Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

1. (1) That the proceedings on the Appropriation Bill, if under consideration at the time for the adjournment today, be not interrupted under Standing Order No. 22;
2. (2) that Standing Order No. 22 (5)(b) be suspended.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned last night I had been led into temptation, and I now want to deal deal with matters which I believe we have to consider during the dying hours and minutes of this session. This debate is writing the epitaph not just to this session, but I believe it is writing the epitaph to an era in South African politics. There have been many descriptions using journalistic words like “watershed” and “cross-roads”, and I believe that although they are often used in the wrong context, for once they are justified. This year and this session has, I believe, proved to be one of the major watersheds in South African politics. We have had, to my mind, five such watersheds in the past. Since Union and the reshuffle of political parties, the first was when the Nationalist Party embraced the Labour Party and the communists in the 1922-’24 period to engage in and foster strikes, riots and bloodshed in order to achieve power. That was the first watershed, when a White political party used the forces of labour and of Bolshevism in order to foster their own political ends. The second watershed was the depression of the 1930s, which ended with the birth of the United Party and the golden era of South African history. The third watershed was the Second World War, when divisions were once again created, based to a large extent on language and which once again divided our people after the unity of 1933 onwards. The fourth was 1948, when we reverted to racial politics of the old type with the exploitation of colour sentiment and emotion.

You have too many watersheds.

The fifth was the Republic; and now we are at the sixth watershed, a session in which so many things have happened that the one has overtaken the other and many of them have been overshadowed and have already been forgotten. I want to remind the House briefly of some of the things that happened during this session. We started with Angola and all that flowed from it, and have ended with troops still on the border facing terrorism, mines and ambushes and being killed or wounded. Even as we sit here today, they are on the border protecting South Africa. But arising from it, we found common ground between the major political parties in regard to the external security of South Africa and our defence at least between the Government and the United Party. The second issue was less fortunate. It was that of internal security, where the Government played politics with the security of our country. They were prepared to introduce legislation which they knew could not be supported because of fundamental principles in which the Opposition believes. Yet they proceeded with it even though they knew that they could have got agreement and could have achieved the same approach to internal security as we achieved in regard to external security. But the responsibility rests upon the Government. Then there is the change which has come about in Africa, where détente has changed and we now find formerly friendly neighbouring States talking of violence and supporting terrorism and force.

Are you siding with Amin?

[Interjections.] That is the sort of stupid remark you get, Sir. That hon. member can thank his lucky stars that there is a responsible Opposition which to an extent counteracts the damage that his Government and members like him do to the image of South Africa. Then during this session we have had the economic situation which was dealt with last night and with which I will not deal now, except to refer to something that people tend to forget, and that is that whilst we talk of inflation in terms of figures of X% or Y%, the vast mass of South African people of all colours are struggling under a cost-of-living burden which is depressing their standards of living and which is becoming almost impossible for them to bear. Rentals are going up and up; the cost of living, the cost of food, rates and taxes—everything is going up except the ability of the people to meet those rising costs. I would like to spend the rest of this debate dealing with the struggle to exist which faces so many South Africans. Unfortunately there are other issues to which one must also turn one’s attention.

I refer next to South West Africa where, by a deliberate policy decision, the Government changed the leadership of the constitutional talks in order to place in charge an ex-Minister whose views were known to correspond more with the “verkrampte” attitude of that section of the Government in order to slow down the progress which was being made in those talks and to revert to the orthodox, the conventional, the old-time Nationalist approach. Then we had within these benches the Prime Minister’s pandering to the right wing in his appointments to the Cabinet and his shuffling of posts. This again was aimed at a slow-down in the movement towards a more open, a more “verligte”, a more modern approach to our problems.

Then we had the riots which have made an impact which nothing we say can ever wipe out. I think it is necessary that, whilst we accept that the major blame can be placed on revolutionaries, we should get the term “revolutionaries” straight in our minds. We tend to talk of communists very easily and to confuse revolutionaries with communists. There is no doubt that there was revolutionary planning but there is no doubt either that the background, the seed bed which made it impossible for those revolutionary plans to succeed, was laid not by them themselves, but was put at their disposal and handed to them on a platter for them to exploit. The tactic which was used is, of course, nothing new. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Education was in 1943 the organizing secretary of the ATKV. At that time he tried to launch, through the Broederbond and through various organizations, a campaign to boycott the schools because the Smuts Government had introduced dual-medium education. He started a campaign to boycott the schools until they stopped trying to force English down their throats. He set an example …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why they abandoned dual-medium education?

It was abandoned because it did not work because there were not sufficient teachers qualified to do it. The Smuts Government had the sense to drop it when it was found that there was resistance and that the teachers were not qualified to apply it—not like this Government! The hon. the Minister in his time advocated that the schools be boycotted and he tried to organize it.

On principle.

He organized it cm principle to prevent the “alien” English language being forced down the throats of the Afrikaans-speaking people.

Judgment of the Minister is not only given by the Opposition. We have had in this session debates where we have heard of the great success of progress made with the independence of the Transkei. Yesterday I found—not in a Sap-“koerant”, not in a liberal “koerant”—but in the Transvaler that it was reported that Chief Kaiser Mantanzima, Chief Minister of the Transkei, said about the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—

Mr. Speaker, the mouthpiece of that very showpiece which that hon. Minister has built, condemns that hon. Minister for the deteriorating race relations. We dare not oversimplify the issue of the riots.

Another interesting aspect of this session has been the temporary triumph of an unholy alliance, the unholy alliance of the NP and large elements of the English Press, both fighting to polarize politics in South Africa into the two extremes. We had it in this debate yesterday, where the false choice was again put. It was said that there is no choice except total integration or total separation. That attempt at polarization into the extremes has been made by this unholy alliance of the Government and large elements of the English Press. Now this selfsame Government has become horrified by the Frankenstein of their own creation and encouragement, the PRP, because they have found that the polarization is becoming a polarization between English- and Afrikaans-speaking and a polarization between Black power and Afrikaner power. They are realizing the danger of that alliance which they entered into with the Press.

There they sit, the only people who appear completely untouched, unaffected by all these events and others which I have not listed, the events of the last six months. The only people who appear to be untouched are those on those benches and the Government. They are wrapped in a cocoon, in a glow of their own invincibility, living in a happy haze of self-delusion. Amongst those members, however, there are some who are worried. There are some who are concerned for South Africa. There are a few who are concerned about the country and do not just think in terms of votes. How often in this debate have we heard member after member say: “Ja, maar die mense het vir ons gestem.” In other words, they are prepared to follow a road which is bringing South Africa into all these troubles which we face, not because it is right, not because it is good for South Africa, but because people vote for it.

Are you not a democrat?

They have set up the vote as their God of political ambition. Of course I am a democrat! But a democratic leader leads his people; he does not just follow them as those hon. members do. They follow blindly any policy which will win them a vote. What lead are they giving to South Africa? I warn them that they are out of touch with “die volk daar buite”. Throughout South Africa there is a fear and uncertainty. People are afraid for the future. [Interjections.] Certainly they voted against us, because when people are frightened they turn either into the laager or they put up their hands in surrender and say, “Let’s give in anyway; let us save what we can out of the wreck.” Only our party in South Africa is trying to find a solution.

I said it was the end of an era because this Government and this party in power has achieved what it set out to achieve. It has achieved Afrikaner power and status, it has achieved the Republic, it has applied apartheid and it has taken the last step to an independent Transkei. It has now become functus officio in South African politics. It has no further mission, no further answers for South Africa, and that is why it sits there and claims: “Ja, maar die mense stem vir ons.” When the people outside, who are so concerned, look to the Government for answers to the real problems that face them—the problems of the urban Black man, of the Coloured people and their place in South Africa and of the Indian people—they look in vain to that party. For a whole day not one of the Government members could produce a single idea towards a solution of the problems of the future.

They talk of self-determination—for example, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, whom I do not have the time to quote now. What self-determination is there for the Coloured people? The answer is no self-determination at all. The policy is: Take what we give you, but we will give you no share in overall responsibility for South Africa. For the Indian people there is also no question of self-determination, and neither is there any question of self-determination as far as the urban Blacks are concerned. They will have to become citizens of a homeland they do not know. There is an unease in South Africa, an unease reflected in the newspapers of that party, in academic thought, in public opinion and opinion-forming circles, and unease and concern for the future of our country. Here, in this epitaph debate of this session, one would have expected some lead from the Government, some indication that it had a clear course to follow. Instead of that, it has shown itself to be worn-out and burnt-out. Having achieved what it set out to do, it is now shackled to that past and cannot move forward to the real problems that will determine our future. Those real problems have to be faced now, real problems that require a change of approach and new thinking. I do not mean the surrender politics of the PRP which advocates integration and wants everyone on the same voters’ roll, destroying the identity of groups. No, not that! What we need is real change that will ensure the security and self-determination of each group, each community and link them together, within the framework of the South African State. When I say that we need a new approach, when I say that there is a new fluidity in politics, this does not mean that one has to be a “joiner”, a “coalitionist” or anything like that. There is a fluidity in South African politics today, a new fluidity outside this House [Interjections] … not on those benches because those ranks have power and patronage to hold them together. Naturally, within my own party that same fluidity has been expressed. We have heard and seen it—in fact, hon. members were mocking it just now. There is the same fluidity in South Africa. The difference is that the UP is doing something about it. The UP expelled from its ranks those whose direction and policy did not agree with the philosophy of the party. We have acted, and if necessary we shall act again. That party, however, is sitting there afraid to act, afraid to do anything because it is paralysed by its own divisions and because it does not have the guts to say: We must move forward; if you will not go with us, then leave us. It is paralysed and unable to lead South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point is a lucky chap. I think he often prays for the opportunity of speaking during the ten minutes or so before the House adjourns in the evening. We saw this spectacle last night and rather enjoyed it. He began by referring to the so-called disputes and discord within the ranks of the NP. He spoke about “seething, bubbling differences”, “deep-rooted and real divisions”, “controversy” and a whole lot more. However, I just want to remind him of the words of the hon. the Prime Minister. We all know those words. The hon. the Prime Minister said that as soon as the UP start talking about differences and rifts in the NP, that is just when the UP is going to split. This has always happened in the past. The hon. member went on to say that he did not want to participate in an argument with the hon. member for Yeoville, but he allowed himself to be misled again and paid rather a lot of attention to the hon. member for Yeoville and ended by saying that when they have a problem, they say: “We have got a Harry.” Sir, I just want to say that they will still have to let the Harry fall away and include other names. The time will still come when they will say: “We have got a Japie.” [Interjections.] I fear the time when the UP will be able to say: “We have got a Vause.” Then they will be faced with an insurmountable problem, an immense problem.

The hon. member for Durban Point applied himself to more serious matters during the part of his speech this morning. He referred to a few watersheds and he took these from far back in history, even from the time when the National Party were supposedly making common cause with the communists. I want to ask the hon. member, since he also referred to the world war: Who were the allies of that party then? If one were to accept that his statement concerning 1922 is true, then these things have faded away and no longer have any influence on history. However we are still saddled today with the trouble resulting from their alliance with the communists, etc., in the last world war. In the Free World today we still have to wage a struggle and a dispute.

Russia was also the ally of Germany.

The hon. member will want to link us to their allies of the past, because today the Free World still has to try and maintain itself against the erstwhile friends of that party.

The hon. member also said that there was another watershed, namely the birth of the United Party. It is a pity he did not go a little further and say that we are also at the watershed of the hour of death of the United Party. He also referred to this year’s security legislation and washed his hands of it by saying that it was the Nationalist Government’s fault because the Nationalist Government was unwilling to give them the opportunity of co-operating. Their unwillingness to co-operate in that legislation to ensure the security of South Africa, will be cast in the face of that party for a long time yet and it will remain on their conscience.

I should also like to ask another question. Does the acceptance of the report of the Erika Theron Commission mean that they see in it the opportunity to make another change of policy?

It is not necessary.

In the past they said that all these matters, including those relating to Coloured and Black representation in this Parliament, would be arranged by the White Parliament. But they are now going over the head of the White Parliament and saying that they accept what the Theron Commission says, that Coloured people may be represented here. Once again they are taking a leap forward to get away from a piece of impracticable political policy.

However, I also have a few other matters to which I want to refer. Subsequently, reference was also made by the hon. member for Durban Point, inter alia, the riots on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere. It is a fact that we were all shocked about what happened and about the senseless destruction of buildings and service centres, and that various emotions were aroused amongst the public as a result of these events. Most of us were amazed. There was even some sympathy for people who could behave like this. There was also some sadness. However, we must not try and argue away the fact that there was also some anger as a result of that behaviour. A certain number of things result from what happened. The first is that reproaches were hurled left and right. Reproaches were hurled at the Government about what happened even before the causes of this were fully detected or analysed. The accusations levelled by the Progressive Reform Party were wholly condemnatory, the undisguised reproach that everything that had happened was the fault of this Government. In their reproaches they drag in many allies and it is rather strange that several of them are of a rather strange and foreign hue. I must honestly say that as I see the situation, there is also an undertone of reproach among the UP, but they fortunately, have not allowed themselves to be dragged along willy-nilly by the other party. It is interesting to note how often during this session hon. members of the UP have agreed with the hon. member for Yeoville. During this session they have agreed with him even more than when he was a member of their party. But besides the reproaches, advice is, of course, freely given. Recommendations are made as to what should be done to prevent these riots from occurring again. I shall return to some of the remedies suggested later on. It is a fact that in tense circumstances such as these, instant solutions are always being suggested. However, it is these same instant solutions which one must beware of, because for the most part they are ad hoc solutions and do not afford any lasting solution.

Probably the most important matter arising out of these riots is that our attention is requested for the position of the Blacks in the White areas, more specifically perhaps, the Blacks in the residential areas around our large cities.

When we speak about this, let us immediately look at a few statements and expound the fundamental approach of this side of the House. I want to quote the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this connection. I want to refer to a speech he made in this House in 1971. What he said on that occasion, he repeated at various occasions last year and this year too, although he did perhaps put it differently. There are four main matters to which I should like to refer in respect of the claims of the Whites and the claims of the Blacks. The first is—I am merely summarizing the essential idea—

As against that, of course, the hon. the Minister mentioned the rights which the Blacks have within their own homeland areas as well. The second is—I quote the words of the hon. the Minister once again—

Thirdly—I quote the hon. the Minister once again—

In every one of these cases I may also indicate, on the basis of the Hansard reference, where the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized his ideas and statements. In the fourth place the hon. the Minister said the following in respect of residential settlement—

The hon. the Minister went on to point out the major difference between the approach of the UP and that of the National Party in these matters. The Minister said—

To this the then hon. member for Transkei, now the hon. member for Griqualand East, said: “In bepaalde gebiede binne die Blanke gebied.” He repeated this later. We shall leave aside for a moment the morality of this standpoint, as far as school and other facilities are concerned too. We have argued about this for many sessions. The fact is simply that the alternatives offered, will not cause the tension and frustrations which, among other things, caused these things to happen in Soweto—possible causes of the tensions and frustrations have already been suggested—to disappear. What the UP has to offer is a second-class citizenship, but with the expectation that it should be accepted by the Blacks as full citizenship in the social and political sphere, citizenship without any limitations. I want to tell hon. members that if this is their policy, they will not achieve peaceful results with it. On the other hand the PRP also has rescue methods. They have the rescue method which entails total integration in the hope that they will be able to allow a privileged group to maintain the say by means of economic manipulation. Least of all does this bring us any nearer to a solution. If Sea Point has not yet changed its swimming pool policy and if the movement of Blacks through Pinelands—movement, not residence—is still such an irritation that it justifies the making of representations, then the PRP should stop lecturing us. Superficial, sentimental talk of this kind creates more expectations, and so many expectations that those hon. gentlemen will never be able to satisfy them. And this is what they want to propose to the NP Government as a solution in crisis situations. This, too, is one of those instant solutions of which I spoke a moment ago.

Therefore I believe that the time has come for us to see these things in a clearer perspective. Let us criticize and let us even hurl abuse; let us reproach but at least let us restore a degree of balance to the whole situation. Let us not neglect to point out the things which have been built up over the years. After all, it is true that progress has been made. Phenomenal progress has been made. Just think of accommodation, education, hospital facilities and other health services, the creation of employment opportunities and together with this, higher wages for every category of worker in South Africa. There is progress in the political sphere, in which leaders have been brought to the fore. Leaders develop; leaders who can speak on behalf of their own people. These are leaders on behalf of whom we are consulting, and consultation is indeed taking place. There is something else I want to mention. Long before the riots in Soweto took place—months ago—there is a note in my diary that I have to hold discussions with the Urban Bantu Council of Johannesburg on 21 July. This is one of the normal things which takes place from day to day. If the hon. the Minister is accused of not taking notice of these things and not conducting sufficient dialogue, it is a reproach which he does not deserve. I know how much time the hon. the Minister devotes to holding discussions with Blacks. I know how often it happens that a file is sent to me upon which the hon. the Minister has made a note and in which he informs me that he deems it necessary that discussions be held with some Black leader about the matter concerned. This is something which happens every day.

In the light of what I have just said, I naturally do not expect this side of the House to be praised and extolled for what the Government has done over the years. All I am asking for is an honest unbiased evaluation. The eternal reproach that nothing has been done, that action was taken too late here or there, or that the wrong thing was done here or there, creates a climate of discontent and dissatisfaction. It creates an attitude of antipathy in government bodies; government bodies—please note!—that devote themselves with dedication, affection and love to a matter and task which is definitely not an easy one. In a climate like this there are, unfortunately, those elements that try and exploit an occasion like this for completely different purposes. They descend on a situation of tension and unrest and use it in a one-sided manner and take from it what suits them, without taking into consideration the interests of the community. They use underhand methods of obtaining their goals. They are out to damage and destroy government institutions, offices, beer halls, bottle stores, pleasure resorts and schools. They especially try to destroy the attitude and goodwill which still exists. Dissatisfaction must also be aroused among the vast majority of law-abiding Blacks, because if they, too, can be made dissatisfied—so believe those elements who want to exploit the situation to their own advantage—the agitators have a wide-open field in which they may operate freely. I notice a pattern in their behaviour, and have tried to evaluate and analyse that pattern.

Let me quote an example for hon. members of how they do these things and how they would like to achieve their goal of making the satisfied masses dissatisfied. The first thing which they do, is to concentrate on destroying the records which are kept in our offices, because as soon as records have been destroyed there cannot be orderly administration. Those who would like to lead a quiet life under an orderly administration, also suffer as a result, and once the peacefulness is something of the past, those people who want peace, eventually become dissatisfied with the authorities too, because the authorities are unable to bring about the desired peace and quiet. The hope then is that those people who were satisfied will also join the agitators and exploiters. In the second place they aim at those places which provide income, because if there is income, services can after all, be continued; services can be resumed and damaged institutions replaced. However, if this cannot happen and the finances are therefor lacking, then those who were not responsible for the riots must also be taxed for the money necessary for rebuilding and getting services under way again. If one is going to make people who are not responsible for a certain situation, pay for it, then we expect them to become dissatisfied and that resentment on their part will necessarily build up against the authorities. Dissatisfaction may well exist, but exploiting it in this way is a crime which cannot be allowed. Unfortunately the communities themselves will have to stand in for this very often because if the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards are to get the administration work under way again and get all the service centres operating once again, where are they to obtain the money for it? Most of the money comes from the pockets of the community itself. There are three sources of revenue, namely a percentage of the profits made on Bantu beer and White liquor, rent and service fees which have to be paid, and then the stipulated monthly payment which employers pay in respect of their employees. This is where the revenue comes from. In other words, the major portion of it comes from the pockets of the community itself and unfortunately they will therefore have to pay for it. At various places on the East Rand I asked people how many people in the community concerned were satisfied and law-abiding and how many would bring their dissatisfaction to the attention of the authorities through lawful channels. I was frankly told that 80% and more would do so. But this 80% and more must now also be annoyed in this way so that they too will turn on the authorities and the government bodies.

I am really unhappy about the shortage of accommodation in certain of our metropolitan areas. I am working on this constantly and have held and planned innumerable discussions on the subject here in Cape Town. I am trying to determine the requirements of Bantu Affairs Administration Boards in their various areas and we are planning jointly to solve these problems. It is true that there are restricting factors, of which the most important at the moment is finance. Another matter which will always be an issue—if we do not devote serious attention to it—is the question of numbers. Numbers produce social and financial problems if one has to provide for the needs of such a mass of people. The question now arises as to whether these masses should all simply settle in the metropolitan areas or whether they could also be settled in the homelands with good results, if at all possible, and also at a lower cost. When we tried to tackle these problems by means of the home ownership scheme, we only encountered opposition. The two parties are continually being upset by one item, namely the demand that a citizenship certificate must also be handed in. They are not concerned about the assurance that this document will actually bring greater privileges to these people. In this way we can provide them with better accommodation, but we only get opposition from their side. However, we are still going to throw it in the faces of those hon. gentleman that they are opposed to a well-meaning effort like this—in which we are not taking anything away from anyone, but are giving them improved benefits and requesting their assistance by way of contributions towards accommodation—and are simply placing obstacles on our path.

There is also the question of improved commercial facilities, to which I devoted special attention. I have already drawn up documents which I shall discuss with the hon. the Minister before long. Let me say to the House in all honesty today that after what has happened in the townships, I am very unwilling to continue providing facilities of this kind, in the areas in future, when I see how the existing facilities are treated. How can I again allow thousands of rands to be spent, inter alia by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards or by the Bantu entrepreneurs in the areas, if we have to see it going up in flames again one day. Let me point out that in respect of this matter we should not simply hurl reproaches at each other. The goodwill which is being shown, is often stymied by this kind of behaviour, and one hardly knows what one’s next step will be in improving the lot of these people.

I should like to refer to labour affairs, which I deal with. Since the hon. the Minister’s discussions with the homeland leaders last year, when labour relations was one of the themes discussed, including the question of migratory labour, matters have not come to a standstill. At least three reports have been drawn up after thorough investigation within the department. The hon. the Minister and the other Deputy Ministers and I as well as senior officials, discussed these reports for hours on end. We considered what could and could not be done. Everything which was decided on was sent back at the official level, to the officials of the homelands as well. There are simply no grounds for the impression which must exist, or which does perhaps exist, that there is a lack of action as well as unwillingness on the part of the Government to take action in connection with these matters. These are hollow, false accusations which are being levelled at the Government. I say this in order to prove that in the process of carrying out the policy of the NP, there is movement as well as change. Let us say this to one another today in all honesty: The only changes in South Africa over several decades, changes which have been worth anything, have been brought about by the NP in terms of its policy. This was not change for the sake of change. It was change as a means to an end. It was not change in leftist or other foreign directions, not change at the tempo which our enemies want, not change which will lead to there being no place for the Whites, or whatever group, in South Africa, but change—and hon. members must take note of this, because it is important—which involved the preservation of what had been tried and tested and was sound. It is not a total overthrow, a complete revolution in which tried principles are simply brushed aside and regarded as valueless, but specific foundations upon which we have to build. It is evolution. I even want to describe it in another way: What we are engaged in in South Africa are anchored changes, changes which are anchored in those virtues and proven values which have always shown themselves to be to the advantage of everyone who lives upon this earth.

I want to conclude by saying that the NP will carry on with these anchored changes in South Africa. The world has in the past been astonished at the courage shown by this Government in bringing about change. People from our own ranks have left because they did not see their way clear to bringing about anchored changes in South Africa with us. However, the NP was not intimidated by this but was even prepared to lose some of its own supporters along the way. But, Sir, I want to say that this attitude I am referring to now is not one only present among Whites; this attitude is also present among the vast majority of Blacks in South Africa, and they, who are also striving for orderly co-existence in our fatherland, are prepared to undergo these anchored changes together with us because they, too, have proven virtues and matters which they would not like simply want to throw overboard. There will not be polarization between Whites in South Africa. There will be polarization between, on the one hand, White and Black who want anchored change, and on the other, those lawless forces, also White and Black in South Africa, who will try and prevent it. But we call on them, White and Black, those who want to bring about anchored change in South Africa, to continue with this process and to support us in this because it is to the advantage of everyone who lives here in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a very spirited but very defensive speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He used a new phrase which I think will probably be remembered as a key phrase in the NP. It appears that the NP’s mood, its attitude and what it is trying to do is expressed in the words “verankerde verandering”. I want to suggest “verankerde verandering” with “versteende denke”.

Both the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Durban Point, who spoke before him, referred to history. I do not want to go back beyond the history of this Parliament, but they both referred to changes which may be happening outside this House, and to the fluidity that exists. On this I am in total agreement with the hon. member for Durban Point. I think that we in this House, those of us who have institutionalized our differences in political parties, should realize that outside of this House there is a rethinking taking place. There is a searching for the truth and there is a concern for the future. I believe that many people in the Opposition are looking at aspects of Government policy, and I have evidence that many people who supported the Government are looking at aspects of Opposition policy. One sees this reflected in the Press and in the mood of the young people and one hears this in the discussions that one has. We delude ourselves in this House if we think that the institutionalized differences which are reflected in the three political parties here are reflected in the “volk daarbuite”. I believe that there is a healthy rethinking taking place outside of this House.

The hon. the Deputy Minister today used what has been a fairly consistent tactical ploy, i.e. when you are in trouble, to overstate the policy, the case and the attitude of the PRP in order to have a crack at them. And so, Sir, he speaks of “totale integrasie” and says that we blame the Government unconditionally for everything that has taken place. He says “ons skep verwagtinge”, we raise expectations which will not be fulfilled. I want to say to this House and to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is no single man in South Africa’s history who has raised expectations to a greater extent than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has promised that we would move away from race discrimination. He has raised the expectations of the Black man and unless this Government fulfils its promise it is going to be repudiated by the Black man and the rest of the world. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to four matters dealt with by the Minister, which he said were cardinal to their policy as far as the Blacks in the White areas were concerned. He said first of all that the Blacks should have no right to “grondbesit”, no right to own property; secondly, that they should have no political say; thirdly, that the Whites have the “alleenreg” or the sole right to determine in the labour field; and, fourthly, that the Blacks should have no residential rights. Sir, be that as it may, I believe that if any impartial, objective commission examined the position of the urban Blacks, if they looked at the background of the disturbances in Soweto, if they tried to gauge the rising temper of the Black people in the cities of South Africa, the causes would be found precisely within these four points. Each one of these four points in its own way creates frustration and a degree of instability among the Black people of the cities.

Sir, this debate has followed the pattern of the rest of the session because what has emerged during the course of the session and particularly during the debate since Thursday of last week is that the Government appears either unwilling or unable to come to grips with the cardinal issues of South African politics. It hinges on the promise of the Prime Minister. The cardinal issue is how to remove discrimination in the social, in the economic and in the political fields in the economically active non-homeland areas of South Africa where Black people and Brown people and White people live together and work together and where they need one another not only for their progress but also for their security and indeed for the survival of an orderly society. This is the cardinal issue, and this is the issue which the Government has dodged throughout this debate. The events in Soweto last week and the tabling of the report of the Theron Commission have focused attention on two aspects of this problem, the future of the Coloured people and the whole question of the urban African.

As this debate comes to an end, it is quite obvious—and the tabling of the Government’s White Paper has made it even more obvious—that the Government has no solution at this given moment in time for the future of the Coloured people or for the future of the urban Blacks. What is more, all the indications are that such a solution cannot be found within the framework of the present policy of separate development for the Blacks and the policy of parallel development for the Coloured people. The Theron Commission was appointed to try to cut through the knot of the dilemma which the National Party had tied, and no sooner had Dr. Erika Theron and her commissioners cut through the knot than the National Party Government issued a White Paper and tied the knot just as tightly again. We end this debate and we end this session with the Coloured people of South Africa having no more knowledge of what their future is going to be in this country than before the Erika Theron Commission reported. Everybody will agree with social and economic advances for people; there is no argument about that. But in the critical issue of how they will exercise their citizenship and how they will be represented in the sovereign Parliament of this country, the Government at this moment is without a policy. The tragedy of it is that for three years now the Coloured people, many of whom originally were sceptical about the appointment of that commission, have been living in hopes that not only would the commission show the way, but that the Government would follow it. However, at this moment there is more uncertainty about the future of the Coloured people than there has been in the last decade.

There are dashed hopes, one only has to read the Press to see that responsible bodies of Coloured opinion are distressed, disturbed and shocked at the fact that this Government has rejected the cardinal issue of the report, and that is full citizenship for the Coloured people within a shared South Africa. The other day a Coloured man said to me: “ I am sick and tired of the Government playing yo-yo with us.” That is what this Government is doing, picking them up and throwing them away, without ever giving them a position of stability. They are playing with them; this is what they are doing. The Government’s dilemma was highlighted in a phrase used by the hon. member for Piketberg. He said: “Vir die Bantoes is daar selfbeskikking, maar vir die Kleurlinge sal daar selfregering wees.” So we have a situation where the Government provides for “selfbeskikking”, selfdetermination, for the Africans, whereas for the more Westernized and more urbanized section of the community which is so much a part of the Western-orientated community of South Africa, there is no “selfbeskikking” in a separate South Africa, and no full citizenship in the South Africa which it shares with us.

There are other reasons why the Government rejected these recommendations. There are other reasons why it rejected the central theme. One is that this Government knows that if it accepts the central theme, now that there is no more “tuisland” policy, that there has to be an acceptance of the Coloured people as full citizens in a shared society, that party will split wide open, and they know it. In this House there is a sharp division of opinion between people on this issue. Outside of this House amongst the opinion-makers of that party there are people, especially in the Cape, who believe that the time has come to accept the Coloured people as full citizens alongside the White people. There is also another reason, and the hon. the Minister of the Interior knows it. That is that if you accept that the Coloured people are full citizens in a shared South Africa and that they must have political rights that are commensurate with that, you also have to do it for the Indians. You then also have to start thinking of doing that for the urban Blacks who are permanently in South Africa. So the NP runs away. I would not mind if it came with another alternative, I would not mind if it said: “Let us divide the country in some other way.” But its alternative is to evade the issue and to leave the Coloured people like a yo-yo at the end of a string.

The Government is not only unwilling to come to grips with the issue of the Coloured people, but quite clearly it is unwilling to face the situation of the urban blacks. The events of the last nine days are a tragedy in terms of property destroyed, in terms of injuries sustained and in terms of lives lost. Undoubtedly those events are going to have a profound influence on our thinking, on the thinking of the Black people and on the course of political history in South Africa. There is a double tragedy involved. A double tragedy because it need not have happened. The hon. the Minister, who is not in the House at present, must take his full share of responsibility for the fact that it did happen. Let us make it quite clear that the Government failed to recognize the danger signals which have been coming from the Black community for a long time. Dreaming of apartheid, dreaming of separate development, dreaming of independent homelands, that Minister, who should have been in touch, failed to recognize the danger signals that were coming from the Black community in the cities. Not only have they failed to recognize the danger signals, but this Government and that Minister in particular failed to listen to the warnings that were repeatedly given about the dangerous situation that was developing. One can lambaste the Press if one wishes to, but the English-language Press, and also the Afrikaans Press and the Black Press in South Africa, viz. the newspapers writing in and from the townships, have been warning the Government of a situation of tension which has been building up. Sociologists, community workers, educationalists and church leaders—not just Anglicans and Methodists, but DRC people, including Black members of the DRC—have constantly warned the Government and yet the hon. the Minister did nothing about it. There have been judicial commissions. The hon. the Minister appointed the judicial commission under Judge Snyman which investigated the Turfloop riots the year before last. Certain recommendations were made. A deep probe was made into what took place. I should like to know from anybody on that side of the House—perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will speak later on—whether the Government changed any aspect of its policy as a result of the recommendations of the Snyman Commission? Did it change any aspect or did it merely table that report and refer to it as being just another commission which they had got off their chests?

Must we give in to agitators?

Is the hon. member suggesting that Judge Snyman is an agitator?

I am talking about agitators, your pals.

This Government has repeatedly failed to heed warnings which have been issued in this House and, as the hon. the Minister knows, the hon. member for Parktown on a number of occasions privately went to see the hon. the Deputy Minister. He did not raise this issue across the floor of the House. He warned the hon. the Deputy Minister that things were happening and that tension was building up. He asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would do something about it. He went to the hon. the Deputy Minister time and time again and he was told that this matter was being handled at a lower level and that he thought that it would come out all right. This was a gross dereliction of duty. The government either ignored or dismissed the warnings or it said, as the hon. member for Langlaagte said: It is the work of agitators or perhaps misguided liberals.

Some of them are named already.

To the extent that the Government did anything, it acted through the police and used the security laws against the activists and against militant organizations, such as the BPC or SASO, operating within the Black community. We know that this was done, but what the Government did not do, was to remove the underlying causes of discontent and frustration which had been permeating the whole Black urban society.

Even on the relatively limited but, as it proved, fatal issue of the compulsory language medium of instruction at Bantu schools, the issue which provided the spark, the hon. the Minister, his Deputy and the department showed a degree of insensitivity, of arrogance and of downright incompetence which cannot be condoned. It is disgraceful, and the explanations which the hon. the Minister has given are no better. The hon. the Minister may claim it was agitators if he wishes, but he knows that when the homeland leaders saw the hon. the Prime Minister in January of last year they said: “Please, we have made a decision and we want our children to learn via the medium of English in the high schools.” Is he suggesting that Mangope, Buthelezi and Phatudi are all agitators? They went to the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Minister, however, says: “We could not accede to their requests.” He knows that it was not revolutionaries or the school-children who came to him. He knows it was the school boards, the African Teachers’ Association and the school committees that came to him, and yet he did nothing.

When the statutory leaders could not achieve nothing, the fight was taken over by the school-children, and the activists or revolutionaries moved in. This was the pattern. The hon. the Minister has issued a flurry of statements. In fact, he issued one last Thursday trying to explain the position. He issued another statement in consort with leaders from Soweto on Saturday, and in this House he has offered a further explanation of what went wrong. The critical words however, were that “there was confusion and misunderstanding”. Having read all the statements of the hon. the Minister, I believe that at this moment in time there is even more misunderstanding and confusion than ever before. Dealing with language matters, the hon. the Minister said—

In other words, he is saying there has been a freedom of choice. He says they can choose either English or they can choose Afrikaans or they can choose to use both languages on a 50: 50 basis. That is not true, however. That is simply not true. They have not had the freedom of choice. I have here a circular issued to the school boards on 17 April 1974. It states—

I quote further—

No mention is made of the decision of the parents—

I now want to know whether, in fact, it is true that the people have a choice and whether the hon. the Minister is correct in saying that the 50: 50 rule applies. I have another circular which was sent to the “Streekdirekteur van Bantoe-onderwys” from Mr. P. A. D. de Beer, “Sekretaris van Bantoe-onderwys”. It reads as follows—

There follows a list of nine schools, and the document is signed by P. A. D. de Beer, “Sekretaris van Bantoe-onderwys”. So it is just not true to say that there has been a freedom of choice. I want to know, however, whether that is correct or not. I also want to know because the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is not present, has given a different statement. He has given a different interpretation. He does not agree with the hon. the Minister that there should be a freedom of choice. He does not agree with the hon. the Minister that there should be “selfbeskikking” and that ‘ ‘die gemeenskap self moet kan besluit nie”. The hon. the Deputy Minister says—

I want to know whether the policy of the Government is the policy of the hon. the Minister, who says that there is a freedom of choice, or whether it is the policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister. If there was confusion before then I think it is worse at this present time. The lame explanation that there was confusion and misunderstanding is no excuse, because I believe that the Minister through his handling of the situation provided the spark in what was an explosive mixture.

Public order seems to be largely restored and I think we are all grateful for that. One would hope that as soon as possible such degree of normality as exists and can exist in the townships will occur again. But once again I ask, what now? Are we going to sit back and wait for the next explosion? As the hon. member for Pinelands said the other day, we are appalled at the response of the members opposite to the situation, and their unwillingness to say that they are going to reassess the situation. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Defence, acting for the Prime Minister, or the hon. the Minister of Information, who is the leader in the Transvaal, will stand up and say that they are prepared to reassess the situation and that they are prepared to re-examine their policies and to admit that the administration of their policy may in some way have been responsible. They must say that they are going to face up to the tensions and the frustrations which are building up in the townships. The only ray of light to us in opposition on this matter does not come from that side of the House; it comes from the people, because I know that the people want a reappraisal of policy. It comes in particular from that section of the Press that supports the NP Government. In their approach to the rioting and the consequences of the rioting I think that the Afrikaans-language Press has been of tremendous service to South Africa. Hon. members opposite say that it was agitators, a small group of people. I want to read what was said in the Press—

And so you can go on and on. That quotation was from Die Transvaler. You can read Perskor newspapers and you can read the Nasionale Pers newspapers. Every one of them has said that somewhere we have to accept responsibility for what happened and somewhere we have to be prepared to put things right. Members opposite have tended …

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

No, I do not have the time. Members opposite have tended to put the blame for this whole affair on the shoulders of a small group of militants or revolutionaries or they have said that it is the English-language Press or that it is a party such as I represent in this House. This is a very, very serious matter and I think that it is an extremely simplistic approach to what is a very complex problem. If one gives that simplistic explanation, then it is evidence of the fact that the members opposite have got just no concept of what is taking place in the minds of the Black people and what is happening within the Black society today.

As far as the English-language Press is concerned and as far as White political parties are concerned, the Black people in Soweto and Alexandra and elsewhere do not need the English-language newspapers, and they do not need opposition politicians to tell them about the conditions in which they live. They experience that and they endure it. They are living there and they know more about it. They feel it much more strongly than any of us who are White and stand outside that community.

Let us also face up to the fact that under the impact of world events, because of developments in Africa, because of discrimination inside South Africa, there is growing up in the urban areas of South Africa a new group of young Black militants, people who are not influenced by Whites or White political parties and who are opposed to the economic system which has been built up in South Africa. Indeed, in the Black community there is a schism, between these young Black militants and those Black people who want to bring about change in an orderly way. These young Black militants look upon any Black who co-operates with the Whites as an Uncle Tom. They even repudiate the homeland leaders who want to work for change within the system. This is the real challenge that confronts us in the urban areas. The real problem confronting all of us on both sides of the House is: How do we prevent this new group of young militants developing into and becoming the mass revolutionary movement for the whole of the urban African people? The problem is how to contain it, how to ensure that they do not infect the whole of the Black community. We can take strong measures and we can have security laws, but in the end we also have to do positive things. We have to give to the people, to the mass of the Black people living in the urban areas, an economic system which gives them a better prospect of advancement than another system can. We must give them a social system which gives them a better opportunity of freedom and dignity than any other system. We have to give them a political system in which there will be more opportunity for them to participate in the decision-making as regards those aspects of life which affect them directly. Immediate steps have to be taken, many of them have been outlined.

I believe that apart from the immediate steps, the scrapping of the enforced Afrikaans medium of instruction should happen this week. I believe it should be a formal decision because it will lead to better communication between the officials and the Blacks in the area.

Should Afrikaans be eliminated altogether?

Two officials, Mr. De Beer and Mr. Ackerman, should be relieved of their posts, because all the indications are that they cannot communicate properly with the people with whom they have to work. I believe that the hon. the Minister should be removed from his post, because amongst other things—this is important—the hon. the Minister and his hon. Deputy Minister have lost the confidence of even the restrained, moderate, conservative Black leaders. [Interjections.] I believe that the urban Black councils have to be changed into proper bodies of local government so that the Blacks can have a direct say over the administration of their townships. I sat in on a meeting of 50 Black people last Sunday. These people were, inter alia, members of the urban Black councils, teachers, a doctor, factory workers, etc. All of them were desperately concerned. They wanted peace. They were concerned about the future and they were concerned about their children because they knew what their children were doing. They understood them although they did not agree with what they were doing.

Above all I think that what the urban Black needs today is the recognition of his permanence to give him that sense of security. The report which Benbo recently released shows that 67% of the economically active Blacks in the urban areas are permanently in the urban areas. I believe that the Government must face up to this. These people belong to the cities. I say that as a first step, their permanence should be recognized. We can then build on that. We should allow them to lead a normal family life without the harassment of the pass laws. We should not threaten that we will take away their citizenship. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that a certificate of citizenship of a homeland will be a plus factor—it will have certain advantages—but I want to know from him whether, if a Black Zulu or a Black Tswana takes out a certificate of citizenship of his homeland, such a certificate will jeopardize his South African citizenship?

He is a citizen of the homeland.

In other words, if a man wants to own a shop, the only way to get such a shop will be to renunciate his South African citizenship. [Interjections.] Such renunciation will be a condition. I say that the Blacks should be allowed to improve their economic condition. They should be allowed to trade. They should be allowed to improve the education of their children. They should not always be under the threat of removal to a distant homeland.

I believe that this session has shown the unwillingness of the Government to face up to the essential facts of South Africa. This session has been notable for the aggressive speeches coming from that side. However, those aggressive speeches—we have heard them right throughout the session—are not a sign of security and they are certainly not a sign of confidence on the other side; they are the speeches of people who have lost their way and who no longer have policies which they believe can work. They have no policy for the future of the Coloureds. They have no policy for the urban African. They have no policy for effective détente with Africa. I do not think they have a real policy for sport. I must put a question to the hon. members who represent constituencies in South West Africa. Do they believe that separate development is the basis for a settlement in South West Africa? Not only have they lost a policy, but something else has also happened. The hon. the Prime Minister is a brilliant pragmatist. Under the pressure of world events, he has been making “aanpassings”, he has been making changes—changes in sport, in the social field, in the labour field and so forth. However, every change he has made has had the effect of taking out the ideological props under the ideology props which Dr. Verwoerd put there for it. There we have a party with no real ideologies, a party wobbling around, not knowing where it is going. We also have the new Deputy Minister rushing around, trying to replace the ideological props once again. [Interjections.]

There has been another breakdown in South Africa. There has been a breakdown in communication between Black and White, at all levels—at the individual level, at the community level and at Government level. I believe it is absolutely imperative for this Government to establish new communications with the Black people. But, more than that—and now I want to come back to a theme which we have raised time and time again: The time has come for the leaders of the Black, Brown and White communities to meet one another and to see whether they can resolve the long-term constitutional problems of this country. The Government says these problems will be solved through separate development. I do not believe that anybody on that side, looking 10 years ahead, can really believe that separate development, independent homelands, and some kind of policy for the Coloureds and the Indians, is going to solve the long-term constitutional problems of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to refer at length to what the hon. member for Sea Point said here. With much gesticulation he raised the question of self-determination, and asked what self-determination the NP offered. I, in turn, can ask what self-determination his party offers. We have the reply to that question from one of his own hon. Senators. The hon. Senator Bamford made a speech during the election campaign in Durban North. On that occasion three questions were put to him. Those three questions were—

1. (1) Will the Blacks vote on a common voter’s roll under a PRP régime?
2. (2) Will it be possible for a Black man to become Prime Minister of South Africa under a PRP régime?
3. (3) Will it be possible for a Black majority government to come into existence in South Africa under a PRP régime?

To all those questions the hon. Senator Bamford replied “Yes”. With that the PRP furnished an adequate reply to the question of what its policy means. It means no self-determination for the Whites in this country; no self-determination for the Coloureds in this country; no self-determination for the Indians in this country. It means the self-determination of a Black majority régime only. [Interjections.] The PRP stands condemned out of its own mouth. It has written its own testimonial. The hon. member for Sea Point stands under the testimonial of the hon. Senator Bamford, and he will simply have to settle accounts with the hon. Senator Bamford.

In the second place the hon. member for Sea Point asked why this Government was not prepared to make a reassessment of its policy. My reply to the hon. member is that this Government is making a reassessment of its policy every day. That is why many measures which have been forced upon this country since the days of old Queen Victoria have disappeared under the régime of this Government.

The days of their old Queen, yes!

Surely the hon. member for Sea Point knows that the swindle of qualified franchise from the British era was one of the principal causes of the conditions which arose in South Africa; conditions which this Government had to deal with. When the riots broke out on the Witwatersrand, and when the situation of a week or two ago cropped up, this Government was not afraid to face up to the facts. That is why the hon. the Minister of Justice announced immediately that one of the most respected judges in this country would institute an inquiry into the situation. The Government was not afraid to ask a judge to dissect this matter and furnish the facts in regard to it. How, then, did the hon. member come by the stories he told here? I shall leave him at that; I do not think one should deal with him any further.

I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this has been a long and important session, but I do not agree with his conclusion he drew in respect of the session. This session was important in this respect that, in regard to the first priority of the Government, i.e. to ensure the safety of the country, this Government took all the necessary steps which were required in view of the present circumstances to ensure its security abroad, the security of its borders and its security at home. The fact that the Opposition voted with us in respect of some of those measures proves that the Government was right. The fact that they did not vote with us in respect of other measures, causes them to stand condemned now in view of the latest events. This session will also be known for the fact that, under difficult economic circumstances in the world, the Government was able to succeed in presenting a record Budget, so that the services of this country could proceed, not only to keep the economy of the country going, but also to take care of the impoverished people in this country.

In the third place this session has been characterized by the very important step which South Africa took under the leadership of the Government, i.e. of finalizing the constitutional development of a Black nation. It is true that on an occasion such as this it is the right of the Opposition to review what they consider to be wrong. In my opinion, however, the Opposition is making one big mistake, i.e. that when they pass their judgment, they do not take into consideration the background against which everything is happening in South Africa. No discussion of the major problems which are besetting the RSA—and there are such problems—ought to take place without having regard to the strategic position in which the Republic of South Africa finds itself in a world filled with conflicting interests. The entire Western world is feeling the pinch, and we are a member of the Western world. We are also a member of Africa, and Africa is also feeling the pinch. If one wishes to discuss South Africa’s problems without taking these factors into consideration, then one has to arrive at a distorted image. It is my profound conviction that most responsible South Africans—Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans of all groups, including Brown South Africans and the Black peoples—are seeking a solution away from chaos, from confrontation, from violence and bloodshed. I think that the vast majority of our people in South Africa do not desire confrontation, bloodshed and violence. I also want to make the general statement that the past week or two has proved, just as the previous occasions did, that attempts at revolution, or revolutionary and terroristic conduct, cannot succeed in the Republic of South Africa. And we have to bring home this fact, too. These things can only lead to endless pain, misery, despair and harm to those who become involved. This is not the first time that these attempts at revolution and attempts at an uprising have occurred in South Africa. Our history is full of them. Our entire history testifies to the fact that the orderly body politic in South Africa has always been able, under whatever Government, to deal with attempts at revolution or with revolutionary tendencies. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recall that in the days of the late Gen. Smuts there was a very serious attempt to foment a revolution. The only difference was that the late Gen. Smuts dealt with such situations a little more harshly than this Government.

Vause says “yes”.

Nor can it be denied. I am not saying this in a tone of reproach, I am merely saying it to emphasize a fact. The stability of the State and the instruments of security of the State will cause orderly government to triumph every time, and this will be the case because the State is built on the joint will of the majority of the South Africans who do not desire a revolution. Therefore I repeat that, when we discuss these matters, we should also take into consideration the background against which things are happening.

What is this background?

†It is, firstly, the fact that the world’s strategic emphasis is gradually moving into the southern hemisphere. The growing industrial capability and populations of countries like Brazil, the Argentine, Australia and South Africa are indicators that in order for Soviet influence to grow, it must control the southern hemisphere. What we are experiencing today, is the gradual attempt on the part of Soviet policy and strategy to control the southern hemisphere in its attack on the Western world and on the Free world. Russian militarism has already started with its efforts. And I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as far as that is concerned: It is not a matter of ideology; it is sheer military imperialism.

Power politics.

That is quite correct; it is power politics. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in dealing with this matter, said that it was a pity that the Republic of South Africa was not a full member of the Western family of nations. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. South Africa is not under discussion because it is of no importance or is outside the family of nations. South Africa is being discussed in the way it is being discussed because, in so far as the Warsaw Pact countries are concerned, South Africa is becoming of more and more importance to carry out their strategy. We must therefore expect more and more attacks from that quarter, propaganda attacks, psychological warfare and physical attempts to bring us on our knees. On the other side, South Africa is of the utmost importance to the Free World, otherwise there would not have been talks between Dr. Kissinger and the Prime Minister of South Africa. We know that Soviet crisis management clearly belongs to the realm of foreign policy and is already applied in some regions of the southern hemisphere. That we know, and I say you cannot discuss the problems of South Africa unless you take into account this background. Secondly, South Africa’s military and strategic importance to the Free World, and especially to the West, are undeniable. The vital sea-lanes around the Cape are becoming more and more important. But what is more, South Africa’s industrial capacity, its coal reserves, its uranium reserves, our modern harbours and our air facilities and many other factors add to its importance. Simonstown is only the symbol of this importance. Thirdly, there exists no easy and quick solution for South Africa’s problems to satisfy the outside world. In fact, there exists no quick solution. There is no readymade answer to our problems available anywhere in the world. We have delicate problems in South Africa to cope with. Our problems are not so much problems of race as they are problems of nationalism, and we must cater for these nationalisms. We must accommodate them, and unless we are prepared to accept this very principle, this fact, we will not find a solution. Lastly, it must be evident to anyone who knows our country’s history and difficult problems, that without doubt the Westminster model of government offers no lasting solution in the sense of a unitary State with majority government. I say this because nowhere in Africa did it succeed and we are from Africa, although we are also part of the West.

*That is why, Sir, I now want to deal with a few matters in the light of these statements. I want to say that I think the stability of the Republic of South Africa depends in the first place on sound relations, the confidence and co-operation of the White community. If those relations are not what they should be, the stability of South Africa will suffer. The fact that we have made progress on this road is reflected in practice. It is reflected in our economic life, where industrialists and businessmen of both language groups have today made considerable progress on the road of co-operation. Recently it was my privilege, in my capacity as Minister of Defence, to hold talks with some of our most important industrialists and businessmen, from both language groups, and it struck me to what extent these people understand one another and have shared attitudes towards South Africa and its interests. In the second place this is reflected, in a more tangible way, in the actions of our South African Defence Force and our Police Force, where young Afrikaans-and English-speaking men, and young men from Jewish families and Greek families, stand side by side. For what purpose? To ensure orderly survival of South Africa. Their attitude towards one another is the attitude of: “This is our fatherland, and we shall not allow any harm to come to it.” Sir, surely these are splendid things we have achieved. Surely we have made progress if we look back on the course of our history. Surely we have made progress if all the denominations, of all the various churches in South Africa, are today represented in the security services of our country. There is an awareness among our people that there has to be stability through understanding and tolerating one another. Now, there are unfortunately people who do not like this; they may be in the minority and I think they are, but they are on the Afrikaner side, and I admit this, for we have had dealings with them as a party. But we dealt effectively with them; they were turfed out of this Parliament. They are not represented here.

They are still crowding your benches.

I shall send for a napkin for the hon. member if he needs a dry napkin. They were turfed out here because the NP adopted a standpoint and said that what they were proclaiming they could not proclaim here or do within the NP. The NP demonstrated its bona fides. These people still form a small group which, with its propaganda, is doing a certain amount of harm in the country, but they are not making any progress. On the English-speaking side in South Africa as well, there are people who are continuing to make this kind of propaganda. I want to quote a few examples of this from the latest events. In the first place I read the following comment of a newspaper—

This is what was written by a daily newspaper which has to set an example to the public, a daily newspaper which is supposed to help create public opinion in South Africa. Another newspaper wrote—

What are the results of this kind of propaganda which is being made in South Africa by newspapers that have to create public opinion? One result is that a newspaper overseas takes its measure from these newspapers. On 20 June the Sunday Express, London, wrote as follows—

How does the Sunday Express come by this language? It finds this language in the Rand Daily Mail and in The Cape Times, which told it what to say. It picks up this language from its agents in South Africa, the traitors who swarm around in the night to undermine our stability. It picks up this language because it enjoys the patronage of a political party, a party which unfortunately has representation in this House. Then one of these newspapers still has the temerity to quote the name of Gen. Louis Botha, implying that we needed a Louis Botha in these times. I went to the trouble of taking another look at F. S. Malan’s Dagboek on the National Convention, and on page 55, I find this interesting passage—

Louis Botha is now being called upon to come to the rescue of The Cape Times. But Louis Botha was the person who was responsible for making it impossible for any Black person to be elected to this Parliament. Louis Botha was also the person who was responsible for saying that he would wreck the Union if they wanted to grant Black franchise in this Parliament.

He was a good UP man.

The point I want to emphasize is that the attitude of the majority of the people in this country towards one another is one of goodwill. We want to call the malefactors on both sides to order. This party asks the Opposition parties: Take up the cudgels for this principle of stability. This morning I want to do something else, viz. to take up the cudgels for the nation to which I belong. The Afrikaner nation is a small nation, yet it has nothing to be ashamed of. It did not steal this country. Its history is a history of integrity. Some of the greatest men the world has ever seen, were born out of this small nation. Why should we then be cursed in our own fatherland? Surely we are not asking for other peoples’ countries. We are simply asking to preserve our right to self-determination in our fatherland. I am one of the people who preach better race relations. However, they must not arouse the tiger in the Afrikaner. I am issuing this warning this morning: You can go too far with us; you can curse us too much. I shall leave it at that.

The second prerequisite for stability and for economic progress is that White South Africa should seek progress in an evolutionary way with the Black peoples in Southern Africa, should seek higher standards of living and methods of consultation in order to recognize and preserve one another’s identity and national ideals. I am deliberately stating it in these words, because this is inherent in the policy of this party. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister instruments have been created for the first time in the history of South Africa through which the Black man has been able to make his voice heard. The Black man has never had a voice by means of which he could make himself heard in this country. It was under the leadership of this party, and particularly under the leadership of the Prime Minister, that Black leaders have been able to sit down around a conference table with the Prime Minister of South Africa. Black majority government, as the PRP advocates it, will bring the peace of the graveyard …

That is not our policy. [Interjections.]

I suggest that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. Senator Bamford should engage in a bout of fisticuffs with one another over this matter. Go and fight it out among yourselves. In the second place, the complicated federation plans of the UP are being rejected every time by the White voters. However, the hon. member for Durban Point has come forward with a new proposition. He said that we should not allow the White voters to lead us; we should lead them. Surely we are leading them. That is why we are sitting here. If he had been leading them, surely he would have been sitting here, but he is not leading them, and that is why he is sitting there. To tell the truth, he is leading them to an ever-diminishing extent. I am sorry about that, because I like a responsible opposition. I do not like an opposition which can destroy South Africa’s stability. I like an opposition which will not make a mess of South Africa if it takes over the reins of government. That is why I am sorry that the UP has had to endure so many crises. It is a pity, but it is none of our business. They must set their own affairs in order, not us. At the moment the constitutional means which South Africa has of forming a government are not susceptible to the solutions of either of those two parties. They are not susceptible to them because the one brings death and the other brings confusion.

What do we have today?

There are mischief-makers in this country who wish to mar relations between the Whites and the Blacks. I have the permission of the hon. the Prime Minister to make certain correspondence and telegrams public here this morning, correspondence and telegrams which throw a light on this matter. On 3 June this year a letter was written to the hon. the Prime Minister by a certain Rt. Rev. Timothy Bavin—

Then he includes a copy of the resolutions. Inter alia, these resolutions read—

1. (a) that external détente must be matched with credible efforts to promote detente internally;
2. (b) that recent legislation represented by Piscom, the Promotion of State Security Bill and the Transkeian Bill will intensify racial and other tensions within the Republic and increase the possibilities of a bloody confrontation instead of bringing about peaceful change and for these reasons must be condemned as abhorrent to the Christian conscience. The synod respectfully and patriotically calls on the Prime Minister to convene a national convention as a matter of utmost urgency, with the acknowledged leaders of the various sections of the South African community, to discuss how best to achieve an orderly evolution to an open and just society in a united South Africa and further calls on him and his Government to defuse a rapidly deteriorating situation.

On 8 June the hon. the Prime Minister wrote as follows to these gentlemen—

Then came the great truth—

This letter was written on 11 June—

Whereupon the Prime Minister wrote the following letter—

I agree with this. I agree with this, for as far as I know the Rt. Rev. Timothy Bavin is not even a South African citizen, but he has the temerity to dictate to South Africa from a pulpit abroad how it should regulate its affairs.

Sir, I now want to tell you who, together with these people, are the people who want to mar this stability between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. These gentlemen sent a telegram, dated the 21st, to the hon. the Prime Minister in which they told him—

This is the Council of Churches that has recently met again—

These are probably the same as the young friends of the hon. member sitting opposite—

What are these “measures”?—

Sir, it is really interesting to read further what the Sunday Express of London had to say, apart from its insult to the Afrikaner nation—

Sir, I do not want to comment any further on the actions of this Council of Churches. I think they should be left in other hands, for it is not for me to say what should be done with them. South Africa has enough patriots among the ranks of its English-speaking citizens, who will be able to deal with this matter. I want to demonstrate that there is a thread running through these matters, and how the same resistance is also spreading to other spheres. When the riots were at their height, the Church Council decided to send telegrams to me as well. However, they did not do in advance what any reasonable, sensible people would have done. Such people would first have telephoned to ascertain the true facts. After all, Pretoria is not far from Johannesburg—in fact it is simply a matter of a few kilometres—and all the necessary facts could easily have been ascertained. Instead of the Church Council first ascertaining per telephone what the true state of affairs was, they sent me a telegram. To tell the truth, I received telegrams from the “Executive Committee” as well as the “Wit-watersrand Council of Churches”—

In reality there was not a single soldier there. This these gentlemen could have ascertained if they had had the decency to make a telephone call to Pretoria and ask whether the Army was in Soweto. They could have telephoned the Chief of the Defence Force, if they did not want to speak to me. I do not blame them for not wanting to speak to me, because I do not want to speak to them. The other telegram read—

What is behind this? These stories were also given to the Press. What is behind this is an agitation against the forces which have to preserve South Africa’s security. I intend handing over these telegrams and letters to the Press. I have the permission of the hon. the Prime Minister to do this. I want to hand these documents to the Press because I believe that these people should now be exposed. I think it is time South Africa exposed people of this kind.

Together with them the antics of that Progressive political party should be exposed, that party which has become the mouthpiece for everything which is un-South African and disloyal.

I see Harry is walking out. They can all walk out if they like.

I shall talk the whole lot of them out of Parliament. [Interjections.]

The third requirement for stability in this country is that peace should be achieved by White South Africa with the Brown and Indian populations. The Theron report has just been tabled, and neither that side nor this side of the House has been able to make a proper study of it in this short space of time. It was not humanly possible for anyone on that side or on this side of the House to have made a thorough study of the document. Let us be honest enough with one another, and admit that this is the case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition could have read the report, but then he could only have done so superficially—just as superficially as I read it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a person who works. He could not have made a thorough study of this. In addition he has few people who are able to help him. [Interjections.] I do not mean that in a disparaging sense. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has few people, but they are all …

Very competent people! [Interjections.]

I am not referring now to the exceptionally capable hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central! None of us deny his outstanding qualities! They are not even in dispute. There is no denying his qualities. The report of the Theron Commission contains 178 recommendations. I read them, together with the summaries and a few of the other chapters. I can say this here, and my hon. colleagues know that this is really my standpoint. Of the 178 recommendations there are approximately 158 to which I have no objection, and if it is practicable to carry them into effect—after the various Government Departments have dealt with this matter—I should like to see this being done, for those recommendations are either in the process of being implemented, or it is the intention of the Government to give effect to them, or it is a normal outcome of things which are already happening. Therefore I have no fault to find with the majority of the recommendations. This is also what the Government says. The Government’s approach to the report is a positive one. The Government admits in the first place that the report contains valuable information; information which is well arranged and orderly. In the second place …

Listen, Nic!

I beg your pardon?

I am asking the hon. member for Piketberg to listen.

Come now, the hon. member for Piketberg participated in the inquiry. He quite probably knows far more about the Coloureds than the hon. member for Durban Point. [Interjections.] However, the members of the commission are not a group of holy angels who may not be touched. They will be criticized. Why not? After all, the Government is being criticized. Why cannot we criticize such a commission? I still intend criticizing them, as soon as I have taken proper cognizance of the contents of the report of the commission. Superficially seen, I believe that in regard to certain aspects they have arrived at erroneous conclusions. I say this, and the Government says this. The Government makes it clear that it cannot accept certain of the recommendations.

The commission does not make the Government’s policy. The NP makes the Government’s policy.

That is the problem!

The Government approaches the report of the commission in a positive spirit. In the second place the Government takes thorough cognizance of the serious difference of opinion among the members of the commission itself. This difference of opinion did not arise between two groups only. There was sometimes a division into three or four groups, and what is more, on matters of cardinal importance. The Government will study the report and weigh up the arguments. After that the Government will take its decision in the light of its fundamental standpoint.

In the third place the Government will also take into consideration that it became clearly apparent from this report that a tremendous degree of progress was found among the Coloureds; progress during the past few years, progress which was the result of measures adopted by this Government. I am referring for example to the Coloured Development Corporation. I still remember very well—for there is nothing wrong with my memory—when the Government proposed legislation to establish the Coloured Development Corporation—legislation which I had to submit to this House myself—how the UP fought me tooth and nail. They condemned me, but today the CDC stands there as a monument to the work done by the Government for the Coloureds in the service of South Africa. We must take into consideration the fact that under the régime of the Government, a strong Coloured middle class has emerged. This was, inter alia, possible as a result of the housing policy adopted by the Government, i.e. to give Coloureds ownership and development rights in their own areas. After all, we know the conditions which prevailed when the Coloureds were the slum-dwellers and the shanty-dwellers of Windermere and the backward areas of our major cities. After all, we remember the Sophiatowns, the Cato Manors and the Windermeres which prevailed during all the years the Opposition was in power in South Africa. Surely we know that the Coloureds did not have a chance of acquiring any dignity under such humiliating circumstances. We created opportunities for them, so that they are today, in education, in professional directions, in commerce and even other spheres, building up a dignified and self-respecting community. All these things did not come about by means of instant solutions, but came about in spite of resistance.

In the fourth place, the Government said that there were aspects which it could not accept. What were they? I am going to enumerate only a few of them, because I cannot go into everything. The Government is not in favour of doing away with measures aimed at immorality and at mixed marriages. I, as a Capetonian, hope that the Government will even go so far as to include in our legislation protection for the Coloureds in regard to the abominable interbreeding between Coloureds and Blacks. I hope that we will still be able to include this in our legislation, not because the one humiliates the other, but because the Coloureds should also be protected, for they have the right to be protected. The danger does not lie with the middle classes and the rich people who can take care of themselves; the danger lies with the lesser privileged, where the destructive canker, which could destroy South Africa, can be started. The Government has adopted its standpoint in this regard, and the hon. members need not discuss it with us any further.

The Government has also adopted its standpoint on District Six. I had a share in the adopting of that standpoint, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Green Point is not here, for he is constantly nagging about this matter, and with a sentimental attitude to this old story. The hon. the Minister of Community Development furnished him with the facts. In the so-called District Six, 936 of the properties belonged to Whites, and 474 to Coloureds. Should we now allow such conditions to arise again, so that certain groups of Whites can exploit the Coloureds, as they did in District Six?

No one said that.

That hon. member says that no one said that, but then surely District Six was not a Coloured area, for these facts testify to the contrary. Is the hon. member talking through his neck now?

The Government adopted a positive standpoint on the constitutional position, a positive standpoint in that we admit that there has to be discussion and consultation. No one has done more to try to accomplish this than the hon. the Prime Minister. He has literally devoted hours to it. One day I told the hon. the Prime Minister: “You know, your patience is quite irritating.” [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister simply tolerates everything and makes repeated efforts, but what does he get in exchange? Assistance from those people? No. They do not assist him, for they tell the non-Whites that they are being wronged under this Government.

In the first place we adopt a positive approach to this matter by seeking consultation with the true Coloured leaders, and not with “ ‘acknowledged’ so much instead of ‘leaders’ ”. In the second place the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to establish a Cabinet Council on which his Ministers would convene, together with the leaders of those people, and would confer with them on matters of common interest.

In the third place the Government said—and it is stated here in this White Paper—that we do not think that the Westminster system can offer a solution to South Africa’s problems. In this regard we agree with the commission. What the commission is saying we have felt for a long time. It is simply being confirmed now.

Even old Wally feels the same way. [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon. member for Parow is quite correct. In the first place the hon. member for. Port Elizabeth Central casts his vote for granting the Coloureds direct representation in Parliament. At the same time he says that, when the UP comes into power, there will be two Coloured Persons Councils. In the third place he says that the entire mixture should be stirred up, because the Westminster system does not work. [Interjections.] All I can say is that it is fortunate that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is not a judge. He will agree with the prosecutor as well as the accused, and I do not know where we will end up. However, the hon. member remains a competent person, and I admit it! [Interjections.]

We shall have to give free rein to our thoughts on this matter, and we cannot begin to do so across the floor of this House. Constitutional experts will have to work on this. But there are two principles which may not be called in question. The first principle is this: The right to self-determination, not only of the non-Whites, but the right to self-determination of the Afrikaner nation may not be called in question. I make no apology for making an appeal on behalf of my people, for inherent in the right of my people to self-determination is the same right to self-determination of the English-speaking South Africans. I want to tell hon. members today that these matters cannot be arranged without taking any notice of the Afrikaner people. If an attempt is made to do so without us, those who try to do so, will experience difficulties. We are prepared to have constitutional experts consider ways and means in this regard. I myself can think of a few which I should like to subject to expert inquiry to determine their effect if they were to be applied in practice. The matter requires consultation, and there will be consultation. At the right juncture the Government will adopt a standpoint in this regard. However, we are not going to barter away our birthright. Let us understand one another very well, for then we know where we stand.

Last year I addressed the congress of the NP in the Cape before they chose a leader. I told them that I held certain views, and that I wished them to take this into consideration before they chose a leader. I told them that if they did not agree with my standpoints, they should choose another leader. My standpoints are on record in the minutes of the congress. They are available to those who want to read them.

Read them to us.

No, I am not here to give hon. members a lesson. The hon. member may read them for himself, for he is, after all, a learned man. I am simply saying what standpoint I adopted. The hon. member for Durban Point accused me of not furnishing guidance. But I am doing so. I tell my people where I am going with them. I am taking them along the road of goodwill towards the Coloureds. I am taking them along the road of the upliftment of the Coloureds. And, Sir, I have proved this in practice. My entire life testifies to this, even in the Defence Force. I do not merely talk; I do things. In the second place I am prepared to consult with the Coloureds, for I think that they can make a valuable contribution in South Africa, and I hope that we will continue to afford them protection in the Western Cape where they must continue, together with the Whites, in dual towns, in their rural areas and in the factories, to contribute to the stability of this country. But I am not in favour of returning to a system which has already been tried. The Prog system has been tried in Africa, and it has been rejected by Africa. [Interjections.] It is a bluff. Africa itself has demonstrated that it cannot carry on with this system. The UP system has also been tested out. I do not really know what their policy is. They want to change the Westminster system and establish two Coloured Persons Councils, but in addition have Coloureds in Parliament.

I have experience of the Coloureds on the common voter’s roll. The late Senator F. S. Malan, who was not a Nationalist, but a very highly respected South African, wrote in his Dagboek and said about Union that he did not have any fears in regard to the language question, but that the franchise question was still going to cause a great deal of trouble in South Africa. It has caused a great deal of trouble, Sir. Gen. Botha was right when he said that Black people and Coloured persons should not have representation in this Parliament. And he was right when he did not want to allow the system to extend over the entire Union of South Africa and said that he was prepared to break up the Union on that point. I say that we cannot return to a qualified franchise, and we cannot return to a common voter’s roll. Why not? Because it lends itself to exploitation. It lends itself to humiliating practices against the Coloureds. Sir, a book was written by the editor of a well-known daily newspaper. Go and read it. B. K. Long demonstrated to us how it lent itself to malpractices. Sir, I had experience of this myself, because this system was a scourge not only to the Coloureds, but also to the Whites and to sound relations.

With that I want to conclude. I say that the Government has committed itself. It has committed itself to things which it drew up for itself, and laid down general guide-lines for the Cabinet which I should like to read out here today. Resolutions adopted by the Cabinet must not have a detrimental effect, firstly, on legislation and measures aimed at the maintenance and the expansion of separate national identities in South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition says he does not believe that the Coloureds have an identity of their own, yet he says that they are a separate group. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will laugh at himself if he reflects in a quiet moment on what he said.

In certain respects they have a separate identity …

Yes, in certain respects they do, and it is those certain respects which we have to recognize. Secondly: Resolutions by the Cabinet should not bring about political sharing of power within the same bodies and organizations, but a division of power. Thirdly: That nothing should be done which will have a detrimental effect on the provision certain population groups, with specific services, or the maintenance of law and order in South Africa and, fourthly, that attention should be devoted particularly to measures, practices, etc., which can be termed unnecessary discrimination on the basis of colour and which are not aimed at the retention of separate identities or are in fact aimed at eliminating friction. Sir, we adhere to these guide-lines, and in this way, if we act positively, if a Christian attitude prevails among us, if we tolerate one another in this country, we can also achieve the level which has been achieved between Afrikaans- and English-speaking persons in South Africa among other population groups and population communities. However, we shall not succeed in doing this if we want to call in the outside world to control our affairs for us. Nor will we succeed in doing so if we want to encourage a revolution in order to set South Africa’s affairs straight. Nor shall we succeed in doing so if we do not act in a sense of dedication and patriotism.

I am making an appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is also a patriot and a respected man, to set his party straight. He must accept the things which are fundamental in South Africa. There are certain things which one cannot have changed, and these have to be accepted. Let us discuss with one another the administration and the practice of government in South Africa. However, the fundamental principles on which the State is built have to be accepted. I am asking him to cease the unnecessary resistance, for as a patriot he owes it to South Africa. He must not try to bid against the PRP. I am giving him advice because I should like to see him there, together with the hon. the Prime Minister, because I do not want to see an irresponsible Opposition, because I do not believe that an English-speaking South Africa deserves an irresponsible Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition represents, to a large extent, the vast majority of the English-speaking South Africa. Let us arrive at a stage in which it no longer matters where English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africa stands in the political sphere, because we know that the foundations on which the State has been built are safe. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party are able to co-operate with us in this way, as they have done in regard to the defence of South Africa, is it not also possible to co-operate on other fundamental issues in South Africa? Is it not possible that we can put these irresponsible elements in our country in their place, so that we can proceed with the construction work, and the constructive work? South Africa is a beautiful country, and it is a great country. Most of us love it, let us make of it what our love is capable of making of it.

The hon. Acting Prime Minister has spoken for an hour and mentioned a whole lot of subjects and I hope to deal with some of them. He closed off with an appeal to the United Party to be found for responsibility in South Africa and that the party should be found for order and justice and that kind of thing. This party has, however, never been found wanting when those things were demanded of us. If there was a time that responsibility was shown by this party, it was during the last six months, during this session of Parliament where this party has played its full part in being in the very best sense of the word South African. I expect from that hon. Minister, who is the Acting Prime Minister, recognition of the fact that this party has played its part to the full in everything that has been demanded of it in securing the security of South Africa and that of all the different people who live in this country.

The hon. the Minister dealt with certain matters and I hope to cover them in the course of my speech. He dealt with the Transkei. The fact that the Transkei is to become independent is something that we will have to live with for the rest of our lives. He dealt with the focus of attention which is now on South Africa as far as world affairs are concerned. He said there is no easy solution to our problems and asked how we should cope with the various nationalisms in our country. He queried the attitude of this party towards Westminster and he spoke to us about “die Afrikanervolk”. He said that nothing can be achieved in this country without taking into account the Afrikaner. In the course of what I have to say I hope to deal with all those points. The hon. the Minister closed with an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition not to compete with or bid against the PRP. I hope that when I have finished it will be clearly seen that it is not necessary for this party to compete with anybody when it comes to having a real message for the future of South Africa as to what the demand is that is going to be made on all South Africans, White, Indian, Coloured and Black, if we are going to be able to live in peace together here in this country.

The first point that I wish to make is that this session of Parliament has seen the passing of a Bill granting independence to the Transkei. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs indicated quite clearly that the NP sees the problem of Black/White relationships as having been solved. The granting of independence to the Transkei—and they foreshadow independence for other areas as well—and the granting of citizenship to Black people in the White areas is now the political solution to the Black/White problem. Today the new dimension of the problem is the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. The hon. the Minister of Defence himself said today that that is the problem which we have to face, of which we have to take cognizance and to which we have to find a solution. I want to know whether that is the present attitude of the NP. Can we take it as being official that they regard the coming into being of the Transkei and all the other independent states that it foreshadows as being a solution to the problem of Black and White political relationships in South Africa? That is how I understood the position. That is what was said yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, and I also understood the hon. the Minister of Defence to say today that the independence of the Transkei, the independence to be granted to other states and the citizenship to be conferred on the Black people in our midst, is now the solution to the political relationship between Blacks and Whites in that the Black man and his political demands have been removed from the White man’s ken and are now something outside our political experience. What we have to find and deal with now is a solution to the Indians’ and Coloureds’ relationships with the White man.

I think this has been a vitally important session of Parliament, especially in the light of the fact that the Status of the Transkei Bill has been adopted, because it has created a totally new situation in South Africa. It has brought about a reversal of the position which has existed throughout the history of South Africa. In the past we saw the extension of the influence of the White man over more and more of the territory of South Africa. We have now started a retraction of that influence of the White man and we have started a totally new process, the flowering of a Black political presence among us, independent of our influence, a going back—if I may put it that way—to what the position was certainly 100 years ago. We must accept this as being the moment of greatest triumph for the NP, because they have now reached a stage where they can say that they have got what they regard as a solution to the Black/White political problem. If that is the case, and I am prepared to concede them that case, I want to tell hon. members opposite that it says in the Book of Common Prayer in the burial service that “in the midst of life we are in death”. It is found in history, as anybody who reads history will know—and the hon. member for Brits who is a keen scholar of history will know— that at the moment of your greatest triumph the seeds of your ultimate destruction are always sown.

Do you not have faith?

If I did not have faith, I would not be here. That I can assure the hon. member. I want to say to the NP, as I said the other day to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, that with this session of Parliament the old book of our history is closed. We now have independence for Black people and it is foreshadowed for all the Black people. We have a Nationalist Government which says that we have now solved the problem. That page of the history book is closed and there is another page which stands before us on which this Parliament, we, the members of this Parliament, people who are interested in politics are going to write. The other day I asked the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs to answer a challenge which I put to him and he did not do so. At the head of that page there is one word written and that word is “communism”. The question that is posed to every person sitting in this Chamber is: How do we now as White people, having as we do have today, total power in this country, deal with the challenge that communism poses to us, to our system, to our way of thought and to the influence and leadership that we have in South Africa, bringing everybody—Black, White, Coloured, Indian, the lot—to a new …

[Inaudible.]

Can the hon. member not listen for five minutes? We face this challenge of communism which is an idea in the minds of men. It is an idea which carries with it the notion of liberation. That is something that is quite extraordinary and inexplicable, something which cannot be explained in any logical terms, because we know what communism is. Solzhenitsyn has told us. Anyone who has read The Gulag Archipelago will know that communism means the total domination of men’s minds—total domination to the very heart and soul of a man who is a writer, a painter or a musician. His very art itself has to be subjected to the demands of the State, and the demands of the State are the demands of a few people who have clawed, shot and murdered their way to dominance in the countries where communist powers are in existence. This is what poses a challenge to us and what we are doing in this country. It is not a question of the armed forces of communism on our borders and it is not a question of the terrorists on the borders; it is the idea that communism is something that can be a liberating force in our country. That is the challenge that we White people face here in this country.

I therefore just want to ask one question, since the NP has been dealing with the question of separation. The whole of that party’s history, of course, is one of separation. The very idea of a separate party for Afrikanerdom is separation. The idea of a separate political existence for the Black people is separation. It is all separation, a sorting out into different units.

Compartments.

What answer does the NP now offer to write on this new page of our history on which we shall have to write?

National self-determination.

But you have done that. With the Transkei you have done that. I hope the hon. member for Brits will take up the point I am making. Having achieved the independence of the Transkei, what does the NP now offer? What do they offer, having achieved what they regard as a solution to the Black/White problem, having achieved what they would regard, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Defence, as a solution to the English/Afrikaans problem? What is the policy of the NP in the face of the new challenge that we have to meet if we are going to survive, and not only if we are going to survive, but if we are going to meet the challenge that history poses here and now? The hon. the Minister of Defence was quite right when he said that the whole world’s attention was focused on us here and now. He is absolutely correct. All of history has come to focus upon us as White people because we are the motivating factor in relationships with other people in this country. The question is how we will be able to stand up to the challenge of communism.

But the hon. the Minister gave you the answer.

He never gave me any answer. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister can speak in the debate because I would like to know what he thinks about this. The challenge we face is simply this: Communism today is threatening the entire free world, not only the free world but the essence of thought of the free world, and that is the Christian religion, the whole idea of the free man, the essence of individuality. That threat does not only hang over us here in South Africa; it hangs over the entire world. It has come to focus on us, however, this pitiful handful of people that we are. We face the entire onslaught because this country is now reckoned as being the easiest area in which the Russian communist presence can be made manifest. This is considered the easiest area to exploit and in which to strike probably a decisive blow in the struggle they are now waging.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was asking the NP a question as to what they offer to South Africa in the totally new situation which has arisen and which has been created by them, in the action which they have taken in creating independent homelands, which they regard as being a political solution to the problem of Black/White relations. The question which was posed yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs about the relationship between White, Indian and Coloured, we on this side of the House regard as making historically inevitable a federal arrangement between those three groups of people. I will return to that point later on. To the hon. member for Brits, who is going to answer, I would like to say that a federation, in the present historical situation in which we live, is inevitable, at the very minimum between those three groups. This will be borne out by what I have to say further on.

I wish to appeal to members of the NP and to Afrikaner Nationalists who support the NP that we should forget the politics of yesterday. Let us forget the old conflict between Black and White, Afrikaner and Englishman, and let us look at politics as they are now and at the new situation that we face. I say that the NP has no message for South Africa today. It has no message, given this new situation. I have dealt with the question of communism which, as I have said, is a thing of the mind. What we as White people have to do is to reach out, to get hold of and to seize the imagination of the Black man. We have to seize his mind so that he will turn to us, ally and associate himself with us in the struggle which communism is now forcing upon us here in southern Africa. I repeat what I said earlier, that we have now come to the focus and that we are at the crossroads. Against us, this small handful of White people, is mounted the entire pressure that the whole communist world can bring to bear upon us. The pressure put on us, which is meant to destroy us, is a means of destroying the Western world. Our success here will be the success of the West, and our failure here will be the failure of the West. Our success here will be the inspiration to the West to re-enter the scene of history instead of lying back with their four feet in the air, wagging their tails before the threat of communism. What they need is the sort of inspiration that we can give them, because we in South Africa today have the means, with the leadership that we are giving and what we are now doing and creating for the Black people, that will allow the nations of the West to see that this is the way in which communism can be rolled back, rejected and thrown out. It is a demand which is made upon every single one of us, and especially on the White people, because we are the people who brought to this country the tender plant of Western Christian civilization. This is something which we brought into the country and grafted upon the native stock of Africa. We as White people have the right to see this plant grow, to water and prune it, to see it come to flower and fruitage. That is our right, because that is the light that we brought here.

I wish to deal with the implications of what we have brought and what we are doing for Black South Africa. Categorically I state that the alternative to White power in this country is not Black power, but Red power. Let me say quite clearly that if the White man’s power, in this country should fail, it will fail as a result of armed communist aggression. Whatever people may say, the Black people are not turned towards the communists. I know that they are not. Basically, in their very hearts, they are opposed to communism. What they wish to see is a future for themselves and their children. In the corridors of the future they wish to see the doors opening for their children. Anybody who talks to Black people and meets with them knows that they are basically humble people and that they are making a contribution to the good of South Africa.

Every single one of them will, however, tell you the same thing, viz. that they are prepared to accept the status they have in our society now but that they want to see the corridors opening in the future for their children. The onus is placed on us here to make sure that those corridors do open. Everything we are going to mean in history, everything that will be written in 100 or 200 years’ time, will depend on us. It comes down to one question, namely can we produce growth, can we produce enough to satisfy the legitimate and just demands of the majority of the people who live in this country? Whether they are accepted politically by the Nationalist Party as part of this country or not, they live in South Africa. The challenge which they pose us is not basically a political challenge but an economic one. If we can create a cake that is big enough so that the slice which each man gets is big enough, we will have succeeded in what I regard as being the historical mission of this White group of people. How are we going to do this? Not by looking at the colour of men’s skin, but by looking at their thoughts and by offering them enough, by offering them more than they can possibly expect to get from communism or any other system of government.

Please come down to basics and give us some more particulars.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not recognize the challenge being posed to his party, the challenge which is basic to the entire approach as regards the colour of men’s skins and the separation of people of different identities. If he does not recognize that fact, he does not recognize politics at all. What I am saying is that the NP, as it sits here today, has no answer to that challenge which the Black people of today are demanding of us for their future. They want their share; they want more; they want to be a part of the scene. Yet on every single occasion, involving every facet of our existence, all they get from that side of the House is rejection and a total shut-off. They must now go off and live in their own spheres and do their own thing.

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

No, Sir. What the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is engaged in doing reveals the frustration the party feels on the present situation. He is looking back and trying to get out of the past of the NP some source of strength and some new inspiration to meet a system which is totally new and totally changed. That is why he is totally outmoded. He is meaningless and irrelevant to the present times because he is simply trying to get back to the old days, the old story of the NP. He does not recognize the totally new challenge which is being posed, not only to the NP or to the Afrikaner, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Defence, but to every single White person who is a part of the society the White man has created in South Africa.

The hon. member is missing the boat completely.

Let me simply say that in this new scene within which we must produce growth, that party is not a part of the scene. Indeed, it does not even recognize the scene. I do not believe that the PRP has any sort of answer either because I believe they have already come under the shadow of Black socialism.

Absolute rubbish!

I believe that by attempting to make themselves the mouthpiece of the militants, they are going to be required to become more and more extreme to the point where they will simply be totally rejected by the moderate, ordinary, conservative White voter. To my mind, what it comes down to is one thing only: There is one party that recognizes the new scene …

Do not tell me it is the UP.

Yes, it is this party. This party stands on a field where there is nobody else who even has an idea of what the game is all about. I challenge the hon. member for Brits or any other member of that party who might speak, to tell us what their party today offers the new South Africa. They take it upon themselves to say they have solved the problem. They say the political problem of Black and White is no longer relevant. What do they then offer? What does the NP, as it is now constituted, offer? What leadership, what guidance for the White man does it offer?

Let us talk about the White man. Let us talk about his security and his identity—that word that is flung about. Let us talk about his leadership. The security of the White man is found in one thing, and that is achievement. If we are able to achieve, if we are able to grow, then we shall have security.

To achieve what? [Interjections.] The hon. member is playing with words.

It is to achieve economic growth, to achieve education, to achieve opportunity, to create the sort of wealth that will satisfy those legitimate needs. Anybody who believes that one can satisfy those needs without creating wealth in this country, is foolish. Anybody who thinks that one can get away from discrimination in this country without eliminating the fear and prejudices which give rise to discrimination, is not looking at the scene as it really is.

When one comes to the identity of the White man, this party has gone out of its way in the federal system which it postulates to entrench the identity not only of the White man, but also of the Coloured man and the Indian in a legislative assembly of his own, to entrench his sovereign power, so that nobody will have the right to dominate him or to dictate to him. And from that one draws power to one’s federal assembly, power derived from that sovereignty, so that body will have no power whatever to dominate the legislative assembly. How can it, if power is derived from such a legislative assembly? How can a body dominate the source from which it derives its power? Any elementary school child will be able to understand that. [Interjections.]

When one talks about leadership—the leadership of the White man—it does not mean clasping to the bosom of the White man everything he has created. It means going out into the world with what he has created. It means being able to say to the nations of the West: “Look what we have done!” Anybody who goes about this country apologizing for being a White man, to my mind, is letting down every single thing that we stand for. I believe the White people in this country have fulfilled, in an increasing measure, the mission that has been set them. Because we have to take along with us into the new stream of history, into the modern stream of history, all the peoples of this country, we have to create that sort of opportunity which will allow them to live as modern people. The leadership that we give is what is going to be our security. It is the leadership that we are going to provide to these people which is going to make sure whether we are going to be able to live out in the future this …

We have it. You do not have it!

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member seems to be totally unable to realize one thing. The NP’s entire policy is based on saying to the Black man: “Go in your own direction. Leave us alone. We want to be White people on our own.”

Mr. Speaker, one cannot manage to survive in the challenge of the world that we face with that kind of rejection thinking. It is only by involving all the people in what we are now doing, that we will survive. We are now engaged in a process which is taking the Black man, the Coloured, the Indian, everybody, towards the position where we can safely stand, where we can face communism with all the confidence in the world, because we know that we have control of the hearts and the minds of those people and that they will never look away from us. If we can attain that situation, is that not an ideal? Is it not an ideal for the White man to attain the situation in which the eyes of the Black man will be upon us for what we have to offer, for the reason that we can give them more than anyone else in the world? When we get to that stage, we shall be indeed secure, and we will have fulfilled what I regard as being our historical mission. And now, I ask the NP to tell me what they say in those circumstances, when they have told the Transkei to go its own way, when they have told the Zulus to go their own way, when they have said to people living here in the middle of Cape Town: “You are citizens of a country a thousand miles away.” How does one reconcile that with the sort of leadership that we are going to have to supply in the years to come? I do not believe for one single instant that the NP can answer that question. I do not think they have an ideology, or an idea in their heads, which is going to meet that particular challenge. I do not believe that for one moment.

[Inaudible.]

It certainly is not the case with that hon. Deputy Minister, who shouts the odds all the time. And I have known him for a long time. I have served for a long time on a commission with him. I know what is inside his head. There is nothing there at all. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is a fine (mooi) member, and he has a constituency with the nice (mooi) name of Mooi River. [Interjections.] However, he belongs to a party whose policy is not so wonderful, particularly as far as the relations issue is concerned. I want to discuss him very briefly and deal with just a few ideas in his speech. After all, he challenged me with a question. I shall not evade it. I shall reply to it. Before doing so I should like to raise a few ideas, particularly with reference to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say in his introductory speech to the Third Reading debate. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that we had certain common ground, viz. that all three parties acknowledged that there was such a phenomenon as discrimination. However, in my opinion we have even more common ground, because all three parties undoubtedly share the sincere desire to eliminate discrimination as soon as possible. One thing is certain: Discrimination on the basis of race and colour, and domination of one race by another, are words that stink in the nostrils of the civilized world.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I hope that those hon. members also understand this. That is why we have a policy which has been modernized and which takes account of this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know what we are doing about the promise we made. I want to tell him that we did in fact make the promise and that we stand by it. I should like to quote our creed and add that we are going to translate it into a mighty deed—

That is our creed.

What are you reading from?

I am quoting from the speech made by Mr. R. F. Botha, our ambassador at the UNO. This is the promise we made. We have always translated into action every promise we have made in this connection. This is not something which can happen overnight, but those hon. members do not want to establish a definition of discrimination, because they want confused thinking to prevail. They do not want to distinguish between differentiation and discrimination. If hon. members have this solemn assurance, not only from Mr. R. F. Botha, but also from our present hon. Prime Minister, and from Dr. Verwoerd and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, why does the Opposition not accept our word? After all, the Opposition itself has made mention in the House of certain improvements we have brought about, improvements such as certain discriminatory factors which we have already removed. They say that this is not enough, but after all, we cannot act precipitately. We must do this in an evolutionary fashion by taking our people along with us, and there is only one party which will take the White man in this country along with it to remove discrimination and that is the NP. Our whole policy is one of national self-determination. Dr. Verwoerd said that our policy was a method of removing discrimination, did he not? That is the difference between us and that side of the House. Thus the removal of discrimination is the result of the policy of national self-determination, but that side of the House wants to use the removal of discrimination for the “one nation concept of the open society”, otherwise known as the unitary community. Thereby they want to plough under and eliminate all dividing lines between the races and by so doing they want to pose in a large unitary state. This is unacceptable because it will lead to the elimination of the identity, not only of the Whites, but also of the other population groups. They will never be able to solve the race problem, because they are mixing the races together and then they still think that they have the solution. [Interjections.] I shall dwell on that hon. member again, because he is a very interesting subject. I shall therefore come back to him later on.

I want to deal with the Erika Theron Commission. Since I made my appearance in the House 33 years ago, there have been many commissions of inquiry into matters relating to the Coloureds. I want to admit that we have here a thorough and scientific investigation of the position of the Coloureds in this country. After all, the NP did not condemn the report of the commission. But surely we need not accept the report of any commission willy nilly. The Government subjects the report of such a commission and all its recommendations to a process of selection, and distinguishes between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, ignorance and science, its light side and its shadow side. Having got the best out of it in this way, we formulate our policy further, we effect renewal and development and go forward with the Coloureds to a better, finer and fuller future. That is how people talk who want to contribute something positive. The hon. members on the other side of the House, however, simply do not want to believe this. They say that we are summarily rejecting it. However, we cannot accept it in its entirety. If one were always to swallow every commission report immediately, one would not be able to digest them and as a result would suffer from indigestion for the rest of one’s life. Indeed, there are contradictory ideas, and a door cannot be both open and closed at the same time. I want to put it very clearly to hon. members today that I welcome the report. Since our manifesto saw the light in 1947 we have stood by our policy as far as the Bantu are concerned. We have the right National recipe. In a moment I shall show the hon. member how we shall use it to combat communism. I see that the hon. member is looking forward with a great longing to the knowledge he is now going to acquire.

I want to put it very clearly to hon. members that as far as this report is concerned, I do not ever want to return to the dispensation—and the hon. acting Prime Minister was quite right when he emphasized this—which the Coloureds experienced under the UP rule before 1948. It was a very unsatisfactory political dispensation. Nor am I the only one to say that that system was a curse. I am going to quote from In Smuts’ Camp, a work to which other hon. members have already referred, written by P. K. Long. I should like hon. members to listen to the excerpt I am going to quote from it. I shall first have to look for it a little. After all, one does not find such an important thing so easily. [Interjections.] Mr. P. K. Long was a member of Parliament before Union. Between the years 1901 and 1914 he was the member of Parliament for Liesbeek. From 1938 to 1948, the years when I came to the House of Assembly for the first time, he was the member of Parliament for Cape Town Gardens. He was a very important member of Parliament. Do hon. members know what he said about the Coloured vote? He said—

It will disappear—

That was a prediction, a prediction which came true. The UP suggested it and the NP carried it out. That is where the new dispensation originated which has resulted in large-scale upliftment.

But what are the Coloureds themselves saying today?

What are the Coloureds themselves saying? The first thing they are saying is that many are reacting to the venom being pumped into them by unscrupulous agitators. That is what is wrong. Hon. members opposite do not leave those people to themselves. Hon. members opposite do not even want to preserve their own identity, let alone fight for the preservation of the Coloureds. There is a second argument in connection with the Erika Theron report. Now I come to the hon. member for Edenvale who is a politician and at the same time an academic. I asked the hon. member for Edenvale to give me a definition of identity. The hon. member was so kind as to write me a note of three pages in which he defined what he understood by identity. I think it is quite wrong. I cannot argue the matter with him now, but next year we shall have an opportunity. As an ex-teacher I give him nil for that definition. The hon. member states that he is an academic and he has therefore probably made a study of philosophy too. I called to mind Descartes, the great philosopher, who had an expression dubito ergo sum—doubting is thinking. The fact that a person doubts shows that he thinks and the fact that he thinks is proof that he exists. When I am asked what my identity is, all I know is that I am an Afrikaner, and what about it? I want to continue living and surviving. Identity and self-preservation and the continued existence of that self, the embodiment of the identity, are inseparably bound up with each other. It is here that the policy of the UP fails. It does not contain a guarantee of and does not place a premium on the urge for self-preservation. The urge for self-preservation is proof of God’s workmanship. After all, one may not take one’s own life. A Higher Power gives one life, and what right have we in this country to adopt a policy which leads to the elimination of identity? Because if one is not aware of one’s identity, of one’s personality, of one’s values, of one’s norms, of one’s relations, of one’s ties with one’s community, of one’s people, what is one then? The hon. member for Edenvale wrote this in his note, but he was clever enough not to explain further. What does it mean to live without identity? Surely one dies (vrek) then? I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I have heard this kind of language here, and it has influenced me. I have always been such a soft man and I have never used such bad language. To the hon. member for Edenvale I just want to say that we must be very careful. We are dealing with a policy of apartheid.

And now I come to the other two hon. members. I want to tackle them both at once. They are the hon. members for Durban Point and for Mooi River, and particularly the hon. member for Durban Point in connection with the statement he made here this morning about communism. I have never been able to believe that the hon. member could accuse us of being allied to the communists, and supposedly in the year 1922, at the time of the Labour Party …

What about Andrews?

Let me now ask the hon. member: What about the year 1948, on the eve of the election, when Moses Kotane, the then Secretary of the Communist Party in South Africa, issued the following call in The Guardian? He said: “Comrades, White and Black: Where there are communist candidates, vote for the Communist Party, but where there are United Party candidates and National Party candidates, vote for the United party because if the NP comes to power, it will destroy you root and branch.” [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. members do not want to hear the truth. Moses Kotane spoke about the future. He was blessed with prophetic insight. He said that we would stamp out communism, and we are stamping it out in South Africa. How did we combat communism when we came up with the anti-communist legislation? One can only combat communism if one approaches it in a positive and a negative way, but when we came up with the legislation to say that this kind of thing should not happen here, how did hon. members opposite react? They fought that anti-communist legislation tooth and nail, every step, and do you know, Sir, what garb they assumed? They said: “You must find him guilty in a court and then hang him.” They cannot work with communism. Their method is too slow. They want to kill a flea by pinching it with boxing gloves on. That is too slow. Before they hang one communist, one communist will hang the whole bunch of United Party supporters. That is the difficulty.

The hon. member is now shaking his head. I now want to deal with him and tackle him because he challenged me. He talks about separation and means to say that it is evil. He asked how we were going to combat communism because we left everyone to himself, or something of the sort. He spoke so confusedly that eventually he did not really know what he was saying that was conservative. I just want to mention a few cases to the hon. member. The policy of separation we are dealing with did not come from the Afrikaner alone, consequently I want to quote a few excerpts to the hon. member. I knew a person who was a wonderful politician and a man of integrity. He was a seasoned political campaigner. The hon. member for Green Point will remember him. I want to quote to hon. members what he said when he was in this House, because it is very interesting. The person was Col. Stallard, who died a few years ago. The hon. member for Green Point knew him. He originally belonged to the Union Party and he was also in the War Cabinet of the Smuts Party. The speech I want to quote from is one of the best made here in 1930. The speech was often quoted in this House between 1943 and 1948. Hon. members must not think that the “policy of separate development”, or apartheid, is so bad because it arose out of Afrikaner nationalism which is totally distorted and exclusive. The hon. member said—

It is an English-speaking person who said this, an advocate of the idea of separation. What do hon. members say about that? Hon. members must also hear what Dr. Adams has to say. After all, Dr. Cronje and others stated that we gave birth to this policy, but I think that the policy is nothing but the outcome of the experience of the non-Whites which the White man has gained. This view of life, namely the respecting of peoples’ identity, gradually developed out of the experience which the White man gained in this way.

But what about …

No, just give me a chance. It is not the hon. member who is making the speech. The hon. member first speaks and then thinks. If he thought first, he would find out that he thought so badly that he should rather remain silent. However, there is another English-speaking person to whom I want to refer here. He is Dr. Evans. The book’s name is Black and White in the Southern States and I read it through last week. This author said, inter alia—

I want to mention a third author to hon. members. The name of the book is The Black Man’s Place in South Africa. This book was written by Peter Nielson, a major advocate of the policy of race separation. He too is an English-speaking person. What he has to say is very interesting—

Are these not words of wisdom? These words come from English-speaking South Africa and that is why it is such a pity that we oppose each other and that we have such a political division. There must be an NP and there must be an opposition, but it is a tragedy. There is a dark cloud hanging over the country and this is a new difficult situation. Now that we must escape from this situation, to me the great tragedy lies in the fact that we are so divided that one side is made up almost exclusively of English-speaking people and the other side almost exclusively of Afrikaans-speaking people.

However, I should like to reply to the hon. member about communism, but I want to do so against the background of the political division. I should like to ask, what are the factors that have contributed to bringing about such a division, which militates against the founding of a united South African nation consisting of English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans? The first was the constitutional struggle, was it not? The constitutional struggle for self-determination, that we wanted an independent Republic of our own. Who were the architects of sovereign independence? The NP, of course. We have already terminated that struggle. Hon. members opposite fought it; surely they know that, but the Lord be praised! We put an end to that divisive factor. Now hon. members opposite are again raising the issue of the Transkei. I shall dwell on that in a moment. However, there is a second divisive factor. Do hon. members know what it is? It is the approach to the relations issue in South Africa. Whereas the UP and English-speaking South Africa accepted the Republic and took the oath of loyalty to the Republic of South Africa with me as an Afrikaans-speaking person, the time has now come for them to put an end to their senseless struggle against the policy of national self-determination and against what these people have also advocated, namely separation. If they put an end to that, then we shall have White unity in South Africa; then we shall not speak to the Black man with two voices, but will in fact speak to him as a guardian who is emancipating and guiding these people. Hon. members ask: Where to? To political autonomy, economic interdependence and political independence.

What do hon. members have against that, is the question I want to ask. I want to put it very clearly. There are but two divisive factors, and this one still remains. The hon. member asked me how we were going to combat communism. He must not think that it is only communism that counts and plays a role in the politics of the future. There are four factors in this country which have played a major role in South African politics. The first is South African nationalism. The second is liberalism; the third is Bantu nationalism; and the fourth, communism. To that I could add non-White nationalism, inter alia, Coloured nationalism, but I do not want to expand on that at this stage. We can debate that next year. However, what I want to state very clearly is that South African nationalism has played a glorious role in this country. It was nationalism which rebelled against colonialism and imperialism, was it not? It was the dawning national consciousness of the Afrikaner, of the White nation in this country, which rebelled against the compulsion and domination of first the Dutch and then the British domination and compulsion. I do not want to dwell on history, but history does not lie. Distorted history does lie, particularly the way the United Party supporters tell it. In the past, as far as nationalism is concerned, there was a series of wars and rebellions aimed at breaking free of foreign domination. When we were unable to succeed in that, we did so by way of a political party—and here sits the party, the National Party. The National Party is the bearer, the embodiment of South African nationalism and it is this party that has said: South Africa first. I have also just said that it was this party which was the architect of sovereign independence. We must bear in mind that what we were unable to achieve by force of arms, we achieved by constitutional means, by means of a political party. We adopted this method to convert South Africa into an independent Republic, and by so doing we tried to end the struggle between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people. That is the spirit of nationalism. But what did hon. members opposite do in 1948? They issued pamphlets reading: “Stamp out nationalism.” That is where the UP’s blunder lies. We are the bearers of South African nationalism. Hon. members are its destroyers. They opposed it. They said: “Stamp out nationalism.” That is the difference between us and them. I want hon. members to see this. I shall also dwell on the colour issue. The hon. member for Durban Point states that they do not advocate integration.

No.

Does the hon. member say “no”? I do not say that the hon. member is telling a lie; either he is an adroit politician or else it is unfeigned ignorance. I do not know what it is. Surely the hon. member knows that his party has always advocated integration. I ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether that is not so. When the hon. member for Sea Point came here in 1958 he sat in the UP. At that time they were the people who were the bearers of integration, of the liberal policy. [Interjections.] I can see from the reaction I am getting that they do not want to believe it.

Economic integration.

I shall prove it. It is the easiest thing in the world to prove. I do not want to go back in history, but in the 19th century—as the hon. acting Prime Minister also said—there were also people who were active under the cloak of religion. They always posed as the liberators, the friends and the guardians of the White man and the Afrikaner was branded as the destroyer, the enemy, the persecutor and the destroyer of the Black man. Thus there has been a group of liberals throughout history that have been the champions of integration and that have wanted to eliminate differences between White and Black. However, we were the bearers of nationalism, particularly in the 20th century. Between 1943 and 1948, when I came here, there was a scintillating, able politician by the name of Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr, the crown prince of the United Party. He was a politician, but do hon. members know from whom he drew his inspiration? He drew his inspiration from the academic, Hoèrnle, and Hoèrnle came up with this policy of liberalism. At that time liberalism reigned supreme in this House. However, those who were not here at that time will perhaps say that I am speaking without feeling. Those people carried on so enthusiastically and became so excited about integration! They said that integration was a dynamic process. They said that it overcame everything and that its levelling influence would lead to the elimination of dividing lines between the Coloured, the Indian and the Black man.

They waxed lyrical.

It became so bad that it was one of the nails in the coffin of the United Party in 1948. Mr. Hofmeyr even made a speech at Hottentots Holland. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at the moment. He knew that I was going to quote that. The hon. acting Prime Minister knows what I am talking about. He asked questions that evening when Mr. Hofmeyr called out dramatically: “It is my policy that Coloureds be represented by Coloureds, Indians by Indians, and Bantu by Bantu in this Parliament. ”

He was a United Party supporter!

Yes, he was a United Party supporter, but those were the days when a United Party supporter was still a United Party supporter. However, look at them now. That was a knock-out blow they received, a blow which sent them to the Opposition planks for 28 years … I mean the Opposition benches! I shall never forget those days. One speaker after the other said here: “Integration is a fact. Integration is a dynamic process.” It became so bad that in 1954 the Progressives—in those days, however, they were called the Liberals—became so strong in the United Party that they launched a witch-hunt of the conservatives. It was Dr. Shearer, Mr. Arthur Barlow, Bailey Bekker, Blaar Coetzee, Dr. Jonker who, as the intellectual wing, deprived them of their conservative power. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what happened. Not long afterwards came the election of 1958, and they then lost by an even greater majority after having kicked out those people. What happened then? They then kicked out the other group. Surely that hon. member knows that. He came here in 1958, and then, in 1959, they kicked him out. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have grown accustomed to the diatribes of the hon. member for Brits who is, of course, also the ex-Chief Whip of that side of the House. Normally we tolerate him, however, because he is at least amusing about it. The hon. member is leaving the Chamber now, so there is clearly no sense in responding to what he said. I might just mention, however, that he quoted from the Latin. I think the Latin quotation he actually sought—a quotation which has a great deal of relevance to what the hon. member said—was what Descartes said: Cogito ergo sum, which means “I know because I am”. One is only there if one knows what it is all about.

Since the hon. member has left us, it is not necessary for me to react to what he said. Like several other hon. members in this House, I should like to make an assessment of this particular session of Parliament. It has been a long and momentous session. Quite soon we will all have to report back to our constituencies and we will have to indicate to them what we have accomplished while we were all cooped up in Cape Town over the last five months. One’s view of the scenario here will depend on one’s approach, but perhaps you will permit me, Sir, to put it into some perspective, at least as I see it.

The very first observation I want to make is that during this session of more than five months we have had a great deal of activity. Mr. Speaker, if one puts 170-odd people into a Chamber of this kind and some meat is thrown onto the floor, one must expect a great degree of activity. The politician’s weapon is his tongue. The tongues were used and they certainly wagged. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to you that at this stage of the proceedings we have covered nearly 10 000 columns of Hansard, and at about 500 words per column it means that collectively we have spoken nearly 5 million words since we met here in January. That is the equivalent of 50 full-length novels. If anybody wants to know how long a novel is, he merely has to try to read Cathy Taylor’s book about herself. Certain members became very verbose. One particular member got so carried away that he made nearly 200 speeches in which, incidentally, the word “I” occurs a few thousand times. To make a speech is bad, but to have to listen to all these speeches is infinitely worse. In order to do so, one must have a very high frustration tolerance level. Mr. Speaker, there are some people who say that we as parliamentarians are overpaid. Certainly, judging by the speeches we make and the quality thereof, I dare say that in many cases that might be right. If one allows for the fact that we have to listen to all the other speakers, I think we ought to be paid double the amount we are paid at the moment. Mr. Speaker, in your own case, in view of the fact that you cannot speak often but have to listen to nearly all of them, may I suggest that yours should be tripled?

The second important observation relates to what I think one could call Government output. Clearly, our own activity is a function of what the Government puts before us. In this session, if I may say so, the output level from the Government has been prodigious. More than 130 Bills appeared before us. We could not even deal with all of them. Some of the choicest bits have been held back so that they can be hurled in at the time of the next bun fight. I think an analysis of these 130 measures that came before us is illuminating. I think this is something that our own constituents might require from us. They will want to know which were the positive measures. They will want to know what, during the five months that we were here, did we do that improves the lot of the ordinary man in the street? In what way is he better off today than he was six months ago, before we came here?

When I look at these measures, it is true that there are some which are positive. We passed certain social welfare measures. It is true that a small section of our community will probably get increased social welfare benefits. We passed among other things an African in-Service Training Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that this represents a major departure from Government policy, and shows a complete turn-about in Government approach, and quite apart from the fact that, seen against the needs of our time, it is insignificant and puny, it is at least a positive measure because some people will get something out of it. If I were therefore to do a balance sheet, I would be happy to put that on the credit side.

We gave self-government to the Rehoboths. It is true that this probably does not mean an extra cent in their pockets, that it does not mean additional jobs for them, that it does not mean more money, that it does not increase standards of living. It probably does mean more brass and more trappings, but apparently some of them wanted it, and in this sense I am prepared to put that on the credit side of our balance sheet.

Then, we had the independence of the Transkei. Permit me to dwell a little on this issue. This was hailed by the Government as an historic occasion, one of the most important occasions in this session of Parliament. Yet the whole thing was an anti-climax. Seeing that it was so important, we would have expected the Prime Minister to play a leading role in it. Yet he took no part. He did not participate in the debate at all. In fact, all he did was make one or two interjections across the floor of the House. What was so interesting to us was the way in which the Government tried to sell this particular measure. They did not tell us this was the culmination of all Nationalist ideologies. They did not tell us this was the denouement to the stirring saga of Nationalist political activity. What did the hon. the Minister do when he introduced this measure? He tried to sell it to the House on a couple of grounds. In the first instance he tried to suggest that it was historically correct and historically inevitable. In order to do this, he then quoted from Botha and Smuts. I think it a great pity that the hon. gentleman found it necessary to prostitute history to that extent. Botha never suggested independent Bantustans as a solution to our race problems. As for Smuts with his holistic concept, the whole idea would have been anathema to him. Nobody in history ever propounded this. Look at Shepstone with his grid-iron approach. Paul Kruger said no Native area ought to be bigger than 3 000 morgen in extent. Why, Sir, there is only one man in South Africa’s history who advocated independent Black states as a solution to our race problems and that was Dr. Phillip of the London Missionary Society, and you know how much trouble he caused in South Africa. Dr. Malan never held it out as a solution. Is there anybody on that side who will tell me that Mr. Strydom saw independent Black states as a solution to this problem?

Yes.

Where?

He did and so did Dr. Malan.

What then happened with Dr. Verwoerd afterwards? How well we remember that he, as Minister of Native Affairs, said on has only to look at the map of South Africa to realize how absurd it is. In fact, he accused us of trying to scare the people. In other words, there was nothing of that kind in his mind. Then, of course, came the great tumble and overnight it became the policy. However, do not ever try to sell it to people on the basis that it is historically correct and historically inevitable, because it is nothing of the sort. [Interjections.]

Now I can understand why the hon. member is in his present position.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has had an hour and a half to talk. I do not know why he mumbles. I should be happy to try to react to him, but I cannot hear what he is saying.

The second great issue on which the hon. the Minister tried to sell this to us, as did the hon. member for Brits, is that according to him it represents an exercise in self-determination. Again, it is nothing of the kind. There is no self-determination if one excludes half of the options. What one is giving the Transkei and the other Black states is Hobson’s choice. It is the determination determined by the members on that side. They say the Blacks can have independence on their terms or else they stay as they are. Do hon. members on that side want to tell me that there is one Black leader who under these circumstances, if all the options were open to him, would voluntarily cut himself off from the sources of real wealth in South Africa and would be prepared to be boxed up in a part of this country which represents less than 2% of our national economic activity? Whatever it may be, it is not an exercise in self-determination. What is happening here is that the motives of the Government are not altruistic. It is purely a question of the Napoleonic dictum of divide and rule. The Government has decided on this policy to ensure the survival of the National Party as the ruling power in South Africa. That is what it amounts to.

Of course, some of the Blacks will accept it, but they do so as an act of desperation. They do so because it will give them additional leverage and bargaining power. But do not for one moment think that this is the end of the power struggle in South Africa. Once the Bantu homelands have become independent, it will be the beginning of that struggle. And even as the first homeland got on its way to first base, it was quite clear that there were certain built-in weaknesses, because the citizenship issue arose immediately. Now, imagine if Mr. Ian Smith of Rhodesia were to say to the South Africans, who have lived and worked there for generations: “You speak Afrikaans, and South Africa is independent. Therefore, in future you cannot have Rhodesian citizenship. You must have South African citizenship. We are happy that you should live and work here, but you cannot have it any other way.” Now Sir, if he did so, one would send for the nearest psychiatrist. And this is precisely what this Government is trying to do. How do they think they can sustain a situation of this kind? This thing has hardly got off the ground, but because it at least extends to some people certain privileges, a certain share in the decision-making process, a share which they did not have before, I am happy to put this measure too, on the credit side of our balance sheet. And that is as far as it goes.

But what is the negative side? Think of all the things we have taken away from the people. There have been new incursions on their freedom. Rights and privileges which they enjoyed, we have taken away. There is a tightening of the noose all the time. There are higher taxes. Every single thing has gone up. I cannot think of a single commodity which has not increased in price over the last five months. We have had more and more evidence of creeping socialism. These are the matters that predominate. And if I have to go and talk to my constituents, are these not the issues that I must tell them about? There are some people who suggest that Parliament should sit longer. There is now even talk that we should sit throughout the year. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the voters—the people who put you and me here, the people who pay our salaries—do not want us to sit any longer. They would want to cut the duration of the session. In fact, the more perceptive ones would not wish us to come here at all, because we spell trouble. Every time we come here, there are additional burdens that are being foisted upon them.

The hon. the Minister of Finance now laughs. He has not taken any notice for the last 15 minutes.

Are you speaking for yourself?

Well, I am not mad. I think it is only people who are mad who speak to themselves. I am not in that category, although I think there might be some other candidates. Mr. Speaker, this hon. Minister has now suddenly come alive to the situation. Therefore, let us refer to some of the things in which he should be interested. One of the main functions we have when we come to Parliament, is to pass a budget, to find the money to feed into this insatiable Government machine, and to try to balance the national account. But what a disaster this has been! It has been a disaster in every sense of the word. There are higher taxes and higher purchase prices. Everything has gone up. The 20% devaluation was hailed as a far-sighted measure of financial statesmanship, but whatever advantages it might have had, have been frittered away. Our balance of payments position is in extreme difficulties. Business confidence is at a low ebb. There are signs of unemployment. The premium on securities rand, which indicates outside world confidence in South Africa, is standing at 30%. The hon. the Minister must now tell us: Is he speaking for himself? How does he account for these things? How does he answer them?

Mr. Speaker, as you have seen, the Government cannot deal with these things. They cannot basically deal with them. One talks about people who are muscle-bound, but this Government is ideology-bound. They cannot take the steps that ought to be taken, because then they will destroy the basic myth. What they are doing therefore, is applying cosmetics. Around the periphery they are making little alterations. We have a dying man here, somebody with a deep-seated carcinoma, and they are trying to revive him by giving him aspros.

Let us now look at the budget and in particular at the various Votes. We sat here for hours and hours and dealt with the Votes. What was the normal procedure? A Minister’s Vote would be put, members from the Opposition would raise issues which they felt were of consequence, and then, the Government with its numerical superiority would answer two to one and three to one. It destroyed all dialogue and it made the whole discussion a farce. Even at that stage hon. members on that side of the House did not deal with the issues raised by us. They raised parochial issues. The hon. Minister would then say: “There is no sense in me replying to the Opposition, because my stalwarts have already done so. ” He would then thank those who had thanked him in the first instance, and we had a mutual sort of back-slapping community. The actual benefits to the man in the street were nil. There is another interesting phenomenon as far as Ministers are concerned. All the contributions that come from this side of the House are condemned as nonsensical, but all those that come from that side of the House are wonderfully good speeches. Ministers commend them and agree that they will look into the matters raised. Sir, do you not think that it is a freak of nature that all the talents and wisdom should gravitate to that side of the House and that none of it should be on this side of the House? This is the situation until, of course, one crosses the floor and walks from this side to that side of the House. Then one finds oneself in the Cabinet within three months. I am amazed that the Government should appoint so many duds to the Cabinet. So, we have had these Votes which have been of no consequence and which did not achieve anything. I think it is a system that has become absolutely farcical.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the “dud”.

I am happy to withdraw it, Sir. Is the word “mediocrity” permissible? I feel that the present system has served its purpose. What I want to convey—and I believe it is a very important observation—is that we no longer have government through Parliament; we have government through the Cabinet, this new oligarchy. All the decisions of real consequence are not being taken here. We simply deal with the outer edges, with the periphery. All issues of consequence and all real decisions are taken by the Cabinet. All that we do here is to constitute a talking shop, a rubber stamp, where we confer some legitimacy on decisions that have already been taken by the Cabinet or which they are determined to take.

During this session we had the usual—I use this as an illustration—crop of security legislation. Parliament simply cannot meet any more without passing security legislation. We had the so-called Piscom Bill, we had the SS Bill and there was no sense in the Opposition trying day after day to indicate that we had to safeguard the rights of the ordinary individual in a democratic society, and that the only way in which one could sustain a free society was by having defined laws, capable of objective interpretation by impartial courts. That was of no consequence to that side of the House because the hon. the Minister had decided that he wanted these measures and therefore he steamrollered them through. He wanted more and more security legislation and it really was of no avail, because no sooner had these measures arrived on the Statute Book than we had the bloody rioting at Soweto and elsewhere. Now, Sir, will the Government really get down to the underlying causes of these riots? The hon. the Minister has appointed a one-man commission, but I am suggesting to them that they will be wasting the good judge’s time because they have already prejudged the issue. One Minister after the other has got up and said that language was not a factor. One after the other has said that the riots were caused by tsotsis, agitators and communists. Why appoint a one-man commission when you have all the answers already? To my mind, it is an absolute waste of the hon. judge’s time. What is happening here—and I think it is a matter which has escaped hon. members on that side of the House—is that here a system of urban colonies is being constituted.

What is Soweto other than a Black urban colony? We surround it with Whites. We give it all the money; we build schools for them; we do all that a colonial power would do, but we deny them the basic things which are necessary for stability. There is no home ownership and there is no sense of belonging. None of the buildings belong to them. Why do hon. members think they bum them? Because none of it belongs to them. This is a system of colonialization in its worst form. Those are the fundamental reasons we must get down to. For years we have said that in Soweto the Government is creating a landless, rootless and voiceless proletariat that constitutes the spearhead of the revolution. That is precisely what is happening. However, the Government is insensitive to it. Listen to the reaction of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who is not with us now. He spoke to this House as though it were a Form II class. He was insensitive and lacked concern. It was quite staggering that a man could behave like this under these circumstances. He is completely divorced from reality. He lives in an ivory tower where he is moving his little black chessmen around. We want to know what sort of control he has over this department. Did he not know that these things were boiling up and that we were sitting on a volcano? He said he did not know where Deputy Minister Treurnicht was. I would have thought that any Cabinet Minister should always make a point of trying to find out where Deputy Minister Treurnicht is. Now I just want to ask this question: If the hon. the Minister does not even know where his three Deputy Ministers are—and obviously he does not know what they do—how can he be entrusted to look after 16 million Black people? The first pronouncement by Deputy Minister Treurnicht after the riots showed an insensitivity to the situation. It showed an arrogance which is absolutely staggering. If one has people like that in charge of that sort of portfolio, one is heading for serious trouble in the future.

Why can the Government not take action as a result of any of these things? Take the Erika Theron Commission, for example. Nothing of consequence will happen. There are 178 recommendations. The Government will accept 170, but the 8 that are meaningful and that come to the heart of the problem they will not accept. I tell hon. members now that the Erika Theron Commission report will go exactly the same way as the Tomlinson Report. One finds reports like these on shelves where after a while they gamer dust. That will be the value of the Erika Theron Report. The Government cannot do what is suggested in that report because it will destroy the myth and break up the blueprint. This is also something which is not understood by the Government. There are no longer any blueprints. Whatever blueprints the Government might have had were burnt in Soweto and Alexandra a week ago. The Government will have to think about this again and think about it quickly. What amazes me is how the Government reacts when it is under stress and how soon it forgets such things. After Sharpeville we heard the highest in the land talk of 5 million hearts that beat as one. The moment the situation was stabilized, the very next session, the Government came and changed the classification procedure to make it more difficult for Coloured people to pass as White. That is how soon they forgot about it.

At the time of the African strikes an African said, in what I thought to be a very succinct way: “No, we have not struck. We have merely stopped work.” He said: “Previously we spoke, but you did not listen, and that is why we have stopped work, so that you can see. ” If he is still around, he would have said at the time of the Soweto riots: “We spoke, but you did not listen, and that is why have now burnt so that you can smell. ” Later on he might even say: We spoke but you did not listen, and that is why we killed so that you can feel.” The hon. member for Brits read out to us that the Government is going to do away with discrimination. I ask you, Sir, where is one single measure that has been taken since a year ago when that pledge was made to eradicate race discrimination?

We have torrents of words, outpourings of them, but when it comes to the real substance there is nothing. Here we go into a recess after five months, after five million words, and what have we achieved? Have we in any way made easier the lot of the ordinary man? I suggest that he is infinitely worse off. The Government, after all this talk, has not changed its stance in any fundamental sort of way. Then I ask: Who is to blame? If history is written one day, who is going to carry the blame? It is those who sit on that side. And I am not only talking about those who sit in the plush Treasury benches; I am talking about those who sit elsewhere on that side, who must have a sense of sensitivity for the situation, who cannot be mesmerized to the extent where they cannot see that we are going the wrong way. But is it because they are so near the fleshpots that they dare not pull themselves away from them? They will have to carry the full blame, too, because with their silence they are condoning these things that are happening.

Then I refer to the opinion-formers in South Africa, and more particularly the Afrikaans opinion-formers, the writers of newspapers, the academics. Let me say that at last there are some of them who are beginning to say some of the things which ought to be said, but there are still far too few of them. The others are keeping quiet, and again by their silence they are condoning what is being done in South Africa.

Sir, we complete the session now and I do so with a considerable measure of despondency. When you look at all these riots we have had and the bloodshed and you listen to somebody like the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, it shows that he has no understanding of the urgency of the problems. He really does not appear to know what is at stake. I can only hope that when we depart from here and go back, all of us will indulge in some real soul-searching. Perhaps, during the recess, we can come to new insights so that in future and during the next session we will not talk past one another as we tended to do in this session, but rather deal with matters which really matter, so that we can lighten the burden of the ordinary man in the street, whose burden is becoming inordinately heavy, and so that we will do what we were put here for in the very first instance, and that is to ensure sound and efficient government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow who has just resumed his seat referred to various subjects in the course of his speech. To begin with he also made remarks summarizing this session and then added a number of statements about the Transkei. He said, inter alia, that the Nationalists were trying to sell the Transkei. I now want to tell him that if that is what he thinks, he is committing a major error of judgment. I think that history will prove that it will not be necessary for any party to sell the Transkei, because the Transkei will sell itself. Sir, in the course of my speech I shall also refer to other matters which he touched on.

I want to make the statement that the word “change” has become a fashionable word today. But however one feels about change, the fact remains, and no one can deny it, that we are living in a world of change. In many respects the change is so incredibly rapid that the objective spectator can easily lose touch with reality.

Now the question is: Where does South Africa stand in this world of change? I think we must accept that we are living in a dangerous world. When we look at the world around us, we see that the threats are increasing. The efforts to bring about détente between East and West over the past six years are failing. Communist domination is increasing, while the West is flinching before this communist onslaught. The communists are on the advance, to achieve their ideal of world domination. The key target is apparently Western Europe. However, the notable expansion of communist parties in some of the western countries is also occurring. Furthermore, there is an alarming weakening in the ranks of Nato, and if America were to withdraw from Nato, Western Europe could fall into the hands of the Soviet Union. The West has turned a blind eye on the Russians’ having established themselves in the Indian Ocean. If Western Europe is the target of Russian strategy, the sea route around Southern Africa is of cardinal importance to them. Surely the oil supply to Europe depends on this sea route. The foothold the Russians have gained in Angola is therefore of immeasurable value to them. However, the West appears to be paralysed and is defenceless in the face of this. They are powerless against the carefully worked out strategy of the Russians. The possibility that military interference by the Russians could take place elsewhere in Africa is by no means excluded, whereas reaction from the West is unlikely. Consequently it is a fact that we shall not, apparently, be able to rely on the West. We stand alone, and we shall have to solve our problems ourselves.

There comes a time in the life of every people when a choice has to be made between giving up, or positive action for the sake of self-preservation and continued existence. South Africa has made its choice, viz. to continue tp exist. South Africa has decided that humanly speaking, nothing will prevent it from safeguarding its continued existence. In view of the threat of developing Soviet imperialism, which poses a threat not only to South Africa but also to all the Black states of Africa, South Africa has launched its détente effort in a dynamic fashion. Through the hon. the Prime Minister, South Africa has made an unambiguous peace offer. The choice for the States of Southern Africa has been spelt out in realistic terms: To the left the road forks to chaos and violence; to the right the road forks to peace, progress and development.

Africa, we can gratefully say, has listened to the voice of reason. The spectacular successes of our détente politics are already part of history. The climate in Africa is changing. There are many, even in Africa, who are no longer afraid to be seen in South Africa’s company. Then came Angola, and as a result of our involvement in Angola many people thought that our détente politics would come to a halt. Rather the contrary appears to be true, because much that is positive for South Africa has come out of the events in Angola. Today we are seen in a new light in Africa, but what is more: Through South Africa’s involvement in Angola, the attention of the Western powers has been drawn unequivocally to the blatant military interference of Soviet Russia by way of the expeditionary force of Cuban mercenaries in Africa. Consequently it is probably one of the most encouraging developments in world politics, from the point of view of Southern Africa, that the West is now, all of a sudden, beginning to dig in its heels against the new Russian imperialism, particularly the Cuban adventures in Africa, in consequence of the crisis in Angola.

Furthermore, what seemed impossible to us only a short time ago, has happened: Mr. Vorster met Dr. Kissinger and the West German chancellor, Dr. Helmuth Schmidt, in Europe. South Africa is eventually shaking off its “polecat of the West” image.

However, we must not overlook the contributions to this improved attitude that have been made by Black Africa. It was the spectacle of Mr. Vorster in conversation with President Banda of Malawi, President Boigny of the Ivory Coast, President Kaunda of Zambia and many others that paved the way for the open contact at a high level in the northern hemisphere. Was it not, perhaps, some of these Black states themselves, those that have held discussions with South Africa, that helped, as it were, to give the still hesitant Western statesmen the courage to seek contact with South Africa? After all, Dr. Kissinger would probably not have decided to talk to Mr. Vorster if he had encountered objections to anything of the sort on the part of his Black hosts in the course of his African journey. Is it not perhaps the case that there are some Black leaders in Africa who regard South Africa as in and of Africa, Black leaders who realize that solutions for Africa’s problems without South Africa offer no solution? An American or a Western policy for Southern Africa which treats South Africa merely as a stumbling block, makes no sense. On the contrary, such a policy plays into the hands of the Russian imperialists and their lackeys, who build their policy on this very aspect of mutual hostility against South Africa. That is why to the Russians, African unity means unity against South Africa. For the West, African unity must mean unity with South Africa.

In this way the statement which was made in 1960 that South Africa’s path to the Western capitals runs through Black Africa, is being proved true at the present time. At this stage a supplementary axiom can be added. The Western path to meaningful and constructive relations with Africa south of the Sahara runs through South Africa.

How tragic it is that in this hour of triumph, in this hour of success, in this hour of breakthrough for South Africa’s outward policy, there are certain elements in South Africa that are downhearted and disappointed. Surely these are the people who hope for setbacks on the road of South Africa. That is why they are also the people who inflated the spectacular action of our defence force in Angola into a great and irretrievable disaster. That, too, is why it happened that at the time of the Vorster/Kissinger conference these people resorted to agitation, to subversive organizations, to vandalism and thuggery to bring South Africa into discredit. All South African agitators in Europe, Africa and America were spurred on to redouble their zeal. The credit we have won through our peace efforts spurs our enemies on.

After all, we should have expected this pressure from Moscow opposing our détente successes, Moscow with all its witting and unwitting lackeys in the West, in Africa and even within our own borders. In this way the communists want to neutralize our peace efforts. In this way, Soviet imperialism wants to present a struggle that is being waged in Africa as a purely Black/White confrontation. But South Africa will not allow itself to be prevented by the communists and their lackeys, both within and beyond our borders, from safeguarding our own continued existence. We want peace in Africa, peace which promotes development, in contrast to war, which aims at destruction and obliteration. We therefore believe that the voice of reason which has been heard out of South Africa will meet with a response; that there will be those who will hear the message of hope in Africa; and that there will be countries in Africa which will take the hand of peace and hold it fast so that the mighty communist onslaught will be broken. We therefore believe, too, that the contact at a high level that has been made in the northern hemisphere this week will develop rapidly and give rise to more contact at a far higher level. I believe that all these events form part of the rapidly changing world we are living in. However, I also believe that the guarantee for our continued existence in South Africa will depend, among other things, on our ability to live with these realities of Africa of which we form an indissoluble part. I believe that there are three realities in particular of which we shall have to take cognizance if we want to safeguard our continued existence in Africa.

The first reality is that we must realize, for once and for all, that the century of colonialism and imperialism in Africa is past, and that there is no longer place for one nation to dominate another nation absolutely. Whereas in the past one people had tried to dominate another people in Africa, this policy has failed time and again, as the Portuguese have proved in Angola and Mozambique. Because South Africa has no imperialist aspirations in Africa, South Africa’s hand of friendship can be taken by the Black states. Of course, this also applies in respect of our internal situation. That is why the National Party government has placed itself irrevocably on the road of good neighbourliness within the same country as far as the Coloured and Indian populations are concerned. That is why the Government’s policy will also provide for consultation and an eventual joint say in matters of common interest, by means of a Cabinet Council.

The second reality of Africa which we shall have to take cognizance of and which we shall have to take fully into account, is the exceptional sensitivity among people of colour with regard to their human dignity. The colonial period gave rise to this situation to a large extent as well, but whatever the causes may be, the fact remains that discriminatory measures based solely on colour are not acceptable. Sound relations between peoples, mutual understanding and goodwill are essential elements with which to combat the onslaught of the struggle, which, in essence, is not directed against the White people of South Africa alone, but in fact against all the peoples of South Africa as well. If the successful undermining of political stability and economic growth in Southern Africa were to succeed, and were to inhibit co-operation between the states of Southern Africa, this would have disastrous consequences for both Whites and Blacks in Southern Africa. That is why it is the policy of the National Party to move away from discrimination, to give concrete effect to the justified political and social aspirations of all peoples, with the aid of autonomy, but also, at all times, to maintain law and order.

The third reality of Africa which we shall have to take account of is the fact that Africa has today become the arena for the power struggle between communism and non-communism. By means of sly propaganda ploys—inter alia, through the World Council of Churches—the communists have largely succeeded in presenting the struggle that is being waged in Africa as a purely White/Black confrontation. This propaganda must never be allowed to have a basis in fact because if the struggle in Africa were to develop into a White/Black conflict, the consequences would indeed be terrible. What has been built up by years of toil would be utterly destroyed in Africa, and Black and White would encounter hardship and misery. The poles of power are not Black and White, but communist and non-communist. Therefore this struggle can only be won if all non-communist powers are united in Africa. We are therefore linked by fate with all non-communists on the road of South Africa and Africa. We know, too, that there are various other African leaders who share this approach with us. The President of the Ivory Coast, Dr. Houphouet Boigny, the so-called father of the dialogue idea, has for years been advocating that all of us in South Africa should resolve our mutual differences and that we should stand together to present a united front to the communist threat from outside.

However, it goes further than that, too. Within the borders of our country, too, all peoples will have to be linked in this non-communist bloc. The White, Brown and Black communities must therefore strive at all times, and in all their transactions with each other, to avoid race friction. We must prevent the development of unnecessary bitterness and suspicion among the various groups and peoples in South Africa. We must constantly try to instil in all our peoples an attachment to South Africa and a desire to serve South Africa in order to promote the welfare of everyone in the country.

In spite of what hon. members on that side of the House have said about it, the Government’s policy of separate development is aimed at ensuring that every population group in the country will have the opportunity to obtain a place in the sun. In this way harmony, co-operation and understanding will triumph and result in strong unanimity on matters of common interest. We shall have to realize increasingly that in the important sphere of sound human relations, every individual in South Africa can play a definite role in the combating of communist subversion.

There is still room for improvement in the relations between our Afrikaans- and English-speaking citizens, too. Although the relations between them improved greatly after we became a Republic, unity must now be sought in order that the dangers threatening South Africa may be faced. We strive to uphold the White nation because we believe that Christianity in Africa stands or falls by it. If, then, Christianity is carried by the Whites, we must devote our energies to the unity of the Whites in South Africa. We must then see to it that these Whites do not split up and prey on each other but that these Whites are strongly united. The White unity we are appealing for in this struggle means that every national group, while preserving everything that belongs to it, will be bound by a common loyalty to South Africa and to the future of White civilization. Unity is strength. I believe that these words on our national coat of arms are applicable to all the national groups of South Africa in the heat of the struggle against communism and terror as well.

The other question is how South Africa reacts to these world events and to this rapidly changing world. In fact, one sees around one three groups of people. The first group consists of those people who are panic-stricken. They are the prophets of doom and it is they who want to give up everything. It is they who believe that all dividing lines and differences between nations and people must be done away with. The 25 million people of South Africa must simply combine in one great whole. It is usually these people, too, who are the champions of integration. The path followed by these people leads to self-destruction for all population groups in South Africa. It is the path of polarization between White and Black, the path which can only bring bloodshed and tears to South Africa.

The second group are those who have got stuck. They are the people who are the adherents of ostrich politics. They are the people who do not want to admit that change can take place in the world. Everything must simply remain as it was in the past. These are also the people who are either only White or who only see the Blacks in South Africa. They are the people who believe that only one part of the population should be privileged. These, too are usually the people who, through their tactless expression of their so-called patriotism, in fact commit high treason. The path to be followed by these people, too, does not hold out any promise of anything good for the future of South Africa.

Fortunately, there is another group of people, too. They are the pious, realistic people. They are the people who can handle affairs in a cool and reasoned fashion. They are the people with warm hearts, the people who realize that more than one nation has been placed on the path of South Africa. They are the pious Christians who recognize and avow that God is the maker of nations, that God determines the history of peoples. It is they who believe that God creates nations and determines the borders of their countries. It is they, too, who believe that it was not by chance that the White nation arose in the southern part of Africa and that every nation has a calling to preserve its national identity and develop it in a positive way to the glory of God and for the good of the nations themselves. However, it is these people, too, who believe that all people have been made in God’s image and therefore possess human dignity and that the commandment to love one’s neighbour applies to everyone one may encounter. However, they also believe that apart from the principle of love, that of justice must also be upheld because when justice and love go together, love never becomes sickly sentimentality seeking to eliminate all dividing lines, and justice never becomes cold or hard, either. That is why these people also believe in equality, but not equality through mixing, but equality in separation. That is the belief of the NP and that is why we do not fear the future in a rapidly-changing world. With this belief as a basis, we take courage and we meet the challenges of our times through the policy of separate freedoms and equal opportunities.

Now the question may be asked: Are we going to win? To that I want to reply: If we build our future honestly and sincerely on this belief, if the principles of this belief also find expression in the practical implementation of our policy, then we are going to win. We are going to win if we are not broken, as they wish to break us, by violence; if we can live virtuously and remain faithful only to what is ours.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate three concepts have been referred to several times, namely self-determination, discrimination and change. During the course of my speech I shall deal with these three concepts. The year 1976 was the year of expectations for South Africa. If we think back to the promises made by Pik Botha at the UNO, namely that South Africa would move away from discrimination, and we think back to what the hon. the Prime Minister said approximately two years ago namely that if we would give him six months, we would see where South Africa would be, and if we also think back to the statements by many Government spokesmen, South Africa was entitled to expect in 1976 that the Government would break away from the older policies of discrimination and White domination and usher in a completely new era for South Africa. All of us, both inside and outside South Africa, looked forward to the year 1976 with interest, even with excitement, to learn what the Government would do, to learn how the Government would go about it, how they would bring about the promised new era, the era in which there would be a moving away from discrimination and in which a new socio-economic and political set-up for South Africa would follow. We were all entitled to expect it. However, if we take note of what happened during the course of this session, it is unfortunately the case that precisely the opposite happened. All these expectations were disappointed. Not one of them was fulfilled by the Government. This entailed dangerous new circumstances for South Africa.

To begin with I should like to refer to the rash intervention of South Africa in the civil war in Angola …

You are now talking absolute rubbish!

… which brought the anger of Africa and the rest of the world upon us. It was totally unnecessary. [Interjections.] When we subject self-determination, discrimination and changes to close examination, it is important for us to begin with the appointment by the hon. the Prime Minister of a new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. The post to which that hon. Deputy Minister was appointed, is a post which, due to its sensitive nature, demands a spirit of verligtheid. In that very post—in the year of verligtheid and in the year of change—the hon. the Minister appointed a person who is the symbol of verkramptheid in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Surely you are talking absolute rot now!

Less than a few months after that, South Africa experienced the impact of the thinking of the new hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Education, of the rebellion against the new spirit of the Government, a new yearning after the old verkramptheid, and then followed the statements about international hotels, statements in which the policy of the Government was repudiated. Then too, followed the statements about the Nico Malan Theatre, statements in which the hon. the Deputy Minister announced his misgivings about mixed audiences and mixed performances. He also dragged in the hon. the Minister by alleging that he agreed with him on the question of mixed productions. Immediately that hon. Deputy Minister created a feeling of despair in South Africa among those who had hoped that we were on the threshold of change.

There are three definitions of discrimination at our disposal; three definitions which we must consider, which we must judge, which we must think about. In the first place, we have the definition by Pik Botha at the UNO. This is a definition which is clearly the international definition of discrimination, otherwise Adv. Pik Botha would not have worded his statement in the way he did. During this parliamentary session we actually gained new definitions of discrimination. In the first place we now have the definition by Pik Botha, a definition which is the internationally accepted definition; or so I think. During the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development we had the following statement—

Mr. Speaker, do you know what is meant by this? What does it mean? According to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, it means that in so-called White South Africa—there is no such thing of course—the Whites are primary, and the Bantu secondary. Since the Bantu is of secondary importance here, according to the hon. the Minister’s definition, he cannot claim the rights and privileges which the Whites can claim. Because he cannot claim those rights and privileges, the Government regards its action against such a person not as discrimination, but as differentiation. If such a person was of primary importance here, if he could lay claim to such rights and privileges, then it would be discrimination. However, all these facts are based upon a definition by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister defines the Blacks in South Africa as secondary. No matter whether he has lived here for generations and no matter whether he considers South Africa as his fatherland, the hon. the Minister defines him as secondary here. Since the hon. the Minister defines him as secondary here, the Minister says that the Bantu cannot demand rights and privileges here and therefore, according to the Minister, the Government is not discriminating against him, but differentiating.

Having had this presumptuous and objectionable definition, we now have another definition by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister today. He alleges that we will indeed move away from discrimination, but only from those aspects of discrimination which are not essential to carrying out the policy of separate development. I wonder whether we could ask the Government to publish a list of the discrimination which they are prepared to move away from and a list of the discrimination which they are not prepared to move away from. If they do so, we will know what the situation is. I also want to suggest that if the Government does so, they send a copy of those two lists to Adv. Pik Botha at the UNO. When he reads those lists, I do not doubt that he will catch the first plane back to South Africa.

The hon. member for Geduld referred, inter alia, to change. We must investigate what the Government claims to have achieved. We are always looking at this through the eyes of the Whites, but I think that the time has come for us to look at it through the eyes of the Blacks. I should like to quote what the Rev. Buti, a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church community of Alexandra had to say. He recently wrote a very interesting article in Die Beeld. Ds. Buti says the following with reference to theatres, parks, sport meetings, hotels, etc.—

I continue by quoting a few ideas which he, raised on citizenship—

He goes on to say the following significant words—

This means that we as Whites—if we want to continue to survive and dominate on the continent of Africa—will have to be accepted by the continent of Africa and its inhabitants as fellow Africans with the same rights as the other Africans on this continent. If, due to our behaviour, we are the cause of Africa not regarding and accepting us as part of Africa, of Africa rejecting us, then it will be the end of the White man in Africa. We shall only have a secure future if we behave in such a way, and act towards other citizens of South Africa in such a way, as to be accepted by Africa as an important integral part of Africa which makes a contribution towards Africa and all its people. I think that the most illuminating words as far as change and discrimination are concerned, as seen from the viewpoint of the Blacks, are the following words uttered by the Rev. Buti. He refers to all the promises about moving away from discrimination and all the talk of change, and says: “Ons moes leer om meer met ons oë te luister as met ons ore.”

Another dangerous thing for the Whites in South Africa is that we are rapidly losing our credibility with the Blacks. He no longer believes us. We are just full of talk and promises, but when it comes to carrying out these promises in practice, we are not prepared to do so, and we come up with all kinds of provisos and definitions and the Blacks are not prepared to accept this.

With the legislation in connection with the independence of the Transkei, the Government had an opportunity to prove that, as far as self-determination was concerned, it would do justice to the concept of self-determination, and that it would carry this out in respect of the Transkei and that in this way it would remove aspects of discrimination as far as Transkeian citizens were concerned. One of the greatest disappointments and disillusionments was the manner in which the Government wanted to grant independence to the Transkei. Self-determination for the Black nations in South Africa is out of the question.

There is no national self-determination, but instead the NP determines the future, the rights and the destiny of other peoples without consulting those peoples or taking their real interests into consideration. It is simply something which is forced upon them and which they have to accept. If they do not accept it, other rights are taken away from them. They are blackmailed into accepting the instructions of the Government in terms of the NP determination of the future of others, and if they do not want to accept them, they are deprived of certain rights and other pressure is exerted on them. There is no question of self-determination.

Nor is there the right of self-determination for the Indian people or the Coloured population group. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not in the House. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of the Interior can answer my question. Are the Coloureds or the Indians primary or secondary in South Africa? The hon. the Minister need only nod or shake his head to give me an indication of what the situation is. The hon. the Minister does not want to answer. I want to know whether the Indian and the Coloured in South Africa are primary or secondary here. Can they claim the rights and privileges of the Whites in South Africa? The Government’s policy is one of sovereign independence for all population groups, one of self-determination for all population groups which are secondary in South Africa. However, those that are primary here, can claim the same rights and privileges as the Whites. The question I want to ask, is a simple one. Can any hon. member on the other side of the House tell me whether the Indians or the Coloureds are secondary or primary in South Africa?

It would be very interesting to learn whether this was the case, because you know, Sir, that as far as the report of the Erika Theron Commission is concerned and as far as the statements of the Government during the course of this session are concerned, there is clear proof that the Government has reached a dead end. Their policy has been shown up. Their policy has been exposed as a series of legislative measures for the perpetuation of White domination in South Africa at the expense of the rights and privileges of Black, Coloured and Indian. This is how this policy is now developing and we can see it, other people can see it and the world will see it. It is not a policy of integrity. There is no longer integrity in the policy of the NP Government. It is not a policy of credibility. The credibility is now at an end.

The Government will, of course, continue with its policy. In spite of all the opposition, in spite of all the objections, the Government will continue with its policy, with threats and so on. But the days when people thought that there was integrity in that policy are past, because this is no longer the case.

As far as the Coloureds are concerned: In the discussion of the Theron Report in this House, the Coloureds and all of us had great hopes that the Theron Report would mean that there would be a better future in South Africa for the Coloureds; that something better awaited him. But the reaction of the Government, the verkrampte, negative reaction of the Government to the recommendations of the Theron report, will fill every Coloured in South Africa with despair and dejection. What remains for the Coloured in South Africa?

Only you!

What remains for him? The Coloured no longer has any hope of being accepted as a first-class citizen in South Africa and being able to live his life here with the privileges and rights which go with South African citizenship. No, he now sees that the path planned for him by the National Government is one of permanent second-class citizenship, and that he will never enjoy the rights and privileges which his fellow White citizens in South Africa enjoy. Must the Coloured come to the conclusion that he has to tear himself away from his fatherland and perhaps go and seek what his own fatherland does not offer him in another country? What is the future of the Coloured and what is the future of the other Black races in South Africa? Is this Government not spelling out a message to people of other races in South Africa that violence is perhaps the only way out for them? Is this not the effect of the policy of this Government?

That is what you want.

I just want to read to you what Rev. Buti says. He says: “As die Blankes weier om sodanige veranderings tot stand te bring, loop hy gevaar om ’n situasie van konfrontasie te bewerk.” It is the policy, statements and actions of the Government which are giving rise to a situation of confrontation in South Africa. It is constantly being said that there are some Black leaders and Black organizations who are seeking polarization. This is the excuse which is given. This is what is wrong. Is it not the truth that it is the present policy which, more than any other factor, is creating and promoting this polarization? We saw what happened recently in Soweto. And I just want to say that the events in Soweto …

Sir, may I put a question to the hon. member.

No, I do not have the time now to answer the hon. member’s questions. I am pleased that it was said by Mr. Manie Mulder that a thorough inquiry will be held at a very high level in order to determine precisely what all the factors were which gave rise to the riots and the events in Soweto. It is very important that this be done, because in the melting pot of Soweto one has all the aspirations, all the resistance, all the tensions and all the problems which are the classic ingredients of revolution and riots. It is always said that there are others—the Press, this party and certain church leaders, etc.—who are responsible for these riots and who are responsible for the opposition and dissatisfaction, because we tell these people that they have poor living conditions. However, these people realize all this themselves and it is unnecessary for us to tell them so. I wonder why the Government does not simply look, for example, at what appears in their own Press, and I should like to quote a few excerpts to them. In Die Beeld of Monday, 21 June, the following is said—

In Die Vaderland of 18 June the following is said—

The following is written in Die Vaderland of 22 June—

From practically every Afrikaans newspaper in South Africa, from the church leaders, academics, industrialists and business people—indeed, from everyone, this call is being made on the Government: “Investigate the real circumstances, the real causes of what happened in Soweto. Do not just brush aside the whole matter by speaking of agitation. Investigate the real circumstances and then we shall know what the causes are and then it will be possible to do something positive about those circumstances.” It is vital that the Government take note of these requests. It is vital that the Government set aside its arrogance and false pride now, for the first time, and be prepared to determine what the true causes in fact are and to do something concrete about it.

I should like to read to hon. members what appeared in Die Vaderland on Monday, 21 June—

In other words, it is not primarily the fault of the agitator or the revolutionary. It is primarily the fault of the Government and of its policies which create a fertile breeding ground for the agitator and revolutionary, who use those circumstances secondarily in order to achieve their goals. We hear from many of the hon. members and from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as well, that it is only a small percentage of the Blacks in South Africa who are dissatisfied and that it is only a small percentage of the Blacks in South Africa who are ripe for this sort of action. However, in Die Transvaler of 18 June, the following words appear—

I think it is very important that the Government should pay attention to what is being said here and to the circumstances of the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in South Africa. These circumstances are the result of the oppressive legislation with which they are burdened, the result of the discrimination which makes a hell of their lives every minute of every day, due to the White domination which they see extending far into the future, White domination which will mean that they will never achieve their full rights in South Africa. It is these things which create the circumstances in South Africa which make it possible for riots and revolution to take place. I just want to quote the following few words which also appeared in Monday’s Die Beeld. The report reads as follows—

I could have said all these things myself. If I had said them myself, the other side of the House would have accused us of being lackeys of the communists and of being agitators and inciters. The Government must take note of the fact that every responsible South African outside this House, regardless of which political party he represents, regardless of the racial group which he represents, is making an urgent request to this Government to rectify matters now, at the eleventh hour, as far as race relations are concerned. We have appealed to the Government to appoint a multi-racial commission to investigate in depth the position of the urban Blacks in South Africa. Use Soweto as a laboratory. In Soweto all the circumstances are there, all socioeconomic and political circumstances. In Soweto all the circumstances which must be investigated, are represented. In Soweto the Government will be able to learn what must be learnt. In Soweto the Government will see what must be seen, and in Soweto they will also see what must be done. In that city of over a million people are all the aspirations and problems and all the tensions and opposition which must be studied. The request which we make of the Government is this: Go to Soweto without predetermined opinions and without prejudice, study the socio-economic and political conditions in Soweto, and on that basis come back to this Parliament next year and make the necessary changes to the legislation of South Africa in order to offer the people of Soweto a new era, a new future, and hope. After that there will be no more Soweto’s. However, if this is not done, it must be expected that major problems will be awaiting South Africa in the future.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech the hon. member for Bryanston said, inter alia, that the Blacks no longer believed the National Party. I now want to tell the hon. member a few things too. It is very interesting, particularly in politics, if one can go back into history and meet a person at a particular stage of his life, hold a political conversation with him, engage in a political struggle with him, and meet him again a few years later. The other day when I spoke here, I gave the hon. member for Bryanston a small reminder, by way of an interjection, of years gone by. This afternoon I thought about what he had dredged up out of my past, from our struggle of ten years ago. He could have said: “Van der Merwe, ten years ago you said this to the voters of Rissik and today you say that.” I listened to him attentively, because the hon. member was my opponent in 1966. I have quite a few cuttings of what the hon. member told my voters at the time. For example, I have here in my hand a pamphlet which the hon. member distributed. On the front there is a map of South Africa as well as photographs depicting Gen. Smuts and Sir de Villiers Graaff in the foreground. Then it says: “For an undivided South Africa.” If one pages to the inside, there is an orange tree with red oranges and then there is also a trowel in the middle and a nose, not as red, and then the following words appear: “Vote for Van Rensburg for Rissik.” And then it continues on the inside page. I now want to remind him of his credibility.

But I made progress and you did not.

He made a very serious statement. On a Friday afternoon here, at the end of a long period of six months, one wants to look at these things peacefully because on Monday everyone of us returns, full of life, to talk to our voters. That hon. member said: The Blacks no longer believe us. If I return to the Rissik constituency on Monday, I then have to tell those voters at all my meetings: My friends, the candidate for Rissik of ten years ago, who has since left us—first to go to the UP, then from the UP to the Reformists, and then from the Reformists to the PRP—tells the Blacks, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Afrikaners and English-speaking people: “The Blacks in South Africa no longer believe the Whites.” But what did that hon. member say ten years ago? Today I do not want to quote his words from a newspaper. I do not want to call other people as witnesses. I want to call the hon. member himself as witness. He said the following—

None other—

This is H. E. Janse van Rensburg—

This is H. E. Janse van Rensburg—

What? What will this hon. member for Bryanston strive for? He says the following—

He will strive—

In this highest Council Chamber of the country, with the Press sitting up there and with all those present around us, I make this promise and endeavour of that hon. member public. In South Africa, if one wants to have integrity in public life, one must not put one’s pen to paper if one is simply grasping words out of thin air. One must not simply grasp words out of thin air if one says: “Ek belowe aan die kiesers ek sal strewe na die handhawing van Blanke politieke beheer oor ’n onverdeelde Suid-Afrika.” He does not say “leadership”, he says “control”. In the peaceful atmosphere which prevails here I ask myself: How can I, the people of Rissik, the people of Bryanston, the people of South Africa believe the hon. member for Bryanston when he says—

Therefore I say that as far as I am concerned the hon. member may remain sitting here. As far as I am concerned he may continue to speak. He may make remarks, make interjections, do anything he wishes. He may also come and speak in my constituency. He can even bring the hon. member for Rondebosch along. However I ask myself: Who will believe that hon. member if I say “Ek sal strewe na … “ The NP has come a very long way. We have often said: “Ons glo en ons sal strewe na … “ We have come a long way in South Africa. It was not a mushroom course, nor was our policy a mushroom policy. Our policy is a well-founded policy with strong roots. Therefore our tree will not bear the fruit which is indicated here on the pamphlet of the hon. member. I shall, however, return to the eight members of the Progressive Party during the course of my speech, and I am specifically saying the Progressive Party and not the PRP, and I shall explain why in a moment.

However, I now want to return briefly to the report of the Erika Theron Commission. This report took approximately three years to complete. I want to say, as the hon. the Acting Prime Minister said earlier on, that with our very heavy programme and all our activities, I could not find an opportunity to make a really thorough study of the report in question. In my own mind I appreciate any person who declared himself willing to serve on the commission. It is not an easy task to take such a responsibility upon oneself. I therefore have appreciation for these people. I accept that as scientists they tried to the best of their ability to present matters as they saw them. However, on the other hand, these people also expect me to analyse their report as a scientist. As somebody who tries to work according to the demands of science, I shall say that there are few things which must be done to that report. It therefore amazes me that the UP, without really thinking, say that they accept everything. I accept that there are many brilliant people on the opposite side of the House, and that they were able to do the things which I have been unable to do recently.

The first thing which we should do, as people whom this report concerns, is to study it very thoroughly. This is elementary. The second thing which one has to do with this report, is to assess its findings and recommendations in the light of the evidence which the report offers. The important point is that one has to study this report in the light of other scientific resources and information which have already become available concerning this particular community. Among others, for example, one will have to look at the report of the Wilcox Commission of the ’thirties.

I mention this merely as an example. The following point is that, as a member of a political party, one will have to study this report in the light of one’s own political principles and the ideals to which the political party itself gives priority. As the responsible body in South Africa, the Government will have to study this report in the light of its own achievements and aspirations. The people who served on this commission will have more confidence not only in us as politicians, but in the scientists of the country when we adopt this procedure. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I refrain from adopting a truly personal standpoint until I have had the opportunity of complying with the requirements which I have laid down for others.

I found this past session to be an exceptional session, with certain outstanding features. There were the moments of tension, for myself as well, if I think of the events in Angola and of the riots in some of the Bantu townships. To me these were not only times of concern, but as a politician one has to abstract the truth from them. The truth concerning Angola, as the hon. member for Geduld indicated, was a clear indication of the workings and activities of Marxism and communism in South Africa. As far as the riots in the Bantu townships are concerned, one would like to refrain from speaking about this too readily at this stage, before one has obtained a deeper insight into the matter.

However, there are also the positive points of the past six months. The first which struck me—and I have particular appreciation for this—was the strong, responsible leadership which emanated from the NP. In this connection I single out the hon. the Ministers in particular. Over these six months each one of them not only handled their particular departments wisely, but also gave guidance and direction to South Africa as a unity in the Cabinet. One should be grateful for this.

The next point which struck me, was the powerful and pulsing vitality within the NP, within its caucus and within its study groups. One feels grateful for this too. A third point for which one is grateful, is that after governing for so many years, we still have a party which is so unified in its foundations, so clear in its united vision in respect of the future, that it is actually amazing.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Yeoville is not here. No, he is here after all. I should like to say certain things in respect of the PRP. In my opinion, the hon. member for Yeoville made a speech which was in complete contrast to the speeches of the other members of his party. In his speech he mentioned four points here which I think were exceptional points with which, without going into them in depth, I should like to agree. Firstly he appealed for sound relations in South Africa—I agree with him on that score. He said that we in South Africa should have a strong economy—I agree with him on that score as well. Then he said that we in South Africa should have law and order—once again I agree with him. In the fourth place he said that we in South Africa must eliminate everything that is discriminatory—I agree with him on that score. However, in regard to maintaining law and order I want to tell the hon. member that he is out of step with the rest of the members of his party.

You are talking rubbish.

Yesterday the hon. member also said that I was talking rubbish.

You are still talking rubbish.

The hon. member can say that as much as he wishes. Let him read the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville himself and contrast it to the speeches of the other members of the PRP; I want to state categorically today that the PRP stands before the public of Southern Africa as a party of people who do not want to obey authority and power in South Africa and who cannot maintain them either. This is the image which they leave.

That is completely untrue.

The hon. member for Yeoville is trying to get away from that image.

Then I want to refer to the elimination of discrimination. In this connection I just want to raise one point. A great deal can be said and written about these matters, but in the light of the report of the Erika Theron Commission I should just like to say that to my mind an integral part of the elimination of discrimination is inter alia, its elimination in the sphere of political rights. When we study the report of the Erika Theron Commission, I should like us to consider the history of the political rights which the Coloured had in South Africa. Once we have done this, we can discuss the question of eliminating discrimination again next year.

In conclusion I should like to address a few words to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I see that he is not here this afternoon. He is an exceptional phenomenon in South African politics. When it originated the Progressive Party searched frantically for Afrikaners to project their image, because in South Africa one cannot progress without Afrikaners. The Progressive Party looked, sought such a person but they could not find anyone. Eventually they found somebody who not only has one surname, he has a double-barrelled surname—he is Van Zyl Slabbert. Immediately their membership doubled. I want to say that, when I look at the hon. member for Rondebosch, I often think of the statue which the sculptor Rodin made of the thinker, but in this connection I want to point out the contrast. If this sculptor had to have sculptured the hon. member for Rondebosch, he would have given his work the title: The cynical seeker. After all, we have known the hon. member for Rondebosch for longer than a day. After all, we have followed his history since he was a student. He was a student leader at Stellenbosch. We know in which groups he moved. We know what views he expressed and in which conversations he participated. He is the eternal cynical seeker for the truth. I think that the sooner the hon. member finds himself a professorship somewhere in Canada, as Mr. Jan Loubser did, the greater peace of mind will be here, because he is still going to suffer many hardships in the hurly-burly of practical politics. He is one of those small group of Afrikaners in South Africa—one finds them all over in the academic centres—who cluster together with a particular psychological disposition. The main thing is that many of them simply cannot progress as far as the provincial council or the House of Assembly. They criticize everything which the practical politician does. I know them. I was also attached to a university. There is a small group like this attached to every university who incite one another around the tea tables. We know them. He is merely an extension of them, who has ended up here. Their ideas are like that of the writer who said: “We must become compost; the communities must become compost so that something else may grow from the compost.” What, how, when and which form this must take, we do not know. The hon. member for Rondebosch said: “Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.” This is what he said. However, time will show who is mad in South Africa. Although he is conspicious by his absence here, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Rondebosch. Two years ago he was appointed by the PRP as a member of a commission. I quote from The Argus of 11 June this year—

And this new body will consist of an ex-UP member—the hon. Senator Bamford—and the hon. member for Rondebosch.

I want to tell the hon. Acting Prime Minister—I say this from the depths of my heart—that-although I am a Transvaler, he touched my heartstrings this morning. In a single minute—practically within the space of 60 seconds—he destroyed all the learning which is gathered here, all the wealth, all the Press build-up, the whole political future of the PRP, by simply repeating the questions which had been put to the hon. Senator Bamford. Now there is a two-man commission: The hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. Senator Bamford. I can predict now already that we will wait very long for that commission. Before I fell asleep last night, I paged through the old Molteno Report for a while and everything they had had to say in that report. This was at the end of the fifties. I look forward eagerly to the arrival of the report of the hon. learned friend of Rondebosch and the hon. Senator Bamford.

Surely you are not serious!

I am serious.

No, you are not!

Of course I am serious. I am also a seeker for a solution and therefore I shall listen to what that hon. member has to say. I have after all, retained a little of the scientific approach. I read everything which the PRP says.

[Inaudible.]

I do read everything which the PRP says. How-ever, I repeat that we will wait a long time for that report.

I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker …

Hurrah!

I know the hon. member will say “hurrah”! Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that at the conclusion of the parliamentary activities of 1976, this Third Reading produced its high-water marks and moments of tension. However, if I have ever in my life been convinced that the NP, with its basic principles, with its policy and its leaders, is creating a position of advantage, of peace and security for all in South Africa, and as an example to the world, I am even more convinced now, and I shall continue—with the powers which the Almighty Father gives me—to carry out these principles in this policy, under the guidance of my leaders, to the best of my ability.

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant for me to follow the hon. member for Rissik, particularly in this calm atmosphere. He is a calm person and so am I. [Interjections.] This is precisely the type of atmosphere which one needs for a debate of this type. The hon. member occupied himself for the most part with the PRP. He had a pleasant fight, but I want to leave it at that.

In the second place the hon. member occupied himself with saying how proud he was of certain aspects of the NP. I do not believe that the hon. member could really have done otherwise. He had to do this, or he would have been in trouble. However, it was pleasant to listen to him and I shall leave it at that now. The hon. member raised one matter with which I should like to identify myself. He said that when we leave here, we arrive full of life in our constituencies …

First he wants to rest on Sunday.

The hon. member did not say anything about Sunday. I do not know why that hon. gentleman has Sunday on the brain; it seems to me as though he wants to do certain things on Sunday. The hon. member for Rissik said that we should make a fresh start on Monday. We agree with him entirely. The question which now arises is: What should one tell the voters there in one’s constituency about the six months of business which has been disposed of here? In my constituency—I am speaking of the average constituencies of South Africa—the voters will not occupy themselves with a fight between the hon. member for Rissik and the PRP; they will not occupy themselves with the Coloured or the Bantu question, but from door to door one will be confronted with the statement: “Sir, I cannot longer exist.” This is a very interesting statement, and I want to take this back to the actual purpose of this debate. We are correctly dealing with the hon. the Minister of Finance, the discussion of the Third Reading of his Budget debate. A fact which we must never lose sight of, is that that hon. Minister’s Budget penetrates and works through to every household in South Africa. These are the facts of the matter. It is on this aspect that I want to say a few words.

One can speculate, philosophize on finances, one can speak about the millions and tens of millions, but if one enters various homes and sees what joy an extra R10 or R5 per month gives those people, then one becomes aware of the economic suffering which is being experienced in many homes in South Africa. We cannot simply close our eyes to the situation …

That is an exaggeration.

No, it is not an exaggeration, because only yesterday I was involved in a case where a mother, a father and four children—who happen to have been entrusted to them as a result of a specific legal position although they cannot obtain a family allowance as a result of the family relationship—have to exist and live on a pittance of R138 per month.

Are your facts correct?

Yes, they are correct; I know what I am talking about. Hon. members must therefore not tell me that I am exaggerating, because I know what I am talking about. We can increase that amount to R200; we can increase it to R250. Any family in South Africa with a salary of less than R400 a month is suffering hardship and this worsens from day to day. The following question was put to me: “Mr. Hickman, you and the Government of South Africa spoke about six months; what have you done for us?”

Then what do you say to those people?

That hon. member does not have the answer; and neither do I. This is the tragedy of the matter. We have done very little for these people during this session.

Were you asleep?

Does that hon. gentleman want to allege that this side of the House did not plead the case of the lesser privileged people?

Then why do you not have an answer for these people?

Because that hon. the Deputy Minister does not have an answer. These are the facts of the matter. Hon. members on that side of the House know how much the cost of living has risen over the past two years.

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

No, I am sorry. The cost of living has risen by 26% over the past two years.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May that hon. member … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please refrain from raising points of order if they know that they are not points of order.

There is no doubt, and I can therefore understand that the hon. members on that side of the House feel annoyed, for surely they are aware that the salary increases are not keeping pace at all with the rise in the cost of living. This has been the case in recent times in particular. I can understand the hon. the Minister of Finance’s problem, because there are security problems and many other aspects in South Africa which require a total of millions of rands, but those hon. members and myself, as members of Parliament, dare not overlook the lot and problems of the voters. We must pause to consider this and see what we can do about it. I thought about the fact that the hon. the Minister of-Finance will quite probably have to increase indirect taxation during the recess in order to find the necessary income. I asked myself what the position would have been if not 10% only of South Africa’s population had had to pay income tax, but 30% or 40%. What would the position have been then? Would they still have needed the additional tax? Do not let us bluff ourselves. Ten per cent of the population pay direct tax. However there is almost no one in South Africa who does not pay indirect tax. Millions of people pay indirect tax. All these things are being felt.

What commodity prices have not gone up? In spite of the anti-inflation campaign of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his colleagues over the past six months, not one commodity has dropped in price. Which prices have remained constant? None. Prices of food, clothing, fuel, coal—I can mention many—have gone up in spite of the anti-inflation campaign. The Government will have to satisfy the man in the street. It will not help to discuss the Erika Theron Commission, no matter how important it is. Nor will it help to discuss the riots in Johannesburg, no matter how important they are. The people must make a living. This is the first priority of the thousands of people in our constituencies in South Africa.

I now want to come to another matter and refer to the hon. Acting Prime Minister. The hon. Acting Prime Minister said this morning that, when we discuss racial affairs in South Africa and all the other aspects of South African politics, we must do so against a background of patriotism and sincerity. I do not think the hon. gentleman will question my patriotism, because what I am saying, I say because I believe that I am correct and that my views are clear. I now want to dwell on another few aspects which enjoyed a great deal of attention, but about which everything has not yet been said. The first is unfortunately the riots in Johannesburg. This was a tragic occurrence. This debate was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. No hon. member, including the hon. member for Rissik who praised the Cabinet and the Ministers, can tell me that this hon. Minister made any kind of impression on him as far as that burning issue was concerned. In any event I have never yet seen the hon. the Minister so much on the defensive.

Oh, no!

Of course. And how did the hon. the Minister go about his attack? He set up the coconuts himself, but then missed the whole lot. He suggested that we had said that the language issue was everything. Nobody alleged this. One must be bereft of one’s senses to think that the language issue was the main cause of the riots. However, what was a tragedy to me as an Afrikaner, if this were true, was that my own language was used to spark it off. This was the tragedy to me. The hon. gentleman rose and set up one coconut after another and missed every one of them completely.

Now I come to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and Administration himself. Where is the hon. the Minister? A few weeks ago I said to the hon. the Minister: “Mr. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, you who proclaim and explain the philosophy of your party, I am rising to ask you to reply to me on the deficiencies I see in your party.” I put my case simply. I said: “Mr. Minister, there is a negative and a positive side to your policy, as there is to all things.” The positive side is the development of the homelands into full-fledged States. The negative side is the Bantu who are concentrating in the urban areas. This is the negative aspect of the policy.

But what did we get? The hon. the Minister did not even try to explain. He did not even try to convince me. But history has now proved that although there has been a birth, although the birth of something positive took place, the negative exploded in Soweto. This is precisely where the problem lies. Now the hon. members say that we are looking for something to talk about, but of what avail is it if one tells one’s hon. fellow members, fellow South Africans in this House: But here, my friends, is the flashpoint; it is not only socio-economic. Of course the people must be uplifted, but the problem is that the higher one uplifts him in the socio-economic sphere, the more glaring will be the gap in his political rights and the more vociferously he will demand them. Sir, it will avail us nothing to try to avoid the issue, and the Afrikaners in particular dare not avoid it because they, of all people, realize that the value of the political right is the key to all rights. Therefore I say to my hon. friends, and to the hon. the Minister, that when I discuss this matter, I see serious problems in it and then I ask myself how it is possible for my fellow Afrikaners not to see them as well and not even want to argue the point with me. This is my problem. I return to the hon. the Minister and repeat that the signs of the times are that the negative side of his policy has failed. Therefore, I say, Sir, we have had one opportunity after another. What more has to be done to convince the Government? How many of their academics, newspapermen, leaders in the sphere of the intelligentsia, are pleading for change, but do we have any signs of thought? I hope that the hon. the Minister is thinking about this in secret somewhere, but he is certainly not showing it here. Now I tell the hon. the Acting Prime Minister that I am speaking here as a patriot, as a person who loves his fatherland. I am speaking against the background which he sketched of us. I say that we are being afforded one opportunity after another but nothing is being done. The second chance arises as a result of another problem situation in our community. There is the Erika Theron Commission.

Who appointed it?

The hon. member knows who appointed it. It was the Government. The Minister created an opportunity for himself, but the signs are already there that he is going to ignore this opportunity and fling it to the winds. [Interjections.] Let us look at the report. Let me put my case briefly. The socio-economic problem has been analysed in great detail. The hon. member for Rissik is correct: One will have to read it very carefully. But even on the first impressions there is a great deal of agreement in this House concerning the socio-economic aid and upliftment of the Coloureds. After all this is essential. There is no difference between the Government and the collective Opposition. There are extremely few points of dissension here. Therefore we are not arguing about that. But now the hon. the Minister of Community Development says that we should not be all that concerned about the political rights. Think of what has been done for the Coloureds in connection with housing and in other spheres. Sir, I am not arguing about this. I am one of the people who have always said that the Government is doing a great deal for the Coloureds in the socioeconomic sphere, and the Coloureds and South Africa are grateful for this. But I put it to the hon. the Minister once again, and he knows it very well, that the flashpoint is a sign of the new times in which we are living, and it is not socio-economic rights; they are looking for the key to every other right: The right to be able to vote and decide one’s own fate.

I thought you accepted the report of the Theron Commission.

I am coming to that. Therefore I tell that hon. gentleman that if I argue in this way, if this is the tenor of my argument, he must understand why I say that unless the Government avails itself of this opportunity to find a political answer not only for the Coloureds, but as the hon. member for Moorreesburg said, also for the non-Black Africans, this report is worthless and the Coloureds will justifiably feel that they are not being treated fairly. It is very simple.

I listened to the hon. the Leader of the House once again. He said the National Party had accepted certain guidelines. Firstly, he said there would be discussion and participation, and the White Paper also says so. The Government endorses this. I have no objection to this. The more discussion and the more participation, the better. The second one is negative. He said that they will not accept the Westminster system. This is not the problem. We have been saying this for a long time. Then we have his third statement, and this is important. The hon. gentleman says, as a result of a document which serves as a guide to Cabinet resolutions, that there will be a division of power. Is that correct?

Correct.

The hon. the Minister says that that is correct: There has to be a division of power. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide the Cabinet with guidance decisions which must be taken, must be based upon these guidelines. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that one may achieve a division of power for the Bantu. However, what division of power is one going to have for the non-Black South African? What division of power is one going to have in the rest of South Africa for the Indians, the Coloureds and the Whites, especially when the powers and rights of these groups are so interwoven that one cannot always divide them? [Interjections.]

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I want him to tell me, and one of his people can reply to this, perhaps even the hon. the Minister himself is going to participate in the debate: The hon. the Acting Prime Minister said that one of the guidelines is the division of power …

But you do this yourselves.

Yes, but one can only divide specific things. Community interests cannot be divided and this is what causes strife. In the sphere of individual interests the hon. the Minister may perhaps have a division of power, but when it comes to the sphere of community interests, I can tell the hon. the Minister that his principle of the division of power will not work. It is here that the problem arises. I am looking for the answer and ask myself: What is the National Party going to do?

Watch us.

Yes, watch us. We have been watching for 28 years and nothing has been done yet. However, this brings me to another point, and what a feeble attempt we had from the other side of the House in this connection. One speaker after the other stood up and tried to mock the United Party, implying that we were going to change our policy again. How can a party who is sitting in the Government benches, dare, what political temerity they have to try to mock an Opposition party that has done two things: Firstly offered their co-operation, and …

Where?

Hon. members listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the committee of experts and offered his full co-operation. In the second place: How dare a party like this mock us about changes of policy? That party has no policy to change. How dare they mock us therefore? When all is said and done, there is a big question mark over this House as far as the Coloureds are concerned. In the words of Dr. Malan: Quo vadis with the Coloureds of South Africa? However, this does not only apply to the Coloureds, and hon. members have the non-answer in the deeds and action of the Government. If one asks “quo vadis” in connection with all non-Black Africans in South Africa, it is obvious that we do not have the answer. The Coloureds did not obtain such an answer, and this session will be remembered for the riots in Johannesburg and the conduct of the responsible Minister. In my modest opinion this was inept conduct. The session will also be remembered for the non-action of the National Party concerning the political dispensation for which the whole of South Africa was waiting as a result of the inquiry of the Erika Theron Commission.

Mr. Speaker, this will be my last speech in this House before the dawn of the great day, 26 October 1976. I say it is a great day because it is indeed the first big, real step in the direction of our complete freedom. The road leading up to 26 October is a long one. I kept an account of everything which went with it. My personal share in it—and there are others who had the same share in it—is that in the 30 years that I have been actively involved in politics, I have held approximately 3 000 meetings. I covered more than 1 250 000 miles per car. I bought more than 630 air tickets. Apart from that, I spent more than 1 200 nights away from my own home. And this is the share of just one person.

Cas, did you keep only one woman?

Sir, one must never let one’s left hand know what one’s right hand is doing. So much power, so much expenditure and so much exertion by one individual, and there are others here who possibly have a similar record. For what reason was this done? It was done in order to see this day, the day on which the Whites take the first active step in the direction of truly liberating themselves. It was a long road. In looking back on this road I see various parties lying in ruins. I see here in front of me a once mighty UP which has crumbled and is now sitting in front of us in various sections. Behold, confusion of policy! A once mighty political party, like the UP, and financial forces which were hurled at us, have been destroyed. During the past 30 years Africa has undergone a political and economic change of pattern. Power structures in the Western world, in the East and in Africa have collapsed. Colonial power structures have fallen away. Democracies have been destroyed. Socialism and communism have washed over large parts of the world, and the current is becoming stronger. Moral standards have been traded in; moral standards as essential components for stable power structures have been traded in. The finest example of this is the composition of the present UNO, which operates in terms of a charter. That charter is actually a formulation of Soviet totalitarianism, clothed in an international idiom and an action according to Western procedure. This is what the UNO means today. The National Party all on its own has walked the road leading to 26 October and has done so in the midst of all these changes in structure, in the midst of all parties which have come and gone, in the midst of hellish onslaughts on us, and the National Party has brought the White man and South Africa to the eve of 26 October 1976. I do not want to describe the ridicule we have had to endure from them. That hon. member who spoke with such sacrosanctity is one of the people who ridiculed us. They are the people who derided our actions. There was a time when the Economic Establishment—those gentlemen who are sitting over there and who were also represented in the UP—plotted against the NP. They cannot escape the accusation. The Economic Establishment—they as employers especially in the years which have passed—used the Black man against the White man’s and the National Party’s objective and endeavours. I know of many Whites who have abdicated over the past 30 years, who have left. Now, however, we have the political fact. This is a fact of salvation which will come true for the Whites on 26 October.

There were many moments in our history which were steps in the direction of freedom. There was the Anglo-Boer War, the language struggle, the CNE struggle and the coming into power of the NP. The striving towards freedom was included in all those. Those of us who think that we shall experience the nation’s final experience of freedom on 26 October without our coming to a realization of certain essentials, are making a terrible mistake. As sure as a camelthorn pole planted in the soil will outlast a match stick or a poplar pole planted in the soil, so sure am I that we are making a mistake if we see our final salvation in 26 October. We dare not do this. Our unequalled resources, our affluent community, our strategic position and our Christian faith will not bring us to the final and complete freedom as we want it—not on 26 October. On 26 October we will be at the major watershed, and the NP has brought South Africa to that point over a long period of time. Now for the first time we are reaching our geo-political objective with a portion of the Black people. We look forward to reaching the same objective with the other Black homelands. We have created a political situation by granting independence to the Transkei on 26 October, and this is going to initiate other situations.

Let us look what is happening in this regard. That hon. member spoke of numbers. I, too, want to speak of numbers. After 26 October we shall still have several million Black people here in White South Africa. Let us look at what the position was in 1960. In 1960 we had a total of 10 431 300 Black people in South Africa. At that time—and hon. members must listen carefully, because these are important figures—we had 3 880 000 Black people in the homelands. There were 6 453 000 Black people in the White areas. This was the position in 1960. Let us look at what the position was in 1970. In 1970 the Black population in the homelands and in the White areas was, in round figures, 14 546 200. In the homelands there were 6 976 400 Black people, while there were 7 569 800 in the White areas. This was in 1970. The figures for 1975 are estimated figures whereas the figures for 1970 are based on the 1970 census. The estimated figures for 1975 are as follows: The Black population will be 16 651 200, in round figures, the Black population in the homelands, 8 272 100, while the Blacks in the White areas will number 8 378 300. This reflects the position in 1975.

What appears from these numbers? In 1960 37,6% of the total Black population was in the homelands. In 1975 49,7% of the total Black population was in the homelands. Let us make it 50%. What object are we pursuing? Our pursuit is not to take something away from the Blacks; our pursuit is to settle the Blacks, geographically, where they belong, so that we may escape from the terror of numbers. This is all it amounts to. Judging from the present trend, we have succeeded in stemming up the tide of Bantu who flocked to the White areas. There is a noticeable and significant flow of Bantu back to the homelands. I mention a few other figures: Between 1960 and 1975 the Black population in the homelands—I am just giving round figures—increased from 6 976 400 to 8 272 900. This means an increase of 18,6%. It is significant that between 1960 and 1975 the Black population in the homelands increased from 3 888 300 to 8 272 300, if one looks at the estimated figure for 1975. Do hon. members know what this means? It means an increase of 112,1%. From 1960 to 1975 the Blacks in the White areas increased too. In 1960 there were 6 453 000. The estimated figure for 1975 is 8 378 300. Therefore the increase in the White areas over the past 15 years amounts to 29%. Over the past 15 years, too, the Black population in the homelands showed an increase of 112,8%. This is justification for me to say that White South Africa is becoming Whiter. There cannot be any doubt about this. I want to invite anyone to come and spend a week with me and to travel with me through the whole of the Western Transvaal, i.e. through the largest part of Bophuthatswana. I shall show them how Black families move in their hundreds to Bophuthatswana of their own free will each months and how the Black population is increasing. As I have said, with the granting of independence to the Bantu areas we have created a political situation which, even at this stage, is having side-effects.

The rural areas of the Transvaal are becoming more White at an accelerated rate. There cannot be any doubt about this. The number of Blacks within the homelands, expressed as a percentage of the total Black population, can therefore be summarized as follows: In 1960 it was 38%; in 1970, 48%; and in 1975, 50%. Dr. Verwoerd once said that by 1978 we would have changes in the influx pattern. [Interjections.] I stand by this. I shall stake my life on it because I know that this is so. The hon. member need not laugh because he knows nothing of what is going on. The figures which I have mentioned are the most authentic figures one can obtain in South Africa. Now I must say that this shift in numbers, as we should like to have it, has come about as a result of resettlement, land consolidation and changes of borders, but it remains, nevertheless, a fine achievement. The geographic, geopolitical line has been drawn. It is probably not perfect—I cannot say whether it will be permanent—but as it has been drawn it is possible and feasible and the process which has been set in motion as a result of the situation which we have created in the political sphere, is developing. It is also affecting the pattern of labour relations. In the Western Transvaal and in the whole of the rural area of the Transvaal one can see the whole labour pattern changing. It is a fine achievement. But from 1973 to 1975 100 000 Blacks entered the labour market annually. The number of people who could find employment in the homelands, was 28 428. The number who could find employment in the White areas, was 36 858. The remaining 34 814 had to find employment as migrant labourers. Between 1973 and 1975 in Bophuthatswana, however, there was a supply of 12 200 Black labourers while the demand was for 14 455. Bophuthatswana is already absorbing its new labour stream. Between 1973 and 1975 in that small part of Swaziland, there was a supply of 1 670 while that area had employment opportunities for 2 504 people. KwaZulu is rapidly following suit. According to the latest information KwaZulu can accommodate 81,3% of its Black labour itself. In the Ciskei 85,4% of the labour which is offered, can be absorbed. This is extremely important. Here too there is an appreciable undeniable flow, which is beginning to run more and more strongly. When the Transkei becomes independent on 26 October this year, that State will once again be placed under the searchlight. It will undoubtedly fall under the searchlight once again. As an independent State the Transkei will qualify for developmental aid from the World Bank. As an independent State the Transkei will be able to draw money from abroad more readily, investment money as well as loan money. To conclude what I have to say about the Transkei, I repeat that the independence of the Transkei will not mean the final liberation of the Whites. We shall still have to bear the responsibility of and hold the hand of the Transkei for many years, a homeland which has been given its freedom by us. I am very serious when I say that this will demand a great deal from the Whites.

When I look at the affluent society and when I look at the absolute luxury in which we as Whites live, I ask—and I am very serious—whether we shall be able to persevere with this pattern, while the obligation of assisting the Transkei, which is a member of the Third World, is resting upon us. The Theron Commission found that 80% of the Coloureds were people of the Third World, that between 60% and 70% of the Indians were people of the Third World. Of the Bantu, 90% were people of the Third World. In the State which we are creating of the Transkei, we are creating an independent Third World. This country has an immense obligation, and then I ask whether we shall be able to bear this double burden—the luxuries, the comforts, they shying away from work, the unwillingness on our part to proceed to a full-scale action so as to motivate our people to become labour conscious. If we want to do so, we must take note of the fact that the red light is showing for us.

The Third World is here amongst us. The people who look to us for guidance, who depend on us for technical guidance, are overwhelming in numbers. They number 23 million of the 28 million people in this country. There are only 5 million people in South Africa who are skilled or semi-skilled in the technological, academic, scientific, agricultural and other spheres and who are able to undertake work and work projects. Approximately 500 million people in the world live in conditions of famine. According to reports there are 1 000 million underfed people in the world. Data show that 12 000 people die of hunger every week and the largest percentage of them are from the Third World. The Second World, communist Russia, does not have enough food at the moment, has not had enough food over the past year and as far as I can see, will not have enough food in the future to feed all its people. I think their system is slightly incorrect. How long will the world, with its dwindling food supplies and with the immense increase in the number of mouths which have to be fed, be able to bear that burden before a crisis arises? I do not want to be a Malthus, a prophet of doom, but we fit into this picture. Just as the countries of the Third World exercise a mighty influence in the UNO today, and are leaving their imprint on virtually every sphere and are even pressurizing us, so these people who are looking to us, are also sitting as underdeveloped people and people of the Third World. One may allege that South Africa is actually a microcosmos between the First and the Third World. We have a mixture here. These 5 million people must maintain the modern economy and feed the total population.

Let us take a closer look at our income. According to the report of the Erika Theron Commission the annual per capita income of Whites is R2 500, of Indians R600, of Coloureds R500 and of Blacks R270. It is calculated at the per capita income for all of the rest of the world is approximately R170 per year. In the light of these figures, I should like hon. members to point out to me a party or a country which—in the midst of all the changes which have taken place and which has as many Third World people in and around it—has, in spite of these things, the courage, conviction and strength to grant a people its independence. One really grinds one’s teeth when one hears the moral nagging of hypocritical high priests from America, Scandinavia, Holland and Europe.

And the Progs.

Wait, I am still coming to that, but I do not want to hurt them too much. We are sick and tired of this high and mighty, this high-priestly, holiness. This is what nauseates me the most about the PRP. They are good people—look, there they are—but they must please have regard for the feelings of others as well. I often sit here listening to them and I am so sick and tired of it that I could die. Even the people outside are sick and tired of it and I should like to make the statement that their party will never raise its political ceiling any higher than what it is at the moment. Even now I can see it coming down more and more. The ceiling is coming down so low that a tall man like the hon. member for Pinelands will have to walk with a stoop one of these days! This moral nagging against my country must come to an end.

We are doing more for the underdeveloped and Third World people than any other country in the world—and here are the figures which prove it. What does the Western World give to the underdeveloped countries? According to the latest figures they give approximately R12 000 million per year. The communist countries give approximately R3 000 million per year. What is this? These are drops in the ocean and they have the audacity to accuse us of apartheid. There is America which has had the strictest immigration laws in the world for as long a period as 40 years. No Cuban, no one from Ghana, no one from India and no one from Black Africa will be able to set foot in America. They have the strictest immigration laws and they apply geographical apartheid as no other country does. And if we want to make removals according to our pattern of life, if we want to build into our politics what we consider essential for the maintenance and development of the Christian Western levels of civilization, in the interest of the Coloured and in the interest of the Black man, if we make removals on a geographic basis and apply measures, then we hear the chorus-like cry: Away with discrimination! And do not tell me that Pik Botha said it in Washington. I know he said it. He said and meant away with discrimination if it will not destroy the Christian Western structure of civilization in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carletonville is always a very interesting speaker to listen to. He gets to the very heart of a matter. I think he has focused on problems and questions that are absolutely fundamental, not only in this House, but also in South Africa and in southern Africa. I am, therefore, very grateful to him for the way in which he has focused upon what I believe are central problems. I was a little staggered by some of the hon. member’s figures and I should like to look at them again. One wonders if his figures in relation to the population within the homelands are de jure or de facto figures, and I should like to have a look at them. One of the most important points the hon. member made, was when he spoke about the First and Third World living cheeck by jowl in one territorial area. His reference to the Transkei, his reference to the number of Blacks, the number of Indians and the number of Coloureds who are described as falling into the Third World category alongside a First World situation, is absolutely vital to the understanding of the complex problems which face South Africa.

I want to return to what the hon, member said, because a large part of my speech is focused on very much the same area. However, I should like to leave just one question with the hon. member. Another problem area which, perhaps, the hon. member would like to look at some time is this: If some people are afraid of the numbers in South Africa and, if not scared, at least concerned, then I want to ask the hon. member for Carletonville what he thinks about the projection made in the Erika Theron Commission’s report to the effect that in the year 2020 there will be more Coloured people in so-called White South Africa than there will be Whites.

I could not finish my speech in time, but I intended speaking about that.

Perhaps the hon. member and I can discuss it a little later. This is also a factor that should be taken into account. However, it does lead one to say that it does call into question this false dichotomy between so-called Black South Africa and so-called White South Africa, because right throughout South Africa one has Black and White, Coloured and Indian. Any solution one finds towards these central problems in South Africa has to take that into account.

I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs is not here, because I found his speech earlier today very interesting. He talked about the limitations of the rights of Blacks in urban areas in terms of ownership of property, a direct say in labour affairs, residential rights and, above all, political rights. I found that his speech was, although defensive, nevertheless open. He talked about the necessity for change, but made one qualification and that was that the changes which must take place in South Africa must be what he described as “anchored changes”. I assume that he meant by that changes which are anchored in the central policy of separate development in South Africa. I want to focus then on this fundamental anchor of Nationalist policy, because if one does not do that one could spend a great deal of time on the peripheral areas without getting to the heart of the matter.

Basic to this policy is the awareness and the recognition, which I do not think anyone would want to dispute in this House, of the basic conflict within South Africa which has to be resolved. The resolution of that conflict is sought in terms of a policy of separate freedoms or separate development. A central factor in Nationalist policy, as I understand it, is to acknowledge that different groups within South Africa have separate identities, and that these must be protected and maintained at all costs. I underline the words “at all costs”, because the costs which are involved are very far-reaching, as the hon. member for Carletonville has reminded us quite correctly, and when 26 October has come and gone it will not be the end of the situation. As he himself put it, the people of South Africa will have to keep a hand outstretched to the people of the Transkei, and there will be sacrifices demanded and the costs are great. But a crucial question which has been asked again and again in this House during this session and was asked last year and will continue to be asked, is: What gives a man identity, this precious thing which must be maintained and safeguarded and protected at all costs? I only wish the hon. member for Brits were here, because I find his speeches always very interesting and entertaining and enlightening. He said, amongst other things: “Ek is ’n Afrikaner en wat daarvan?” That is his identity, he himself saw his identity in terms of being an Afrikaner, and that is his right. When we talk about identity—and we must understand this if it is going to be protected and maintained—it obviously has something to do with language. It has a great deal to do with culture, with history and with religion, but it must be more than that too, otherwise why not a separate freedom for the Afrikaner in South Africa and a separate freedom for the English-speaking South African? This is one of the dilemmas, and I am sure that the hon. member for Brits will go on to say not only “Ek is ’n Afrikaner”, but also “Ek is ’n Suid-Afrikaner ook”. But this identity question which comes up again and again in the defence of the policy of separate freedoms or separate development cannot be merely a broad South Africanism either; it is something more narrow and more restricted. This is best illustrated when we turn to the Coloured people of South Africa, for it is undeniable that many of them share with the Afrikaner or with the English-speaking South African to an extent his culture, his language, his religion and even his history. There must therefore, I believe, be another fundamental criterion in the definition of identity, and it comes through in many of the speeches. There is no question about that. When I was talking to one hon. member in a private conversation—and of course I will not mention his name—he said: “I want to be honest with you. One of the other fundamental criteria within the definition of identity is colour.”

So what?

I just want to develop my argument. This, I think, explodes the myth as propagated by the Nationalist Party that their policy is to grant self-determination to all the groups in South Africa. This, I believe, is the disturbing dilemma for the thoughtful, sensitive Afrikaner Nationalist. This, I believe, is the dilemma of the hon. member for Rissik, because I believe that here is a man who constantly is thinking and trying to work and trying to hold on to the policy of his own party and hold it in connection with his own personal commitment as well. There are many others in this House, I believe, and many more outside who have this dilemma and it is here where the cracks are beginning to appear and this is where the very foundation of the building is beginning to shake. We are in the midst of the shaking of the very foundations in South Africa. The question that the sensitive NP supporter is asking himself is: How do we maintain the stress on identity and at the same time move away from discrimination on the grounds of colour alone? The answer which was given last year by the hon. member for Vereeniging during one particular debate, and which has been developed since, as it has been before, and certainly again in this session, is a desperate answer and concerns the question of differentiation. The basic difference between White and Coloured South Africans is not culture or language or religion or history. It is colour. There is the dilemma. That is the Achilles heel. The hon. member for Geduld—and I do not think he really meant this—said that the bearers of Christianity are the White people in South Africa.

We have never denied that.

That is absolute nonsense. The bearers of Christianity cannot be confined to one particular race group in this country. The church is far wider and beyond mere Whites or Blacks or Coloureds or Indians.

A further illustration of the fiction of the policy of separate freedoms lies in the understanding of what is taking place in the granting of independence to the Transkei. We have now been told that the negative aspects of the old policy of apartheid are being vindicated by the dramatic developments which are taking place and which will take place on 26 October or some other date. I think that the hon. member for Carletonville was absolutely right when he talked about 26 October as being the date when the freedom of the Whites would be realized. That is the word he used, “die Blankes”. This surely is the underlying purpose—the protection of White identity at all costs. That is why the hon. member for Brits can equate nationalism with the Nationalist Party. I do not think that is right. South African nationalism is far broader and wider than simply the Nationalist Party. It involves all South Africans, and I certainly believe it involves all the people in this House.

That is a communist idea.

Mr. Speaker, it is suggested on my left that that is a communist idea.

You equal everyone.

No, I did not say that equalled everyone. I said that South African nationalism is wider and broader than the NP and that it embraces all, at least of the people in this very House. Therefore I say that you cannot take this unto yourself alone. When one therefore talks about the granting of freedom to the people of the Transkei as the fulfilment of long years of dreaming, then I ask: What of the nightmare when one robs hundreds and thousands of Blacks of their South African citizenship without any choice at all? Is it not logical to expect that the anchored changes to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred earlier today, demand an inner consistency which would say to the Coloured South Africans: “Our destiny lies together within the framework of the Nationalist policy?” Is there not here an inner consistency which says that in terms of identity, understood in terms of culture, of religion, of history, and of language, the destiny of the Coloured and the White people of South Africa belongs together? Could there not also be an equal consistency within the confines of anchored change to say to the Black people who have lived in the urban areas of this country for generations: “Choose whether you want to opt for Transkeian citizenship or whether you want to retain South African citizenship?”

The first proposition I want to advance is that we can only conclude that the policy of separate development, of separate freedoms and the moving away from race discrimination are mutually exclusive. When we turn to the events of the last ten days in Soweto and elsewhere, and one asks again after the fundamental causes, let us stop once and for all arguing as to whether the medium of instruction was the spark, the cause, the only cause. It had a great deal to do with it; of that I am quite convinced, but what we are concerned about is what we can learn from that situation. One can only again express one’s dismay at the Government’s general refusal to face up to facts and its attempt to find scapegoats everywhere. One recalls the words of Lloyd George in another context when he said—

I believe that we need to look at the very walls of the society. We cannot cover them up any longer, not even with the best of wallpapers. What then do we learn from these disturbances? Certainly that violence is not the answer to South Africa’s problems, and never will be. Secondly, that desperate people will resort to desperate means and that deep-seated grievances of urban Blacks must be redressed, and must be redressed now. When one asks: What are these grievances?, in many ways I am inclined to say, with the hon. the Minister of Community Development that the hearts, the stomachs and feelings of the people need to be helped further. Do not let us concern ourselves too much with the political side of matters; let us concern ourselves with those things. I say that up to a point.

This is a new one.

Not entirely. I believe that there are people in our Black townships who are convinced that they cannot get the kind of basic human things which they require. When a group of Black people say that they want to have their own homes, what is so revolutionary about that? Perhaps hon. members can tell me. What is so revolutionary about wanting to own a home?

We did not say that.

But you deny it. Hon. members opposite will not allow them to have it. Home-ownership is something this Government has turned its back on for those hundreds and thousands of Black people who will live for ever in urban areas. Do not tell me that we must give them a beach cottage in the Transkei. They cannot afford that kind of luxury. When they ask educational qualifications and facilities, is that so revolutionary? Is that communistic? Are they becoming agitators when they cry out aloud on behalf of their children? When they want decent job opportunities and not charity and hand-outs? When they seek a sense of security in the land of their birth and when they want a choice of citizenship? This is not all revolutionary talk. These are the basic needs of all humankind. I believe that changes must be made. That is the lesson we have got to learn from what took place in Soweto and elsewhere. These changes must be made in direct consultation with the Blacks and not for them. Basic to these changes and basic to these consultations, must be an acceptance that the Black man is a permanent part of South Africa’s metropolitan area.

My second conclusion is that the policy of separate development and the preservation of internal security are mutually exclusive. Where is this Government taking South Africa?

This is the question I believe we must pose ourselves at the end of this long session. Let us assume that their policy of separate freedoms will be implemented over the next ten years. Let us even assume that all the various problems, difficulties and strife do not deny the Nationalist Government the privilege of implementing their policy of separate freedoms over the next ten years, that the Transkei will be followed by Bophuthatswana, the Ciskei, Lebowa and even, right at the very end perhaps, KwaZulu. Let us assume that that does take place. Then we will have a number of independent states—separate and completely independent, foreign states with only Whites, Coloureds and Indians in a much smaller South Africa, with the Whites in the majority, at least till the year 2020, according to the Erika Theron commission. So then we have achieved success at last. We have a clear conscience; there is self-determination for all the homelands and self-government—whatever that may mean—for Coloureds and Indians; and also, of course, the protection and preservation of White identity. There is only one snag. We must have a labour force to maintain and develop our economy, and as of now, according to the Bureau for Economic Research, 67% of the 1,8 million economically active Black men in the so-called White areas of South Africa, are “permanently absent” from the homelands. I repeat, 67% of economically active Black men are permanently absent, whatever that may mean. What we will have, in effect, is an economy largely dependent on a foreign labour force which is no longer a migrant labour force, for it will then be a foreign labour force. This is economic feudalism with a vengeance.

To sum up, what we will have in South Africa when we have reached the end of this great road along which this Government is taking us, will be a situation in which the Whites will, in large measure, have control of capital, entrepreneurship and property, while the majority of Blacks are labour units brought here on sufferance. This is a modern form of economic feudalism with landlords on the one hand and vassals on the other. I have said this before and I will say it again: What is being forged by this Government is a classic confrontation situation, for the foreign worker will then be employed in a society which does not offer him status, recognition, housing, security, diversion or opportunity. The foreign worker will know no mobility, and successful industrialization—as I am quite sure the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree—demands broad mobilization and motivation of those participating in it. White South Africans, having safeguarded their identity, will be at the mercy of a foreign labour force with no commitment to the society which contains that economy.

Although charges have come from the other side that we in these benches are prophets of doom, I believe that warnings need to be sounded and that it is the responsibility of those who believe, as we do—since we believe that the picture I have described is accurate—to be aware that instead of saying “peace, peace” where there is no peace, we must say that if this takes place, if this comes true, if the Government’s policy does develop along those lines, with the Whites, Coloureds and Indians living in South Africa, completely surrounded by a group of Black states, millions of whose inhabitants will have to come into South Africa to maintain our economy, the events of the past few days will pale into insignificance in comparison with what could possibly happen when the economy collapses as the result of possible industrial unrest.

I say this because we will have an economy in which the majority of the labour force is defined, both socially and politically, as external to the society which the economy serves. This, I believe, must place an intolerable strain on the economy and on the society. Surely it is easy to see the internal conflict within an economy which will be so utterly dependent on millions of foreigners. For that is the only place that we can get our work force from. We do not have enough people within South Africa now. We are going to have to get more and more. The economy is dependent on a constant growth of semi-skilled and skilled people. The only area from which one can get this is the so-called “reservoir of Black workers”, but a time will come when they will all be foreigners. They will have been made foreigners by this Government. So we will have an economy which is going to be dependent to a very large degree on a foreign labour force. In short, the policy of separate development and sustained economic growth and industrial peace are mutually exclusive.

I have suggested three things. On the one hand there is an internal tension between the policy of separate freedoms and the maintenance or the development of the realization of good race relations in South Africa. I have said, secondly, that there is a very definite point of conflict in the policy of separate freedoms and the need for internal security in South Africa. Thirdly, we are going to have a conflict within the economy itself which will make it impossible for that economy to be sustained and to continue with that policy. If South Africa wishes to move away from race discrimination towards racial harmony, which we say we do, and if we wish to preserve internal security and if we want to develop our economy, then I believe that the last six months have demonstrated once again that the fundamental policy of this Government must be radically altered if South Africa is to have peace in our time.

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands once again illustrates very clearly the fundamental difference in thinking on matters of principle between us on this side of the House and the Progressive Party. I should actually say “the lack of thinking on matters of principle” on that side of the House. The hon. member for Pinelands reminds me of a bikini. What he reveals in his speech is very interesting, but what he does not say, what he hides, is fundamental. The hon. member for Pinelands gave out here this evening that the problem of the policy of the National Party, the dilemma, was that we do not know what to do with colour. The question is whether colour does in fact play a part as far as we are concerned. The hon. member very clearly cannot distinguish between two things. He cannot distinguish between colour prejudice on the one hand and colour consciousness on the other. One is a sin and the other is not. He asked a question about nationalism, but he does not have the remotest idea what nationalism means.

I know what it means.

I shall tell him what it means. Nationalism surely means that which is of the nation. This is the fundamental point of departure: What is mine, what is part of me, such as my language, my culture, my traditions, what is peculiar to me, what distinguishes me from someone else and what makes me a different person from the hon. member for Pinelands. As the hon. member for Brits put it: I am an Afrikaner and I am not ashamed of it. In other words, in the first place, nationalism relates to the nation, but in the second place it also relates to the country. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that I am in the first place an Afrikaner and precisely because I am an Afrikaner I am also a very good South African. Nationalism is all-embracing and because that is so, the English-speaker and the Afrikaner can go hand in hand in this country. This is how we want it. This is how we want to see it. The idea we want to propagate is that we have a common nationalism—one South African loyalty.

What about the Coloured? What is the difference?

He has a different culture. [Interjections.] And he has a different colour.

Yes, now you are being honest.

Yes, of course. After all, I told the hon. member a moment ago that he cannot distinguish between colour prejudice and colour consciousness. To be aware of colour is not a disgrace. I am proud of it. I want to preserve my white skin and I expect the Xhosa and the Zulu to be equally proud of his black skin.

And the Coloured?

Yes, and the Coloured of his brown skin.

But he cannot even be a South African.

I wish to come to another point. [Interjections.] I have not finished with the hon. member. The hon. member for Pinelands returned to the question of Soweto. He said that we had to come to the “fundamental causes”. Then he said a very extraordinary thing this evening. He said: “Do not let us concern ourselves only with the political side of things.” Can you believe it?

No, I did not say that.

Oh yes, the hon. member said: “Do not let us concern ourselves only with the political side of things.”

I did not say that.

The hon. member even said he agreed with me on that point.

From day to day that party makes a plea in this House for the political rights of the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian in South Africa vis-á-vis the White man. But then he comes along and says: “Let us leave that aside.”

Read my Hansard.

I am being very serious now. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Rondebosch concluded his speech on the Erika Theron Commission’s report with a cynical and scornful remark. With reference to certain words and expressions used in that report he said we would now probably accuse the Theron Commission of identifying themselves with Brown Power. I want to say—I am saying this very seriously; I am not joking—that it has been said in this session—I am not going to prove it again this evening in the short time that I have available—that the PRP is helping to create a climate in South Africa in which Black Power, and what it stands for in South Africa, can find a favourable breeding-ground. More than that, the PRP is by word and deed identifying itself with the Black Power Movement, which wants to overthrow the existing order in South Africa—yes, which wants to overthrow the Republic of South Africa itself. The hon. the Deputy Minister set it out here this morning. He explained in detail what had happened in Soweto and why it had happened. The primary object was to create chaos in that Black city so that the powers which are seeking the downfall of the Whites, which want to overthrow the existing order, can gain the upper hand. In a brilliant speech here this morning and in no uncertain terms the hon. the Acting Prime Minister set out precisely what is at stake for South Africa in these times. He made it clear that what was involved here, was the onslaught of international communism on southern Africa.

I now want to address myself to the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member who adopts so sanctimonious an attitude here. He was present at the birth of Black Power in South Africa.

Where do you get that?

Oh yes, he was present …

Order! The hon. member for Koedoespoort is not allowed to say that it is his opinion that another hon. member adopts a sanctimonious attitude here.

As you please, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it. That hon. member was present when Black Power was born in South Africa.

He was the midwife!

I have already said that the PRP is furthering that situation in South Africa by word and deed, that they identify themselves with it completely. I have before me the Saso Newsletter of March/April 1973. Among other things it contains a report that was taken over from the Rand Daily Mail of 6 March 1973. This report had been written as a result of the banning of eight Saso leaders. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, I want to dwell a while this evening on what this organization does and what it says. In this same edition there is a report of a speech made by a certain Mrs. Sam Moodley. She delivered this speech on 12 March 1973, and in it she said, among other things—

When this lady uses these words she uses the word “liberation” and “Black consciousness” by definition. It does not just mean Black awareness. It does not just mean Black nationalism. “Black consciousness” is used by definition. I shall return to this later.

In the same edition we also read that the South African Student Movement came out against the Government’s banning of the eight Saso leaders. Who is this South African Student Movement?—

Now we are coming closer to what started in Soweto. Sasam also issued a statement on the banning of the eight student leaders. In other words, there is also an arm of Saso among Black school-children. There is a further report in this publication—“Why Pelser banned the Saso Eight”. This was also taken over from the Rand Daily Mail, and they quote Mrs. Suzman as follows—

These are explosive words, but I have already said that words such as “Black consciousness” are used by definition. I have here in my hand a book, Saso on the Attack—An Introduction to the South African Students Organization, published in 1973. Among other things it also contains the “Saso policy manifesto”. They say the following—

They ask themselves how they are going to achieve this and find the following answer—

They go on to say—

I can continue in this way. The words which occur repeatedly in this are words which occur in speeches made by hon. members of the PRP during this session. We have experienced it again this evening. A few moments ago the hon. member said the following—

The hon. member accused us of “modern feudalism”, and then I am not even talking about what the hon. member for Bryanston said in his speech earlier this afternoon. He made the following statements: The rash interference of this Government in Angola; the creation of a spirit of despair in South Africa; the White man’s credibility with the Black man which is impaired by this Government; no integrity in the policy of the Government. Then he asks whether we are not spelling out violence for them. The hon. member for Pinelands recently spoke of the “dreadful sense of oppression” of the Black man here in South Africa. He also referred to the “collective suffering” among these people. The hon. member for Sandton referred to the “police as a symbol of oppression in South Africa”. If this is the language used by these people, are we not justified in asking from this side of the House: Where do we stand in this situation? I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point a very frank question. When the hon. the Acting Prime Minister referred to certain correspondence this morning, was the hon. member aware of that correspondence? When the hon. the Acting Prime Minister referred to correspondence which he could make public on the authority of the hon. the Prime Minister, did the hon. member for Sea Point turn round and say to the hon. member for Orange Grove: “It must be the Bishop’s letter.” Am I correct?

You are telling a lie.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member for Sea Point say: “You are telling a lie?”

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation, the hon. member…

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. Now, on a point of personal explanation: The hon. member across the floor of the House has alleged that I said something in my seat to the hon. member. It is quite untrue. I did not say it and I should very much like the copy of Hansard to be brought in so that we can see whether this hon. member is telling the truth or not.

Order! The hon. member has denied it.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member said cannot appear in Hansard. What the hon. member whispered and what hon. members in his immediate vicinity heard cannot appear in Hansard. However, I do not want to take it any further.

I want to continue and refer shortly to the Black People’s Convention, which is a daughter of Saso. The BPC calls itself a political movement in South Africa, a movement with the same objectives as Saso. In its constitution, under “Principles and Aims”, there is a very interesting section, and I want hon. members to take note thereof. It reads—

Who spoke during this session of an “equitable redistribution of wealth in South Africa”? Was it we on this side of the House, or was it hon. members on the other side? What language is this? I leave it at that. However, I can think what I like.

Section 3 of the constitution of the BPC reads as follows—

What does this mean? If it does not want to attain its objectives by political means, it wants to attain it in only one way, and that is by revolution. Now I ask: What does it mean when the White students stand with placards which read: “Don’t start the revolution without us”? What has the PRP done in this regard? I am afraid my time has expired, but the hon. members on the other side must know one thing, and that is that we on this side of the House shall proclaim from Cape Town to Messina that these are the things in South Africa with which those hon. members identify themselves. We shall proclaim this throughout the country and we shall expose them at every turn.

Mr. Speaker, I am not competent to take the argument which has been raised by the hon. member for Koedoespoort any further and I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow the polemics which have been raised on the matter. I thought it would be of some interest to the House if I were to take what I believe to be a slightly different look at the situation in which we find ourselves at this particular time in this Parliament. It is customary to look at our international situation from the inside out, that is to say, to look at the situation in the country and our relations with other countries nearest to us and then to extrapolate thereon into our relations with the rest of the world. That is an entirely rational way to do it, because in the last resort all relations with other countries do tend to be determined by circumstances inside the nation itself. The reason why I wish to do it the other way around, is that I believe it will throw new light on the problem, and not to suggest that the other way of looking at it is the wrong way. Therefore, rather than looking at it from the inside out I propose this evening to look at it briefly from the outside in.

How do other nations see us at this particular time? A whole series of circumstances have arisen in the course of the first half of this year which have changed the circumstances, the future and to some extent the destiny of South Africa. Although some of these events have been unfortunate and others have been tragic, they may nevertheless have the consequence, when taken together, of contributing to a happier outcome than we can yet envisage.

I have in mind firstly the Angolan affair. I do not propose to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of that particular incident, except to say that in whichever way it was handled it is perfectly clear that Angola marked the beginning of a physical Russian expansionism in Africa. I believe that the Cubans who went to Angola were the cat’s-paws of the Russians. For the first time, as distinct from the Communist ideological expansion that has been taking place in various parts of Africa with very modest degrees of success, there was now a change to system of physical intervention in Africa which had its first real impact in Angola. I believe that other opportunities are being sought; and there have been some other instances which could be noted. However, here for the first time in Southern Africa, anyway, there was a physical intervention on such a scale and so clear that nobody any longer could ignore it. Since then there has been some discussion, some dissent as to the nature of the intervention by South Africa and the nature of the American influence in that matter. I do not think that it is productive to pursue that argument this evening either, except to say that it is clear that out of this series of events, but especially out of the realization of the Soviets’ physical presence in Southern Africa, the Americans have come to the conclusion that some kind of balance of power needs to be created in Southern Africa, a balance of power which will not necessarily lead to renewed conflict and to a new war in Southern Africa, but which may have the effect of stopping the development of such a state of conflict. In other words, if a balance of power can be created it may have the effect of creating the same kind of peace, an uneasy peace if you like, that has been created elsewhere by the balance of power in the nuclear field. I believe that we need to look at this very hard, because quite clearly the readiness of Dr. Kissinger to spend time with Mr. Vorster and Mr. Vorster’s corresponding readiness to spend time with him, has very little to do with the old sequence of events to which we have been accustomed for a long time and which has never led to this kind of meeting, which may be referred to as a summit meeting. It is due to the new dimensions that have been brought to Southern Africa by the situation that I have just described. The reason why they are actually in Germany now is that they are discussing not the old questions of whether, for example, the United States should give arms to us and should provide aid to South Africa or whether strategic materials should be sold to us, but the new dimensions that I have described. I believe, therefore, that there has entered into our strategic calculations a new opportunity. There is a new opportunity to enter into a partnership with the Western World, with the Western allies, with the whole Free World which is aligned against Soviet expansionism. This opportunity has presented itself very recently and it in fact creates an entirely new situation for us.

I believe that whereas a year ago, or even six months ago, it would have been idle to talk of entering into a pact or agreement with the Free World, it is in fact a possibility now. Sir, the difficulties of course remain in that the Free World sees South Africa as the kind of partner—and they have certainly regarded us in this light for a number of years—that might cause them more embarrassment than advantage. Were it not for that, South Africa’s position strategically, its mineral wealth and its industrial strength would make it an ideal partner for the Free World. The reason why there has been reticence and a holding-back has been the obvious reason that South Africa’s position in Africa is such that the Free World fears that any close alliance with South Africa would in fact deter those marginal countries, those countries which are uncertain and whose allegiance has to be won in the world struggle, from taking the side of the Free World because of the very presence of South Africa within that Free World alliance. This is a hard fact which any student of international affairs will acknowledge, whether he likes it or not.

Now, immediately before the departure of the Prime Minister, some other things happened. In fact, one happened immediately before his departure and one immediately after. First there were the riots in Soweto, spreading further afield, also to some of the homelands. These were the most inauspicious circumstances in which a Prime Minister could possibly leave his own country while hoping to talk to another country from a position of strength. Nevertheless, it may be that this event was providential in the sense that it was necessary in the process of these talks to take account of certain factors in the South African situation which might otherwise perhaps have been left aside or out of calculation, not only from Mr. Vorster’s point of view, but also from Dr. Kissinger’s point of view, because he also could not ignore the realities of living with South Africa in an alliance of this kind.

Shortly after the Prime Minister’s departure there was of course the presentation of the Theron Commission’s report, of which no doubt he had some knowledge. This again poses a problem for South Africa which we have got to chew on and to digest, because it all forms part of the picture.

The question now is whether South Africa can take advantage of this opportunity to become part of the Free World’s resistance against aggression or imbalance of power in Southern Africa, or whether we cannot do so. It is obviously of enormous advantage for us that the Free World should have this interest in Southern Africa, that we should become a part of that entente, that understanding in the Free World, and that we should in fact participate with the Free World in resisting the spread of authoritarianism to this part of the world. However, it seems that there will also be a price to pay, and when I say “a price to pay” I do not mean that we are going to have to give up something that we cannot do without. I do not believe that this will be a matter of hard bargaining, but I believe it is implicit in any kind of understanding that would arise.

I believe firstly that we have to do something more quickly about South West Africa, because, when all is considered, this is one of the major obstacles still to full acceptance of South Africa by the Free World or to their ability to support South Africa when the pressure is on, because of the enormous political impatience at the slow treatment which the South West African situation has received. There is enormous impatience in international circles, and the Free World would be greatly helped once we have got that problem out of the way. There is obviously at times merit in doing things more slowly rather than more quickly, but I believe that because of all the circumstances I have described the argument changes and the tempo changes and we have to take into account the possibility of doing this more rapidly in order to gain greater advantage that way, rather than playing for safety by going more slowly. I believe that if we can get this matter out of the way we will have already taken a great step forward towards establishing ourselves as a member of the Western alliance, which is now becoming so critical and so essential.

I believe in the second place that as far as Rhodesia is concerned, the advent of America may in fact be of great assistance in creating the sort of climate of stability—of guarantee if you like—which would enable the changes that appear to be inevitable in Rhodesia to take place under a kind of international guarantee which will give security to minorities as regards their lives, their properties, their livelihoods, their future, their income, their investments, etc., and enable the minority to live in Rhodesia in the same sort of way that, for example, the minority lives in Swaziland. White people in Swaziland, under a Black government, sleep with their doors and windows open at night and they have no fears there. They invest, participate in business, take part in government and one of them is even a member of the Cabinet. This sort of situation, provided change is peaceful, as in Swaziland, and not violent, as in the Congo, can also be achieved elsewhere in Africa. I believe that in the kind of atmosphere that could be created by a wider international guarantee, this could be achieved in Rhodesia.

Lastly, I would like to deal with South Africa itself. In the course of this debate we have heard many speeches dealing with the various aspects and implications of what has happened at Soweto and also the special implications and meaning of the Theron Commission report. I do not wish to repeat these arguments because my time is limited. I would merely like to say that these things have been dealt with in this House in the last two days, most often as though they were new difficulties, new dangers which we somehow have to overcome, but which, looked at in the whole, create new problems for South Africa, new dilemmas that have to be solved, which make things worse for us rather than better. I would like to suggest that one might also look at this the other way round. It may be that the real meaning of Soweto is that we did not learn the lesson of Sharpeville well enough. We said then that we had learnt the lesson and that it would never happen again. Some 16 years have gone by and we know very well that problems have been breeding and seething in places like Soweto. Irrespective of the last proximate cause, the spark that set the whole thing ablaze, there has been a whole series of circumstances which were grossly unsatisfactory and made the situation dangerous, not only for the Black urban people, but dangerous for everybody in South Africa. This can only mean that we did not fully learn the lesson of Sharpeville. This new violence which occurred not only in Soweto, but which spread through a whole range of urban townships in metropolitan South Africa, and beyond that—and most significantly—also into certain townships in homeland South Africa, proves to us that there is a kind of interconnection, a contagion, when the chips are down, between people everywhere in South Africa who feel that either they in one situation or their brothers in another situation are under what they conceive to be a system of oppression. We must take stock of this, even if we do not believe that it is justified, and we must recognize that it is a fact of life, that people see it as such, and that, therefore, it becomes factual as far as they are concerned. If it becomes factual as far as they are concerned, then it becomes factual as far as we are concerned, as we found out last week. We cannot shirk these issues and we cannot dodge them; they are real in our lives.

We have also looked at the Theron commission report. There have been some attempts to shrug if off or to say that it is not as serious or as well presented as it might be, but it is nevertheless a fact that this presents a picture of a people who feel that they are suffering from grave disabilities and who will remain discontented until these are redressed. I believe that in the new situation which I have briefly tried to describe tonight, we must recognize that there is a new urgency, a new dimension and, above all, a new opportunity. This new presence, the looming expansionism of the Soviets in Africa, is a grave danger and we have few visible allies. We have also been faced with new difficulties, presented firstly by the riots and secondly by the report, and we have tended to some extent to dodge them, and I fear to shrug them off. Let us recognize that they present us with a new urgency and also with a new opportunity. If we properly understand the message and react accordingly, we may turn what has appeared in recent weeks and months to be a dark tide in South Africa’s history into the beginning of something much brighter, much more hopeful and much more real in the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the times we are living in are serious times, for various reasons. I should like to analyse the reasons for this now, at the end of this most interesting debate, a debate I have followed with intense interest. There are a few reasons why I am seriously questioning the times we are living through at present in South Africa. Firstly, there is the fact that the “uhuru” which started in Africa during the ’sixties, and which was, then far away from us, has now gradually moved nearer, until at present it is on our borders, due to the independence of Angola and Mozambique. The question which immediately arises, is: Will the Black nationalism which has arisen in Africa recently, also spread through South Africa as it has spread across the rest of Africa, or will there be a solution to the question? As a result of the developments in our immediate vicinity, and as a result of certain circumstances within our country, South Africa and Southern Africa are at present in the international limelight. That is the first reason.

The second reason is the fact that the balance of power in the world has been disturbed. While America and Russia continue to sign beautiful treaties relating to nuclear weapons, Russia is manufacturing conventional weapons at a tremendous rate and preparing for action, in order to place its whole economy on a war footing. In this process it has completely outwitted America with its military power. At present Europe is paralysed due to various circumstances, which I do not now wish to deal with in detail. The USA is at present divided due to an election and hesitant to act, due to an unfortunate conflict between the White House and Congress. These circumstances are making impudent little fellows in some parts of the world even more impudent. At the same time we are here dealing with the global strategy of world domination, Marxism, which has contributed to the fact that we in Southern Africa are at present enjoying the attention of Russia. We have become the target of imperialism from the Marxist world. That is a second reason why I think that these are grave times.

The third reason is interesting and has quite a long history. As far back as 1947, South Africa’s image in the international world at that time—and here I refer in particular to the UNO—was such that South Africa was in the dock. The National Party, or our present Prime Minister or our Minister were not in the dock. It was Gen. Smuts who was in the dock at the UNO in 1947, due to the treatment of Indians in South Africa. The problem have since continued to grow. In practice, our problem is the image of our country, a distorted, oversimplified image, an image which can fit conveniently into the people’s thoughts.

Hon. members know how easy it is to form an over-simplified image of a country. For example: Switzerland is immediately regarded as a country of snow, or whatever. India is immediately associated with a vast mass of people. And South Africa, as a result of these circumstances, is immediately regarded as a country where certain people suppress other people. This image arose as a result of a certain combination of events. It arose as a result of statements in those times, Press statements in those times, a distortion of facts about our country and as a result of the fact that sensation always gets the biggest newspaper headlines in the world. This applies to other media as well. Positive facts, however, are not necessarily news. It is sensation when slums and shanties are razed to the ground by bulldozers. Then one gets big headlines, but it is not news if 106 000 living units have been built for the Coloureds during the past 12 years, and if 450 000 living units have been erected for Blacks in the period between 1948 and 1974, at a cost of R300 million. That is not sensation. It does not get attention; it passes unheeded, while the small things that are sensational, immediately draw attention. It is sensational when one child in Soweto is turned away by the school principal because the school is full, and is then sent to another school, which is situated some distance away. Then there are immediately newspaper reports and front page headlines, as I have seen myself. It is not news when the expenditure for Bantu education is raised from R22 million to R149 million, viz. a sevenfold increase in a period of ten years, or when the number of school children increases from 850 000 to 3,5 million. But it is news and sensation when a White ambulance, one from the Municipality of Sandton—it is not a Nationalist municipality—does not want to pick up a non-White who had been injured in a motor car accident for one reason or another. It is sensation and causes big headlines, and South Africa is slandered as a result, but it is not news when R80 million is spent on health services for Black people, or the fact that maternity expenses for a Black mother in South Africa are equal to 1/600th of the maternity expenses for a mother in New York. That is not news; it is not sensation. I could continue in this vein, about, for example, the issue of the resettlement of people. It is sensation if a group of people is transferred from one place to a new place, to new homes, due to resettlement. It is a major sensation, but it is not big news when the UNO with all the resources and powers at its disposal, have spent $400 million on 38 developing countries in the ten years from 1962 to 1972, whereas over the same period, South Africa itself has spent $800 million in the homelands. That is twice as much as the UNO, with its whole appreciated effort which was announced with much fanfare. It is as a result of this type of situation that South Africa’s image has been undermined. I have a booklet here in my hand entitled The Anatomy of Apartheid, a booklet published by the UNO. In this book it is stated that Blacks in South Africa are not allowed to leave the country to travel, because they are refused passports.

The book has been banned here.

I do not object to that. The hon. member should not try to score a petty political point now.

What are you doing with it then?

I have it in my possession. What are the facts? It is here presented as a fact, for example, that 161 000 White persons visited other countries in a certain year as against a mere 5 800 non-Whites. The reason, which is vaguely put, is given as follows—

That is the type of thing which is being circulated throughout the world. If I may, I want to quote from the Press in South Africa. It is necessary for me to quote this here. The heading is: “Does press censorship exist in South Africa?” I quote—

I quote further—

That is the type of pamphlet and book which is sent out into the world and which South Africa has had to contend with since 1948. It is a false image which has to be corrected. Initially South Africa accepted the situation with resignation, but gradually there was a reaction. Initially our people reacted by saying: “Let the world say what they want to; we know what we are doing inside the country.” Gradually, opposition built up in South Africa and we made efforts on a large scale from our side to refute these falsehoods. Every decent Afrikaans-speaking person revolted against it. As we progressed, the other people with their panic-stricken behaviour against us also progressed. It was the period when the anti-campaign was taking place. Anti-South African organizations came into being in every part of the world. We were lacked out wherever it was practicable to do so. We were kicked out of the labour organizations, the health organizations, the agricultural organizations, the football organizations, etc. Then, gradually we began to succeed. Gradually there was a greater understanding of our attitudes, due to a sustained effort from all sides to set the facts straight. In this case, too, the old saying, “Truth will out”, has been vindicated. This was beautifully symbolized and personified in the success our Prime Minister has had with his visits abroad during the past few years. I am referring, for example, to his visit to South America, his visits in the past and present to Europe, his visit to Israel and also the consultations that are taking place at the moment. We have achieved success with this. We have even found that newspapers abroad are now writing about South Africa more positively than certain South African newspapers—I say it with hesitation.

Let me quote one or two articles relating to the recent events in Soweto which were published in European newspapers. The acting Prime Minister also quoted from similar newspapers in a brilliant speech this morning. Let me say at once—I believe it is necessary that it be said—that if a party has the ability to produce, as its second strongest man, a man like this Acting Prime Minister, how grateful should such a party be, and how grateful should such a country be. Let us continue. I quote from The Sunday Telegraph, which reported as follows—

This in an overseas newspaper! Let me continue—

How did The London Times handle the issue? I quote again—

That is the report which appeared in an overseas newspaper. For the first time in many years there was a little objectivity about such a matter. But what a fuss they kicked up about Sharpeville! I should like to quote one more excerpt, this time from the London Daily Mail, which reported as follows—

Then the answer they provide is—

It is an overseas newspaper which wrote this. How do our newspapers react—dangerously badly! I should like to give one single example—it does not deal with this specific affair, but with the budget as such. I quote from The Sunday Times of 4 April of this year. In an article by one Howard Lawrence, by way of reaction to the budget by the Minister of Finance one reads—

That is the Black people—

This is the story from another newspaper. I quote—

This is the kind of reporting we find in our own newspapers. Compare it now to the reporting overseas. The fact of the matter is that, as this success progressed the resistance of our opponents increased, and they became more fanatical and bolder in their actions. The increase in pressure on South Africa in the IMF, in the UNO, in the anti-apartheid movements and in the World Council of Churches, as well as in a multitude of lesser important minority groups, is directly proportional to the success we are achieving at home—in the implementation of our policy—and abroad—through a greater acceptance of our position and standpoint. The greater our success, the more fanatical and extremistic the protestations and actions of our opponents will become. They cannot afford our being accepted and our policy bringing about a peaceful solution in Africa. According to their standards it may not succeed. At present, too, this is culminating in their deeds and their actions. In the present dispensation as well, and in all the matters with which we have to contend at the moment, this is part of the picture; this culmination of hostility towards South Africa.

A fourth issue caused by this position is the question of world inflation, something which South Africa has not been spared either. Money has become scarcer, and in the nature of things services in all spheres have become more expensive. This has happened while expenditure on essentials has increased. Coupled with this, of course, we have the minority groups in our own country, people who would not like this success to go from strength to strength, and who are also making their attempts to oppose it. Those minority groups exist in every population sector of our country; as I see it. They are caused by dissatisfaction among minorities. These aspects are now all culminating, in the period in which we find ourselves at present, in tremendously difficult situations in which—I estimate—we will continue to find ourselves for the next two to three years.

How do the various political parties wish to cope with this situation now? First I want to turn to the PRP. The actions of the PRP in regard to this difficult matter—a communist onslaught; all these things—still continues to be these … and I am asking them to repudiate this openly, if it is not true …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I see that hon. member is already becoming irritable, even before I have been able to say what it is. In the first place, the hon. member for Houghton said in this House that, if the PRP should come into power, it would recognize the communist party as a political party in South Africa.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Do those hon. members repudiate her statement, or do they deny it? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No, I am asking whether the hon. member accepts this.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in this House, the hon. member for Houghton, as PRP speaker, said that if her party should come into power they would legalize the domestic use of dagga. [Interjections.] Do those hon. members repudiate that?

It is her own business! [Interjections.]

Her own business? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton said that her party would legalize the domestic use of dagga. Does the hon. the Leader of the PRP support her in that? Surely he is also a member of that party, is he not?

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry the hon. member for Yeoville is not present here at the moment. He is the only man in that party to whom I can speak. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville, of course, belongs to a party, the political future of which he is himself very doubtful in his heart of hearts. [Interjections.] It is true. I shall quote the hon. member for Yeoville’s own words here. I am terribly sorry he is not here. It would have been so much more enjoyable if he had been. [Interjections.] It would have been far more enjoyable. According to a report in the Pretoria News dated 20 August 1973 the hon. member for Yeoville said the following—

And now he is a member of that party! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Acting Prime Minister took that party to task today on the statements made by the hon. Senator Bamford in regard to Black majority government. They were perfectly presented. [Interjections.] I have his Hansard here. In the first place: “Can a Black person get on to the common voters’ roll?” The reply was “Yes”. Can a Black man become Prime Minister of South Africa? The reply was “Yes”. Is he in favour of a Black majority government? The answer was “Yes”.

That question does not appear in Hansard.

It does appear in Hansard, and I shall show it to the hon. member. [Interjections.] Since the hon. member is objecting so strenuously, I want to quote another source to him, a source which I may in fact quote. The hon. member for Houghton went abroad last year, and was interviewed on Australian television. This appeared on 8 September 1975 in the programme “Monday Conference in Melbourne”. The following question was put to the hon. member—

Surely the question is crystal clear. The hon. member for Houghton gave the following reply—

[Interjections.] Then they put the following question to the hon. member—

The reply of the hon. member for Houghton was as follows—

[Interjections.] Here is the proof. The hon. member for Houghton said in a television interview that there would immediately be 50% Black representation.

Put it to her.

But that hon. member is after all the leader of the party; it is his party’s policy. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary for one to state the facts. I do not think there is any doubt in this House—and I think the voters of South Africa should be aware of this—that this party is asking for the support of voters in an election so that, if they do perhaps come into power by mistake one day, they can hand it over immediately to a Black majority government. That is as simple as it is.

That is not true.

The hon. member can say it is not true if he likes, but this is a verbatim report of that interview. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those hon. members still have the idea of a Black majority government at the back of their minds. Here we have the evidence, and I do not even want to argue it further, because it is true. What is the language of Africa? In this regard I want to agree with the hon. member for Carletonville, for Africa speaks its own language and it differs from the language of Europe and America. We are part of Africa, and I think it was best stated at the time by Dr. Nkrumah, the former leader of Ghana, when he said the following at the opening of the first OAU conference—

This is Africa’s view. In the 43 independent African states which exist, there are only eight in which two political parties are still tolerated. In 20 there are one-party civil governments, and in 15 there are military dictatorships. That is the picture Africa presents, and the hon. members of the PRP wish to proceed on this course.

But I do not only want to deal with that party. In the short time I have at my disposal, I want to come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Three people were warned by a judge during the recent events in Soweto. It is interesting to see which three these were. It included a someone from the Christian Institute, someone from the South African Council of Churches and someone from the PRP. These three were beautifully classified together. However, it is not only the PRP which liases with the Christian Institute. I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow—he is not present here at the moment—whether he is still a member of the Christian Institute. According to the original information he was a member of the Christian Institute. I also want to ask the hon. member for Edenvale and Bezuidenhout whether they are still co-operating with the Christian Institute on their Sprocas project. I am merely asking questions. The hon. members may say “no” if they like.

That was years ago.

Oh, I see. I want to ask another question as well. Four members of the UP were originally invited to co-operate in the collective attempts of the Christian Institute and the South African Council of Churches to make a study of Christianity in an apartheid society. The four members of the UP who were invited were Dr. G. Jacobs, Mr. J. D. du P. Basson, Mr. Mike Mitchell and Senator Eric Winchester.

[Inaudible.]

No, I just want to point out that the Christian Institute and certain UP members could possibly be associated. So I can continue. My time is almost up, and I am sorry about that, because I am not going to complete my speech. My problem in practice is that we in South Africa are faced with a situation in which we have so many positive things at present which we are able to develop. I can think of two, in a hurry, and I am enumerating them in the short while I have in which to complete my speech.

In the first place I want to say that communism is not finding a foothold in Africa. That is to our advantage. The African Continent has rejected communism throughout. We must utilize this fact to the full. No political party in Africa is a communist party. They used the communists to come into office and to gain support. Time and again however, they established their own national parties after independence, with a nationalistic love of what was their own. At present Mozambique and Angola are still under communist control, but I believe that, as in the case of other countries in Africa, it is merely a question of time before they are eliminated and replaced by other governments. This is a fact. This is the position.

Secondly, we already have more positive links with Africa. Our success in our relations with numerous States is beyond doubt, and we are achieving more and more liaison with moderate African States that declare openly that they are prepared to accept South Africa as an African State because it has followed the road of liberation from colonial domination, as they also did. This is a firm and positive step. I want to go further. An ever-growing group of responsible people, Black, Brown and Indian, are prepared to accept the benefits of the Government and its policy and to co-operate to the benefit of their own people, and to do so in spite of the fact that they do not in their hearts agree with all aspects of the policy. I can continue in this way.

In the minute that I have left, I must say that there is growing support for our present Prime Minister, across all party lines. If there was ever one clear example of this in recent times, it was the by-election in Durban North, where the image of our Prime Minister was so strong that we attracted far more votes than we had ever laid claim to. We are now saddled with this problem: What is the solution on the road ahead? We need responsibility, responsible conduct on the part of everyone, every speaker, every writer. Regardless of what party he belongs to, he has to be responsible in his actions in the serious times in which we are living at present. In addition responsible thinking is required, and the Government has to adopt a responsible attitude with every decision which it takes. The Opposition has to act in a responsible way, and even the PRP has to act in a responsible way, if they can. What is required is responsibility in the interests of South Africa, for I believe that we are at present entering a period of two or three difficult years, which we will have to negotiate and overcome with the necessary tact and wisdom. Before us lies an era of several decades for which the guiding principles have to be drawn up now, so that we can continue to co-exist peacefully in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. the Minister meant by dragging Sprocas, and the few names he mentioned, into the debate. There was never any doubt about the situation, and the hon. the Minister ought to know that. Sprocas was a study group which wanted to seek a new constitution for South Africa, and I was one of those invited to take part. My reply was that I was a member of a political party with a specific policy and that consequently I was unable to be a party to studies seeking a different policy. However I expressed my preparedness to serve as an adviser and I served in that capacity—this is indicated in all the documents—in the Sprocas study group and submitted proposals to them as to how, in my opinion, federalism in South Africa ought to work. I shall also come and address the hon. the Minister’s congress on the issue of federalism with the greatest pleasure, if he invites me to do so.

In one respect the hon. the Minister was correct. He said that over the past few years there had been an improvement in South Africa’s image. This is so, but where I do not agree with him is his statement that this is the result of a better understanding and a greater acceptance of the policy of the Government. It is just the opposite. The image has only improved to the extent that the Government has departed from its old policy and its negative policy. Our image has improved to the extent that the Government has changed its sport policy, its hotel policy and other things—just as we have been telling the Government for years. If the Government really carries out its promises and abolishes negative apartheid, and carries out its promise to move away from discrimination, there will be no problem as regards South Africa’s image abroad. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will learn the lesson of what is necessary to normalize South Africa’s relations with the rest of the world.

The NP fought the last election, and the various by-elections which followed it, with the cry of “prosperity, security and stability”. In point of fact it made a promise to the country in this connection, and at the end of this session one has the right to ask what has become of that prosperity, security and stability for the country which the Government promised in such abundance. We certainly have had nothing in this long session to instil in us any hope for greater prosperity. Everywhere one finds anxiety about the struggle to make a living, which is becoming more and more difficult, about employment opportunities which are dwindling and about expenses which are constantly mounting.

As far as our security—the second of the great promises—is concerned, we are unfortunately ending this session against the background of chaos and arson in the country. As a result there is a noticeable feeling of insecurity and uncertainty among large sectors of the population. I am sorry to say that unfortunately there is nothing in the attitude and the statements of the Government to give one any confidence that things will improve in future. For everything that goes wrong in this country, the members of the Government have only one explanation: It is agitators and communists. They also have only one solution. That is legislation and still more legislation. Of course there are agitators in South Africa. There are communists, too. But there are agitators in every situation; White and non-White. For example, when White workers agitate for higher wages and strikes, then in that case, too, there is a man who takes the lead, someone whom one could call the chief agitator in the picture. Successful agitation is always based on a situation in which dissatisfaction already exists. The task of government, of good government, is to ensure that situations do not occur anywhere or among any population group in which agitation can get out of hand. This is one of the major weaknesses of the present Government. Time and again, particularly in non-White situations, it fails to take positive and timely action to prevent delicate situations from getting out of hand. Unfortunately the Government’s contact with the real feelings of the Black world in South Africa is hopelessly inadequate. It is so inadequate that I have no confidence that it will fare any better in future. We experienced this again yesterday for the umpteenth time when the hon. the Minister of Community Development spoke. He said that because in terms of Government policy the Black man is destined to become a citizen of another State one day, he cannot, in contrast to the intention of the Government with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians, be brought into any formal institution in which political contact between White and Black can be ensured. What a standpoint to adopt! Because it is the party-political policy of the present Government that the millions of Black citizens in South Africa will become foreigners in South Africa one day, if everything works out, they cannot now be taken up into either consultative or other bodies in which the common interest of all may be discussed. This is one of the biggest problems we have with this Government. It is uninformed and it is out of touch with and indifferent to the needs of the vast majority of the population. Consequently it will be unable to ensure security and peace in South Africa for us. The whole development of the parliamentary democratic system in the world, particularly in England—which often went hand in hand with violence—occurred precisely because the kings and the nobility in those times were so far removed from the needs of the ordinary man that they were simply unable to understand the problems of the “commoner”. This is a tragic fact. Just consider what has now happened in South Africa, too. Here we sit in this Parliament like the kings and the nobility of old. We are cut off from the masses.

It is typical of the situation that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs referred twice today to the “satisfied masses” when he discussed the masses of Soweto. We only hear the voice of these people when it suits us and when we can set aside an hour or two to conduct a little dialogue with them. There is nobody in South Africa on which White and Black can speak to each other in the open, man to man. All I want to say to that is that history has ugly examples of what has eventually happened to the nobility in such situations. Take the issue of the school situation in Soweto. We all realize that this is not the only reason for the large-scale riots and uprisings which occurred. However, it was indeed a contributory cause in a limited context. It was a situation which, from the start, was amenable to wider exploitation. The Government ought to have been aware of it. After all, the school issue is not a new issue which has ignited in Soweto. As long ago as 1974, the homeland leaders warned the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Prime Minister and discussed the matter with them. They insisted that the Prime Minister see to it that as far as the Bantu were concerned, the same rules as regards instruction be adopted in the urban areas as those which applied to the children in the homeland territories. Why could this not be done? I have here in my hand a statement issued at the time. It is an interesting document today in the light of what has happened. It is entitled: “Statement on the Conference of Homeland Leaders with the Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, Union Buildings, Pretoria, 6 March 1974.” This report was issued by the Department of Information. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

That was 1974. Apparently either nothing was done, or else neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development resolved the matter satisfactorily and complied with the wishes of the Bantu. Now, let us, as Whites, be fair. Let us take a comparable example. What would the reactions of English-speaking Whites be if well-known English schools in South Africa were to be compelled today—and furthermore, compelled by an Afrikaans-speaking Government—to implement double-medium instruction in its syllabi? Would they accept it? Or how would it be if there were a predominantly English-language Government and it were to compel Jan van Riebeeck and other Afrikaans-language schools to implement double-medium instruction?

That is not a comparable situation.

Of course it is comparable! After all, we have learned from history, or we ought to have learned, what emotions are unleashed by such matters. Does the Government, then, never learn from history? Undoubtedly—we all concede this—it is in the best interests of all our young people, White and Black, that both should be taught both official languages at least as subjects in all schools in South Africa. We concede that, it is our policy, but why should the Government apply double standards as far as the non-Whites are concerned? Why is the White community, but not the Bantu, given the right to its own medium of instruction in schools? Surely this is a clear-cut matter which ought to be left to each cultural group and each population group in South Africa to decide. Through its actions the Government has done the Afrikaans-language no favour. I am sorry to say it, but it is an unpleasant fact, an unfortunate fact, that due to its unsympathetic policy towards the non-White peoples, the Government, which is regarded as an Afrikaans-language Government, has done irreparable harm to the furtherance of Afrikaans outside its own ranks and in the ranks of the other peoples in South Africa.

I have said that the whole issue of instruction in schools was not the sole cause of the riots, because there is resistance to the Government’s whole tone of government, particularly in the urban areas. As I have already said, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs used the expression “satisfied masses” two or three times this morning when he was discussing Soweto. If there is anyone who believes that there are satisfied masses there, as the kings of old regarded the masses, then he is simply not listening to the voice of the Bantu leaders at any level. Then he is not even listening to the voice of those Bantu leaders with whom the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government conduct dialogue now and again. We need not argue here about who the acknowledged Bantu leaders are to whom the hon. the Minister of Defence referred, except to say that in Rhodesia, our hon. Prime Minister encouraged Mr. Smith to negotiate with Mr. Joshua Nkomo and other banned leaders. These are the people whom he regarded as the true leaders. However I shall be quite satisfied if the Government—including the hon. the Minister—would only listen to what the homeland leaders were saying to the Government, and to the warnings they were addressing to the Government, because they achieved their present positions under the Government. To them it would be enough if they were only given a hearing.

However, the Government does not listen. If I am wrong; I want to invite the Government to publish a table, once and for all, listing all the urgent representations that have been made to the Government over the last five years by representatives of the Bantu, the Indian Council and the Coloured Council, and to provide, alongside this table, a list of the recommendations which the Government has accepted and has been prepared to carry out. The public will be shocked to see how few practical results have in fact come out of the much-vaunted dialogue between the leaders of the Government and the leaders of the unprivileged masses. This morning the hon. the Minister of Defence waxed lyrical about the fact that it was under the present Prime Minister that it had happened for the first time that—and I quote his words—“vir die eerste maal om ’n ronde tafel met Nieblankes gesit is”. Surely that is not true. Does he not know the politics of South Africa? Round table conferences with non-White leaders were a common occurrence under the UP. My goodness, have they forgotten about the well-known case of Minister Hofmeyr’s round-table conference with the leaders of the Bunga? If I must mention examples, that is only one example. One could also go back to the days when Mahatma Gandhi lived in South Africa and when round table agreements were concluded between the Government and the Indians, and Gen. Smuts was involved in that. Dialogue is not an invention of this Government. It was a common phenomenon in the past, so common that we did not even talk about it. Nevertheless everyone, UP or not, learned one lesson from dialogue, and that was that dialogue was not enough. One must not pat oneself on the back and say that one is conducting dialogue and that is that. No, dialogue must lead to results, and now I want to quote a practical example of what our difficulty is. In 1971, five years ago, the hon. the Prime Minister—and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education was also present—addressed a deputation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Windhoek. The deputation was headed by Bishop Auala. That was on 18 August 1971. I now just want to quote a single excerpt from the representations made by the Bishop. However, I wish I could read the whole appeal here, and then ask what on earth became of it, because five years have now passed. I quote—

These are Bishop Auala’s words. I quote further—

It is dignity that these people are seeking. I read further—

That is the heart of the matter. I now want to reply to a point mentioned by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He asked why no notice was taken of schools which were being built and money which was being given. What does Bishop Auala say about that? He states—

They acknowledge this. As he goes on to say—

The Government can build as many houses as they want. However, what really matters to people is that they are treated as inferior. When human dignity is injured, then to them, that is the dominant factor. This does not apply to the Black man alone; it has also been the case in the history of the Afrikaner. The Black students are often reproached today with the language they use. However, one can cast a backward gaze at the history of the students of Afrikanerdom. They spoke the same kind of language when they felt, rightly or wrongly, that they were being oppressed.

After the dialogue which the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration conducted with the Lutheran Church—those Black leaders in South West Africa—what then became of the matter? Allow me to quote just this one excerpt, because I do not have time for more. The church administration subsequently issued a letter to indicate how that dialogue had fared. It is an official document and I quote from it as follows (it is dated 25 August 1971)—

Not only do they find the dialogue unsatisfactory, but the results are lacking, too. It was not long after that that we had one of the biggest strikes among the Ovambos that South West has ever experienced. Today in South West Africa we are reaping the bitter fruits of the years of delay on the part of the Government. What could have been set right five years ago in a climate of peace, when there was peace in South West Africa, must now be tackled under pressure, while the terrorist threat from across the borders is mounting. Today, although my friends here do not want to admit it, the White man in South West Africa is facing the naked choice of having to co-operate with the non-White population groups in the social, economic and political spheres, or getting out. They have no other choice. The tragedy is that the Government guided the White inhabitants of the territory so wrongly that the Whites have already lost the advantages they would have had if their adjustments could have been effected timeously, when a climate of peace prevailed. The adjustments they are now obliged to make under the compulsion of circumstances will unfortunately be regarded as weakness.

It is of vital importance in the Republic of South Africa today that there should be a body in which all the various population groups of South Africa can thrash out their joint interests and problems, openly and frankly, and not behind closed doors, and can make a joint effort to resolve those issues. It is unimportant whether one calls it a council of nations or a council of state, and its initial form, too, is unimportant. It is the principle that counts. Apart from the European Community, the Common Market, there is in Europe today the European Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which sits in Strasbourg and meets annually for a month. The ministers of foreign affairs of the member countries usually participate, and the member countries comprise 18 democratic countries of Europe. They meet annually in public and discuss and deal with the joint problems of Europe. The practice is that ministers of foreign affairs go there to participate in the discussions. Anyone who studies the history and the activities of the “European Parliament”, will be struck by the problems they have surmounted in this way, without any of the member countries giving up their identity or their sovereignty. Decisions on any matter can be taken. The only matter that is excluded is defence. Apart from that the European Parliament can take any decisions, but the provision is that every decision taken must be ratified by each of the national Parliaments. From 1978, elections for the European Parliament are to be held in every country on a popular basis.

The point I want to make is that if sovereign democratic countries in Europe have such common interests that they feel that they must sit together somewhere in a European Parliament without one dominating the other, how much more necessary is it, in the times we are living in, to establish something of the kind for the various peoples living here within the same political borders? This approach forms the basis of the whole federal idea: Co-operation without anyone being in a position to dominate the other. The hon. the Minister of Defence said this morning “nowhere in Africa did a unitary constitution succeed”.

†I am sorry, but he is wrong. It is not a question of this continent or that continent or of Africa. The simple fact is that unitary constitutions do not normally succeed anywhere in the world where there is a multinational or a plural society of diverse communities within one political country. That is precisely why we are in favour of a federal constitution and why we propagate a model in which people can co-operate without one dominating the other. Federal models have proved their worth and their stability in countries with plural societies.

*Now, I know that the Government has chosen the road of partition for the Black man. I want to say at once that the policy of partition between White and Black is not inherently wrong if it is carried out in such a way as to be acceptable to White and Black. No one says that it is inherently a wrong policy. The Transkei has, in general, accepted the idea of partition and will become independent later this year. However, when we look at the statement made a few days ago by the leader of the Transkei, Kaiser Matanzima, then it is clear that he was not speaking as a man who was pleased that he was becoming independent, but rather as a man who was bitter about the way in which it had been done and who was full of reproaches because, as he put it, he had been compelled by apartheid and the situation here to separate from the Republic. I am sorry to have to say it, but it is true and it is definitely not a good start for the partition model. The fires of peace which the Government thought the Black people in South Africa would light, have simply not materialized—other fires than those have been burning. If the first model of independence does not bring peace, then it is too much to expect that it will be followed by the other Black peoples. The Government has made partition its policy and, as I have said, inherently there is nothing wrong with it if it is acceptable to those who are affected by it, but if the Government believes in the partition idea as the final solution to the question of White and Black relations, why, then, does the Government not settle the whole matter now? Surely the Government will concede that if partition cannot succeed today, it will be still less able to succeed in the future because time is not on our side as regards the solution of our problems. Our problems are not becoming easier. This morning the hon. acting Prime Minister sketched the background of the communist expansion which is growing around us. That is correct. However the position is far more dangerous than he thinks, but I was quite unable to follow his logic, since against such a background it is more necessary than ever that we should resolve the relations issue in South Africa with the greatest possible promptitude. The Government has shown no sign of realizing this, particularly with regard to the Coloureds. If partition is the answer for White and Black, why can negotiations not be initiated immediately with all the Black peoples, the final border-lines determined and the matter settled?

That is a stupid question.

If it cannot happen now, why should it happen in the future? My goodness, that is the problem with this Government—it plays with the time given to the country, but it solves nothing, whether the issue is South West or the Black territories. How many Sowetos must there be before the Government takes positive action? When we were discussing the riots here, it struck me that on two occasions the hon. the Minister of Justice expressed his concern in this House about the use of arson as a weapon and about the vast scale on which it was being used. There is hardly a person, White or non-White, who does not walk around with a box of matches in his pocket. About this situation concern has been expressed in Johannesburg. It is our biggest and most densely populated city. It is the heart of our industrial world. Soweto is only a city at night-time. In the daytime Soweto lives and works in Johannesburg. It is no wonder, therefore, that the people of Johannesburg are filled with the deepest concern about what the consequences could be if the workers of Soweto were to start rioting within Johannesburg on a large scale. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will not take it amiss of me if I do not react directly to what I consider to be the strange and unrealistic picture he painted here this evening of the state of affairs in his own country and of his interpretation of the policy of this Government. It is hoped that my attitude towards the point of view he adopted here once again will be fairly evident from my speech.

I want to say immediately that I am glad to be able to be on my feet at last. I have been sitting here for two days and I think that I have listened to a few dozen speeches during that time—perhaps for an unbroken period of 16 or 17 hours—and I speak with conviction when I say that I am glad to be on my feet. I am also glad that I am being afforded the opportunity to be able to reply to some of the statements and arguments advanced here, particularly by certain hon. members of the Opposition parties. From the nature of the case the debate covered a very wide field. Of course, this is something one can expect from a budget debate. In this case it was perhaps to be expected to a greater extent than usual. There is a great deal one can say about the report of the Theron Commission concerning Coloured Affairs in South Africa. There is a great deal one can say about the homelands, about the events in Soweto, and so on. The brilliant speech made by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister was perhaps the climax of the debate. [Interjections.] … a speech, which to my mind, stated quite clearly and unequivocally the policy of this Government concerning many important aspects of our community. Another very remarkable aspect of this debate—at least as far as I am concerned—was the manner in which the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations drove the hon. the Leader of the Opposition into a corner on the important matter of identity. When the hon. the Minister asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the Coloured people had an identity, the reply was, surprisingly enough, “No.” The hon. the Minister then asked him why he wanted to establish two legislative assemblies for the Coloured people, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied that the Coloured people were a separate group. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was referring to was apartheid, while we were referring to separate development. [Interjections.]

It was indeed a strange debate. [Interjections.] There is something else I want to say, but when one says it, the hon. the Opposition usually reacts in their characteristic manner. I am nevertheless going to say it. The hon. the Opposition was altogether outclassed by the performance of—something I shall refer to later—the financial and economic team of this side of the House under the able leadership of the hon. member for Ermelo. [Interjections.] One need only compare the speech made by the hon. member for Constantia with that made by the hon. member for Ermelo, and I have proved my case. [Interjections.] It is also really strange that the hon. members of the Opposition parties could refer to economic and financial matters and criticize the Government. It is very easy to criticize. Anyone can criticize. However, it is not so easy to be constructive when one expresses criticism. Those hon. members never told us what the world was like in which we are living, in which we are working and in which we are trading; this world of which we are an integral part.

South Africa is a major and important trading country. The value of our imports and our exports constitutes more than 50% of the gross domestic product. We have that high trading tendency. This has always been the case, and it is very important to us. As a matter of fact, it is becoming increasingly important for us to bear in mind the economic circumstances prevailing in the world today. We know there is a world-wide economic depression today, an economic depression we have been experiencing for the past 12 to 18 months, a depression such as the world has not experienced since the great depression of the early ’thirties. We know that there was a considerable drop in the price of gold, something which was beyond our control, but nevertheless affects us directly. We are aware of the fact that there is largescale unemployment in the most powerful economic countries of the world. In America there are still more than 8,5 million unemployed people. In Germany there are 1,3 million, if not more by now. In France and Britain there are also far more than one million unemployed people. This is the situation in the world today. Where is the number of unemployed people in South Africa, something hon. members compare so easily with the outside world? Our growth rate, as normally measured, is still a positive one, but what is the position in the world’s strongest economic countries in this regard? The growth rate has been negative for 18 consecutive months. That is the position. But these facts are never presented to the House when we are being criticized.

†We have the usual amalgam of gloom and doom; nothing is right. I would say that the substantial fall in the gold price, from roughly $165 a year ago to $125 today, together with the depression in our export markets and the fact that the general forecasts of improvements in world markets that were made a year ago and earlier, have not eventuated to anything like the extent that was then mentioned—these factors alone, have caused us in our balance of payments to suffer to the extent of close on R1 000 million. Our State revenues have suffered to the extent of at least R500 million. That is my conservative estimate. Despite that, what have we achieved? We have maintained a positive growth, which makes us one of the few countries in the world that did, and we have not only maintained our essential economic infrastructure, but have also steadily increased and expanded that infrastructure all the time. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Transport, can tell us what is happening at Saldanha Bay and at Richards Bay. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs can tell us what has happened with the normal expansion, on a huge scale, at Escom and Iscor, and the development of the new Sasol. All these things are being carried forward together under these difficult conditions that we have in the world today. We also have very difficult conditions in the world capital markets. While we have done that, we have also continued to provide and increase the essential services of this country, services like education, training and health. More than that, we have been able, under these conditions, substantially to alleviate the lot of those who can least stand and bear the ravages of inflation. That is what we have done. We do not get credit from our critics, but the facts are there and they stare us in the face. It was very interesting to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had more to say about the economic and financial state of affairs than usual, and I welcome it. I do not know whether he was anticipating the difficulties which his colleague, the hon. member for Constantia, was going to have in putting his case and accordingly decided to get in first.

However that may be, I want to say, to take the first point, that the hon. member for Constantia rather lost himself and used a very regrettable phrase. However, I shall leave that now. He spoke about the budget. Because we increased certain budgetary estimates in the supplementary budget we Were told that this is a dishonest budget. If the hon. member for Constantia does not understand the budgetary system of this country, then he must not throw epithets around the House which do him no credit. What is the position? When I introduced my budget at the end of March, I said quite clearly that R40 million would have to be found for the raising of pensions. That is in the supplementary estimates. I also said that it looked as if I would have to provide another R50 million for Iscor. We were still looking into that. It is in my budget speech. I said we needed R50 million. It is no use the hon. member shaking his head. Why does he not read my budget speech? I said there that it was likely that we would have to find substantially more this year. The two added together give R90 million of which I gave notice in my budget speech. What remained in the supplementary estimates? R97 million, in fact due to an increase subsidy on maize. Does the hon. member object to that? Does he object to lighten the burden on the consuming public? Does he object to it that we could push up the maize subsidy by R7 million? A further R90 million was for salary increases. And yesterday the hon. member for Constantia criticized me for this, and I went out of my way to explain it to him. I said I was in no position, when I formulated my budget estimates in March, to know what the provision for any salary increases would be, because this matter was still being negotiated. And these negotiations are not as easy as the hon. member may think. I could not put a hypothetical figure in my budget.

What is the purpose of a supplementary budget, which is written into our system, if it is not precisely to provide for that sort of item? The hon. member, no doubt spurred on by the sort of talk of the hon. member for Yeoville, who talked of window-dressing in the budget without giving any examples, comes along and says this is not an honest budget. I do not have to get up and justify the budget. When I was overseas a month or two ago I once again had the opportunity to speak to some of the world’s leading international bankers, people who know what is going on, because it is their very life to know what is going on in the different countries of the world, especially in countries where they are putting in big amounts of capital. I was greatly heartened when one of the greatest bankers in the world—and I am quite prepared to give the hon. member his name in private if he thinks I am merely trying to score a point—said to me that what he liked most about the budget was that it was a professional budget. He said what he liked most was the financial discipline in the budget. Why did he say this? What did we do? We had to provide R1 350 million for defence and we do this gladly because it is priority number one. Last year that figure was nearly R1 000 million and the year before a little over R600 million. That is the order of the escalation of these essential costs that had to be provided. Despite that, we only increased the budget, even after including these things, by something like between 12% and 13%. That is about 1% or 1½% away from the present rate of inflation as measured from 12 months to 12 months. However, it is about the equivalent of the inflation rate measured in terms of the seasonally adjusted index. We have held the line. Under the most difficult conditions we have carried out the undertaking we gave, viz. that we would not increase the budget in real terms.

It is very easy for hon. members to ask in this House what has happened to the anti-inflation manifesto. My colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, and some of his colleagues have taken a great deal of trouble over this. I believe that we have done very well. If you look at the figure just before we started, it was 14%. Today it is under 11% in this difficult world we live in. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the inflation rate here is higher than in the United States and a number of European countries with whom we deal. If you take the group of 9 EEC countries—a very important group—their average inflation rate at this moment is 12% per annum. 12% per annum is higher than ours and that is the position in nine of the important countries of Europe. If you take the 24 important industrial countries that form the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development you will find that their annual rate today is nearly 10%.

How did you work out the average?

We worked it out as a weighted average. As a matter of fact these things are worked out and are available. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition falls into the same trap as some other Opposition spokesmen when he does not really have the full facts and does not analyse the facts. He talks about incompetence on the part of the Government. That is very easy. A hundred years ago Gladstone, the famous Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain, said that it was a most remarkable thing, but that it was a fact of life that when revenue was buoyant and when the financial situation in the country was easy, the Minister of Finance was the hero of the country. As soon as revenue became sluggish and as soon as the financial position became more difficult he was the villain of the piece.

Then you have something in common with the Minister of Defence.

As the Acting Prime Minister says, I have something in common with him and I am very proud to be able to say that. In a moment I am going to remind the House of a few of the steps we have taken in the situation we have been in.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that our reserves are chronically under pressure, that exchange control is inadequate to prevent leads and lags, and so on, that there is a continual resorting to devaluation and that, as regards the weighted average of market trends on world Stock Exchanges, the JSE is near the bottom of the list of the Stock Exchanges. I want to deal with a few of these issues.

I refer firstly to the question of the reserves. A year ago the reserves stood at R720 million. Today they vary between R800 and R900 million. A sudden drop in the price of gold was experienced during September last year. This was a very substantial drop and we, who were in Washington at the time, saw what was going on. At that stage the reserves took an even bigger knock but we stepped in immediately because we were having this very substantial speculation against the rand where in a matter of two weeks at one stage during September we lost something like R200 million in speculation. This is money that went out of the country and that had to be stopped immediately. One could not do it by import control and one could not do it by means of deflationary monetary, credit and fiscal policy because it could not take effect in time. We could not do it by those methods, and so we devalued. When we devalued we devalued by enough to ensure that if the price of gold fell still further or if it rose and fell again later we would have taken the necessary precautionary steps to handle the situation. That is precisely what happened, and whereas the reserves were R700 million a year ago they were R940 million at the end of the year. Today, despite the very difficult six-month period that we have now come through, where especially during the first quarter there has been enormous stockpiling of imports by people in South Africa, and where we had to finance the import of strategic materials on a big scale for obvious reasons, our reserves are still standing at between R800 and R900 million today. Is that not an achievement? What do the reserves of some of the other important economic countries in the world look like? They are in deficit and are borrowing. Look what happened to Britain the other day. How many countries of the world had to get together immediately with a vast salvage operation to save the British economy? We have not had any aid or assistance from anybody whomsoever. We did this on our own initiative. In my humble opinion, we stand comparison with any country in the world. However, we hear nothing but criticism from our hon. friends. These are the facts.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks about the rand. He says the value of our monetary unit is at present at a severe discount. The International Monetary Fund, the world authority on finance, with something like 130 members, chose the currencies of 16 member countries in order to establish, by a weighted average principle, the value of the Special Drawing Rights that they toy with. They think this will be a great alternative to gold. It is a remarkable thing that the rand is one of a select group of currencies that is used to determine the value of the Special Drawing Rights. That is quite an achievement. There are many other currencies that I can mention that have not been included. But the rand is one of the sixteen, together with the dollar, the German Mark, the Swiss franc, the French franc and a number of others. The rand is there. I think it is very easy to say these things, but it reminds me of what the British economist, Lord Robbins, said to me a few years ago when I happened to be in London. We were talking about the currency at the time and he said to me: “You know, not one man in 10 000 understands the currency question and I meet him every day.” This is what I could not help thinking when I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Take the question of exchange control. I would have thought the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have complimented us. Last August we introduced substantial improvements to the exchange control regulations. We introduced a securities rand in the place of the old blocked rand. We improved that whole position and we have had a great deal of praise from overseas and from people in this country about these measures. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says our exchange control is inadequate to prevent leads and lags. If a man who earns foreign exchange abroad and is under legal obligation to bring it back, but does not bring it back—as happened last year at the time of the rapid fall in the gold price, because it was thought that we would devalue and people were told this—what do we do? We can only do our very best to tighten the regulations and go and find those people. Hundreds of millions were involved against the South African balance of payments. That is what we had to contend with.

The hon. member for Constantia again said that we should never have devalued. I want to ask him to sit down and work out what the position would have been in this country if we had not devalued the rand in September last year. I want him to do that calculation. We did these calculations in detail, and to the very best of our ability. I want to tell the House that if we had not devalued the rand, our reserves and our balance of payments, would truly have been in a very grave state today. That would have been the position. It was absolutely essential to take that action. I say it was completely correct. From among all the experts who have discussed these things with us in South Africa, the people who have really had experience of these things in practice and abroad—the big international bankers, the IMF and others—I have yet to hear a word of criticism against that devaluation. When the IMF sent an extremely competent mission to this country in October last year to look at the state of our economy, as they do from time to time in member countries, there was not a single word of criticism of the devaluation, although it had taken place just before they came. They went into the whole position, and they were not prepared to criticize that move. We talk about the Stock Exchange and the prices there. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “The Minister of Finance boasts of foreign confidence in investment here.” It is not a case of boasting; it is a case of my wanting the facts to be known. The hon. member knows that last year under very difficult conditions we attracted one of the largest amounts of foreign capital in our history. It was roughly R1 750 million, of which nearly R600 million was private capital, in the private sector. The figures for the first quarter of this year will shortly be produced. The Reserve Bank Bulletin should be out in a few days. That bulletin will show the figures for the first quarter of this year.

I think the Leader of the Opposition is going to receive a very pleasant surprise in that in that quarter, which was one of the most difficult we have gone through and probably the world has been through since 1930, our performance in attracting foreign capital was extremely impressive. The figures will all be given, but it is a very substantial amount for both private and official capital. That is the figure to give when one talks about confidence in South Africa in the investment market. Recently I was in Germany and Switzerland and I spoke to some of the top industrialists in those countries, apart from the bankers. Time and again they discussed with me projects they had for investing money on a large scale in South Africa. They showed me some of their plans. They were some of the biggest groups in those countries. That is what is going on. A famous American banker sent me a message the other day when the Soweto riots were at their height and said that he wanted me to know that as far as the effect on his bank was concerned, in relation to us, and also some of their friends that they deal with—and this is on a big scale—it had not even had a ripple effect. Such is the confidence in the management of this country’s economy and what is going on here. These are the facts. One gets a little tired of this superficial hit and run criticism of mismanagement. Why does the hon. member for Constantia who has fallen into this trap not quote us chaper and verse? I shall answer him on every single point.

Hon. members spoke about high tax rates and authoritarian measures taken by the Minister of Finance to raise taxes. These are not authoritarian measures. They are lesser measures than are taken by some of the famous Western democracies. The Minister of Finance in this country, until the two Bills which were passed here last week become law, has no discretion whatsoever to raise any tax. All he can do is reduce sales duty. In this country we have a well-known instrument called a loan levy which is a compulsory loan for a certain period on which the investor still gets interest. As the hon. member knows, all we are doing is that we are giving the Minister of Finance a limited discretion to increase or reduce that loan levy up to 10% in the recess, and that must immediately be reported to Parliament in the next session when it can be fully debated, and when it can be rejected if the House so desires. There is nothing authoritarian about that. What is authoritarian in giving the Minister of Finance the power during the recess to raise excise duties? In fact, in the way we are doing it now we have been finding year after year that there is gross abuse as a result of the anticipatory stockpiling that goes on, which causes a very big loss to the fiscus and indeed to the consuming public. We are trying to improve that. We have had strong representations from the private sector that we should do this. We have had representations from big firms operating in these markets. They said that they were unhappy about the way in which it was being done, by means of a Government budget measure, because these people in anticipating the market, were causing enormous losses. That is one of the important reasons why we are trying to stop that malpractice. It has to be reported to Parliament, however, and it has to be approved by Parliament at its next session, and if Parliament does not approve, that matter is stopped right there, within a few months. I have said before and I say it again tonight that we will handle these powers with the greatest circumspection. I do not want to raise taxes. I would much rather reduce them. However, we have to take account of the world in which we are living. We have seen in the last year what can happen overnight. We have also seen what has happened to countries that have not anticipated these things and taken suitable precautionary measures. We like to learn from experience too. The hon. member also talked about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Whites must lead Blacks to greater participation in the private enterprise system. Good heavens, has the hon. member not heard of the XDC, of the BIC and of the work being done every day by the Department of Agriculture, via its conservation and extension officers, in the homelands and elsewhere? These things are being done the whole time.

The hon. member also said that cooperation is needed between the States of Southern Africa on matters of mutual interest. I take the liberty to say that there has never been a greater measure of co-operation with these States than under this Government today. Look at the Customs Union with our neighbouring territories and the monetary agreements. When they use the Rand currency, they use our Central Bank freely. There is the co-operation with Mozambique on Cabora Bassa and with Angola on Ruacana. There is all the co-operation we have given and are providing to Malawi and other countries. I cannot give all the details because many of these countries prefer not to have these things bandied about. I can say, however, that there is a very much greater measure of economic aid and co-operation between these countries—and countries further afield than our neighbours—and South Africa than the hon. member is certainly aware of. Those are some of the issues involved.

If we take your word for it, will you move the motion now?

I am not going to be long, but hon. members have been talking at great length—including the hon. member for Durban Point, and there is a customary courtesy involved here. I know the truth hurts. [Interjections.]

Ouch!

When there was a surplus of liquidity in the economy, we immediately took counter-action. Our fiscal measures are to be seen in the budget: When we had to find more money we did it, to a fair extent, by increased taxes because that was anti-inflationary. Whatever members may say, it was anti-inflationary. The fact is that this budget is also seen as anti-inflationary by all the competent judges with whom I have discussed the matter. My files are full of letters to that effect, and I have had opinions from the real experts here and abroad. That is the position. The way we have financed our requirements is substantially non-inflationary, and that is there for all to see. The hon. member does not want me to talk at length so I will forbear from citing all the details.

I was at a complete loss, however, to understand what the hon. member for Mooi River was putting across today. How can one doubt this Government’s capacity or desire to fight communism? What a thing to say! What country in the world has got the record we have in fighting communism, and that is freely acknowledged?

You obviously did not understand what I was talking about.

The hon. member says that now that the Transkei is becoming independent we have reached a new phase and must therefore have new policies. Why should we abandon policies that have never worked better than at the moment? Why should we abandon policies that have shown themselves completely successful at the moment?

Do you not recognize a new situation?

He had better use Braille.

We have a new situation, but we have the tried policies to handle the very situation confronting us. The hon. member will really have to put his case in different terms to make it understandable to me.

*My colleague, the hon. the Acting Prime Minister, referred this morning to what the hon. Senator Bamford had said in the Other Place about the policy of the PRP. The hon. Senator Bamford said himself that he had been asked during the by-election in Durban North whether their policy could lead to a Black majority Government. He took great pride in replying there: “Yes.” He was thereupon asked whether it would be possible to have a Black Prime Minister in South Africa, and he replied “Yes.” He said he had also been asked whether he would allow his daughter to marry a Black Prime Minister, and he then replied: “Of course.”

†I just want to take the matter a little further. I am glad my friend, the hon. member for Durban North, is here. I have not had an opportunity yet in this House to congratulate him on winning the by-election. I concede him his victory, but I want to tell him that he is going to have a lot of trouble from this party in Durban North in the future. [Interjections.] However that may be, there is an interesting point I want to mention. Can this policy of the Progressive Party lead to Black majority rule? Unequivocal answer: “Yes.” I asked the hon. Senator Bamford in the Other Place: “Did you make that known to the public in that by-election, because if you had, you would have lost that election hands down?” His answer was: “Of course.” “I was asked that at a public meeting,” he said, “and I gave these answers, and these answers and questions appeared in the Press.” I asked him what newspapers? In a note which he gave to me he said: “In an early edition of the Natal Mercury. ” We have scoured the newspapers of Natal.

I bet you have!

We have, indeed! This is a very serious matter, and the hon. member for Pinelands, with his background, should understand that better than most. I was told in the Other Place, and the public was told via the Other Place, that this had been said in public and had been fully reported in the Press. However, I am unable to find any Press report to that effect. If there is, I am saying that neither I nor any of the people who helped me look, nor even the hon. Senator Bamford, as he told me the other day, has been able to find it. He said in the Other Place that he had not yet been able to find it. However, he said that his reply that there could be Black majority rule under the PRP had been reported in the Press. The reason why I want to take this slightly further is that I have here a letter, ascribed to Harry Pitman, which was circulated in Durban North at the height of the election campaign. This letter is dated 27 April. The one letter I have here is in English and the other in Afrikaans.

Have they got different signatures?

Yes, there is quite a variety of signatures. The one I have here has a few things to say to the voters, and then there is a P.S. by Harry Pitman. I quote—

That is underlined. [Interjections.] I want to know why the hon. Senator Bamford did not make it public that he said that there can be Black majority rule. If he had told that to the voters of Durban North, they would have lost the election hands down. That is the position.

Guess who lost the election hands down.

Is the hon. member proud of winning with something untrue?

There is a further very interesting aspect to this. When I pointed this out in the Other Place some time ago, of all the newspapers I saw, Die Burger published it and pointed out the grave disparity I had raised, as well as the fact that I could not find it in the newspapers. However, of the English newspapers—I have seen about five of them—although they reported my speech, not one of them mentioned the fact that there was this glaring discrepancy between Mr. Harry Pitman and the hon. Senator Bamford on the question of Black majority rule, nor did they report the fact that I queried where it had been stated to the voters of Durban North. There was an absolute concealment of the facts. That was the crux of my speech in the Other Place, and they have completely concealed it from the public.

There is no conflict.

You see, Sir, this is the position.

I shall only keep the House a few more minutes. At this late stage in this session of Parliament in the last debate of the session, I very much want to pay tribute to the small hard core of staff I have in my departments, viz. in Finance and the Treasury, in the Customs and Excise Department and in the Inland Revenue Department, as well as to the staff of the Reserve Bank and the Land Bank, to the Public Debt Commissioners, the Registrar of Financial Institutions, the Auditor-General and to all the others of this select band of outstanding public servants who are in the best tradition of the Public Service of this country. I pay them this tribute with great appreciation. With your permission, Sir, I should particularly like to refer to Mr. Schickerling, the head of the Department of Inland Revenue, who was promoted to the post of commissioner in the Public Service Commission under the new arrangements. He has been a most distinguished head of the Department of Inland Revenue and, generally, a most able and distinguished public servant. I am very sorry to lose him, but I am very happy to think that my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, will have a man of his quality in that important position.

Finally, may I say once again that, when we talk of the South African economy and South Africa’s finances, we must look at things in perspective. Despite the difficult world we are living in, we have an economy which I believe is second to none. We can have the greatest confidence in our future. All we must do is to realize that under these conditions we have to hold the line against unnecessary spending …

Hear, hear!

Yes, and this Government is doing it. We have to hold the line against the unnecessary raising of salaries and wages although, obviously, on the other hand, we have to be equitable. We have to look to productivity and hard work and to the maintaining of our excellent relations, diplomatic and financial, with the outside world and with the important financial institutions which mean so much to this country.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I want to announce that a proclamation will be issued summoning Parliament to meet again on 21 January, 1977.

I move—