the street wants to participate in politics and has recourse to politics because he wants to improve his situation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Coloured people, if they had had executive authority in South Africa, would have made that decision in regard to District Six. There is silence—obvious silence, because they would never have made such a decision. Let me give another example.

It is a silly question.

It is a silly question because you do not have an answer at all, not even a silly answer.

Let me refer again to the report of the Commission. I quote from recommendation No. 39 on page 489—

I ask again: Would in fact the Coloured man, having a right in the determination of his own destiny, make a decision to the effect that full employment for Whites came before his own participation, viz. not from the point of view of equal rights, not with the object that all should be in full employment? Would he be a party to creating a situation where somebody else from a different group as defined by this Government, should have a right to be employed in the first instance and that that should in fact be the priority? That is the test of what politics is about. No wonder that Napoleon said that politicians are dealers in hope, that politicians are the people who hope and who hold out hope for people that there will be an improvement in their lot. That is the point which the hon. the Minister has today either missed or forgotten, or chooses not to remember.

This is a most remarkable debate because this is actually the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill and yet the Minister of Finance is not even here. We have started off on this occasion by talking about race relations first and not about finance and economics first. I wonder whether this is not a sign of the times, viz. that race relations dominates the thinking of all our people in South Africa to such an extent that it is given first priority. But perhaps we have to bear in mind that if we do not put our economic situation in order, if we do not get our financial affairs in order, our very race relations situation will be in jeopardy.

So far we have all talked about race relations, but I think that in the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill we should not forget about the impact of inflation or about the plight of the elderly and the pensioner. We should also not forget that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is also not here, has admitted that living standards in South Africa are dropping and that the price that we in South Africa are paying for the errors of the past is being paid at a time when South Africa can least afford it.

There have been reviews of the parliamentary session during this debate. I should like to say that I believe there have been seven events which can be singled out as of particular significance during this session of Parliament. There were the events in Angola. There are the riots which have recently taken place. There is the impending independence of the Transkei. There is the pact between South Africa and Israel. There is the meeting between Dr. Kissinger and our Prime Minister taking place presently. There is the state of the economy to which I have already referred. Lastly there is the Tabling of the Theron Commission Report which has so far dominated this debate.

I should like to deal with this Report now. This Report is to my mind not so significant for its discovery of facts which were hitherto unknown or for the evolution of novel solutions. Rather, this is a document which highlights the plight of a people and echoes the cries that come from those people. The solutions, I think, are obvious for all who have eyes to see and for all who have ears to hear. Those solutions are there—the only question is whether those in power seek to implement them. Those sections of the Report which deal with the economic plight of the Coloured people should in the normal course of events not be of a politically contentious nature. However, of necessity, in order to apply the remedies some of them will in fact require political decisions. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has spoken about housing. A decision will have to be taken whether or not to spend large sums of money not only on housing, but also on education, on technical training, on social services and a variety of matters. The money will have to come from somewhere. The hon. the Minister said: “As long as the money is available. ” But what will have to be a political decision is the priorities in respect of the spending of money. The determination of these priorities is clearly a political matter.

The second political decision that has to be taken in regard to the economic plight of the Coloured people deals with the removal of disabilities which are of an economic nature. This decision will clearly also be of a political nature, because the issue is clearly the opening of industrial areas to all, the opening of major business areas to all, the removal of discrimination in wage and salary levels, the abolition of job reservation and the question of trade union participation which is dealt with in the Report. All these are in fact political decisions, and what is interesting is that until now not a single word has been said as to which of these recommendations will be implemented in detail and how they will be implemented. If we look at the report and at the facts contained therein, one thing which is clear is that it is an integral part of White business and of the industrial structure in South Africa that, as far as White business and White industry are concerned, it markets and produces not merely for itself—that is, for Whites—but for the entire population. If a section of the community is inhibited from doing the same—this is true of the Coloured people—there can be no argument but that this is in fact discriminatory. If we look at the commission’s report, we see that in so far as the Coloured people are concerned, they spend only about 25% at outlets which are controlled by Coloured and Indian persons and the rest at outlets which are controlled by White persons. If, therefore, in the major business areas, which cater for all the race groups, one does not allow race groups other than the Whites to operate, that is unjust and discriminatory because by restricting ownership and operation to one race group only in the major business areas, one is discriminating against people. If the Coloured people are to be part of a free enterprise system, it must be a system which is applied equitably and justly and in a manner which offers equality of opportunity to all.

The lack of participation of the Coloured people in the capital side of the free enterprise system is, I believe, demonstrated by the relative percentages of Coloured employers to White employers as shown in this report. In 1970 it was 2,65% and 0,5% for Coloured men and women, while the figures for Whites were 11,4% and 3,6%. If we bear these facts in mind together with the additional factor that in big business in its entirety—whether it be industry, whether it be mining or whether it be finance—almost no part is played by Coloureds, despite whatever work the Development Corporation has done, there is in fact a lack of an adequate stake on the part of the Coloured people in the capital structure of South Africa.

There is another aspect of the free enterprise system that we can look at. If we look at the income side, we find that 25% of the Coloured population are members of families who are below the minimum living levels, and 38,3% of families are below what is referred to as a modest standard of living. This clearly demonstrates the need that something has to be done in order to raise the income level of these people. In the last place, if one looks at the consumer side, one does not see a very happy situation. There is again considerable evidence of exploitation and I quote the following brief passage from paragraph 3.39 on page 57 of the report—

The report goes on to deal with the abuses, and states—

It goes on not only to deal with that, but also to deal with consumer credit. It is clear that there are four major factors of exploitation, i.e. false advertisements, exorbitant prices, high-pressure salesmanship and a mesh of credit from which there appears to be little escape, sometimes during an entire lifetime. The need to stamp out the evils which are connected with consumer exploitation are, to my mind, clearly demonstrated in this report. I believe that the time has come for the newly enacted Trade Practices Act to show its teeth and that there needs to be introduced at the earliest opportunity consumer credit legislation which will stamp out the abuse. There also needs to be a realistic campaign of consumer education. I believe that if these abuses are not stamped out, we are not only jeopardizing the system of free enterprise, but we are harming race relations. The Theron Commission report has, of course, only dealt with the plight of the Coloured people, but the problems of the Coloured people are the problems of all the people in South Africa. The under-privileged Coloured has the same aspirations as the under-privileged Indian or the underprivileged Black. I believe it would be fatal for South Africa if an endeavour was made to solve the problems of the Coloured people in isolation. I believe that these problems should be solved for South Africa as a whole. I think there is no clearer demonstration in the commission’s report itself than the attitude which Prof. Van der Ross repeatedly took in regard to this issue and I commend hon. members to read it.

I believe the state of our economy should cause concern to all of us who sit in this House. I believe the economy suffers from four major defects. It suffers firstly from structural defects which have existed and developed over long periods and which can only be solved in the long term, but in respect of which action is urgently needed now. Secondly, it suffers from defects which are due to ideological factors which duplicate expenditure and limit the full utilization of our resources. Thirdly, it has defects over which we have little or no control such as the gold price, commodity prices and the economies of our major trading partners. In the last place, we have the defects which exist in our economy due to a lack of confidence, a lack of motivation, the extreme pursuit, by some of our people, of leisure, and the evasion of obligations as opposed to the acceptance of a dedicated work norm in South Africa. Some of these defects can obviously be remedied, while others can be alleviated. However, unless we accept that they have to be remedied and unless we accept fundamentally that we have to be economically strong and set about achieving this object, I do not believe we can solve any of our other problems. Economic growth and increasing living standards are the keys to peace in South Africa. The underprivileged are looking for higher living standards. They have expectations which, if not realized, are going to be explosive. For the defence of South Africa, we need a thriving economy and without it our position will become increasingly difficult. Politics affects the economy, and economics affects our politics. Stability and confidence will mean the capital that we need, capital will mean growth, and growth will mean the stability and the strength that we need to defend ourselves. Stability means rising living standards and internal peace. We cannot adequately finance our defence without economic strength. Without defence and law and order, there will be no rising living standards for anyone in South Africa.

What are the options South Africa has open to it? It can engender confidence, it can get money from overseas to deal with our balance of payments, it can have increased growth, it can have improved living standards, it can finance defence and law and order. In fact, one can summarize by saying that we can have growth with peace. On the other hand, if there is a lack of internal and external confidence, if there is a lack of capital, if there is negative growth, if frustration results from expectations, if lower living standards come about and if we have inadequate funds for defence and for the maintenance of law and order, then we are heading for absolute disaster. These are the options the Government has to exercise. They will have to dismantle some of the ideological structures and they will, perhaps, have to do it with some loss of face. However, they will also have to call upon our people to work a lot harder and they will have to give them incentives to do so.

In the light of this I think it is necessary now to take a long, hard look at party politics in this House itself and also at the role of the Opposition in this House. Perhaps the best example of the failure of party politics in this House has been demonstrated during the recent riots. While Soweto burned, parliamentarians hurled abuse at one another. How do we believe the public have judged us here? Will they forgive us if this is continued? While we should have been seeking means to avoid not only the clashes which were then occurring, but means to avoid conflict in the long term, what were MPs doing? They were blaming one another. What was achieved by these debates? There is no dialogue to achieve solutions; there is a dialogue of the deaf in this House. When opponents’ speeches are listened to, they are listened to only in order to see whether one can find a gap in somebody’s defence and not to see whether he may have an answer. The question that must be asked, is whether South Africa can continue to afford the kind of politics that has been conducted in this Chamber. Perhaps we can give some important illustrations. There is never an admission in this House by anybody that he has ever made a mistake or that he has ever been wrong. This never happens.

Take the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, for instance. He has never made a mistake. It is always everybody else’s fault, and it is certainly never his fault. [Interjections.] That is the approach which is adopted in this House. Even when we agree on matters there are people who try to find differences. I believe that South Africa now has one major task before anything else, and that is that it has to find the means of avoiding internal conflict. This is what the public wants and this is what they expect. This is what they expect us in the House to apply our minds to. I think that we need to apply our minds to genuine debates which are designed to find solutions and not merely to making debating points. We can all adhere to our philosophies, but should we not agree to implement those matters on which we can agree? There are five such matters I would like to raise today. The hon. the Minister of Community Development gave a lead in this respect; in the case of housing, but let me deal with the ones I specifically have in mind.

Firstly, I believe there is a genuine desire on the part of everybody in this House—at least I hope so—to bring about good relations between races in the broad sense of the term. We may differ as to the method by which we want to do it. However, I think it is necessary for us, instead of just paying lip service to this, to do something about it and demonstrate it in real form in this House.

Secondly, I think there is a need to strengthen the economy so as to enable the country to be adequately defended, and to take the defence issue right out of the political argument. We should rather seek to work together to make sure that South Africa is adequately defended. What we also need to do is to demonstrate to all our people, and so to demonstrate to the outside world, that we have confidence in the future of South Africa, because if we do not demonstrate that we ourselves have confidence, how can we expect other people to have confidence?

The third point on which I believe we can agree is the need to maintain law and order, because without this and without stability no solutions can be found whether those solutions are offered by one side of the House or the other. The fourth point on which we can agree is that the desire of people to maintain their identity can and should be recognized. About that there should be no dispute. The fifth point is the need to remove discrimination. The question I want to ask on these five points is whether we cannot constructively, together in this House, seek to achieve these five matters. We can agree to differ on our political models for the constitutional future of South Africa. We can keep our own policies where we differ and we can maintain our own philosophies, but there is a realism about it. The Government is in power. The alternatives that we have are available if the Government policy fails and we have a duty to continue to advance them, but one thing is clear, and that is that if a disaster befalls South Africa which is of so serious a nature—and it might befall us—then it may be too late for anybody with any solution to save the situation. Irrespective of the merits of the matter and irrespective of the sincerity of the people concerned, it may then be too late to do anything. I believe that the finest constitutional model cannot save us if the country is in flames. I believe that the public as a whole expects certain actions from this Government and from the Opposition alike, and one of the things which I believe the public expects is that we accept that not everything which we put forward, as sincerely as we may do so, may in the end prove to be right. If I may be jocular about it, perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs is a good example of how one can advance something and eventually believe that some of the things one has said before may not have been completely right. I think we have to accept that, and he is perhaps a greater living example of that than anybody else in this House. I think this dogmatism, that only what we suggest is right or that everything that the Government says is right, is something that has to be removed as a factor in the political field.

Sir, there are priorities which I believe we can accept, and which everyone can accept. I have stressed, and I want to stress again, that nothing can be achieved by any political party in South Africa if law and order is not maintained. I believe that the mass of Blacks and Whites alike want this and that the silent majority of responsible people, irrespective of politics, should stand together, whether they be Black or White, to isolate those who want violence and disorder and to stamp it out. I believe that there should be a joint endeavour not just in this House, but by Black and White, to work out a basis of avoiding conflict in both the short and the long term. I want to say that arms alone are not enough. It means that Black and White people of goodwill have to get together in order to work it out because I do not believe that any responsible person wants conflict or violence as an inevitable outcome of the South African situation.

I believe that if we accept these principles, if the Government tries to show some degree of wishing to co-operate with the rest of the people in South Africa, who may not agree with them politically, then I think the public will respect what goes on in this House, and the futility of the debates which take place here, the dialogue of the deaf which takes place, can then be removed. I believe that there must be a willingness to hear other people’s points of view and there must be an acceptance of the sincerity of the views put by others. Above all, we should perhaps spend a little more time trying to find out where we can work together rather than where we differ.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville when he said that the hon. the Minister of Finance was not present here. Surely, there is a mutual arrangement in this House and all the hon. members know that we have decided first to discuss the Theron report, for which the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations is responsible. That hon. Minister was in his seat every moment since we started proceedings this morning. I think that what we had this afternoon as far as these words expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, was a violation of elementary courtesy. The hon. member complained that politics are being played in this House. To me it almost sounded like the howling of a seriously hurt dog. However, I want to tell the hon. member that we shall continue playing politics and that he should ask himself whether it is not his party which is responsible for playing politics. We shall hit out at them ruthlessly and we shall definitely not show any mercy until his party has had a change of heart, and I doubt whether this can ever happen.

That proves my point.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians who have to live together in the same sovereignty and he said we had no solution for the problem. However, I want to tell him that we do have a solution. The National Party does not believe in the sharing of power, because it has not worked anywhere and it will not work in South Africa. If his party believe in the sharing of power, they will have to face the loss of identity and of being ploughed under eventually. However, I leave the hon. member at that, except, on account of his reference to priorities which have to be put right and to money which is required as a result of the recommendations contained in the Theron report, to refer to paragraph 8 of the White Paper on the report of the Theron Commission, in which the following is stated—

I can assure the hon. member that the Government knows what its task and its duties are. The Government will undertake this study and will consider these matters.

After the Theron Commission had been appointed by the Government one gained the impression that the National Party, as far as the Coloured policy is concerned, has landed in a blind alley. However, I think we should make it quite clear that this commission was not appointed because the National Party was in a blind alley. The commission was appointed because insufficient progress has been made in respect of the Coloured people, and that the population group did not make the progress we expected it to make. The report which has been published does not embarrass the NP at all and if this were the case, we would have had a totally different reaction from the Opposition parties and we would have had a totally different reaction in the Press.

In this report we are dealing with the points of view of academics and with the points of view of experts in many spheres. We once again give the assurance to everyone that the Government will consider the report and the recommendations. However, I think we should approach the report a little more peacefully and calmly and that we should speak with greater responsibility in South Africa at this point of time. We have a report here, a very sound report on which a commission has worked for three years. We have had the report for only five days and I do not believe there is anyone in this House who has been able to make a complete study of this report within a period of five days and is able to express his opinion in an honest way.

We should also guard against using the Coloured people as a political football. I want to give the Coloured population group the assurance that as far as the NP is concerned, it is honest and sincere in respect of the Coloured people. The party is honest and sincere because it does not want to exploit this population group for its own benefit. The party is honest and sincere because it is geared to the development of the population group and because the expectation prevails in the ranks of the National Party Government that this population group will grow and develop. We should bear in mind—the hon. the Minister of Community Development referred to this matter—that we are finding ourselves in a complex community in South Africa. Not one of us can get away from this fact. We can only get away from this fact if we are willing to go and stay in another country as some people have done recently and as some Coloured people who moved to Canada have already done. But a person who turns his back on his fatherland, does not really have the courage to face the problems of the country. We cannot escape from the fact that we have to live together in the country as different peoples. However, the question is in which way we want to live together in this country. There are only two ways in which to do this. The one is integration, in which case we shall have a mixture in this country and everything will go wrong, and the alternative is the policy of the NP, which is based on separate development. I now recall the words of the late Dr. Verwoerd on 12 December 1961 when he addressed the then Union Council for Coloured Affairs and had the following to say—

This is the difference between us and the Opposition parties. We believe that we can exist alongside one another, that we can be equal in this country and that every population group can have every opportunity to develop. As against that, we believe that the process of integration will cause the downfall of some.

To keep the White man supreme.

I now want to tell the hon. member who made that interjection—and I say this from my own experience and I say this in all honesty and sincerity—that if we were to have a policy of integration in this country the people who were going to suffer would be the Coloured people and no one else.

Mr. Speaker, what should we do with this report? In the first place, we can rush in, and this is what the United Party did through the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as through the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central when they said: “We accept this report with all its recommendations; we accept it just as it is.” It is essential that we should consider the policy of the United Party in respect of the Coloured people, the policy that party has had through the years. The United Party knows only too well that there was a time when only some of the Coloured people were able to vote in the Cape, when there were thousands of Coloured people in South Africa who did not have the vote, and they know only too well that they were in power then. The Opposition also knows only too well that there was a time in the history of South Africa when they fought for the Coloured people to be restored to the common voters’ roll. They also know only too well that they changed their policy afterwards and we recall the by-election in Oudtshoorn in April 1972. At that time it was still the policy of the United Party that the Coloured people should be represented by six representatives in this House. We defeated them on that policy and we defeated them in such a way that they had to find a new policy, i.e. the federation policy. In spite of the policy the United Party now has, they tell us through their hon. Leader that they would support us if we would allow the Coloured people in this House of Assembly. I think the Coloured population group and South Africa should take cognizance of this change in policy, of this complete somersault performed by the United Party.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense; it is the truth. History proves it and the hon. member for Maitland knows it. He participated in and assisted with all the various policies the United Party has had over the years.

I want to come back to what I have referred to a moment ago i.e. the sharing of power, which is the policy of particularly the PRP. In this regard we have to refer to the Theron Commission. I should now like to quote from a leading article which appeared in Hoofstad on Monday, 21 June. The following was stated there—

This is a fact. No one can deny this. If we apply this on the level of our practical politics in South Africa, we are going to have in this country tremendous friction, problems and troubles which we shall never be able to overcome.

There is a second thing one can do with this report. One could stop doing anything. I am afraid that there are going to be people in South Africa who are going to stop doing anything as far as the recommendations of this report are concerned. There are many of them outside. I do not want to mention specific names. However, to my mind the correct attitude towards this report is to adopt a balanced attitude. Hon. members have already referred to the leading article in Die Burger of 21 June under the heading “Dit is nie net ‘nee’ nie.” Not for a long time have I read such a balanced leading article or seen such a healthy standpoint being adopted as was adopted in this leading article. It is stated here quite clearly—

What is the “door”?

The open “door” is the policy this Government wants to follow and the attitude it wants to adopt in respect of this report—a balanced attitude. There should be time to study and consider all these matters. Only then would the Coloured population derive the greatest benefit from the report.

I should emphasize once again that this commission was the commission of the Government and that we should therefore consider and judge this report against the background of the policy of the Government, i.e. the policy of separate development. We should then pose the question: Where does the commission say do the problems lie? It has showed quite clearly that the problems do not, in the first place, lie in the constitutional sphere, but that there are many other things to which attention should be given to. As I have said, we should view this report against the background of the policy of separate development. After all, the benefits of this policy have not been lacking. In November 1974 the hon. the Prime Minister made a very important speech in the CRC. I think it would be a good thing if we read that speech again in conjunction with this report because in that speech the hon. the Prime Minister indicated what had been achieved through the years with this policy of separate development. After all, the process of development of the Coloured people has not come to a standstill. Surely, these people made progress. Surely, they achieved things and accepted challenges under the policy of the National Party. Surely, very fine things have been achieved. There has been progress. We can refer to all these things with pride.

However, there are reasons why we did not make the desired progress. I should very much like to mention some of these reasons here this afternoon. Of course, when I am doing this I am fully aware of the responsibility with which this should be done. The first reason is the lack of leaders among the Coloured people. For a long period in the history of South Africa the interests of the Coloured people have not been looked after properly. One need only read the debates of this House in Hansard to see that there was a time when nothing was said about the interests of the Coloured population. That was while the United Party was in power. When the National Party came into power, it found a population group which did not have the required leaders. It then had to afford those leaders the opportunity to come forward. There is a second reason why we did not make the desired progress, and that is the lack of co-operation, a lack of co-operation on the part of the CRC itself. There are members who go to that council for only one purpose, i.e. to cause that council to be a failure. They do not go to that council to make it work in the interests of the Coloured people or to discuss and look after the interests of the Coloured population group in that council. They do not go there to establish machinery by means of which the Coloured people can develop, but they go there to use that council as a platform to air their grievances and complaints. Neither is there any co-operation on the level of the Cabinet council offered by the hon. the Prime Minister. Do not let us underestimate this Cabinet council. To my mind this offers the Coloured people the most wonderful opportunity to participate in the discussions regarding the highest and most important aspects of interest to South Africa. But this Cabinet council was rejected out of hand. They refuse to have anything to do with it. In other words, there is no co-operation. Then there is also a lack of responsibility among some of the Coloured leaders—and this is the third reason why the desired progress has not been made. I want to say here this afternoon that we should discuss this matter with our voters and convince them of these things when doing our duty in our constituencies. However, we find that the Coloured leaders get up and make irresponsible statements, statements which have a negative effect on our people so that certain things cannot be done in South Africa. No one will achieve anything through irresponsible speeches and actions. There is a fourth reason and that is the lack of confidence in the Coloured people one often finds on the part of the Whites. This is a fact, but fortunately these things are in the process of disappearing and we are entering a new era.

I want to refer specifically this afternoon to the paragraphs of the report dealing with the Group Areas Act. Paragraph 9.32 deals in detail with conditions in South Africa before the implementation of the Group Areas Act. The paragraph goes on to state—

With the best will in the world I cannot agree with this statement, because we who know what these conditions were like, can only adopt one standpoint today and that is that we do not want to go back to those conditions and to that period. Who was it that suffered in this process? It was the Coloured people who suffered. No notice was taken of those people. There were no opportunities for them in South Africa. I want to say that group areas should remain in South Africa because it ensures order to our co-existence in this country and because the Group Areas Act is not the “cruel Act” as has been referred to in the report. It affords people the opportunity of living together. I want to plead that we should afford our group areas fuller and more meaningful content. The hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations referred to this matter last night when he said that a commission was being appointed to investigate full-fledged municipalities. I shall admit that, for various reasons, we might have been dragging our feet for too long and that we should perhaps have given attention to this matter sooner. Again, this could have been the case if we had the necessary co-operation. The Government’s White Paper contains a message for the Coloured people. This Government has a message for the Coloured people through its policy. The first message is that the Coloured population group should be enabled to be themselves and to maintain themselves in this country. I want to repeat what I have said a moment ago. If we did the opposite, these people would be at the mercy of people who would be exploiting them and who would not be giving them the opportunity to develop. The message of the White Paper of the Government is that the Coloured population group will be enabled to decide for themselves and to determine what they themselves want to do in matters concerning their interests. However, the most important is for the Coloured population group to be freed from White domination, because under the policy of the PRP and under the policy of the UP these people will be altogether dominated.

I think that when one considers the report on an occasion such as this, it is good to say that people should not speak and write in this way to engender a feeling of guilt among the Whites. I do not think the NP and the National Government have a feeling of guilt today. However the message it wants to convey to the Coloured people on account of the Theron Report is: We shall consider it and we shall implement it in the interests of the people. The message it wants to convey, is: We shall not alienate you; we want us to stand together in this country, to live together and to take care of the interests together, but everyone in its own sphere and everyone with the preservation of its own identity and everyone determining its own destiny.

I want to make it quite clear that it should be realized, also by the Coloured people, that they also have a responsibility, a responsibility not only to receive, but also to plough back and to give back and also to invest in the country. They should also have the responsibility to achieve something in the knowledge that nothing falls into one’s lap but that one has to work for it. I want to appeal in particular to the upper levels of the Coloured population that they should not move away from their people, but that they should take their people by the hand and take care of the problems and circumstances of their people. When we consider this report, when we consider the policy of the NP and when we consider the future of South Africa, I foresee that the White and Coloured groups, in this country may find one another on this road in terms of the policy of the National Government and that we can do and achieve fine things together.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with particular attention to the speech of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. Certain parts of his speech testified to a constructive spirit which I appreciate, but there are other aspects of his speech which I cannot understand in view of the realities with which we are confronted. He spoke about group areas, as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs also did. The question is not what you and I mean by group areas, but the question is in which way the Coloured people themselves are affected by the application of this Act, what their experience of it is and how they react to it. Even though you and I would do these things with the best intentions in the world, it still elicits this reaction and you and I have to ask ourselves whether we are going in the right direction even though we believed initially that we were on the right course.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn made statements of great consequence here. He referred to the Coloured people who should be allowed to decide for themselves and to manage their own affairs and should be freed from White domination. What does this mean? What does this mean in the realities of our political structure? Why is this not spelt out to us? I shall come back to that later. What does it mean when it is said that the Coloured people should be freed from White domination? What does it mean when in the last instance the sovereignty of this State is established in this Parliament, a Parliament to which the Coloured people have no access and of which they can never become members? What does those words mean? We can bluff ourselves, but surely we cannot bluff the Coloured people. The Coloured people are at the receiving end. They have to take and accept things. Therefore, if we want to continue misleading ourselves and to believe that we would be able to solve the problem in that way, endless tragedy is awaiting us in this country. This is what I wanted to say by way of reaction. I shall refer again to some of these points later.

We experienced a watershed during the past two weeks, a watershed in the South African politics. After the events on the Witwatersrand, our approach towards the urban Bantu can never be the same again. Those events compel us to investigate and to consider afresh. However, I leave the matter at that. I want to discuss the report of the Theron Commission.

Those events have no depth! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, …

Those events have no depth! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it surprises me that the hon. member for Carletonville can say such things. It also surprises me …

Do not begrudge me an opinion. I do not begrudge you your opinion. Do not begrudge me my own opinion! Those things have no depth!

Thank you very much. However, I must say that if we place ourselves in the position of the Black communities in South African and then say that the things that happened have no depth, it has become very late in the day.

It has no depth!

The second watershed is the publication of the report of the Theron Commission.

I can also judge!

I wish the hon. member for Carletonville would allow me to proceed. Surely he will be given an opportunity later to speak himself. All of us in South Africa have to take cognizance of this report. This includes all political parties, no matter who or what they are. Neither does it make any difference what their points of view or points of departure have been, or what policies they have supported up to this stage. This report compels us to reconsider our fundamental points of departure.

I want to express my appreciation to the Commission. To my mind they have published a most responsible report. Anyone who has seen this report will know what is demanded in some quarters in this country, what some people want to have done and what they want to see should happen. If we consider the contents of this report against that background, it appears that the impression created in this House—perhaps unconsciously—amounts to the fact that the majority recommendation came from people who were perhaps irresponsible people, people who perhaps have gone too far, or whatever the case may be.

No, that is not so!

No, but this is the impression that has been created. The responsible nature of this report is something we dare not fail to appreciate. I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his analysis of this report, as well as …

One can subject it to selection!

I shall come to that later. In addition we also have the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and by the hon. member for Green Point. As far as the general analysis of the report is concerned, I agree with the analysis which was given here by the hon. member for Rondebosch.

But you are kindred spirits!

I am referring to a scientific analysis of the report. Any hon. member who listened to that part of the speech will have to agree with me. It was a sound analysis of the report. That is all I want to say.

What emerges from this report? In the first place, it shows us that there was in fact progress. I think this is beyond doubt; I do not think we can argue about that. In spite of what has been said here, it appears from the report itself that this fact is not only recognized, but that it is also appreciated. In the second place it appears that major problems exist, as is spelt out in this report. I am not going to analyse the report here; it has already been done this afternoon. One of the many major problems—the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs referred to it—is the acute poverty among 40% of our Coloured population in the lower echelons. These people are living in the poverty culture. It is not always for us to say what the problems are, but we have to go and find out which aspects those people are not happy about. For this reason the tables which appear in the report as to what the problems are, are very important. Many of those problems can certainly be eliminated through consultation, through the necessary application of devotion, energy and funds.

There is a considerable sphere of common interest where the White population, the Government and the Coloured population do not differ from one another. When Gunnar Murdahl undertook his major study of the American Negro during the thirties, he drew up what he called “the rank order of discrimination”. In other words, he determined statistically which things the Whites in the Southern States of the USA were the least prepared to accept. That “rank order of discrimination” was (1) miscegenation, (2) social integration, (3) economic equality, (4) political equality and (5) equality in the administration of justice. Murdahl thereupon found exactly the same forms among the Negros but in the reverse sequence, i.e. what the Negroes desired most was (1) equality in the administration of justice—hon. members must view this against the background of the administration of justice in the USA where it was to a large extent bound up with politics—(2) economic equality and opportunities, (3) political rights, (4) social equality and (5) miscegenation. They were not interested in miscegenation at all. In other words, there was an upper sphere, i.e. equality in the administration of justice, economic equality and political equality at which a broad field of possible co-operation existed without steps being taken which would be totally unacceptable to one group or another.

When one scrutinizes this report and more specifically the tables on page 450, one finds the grievances of the Coloured population in the sequence they have been stated here among the urban population as well as among the leader corps. We see that a pattern is developing here which will make it possible for the Whites to act in such a way that many of these problems can indeed be eliminated without the Whites having to sacrifice anything they regard as of fundamental nature. It is possible for this to happen on condition that they adjust their concept of what is fundamental to these circumstances. However, I shall return to this aspect at a later stage.

I regret the negative attitude which has been adopted towards this report. We have here a considerable terrain on which steps can be taken with positive results for the relationship between the Whites and the Coloured people. With this I do not want to imply that the other things, also the political rights, are not of importance. However, I shall return to that.

The third point that emerges from the report is that the Coloured people—hon. members must not say this comes from me, because it is contained in the report and it is evident from the surveys—find many of the fundamental points which form the basis of—if hon. members want it that way—the ideological policy we have followed over the past 25 years, unacceptable.

If the report brought us only one message, it is that it is not important what you and I think about the good or the bad aspects of the policy and whether we think that the principles were good or bad, but what is important is that these were or became unacceptable to the majority of the Coloured people. Hon. members may perform as much as they please and say that this is the work of agitators, or that the Coloured people are misinformed. They are not. They know exactly what it is all about. They know just as well as hon. members opposite what it is all about. We may differ on many things in this House, but let us not allow ourselves the luxury to want to bluff ourselves on this fundamental point. In essence the Coloured people find these arrangements unacceptable. For that reason the challenge for you and for me is the challenge this report presents to us.

For that reason I find it a great tragedy that the commission was divided. It would have helped everybody in this country if the commission had spoken with one voice. I shall come back to this aspect later, but I want to point out even at this stage that, owing to the division in the commission it is my unfortunate conviction that the Government is going to find it impossible to move in one specific direction or other. I shall come back to that. I say this with a great measure of sympathy and regret and not because this is the way I wanted it. In this connection I really want to dissociate myself from the remarks about the commission made by the hon. member for Piketberg—I regret the hon. member is not here at the moment. It was my privilege to have been associated for many years not only with a considerable number of the Coloured leaders who served in this commission, but also with the three academics of Stellenbosch. I am referring to the chairman of the commission as well as the two other members. They do not share my party political beliefs. Through all the years that I have known them, they were strong supporters of the Government and the policy of the Government. What I want to call reflections have been cast in this House on the integrity of those people as if…

Oh, come off it!

… those people have approached the matter—and I am using the words which were used here—from a previously adopted standpoint. These were the words used by the hon. member for Piketberg.

There was no reflection on the integrity of any of those members.

What does it mean when it is said that someone approaches a matter from a previously adopted standpoint? I want to point out to hon. members—I shall not have the time to go into it in detail—the reaction of the minority of the members of the commission on the chapter dealing with the “poverty culture” in which it was implied that the majority of the commission was really influenced by the neo-Marxist consideration as far as their viewpoints were concerned. This is stated on page 476 of the report. [Interjections.] But when we refer to previously adopted standpoints, what does it say here about group areas in recommendation No. 3 of the minority report? Prof. Cronje and Mr. Van Zijl indicated that they voted against recommendations (a) and (b) because of the consideration that these recommendations amount to the systematic elimination of separate development generally and the Group Areas Act in particular. Sir, if this is a commission, that commission should surely conduct its investigations without any fear and should not regard itself as being committed to a particular point of departure in any policy. Elsewhere in the report we find that the minority has used this time and again as their point of departure. How can the hon. member for Piketberg—I am sorry he is not here—tell other people that they had previously adopted standpoints?

Very poor.

Sir, the question appeared to me whether it is in fact desirable to appoint members of Parliament as members of commissions, because it seems to me that too great a responsibility is placed—and this applies to everyone—on the members of such a commission to judge the fact before them objectively and from a non-political standpoint. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Piketberg concluded with the fine sentiments that he believes that it is possible to solve everything by means of dialogue. For three years there has been dialogue between leading persons, and what is the reaction? What does the hon. member for Piketberg tell us? He tells us that the Commission is a prototype of what will happen when the Coloured people come to this Parliament. In other words, what he says about dialogue is a direct repudiation of his own analysis of this commission and his share in the work of the commission.

Sir, I want to deal with the question of the White Paper, because the hon. the Minister of Health and other hon. members suggested that the White Paper is positive. Let us consider it now. It deals with the real controversial recommendations and all their implications. When we consider paragraph 2 it is said that several recommendations are acceptable to the Government. I want to say that if several recommendations are acceptable to the Government, it surely means that the Government has considered them because how can it say that it finds these recommendations acceptable? Otherwise it cannot say that these recommendations are acceptable.

For that reason I want to pose the question: Why was it not stated clearly in the White Paper which recommendations are acceptable? Surely it is not good enough merely to say that several recommendations are acceptable. Furthermore, it is said that the Commission was appointed in the interests of the progress of the Coloured population itself and because it is a matter of high priority as far as the Government is concerned. For that we are grateful. However, I do not know what the words “in the light of its own policies” mean. Then we come to paragraph 4, the real essence of the matter, and the subsequent paragraphs. The White Paper states that the convictions of the Government are substantiated by some of the findings of the Commission. I now want to say in all honesty that there are many other findings in those same chapters which are not quoted to substantiate these recommendations. The White Paper states that the report contains recommendations which amount to the recognition and development of the identity of the various population groups in the Republic being broken down. I now challenge anyone to show me a recommendation in this report which is meant or will have the effect of breaking down the identity of whoever it is in South Africa. I should like to know this, because there is not one single recommendation in that report which falls in this category. Are we playing a Don Quixote game here where we tilt at our own windmills? Have we reached this stage after such a serious report has seen the light? I want to ask which recommendations are going to break down the identity of people and of groups. If I have time I shall perhaps come back to this later.

Furthermore, it is said that the Government will not be prepared to accept recommendations which are not conducive to the orderly and evolutionary advancement of the various population groups in the Republic as a whole. These are responsible people who brought out a responsible report. Is it really suggested that these recommendations will not be conducive to the orderly and evolutionary advancement of the various population groups? If I have time, I am going to discuss this constitutional aspect because I take it this is what they have in view. Furthermore, the White Paper states—

What do the prohibition of mixed marriages and the Immorality Act have to do with the preservation of the identity of any group? This is nonsense. Afrikaans- and English-speaking people are free to marry one another and they have always been free to do so. Mr. Speaker, do you want to tell me that the identity of the Afrikaans-speaking or the English-speaking people are being endangered through this? If it does not concern race or colour, but peoples

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, who was a professor, to identify the concept of “identity”?

The meaning will be apparent from the report. There is nothing which endangers the identity of any of the groups in South Africa, and the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Acts are the last aspects I would want to quote as being essential for the preservation of the identity of the Whites or of the Afrikaner. I can name one after the other. For example, there are no laws prohibiting the Indian group to marry or to mix with any other non-White group, but do hon. members want to tell me that the identity of the Indian group is being threatened? Does it mean that we are afraid of ourselves? It is absurd to associate this legislation with the preservation of the identity of groups. Surely it has no logical or moral basis. Furthermore, the White Paper states—

What does this all mean? It says nothing.

It is merely words.

It is less than that. I quote again from the White Paper—

Likewise a homeland is not acceptable to the Government either. Do hon. members still want to tell me that this is not a rejection of the fundamental recommendations in the report? It is stated here in black and white and it is quite clear. What does it say here? What is the alternative that is being held out, the alternative which is also suggested by hon. members? I referred to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn a moment ago. During the discussion of the Bill on the Status of the Transkei we constantly heard that area was being identified with people, and that those identifications made it possible for the Nationalist Government to implement its policy of self-determination and sovereignty for the Blacks in the Transkei. Here a homeland is being rejected and quite rightly so, because a homeland is impossible; it is impractical. Now I want to pose the question: Were hon. members bluffing when they spoke about an area having to be identified with a people as an essential prerequisite for the full self-development and the political sovereignty of a nation? Were hon. members bluffing us or were they bluffing themselves? The Coloured people cannot have their own homeland. That is why I am telling hon. members that we have no alternative, whatever the legislative institutions might be under whatever form—whether it is under this system or under a federal system. It is essential that the Coloureds should share in this, because in their case there can be no identification between an area and themselves, because they cannot develop their own sovereign parliament as the Transkei can. We have no other choice except to involve them directly in these institutions. For that reason the recommendation pertaining to an investigation of the Westminster pattern makes sense in that context; in other words, we have to find ways and means through which we are able to create a political structure in South Africa—and I say this without qualification—in which the Coloureds and Whites will be able to decide together on all matters of common interest. If we do not do this, it means that we commit ourselves to a policy of indefinite political supremacy over the Coloured people. As we already know, this is totally unacceptable to the Coloured people.

I cannot imagine our being able to follow a course which will lead to greater conflict and more direct confrontation when the message has to go out from this House on the basis of this report and the White Paper prepared on the report, to the effect that the Coloured population will have no share in the exercising of the sovereignty over the country, the sovereignty over matters which affect us both, and that they will have no share in that highest body in which this sovereignty is vested. In that sense I want to say that the rejection of the report is a tragedy of the greatest magnitude for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say again—and not only by way of repetition of what hon. members said, but also by way of repetition of what I did on another level—that I express my thanks to all members of the commission and also to the staff associated with it, for the formidable task which they accomplished over the past more than three years. There is no doubt that never before in history has a study of such magnitude and such profundity been made into the subject of the Coloured population of South Africa as in the case of the Theron Commission. The terms of reference from the State President at the time were that the Commission was to report within 18 months or as soon as possible after that. That it eventually took longer than three years neither I nor the Government take amiss of the commission, for if one considers this report, one realizes how great the magnitude of the task of the commission was. While I am expressing thanks to everyone involved, I do feel that it is necessary to convey special thanks to the Government Printer. If it had not been for the special assistance from that quarter through the agency of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior—this report would definitely not have been tabled. Therefore I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Government Printer and his staff for the hours of overtime spent in getting this report printed in time. When thanks were being expressed this afternoon, I expected the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has knowledge of this, to have thanked me as well. Now I shall have to do it myself. I want to state it as a fact here that if I had not stepped in earlier this year and helped to take special steps, this report would still not have been printed.

Now someone is blowing his own trumpet.

No, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central can confirm what I said. He knows what I am talking about. Decisions had to be taken on the highest level to expedite the work, and certain other measures had to be adopted. If one is a Minister one becomes a punching bag for many people, and one is reproached for many things. I have also been reproached by certain people and certain newspapers. Since the chivalry did not emanate from other quarters, I must therefore say this afternoon—something I also said in a statement a few days ago—that if I had not stepped in, we would not have been able to discuss this report here.

This report covers a tremendously wide field. The Government intimated by way of a White Paper that it finds the vast majority of the recommendations of the commission acceptable. Some have already been implemented, and others are at present being implemented. The hon. member for Edenvale, who spoke just before me, made a statement to which I want to react. He alleged that since the Government had indicated in the White Paper that many recommendations were acceptable to it, this indicated that the Government had already given attention to the matters. He then asked why these had not therefore been spelled out. The hon. member must realize of course that the Cabinet took cognizance of this, but that no department was able to study these matters in depth before the report had been tabled. Cursory consideration was given to certain basic recommendations, and the Cabinet expressed the opinion that many of them were acceptable. This is something with which I am in agreement. That is why it was stated in this way in the White Paper. But surely, it was also stated in the White Paper that a large number of Government departments and other organizations were affected. They are only now able to commence a study-in-depth of all the recommendations. However, it is only a matter of orderliness if each tabulated recommendation is reacted to in a final White Paper, as recommended in this White Paper. I hope the hon. member understands that.

It is pointed out in the White Paper that certain recommendations have already been implemented, or are in the process of being implemented. I am saying this to prove how the Commission and the Government thinks along the same lines on certain matters, whether these are problems or whether they are certain needs. I want to mention a few examples.

In the discussion of my Vote yesterday reference was made to the announcement that the salaries of Coloured teachers would be increased by 15% on 1 July. Of course, this does not apply only to Coloured teachers. Some newspaper reports referred to this as stemming from a recommendation of the Theron Commission, but that is not what it was. It was the implementation of a Cabinet decision adopted a few years ago to the effect that provision would be made by means of salary increases for the progressive narrowing of the wage gap. When the Cabinet had to reach a decision a few months ago on salary adjustments in the Public Service, it reconsidered this matter. In other words, it did not wait until this recommendation was made. This indicates that the Commission and the Government think alike on certain problems. I could mention other cases as well, inter alia, the education of the Coloured population. If I may rely on my memory, the commission states in one of its recommendations that opportunities should be offered on the executive level to the Coloured teacher who has made progress. What does “executive level” mean? To my mind it means the level on which decisions are taken, inter alia, too, on the advancement of Coloureds in the Directorate of Education of the Administration of Coloured Affairs. Yesterday the hon. member for Piketberg pointed out that there was already a Coloured chief inspector, and I am at liberty to announce that a second was appointed today, not as a result of the report of the Theron Commission, but as a result of the process of evaluation which has been in progress for the past few months. If my information is correct, the second letter of appointment was today dispatched to the second Coloured chief inspector, in other words, two of the eight chief inspector posts are from today onwards being filled by Coloureds.

This is not progress which is being made because the Government, my department and the Administration of Coloured Affairs woke up as a result of the recommendations of the Theron Commission, but because the commission and the Government think along parallel lines as far as these matters are concerned. Another aspect which I could mention is that 33 of the 91 posts of inspector of education are already filled by Coloureds. Twenty-five of the 67 posts for subject inspectors of special subjects are already being filled by Coloureds. Yesterday I announced here that, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Defence, and with his co-operation and approval, a system of school cadets is being introduced at Coloured schools. This is also a matter to which the commission devoted attention. This decision, too, which is now being worked out in detail, was discussed early this year by the hon. the Minister of Defence and myself. Once again this is a sphere in which the Government and the commission thought along the same lines. So I can continue to enumerate many other examples which are in the process of being implemented. That is why I say that this commission performed a commendable task by drawing the attention, not only of the Parliament and the Government, but also of the country, to the spheres in which there has been progress, the spheres in which there is a need for more progress, and where there are specific problems. I think that this can only benefit everyone, and it will be harmful only if hon. members succumb to the temptation of throwing the problems and needs into the lap of the Government only. I assume that hon. members have not been able, during the course of the past week, to analyse and study this report properly. Yesterday an hon. Senator told me that he had already worked through the report, but I happened to mention that he had worked only with the abbreviated, translation summary in English. It is physically impossible to work through this bulky report properly within a week, make further deductions from it, and take further steps. I am requesting hon. members to make a study of it, particularly with a view to establishing what deficiencies, what failings there are in those spheres which do not fall under the Government, for example the sphere of the employer and of other organizations, and also the determining how people in other spheres are being guided by their conscience.

I find it a pity that, in the discussion here of the deficiencies which still exist, the onus has been thrown bodily into the lap of the Government. I think the liability for that extends far wider than that. I would have been able to react today by referring to what the situation was like in the time of the United Party Government. At that time the Coloureds were hardly mentioned in Parliament, to say nothing of anything been done for them. They were at the time the most ignored sector of our population. But would such comparisons achieve anything? Therefore my plea to hon. members is to study this report properly and then examine their own conscience and see what they themselves are able to do. After thorough consideration they must also look soberly at what contribution has to be made not only by White organizations, the authorities, companies, employers and others, but also what contributions will have to be made by the Coloureds themselves in an organized manner. It is my conviction that it would be a pity if the Coloureds were, in this entire process of progress, to get the impression that, in the words of Jean Jacques Rosseau, the noble have been wronged, that they have nothing to contribute, but that everything should simply come from the people who are being arraigned. If such impressions have to be conveyed by the interpretations attached to the report of this Commission, I say it would also be a pity. Naturally there will have to be consideration in the process of analysis, not only by the Government, but also on other levels, of various standpoints adopted by groupings of the commission—I could almost say regroupings on occasion—and at the reservations which were expressed, in order to understand why it is such a complex problem to adopt a standpoint on some aspects. Further consideration will have to be given to these matters. I think each one of us should have a good look at this, for herein we read the problematical aspects of our relations situation in South Africa. All bodies that make a thorough study of this report will see whether the recommendations always tie in with the evidence before the commission. Even now I can single out points of criticism. However, I do not want to venture into that sphere. Nor do I have the time to do so. But allow me to quote a few points. There is, inter alia, the recommendation that civil pensions should be removed from the control of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and transferred to another department. If we were today in the same post which I formerly occupied in that department, I would protest vehemently against that recommendation because the commission did not in any way have terms of reference to express an opinion on the administrative functioning of Government departments not related to the affairs of the Coloured population. Nor do I find any evidence in support of such a recommendation. There are other aspects as well. In certain respects the report is perhaps obsolete, perhaps because the commission worked on it for a long period of time.

There is a recommendation that special attempts should be made to motivate farmers to send their Coloured farm workers for training to the agricultural gymnasium at Kromme Rhee. What is being implied, is that there is not enough support for this matter. According to the latest information which I received a month or two ago from the advisory board of that institution, the increase in the number of enrolments in the year 1974-’75 was no less than 35%. After I had addressed the congress of the Cape Agricultural Union here in Cape Town, and also addressed congresses of other development organizations, I was literally inundated with requests from agricultural unions and local authorities to establish a second and a third Kromme Rhee in the Karoo or along the Orange River. It is a good idea.

It is a good idea of the commission.

It is a good idea. I agree with that, but I maintain that in this respect, i.e. the motivation of White farmers in this matter, the report is far behind. So I can continue, Mr. Speaker. I can also point out certain deficiencies which might exist—not serious deficiencies, but deficiencies nevertheless—in the report of the commission. For example I can refer to cases where the evidence and the recommendations in regard to that evidence are not always reconcilable. I do not want to disparage the commission. That is not my intention. I have the greatest respect for each separate member of that commission. Yet, it is true that we are all human, and that even such a commission, in the course of its work, can commit certain blunders, because—particularly when its activities extend over such a long period of time—certain of its data becomes obsolete. That is why I say that the recommendations of this commission will be thoroughly tested by more than one body; the recommendations will be tested against what is happening in practice, as well as against certain parts of the evidence which were presented.

This eventually brings me to the standpoint adopted by both Opposition parties; their standpoint in regard to this report. They want to usurp this commission for themselves. I am referring, inter alia, to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in Sea Point. At that stage he had not yet made a thorough study of the report. However he submitted that his party virtually accepted the report in its entirety.

I did at least study the recommendations very thoroughly.

Yes, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now saying that he studied the recommendations very thoroughly. That is precisely why I made an appeal to hon. members not only to read the recommendations. They should also read the summaries of the chapters, in fact, the chapters themselves. That is what constitutes the interesting field of study.

While I am dealing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I just want to point out that this issue has been debated for a long time here today. The hon. member for Edenvale also participated in the debate. In fact, he maintained that the debate was neither here nor there as regards the question of whether such a thing as a Coloured identity existed. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he believes that there is such a thing as a Coloured identity. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition believe that such a thing exists?

That is not what is at issue.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition shakes his head and says that he does not believe in anything of that nature. I am referring to chapter 20 of the report of the commission, where I found the following interesting information. I am quoting from paragraph 20.58 on page 441—

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the even greater percentages of the respondents who were questioned in certain urban areas replied in the affirmative to the question which was put to them.

What about recommendations Nos. 153 and 154?

Surely I have just asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not merely to read the small volume I have had translated for his convenience. He should also take a look at this one. [Interjections.] If this does not contain anything of significance to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, surely the following must be at his disposal, for I am now quoting from the summary of chapter 20, on page 453, paragraph 20.132—

I am also reading this for the edification of the hon. member for Edenvale. I am not finished yet with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as far as this matter is concerned. He said that there was no such thing as a Coloured identity.

He did not say that. [Interjections.]

But he shook his head. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said “No,” and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said last night that no such thing existed. The hon. member for Rondebosch also said that no such thing existed. But here the commission finds authoritatively that it is the case. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition another question now: If he alleges that there is no such thing as a Coloured identity, why does the political pattern of his party make provision for the representation of Coloureds in their own bodies?

What do you understand by “identity”? [Interjections.]

That hon. member served for longer than three years on a commission which instituted an investigation into a question of identity, and now he asks me what it means! As I see it, identity is when a group of people feel that they are bound together by common ties. That is the expression of identity. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must now tell me why, if he alleges that there is no such thing as identity, while the commission says that there is, the policy of the hon. the Leader makes provision for two representative bodies for the Coloureds?

We are not yet agreed on what identity means.

I want to know from the hon. the Leader why his policy then makes provision for two representative bodies for the Coloureds—not for the Bantu, the Whites or the Indians, but for Coloureds. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it has nothing to do with identity. Should we now accept that it is a bluff?

We have separate bodies for Whites in the Transvaal and in the Cape.

Mr. Speaker, after all we are not children. The policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition provides that there should be two representative legislative assemblies for Coloureds …

And four for the Whites.

But why is the hon. the Leader doing this in respect of Coloureds? Why is he grouping them together, and not with the Whites, the Indians or the Blacks?

They are a separate group.

They are a separate group without identity! [Interjections.]

That is the dilemma we are facing. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party is trying to sell these policies to the voters. We think there is common ground between us in the sense that we see the Coloureds—in spite of a large variety of sub-groups—as a group which is mutually identifying itself, and for that reason they must have their own government institutions from a high to a low level. We who know the Coloureds are aware of the fact that they are less homogenous than the Xhosa, the Afrikaners or the English-speaking South Africans. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does the same thing, yet he reproaches the Government because the Government also does so. Now we have the report of the commission in which the majority of the commissioners say that there should be direct representation. The commission is not referring to the present dispensation either. The majority of the commission members say that the Westminster formula serves no purpose anymore. In the recommendation with regard to direct representation on various levels, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as members of the PRP, see an opportunity of saying: “Aha, here is our salvation; we can now forget about our own policy; we support the recommendation and condemn the Government because it does not want to accept it.”

That is not what I said.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he holds the view that the Afrikaner has an identity separate from the other Whites in South Africa?

Culturally he has an identity. [Interjections.] I was not referring to a cultural identity in respect of the Coloureds, but to their identity as a population group.

What identity do the Coloureds have?

The hon. member must read the report of the commission, particularly the replies which they furnished. [Interjections.] I want to make another appeal to hon. members to read the report so that they can know what they are talking about. Against the policy of his own party, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now using the report of the commission, particularly in respect of this point, and reproaching the Government which does not accept these recommendations, as interpreted by a minority of the 11, namely the Coloured members—six of the 11. The hon. member for Edenvale did the same thing. What are the aims of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? His credibility is called in question. In addition the credibility of his policies is called in question. If he adopts the standpoint that the majority recommendations in question are acceptable, as stated in the report and as qualified by the Coloured members, surely they are at variance with the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. Must I read out to the hon. the Leader what his own policy says? I am referring to the federal plan.

We are dealing with your policy.

I quote—

This Parliament—

Meaning also the Coloured representative assembly—

i.e., the White electorate—

†In other words, in spite of anything which has been said here today, according to the policy of the UP, the White electorate’s consent will eventually be asked to do what is recommended by some members of the commission. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the debate on the Theron Commission and I must confess that it was a very distressing experience indeed. If I may quote Shakespeare, it was a tale told by a Minister, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. The hon. the Minister is not prepared to say exactly what specific recommendations of the Theron Commission report this Government is prepared to implement as a matter of urgency. He is not prepared to say it; instead he goes into vague generalities. He wasted 30 minutes of valuable time that could have been used in this House. [Interjections.] It is a tragedy that a report of such tremendous significance as the Theron report, which had built up such hopes in the hearts of the Coloured people, should be treated in such an arbitrary manner with no answers being given. We are practically at the end of a parliamentary session and nothing was said by that hon. Minister at all. The treatment which this hon. Minister has given to the Theron report will have serious significance for the future. He has disregarded it and the awakened interest and hope in the hearts of the Coloured people have gone to nothing. The result will be disappointment and frustration. I think, Sir, it holds the seeds of confrontation.

We have listened again to what I find a most extraordinary debate on the question of identity. I heard the definition the hon. the Minister gave of what he meant by identity. I find it the most difficult thing to understand. I have always believed that I come from a certain background, from a culture. I believe that there are good and fine things in that background and that there are good and fine things in that culture. I have no worries that those good and those fine things are going to disappear, because if there is worth in them and there is something there, it is going to survive. It will survive; I have no worries about that. If the hon. the Minister feels that what he is doing is the right way to preserve the identity of the Afrikaner—as I understand him, that was what he was trying to indicate—I want to tell him that the way he is going about it is the way to destroy the identity of the Afrikaner. There is nothing to it. I listened to that explanation of the meaning of identity. He said it was “ ’n gemeenskaplike bond”. What does that mean? It sounds like a rugby team and it is absolutely meaningless. If this is the way the leaders of our country are going to look to the future of the country, we are in for a difficult time ahead of us.

We are coming to the end of what has been a difficult and lengthy session of Parliament and I think it is correct at this stage of the proceedings, in the Third Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill, that one should cover the broad field of Government activities and that one should look at the general performance of the Government. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the recent record of the National Party Government, with regard to their internal policies, is a record of complete and utter failure, failure in every direction. To anyone who loves his country as I do … [Interjections.] You laugh when I say that I love my country. When you love South Africa as I do, as a South African …

Prove it.

I treat with contempt your sort of remarks. Will you just listen to me for once in your life instead of in your bigoted ways, listening only to the words that come from your mouth. You should also listen to other people’s points of view. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville when he said this afternoon that all that happens in this Parliament is that people are picking and looking for political points instead of putting forward good political arguments. [Interjections.] Why do we not try to find out together how we can solve the problems that confront South Africa at the moment? One can only look at the present situation with a sense of sadness, a sense of very deep sadness that a country blessed with such tremendous potential as we have, a wonderful country and a great country, should find itself in the position in which it finds itself today. We are faced with an impending conflict situation between various race groups. We are faced with a break-down of any real communication between the Government and vast numbers of people throughout South Africa. Despite the many warnings that we have uttered in the past we are faced, if we are honest with ourselves, with a polarization process between Black and White in South Africa which carries within it the seeds of tremendous difficulties for our people.

Are you going to renounce those Wits students?

On top of this we are faced with an economic picture which is anything but rosy.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to read out another person’s speech here?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

That is the sort of childish behaviour that I would expect from that sort of hon. member. It is a ridiculous and childish remark and it is the symbol of the sort of way that this Government behaves in this House. He should learn … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned I was expressing my disappointment on the part of those of us in these benches at the reply of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations to the debate on the Theron Commission. I feel that the Government has not given this report the importance it deserves and that it has come up with no answers and that the reply of the hon. the Minister was extremely disappointing. In fact, he gave us no details at all as to what the intentions of the Government were in regard to the commission’s report. We had hoped for more. I had also stressed the fact that we in South Africa are in a very difficult situation at the moment.

Who are “we”?

I am expressing the opinion of the people on these benches, for the benefit of that hon. member over there with the minuscule grey matter, because I believe we are facing serious times in South Africa. I believe it is a time for responsibility and not a time for us to play games. It is a time when South Africans are looking at the Parliament of this country very seriously because they expect the leaders of the country to do something in regard to this serious situation that confronts us.

I believe that the Government at the moment has failed and that the failure of its policies is manifest today, because we are faced with a breakdown in our situation with regard to the Coloured people. We are faced with a situation, as a result of the Soweto riots, where in many areas of Government activity there is failure. To what can we ascribe this failure? Is it perhaps the external pressures exerted on this country? Is it purely and simply because we are a pawn in the international power game? To a certain extent it is external pressure, but again, Sir, if we are honest with ourselves, it is in a large measure because of our inability to come to terms with the realities of our situation. I believe that the responsibility for this inability rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government and its policies.

I think, Sir—and I said this earlier in my speech—that this is a time for honesty in our politics. I think it is time that we took a good, long, honest look at the policies implemented by the National Party. When one does that, it becomes clear to anybody that they have failed. Many Nationalists know this, Sir. They are realizing that the ideologies that they have propounded for so long are not working out. They know that their policies have failed. I believe, Sir, that there are members on that side of the House who know deep in their hearts that the beliefs that they have held for so long are wrong. This realization comes hard to them, and we see manifestations of it in many ways. They lash out blindly at anybody who puts a contrary view to theirs. They blame others, they find excuses, they rationalize and they laugh. But the blame for our parlous internal situation rests in the final analysis on the shoulders of this Government. We find ourselves in our present situation because of their ideologies, their shortsightedness and their absolute refusal to come to terms with reality. They have lost touch with the people in South Africa. Their political infrastructure has failed to communicate with millions of our fellow South Africans of all colours. Their institutions do not interpret the hopes, the fears, the difficulties and the sufferings of the ordinary men and women who are South Africa, Sir.

It is particularly in the field of economics that this failure has shown itself over the last years because we are now paying for the mistakes of this Government. We are paying the price for an ideology and it is this that I wish to speak about tonight. South Africa is finding this price too high. The man and woman in the street are now beginning to realize in cash terms that they are paying for a dream which is fast becoming a nightmare. It is an economic nightmare of soaring prices, increased taxation, a hugely escalating cost of living and a consequent drop in living standards. The reason for all this is that we are paying the price for apartheid.

All South Africans are having to face up to these adverse conditions, but especially the poor, the under-privileged, the pensioners and others who have fixed incomes. Why is this happening? Why is it happening to a country like ours with our assets, our mineral wealth, our natural resources, our human potential and everything that we have going for us? It is happening because we are living beyond our means and much of the money spent is being wasted because it is non-productive expenditure trying to bolster up an ideology. Government spending is not only excessive, but it is highly unprofitable. We cannot afford this, Sir. This Government is to spend over R7 000 million in the financial year ending 31 March 1977. In the year 1970-’71 that amount was R2 707 million.

In six years Government spending has risen by more than two and a half times. Ear too much of that money is being spent nonproductively. Far too much of that money is wasted with no benefit. And that money comes from the pockets of the people of South Africa. That money, Sir, is being spent in a way which is detrimental to our prosperity. There is not a household in South Africa which is not feeling the pinch. I believe that this Government has insulated itself against the feelings of the people, who are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet.

An examination of consumer price index statistics from 1970 to December 1975 is very revealing. Most food prices are up in excess of 75%, public transport costs by 92%, clothing by 53%, furniture by 53%, rent and home-owners’ costs by 57%, and services by 78%. These are official statistics. Food items like meat have in many cases more than doubled. The same applies to other items like coal. And it never stops, Mr. Speaker. Almost daily we are confronted with a never-ending spiral of price increases. We have often heard from the other side that incomes have kept pace with these increases, but this is not so, and of course salary and wage increases place taxpayers in a higher tax bracket, so although even if the income remains the same in real terms, the Government takes a larger percentage in tax. No, Sir, the consumer is suffering. The consumer is paying the price for Government policies. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the only way to sanity in our country is to stop non-productive spending and reorganize our list of priorities so that money spent is money well spent towards prosperity.

The cost of apartheid in South Africa is escalating. We are beginning to pay a very heavy price. South Africa has to choose. Is the price we are paying for apartheid worth paying?

Should we continue to sacrifice prosperity on the altar of separateness, of preserving an identity that cannot be described adequately by the hon. the Minister on the other side? Walk down the street in any town, village or city in South Africa and see how separate we are. Look at our industries, our farms, our offices, our shops and our homes. Here in South Africa working side by side we have people from all races who have together built the South African economy and nobody in their right minds can now suggest that the South African economy can do without Black and Brown people. We are one nation economically and we can be very proud of what we have built together, but I return to the big question: Are we achieving separation? Are we achieving this fine apartheid, this separation which the •other side of the House seems to find so desirable? The answer is that even if the policy of separate development is carried to its stated conclusion, we are still going to have here in the so-called White South Africa millions of Black people, millions of Coloured people and millions of Indian people. So what are we paying for? What sort of separateness are we paying for, if it is thought to be so desirable? Why are we sacrificing our prosperity? What are we achieving? There is nobody yet in this debate who has been able to explain to us exactly what we are doing.

The people of South Africa have been asked to fight inflation. Businessmen and manufacturers have been asked to exercise voluntary restraint on price rises. Workers are asked to forget about pay rises. The big question is: How can the Government expect businessmen, manufacturers and workers to restrain themselves when the Government itself is not prepared to restrain its own spending, when the Government itself is not prepared to set an example of discipline and moderation? The depressing thing about this ideological spending is that it is all so futile; it is an exercise in futility because Government policies can never be a lasting solution. We have clear and very recent evidence of this all around us, viz. the unrest that has taken place. This shows that Government policies are not even a short-term solution. We go from crisis situation to crisis situation. We are destroying our well-being for a house of cards as the Government pours millions of rand into a foundering philosophy, which is worthless. If I have a plea at all today, it is a plea that the Government should stop and listen to the difficulties of the ordinary man. They should consider the desperate circumstances of the poor and they could also consider the situation of the prosperous who are beginning to be less and less prosperous as time goes by. We are not only concerned with prosperity; the other stakes are perhaps bigger than this. We are not only concerned with the cost of living and our present financial difficulties; we are concerned with the future of our country and in fact whether we as Whites in this country have a future at all.

This afternoon, for example, the hon. the Minister of Community Development told the House that we should pray that the necessary funds will be available to carry out his present housing programme. I would say that we must pray and that this money must be made available for the future peace, order and security of this land. We are not only hazarding our prosperity, but also our security. Money must be spent in the right directions. We should not be spending our money on “group areas” removals, for example. We should be spending it on housing. We should be spending it on decent living conditions. We should be spending it on infrastructures. We should be spending it on educating and uplifting our people. We should be spending it on the various items of infrastructure which enables our prosperity to increase and which enable us to keep the cost of living down. This is the way we can deal with the question of security. This is the way we must be able to realize our potential as a great country. However, it is with regret that I have to say that when I look at hon. members on the other side of this House and listen to them playing the political game, when I realize that the warnings we have been given in South Africa in the last week or so have not been taken to heart but are treated with flippancy, with sighs of relief that it is now all over, I feel depressed for my country. [Interjections.] Yes, I feel depressed for my country because I do not believe that this Government can ever change. I watch a situation where Ministers and Deputy Ministers are making a tremendous mess of their jobs, are making tremendous mistakes resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives. [Interjections.]

Surely the man cannot say things like that. Surely he cannot go that far.

They sit proudly there in the front benches of this House. They should resign immediately. [Interjections.] This would indicate that there is a change of heart in our Government, but I must admit it would be very difficult to imagine—looking at those people on the other side—that there would be a change of heart, but one lives in hope, one lives in hope. When the future of our country is at stake, we not only live in hope, we pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have now had an exhibition here of a patriotic Progressive Party. What we really had here was a tirade of frustration, an extreme example of unworthy behaviour in this House. When one behaves like the hon. member for Orange Grove did in this House tonight, it is a clear sign that one has lost the struggle. At the end of this session the PRP is going to go home with a flea in their ear. What did the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, really say? Absolutely nothing! He made one accusation after the other against the Government, and alleged that the Government has not succeeded. He referred to the ideology of the Government which apparently has not succeeded, and said that we are now paying the price for it. However, he did not mention any examples. When referring to the Budget, however, he did not refer to any specific Vote. He just said that we incurred unproductive expenditure. What unproductive expenditure did he mean? Of course that kind of statement is typical of what one gets from that side of the House—criticism without any proof of it. The hon. member said that we will be judged by the man in the street. However, this side of the House is prepared to be judged by the man in the street, because the man in the street has more sense and understanding than the party on that side of the House. However, I shall deal with them again during the course of my speech.

When I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this morning, I could not but feel that I was listening to a man with fear in his heart. [Interjections.] Yes, this is the impression he created—fear of the future. Why? Because he has no plan for the future; because he knows that as a result of his lack of plans, he is losing the confidence of his followers. [Interjections.] His fear was very clearly visible in the manner in which he approached his speech, because it is when one is afraid that one shoots buckshot in all directions in the hope that one will hit something somewhere. In contrast with this one involuntarily thinks of one’s own leader, the hon. the Prime Minister’s forceful, self-assured words, which he expressed in this House on 23 April this year. I refer here to Hansard, col. 5283, where he said the following—

The hon. the Prime Minister was able to say this because he has the confidence of his people, and because he has the confidence of White, Coloured and Black in this country. He could say it because South Africa has a Government which stands firm, but which has never shied away from making changes when circumstances demand and when it is in the interests of South Africa. I can mention a whole series of changes which this Government has brought about to the advantage of South Africa. I think that the fear which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition showed, also glowed from the fact that since their speeches inside and outside this House received a great deal of attention abroad in the past and were also purposefully aimed at receiving attention abroad, they are also losing ground in this sphere now because they are being outbidden by the Progs. For whose edification is the hon. the Leading speaking when he says the Balcks in South Africa will accept a socialist or communist system because it cannot be worse than the system which they now have? The hon. the Leader said: “Times are not normal and the Government must decide on priorities.” This is precisely what we are doing. But there are stumbling blocks, and the UP and the PRP are stumbling blocks. Instead of supporting the positive steps which are taken by the Government in order to maintain our economic preparedness and secure our balance of payment and in this way also to make provision for what we need for the defence of our country, they are ferreting about in the political garbage dumps. When, for very good reasons, we give the hon. the Minister of Finance the powers in order to be able to make the necessary adjustments when Parliament is not in session so that objectives which flow from determining priorities may be realized, the other side of the House criticizes this. We hear a chorus of criticism.

This afternoon we heard a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Yeoville. It was an interesting speech after a week in which that party had been hard hit and, I think, rather disillusioned, a week in which the reputation of the PRP in South African politics was adversely effected, something they are very sensitive about. They received such a blow that the hon. the Minister of Justice had to warn them that they were running the risk of being identified with the Black Power movement in South Africa. Now the hon. member for Yeoville makes a very patriotic speech in order to try and save the image of his party. Sir, I leave it to your judgment to decide whether he succeeded. What I find interesting, is that he said that in order to save the economy, the Government has to eliminate ideological factors. The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to this once again: Ideological factors must now be eliminated.

Since the time of Dr. Malan and during the term of office of every consecutive Prime Minister, the NP has held up the policy of separate development to the voters as a policy which would also demand certain sacrifices from the Whites of South Africa. We have never tried to hide this. We have never hesitated and the people know this. This Government received a mandate from the voters to continue with this in election after election. Of course it requires money, as the national ideology of every country costs money. Israel’s ideology costs money. I should like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville, if he was here, whether he would like to ask the Israelis to abandon their ideology of “Israel for the Jews”. Would he like them to abandon it? Surely it is unthinkable.

Countries do not only pay money for freedom and independence, they also pay with blood. If there is any question of a national ideology, it is an ideology of survival and self-preservation for the Whites in Southern Africa. This can never be abandoned and there is no reason why it should be abandoned, because this ideology of the NP is succeeding in South Africa. It is not only succeeding in South Africa, but outside as well. I should like to refer you to the independence of the Transkei. To me this is the culmination of the policy of the NP and we are prepared to pay for it. Every patriotic South African should be prepared to pay for it.

Only the Nationalists have to pay for it.

The hon. member will also pay for it. In the international sphere the Republic enjoys more recognition today than ever before. The presence of the hon. the Prime Minister abroad testifies to this, as well as the great degree of contact which we have with Africa today.

Sir, we reject the statement that the NP has reached a dead end in respect of its Coloured policy. The report of the Theron Commission itself is proof of it. The hon. member for Piketberg spelt it out to us this afternoon that a group awareness exists among the Coloured people and that there is a growing awareness of identity. The hon. the Minister was speaking about it, but unfortunately his time expired. Therefore I want to state once again that if the UP suggests that the Coloured people do not have a separate identity, it is being dishonest with its policy in respect of the Coloured people. It is then being dishonest with its political policy and the time has then come for it to find a new policy for the umpteenth time.

Today and yesterday there were several speeches in which reference was made to the progress which this population group has made in the economic and other spheres. I myself tried to indicate that a new class of entrepreneurs and a new middle class were developing. If the hon. member for Rondebosch, who is unfortunately not here now, maintains that one cannot have economic upliftment and development if one does not afford a nation political powers, I want to make the statement that the economic development of the Coloured people is indeed proof of the fact that the political powers they have at their disposal, are indeed meaningful. I cannot help feeling that the spirit which the report exudes, is aimed at establishing a feeling of guilt among the Whites of South Africa. I said yesterday, and I now want to repeat that when the White extends his hand to the Coloured people, he does so in a spirit of co-operation and not as a result of any feeling of guilt towards the Coloured. I feel that very little prominence was given in this report to what the Coloured people can do for themselves, and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister also referred to it. One gains the impression that the majority group in the report seized upon the opportunity to ask as much as they possibly could. It even seems to me as if some kind of a dependent mentality is ascribed to the Coloureds. It is logical, as the Coloured people develop, that they should make new demands on the economy of South Africa; demands which they are quite entitled to, demands which nobody can begrudge him.

As the Coloureds buy more motor vehicles—and it is interesting to note from the report that in 1962 there were 12 motor-cars per 1 000 Coloureds, and that in 1970 there were 29 motor-cars per every 1 000 Coloureds; according to predictions there will be between 100 and 120 motor-cars for every 1 000 Coloureds in 1985—and as this process of development continues, we shall find that problems will arise in respect of the availability of roads in Coloured areas. However, these problems are problems which will be solved when the time comes. These are problems which flow from development and the Government will pay the necessary attention to it when it comes to it. Surely, it is not true to allege that this report is a futile one and that the Government is treating it with contempt.

The demands of the Coloured people in respect of fixed property will increase, and we welcome this. The Coloured people will demand accommodation of a higher quality, but then they will also have to make a greater contribution towards providing that themselves. If a Coloured person cannot raise the required amount of money, he will have to save. The Coloured people will have to develop a sense of thrift and will have to acquire financial institutions which, just as in the case of the Whites today, will be able to extend loan facilities for the Coloureds. The Coloured people will have to acquire recreation resorts, holiday resorts, and so on, and the Government is already making provision for this. One can quite rightly pay tribute to the local authorities, such as the Cape Divisional Council which really tackled these problems and did something about them.

The demand of the Coloured people for durable consumer goods will increase. In this respect too it will be the task of the Government to identify the problem of the spending tendencies amongst the Coloured people and to guide them in this respect.

Order! Order! Hon. members must please converse more softly.

The Coloured people can also play an important role in combating inflation, because they have considerable buying power at present. By applying their buying power correctly and applying correct spending, the Coloured people can also make a contribution towards combating inflation. The Coloured people have a considerable buying power, and it is interesting to note when one reads chapter 3 of the report, to what extent the buying power of the Coloured people has increased. With regard to a matter such as public transport, new demands will also be made. However, these will not be insurmountable demands. The Government will pay attention to it and will solve those problems in co-operation with the Coloured people. The uplifting of the Coloured people is basically part of the ideology of the NP. However, those hon. members now say that the Government has to do away with the ideological factor. Do they want the Government to abandon the upliftment work which is being done among the Coloured people? It is part of the ideology of the NP Government.

There are certain economic facts which must be faced when one speaks about the Coloureds in the economy. The per capita income of the Coloured people is influenced by the immensely high growth rate among them. That problem has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Piketberg, as well as by other hon. members. Because a large percentage of the Coloured people fall in the lower income group, the pressure of inflation on that population group is particularly high. It is essential that this should be the case. In a time of recession, with the accompanying general low investment and decreased economic activity which may possibly also adversely affect the employment level and availability of employment opportunities, it will result in a negative influence upon the Coloured economy. Therefore it is important that we should also do everything we can for the sake of this population group and do our very best in order to remain economically sound and viable in order to combat inflation.

The end of this session is at hand and the question which now arises to me is: What message do we take with us when we return to our constituencies? Do we take the message of the hon. member for Yeoville, or do we take the message of the hon. member for Orange Grove? Are we going to our people with a pessimistic view of circumstances or do we take a message of optimism to our people? It is important that we, as representatives, speaking to those people, should point out to them the serious times in which we are living, but it is also important that we should not create an image of pessimism among our people

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose following the line which the hon. member for Malmesbury has just taken. I want to bring this debate back to a subject which is more closely in line with the subject matter of the Bill which we are discussing. However, before I do so, I should like to say that there seems to be developing in this House a fairly regular tactic of attributing to speakers on this side thoughts and motives—a tactic which is quite laughable. For the hon. member for Malmesbury to have said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is afraid of the future, is too ridiculous to bear comment. It is something which can merely be dismissed with contempt. I have found that when I have addressed this House on economic subjects during this session I have regularly been accused of “swartgalligheid” and pessimism. In fact, the inference has been that the contents of what I have said have been harmful to the country. To go further it might almost be interpreted from what Government spokesmen have said that my aims are not patriotic or loyal. I want to tell my friends on that side of the House that I think they are confusing “swartgalligheid” with honesty. They are confusing pessimism with truth and with realism. They are putting up a smoke-screen so that they can hide what emerges from an honest, true and realistic approach to our problems. They are putting up this smokescreen to hide the fact that what emerges is not pleasant and is not a success story for the Government. The story which emerges is one which does not represent success, but failure of the Government’s policies. I believe it is a far more serious matter not to be honest and not to be realistic about what is actually happening on the economic scene, than it is to be realistic. To be unrealistic is unpatriotic, and realism is patriotism.

I do not believe that one solves any problems by bluffing oneself. I do not believe that one solves any problems by bluffing other people. I am going to have more to say about that later this evening. However, let me say at this early stage that I have the utmost confidence in the economy of this country, and in the future of South Africa. We have all the ingredients which are necessary for a prosperous society, for rising living standards; we have all except for one ingredient which I shall come to. We have a wealth of material resources, we have vast potential labour resources, we have men of enterprise and we have management in a capital-scarce world. However, what we lack is a Government that is following policies which are reconcilable with sound economic practices. [Interjections.] Let me say that policies which are restrictive on the mobility of labour and on the use of labour, policies such as job reservation, the environmental planning legislation and the harsh administration of influx control, are not reconcilable with sound economic practices. In The Argus of this evening there is a report by one of our leading industrialists, Mr. C. J. Saunders, to the effect that our prosperity is being held back by two things. The one is job reservation and the other is the wage gap between White workers and non-White workers. Nor is the interference such as we have on the part of this Government in the economic location of industries, a costly interference, reconcilable with sound economic practices. We also lack a Government which has a record of following the sound financial and economic practices which the situation in the country calls for. Instead, we have a Government which has been guilty of extravagant spending, and when I say extravagant spending, I am taking full account of the need to spend heavily on defence. However, even after defence expenditure, I regard the level of Government expenditure as extravagant on account of the volume of spending that takes place for ideological reasons. We have a Government which has financed this level of expenditure to a dangerous extent by allowing the money supply to grow out of proportion to the growth of our productive capacity or to the growth of what we can afford to pay.

I said that I have confidence in the future. I believe that it is absolutely vital that the country should have a strong economy because on a strong economy depends our future security, our future peace and our future solution to our racial problems. However, the confidence I have is a long-term confidence. What we have got to look at at present is the short and medium term situation and it is here that honesty and realism are required and not a smoke-screen. Do not let us bluff ourselves that the present economic situation is anything but a very difficult one; in fact, I would say that it is almost an intractable one in the short term. We have been hit by certain factors such as an overseas recession which has affected our exports, although it has not affected our exports to the extent that many people seem to think. We have been hit by a lower gold price which has affected our balance of payments and the profitability of our gold mines. We have been badly hit by higher oil prices which have also affected our balance of payments and which have had harmful effects on our economy. But what we have also been hit by, and been hit harder by than by the factors I have just mentioned, is by a Government which is not cutting its coat according to its cloth, or following the policies I have already mentioned to fit the situation in which we find ourselves. What is the situation we now have to face? On the one hand we have a balance of payments problem which is assuming disturbing proportions. Our exports, including gold, are not nearly sufficient to pay for our imports and the capital flow into the country is not making up the difference. The effects of the recent events, viz. the unrest in the townships and the fact that the Government has rejected important aspects of the recommendations by the Theron Commission, are not likely to improve the capital flow into this country. The result is that our reserves are declining and are reaching a level which one can only regard with some concern. Coupled with our balance of payments problem, we have a serious inflationary situation, a situation that is getting worse and not better. Only this week figures were published of the May cost of living which showed that the rate of inflation is accelerating and not slowing down. To me the position of inflation under this Government appears to be quite out of control.

Only on Monday Die Transvaler published a graph showing the most recent inflation rate in 11 of the most important Western countries.

Read the whole report.

The second highest rate of inflation on this graph is that of the Republic of South Africa. We have with us a malignant disease which is hurting everybody, or nearly everybody, but particularly the people who can least afford to be hurt. We have a disease which is destroying the whole fabric of our economy; it is destroying our way of life and threatening to destroy the free enterprise system in South Africa. I get many letters from various people on the subject of the hardships caused by inflation. Only today I received one from a person in Krugersdorp. Clearly that person in Krugersdorp realizes that it is no use going to a Nationalist member of Parliament with that problem. [Interjections.] That party has no answer to it at all. Those are the two factors we have on the one hand, viz. the balance of payments and our inflation situation. On the other hand we have a growth rate which is standing still or even moving backwards. Put into practical terms, the position is that our standard of living is going down; in other words we are getting poorer, we have rising unemployment and all that that means in terms of social dangers.

Can the hon. member quote some figures?

I can think of few less dangerous situations than to have a rising rate of unemployment superimposed on the recent unrest and disturbances which we have had in our African townships. Why I call the position almost intractable—and this House should be under no illusions on this matter—is that monetary and fiscal policies, i.e. the clamp down on credit, the cutting of capital expenditure and the punitively high taxation imposed in the last budget, are the main measures that have been adopted by the Government to try to relieve the balance of payments problem and the inflationary problem in the short term; and those measures have very painful effects. If those measures are going to be successful in combating inflation and in rectifying our balance of payments position, they will have to produce a situation of stagflation of unemployment and of lower living standards. I should like to quote from what our two largest banks have had to say in their most recent reviews on this subject. I quote first of all from the Standard Bank which states—

Could you read further? What did they advise?

I cannot read the whole article. Barclays Bank, which is the largest bank in this country, states the following—

Mr. Speaker, I would say to this House that the position that I have just read out is a position which this country just cannot afford. In these circumstances I think that the anti-inflationary programme which provides for other measures to supplement monetary and fiscal ones becomes very important indeed. So far, however, judging by the results of this anti-inflationary campaign—and there is only one thing that matters in a campaign such as this and that is to get results from it—it has been a failure. It is not success to be second from the bottom on the league of inflation in the important industrial countries of the world. The failure of this anti-inflationary programme is due to the fact that the Government itself has sabotaged it. It has sabotaged it through its devaluation of last September which had led to substantially higher import prices. It has sabotaged it by putting up railway rates on 1 April and it has sabotaged it by the manner in which taxes have been increased, taxes on petrol and the increases in the sales tax, which have had the effect of increasing the inflation rate. I say that it is absolutely imperative that the anti-inflation campaign be made to work. The main hope for reducing inflation in the short run without having to suffer the worst damage that would be caused by monetary and fiscal measures, to which I have already referred, lies in an effective, voluntary restraint in prices and wages. In the longer run, of course, productivity matters, but in the short run it is restraint on prices and wages that will help us to get control of inflation. There is still a wealth of goodwill and co-operation on the part of the private sector and the trade unions to stick to the rules of the anti-inflationary campaign. However, I do not believe that the seriousness of our economic situation, as I have tried to describe it and as has been confirmed by the major banks in the country, is fully appreciated by the man in the street or even by some businessmen, and I am sure it is not appreciated by the majority of members of Parliament on that side of the House. Very largely the real crunch of the situation, as illustrated by these banks, is going over the heads of most people and this is because this Government has not been fully honest and fully frank with the people. I believe that one can get people inspired. I believe that one can get them motivated and ready to make sacrifices, particularly when part of the reason for the sacrifices is the defence of one’s country. I believe that people will react to honesty, realism and frankness. I believe that they will react to blood, sweat and tears speeches. There are many examples of this in history. One of the most recent has been the reaction of the British trade unions who for a second year voluntarily have agreed to limit their wage demands. But people’s reactions rest on credibility, they rest on believing what they are told and that in turn rests on being honest and frank. That is where this Government’s record has let the country down and has let the anti-inflationary programme down. I shall say why. Take the devaluation of last September. This was projected by the hon. the Minister of Finance as a positive move for the good of our economy. It was projected as something which would stimulate growth in our economy and that would correct our balance of payments.

The fact that it would have a harmful effect on prices by putting up the prices of our imports by something like 20% was just glossed over. The fact that devaluation is an admission of weakness and not a sign of strength was also glossed over. The fact that it would have harmful effects on our national debt, making the repayment and servicing of our national debt all that more costly, was not even mentioned.

He was not even aware of it.

As it is, the economy was not stimulated, as the hon. the Minister said it would be. In a fact, it is at a lower ebb now than it was at the time of the devaluation last November. Our balance of payments was not corrected, and the effect of devaluation on prices has been such as to sabotage the whole anti-inflation programme. That, to my way of thinking, was certainly not being frank and honest with the people. [Interjections.] Let us take the most recent budget as an example. When the hon. the Minister made his Second Reading speech, he had an opportunity of being frank with the country and telling us exactly what the position was. Instead he chose to wear rose-tinted glasses.

You should go and read Hansard.

He should have said, at that stage, what the Standard Bank and Barclays Bank are saying now, but he should also have said what needed to be done by way of sacrifices to avoid—as Barclays Bank has put it—“inflicting severe damage on the economy”. He should have said that we have to get poorer before we can get richer. Instead of that we got a budget that was not even an honest document. It was a budget which left out major items of expenditure and made no provision for financing those items … [Interjections.]

Pretty poor stuff.

We are telling you it is pretty poor stuff.

I find it inconceivable that the hon. the Minister did not know, at budget time, that salary increases had to be granted.

Is he accusing him? Oh, good heavens!

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. the Minister did not introduce an honest budget?

Yes, those are the words I used.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. I consider that the hon. the Minister did not introduce a budget that fairly reflected the liabilities of the country at the time when he introduced that budget. [Interjections.]

Stronger and better.

As I have said, I find it very difficult to believe that the Cabinet, at the time of the budget, did not know what their liabilities were as far as increases to the Public Service are concerned. The Public Service had, at that stage, borne more than their share of the sacrifices that were called for by the anti-inflation programme. Then the hon. the Minister comes along, less than a month after the budget, with increases totalling an amount of R90 million, an amount for which no provision had been made in the budget. [Interjections.] Altogether the supplementary estimates, which he has had to come to this House with since the introduction of the budget, have totalled R184 million, while provision was made in the budget for only R40 million.

A mere bagatelle!

Gone are the hon. the Minister’s boasts for his budget that he was keeping the level of increased expenditure in his budget to 10,5% of the expenditure of the previous year. With the supplementary estimates which we have already dealt with, the increase is 13,2% over last year’s budget, which, instead of being at or about the rate of inflation, is now substantially above the rate of inflation.

Was that fair?

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that this sloppy, misleading type of budgeting is not unconnected with the power which the hon. the Minister has taken this session to increase certain taxes between sessions and without referring to Parliament except for subsequent confirmation. He is now in a position to leave items out, as he has left them out of this budget, to put them in later and then to increase taxes to cover them without getting prior parliamentary approval. I say to this hon. House that the Government is doing no good to the country by hiding these things under a blanket. These are chickens which will come home to roost.

Devaluation chickens.

I cannot state too emphatically that when we have a Government and an hon. Minister who are not frank, it is not only the Government and the hon. the Minister’s credibility that suffers; it is the confidence of the people, the people outside of the country, and the country as a whole, which suffers. It is the confidence of the people in the ability of the Government to manage the country’s affairs and financial business which suffers, and that includes the confidence of the people that the Government’s anti-inflation campaign, which we all want to see succeeding, will succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing that the hon. member for Constantia was able to make the allegation at the beginning of his speech that pessimism, which he suffers from, is considered to be synonymous with dishonesty. I should like to accept what he says, and therefore I do not want to accuse him of dishonesty, but if he asks me to accuse him of pessimism, I believe that I have sufficient reason to do so.

You don’t look too happy yourself.

I think that since he said right at the beginning that he took exception to this, it would be extremely unfitting of the hon. member for Constantia to try and make those insinuations against the Government.

There was no direct insinuation.

He did make a direct accusation. He said: “The Government was not honest”.

Mr. Speaker made him withdraw it.

No, it was when he was speaking about the hon. the Minister that he was asked to withdraw a remark. However, he also said that “the Government was not quite honest”. I think it is a pity that the hon. member for Constantia, although he is concerned about the situation himself, should make insinuations of that nature. I shall return to what the hon. member for Constantia said at a later stage and reply to it then.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said here this evening. He asked: “Are we achieving separation?” If he means that we are not achieving it, I want to prove to him that it is an integral part of the policy of the NP. The most striking example of this is the fact that the Transkei is going to obtain its independence on 26 October this year. I think that this is the best example of separate development, of separation, which anyone can expect to find. It is true that there are many obstructions in the way of this policy. There are many obstructions on the part of the PRP, too. However, I think that it cannot be denied that the policy is really being realized.

171.

Very well, 171. That is 70%. I have a report here from the Sunday Times where the following is written under the headline “U.P. in do or die inquest”: “The United Party caucus was locked yesterday in a marathon nine-hour debate on the party’s future.” Then it is quite clear that when the hon. member for Yeoville maintains that party politics has failed, he is not in fact referring to the NP, because the NP has not failed over these years, but is stronger than ever before in its history. We must ask ourselves what the position is going to be in the period which lies ahead. When we examine the record of the UP, we find that ever since its inception it has been reduced and demolished in a gradual way to what it is today, and that, except for the short while we were at loggerheads with the HNP, the UP has been shrinking systematically. When we take note of factors of this kind, we even wonder whether the UP will still be in South Africa when we meet in this House in 1977.

But you should be pleased about that. Why are you so worried?

I am not worried about it, but this is precisely what can happen.

But then you should be smiling, man!

I shall smile on the day when the UP is no longer here.

Then that will be our day.

I do not think that that hon. member need brag about it. He need not say that it will be their day. Nor do I believe that that little party, with its present prospects, will be acceptable to the Whites of South Africa, to the White voter of South Africa, because the PRP is nothing more and nothing less than an image of a small liberal leftist group. [Interjections.] They are a small leftist group who are furthering polarization between Whites and non-Whites and … [Interjections.]

Repeat that!

They side with those who are seeking to achieve the downfall of the Whites in South Africa. Therefore it is not surprising that they are already being called a party that associates itself with Black power.

That is completely untrue of course!

Completely true!

It is completely untrue!

I thought the hon. member said it was completely true. That party’s frustrations are now finding visible expression in its behaviour. When I mention the political constellation in South Africa, the idea of party politics as stated by the hon. member for Yeoville, the idea that the UP is disappearing from the scene, and the PRP that is coming to an end—I shall not even mention the HNP—I should like to tell these parties that the demands which South Africa makes in 1976 are no longer the demands which were made in 1970 when Dr. Albert Hertzog and I were engaged in an electoral struggle.

Actually the HNP exists in your own ranks!

I do believe that there are people in that party who are sincere in their intentions, people who have a rather distorted or perverse sense of patriotism. However, since there are such people, I think it is high time they gave serious thought to the matter and accepted that the political stability in South Africa is the duty and responsibility of the NP.

Owing to the situation which I have sketched to the House, I have to accept that as far as the future of South Africa is concerned, a mandate has been granted to the NP and that the NP is the party that will determine the future of this country within the framework of its policy.

However, I want to come to the economic aspects as raised by the hon. member for Constantia. I was not very impressed by the hon. member’s statements on the economy. As far as I can see, there are not many people in South Africa who agree with the point of view which he and his party raised in respect of the Budget of which we are now discussing the Third Reading. I should like to refer to what other authorities had to say about this Budget. I have little reason to believe that there are any members of the NP amongst these people. I am referring to somebody like Mr. Raymond Parsons of Assocom, who expressed the following opinion of the Budget—

This is a report which appeared in the Sunday Times of 4 April 1976. The following is a statement by Mr. Aubrey Dickman of Anglo-American—

This is not a negative statement like that of the hon. member for Constantia, but something more positive. This is a man who understands the realism of the situation and realizes what is being held out for the future. The hon. member for Constantia quoted to us from a Barclays Bank report but I now want to quote a passage from what the chief economist of Barclays Bank, Mr. Johan Cloete, said. He said the following—

These statements can be considered to be more authoritative in South Africa than the opinion of the hon. member for Constantia and those who support him. We are pleased that there are people in the country, such as these economists, who see the position realistically, in its correct and precise form. These people are prepared to say so, while the behaviour of the hon. member for Constantia—if we may not accuse him of dishonesty—is of such a negative nature that it is completely pessimistic. According to Hansard, the hon. member for Yeoville made approximately 170 speeches during this session, and I now want to ask that hon. member whether he thinks all those speeches were positive contributions. I also believe that if hon. members analyse them, they will find that the hon. member for Constantia did not furnish a single piece of positive advice which could be of any value tonight. All that he did was to disparage and criticize the Government and to be obstructionistic.

We accept that one most certainly cannot wish away the bottlenecks which do exist. We accept that hurling reproaches and recriminations around cannot and will not get us anywhere. We must ask ourselves where we stand, what our future task is and we must spell out our objectives clearly. Milton Friedman’s statement that everything is the fault of the Government, is in line with the statement which the hon. member for Constantia made in this regard. Friedman says that the Government makes the money as well as the Mint. It is a very simple statement and it is definitely not going to solve our problems. This also applies to the general statement which is very often made: “State intervention in the free enterprise.” We accept that the Government does have certain responsibilities, but it is a strange, misplaced philosophy to allege that it is the Government’s task to guarantee progress and well-being in every sphere. That is not the task of the State. We accept that the State has certain responsibilities and that it is its duty to ensure political stability, to protect and stabilize the balance of payments and to try and bring about price stability. This is precisely what is being envisaged by means of this budget. If one analyses it, one finds that this budget holds out the prospect of a disciplined, balanced State spending and that it spells out very clear priorities in this connection. As an example I think of Defence, for which R1 350 million has been appropriated. There are also increased pensions, essential infrastructure, national education, the Railways, community development and the purchasing of land for the homelands, etc. We also accept that provision has to be made in this budget for a reduction of the money supply also by means of the monetary measures adopted in this regard by the Reserve Bank. Therefore the following was said in the Sunday Times of 6 May 1976, under the heading “Healthy fall in money supplies”—

This belies and denies what the hon. member for Constantia alleged, namely that the Government is not doing anything to reduce the money supply. This is positive evidence that the Government is doing everything in its power, by means of these monetary powers, powers which the hon. member for Constantia criticized because it makes for tighter liquidity, to decrease the money supply. However, this is the idea. I quite agree that there was “a healthy fall in the money supply”, that we needed it, and that it is a very important mechanism, by means of which we can control the inflation rate.

The logical results of all these aspects are that there is a damping effect on the demand for goods and services. It is quite logical that this should be the case. Under the present circumstances it cannot be otherwise. Investment is more limited and there is a decrease in the available income of individuals and companies as a result of this fiscal and monetary measure. It cannot be otherwise. This is our goal. We realize that it is essential and we realize that it is painful, but this is what has to be done. To allege that we are lowering the standard of living in this way is, in my opinion, a bad mistake, an incorrect allegation. I do not believe that anyone can allege that we in South Africa are maintaining a lower standard of living as a result of it. We therefore insist that there should naturally be tighter liquidity. It cannot be otherwise.

On the other hand, however, there are also the positive measures which the Government is adopting in order to counteract the position. We think for example of the raising of the control on interest rates to R1 million, which is going to ensure an influx of funds to the building societies. This is a measure to the advantage of our people and it is welcomed by the building societies. On the positive side there are other measures as well. There is a visible improvement in our exports. In this connection we also think for example of the export of coal, timber and agricultural produce, which will definitely improve the productivity and growth rate of the country. We also think of the fairly favourable signs in respect of our gold. Although they are as yet not very promising at this stage, there is nevertheless a degree of stability. When we speak of inflation, I believe that a great deal of positive results have been achieved in terms of the anti-inflation manifesto. I can also show hon. members a piece of paper. I can quote figures which prove that 1975 has been extremely successful and that the food price index dropped from 20% to 8%, clothing from 16% to 8%, furniture from 15% to 9,7%. Indeed, the overall consumer price index showed an encouraging decrease of 15,3% to 11,8% during 1975. I can therefore also show hon. members a piece of paper like this. These are results which are being achieved as a result of the positive steps which were taken by the signatories to the anti-inflation manifesto.

Hon. members will recall that Dr. McCrystal made a statement confirming this a few days ago. The Government is contributing towards this in a very positive manner. The only thing which can be considered inflationistic in this Budget is the withdrawal from the Stabilization Account and the local bonds which are going to be placed on the market one of these days and which will indeed serve to prove the confidence which is being placed in stability of this Government. I believe that these three-, ten- and twenty-year bonds can be subscribed without much difficulty. The Budget is a healthy policy recipe. However, it is not yet the final answer; there are still bottlenecks. The Budget has been called “a holding operation”, but I consider it to be far more than that. It is balanced in a realistically conservative manner with calculated essential priorities.

However, there can be no success without confidence; this is absolutely essential in the final analysis. However, it is not the type of confidence which one finds in the Financial Mail when they allege the following in connection with the financial position in South Africa—

This is not the type of confidence which we want because these are not the people who have a normal feeling of patriotism towards South Africa. In 1948, when the NP came into power, the Opposition and others alleged that it was the end of South Africa. In 1960, when the events at Sharpeville took place, the same allegation was repeated once again and it was said that it was the end of South Africa. When South Africa left the British Commonwealth in 1961, the cry was once again heard throughout South Africa that this was the end, that the banks were going to close. When South Africa became a Republic in 1961, the final cry was once again that it was the end of South Africa. I want to allege that in 1976 there still are and will be those people who will allege that it is the end of South Africa. The only thing which the hon. member for Constantia and myself have in common in this connection, is that I agree with him that I have boundless confidence in the potential of South Africa. I believe that there are the finest prospects for South Africa, but that they are subject to the condition that these can and will only be realized if there is political stability in South Africa and Southern Africa. If I see how the hon. the Prime Minister is circulating in the international council chambers of the world today and I see what the NP is able to accomplish, then I believe that under the care of the NP and the Government, since we are now concluding this year’s session, this country can only look up to the NP with confidence, and with great confidence, in order to lead it further during these difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, I am unfortunately not qualified to judge the quality of the contribution made to this debate by the hon. member for Ermelo where he was speaking about economic and financial affairs. I can only hope that it made more sense than his contribution to, his brief incursion into, the political sphere which could hardly have made less sense. We have had this old story trotted out time and again about the PRP and “Swart gevaar” and “die ondergang van die Blankedom”; it is all such asinine puerility that I am surprised that anybody of any intelligence tries to repeat it again for any purpose whatsoever. All I can say to the hon. member is that for a party which is as dead and as insignificant as this party is in his view, we are causing him an undue amount of concern. There must be some psychological explanation for it, but I would hate to try and diagnose it.

I would like to think that I am going to deal with something slightly more substantial than what the hon. member for Ermelo has been dealing with. I feel that against the background of Soweto and of official reaction to the report of the Erika Theron Commission—each of these two incidents constitute some kind of watershed in our politics—I believe that this House and the people of South Africa, the South African electorate, are entitled to know precisely where we are being taken by this Government. Let me emphasize that it is not only the political opponents of this Government that are puzzled and want an answer to this question. The NP’s own supporters, at least those who are not purblind and deaf, are wondering where they are being taken, because they do not know where the Government is going. Are we moving into an era of enlightened change, as the circumstances of today imperatively demand, or are we sliding back, being pressurized back into an era of verkramptheid which can only bode ill for this country and all its people? It is not a sickly humanist asking these questions. Let me quote to the House what the editor of Die Transvaler, who, as far as I know, is a fairly respectable Nationalist, said as recently as June 13. He wrote with some dismay about signs what he called a “vasvatgees” in Parliament. In case some of the hon. members on my left do not know what he meant by “vasvat” he went on to explain that it was a “sterk regse gesindheid”. He said—

It is not I but Dr. de Klerk who says this.

Where is Andries this evening?

He continued as follows—

Mr. Speaker, would this respected journalist have put these questions if he were not deeply concerned? Dr. de Klerk went on to ask—

†Mr. Speaker, if there is indeed no deep concern in those views, I do not know what constitutes concern. There are countless other examples. Anybody who reads the Nationalist Press with any kind of intelligence, can quote to show beyond any doubt that the Government has in their view, not in our view—we have thought this for a long time, but others are now beginning to think it—the Government has reached the stage where it is beginning to slide backwards instead of going forwards. There is confusion in the highest quarters. Do they know where they are going? Does the Government know where it is going? Does it know where it is being taken? I need only refer to the view of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, Dr. Treurnicht, and his reaction to such things as mixed theatre audiences, mixed casts and the so-called international hotels to show what I mean. Again, it is not only the Government’s opponents that are puzzled about these things. Of course we are puzzled, and we have got reason to be; but it is their own supporters who also do not know what is happening.

Why are you worried?

Let me tell the hon. member. I am worried for a very good reason. It is for the same reason that Wimpie de Klerk and Dirk Richard are worried. Let me tell hon. members what another good card-carrying Nationalist has said about this matter. I quote—

*This was only a week or two ago. I could go on quoting all evening, but those people opposite would eventually start crying. Events elsewhere in the country will also help to create the image … [Interjections.] Now listen! I know it hurts, Daan. But just listen for a while. [Interjections.] It is very difficult when it comes from your own mouth. I quote further—

Where are we headed? Do hon. members know what I have just quoted from? Die Vaderland!

Start making your own speech now.

The hon. member must not howl; there is a lot more to come. It was Die Vaderland that asked a day or two ago: “Who is right: Minister Muller viz. not the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, but the hon. Minister of Transport or Dr. Treurnicht?” If a Black man from Soweto were to ask the Minister of Transport, Mr. Louwrens Muller, whether he could have a drink in the licensed lounge at Jan Smuts Airport, the reply would be “yes”, but if he were to put the same question to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, Dr. Treurnicht, he would get the reply: “No, you ought not to.” Do hon. members know where they are headed for?

And if you ask Dr. Connie Mulder?

Then I do not know.

†He may perhaps, like the parson, walk the straight road between right and wrong.

Mr. Speaker, let us take another issue. Let us take this absolutely vital issue of the abolition of discrimination based on race and colour, surely the surest sign of whether we are moving forward, as the needs demand, or whether we are sliding back into what I call this “verkramptheid”. Hon. members must just listen to this. In the light of the claims made this morning by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, amongst others, I quote—and this is also written in a good organ of the Nationalist Party—

*Who wrote that? A communist? I quote further—

And this is as a result of this light attack of cramp. Who wrote this? These things come from National Party organs; not from anyone else!

†Mr. Speaker, I can go on in this way, but I have said enough to make my point. I believe that South Africa is sliding backwards and is being pushed back into a state of verkramptheid from where it will be well-nigh impossible to tackle the problems of life in a multi-racial society with any kind of hope of success. The reactionaries, I submit, are in command and we are marching backwards. It is not only one or two men. This, I think, is where we must not make a mistake. There is very clearly a powerful group within the upper echelons of the Nationalist Party, a group which is shoving South Africa down this reactionary slope. The point is simply that if the Government wishes to move ahead and introduce changes which its own enlightened supporters see are essential if we are to avoid Black-White confrontation in this country, it has the power to do so. They are not all here tonight; they are occupied elsewhere. But look at them, 123 of them. They have all the power in the world. Why do they not do something? I suggest that there is absolutely no sign of desire that they want to do so. On the contrary, the tendency is in the other direction, and my point is simply that South Africa simply cannot afford to stand still while the Nationalist Cabinet tries to make up its mind in which direction it wishes to move. Time is not on our side; so we have to move pretty quickly. If the reactionaries are, in fact, in the saddle, for heaven’s sake do not let the Government try to create the illusion that we are indulging in enlightened change or even moving in that direction, because then we simply lose all our credibility; we would not be bluffing anyone but ourselves.

I want to mention two other areas where this “verkramptheid” appears to have the edge on the establishment of the Nationalist Party. I refer to the censorship of books, plays and films, which is the province of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, and also the question of Sunday cinemas which falls within the province of the hon. the Minister of Justice. As far as censorship is concerned, let me suggest that the Nationalist Press and the Afrikaans literary critics in general are streaks ahead of the Government…

In what respect?

… which is caught in the coils of the censorship system which I described earlier this session as a “gemors”, and I do not think that was an over-statement. As far as Sunday film shows are concerned, there are at least two Nationalist newspapers which have come out in opposition to the plans of the hon. the Minister of Justice. One has condemned the double standards involved and another has appealed to the Government not to force the issue but to indulge in what it calls “ ’n bietjie rustige, verdere besinning”. We shall have to see whether the Government will “rustig, verder besin” or not. My guess is that “verkramptheid” will ride again. In this picture of wretched gloom, however, there is one hopeful sign, and that is that a visible gap has developed between the NP and the newspapers supporting it. Almost without exception Nationalist newspapers are way ahead of the Government. In all sincerity, South Africa ought to be grateful to these Nationalist newspaper editors who have the guts to stand up to the Government on issues like the opening up of the Nico Malan—on which issue I see the Government is again dithering—the issue of discrimination, the need for change, etc. At the same time the attitude of these Nationalist newspapers shows how far behind the times the Government is when it comes to meeting the needs of the day.

Take the tragic events in the Transvaal last week. It is a week that has been called “the week of desolation”, and with very good reason. For years the Government has been called upon to improve its communication with urban Blacks—and now I am not speaking about what the Institute of Race Relations, the old Progressive Party or the PRP has done. Consistently the Government has been warned, and every time it has replied to our representations and to the representations of others by claiming that communications are not in need of improvement, that it has adequate contacts with urban Blacks and that relations between races have, in fact, never been better. Then came last week—and what do we find? What does Rapport say? One of my chatty friends here on my left asked me this earlier on. Let me quote one of the Government’s oldest and least critical of friends—

That was Rapport. It then went onto appeal to the Government to suspend the language provision in African schools, but what do we hear today? The Government “besin nog”, “ondersoek nog”, “vors nog na”. Once again the Government simply refuses to concede that it is capable of being wrong. Instead of this, it blames the Press, the PRP, the communists—in fact everything and everyone it can think of, except, of course, its own shortsightedness. No one can allege that the Government has not been warned by its own people as much as by anyone else.

There is one other issue in regard to which a huge gap has developed in the relationship between the Government and the academics at leading Afrikaans universities. All one need do is to look at the voting in the Erika Theron Commission to see on which side the Stellenbosch academics are. They are not on the side of the kind of reaction that we have had to this report. Let us take another instance from an Afrikaans university. Let us take the case of Dr. Tӧtemeyer, senior lecturer at Stellenbosch University. What has happened to him? Because he adopted a non-conformist attitude to the approach of the NP to the problems of South West Africa and the place of Swapo in the constitutional talks, Dr. Tӧtemeyer was kicked out of the party without ado. This simply proves one thing, and that is that within the NP the enlightened, the “verligte” element, is expendable and have to go. The reactionaries can gambol to their hearts’ content, but God help you if you are a liberal in that party!

I want to deal with another sphere in which the Government is sadly lagging behind the enlightened thinking of some of its own most valued supporters, and that is as far as its attitude to the Press is concerned. I make no apology for returning to this, because for me it is the most vital issue in this country. There is so much ignorance about what Press freedom is that I want to quote a very brief definition of what is internationally accepted as Press freedom, which is very different from what the serried ranks across the way think it is. It is simply this—

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to develop this theme. All I want to say is that the Government must be very very careful not to unleash an anti-Press campaign in this country which is going to get out of hand sooner or later, with the most disastrous consequences for democracy in this country and for any kind of freedom of expression. Newspapers are not above the law and do make mistakes. They are simply, after all, human agencies. There is recourse to the Press Council and there is recourse to the decency of any editor, and I happen to know a whole lot of them personally. Cabinet Ministers know them too. In my view there is a danger that this near-hysteria which anybody who sits in this House and who is sensitive to the issue, is aware of, could get out of hand. It is often based on crass stupidity and prejudice, and is gathering momentum which might get out of hand with, as I said, incalculable consequences for us. I hope that responsible members of the Government, like the hon. the Minister of the Interior, will think of this very seriously. A restricted Press will not only put an end to open debate, but will damage, perhaps irreparably, the fabric of our thinly upholstered democracy and we simply cannot afford it.

I would like to sum up. I believe that South Africa has a right to know where the Nationalist Party is taking it. I believe that it has a right to know which element in the party is to emerge dominant: the forward-looking element edging forward to controlled change, or the hyper-conservatives, the “verkramptes” who would like to take South Africa back into that exclusive laager which is hostile to change. The outcome of this fight will vitally affect every one of us, White or non-White. That is why we have a right to know where we are being taken, either to the uplands of hope or to the valley of hopelessness and despair.

Mr. Speaker, for many years the hon. member for Parktown has been practising writing editorials and political commentary and then dragging in a few items from the events of the preceding few days and writing about them in the hope that something else would happen the next day which he could once again write about. At the outset the hon. member referred in particular to the events in Soweto and other Black residential areas. No one on this side of the House has ever intimated that we are not concerned about what happened there. Throughout the debate on the Police and Justice Votes, and at the beginning of this debate this afternoon, and on other occasions, too, we have expressed our concern about these events in very serious terms. However, we expressed our concern about another matter, too, namely concern as to who was behind those things. We thought that the hon. member for Parktown, with his contact with the Press and with other bodies with whom we have no contact, could perhaps assist us and tell us who was behind those things. After all, he knows just as well as we do—he heard it again, this afternoon—that it is not a matter of one or two minor events, but that it is, in the nature of things, a case of someone who is trying to exploit situations so as to harm our country.

Not once today have we heard from that side even a word of congratulations or good wishes to our hon. the Prime Minister who is putting South Africa’s standpoint overseas. However, those hon. members always like to quote excerpts from the Press about the terrible things that have happened, because this is passed on.

We are now discussing our parliamentary system, but there is one thing that is inherent in our system which we cannot ignore. It is that the Opposition has a responsibility.

We accept it.

I hope the hon. member accepts it, because he has sufficient intelligence to do so. The hon. member accepts that the Opposition, too, has a responsibility. It is a right and a privilege to criticize the Government in a constructive way. Criticism can only be constructive if one also has an alternative. It is only constructive if one can see that there is an alternative which can be set in the place of what one is criticizing or undermining. A party which may be an alternative government—a party which sees itself as an alternative government—must have a built-in programme of principles. There must be a built-in and specific policy which one can work on. The weakness of a political party arises out of the fact that it sometimes tries to base itself on probable or supposed mistakes made by other parties.

The hon. member for Parktown stood there for a full 25 minutes and what did he do? He tried to tell us: “You must pull yourselves together, people, because your own newspaper says that you are straying.” After more than a hundred hours of debate on the budget, one would expect something more constructive during this Third Reading. Since the PRP wants to fight in this way, I should like to discuss them. I should like to evaluate them on the basis of the past few years, and perhaps even on the basis of the past session.

No fewer than eight times over the past 28 years—I am referring only to general elections—the electorate has had the opportunity to choose or to reject the policy advocated by the NP. On each occasion it has been accepted with a bigger majority. The figure for the 1974 general election, if I remember correctly, was more than 800 000 voters; that is to say, if one also takes into account the figures for the uncontested constituencies. One then asks oneself why the alternative party was rejected. It is true that the NP fared less well in 1970, but it corrected the problem in its own ranks. The NP fared less well because it had problems in 1970, but it got rid of those problems.

[Inaudible.]

What, however, happened to the hon. member for Randburg at the time? In 1970 he achieved a minor victory with a majority of 154 votes. Subsequently he went to Randburg, from which he subsequently entered this House on the back of the UP. He had only just come here when he went to sit with other people. Is this a man who should be proud of a victory? [Interjections.] Is this a man who can point a finger at others; a man who can ask others how they have fared?

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member for Randburg left his people in the lurch, just like his hon. friend the former leader of the Reform Party. When I consider the situation, I involuntarily call to mind the hon. the Prime Minister, a man with the gift of describing things concisely and very accurately and bring them home to people. The hon. the Prime Minister referred on occasion to the UP, whose performance at elections has been getting worse and worse. On that same occasion he said more or less the following to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know why his party is faring worse and worse, I shall give him the answer: It is because they want to prescribe a policy to me instead of seeking a policy for themselves.”

Now the PRP wants to do exactly the same: It wants to prescribe to the NP the policy which it must follow. This afternoon the UP has once again displayed the same symptom here. Earlier in this same debate it transpired—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself said it—that if the NP accepted the report of the Theron Commission as a whole, the UP would go along with that, irrespective of what their own Coloured policy had been to date. Does this really attest to a sound policy? I put the same question to the PRP. [Interjections.]

On the same occasion on which the hon. the Prime Minister addressed the words I have just quoted to the UP, he added: “If the UP expects me to sell that policy which they themselves have been unable to sell to their people, they are making a big mistake. I am not prepared to do it.”

Dr. Jan Steytler made certain statements concerning the walk-out of the Progressive Party from the UP on 12 August 1959. He said, inter alia, that he and his followers had clashed with the UP because the UP had taken decisions opposing the purchase of land for Bantu. The Progressive Party did not go along with that standpoint adopted by the UP. One cannot cease from wondering what the Progressive Party had up its sleeve when it came into being.

Shortly after the founding of the Progressive Party, Dr. Verwoerd said: “Our big problem is that we think that there are two extremes within the UP: liberals and conservatives.” However, Dr. Verwoerd pointed out that this assumption was incorrect. He went on to say: “This is a mistaken impression which is being created. The UP has shown that in it are merely two degrees of liberalism; that there are no conservatives whatsoever in its ranks.” According to Dr. Verwoerd the two groups of liberals could be referred to as the advance guard and the rearguard. Dr. Verwoerd said that the advance guard were those who were in a hurry, whereas the rear guard merely trotted along in the rear.

Who said that?

Dr. Verwoerd said it.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Dr. Verwoerd did say it. [Interjections.] He said that both would arrive at the same destination. [Interjections.] By those words Dr. Verwoerd predicted that both would arrive at the same destination. It became evident that the UP was constantly being paralysed internally by these liberals until the Sunday Times became fed up with the struggle of the advance guard, which did not move fast enough. The Sunday Times then split off the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Randburg and another two members and told them to leave. The hon. member for Yeoville then did exactly what I have just accused the hon. member for Randburg of having done. He rode into this House on the back of the UP.

That is rubbish.

It is not rubbish, because at that stage the hon. member for Yeoville should already have joined the PRP. After the hon. member for Yeoville had ridden here on the back of the UP, the Prime Minister moved an amendment in this House on 7 February 1975. I really think I should read it to hon. members. The Prime Minister said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 403)—

On this occasion the hon. member for Yeoville had an opportunity to make evident his dissatisfaction with the UP. I can still see him walking out, ashamed and angry, when the bells began to ring. He did not even thank them for having brought him to this House, because he could not have entered this House in any other way than through Yeoville. On 20 February 1975 the hon. member stood up here in the House and explained to us why he had walked out that day. He was very emotional and said the following—

He almost had tears in his eyes when he said this. The hon. member was really very sad, and I cannot take it amiss of him, when he said the following—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time does not permit it. The hon. member went on to say—

But no more than three months later, he went to sit with the party he is sitting with now, a party which voted with the UP against that amendment by the hon. the Prime Minister. What kind of political honesty is this? He left the UP ashamed, only to go and sit with another party which also voted against the amendment. What kind of political honesty is that? The name of Harry Schwarz will go down in history as the man who managed, in the course of a few months, to split one party, found another and cause a third to change its name and some of its principles. The hon. member must not tell me that the Progressive Party did not change its basic principles when the hon. member added the name “Reform Party” to it. In that same bench that the hon. member for Yeoville is sitting now, he sat with his head on the bench and sweated so that one could hear it here when he had to vote with them again. However, they were very clever; they did not have their votes counted but only asked that their party’s protest be recorded.

This is the kind of party we have to deal with today in a debate about the report on the Theron Commission. We have been reproached for not having talked to the Coloureds and for having voted money for the Coloureds in this House—I see the hon. member for Yeoville is leaving again—without their being here to discuss it with us. Does the White man not also have a right to say something? Do the 800 000 or more White Nationalists who support the policy of the NP not also have a choice? If in the course of 28 years, at eight general elections, provincial elections and a referendum—it is eight if one includes the referendum—they have said that they support the policy of the NP, then do they not have a say as well? Have hon. members taken note of the voting in the commission? As a matter of fact five Whites often voted against seven Whites. I deplore this. It is a great pity that there was a lack of strong leadership which could have achieved consensus among the 12 Whites. Five of the 12 White members were in favour of the recommendations. Do hon. members not want to respect the seven as well? Do hon. members want to reject the seven? There are people within the UP who use such double standards. We have discussed these matters before with the UP and told them that they are giving people an opportunity which could do the country a great deal of harm. When Dr. Jan Steytler stood up in the House for the first time after he had founded the Progressive Party, he said inter alia: “… as assuredly as we are gathered here today in the long-term it will mean Black domination.” This is what he predicted and foresaw when he introduced a motion concerning his policy. Immediately thereafter, Dr. Verwoerd said—

[Interjections.] I want hon. members to listen to what I say. The hon. member for Randburg must also listen so that he can go and explain the situation in his constituency. After all, we listened to Dr. Steytler’s words here in the House. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

These people so often defend their standpoint. They shake their heads and say that this is not what they want. They do not want a Black Government and a Black Prime Minister. What happened in the Durban North election when Mr. Pitman …

He won the election.

Yes, he won, but do hon. members know why he won? He won with this letter I have in my hand. After all, hon. members know about this letter. He wrote to the voters—

At the same time the hon. Senator Bamford said, and I have before me the relevant Hansard of the Other Place.

Order! What is the hon. member quoting from?

From the Hansard of the Other Place.

The hon. member may only quote a Minister’s speech in the Other Place in the same session.

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. We noted from the hon. the Minister’s speech in the Other Place on 13 May this year that four questions had been put to the hon. Senator Bamford. The hon. the Minister of Finance quoted the four questions from the hon. Senator Bamford’s Hansard, namely: Are you in favour of a common voter’s roll, of a Black Prime Minister, and of a Black majority Government, and are you prepared to have your daughter marry with a Black Prime Minister? According to the quotation which was later confirmed, the hon. Senator Bamford did in fact say this and did not deny it. Now the question arises: Where does the PRP want to go with us?

After they had the Steytler policy, which amounted to an eventual Black majority Government, they tried to entrench and protect themselves by appointing the hon. member for Rondebosch as the chairman of a committee which was to a make a study of their so-called qualified franchise. In The Argus of 17 June 1976, the hon. member states that this commission had been dissolved and that they were going to appoint another commission. To do what? To compile a new method of franchise all over again? They clearly no longer stand by the one proposed in the House at the beginning of the year by the hon. member for Yeoville by way of a private motion. If they had wanted us to accept that system, why, then, are they now appointing a new commission once again? I have before me The Argus report in which the hon. member for Rondebosch states this.

Read it.

It is stated here—

It is stated here that the PRP wants to appoint a new commission. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it seems almost indecent to enter into this private fight which is apparently a rather personal fight between the hon. member for Westdene and the hon. member for Yeoville. But I think the hon. member for Westdene could have dealt with the hon. member for Yeoville much more effectively had he really tried. He went through the motions but he left out some very interesting points. For instance, he left out the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville walks out on his new party when divisions are called. He has done so two or three times this year. He even had to be fetched back once by his leader.

When?

He has been missing at some surprising divisions. This is the party with all the morality, the party that will not talk with two voices, the party that will not have one story for one audience and another story for another. When it comes to security, they have the face of the hon. member for Yeoville, pledging as he did this afternoon the loyalty and the dedication of the PRP to the preservation of law and order. His voice trembled with emotion when he was talking about maintaining law and order. However, in some of the earlier debates this session, he did not seem so enthusiastic.

Such as?

This afternoon he was full of enthusiasm for the Defence Force and a united approach. He gave us five grounds for “toenadering” and conciliation, five grounds on which the Government and the PRP could work together. One of the grounds was defence, but when it came to the Defence Amendment Bill earlier this year, where did the hon. member vote? When it came to an amendment by the hon. the Prime Minister backing the Defence Force, where did he vote? I am afraid the hon. member for Westdene could have been much more effective than he was.

The tragedy is that we should have had to listen to a speech such as that of the hon. member for Westdene at a time like this, when South Africa has gone through the trauma of riots, bloodshed and bloodletting, and at a time when we have been debating all afternoon the fundamental issue of the future of the Coloured people.

We are waiting to hear about security.

I am coming back to that, but the hon. member always runs away when it gets rough. We are discussing the future of the Coloured people in South Africa and their interrelationship with the Whites, and then we have a 25-minute speech out of the ox-wagon political age. The hon. member for Westdene did not once touch on a serious issue affecting the future of South Africa. He played politics, and it was amusing and enjoyable to listen to him, because anything that exposes the so-called party on my left is pleasant to listen to. The sooner they get properly exposed the better. But, Sir, is it real to engage in that sort of debate at this time in the history of South Africa? He made no contribution to the debate on how White and Coloured should live together in this country, this country of common destiny. He made no contribution towards the solution of the problems of the Witwatersrand. All we had was a little bit of “ nineteen-voetsek” political fun. Can we afford it?

You know why he did it, Sir, and there is a serious reason why he did it. He did it because in the ranks of that party there is a seething, bubbling difference of opinion. [Interjections.] Wherever you go there are little groups; you find them in the tea-rooms; you find them in the dining-room; you find them in huddles in the Lobby. When the hon. member for Westdene was talking about division in the United Party, he was trying to put a bold face on what is happening in the Government forces. Everyone knows that there are divisions in that party which cut right through the middle of it, that those divisions are deep-rooted and that they are real. Anyone who talks to Government members will know that those divisions are there. You have the approach of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development; you have the approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education; you have the approach of the hon. member for Vryheid who is laughing there. [Interjections.] How he never went to the Herstigtes, I do not know. Perhaps he did not need to because he gets their votes anyway. The hon. the Minister of Community Development, of Tourism and of Indian Affairs has a different approach and I do not know on which side the hon. the Minister of Finance is at the moment. We also have the hon. the Minister of the Interior; that is an interesting one. Talk about hop-scotch and jump! One never knows, but at the moment he is, I believe, on the verligte side.

He is aiming at the hon. the Prime Minister’s place.

Yes, that is coming too. We are having that little competition tomorrow. We also get the approach of the hon. member for Carletonville, who is missing now. I could go through them all, Mr. Speaker, name after name. Everybody knows that this controversy, this division, this deep division in the NP, is bubbling and seething throughout their ranks. As for the hon. member for Standerton, he knows what I know. [Interjections.] If you want more evidence, there was the deliberate slap in the face by the hon. member for Piketberg. He slapped the hon. the Minister of Health right across the face this afternoon. Deliberately planned and prepared, he gave that slap. Except that he did not use his hand, it was the most deliberate slap I have ever seen one man give another. He said to the hon. the Minister who appointed the members of the Theron Commission and who hand-picked the members, that he had picked a bunch of dishonest people, that he had picked a chairman who twisted and manipulated and who put in chosen chairmen in the sub-groups, that the sub-groups were manipulated and that evidence was held back from some members. This was said by a member of the Government to an hon. Minister who appointed a Government commission. Yet they say they have no divisions. That very Minister got up and repudiated the hon. member. So you have a senior Whip repudiating and attacking a Minister on the appointments he made and you have an hon. Minister repudiating the Whip. Then the hon. information officer of the NP stands up and tries to play politics here.

Order! The hon. member must call the hon. member by his constituency.

Yes, the hon. member for Westdene, who is also the chief information officer of the National Party. Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about divisions, we have an expression in the UP. When you have a problem you say: “I have a Harry.” I do not know who has the Harry now, but we do not have the Harry any more. Even my children say: “Dad, I have a Harry.” Then I know they have a problem. That party has a problem when they have a candidate who states that they do not stand for Black majority rule. The policy of that party is printed, even with a pretty blue photo of their leader on the front, and that policy states that they stand for half a Parliament elected on bare literacy and the other half on 10 years of education. That means automatically Black majority rule. What do they offer to the Coloured people? “Baasskap” not by Whites, but by Blacks. That is the offer they make to the Coloured people.