Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I had pointed out that the hon. the Minister of Labour, who did not use his full time, had nevertheless sat down without saying one single word about two of the issues causing concern in South Africa, viz. the unemployment of a million or more people and job reservation. Before him, Mr. Speaker, we had the hon. the Minister of Community Development. At a time when there are squatter camps and tin shanty towns, at a time when people are homeless and when there are families crowded together two or three to a room or living in garages, at a time when rentals are rising week by week until a disproportionate percentage of the breadwinner’s income has to be spent on rent and other needs must be cut, at a time when the Wainers and Moutons have thriven under the administration of that Minister and made money out of innocent victims—at a time when all these things have happened and are happening, the hon. the Minister responsible for housing and community development did not say one single word about or even refer to his responsibility to the people of South Africa.

The main reply to my leader, however, came from the hon. the Minister of Defence. What did he, the Deputy Prime Minister, the man who acts as Prime Minister when the hon. the Prime Minister is out of the country, have to say? His reply comprised only two clear statements. One was an appeal to patriotism. He does not have to appeal to this side of the House for patriotism. It is on this side that the men sit who have fought and faced war. He does not have to appeal to us in that regard. He knows that the Government has our support, so that reply is a non sequitur. Our support is pledged to the security of South Africa. The Minister’s only other answer was that only a small percentage of the population were involved in the riots, and that this was therefore a normal thing that happens in every country and that there was no crisis.

No …

Am I misinterpreting the hon. the Minister? He asked my hon. leader: “Is it not only a small proportion? Does this make it a crisis or does this show how good the Government is?” He used this to demonstrate how good and effective the Government was because a small percentage only had rioted. Mr. Speaker, since this House last met, over 300 people have lost their lives. Well over 1 000 have been injured. Over 800, to our knowledge, have been detained. 2 915 have been tried for public violence, under the Riotous Assemblies Act, for arson and attempted arson, sabotage, various unspecified charges, perjury, theft, damage to property and intimidation to strike. Some 3 000 people have been tried before our courts. It is estimated that anything between R100 million and R200 million worth of damage has been done to State and private property throughout South Africa.

We do not know the true figures, but these are said to be conservative estimates. I do not have time to deal with all the losses in specific townships, but R100 million is, surely, not an exaggeration. This, so we are told, is normal. We are also told that this is the evidence of the good Government that we have. It is also evidence of how the Government has the support of the people. But we on this side of the House do not regard this sort of South Africa as normal. We do not want to live in a country in which it is “normal” for 300 people to die by violence, or 3 000 to be charged with acts of violence. It is precisely because this is the sort of country which the Government apparently accepts as being normal that we are pleading for a new deal, a new dispensation, and that my hon. leader has made his call for a new deal in South Africa.

This, of course, has led to a rash of the old and popular game which is practised in the public media, namely that of sowing confusion, classifying people and hanging labels on them in order to create controversy and circulation. It is quite amusing to read some of the classifications and some of the fiction—like humour which one finds particularly in the Sunday Press. It either shows a complete ignorance of people and personalities, or it is a deliberate attempt to provoke and create trouble. But, whatever the reason may be, there is no doubt that there is confusion. It was shown to exist in the minds of Government leaders by the speeches of the three hon. Ministers who spoke. They are confused about the direction and objectives at which the initiative of my hon. leader is aimed. [Interjections.] I shall answer all questions, but I first want to state my case. There is confusion amongst the public and, I regret to say so, even among my ex-colleagues. However, I can understand why they are confused. A picture is being pumped at them day after day by the Press and if one adds to it the frustrations of anyone in opposition—there are no rewards for those in opposition—one can become battle-weary. The staying power of a person in opposition is determined by his own faith and by his own beliefs in what he is working for and trying to achieve. It is clear that some people have lost their confidence or their staying power. But my hon. leader has shown that he has the necessary requirements, namely a cool head and a firm nerve. [Interjections.] The following immortal words provide a test for any man:

My hon. leader has shown that if one applies that test to him, he comes through with flying colours. He has not lost his head, nor has he been tired by waiting nor, being lied about, has he dealt in lies. I send this message to all those who support the UP and to all those who are confused. They should apply this test to themselves, to keep their heads and not be misled.

Ultimately, history will classify all of us in this time of crisis. It will classify those who have sucked on the corner of their security blanket of power, like that cartoon character, those who have retreated into the self-interest of party interests and those who are prepared to come out of their laagers—whatever laager they are in—and to put the country first in a new deal.

Only the Government, at this time, seems to be living in a paralysis of mind, in some sort of euphoria. Only the Government, and not even all the members of the Government and certainly not all its supporters, denies that there is a crisis in South Africa. The Government relies on tribal loyalties, the same old mixture as before; the blind conformity of the blue card—which is the only credo in which it seems to believe. Against this background my leader went to see the hon. the Prime Minister and offered our help to bring about change in South Africa. I must assume that that offer was spumed, because he came back from that visit to call for a new dispensation. It should be clear …

Do you know what your leader asked me?

He came, as I know it, to offer his help to bring about urgently needed change in South Africa.

He asked me to give up my policy. [Interjections.]

Surely, if South Africa needs change, then policies must be changed too. This is what has happened: the blind conformity of a Government unable to see the need for change. How can one talk of solutions to people who do not recognize that there is a problem? That is why my leader called for a new dispensation. There is no time to follow the old traditional party methods of conversion and talking to people. The urgency is too great and there is a growing disillusion with the political log-jam. There is only one way, and my leader had the courage to take it, namely to place himself and his party on the altar of sacrifice for South Africa and for South Africa’s needs. In order to do what? To bring together the moderate centre of political thinking in South Africa in a new movement to save South Africa. The Prime Minister has excluded himself by his support for the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

What are we aiming at? We are aiming at, and I quote my leader’s words in his East London speech:

Those sitting on those benches, Mr. Speaker—

He talked to those who had stood aside from politics and to all the responsible leaders of all our peoples who have no political rights.

This is the initiative, Mr. Speaker, at which he is aiming, this is the initiative for which we are working. A feasibility study has been made …

What sort of people do you want in this new party?

I want South Africans with a truly South African spirit, people who believe in the future of this country, who are prepared to face the need for responsible change and who are prepared to come together to serve South Africa on neither of the extremes of political extremism.

Do you consider the party on your left to be a party you want in the new party?

I am glad that question has been asked. I am prepared to work with anyone—the devil himself, if need be. [Interjections.] I am even prepared to work with the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration … [Interjections.] … if they believe in the sort of South Africa I believe in and if it would be in the interests of South Africa to work with them to save South Africa.

That is going too far!

I am not interested in personalities or parties. I have just said that my leader has specifically excluded a merger of parties. He has called for a new dispensation across party lines, for a new party consisting of anyone prepared to serve South Africa, anyone prepared to accept the philosophy of a new South Africa responsibly led and responsibly guided, anybody prepared to contribute towards saving us from the sort of “normality” I quoted, the sort of “normality” that calls up tens of thousands of our productive manpower at this moment and every other day—takes them out of the productive capacity of South Africa in order to protect us in our homes. I would be prepared to work, as I say, with the devil himself, provided it is in the interests of South Africa and provided it is on a basis which will not endanger South Africa. To this end … [Interjections.] ….

Order!

To this end the UP has accepted the principles which have been proposed as a basis for such a new dispensation. There has been a statement of the guiding principles from which we were not prepared to deviate. I quote:

1. 1. That the party is determined to do away with statutory and institutional discrimination. We are not prepared to accept compulsory integration;
2. 2. That the party accepts the right of groups to maintain their identities and rejects domination of any one group by others;
3. 3. That we maintain throughout that South Africa should be seen as a plural and not as a common society.

Those are simple principles contained in the 14 proposals by the Marais feasibility committee. We believe that the time has come and the road is open for us to move forward, and on that road I hope and trust there will be many sitting on those benches opposite, many who are prepared to put South Africa above the interests of their political party which sees for South Africa a “normality” in violence, troubles, economic stringency and isolation from the world. I hope those sitting on those benches opposite who do not see South Africa as an isolated outcast in the world will also be part of this new initiative. If they come with us on this basis, if they want to join as individuals in a new party, as our members here will join as individuals they would be welcome if they are prepared to serve a new South Africa. The Prime Minister would also be welcome if he is prepared to serve this South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

And if, in the process, we should lose to the left and to the right, so be it.

How much can you lose?

Is South Africa not worth some sacrifice? Is party interest then bigger than the interest of our country and the future of our children?

Surely South Africa is worth a sacrifice such as that? In his speech yesterday my hon. leader said clearly—

He said that yesterday. How often must one say a thing before it is understood and recognized, before it stops being presented as something different?

Would you describe the PRP as moderate and centrist?

I am not dealing with parties. How often must I say it? Does the hon. the Prime Minister not understand words? This is not a merger of parties, an operation between political parties, but a new deal, a new dispensation open to all men of goodwill. I believe that in that party there are many people of goodwill who will want to go along if their leadership will let them.

Would you say that the hon. member for Houghton is such a person?

My time is almost up and, if the hon. the Prime Minister will grant me more time, I shall answer all his questions.

For many, I recognize, it is not easy to sacrifice a party to which one has given one’s whole adult life. However, a party is but a vehicle. It is the vehicle for the sort of things in which one believes and for which one is striving. If then a new party comes to life, a new party which stands for the sort of South Africa in which I believe, then I, my leader and all of us will follow it in order to go on serving the credo which we have developed over the decades. This is the price we are prepared to pay for South Africa and her future. We believe in a South Africa of unity and security, a plural society with justice to all under a federal system. I believe that these are the common aims and common objectives of most persons sitting in those benches. I cannot think of any who would publicly acknowledge differing from them and, in the interests of South Africa, we invite them to come along too to help us to translate—as we now must—general political principles into political policy. This is a task which can now be tackled because the road is open. It is only by personal decision that any South African will exclude himself from walking along that road. If we fail, if the initiative fails, what then? If that should happen, we will go on serving South Africa, because what we serve is greater than individuals and greater than a party. My hon. leader has shown the way not only for this party, but for South Africa, and I hope that the Government or many of its members will be big enough to follow that lead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point told us in tones which I do not normally associate with him—in a subdued, dignified way—why the UP should want to sell its birthright as the Opposition for the mess of pottage of Red and leftist support and also for the support of the English Press. I am satisfied if the hon. member does so. If it suits him, then he may as well go ahead with it. He adopts the attitude that he is not dealing with the co-operation of parties but with individuals. In other words, I must assume this to mean that there are individuals within his party who probably will not co-operate and also that there are probably individuals in the PRP who will not co-operate. Therefore, it is a merger, not of parties but of individuals. I can therefore take it that the conservatives in the UP and the extreme leftists in the PRP will not co-operate. The remainder, therefore, will form a unit. Consequently another two wings will split off on either flank of the new group, as they sit there now.

So what?

I want to go further. The question is: Who are the individuals who will not be welcome? If the hon. member speaks of a “moderate centre party” I want to ask him who in South Africa at this moment is to the left of the PRP, that is to say, if they were to come in? There is only one man who saw the answer long ago and made this prediction about that party, and I just want to quote this extract before I continue with my speech.

Who is to the right of your party?

The Hertzogites are to the right of my party. [Interjections.] I should like to quote someone who foresaw this long ago, and he said the following—

This is a quotation from the Pretoria News of 1973. I quote further—

That is Mr. Schwarz’s prediction for the Progressive Party. I quote further—

[Interjections.] At that time he was still a leader of the United Party. He said—

It was with such ideals that he came forward in those days and now he is a member of the PRP, which he himself claimed had no future, and indeed, he has also persuaded the Leader of the Opposition to abandon the old party and join it too. However, I do not want to continue in this vein.

We are at present going through serious times. [Interjections.] South Africa and her policies have apparently become something of an embarrassment to the West. In the progression towards its ultimate goals, the policy is being over-simplified and being interpreted as discriminatory and oppressive, and it is at present unacceptable to many Western countries. We are apparently a stumbling block to the West in its attempt to win Africa’s favour in the face of the communistic Marxist standpoint. But after all, Sir, these concepts are not new concepts. Surely we have been hearing about them for many years, Mr. Speaker. They are the same enemies and the same people but in a different guise. Why then this sudden urgency? Why has everything apparently now culminated to a point where immediate action is required? The Opposition immediately blames the Government as if the Government were responsible for everything.

Mr. Speaker, let us be honest with each other today and not try and exploit political pettiness. Today, after 28 years of implementation, our policy is surely far more humane in its whole approach than it was 25 years ago. Human dignity is given much more consideration in our party’s policy these days than was the case 25 years ago. Why is it then that we face the serious situation, the threats and menaces now, when the policy and its practical implementation is more human, and not 25 years ago at a time when there was a less humane approach and less understanding? I say that the Opposition really blames the Government for everything. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday—

Mr. Speaker, the same dangers, graver dangers, threaten a land such as Rhodesia. Is it its domestic policy, too, which is responsible for this, or what is the cause there? Grave dangers are threatening Angola with conflict and bloodshed at the moment. Is our policy applicable there also, if this is solely attributable to it? There is large-scale murder and unrest in Cambodia; there are menaces in Thailand. Is this all due to the internal policy? Are the hon. members so blind that they will accept that? I should like to deal further with the arguments of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said: “The Nationalist Party faces static policy.” “Static!” Surely the hon. member knows that during the past 25 years this party has brought about more changes in policies and directions than any other party in the history of South Africa. After all, we were the ones who brought about an independent Transkei—a sweeping change in the lives of those people. The Republic of South Africa came into being due to the policy of the National Party, outside the Commonwealth. Is that immobility? Is that stagnation? Or is it proof of a party which is energetic and effective, a party which can sum up circumstances correctly and act whenever necessary? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about “a Government policy born in the past for an era which has gone”. It may well be true that the Government policy was born in the past, but it also takes from the past all that is good, and designed for the future and all the problems it may pose. That is why it is so successful and why it still enjoys, at every election, the support of the majority of the country’s voters.

Come on, let us be honest. No party and no policy is so bad that there is no good in it, nor is any party or any policy so good that there is nothing bad in it. The National Party has certainly made mistakes, errors of judgment, incorrect decisions, during its 28 years in office. It is bound to have done so because the Government consists of people, and people make mistakes. No honest person dare question the Government’s honest intentions, integrity, earnestness and genuine love of South Africa and its desire to solve South Africa’s problems.

What, then, has brought matters to a head? Why, then, can we now speak of a watershed year, a decisive year? I want to mention four reasons for this. In the first place, there is an economic, a financial, reason. World conditions, such as financial problems, inflation, the energy crisis, recession, etc., have brought about a situation in which practically all countries are stooping under the burden of all kinds of financial hardship. In the process, South Africa has become part of it, part of a world-wide trend which is now discernible here also. Is the Government, then, to be blamed for things such as the lowering of the gold price due to circumstances in the IMF and elsewhere? The Government is expected to take the blame for all these things. That is the first argument. International financial problems have ushered in a period in which events are ripe for happening.

In the second place, Black nationalism— something which began to arise in Africa years ago—has moved closer to our borders and, at this moment in time, has reached our doorstep. It is for this reason that circumstances are as they are, and that is why the situation has arisen in which we must in fact devote attention to these matters. It is not because the Government has followed a certain policy for the past 25 years. However, the situation to which I have just referred bring matters to a head.

Then there is a third reason. In communism’s envisaged process of world domination, Southern Africa at the moment enjoys the unwelcome attention of communist Russia. That was the cause of the unrest in Angola, during the agitation there, as was the case in Mozambique and elsewhere. These circumstances—circumstances over which we have no control—make up the third factor contributing to the actuality of the present time. This is so irrespective of what our policy may be. I am by no means saying that Government policy is 100% correct and effective in all aspects. In spite of everything, however, those are the circumstances.

In the fourth place, due to the three factors mentioned, certain people within our country, people who nurse either justifiable or imaginary grievances—I do not want to argue about that now; I do not have the time— seized this opportunity to do now what they always wanted to do, viz. to incite unrest by means of chaos and rebellion and by so doing to make an attempt—now that it seems as if everything is culminating in one focal point—to confront South Africa with a position of crisis and to create problems for it.

Those are the reasons why things are as they are at present. We are all sorry that this should be so. No-one on the side of the Government welcomes it. Everyone regrets it. Unfortunately, these are the facts we must face, this is the situation we must handle. It is irrelevant whether this Government or any other party is in power. It makes no difference to the fact that we are now in the thick of things. No policy will make any difference to this. The outside world is not interested in who the Opposition in South Africa is or in what policies they follow. They know as little about our position here in South Africa as we know about who the Opposition in Thailand is and what policy they adopt there. It has nothing to do with it. What is at issue here is a world strategy and, together with this, domestic problems to which we shall have to devote our attention. However, I shall come back to this later.

The strategy of our enemies has undergone intensive change in recent times. The old cry of “away with discrimination” belongs to an era that is past. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said: “The West only wants removal of discrimination and domination by one group. ” May I point out to him that that is no longer the cry. “Away with discrimination” and “sharing of political power” are discarded concepts. A short time ago we heard about “one man, one vote” and about “away with ‘petty apartheid’ ” and “sharing of power”, but what is the cry at the moment? “Majority rule” and nothing else. Majority rule is the new cry, majority rule for Rhodesia, South West Africa and South Africa.

That is the new cry we are hearing today and it signifies an all-embracing change. Majority rule as I understand it and, I take it, as the Opposition understands it, is when there are two or more political parties in the country and those parties are allowed to compete freely for the support of the voters. In the end one of the parties is elected. That is what majority rule means. Tested against that definition, majority rule is to be found in very few African states. It has become a hollow cry, fine words lacking any factual content of any kind whatsoever. In Africa it has no factual content at all. Is there majority rule in Angola? Surely we all know that a minority group is ruling Angola at the moment with the support of the Russians. We are also aware of Dr. Jonas Savimbi and other groups. Is there majority rule in Mozambique, Nigeria or Uganda? Africa has at most 8 States in which more than one political party is permitted. Who, then, can honestly speak of majority rule and adopt it as a slogan in Africa? And in South Africa, too, they will not be satisfied with anything less than majority rule in spite of what we wish, hope and think.

I now come to a second argument. I say that the awakening of nationalism has reached our borders. At present liberation is the order of the day. Guerrilla warfare is the new weapon. Freedom fighters are an everyday phenomenon that are highly praised and supported by a number of countries in the world. Everyone assists with arms, money and other forms of support. In certain countries people are encouraged to assist by the press. Even the World Council of Churches donates money to assist these liberators of certain states, the so-called freedom fighters. Let us take a good example. Such freedom fighters also found their way to Mozambique and Mozambique was “liberated” by the freedom fighters. But what is the situation in that “liberated” Mozambique now with regard to press freedom, something for which the press supported the freedom fighters? Now the press is not even free to go and see to what extent suppression is taking place there. What is the position in Mozambique with regard to freedom of movement, the standard of living, orderly society and freedom of worship? Under the old “oppressive” Portuguese régime there was at least freedom of worship and mission stations, which represented a ray of light. However, what has become of them? What is more: What are the major supporters of the liberators saying and doing now? What is the West saying about Mozambique now? What is the world press saying about Mozambique? What is the World Council of Churches saying about freedom of worship in Mozambique? After all, they assisted in the liberation of Mozambique. There is a deafening silence on the subject of Mozambique in all the circles mentioned; they are now too busy “liberating” Rhodesia and South West Africa in the same way. Those are the standards we are faced with in the world of today.

I want to come back to one argument advanced by both the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sea Point. They said that South Africa should follow the example of the Turnhalle conference which is taking place in South West. The hon. member for Sea Point asked whether the Whites of South West would lose their identity as Whites as a result of the Turnhalle conference. He suggested that we should accept a similar solution for South Africa. The hon. member for Sea Point is making the same superficial, basic error in thinking that the uninformed people in the world make, in that they simply adopt the premise, without any research or study or knowledge in depth, that it is now Rhodesia’s turn, then South West Africa’s and ultimately South Africa’s turn, as if they could be mentioned in the same breath or treated alike. But, Mr. Speaker, South West Africa and Rhodesia have never yet been recognized by the world as sovereign territories. They have never yet been recognized by the world as independent States. South West Africa is a mandate area under South Africa, within any sovereignity. In fact, the argument has always been that it is a territory under the control of South Africa which the UNO wants to claim for itself. They are therefore seeking an acceptable solution which will give it the right of selfdetermination and guarantee its sovereignity and recognition. In contrast to that, what is the position with regard to South Africa? South Africa has already passed the stage of its colonial history and liberation; it is not still in search of it. South Africa has passed the stage of its colonial history; it fought two wars and freed itself of colonialism. South Africa is already a liberated African state, recognized by the whole world, and is a founder member of the UNO South Africa cannot therefore be mentioned in the same breath as the states which are now fighting to be liberated. Here, surely, is a total and fundamental error of reasoning in the hon. member’s argument. The circumstances are not comparable in the slightest. What South Africa must in fact do at this point is to afford the people within its borders, too, the opportunity to express themselves fully in the political sphere; but those are domestic situations which South Africa will deal with herself.

Consequently, to mention South Africa in the same breath as those States which are still struggling to achieve their freedom is in my opinion quite wrong. The feeling that prevails in South Africa—and I think it is necessary for the world to know this—is not one of guilt or consciousness of guilt. It is the same African nationalism which bums in the heart of liberated Black African states such as Zambia, Kenya and Malawi. That national freedom also bums in the heart of this people in South Africa, which has also been liberated. Therefore there will never be the kind of feelings of abdication which one comes across in many African States. When action is taken there, people leave and submit because they have a guilty conscience. Sir, the South African people does not have a guilty conscience, whether in respect of its treatment of its Black people, its treatment of its Brown people or its treatment of anyone else. I know of nowhere else in the world where 4 million people have done as much for the upliftment of 20 million people as in the case in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to add that those hon. members and the world at large demand that we should implement the concept of neighbourly love, that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself. I am prepared to act wholly in accordance with that concept. It is a Biblical instruction. However, what is being expected at present is that I should love my neighbour more than myself, that I should bring about my own downfall in order to allow my neighbour to live, and that my Bible does not ask of me. National suicide has never been a moral obligation for any people. We shall carry out our task in our own way.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout states that we ought to have a guilty conscience. Let us consider a few facts. Unisa’s Bureau for Market Research has calculated that the average income of Black people in Soweto rose by 119% between 1970 and 1975. This represents an annual increase of 17% over that period of 5 years. This means that after allowing for inflation there has been a real increase in the standard of living of the Black people in Soweto of 6,9% per annum.

The wage gap is widening steadily.

Your gap is also wider … [Interjections.] The percentage increase in the case of the Whites over the same period was 58%, as against the increase of 119% in the case of the Black people. In fact, therefore, the wage gap is narrowing and the standards of living of the two groups are approaching a common level. The Black consumer market in Johannesburg at present amounts to R649 million. This is four times as much as the total gross national income of the whole of Botswana. Let me also refer to development aid. The UNO made a big fuss because over a period of 10 years, between 1962 and 1972, it spent R234 million on 38 countries with a population of 230 million people, which represents an expenditure of about R1 per person over a period of 10 years. Over the same period South Africa spent R522 million on 8 countries with 15 million inhabitants, which represents an expenditure of R35 per person over this period. Must we, then, have a guilty conscience? We reject it with the contempt it deserves.

Then, too, there is the issue of majority rule, of power sharing. Does power sharing work in the world? If it does in fact work I am prepared to investigate it. We must take note of what happens in other countries in which not only the colour question, but other differences, too, are at issue. For example: In Ireland, the struggle is between White and White. They are one people with one language, and are therefore one in all respects except for the fact that they are divided into Protestants and Catholics. The death rate is rising in spite of all attempts to reach a settlement and the violence is constantly increasing. Does power sharing work?

Let us consider the position of the Scandinavian peninsula. For years it formed one territory and for more than 80 years the Norwegians and the Swedes, taking it in turns, shared one king. Their languages are so closely related that not only do they understand each other, but some words are even exactly the same. In spite of this, real peace has only been achieved now that the two countries are separated with two separate kings and systems of Government. If the Norwegians and the Swedes are unable to live together in one community as one people, how on earth can South Africa’s plural community here be combined into one nation? It is wholly unthinkable that Whites and Blacks could be brought together in this way. The hon. member spoke about a federation. Has he ever heard about the Central African Federation which was established just to the north of us. Those three States were combined with all the good wishes of Britain which had helped them to their feet. What happened subsequently? The conflict and clashes were so tremendous that they eventually split up to form three independent neighbouring States. I could continue by comparing Ruanda and Burundi. India, too, was for years locked in a struggle about religious ideas, and eventually, after bloodshed and loss of millions of lives, they split up into Pakistan and India. After a great deal more bloodshed, Bangladesh seceded so that there are now three separate States, viz. Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. Consequently political differences, religious differences, cultural and ethnic differences everywhere give rise to separate peoples. The world is full of them, but here it may not take place. Similarly I could also refer to Cyprus and Lebanon.

All of us realize how delicate the Rhodesian situation is at present. But does the world at large realize that if, for the sake of argument—and I am speaking now on a purely hypothetical basis—the White Rhodesians, for one reason or another, were no longer to be a factor in that country, Rhodesia would then be facing its greatest crisis, viz. the undying struggle which would then break out between the Mashonas and the Matabele? Hypocrisy and double standards are characteristic of world politics today. I want to quote the following from The Star Bureau of 1 May 1975 to illustrate this—

This is how the Americans govern, but nevertheless they point a finger at us and prescribe to us minimum wages which we must pay our workers. Double standards are being applied here and merit is no longer considered. The decisive, and most shocking, factor in this connection was the experience of Lesotho with regard to its border. Lesotho ha: 36 gateways to its neighbouring states. Three of these border on the Transkei whereas the other 33 border on South Africa. The three bordering on the Transkei were not closed, but certain documents are now required from anyone wishing to pass through them. In the year before the Transkei became independent, 100 000 people passed through these three posts. This represents fewer than 10% of the total. The UNO believes Lesotho when that country states that it has lost R82 million in revenue as a result of the rules applicable at these three gates. This means that for every person that has passed through those gates in either direction. Lesotho has lost R1 640. This statement is made and the UNO believes it. However, whatever we tell them about what goes on in our country, we are not believed. It is absurd. What we have here is inverted racism and I think it is time that the world takes cognizance of this. It is inverted racism because when a Black leader exterminates and destroys his people in his own country, not a word is said about it. However, when a White man does anything to a Black man, it is big news, and is regarded as one of the worst things that could happen. Consequently discrimination is only a problem for the world conscience when it occurs across the colour bar.

In a world which applies these norms we, South Africa, have to find a place and safeguard and develop our future. Let us be realistic and get away from dream ideologies and ask ourselves what we are faced with. The West, indecisive and half-hearted, wants to win the favour of Africa in opposition to Marxism. It has become an obsession with them, and because we are not acceptable to the African States, the West is hesitant in every respect to have contact with us or to do anything which would make them appear to be associating with us. The African states in their turn are divided into two groups, and I can speak from practical personal experience. On the one hand there is the militant group, the group that believes that Africa is solely for the Black people and that the White man should not be conceded any right of existence in Africa. The other group is the moderate group of African states, the group that is prepared to talk and co-operate and that attaches great value to South Africa’s friendship. This group realizes all the advantages which South Africa can offer with its co-operation, advantages with regard to cheaper food, aid and know-how, all of which are in great demand at the moment. However, this group is so afraid that it will thereby isolate itself from the OAU that it does everything under the counter and is not prepared to do anything openly. This group differs in respect of certain aspects of our domestic policy; that I will readily concede, but they do not reject it as a whole.

Could you depend on them?

Possibly, if it should ever come to that. However, I am not sure of it.

What, then, is the key to the future, seen from this vantage point? I am convinced that we in South Africa, through our actions, can bring about better human relations within our borders among all the inhabitants of the country. We are engaged in doing so at present, and it is being done under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, who has created many new channels for negotiation, consultation and discussions. If all these steps are followed through in every respect, so that the Black, White and Brown leaders of South Africa can all address the outside world and can say that they are satisfied with the dispensation in South Africa, Black Africa will adopt an entirely different attitude and then the West, too, will adopt an entirely different attitude. Consequently there, and nowhere else, is where the key lies. However, improved human relations and better understanding work two ways. Our policy is unfolding and we have done a great many things in recent times and shall continue to do so. The wage gap has been narrowed and we have effected changes in many spheres, and we shall continue to do what is necessary.

Mention a few.

I shall mention a few: House ownership in Bantu residential areas; the sport policy; multinational status of hotels; discussions; consultations; education services; medical services; housing, and hundreds more. However, co-operation must come from both sides; that is essential.

What, therefore, must we do? In the first place, I am optimistic about the future. Optimistic because we know where we are going and because we know that we have the strength to do it. We are prepared to accept the challenges of the future and we shall accept them in the interests of South Africa and of its people. Consequently we must, in the first place, be militarily prepared so that if it should be necessary and if we must, we shall fight. However, I want to add this: when the survival of a people is at stake, no rules apply, and it is time for the world to take note of this. In the second place, through foreign contact and diplomatic action we shall, with great circumspection, try to avert, prevent and avoid the clashes which will be caused by this world with its standards—which I have sketched—through proper political action and by advancing the best possible argument in every situation; in the third place, to develop our internal relations so that all our people, Black, White and Brown, will stand by us—the majority are already there—and so that we shall be able to co-operate in projecting a positive image to the outside world.

I should be untrue to myself and to what I believe if I were not to add that we shall have to preserve the Faith as faithful Christians. We shall have to profess as Christians that the fates of peoples and nations are in the hands of God Almighty and not in the hands of people. In that faith we shall go forward and overcome our problems.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to dwell at any length on what the hon. the Minister has said, except for remarking that he is interpreting the situation quite correctly, of course, in saying that South Africa is under pressure because of the fact that there is Black nationalism around us and that the communist world is interested in our country. However, there is something else which is a source of concern to many of us on this side of the House.

What side is that?

I am referring now to the words with which the hon. gentleman concluded. The question is whether we are prepared to create a spirit of broad South Africanism among everyone in this country in preparation for the day when we shall be faced with a major problem and shall be able to count on everyone who calls himself a South African. That is the real question.

Sir, you will understand when I say that I have no easy speech to make in this House today. However, having listened to the hon. member for Durban Point, I must admit that he has made things very easy for me. The hon. member said that he was prepared to co-operate with anyone-including the hon. the Prime Minister and many other hon. members on that side of the House. We had a steering committee, for drawing up the basis of an alternative Government in South Africa. However, it would amuse me to know— because I think the hon. member for Durban Point does have a point here—whether anyone on that side of the House was invited to serve on this steering committee, because several parties were represented on this steering committee, after all. So if the sentiment of the hon. member for Durban Point is correct, one would have expected the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House to have received an invitation as well.

Like the other hon. members of the Independant UP who are sitting behind me, I have had a very long association with the UP. To the principles and the philosophy of this party we have adhered with firmness and faith. We do not want to give up those principles and that philosophy, nor would we want to give them up in the future. We can never give them up—let me make this very clear—for something which will not be able to stand the test of time.

I think the House would be interested to know why we are now sitting in these benches. Why are we not prepared to go along with the decision of the Central Head Committee of the UP to form a new party on the basis of the Marais recommendations? Let me just say in passing that when someone leaves a political party and wishes to form a new political party, the normal course of events would be for such member to be expelled. However, in our case this did not happen. We were expelled because we actually wanted to retain the philosophy and principles of the UP as we know it. As against this, the advocates of the idea that the party should be dissolved are retained. They are the people who decided that the party should be dissolved and they are also the people who decided that we should be expelled from the party. The express undertaking was given that the appointment of the Marais committee was due to the leader’s personal initiative and that the UP would not need to feel itself bound in any way. Furthermore, the undertaking was given that everyone would be afforded an opportunity of examining the principles and taking a decision after the report of the former Mr. Justice Marais had been published. However, when we refused to support the principles and the report, we were expelled as members of the party. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has told us, “Thank you and good-bye.” Of course, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said “good-bye” to a great many political parties in this country, and when he says “good-bye” to one party, he usually says “hallo” to the next one at the same time. I can understand one’s being kicked out of the caucus under certain circumstances, of course, for two separate groups cannot co-operate in one caucus, after all. In this case, the one group supported the original six principles of the UP, while the others supported the fourteen Kowie Marais principles. Such a situation cannot be tolerated. In this connection I want to agree with a young hon. member in this House. At a congress in Natal, this young member asked for finality to be reached on this matter concerning an alternative Government for South Africa. According to The Cape Times of 13 November, the member concerned, Mr. George Bartlett, said, “I hate to think what will happen to us next year if we come to Parliament without this thing being resolved.” That was quite correct, of course. One cannot have members in one’s own caucus who advocate six principles while others support fourteen new principles. Surely one cannot serve two masters. Relations would not have been sound and conflicting standpoints would have occurred. That is the last thing this group wants. We had more than enough of that when we had the Reformists within our ranks.

One could ask once again: what lies at the heart of this matter? When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced his initiative in East London, he alleged—I want to give him credit for this—that South Africa had urgent problems which had to be tackled and that his party had to be transformed into a true alternative Government. It was obvious that thousands of voters in South Africa had to be retained in this process. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition called them the “conservatives”, people who had to be retained in such a new alternative Government. The core of the party was not to be lost, for they were to help create the right image for those people who were worried and who still are, and who are not quite happy about the direction the Government is taking. Those people had to be attracted. I just want to state the facts of the matter. Considering the constitution of this House of Assembly, an alternative Government can only come into being if the NP, too—and that is why I am interested in the point made by the hon. member for Durban Point—or a large number of its supporters play a part in it and if we succeed in winning back a great many of those supporters whom the UP lost to the NP over the years. Then we shall be able to create an alternative Government for South Africa. I am merely stating this fact, facts known to any man in politics in South Africa. Surely this is so. The PRP on my right does not have the power to attract people. This party has clearly ranged itself on the side of a re-alignment of the opposition powers in South Africa. The hon. member for Sea Point will concede this. He has always said he was interested in a re-alignment of the opposition powers in South Africa. Philosophically speaking, the hon. gentlemen on my right can never become an alternative Government in South Africa, because they have irrevocably ranged themselves on the side of the idea of a unitary community in this country.

†Therefore, Mr. Speaker, any attempt to find common ground with them would have led to the establishment of a party with built-in philosophical differences. It would have been an act of political expediency. The hon. gentleman sitting here on my right has said on occasion, and not so long ago, that the whole framework of separate development in South Africa should be broken down. I am afraid you cannot form an alternative Government or present an alternative policy if you have that approach, because in South Africa we see and have experienced a system of various community governments for the various groups. This is a fact. I admit that it has many faults. For instance, not enough power has been given. The process of decentralization of authority and responsibility must continue. How can one dream of finding common ground with the PRP unless you are prepared to accommodate their ideas? I believe that the initiative of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition became a dead duck the moment he was prepared to accept the suggestion that Opposition political leaders operate on a steering committee. This hon. gentleman on my right, who had the limited objective of regrouping Opposition forces, then, I am afraid, became the chief architect of what was wanted. He was prepared to be courted, of course!

*Mr. Speaker, they courted him assiduously. But he was not interested in an engagement or a marriage. He was only interested in the dowry. That is all this hon. member was interested in.

†On more than one occasion others and I on this side have asked that any further talks with them be relinquished, especially when they made their standpoint clear at their central congress in November, namely that they were prepared to introduce compulsory school integration. We believe that further contact with them in this regard would have resulted in the eclipse of the UP instead of using the UP as a base and vehicle for a new political dispensation. Instead of obtaining greater clarity and direction in Opposition politics, we have had greater confusion. For years we have tried to accommodate those to the left of the political spectrum. It does not work, no matter how hard one may try at it. I believe that the electorate in this country have become more matured and sophisticated. In no uncertain way have they moved to the centre of the political spectrum. I believe that we are the products and the exponents of that development and have always considered the UP to be that as well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the road that lies ahead of us? We were elected as UP representatives on a UP platform and we were elected because we subscribed to six very important principles. We see no reason why those principles should not be adhered to. We were elected to oppose the Government. We were also given a mandate—in practice, I believe—to support matters which are in the interest of South Africa and of all its people. We are South Africans, first and foremost. Whatever lies ahead of South Africa, we will certainly never stab her in the back.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that rumours have already gone around—one specific newspaper man has confronted me with them—that I have been to see the hon. the Prime Minister. This is not true, of course. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told me—and I take his word for it: this is the kind of person I know him to be—that his door will always be open to me.

Now I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that we, too, have a part to play and a function to perform, and that I hope this hon. gentleman’s door will also be open to us, not to join the NP, but in order that the hon. the Prime Minister, who has certain information available to him—delicate information—may inform us as well from time to time, so that, no matter what we do, we may never embarrass South Africa, although we may be prepared to embarrass the Government as such. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will accept it in this spirit. In the interests of South Africa, especially in view of the fact that we are approaching a difficult situation, it would in my opinion be correct for the hon. the Prime Minister to be prepared to keep in contact with us as well in that connection.

I have already said that we find ourselves in a difficult situation. The hon. the Minister who spoke before me also mentioned this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion of no confidence, and I have no confidence in the Government either, for it makes many mistakes. But the alternative Government has not yet been constituted. [Interjections ] Consequently I am faced with a tremendous problem. We have been placed here by the electorate to perform a specific function and for this reason I have no alternative but to move as an amendment—

1. (1) within the framework of its declared approach of “separate freedoms” to make the necessary adjustments which will promote the creation of a happy and peaceful multi-national population;
2. (2) to strengthen the economy of South Africa; and
3. (3) to make the security of both South Africa and Southern Africa a national matter,

and urges the Government to outline its approach clearly during the present session.”.

In my opinion, this is the type of amendment which could effect a considerable improvement in our political debating in South Africa, something we would like to see.

†I have said that we are facing severe international problems. We know that pressures are building up in Southern Africa and that the position is becoming increasingly difficult. Both the East and the West, as well as the Third World, are demanding from us that we should adjust our policy to such an extent that no group will be able to maintain its identity.

*I believe that South Africa is in fact experiencing a crisis. At the moment there is a lack of confidence, confidence that our country will be able to hold its own and to survive. There are people who are thinking of sending money out of the country. Of course, I believe that they would be making a mistake and that they should think again. Also, there are many people who think that we shall not be in a position to maintain law and order in South Africa. I think our task under the present circumstances is to change at once this lack of confidence, this crisis of confidence as regards the country’s economy and so forth, in order that a spirit of optimism may take root in South Africa. We ought to have confidence in the future of South Africa. There should not be the slightest sign that we are not in a position to deal with the element of lawlessness, with those who are prepared to bum down and to plunder. For such people there ought to be no sympathy in South Africa. [Interjections.] Nor does it matter to me who they are, whether they are White, Black or Coloured.

We in these benches realize very well that the philosophy underlying pluralism, and all that it involves, is a good one. Whether one wants a federation or a confederation in South Africa in the future does not matter, for one will have to have great if not full decentralization of power and responsibility. This is something which is absolutely essential, and anyway, it is the declared and recognized policy of South Africa as a whole. The group to which I belong understands the politics of South Africa, or at least tries to understand it. In my opinion, it will be one of our duties to urge the Government from time to time to make the necessary adjustments within the framework of that philosophy. To those groups in South Africa to whom we cannot give a separate freedom—I refer to our Coloured people, Indians and the urban Bantu—we have to offer the opportunity of joint decision-taking and joint responsibility. They must be afforded that opportunity, especially as far as matters of common interest are concerned. We in these benches will certainly not deviate from this standpoint.

†Mr. Speaker, I believe that pluralism as we know it is a very powerful philosophy when it is challenged openly by non-racialism and by majority rule, “one man, one vote,” despite the fact that there are many difficulties inherent and dangers involved in separate States or the Creation of separate States. I also recognize that to grant independence to Black States is actually a very, very liberal approach. Some people even think that it is so liberal that it becomes dangerous, especially when you are prepared to give independence to undeveloped States. The danger then exists for those more developed independent States adjacent to those States which are about to be granted their independence. We realize that this country would never have had any problem if all the Black, people in this country had been confined to their own homelands. No political problem, obviously, would then have arisen. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that South Africa would act at its own peril if we were prepared to ignore the existence of more and more Black people in and near our urban complexes.

*When the Government publicly announced that it would move away from discrimination—we should like to hold the Government to its word in this respect—it must certainly have had in mind, too, the permanent group in our urban areas, for surely this House cannot ignore what has taken place in South Africa over the past six months and more. We certainly cannot ignore the riots in Soweto and in the Cape Province. There are certain lessons we ought to learn from this.

In the first place we must realize that we have serious social problems in these areas, over and above the political problems. The next point we ought to realize is that no circumstance which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction should be allowed to continue without anything being done about it. If nothing is done about it, potentially explosive situations may arise, and I believe that one must defuse such situations without its being necessary to lose anything at all. Furthermore, it shows us that the protests we have had, even by innocent children, are not the way to influence the authorities of South Africa, because such protests are so easily exploited by an illegal element, and are then followed by actions which are nothing but criminal. For this reason the authorities should never allow a situation to develop which the tsotsi and the skollie, or anyone else, could eventually exploit.

Consequently I believe that action should be taken against those elements, for the sake of the Black man who wants to maintain law and order. It is not because we are against those people; it is precisely to afford the greatest measure of protection to the law-abiding and educated Black man who wants to maintain his situation and who is proud of his home and his family. Finally, I want to say that one could mention many other lessons we ought to learn from this.

†The last lesson should be the following very important one, namely that the Black people should have more responsibility and authority to deal with law and order measures. Whenever the Whites have to act in order to squash violence in South Africa, we find that it takes on a racial connotation. We should avoid that. We should not look upon those who loot and throw stones as being representative of Black opinion. South Africa should build upon the large numbers of law-abiding and peaceful Black citizens. Obviously, these people also have their grievances; we know that, but they will certainly not stretch their own freedom so far as to interfere with the freedom of others. Deliberate and far-reaching steps should be taken in order to make the moderate and advanced Black people our firmest allies in maintaining civilized standards in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Newton Park, the leader of the Independent United Party, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech, because he has his own particular road to follow. However, I must say that many of the landmarks which he mentioned seemed familiar to me, as I trod that road myself many years ago. I am used to groupings and regroupings in this House, some of which have been very peculiar. I ought perhaps to remind the hon. the Minister of Community Development that he and I shared the same party for six uneasy years. Indeed, I actually was the secretary of the group of which he was chairman when he was still in the UP. Therefore, none of these changes comes as a particular surprise to me.

I should like to say a few words about the speech made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He seems to take comfort from the fact that other countries are in turmoil and that there are disturbances and bloodshed in other countries of the world. He is entitled to take comfort from that if he wishes, but I should like to know how many countries in the world deliberately exaggerate the problems which they have to face, and deliberately impose policies on the vast majority of their populations which they know are going to cause them infinite trouble in the future. I think this country is unique in that respect

Are the communist countries not doing that?

Yes, but I am not comparing South Africa with the communist countries. I prefer to compare South Africa with the so-called Western democracies, of which we purport to be one. I think the hon. the Minister was largely referring to countries which are not behind the Iron Curtain. The hon. the Minister went on to say a very surprising thing when he talked about the scourge of Black nationalism, or rather he talked as if he regarded it as a scourge. He certainly talked about Black nationalism in a very uncomplimentary fashion.

No.

Sir, he talked about Black nationalism enveloping this country.

Yes.

Yes, but he did not say it with what I would call a welcoming smile.

I said we had exactly the same power driving us on.

Yes, but I gather that he did not approve of the Black nationalism that was driving on in the rest of Africa. [Interjections.] He certainly did not talk about Black nationalism in this country with any approval. The hon. the Minister differs very profoundly from his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, because that hon. Minister talks very approvingly about Black nationalism …

Of course; I do too.

… although he gets very irritable indeed about Black power and Black consciousness. He has of course a very interesting definition of Black nationalism which he gave to a no doubt very interested audience at Koster on 24 July last year. He said that “Black power was negative and destructive and that it was a snake in the body of South Africa which must be removed root and branch. Black nationalism, however, was a positive emotion which made people proud to be Black”. He then went on to say: “Black nationalism is good. It means that a man will have a bath every day, keep himself healthy and work hard.” What an extraordinary statement for the hon. the Minister to make.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister says he did not say it.

I do not know what you are quoting from.

I am quoting from a speech he made at Koster.

From what newspaper?

The Rand Daily Mail.

Oh!

If the hon. the Minister says that he did not say that, then of course I accept his word.

I cannot remember.

He cannot remember! [Interjections.] I want to get back to the unhappy subject which has been keeping South Africa in such a state of turmoil over the last seven months, viz. the unrest in the Black townships since mid-June last year. I also want to deal with the Government’s methods of trying to cope with this situation. I want to condemn, first of all, in the strongest possible terms, the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude of “no crisis” and his subsequent opting out of any direct role in dealing with what, in anybody’s language, was a most severe crisis with the most far-reaching effects on our race relations at home, on our relations with the outside world and on our economy. I also want to criticize severely the ducking of responsibility of the departments concerned. The hon. the Prime Minister’s uncharacteristic silence was accompanied by the virtual disappearance into thin air of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his three Deputy Ministers. Indeed, the hon. the Minister took off for the Greek islands on a tour. I want to include in my criticism, of course, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, whose utter lack of perception of the initial cause of the unrest, viz. the introduction of Afrikaans as a teaching medium, is beyond belief. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot deny that I know perfectly well, as do hon. members on these benches, that the hon. member for Parktown showed him at least two, if not three, telegrams which came from Johannesburg warning him of the dangers of the situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, dismissed it all as a lot of nonsense. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should have kicked out the whole sorry bunch of them, the hon. the Minister and the three Deputy Ministers.

I believe that the net effect of all this nonchalance and all this incompetence was that instead of immediate negotiation and consultation to defuse the situation in Soweto, the whole matter became a police exercise under the hon. the Minister of Police who, of course, likes copying the image of the hon. the Prime Minister when he held the exalted post of Minister of Police, i.e. a tough guy dealing with the situation in the toughest possible manner. After all, look where it got the Prime Minister! It is a fine example to follow. And so, Sir, the initial violent confrontation between the students at Soweto and the police escalated into wholesale riots which spread throughout the entire country. I must say at once, in all fairness to the hon. the Minister of Police, that he was given an enormous task. I almost feel sorry for him because he had to carry the can for all his defunct colleagues over all these months and they have been very trying months indeed.

My inclination to pity the hon. the Minister, however, I am afraid is obliterated the minute I think of the manner in which he, the riot police and the security police handled the situation that began on 16 June, and I want you to note, Sir, that I have distinguished between the police as such, and the riot and security police. Instead of setting up a liaison committee, consisting of well-known and respected Soweto residents, with whom there could be on-going consultation, the hon. the Minister clapped into gaol almost every African leader in Soweto on whom he could lay his hot little hands. The whole lot of them were placed in detention and were held either under the Terrorism Act or under the Internal Security Act, so that any leader for whom the students had the slightest respect was removed from the scene forthwith and any hopes of peaceful negotiation immediately disappeared. It seems to me that the only person the hon. the Minister consulted in those trying times was Mr. Mutwa, the witch-doctor, for whom the hon. the Minister has very considerable respect. I believe that the hon. the Minister and the Government completely misjudged the whole situation. They thought: “Let us teach them a lesson; let us have a quick purge and everything will be over.” They thought that was the way to handle it. I believe that what has happened, however, is that an unprecedented spirit of resistance has now been built up in the townships among the young people, and this is something with which we will have to cope for a very long time in the future.

Like other hon. members in this House, I believe—I certainly speak for myself—I have been regaled with a great many ugly stories about unprovoked violence in almost every township where there were disturbances. I have statements and affidavits which make one’s hair stand up. Of course, the police have denied all charges of unprovoked violence. They say they only shoot when their lives are endangered, and I have no doubt that in some cases this is certainly true, but equally in other cases it is manifestly untrue.

And your little angels are right?

Africans say to me: “The Police can say what they like. We saw what happened and we know what happened; we don’t care how many denials are made.” As I say, I have no doubt, from what I have heard, that there were many cases of unprovoked violence. Indeed, the facts speak for themselves. This is borne out by the bare statistics one has been able to assembly about the appallingly high death rate and the number of people who have been seriously wounded. We do not really know the right figure. The estimated figure is in the region of 500, but I believe that to be an underestimate because the figures quoted in newspapers were only those for Soweto, Alexandra, Pretoria and the Western Cape. They omitted the figures of deaths in other areas and they were certainly incomplete as far as the Western Cape is concerned. Moreover, nobody knows how many people were wounded because there has been a very significant veil of secrecy drawn over the whole hospital scene in every institution that treated those brought in during the riots. We do know, as I have said, that at least 500 people were killed and that several thousand Black people were wounded, and I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, if he were here—but perhaps some of his henchmen will tell me—whether, if the minimum of 500 killed and the thousands of wounded had been White people and not Black people, the hon. the Prime Minister would still have said there was no crisis in South Africa. I do not believe that for one moment. A further fact reveals that of the deaths listed in Cape Town, the police shot 92 people, and that of that number 29 were shot in the back. That, I believe, gives the lie to the story that the police only shoot when their own lives are endangered. One of the hon. the Minister’s more ludicrous statements—and I have many of them—was that the riot police mainly used bird-shot as a means of riot control. They did use rifles, he said, when they saw an agitator or someone who was a ringleader. He said, however, that bird-shot was the answer to riot control. This was said in an interview he gave to the Sunday Times.

I was correctly reported.

He was correctly reported. Right.

The hon. the Minister said that bird-shot is not lethal, that it maintains the authority of the gun and that the victims itch for a month. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has ever been peppered with bird-shot at a range of 20 to 30 yards.

I have no intention of being peppered.

Nor, I am sure, had many of the students who originally had peaceful demonstrations in mind against the language question and various other matters about which they were concerned.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am prepared to answer questions if there is time left after I have finished.

I have been talking to doctors. Does the hon. the Minister know that birdshot can blind?

So can sand, and salt. So can anything.

Yes, but the police were not shooting with sand; they were shooting with birdshot, they were shooting at people and, although it may not be lethal, it can certainly cause considerable damage. A considerable number of people were in fact blinded by birdshot.

Can a stone not blind a policeman?

I am told that among the wounded at Baragwanath Hospital it was found that high-velocity bullets had been used. Will the hon. the Minister tell me why it was necessary at any time to use such a ferocious weapon?

In November the hon. the Prime Minister told an interviewer on CBS that the United States had also experienced student riots and had had to send the army in. I want to give the House a few comparative statistics to show how another country dealt with these matters. These figures were taken from various commissions’ reports. Between June 1963 and May 1968, viz. over a period of five years, more than 2 million American citizens resorted to demonstrations, riots and even to terrorism in order to express their political demands and hostilities. Of these, civil rights demonstrations accounted, for just over 1 million Americans, anti-Vietnam War demonstrations for 680 000 people and in the ghetto riots an estimated 200 000 people were involved. Sir, do you know how many deaths there were during that entire period of five years of extreme violence in American cities, both in the ghettos and in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations on the campuses?

There were less than 200 dead over that entire period. There were of course thousands of wounded …

Those figures you of course believe, but ours you do not believe.

Sir, those figures are correct. They have been taken from commissions’ reports. Even if only 500 are officially listed as dead in South Africa, does the hon. the Minister not realize what an enormous difference there is between 500 dead over six months of rioting in the South African townships and less than 200 dead over five years with major riots in the cities, of, say, Watts, Newark and Detroit, which is where the major riots took place?

I believe that the high number of dead and wounded people can be attributed to three major reasons. First of all, I believe that our riot police are inadequately trained to handle crowds.

What do you know about that?

Secondly, I know that they are inadequately equipped. One has only to look at those ridiculous camouflage uniforms and at the fact that the men are either bare-headed or wear little forage-caps to know that they are not properly equipped. In America, in Ulster, in Germany and in France when policemen go out to deal with rioting crowds, they are properly equipped. They have proper helmets and they have perspex shields with which they can ward off stones so that the temptation to resort to fire-arms is kept to the minimum. While I was in New York, or in America anyway, I read that the hon. the Minister had said—perhaps he will tell me if he was misquoted …

You are always in America.

Well, I am sure the hon. the Minister wishes I were there permanently. I am sorry to disappoint him.

Be my guest.

I can tell him right now that I do not have the slightest intention of going there permanently. The hon. the Minister told a newspaperman that the reason why the South African Police were not properly equipped was that South Africans like to be unencumbered and, according to him, in the Western Desert our men wore very short shorts. I do not want to be catty, but how does the hon. the Minister know what our men wore in the Western Desert? I should like to know. However, far be it from me to be catty, so I will leave it at that. As I say, I think it is absurd that our police are not properly equipped. I think it is essential that this be remedied immediately.

Then I want to say that I believe that the allegations that the riot police used firearms indiscriminately is borne out by numerous eye-witnesses. I myself have a number of statements and affidavits. I want to say at once that I know that the riot police have a very dangerous and difficult task to perform and that in many cases they did show restraint. Indeed, in the Western Transvaal they were commended for this. There were no deaths and only four people were injured by the police in quite extensive riots. Unfortunately, we cannot say that about Soweto, and certainly one cannot say it about the Cape Peninsula. Some actions were downright foolish and the hon. the Minister should have stopped them because it was his responsibility. What were riot policemen doing at mass funerals, the funerals of the victims of a riot? How absurd! There is a man being buried who died either through police action or in detention, and what happens? The hon. the Minister sends his riot police off to attend these funerals “to stop subversive speeches”. And what are the subversive speeches? The subversive speeches are the Black Power salute, which has now become a capital offence in South Africa, of course, the singing of “Sikelel’i-Afrika!”. But whatever the matter is, the police should obviously have been kept away from those funerals. It is interesting to note that the following week, after the police had attended a funeral, where several people were killed and many injured, there was another mass funeral. The hon. the Minister showed a little common sense on that occasion by keeping the police away and there were no casualties whatsoever and there were no subversive speeches. I have been imploring the hon. the Minister, whenever I have had the opportunity of seeing him— often, I might say, in the company of his generals; he likes to be accompanied by his generals, although not always, I must admit to keep the police away from the funerals and to keep the police away from the schools. If the police had been kept away from the schools, it is my contention that the children would have gone back to the schools months ago, especially if the Minister had stopped the riot police from entering the premises of schools, from shooting children within the grounds of the schools and, indeed, from wounding and detaining children right in the classrooms. The hon. the Minister sits there and laughs. What is funny about the story I am telling? [Interjections.] All right; maybe it was just a nervous twitch. I withdraw that. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry; I have only five minutes to go.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister what investigations he has made into the very serious allegations that riot police actually instigated the violence of the dwellers of hostels, that is the migrant workers, the Zulus in the case of Mphlope hostel in Soweto, and the migrant Xhosas in the case of Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga against the township residents. Those are serious allegations which have been made and I have been told over and over again by the residents of Soweto that they were not protected by the riot police …

All those stories are bits of gossip (“skinderstories”).

They are not “skinderstories”. I say to the hon. the Minister again: Let him remember that there were thousands of eyewitnesses to these things

The hon. member listens to all the “skinderstories”. That is her trouble.

… and whatever he says, the Africans will say to him: “We saw and we know.” So it is no good trying to brush it aside and saying it is a lot of “skinderstories”.

I wrote to the hon. the Minister about the two motor-cars that were constantly seen prowling around Soweto—at least I wrote to him about one of them—a green Chevrolet and a white Valiant, which took pot-shots at the residents as they drove through Soweto. The hon. the Minister wrote back to me denying the case of the green Chevrolet. I have got affidavits about the white Valiant and about children who were killed by men who simply put rifles through the window …

Has that been presented to the commission?

Yes, as a matter of fact, that has gone to the commission. I have sent it. But I also want the hon. the Minister to make his own investigation among the police. I believe this matter to be very important.

I want to know why it is that the police had to be so rough with the people that they had already arrested. Once they had already arrested people, there was no need for them to be seen punching and hitting them with batons after they had arrested them. There are many stories like this and they make very ugly reading indeed. Why was it necessary for the police to arrest Mr. Percy Qoboza at three o’clock in the morning? [Interjections.] All right, four o’clock if you like; I know there is a difference of opinion as to what the time was. Why was it necessary? This is a respectable, well-known man. He could have been sent for, for interrogation, if necessary. The same thing applies to Mr. Kambule, who is the headmaster of one of the largest schools in Orlando. Why subject these men to the indignity of being dragged out of bed in the early hours of the morning? Why was it made so difficult for parents to find their missing children? Why were they sent from pillar to post by the police? Why were they told to “go and ask your Black Power” when they appeared at the police stations searching for their children who had been missing for days? Some of those kids turned up again. Many of them did not.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but many of them

I made an arrangement with you.

Yes, but that was months afterwards. It was right at the end of the riots that the hon. the Minister arranged to have four telephones listed so that those people could phone in order to get news of their children. It should not have been necessary for me to request that from him.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

It should not have been necessary. I wonder if White parents would have been treated like that if their children had been missing after riots? Would White parents have been sent from pillar to post without being given any information whatsoever? Many of those children turned up eventually. They turned up, alas, in the morgue.

I have very little time but I want to turn now—and I want to do it very briefly—to an equally unpleasant subject, the subject of detentions, the hundreds of detentions which the hon. the Minister found it necessary to make during this period. About 123 people were held under the Internal Security Act, according to the hon. the Minister’s own figures. That measure turned out, as I had predicted in this House last year when the Bill was under discussion, very suitable indeed for small-scale internment. The hon. the Minister had hoped he would not need to use it. He used it, all right. It did not take him very long to use it in the widest possible manner. There are still hundreds of people being held under the Terrorism Act. Will the hon. the Minister give this House an assurance that he intends to expedite the interrogations which have been carried out on those people, and that he will either release or charge them as soon as possible? I wonder if the hon. the Minister would tell us how many people he arrested under the Terrorism Act during the riots, because one cannot get this information by way of questions, although I have tried over and over again.

Finally, will the hon. the Minister tell us what he is going to do about the alarming number of deaths by suicide of detainees. It is commonplace to read now: “Another detainee is dead” and suicide has now replaced “slipping on a cake of soap” or “falling down the stairs” or “falling out of a window” as a common cause of death.

[Inaudible.]

There are 13 of them. Does the hon. the Minister want me to list them for him?

You may list them if you like.

The hon. the Minister ought to know them; it should not be necessary for me to list them. They ought to be emblazoned on his tiny mind. Mr. Speaker, are no precautionary measures … [Interjections.] I am sorry, I withdraw that.

I take that from whence it comes.

Your turn will come. [Interjections.] I want to know whether any precautionary measures have been taken to see to it that people do not commit suicide while being held incommunicado. This is the important thing.

The hon. the Minister granted an interview to To the Point in which he said that all these people had committed suicide because they were Red agents who had been told they should rather commit suicide than subject themselves to interrogation.

Of course!

“Of course!” say those hon. members! They say this without any investigation. Without any inquest findings, without any post mortem findings they are prepared to accept that all these people were Red heroes, because that is what this makes them; Red martyrs who were simply prepared to commit suicide rather than subject themselves to interrogation.

I cannot deal any further now with the detainees. There will not be time for that. I just want to state that I disagree entirely with the hon. the Minister, also with what he said on another occasion on TV, in August last year. He said this was one of the most stable countries in the world, both economically and politically. He said economically there had hardly been a ripple in this country during the riots. Our economic speakers will deal with the statement that there has not even been a ripple economically in our country as a result of the riots. Politically, the hon. the Minister says he does not think it has upset us at all. Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. the Minister to know that a lot of people are very upset about the riots that took place in South Africa. Thousands of White South Africans are profoundly perturbed at what took place during the riots. Thousands of Whites, and millions of Black people, are deeply upset at what took place during the riots, and if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to learn a lesson from what happened in the riots in the United States during the ’sixties, he should look to the Civil Rights legislation which was passed in America during the ’sixties, and which has made of America a far more stable and less riot-tom country than it used to be in the 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a left-wing policeman who fires rounds of birdshot, then it was the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon. member in the kitchen should keep quiet because I do not know whether he is going to remain in the party or leave it. The hon. members should settle their little affairs first and then come and speak in this House. The hon. member for Houghton is always there to take up the cudgels for the left-wing when necessary. On the last occasion, when I was dealing with my Vote, I told her that she was one of the persons who was unwittingly—I am not saying that she is aware of this—being used. She is nevertheless willing to be used by Marxists and leftists. Any person who might possibly have something against this Government can be assured that the hon. member for Houghton will come and fire away at us in this House with all their little stories. If there is a piece of gossip they would like to have sold to this House, they run to the hon. member for Houghton. If there is a Communist whom they are looking for, the hon. member for Houghton is asked: Ask the Minister where the person is. Then the question will definitely appear on the Order Paper and the Communist Party of South Africa has to be told where the person concerned finds himself. Without rhyme or reason the hon. member co-operates with these people. It seems to me she is absolutely innocent, she is like a “babe in the woods” when it comes to this kind of politics. When there is real action in South Africa she runs around in America to obscure and some not so obscure, universities, at which she collects all kinds of degrees. The hon. member is making a supreme effort to pose in South Africa as the person who makes herself responsible for oppressed persons, so that she can obtain some or other additional doctor of law degree at an overseas university. [Interjections.]

I must tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is being conspicuously naïve when he says that the blame for the riots should be laid at the door of the Government because of its apartheid policy. I listened to what the hon. gentleman had to say and read in the newspapers what he was doing with his party. I frequently gained the impression that it was as a result of absolute political naivety on his part that he was being led by the nose to such an extent by a young politician in the PRP. Here in this House, on top of it all, he attributed the blame for the riots to apartheid. Would you believe it? That a person who has been in politics for so many years should make such statements here while he ought to know better. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been in the UP since about 1947, and he knows how communism began in South Africa.

Surely those who are thoroughly aware of what is happening in and around South Africa and in the world—the hon. member for Houghton is one of them—know that the persons who organized these riots are persons who deliberately began with scholars, because they knew that a sentimental outcry would be raised if one of the scholars was injured, in any way whatsoever. They knew that scholars were the best people to use, because they were not wage-earners. For strikes, riots, and protest marches productive people would therefore not be used. At that specific state therefore no people whose involvement would lead to economic disruption for the Black people would be used. In any event, the idea was to cause an emotional situation to arise in the townships concerned. The reason for this is that the Communist Party has frequently in the past tried to organize strikes in the labour field, and how many times have these not failed! They realized that the Black people were poor material for strikes. That is why they felt that here, at least, something extra had to be added. Here, through one’s children, one first had to be brought to an emotional and excitable state before one could be induced to go on strike. The attempt was therefore aimed at subsequently—and that is why the scholars began it—causing a strike, a major, country-wide, South African strike. After that the trained ANC terrorists were to have initiated urban terrorism in the cities. The purpose of that would have been to confuse the Whites and to make them panic-stricken in order, in that way, to establish a good base for total revolution. That is why certain students at the University of the Witwatersrand exclaimed: “Do not start the revolution without us!” They knew what was being aimed at. There are many people in South Africa who knew what the culminating point of these initial riots was—a revolution in South Africa. The scholars’ confrontation failed. The strikes failed miserably. In a desperate attempt to save something at least from the failures around them the African National Congress attempted to initiate urban terrorism. This resulted in an even greater failure. Then the hon. member comes to this House this afternoon and puts the blame on the South African Police, instead of thanking the South African Police for the fact that South Africa is one of the most stable countries in the world as far as law and order are concerned. The hon. member herself furnished us with the figures in respect of the riots in America. The hon. member is aware that America burned, for five consecutive years, that they had to call in 14 000 troops, 14 000 soldiers who had to charge through the streets. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member this: The S.A. Police has at all times—I am not going to say that there has not been a constable here and there who pulled a trigger too soon in a moment of over-hastiness; I do not want to say that for one moment—but I want to say that in general the S.A. Police conducted themselves here with the greatest measure of patience in the face of the greatest measure of provocation. I went to Soweto myself to see how the riot unit, of which the hon. member is so contemptuous—and they are married men—spent months there in a room smaller than this. They had their beds there, for they were not able to go home. They had to be there. To do what, Mr. Speaker? To ensure that the scholars did not run amok and bum everything down, and to ensure that that hon. member could sleep safely at night so that she might come to this House and deliver her tirades here; so that there may be freedom of speech in South Africa.

The S.A. Police worked day and night and were not given a single day’s leave; not a single man in the entire Force. All leave was cancelled. I did not hear a single protest from anyone, and that hon. member was having a royal time in America. She listens to gossip and then telephones me at a time when I have urgent matters to attend to, and I have to sit and listen to her stories. Now you can imagine how I have to sit in my office all day listening to such nonsense. Mrs. So-and-so says this, and Mrs. So-and-so says that; here a man fired a shot into the air and there a man shot another person. I maintain that the ANC was behind this as well. The ANC was always there to begin its organization of urban terrorism. Once again, however, the S.A. Police was prepared, and hon. members will recall that at Bordergate a bomb was thrown between two constables. Four suspected persons were walking along the road, and when the policemen wanted to apprehend them, a bomb was thrown between them. Those four men were caught, but not there on the border, for they fled into Swaziland, but returned two days later because they were fully-trained terrorists. We caught them here in the townships, in Soweto. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton is beginning to make interjections now, for she has become alarmed. It seems to me as though the hon. member for Houghton is almost sorry that those persons were caught. After these events the S.A. Police had to detain 65 trained terrorists. The following is some of the material we found in Alexandra and Soweto: TNT, plastic explosives, detonators, electrical detonators and safety fuses. Inter alia, we also found the following weapons and ammunition there: Booby-traps, hand-grenades, defensive hand-grenades, Skorpion machine pistols and cleaning equipment for Togarev pistols. We also found chemicals for the manufacture of explosives.

In spite of this, the hon. member for Houghton does not want me to enter this area, for a policeman in uniform is unacceptable. Who, then should have brought out those chemicals? Would the hon. member for Houghton and her friends have done so for us? Hon. members will recall that a person wanted to explode a bomb in the Carlton Centre, but blew off his own hand in the process. After this incident we again apprehended five other terrorists who had explosives, blasting cartridges, connector caps and fuses in their possession. One night in Soweto the ANC became alarmed, for they had found out that the police were going to corner them, and when they wanted to get rid of their weapons, they blew themselves up. Once again this event led to the apprehension of ten other terrorists, who also had explosives, ordinary detonators, 11 electrical detonators, arms, ammunition and five explosive devices in their possession.

I now want to make the statement that urban terrorism in South Africa has been crushed. I now want to give hon. members an indication of what we are faced with, because I am saddled here with “babes in the wood”. [Interjections.] Perhaps I should rather say “birds in the trees”. [Interjections.] I have here an example of a placard which was put up by these people. It reads as follows:

These placards are affixed to trees. Any right-minded South African—I am not so sure that everyone would pull it down—would be disgusted with anything like that and go and pull it down. A policeman would definitely go and pull such a placard down, and then the bomb hidden behind it would blow him to bits. I found this placard bomb in Soweto and the other townships which you are so concerned about. This is what the police are doing there. Another example to which I want to refer is this Russian weapon which I have here in my hand and which I also found in Soweto.

Point it over there.

I shall have to point it in the direction of the men, for those sitting on that side are the faint-hearted. This complete weapon came out of Soweto and is an indication of what we have to contend with in South Africa. The police were clearing out arms and ammunition caches of this kind, and for that reason I make no apology today for the actions of the S.A. Police. I am prepared to accept this until the commission of inquiry tells me otherwise. If it does so I am entirely in favour of calling policemen who go too far to order.

There is no doubt about that. In fact, I challenge the hon. member to show me one instance where a policeman went too far and we did not call him to order, either departmental] y or by means of a court action. However, I am not prepared to listen to every piece of gossip concerning the South African Police. The hon. member could have produced evidence this afternoon, and she could have told me what excesses were committed. But the hon. member generalized and vilified my people who worked day and night for South Africa and who seized and captured these things. It is time people came to this House with a responsible attitude and thought about what they were going to say before they said it.

There is a second major piece of gossip which I want to expose this afternoon. There was a song and dance in the Press, specifically in The Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail as well as in other newspapers, about the people who committed suicide. Hon. members themselves will be able to understand that a person of this type; a person who brings these weapons into the country, is a hardened terrorist. He was probably trained in Russia, or in Algeria or in East Germany. What does the hon. member expect my policemen to do with him when they catch him? Do hon. members know what happened to Mdluli? It is now apparent from evidence in the court case that Mdluli was the leader of a terrorist organization who smuggled people abroad out of South Africa. The day they were questioning him he sprang to his feet to leap through the window. Three policemen then seized him and there was a struggle. Later Mdluli died. What happened then? The same hon. member—and she has another question on the Order Paper because she does not want to get done with this—then ran around looking for evidence and said: “Look at the extent of this man’s injuries.” In other words, if we try to prevent a man committing suicide, we are charged with having injured him. Well, what is a policeman to do? He is wrong if he stops the man when he tries to commit suicide, and he is wrong when he allows him to commit suicide. If a man jumps down the stairwell, what must the policeman do? Should he jump after him, or what? Should he handcuff himself to that person, who is usually a strong soldier, so that, when that man jumps down the stairwell, he takes the policeman with him, or should we let the man go?

Did you hear what Mr. Justice James had to say?

Mr. Speaker, they clutch at any straw. The judge asked a few questions about Mdluli. The judge said that he could not understand why the man had died. We cannot understand it either, and I do not want to go into this any further.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member would only stop cackling, I would reply to her. What happened in the Mdluli case? The Attorney-General charged four officers, and those men appeared before the court and were found not guilty. However, do hon. members know what happened to Mdluli’s corpse? Perhaps the hon. member could answer this question for me. Perhaps she could furnish a reply to this question, or perhaps she could ask her friends so that they can give me a reply. After Mdluli had died, and after the post-mortem had been held, they gave the corpse to an undertaker so that the undertaker could bury the corpse on behalf of the family. We then found out that photographs had been taken of that corpse for use overseas. We also found out that someone had mutilated the corpse and had also cut it open. The South African Police were not implicated in that. We did not know about it. Everyone knows that we gave the corpse to the undertaker just as it was. That was the question which Mr. Justice James asked. That, he said, was what required further investigation, and it is in that investigation that we are engaged.

That is not true.

The hon. member must now ask those people who usually egg her on to come and ask questions here what happened to Mdluli’s corpse after it had been in the mortuary.

What about before that?

Order!

I should now like to indicate why these people are continually committing suicide. I have in my hand a leaflet. It is true that it is a banned publication, but I have the power to grant consent to my reading from it. The title of the publication is Inkululêku—Freedom. I am referring to the second edition of 1972. It is quite a large publication and I am quoting the following from page 7—

I am reading it now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so that he need not tell me that what is involved here is apartheid. I quote further—

Then it says—

In passing, I should like to say that I accept that the “fight” is on. I accept it. If they say so, I accept it. I quote further—

That is what the hon. member wants us to do. It goes on to say—

Then the hon. member comes to Parliament and asks why the man suddenly went mad. I read further—

I know where the money comes from. I can tell the hon. member that too. I think she knows it too.

I do not. I wish you would tell me.

I will give an example. The Black Peoples’ Convention received R120 000 from Europe. That organization was only established in July but it has already received R120 000 to throw around in Soweto. I shall return to this point presently.

Why do you not do something about it?

I quote further—

It is a deplorable fact, but unfortunately they get it. Listen further to the instructions—

I am sorry, but I am going to read the following again—

That is disgraceful!

I too say it is disgraceful. I agree with the hon. member, but that is the sort of “skinderstorie” that she always comes along with.

That is disgraceful.

What I am worried about, however, is that they may even put the name of comrade Helen Suzman there one day. I would not believe that …

I dare you to use that outside.

I would not believe it. However, what I have quoted is here in black and white. This communist paper says it.

That is a disgusting smear.

Order! I am calling the hon. member for Houghton to order.

This publication is issued by the Communist Party of South Africa.

You should be ashamed of yourself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, those are not my words; they come from a publication. I am not prepared to vouch for the truth of those words, but there you have the difference between the hon. member and myself.

[Inaudible.]

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

I said I accepted that it was untrue because it appears in a communist publication. However, the hon. member listens to all those stories. To her everything that is said against the South African Police is the truth.

Nonsense!

Sir, the Blacks in South Africa are realizing that the agitator is working to the detriment of the Black people. Do you know what I find to be a ray of light in all the events of the past seven or eight months? What stands out like a ray of light—and this also contradicts the statement of the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is all based on apartheid—is that, relatively speaking, only a small group of Black people took part in these events. There were thousands of Black people who went to work or wanted to go to work every day. Thousands of them said every day: “Oh, this is a terrible thing that is happening. We must get out of here.” They are discovering the truth now. The scholars are also discovering it. Here in the Cape, scholars are beginning to fight among themselves. Those who want to go to school and those who want to stay away, are fighting one another.

I received additional information today and I want to read it to you. Everything is nice and peaceful now and it is for this reason that Mr. Mashinini is returning in haste. His masters in London have told him that the situation in South Africa is too peaceful and that the South African Government is maintaining law and order. My information reads as follows:

The Soweto Students’ Representative Council has arranged a mass meeting and protest march for students in Soweto for Wednesday, i.e. tomorrow. The march will start from the Naledi High School, and then call on all the other schools so that students can join it, until it arrives at the Morris Isaacson School, where the meeting will be held. Various reporters and photographers from the various newspapers will mingle with the students in order to record police action against the students in writing and on film. The students expect police action against them and want to use it as an excuse to have the coming examinations cancelled. The students will say that they marched to the Morris Isaacson School in order to motivate the students to take part in the examinations, but that the police, in their actions against the march, were, in truth, unwilling to allow the students to take part in the examinations.

We are dealing in South Africa with a diabolical snake. Let there be no doubt about it in this country, in any country. We have got hold of this snake, and time and again we break its back. We have had urban terrorism under control for quite a while now. More sporadic uprisings will occur but in this connection there is a great deal which must be taken into consideration. The situations abroad must be taken into account. One must take into consideration what the Organization for African Unity tells our Black people. One must also take into consideration the gossip of the UNO with its various committees. They are telling the Black people that liberation is near and that South Africa will become Black—that is what it amounts to. South Africa’s Government must be completely Black. In addition, one must take into consideration that the ANC has offices in Botswana and in Maputo. They had offices in Swaziland too, but they were expelled. They have offices everywhere which they use in an attempt to get propaganda through to South Africa to upset our Black people. One must also take into consideration that we are saddled with a White opposition like the one opposite, and with the PRP opposition like the one over there, that say to the Black people: “We will act as a transitional government which will lead to a Black majority government. Make common cause with us in the Inkatha. We will consider sitting with you in the Inkatha and join you Black people in a polarization against the Whites.” That is what it amounts to. Sir, I am astounded that the Blacks remained so cool-headed and that they were not influenced by all the newspaper stories in which we are constantly being told that “Time is running out”. Surely that is instigation. In this way they are telling the Black man: “Look, much injustice has been inflicted upon you, but ‘time is running out’; you must act now”.

Mr. Speaker, I say that in spite of a stream of propaganda against our Black people, they remained cool-headed and the vast majority of them said: “We want nothing to do with those things.” Why not? Because they accept the bona fides of the South African Government; because we stated candidly that there were social situations which had to be changed. We stated candidly that we should like to raise the standard of living of our people. We stated this candidly. We are doing our best, despite the economic conditions and the pressure which we are experiencing on all sides, to achieve a happy life for White and Black in South Africa. However, instead of these people supporting us, instead of people telling us that we should at all cost avoid a White/Black polarization, instead of people coming and saying to us “apartheid or no apartheid, let us rather look at the social conditions and help one another”. Instead of doing these things, they come along with all sorts of tommy-rot about apartheid being the cause of the riots. I maintain that it is a disgraceful thing to say that. I say that it is a disgraceful thing when people come here and attack the S.A. Police, who ensured their salvation. We ought to be thankful and pledge our support to each other in Africa. We ought to proceed to build up South Africa and help her develop to her full potential. Let us have our differences over forms of government. Let the two tiny new parties come to an agreement by means of whatever “working arrangements” they may wish to have. I do not begrudge them that. But when it concerns the basic issues of security in South Africa let us stand together as one and let us not accuse one another of being the cause of riots, when we know that it is an onslaught on the position of the Whites in Southern Africa.

The White man in South Africa has his own rights, the White man in South Africa is, in fact, a White African. Why must we leave? Why should we leave? As long as we are here to maintain law and order, South Africa will remain safe, and as long as this happens, we will have a stable Government. I feel that it would be a very sad day for South Africa if that confused Opposition were to take over, because then, I maintain that the Black Power people would engulf everything and the communists would implement a Marxist government.

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen another episode of the old, old play that has been going on in this House— the Helen and Jimmy show. It produces bad feeling on both sides of the House and fits of temper from the hon. the Minister of Justice. It produces the sort of wild statement from that hon. Minister accusing us in these benches of firing, of blowing up the struggle which Black people are supposed to be waging—communists and others—to destroy the White man in this country. That hon. Minister knows that that is not correct. He knows that on no occasion have we, at any stage, helped the struggle of the communist people who want to undermine law and order in South Africa. We have been through an extraordinary difficult time. During the last six months the Police Force went through an extraordinary difficult time and the Black community too went through an extraordinary difficult time. I think we can readily accept what the hon. the Minister had said, that a debt of thanks is due to the Police Force for the way in which they have handled the situation. There need not be any doubt about that at all. They have been able to control and contain the situation, a situation which was leading to a revolution.

But what a contrast there is between the speech made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon and the speeches we heard from the other hon. Ministers who took part in the debate yesterday. Yesterday we heard the hon. the Minister of Defence, who spoke for an hour. The hon. the Minister of Labour spoke for half an hour. All we got from them was an act, an attitude. The hon. the Minister of Community Development spoke as though there was nothing wrong in South Africa at all. He spoke as though all these Black people lived in a country which was heaven on earth, that there was nothing wrong with the policy of the Government, that they should in fact be grateful for the Government which we had in South Africa. One of the points I want to put to the hon. the Minister of Justice is that he has said that the students were leading up to a revolution. Is it not significant that every responsible Black leader who has spoken on the events in Soweto has come forward and associated themselves with the aspirations and demands of the students? Is that not a significant fact? I want to say to the hon. the Minister that Soweto now …

Listen Jimmy! Listen to him!

If the hon. the Minister would stop playing with his toys there, he might be able to listen. I am trying to answer him. Today Soweto is in a state of revolution. We have there the emergence of a group of people from nowhere. The Students Representative Council is a group of people which is openly disputing control of that area by the established authority, the Bantu Administration Board. We have a group of people there which has come from nowhere—nameless, faceless—a group of people suddenly appearing, finding themselves in a position where they can enforce their will upon the population of that enormous city. They can say to them that they shall not celebrate Christmas, that they shall not celebrate weddings, that they shall not have the sort of jollification the hon. the Prime Minister was talking about. That is the situation we face now, and until that hon. Minister spoke, we had had from that party on that side not one single word of recognition of the fact that we are facing an earnest and a very serious situation. It is easy for hon. members on that side of the House to throw gibes at this party. It is easy to make jokes. It is easy to evade the responsibility of answering the case made out by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. that the Government’s policy has gone wrong, that it is leading increasingly to a confrontation with Black people. The hon. the Minister is grateful that the Black people, by and large, were not involved in the disturbances that took place. We are all grateful for that, but the voice of those people tells the hon. the Minister—and all of us—that they associate themselves with the demands of the young people and that they are ashamed of themselves because they themselves had not taken steps earlier to mitigate the conditions against which the students are rebelling.

Now, is that the kind of situation that this Government can simply ignore and laugh about, saying it does not matter, while pointing a finger of scorn at this party, the party which has taken an initiative which I regard as being historic?

Hysterical! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let me ask that hon. Minister, who sat in these benches for such a long time and who had so many things to say about the policies of the NP, whether he does not believe that we need a new initiative in South Africa. Does he not believe that we need a whole new initiative to reach out to the mind of the Black man in South Africa, to tell the Black man that there is another approach, that there are White people who are concerned, that a situation has arisen where Black youths in the urban areas are in total confrontation with the forces of law and order and with the forces of the White State? Does the hon. the Minister …

With your new approach, can you yourself express confidence in your own party? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let me put this to the hon. the Minister. The political set-up in South Africa today is totally irrelevant to the politics of tomorrow. What we are busy with here—this House and that party sitting on the other side—is merely the manifestation of the politics of yesterday. This is the old story of “Boer en Brit, van die Anglo-Boereoorlog en van Bloedrivier”. [Interjections.] Of course, it is! That is the absolute heart and soul of every single thing that the NP does and is. It is all the politics of yesterday. And the time is going to come when we will need a new approach, a new approach which will make it possible for White people, on a large scale, to break away from the stereotype of the past, to break away from the strangle-hold of that NP on the thinking of the majority group of the White population. What we need is a new inspiration, a new dispensation.

What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done, surely, is to say that where there has been such a struggle in this House and there have been organizations which represent that struggle, the UP is one organization which can disappear, be dissolved and be merged into something new in an attempt to find a new answer, to give to all people the opportunity to come together to find that answer.

With Harry?

The hon. member there asks, “With Harry?” All people who are concerned about South Africa and who are able to support the 14 principles, which are quite simply set out and quite easy to understand if one wants to put one’s mind to it and not attack them the way the party opposite attacks them, should have the opportunity to come together. What is required is a freeing of the mind of the Afrikanervolk from a grip in which the NP has it so that the Afrikaner people can move into the future. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to say one thing to the hon. members on that side of the House. Liberation in South Africa begins with the breaking of the stranglehold of the NP on the mind of the Afrikaner. That is the simple truth, and the hon. the Minister can yawn as hard as he likes. Fact remains, that is the simple truth. The entire initiative which the White man ought to be taking in the world in which we live, is challenged—the hon. the Minister has said so quite rightly— by communism. We are locked in a situation where the initiative which we want to take and ought to be taking cannot be taken because of the position adopted by that party. Until we find some means of breaking loose the shackles of the past and allowing all people who are concerned about South Africa to come together to act in a situation which is fraught with danger, not only for us, the White people, but for the Black people as well, we are not approaching the real political problem in South Africa.

One of the elements in that problem is this very Parliament itself, which is the expression of White privilege and White power and which cannot meet the demands of an emerging group of Black people in this country who, even under the policies of the Government, will be a majority inside the borders of what will be the Republic of South Africa. The demands of the Coloured people and those of the Indian people can also not be met. This Parliament, as we sit here, is inadequate; it cannot meet the demands of the future and cannot meet the politics of tomorrow.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has, quite rightly, thrown this out for discussion. We will gather people who are constitutional experts, people who can try to sort out this problem in order to seek a future, based on the principles which have been enunciated. It will be based on the principles of group identity, something with which the hon. members opposite can hardly differ. It will also be based on the protection of the White identity and the protection of the White man who is the inspiration of what is happening in South Africa. The White man is the inspiration of everything that is happening because we have brought here a totally new, a totally different way of life, something which has taken a grasp on the imagination of the Black man to an increasing extent.

But why are you still sitting there?

I am sitting here because I do not believe that the people who have left us are doing any thing to promote the solution of the problem; they are merely being part of the “politiek van gister” that we see here before us. They are merely maintaining the status quo, which in my opinion is totally inadequate to meet the needs of what we are going to face and what we shall have to solve in future.

The hon. members on the other side talk about communism. Why is communism a threat to us? Communism cannot live in Africa with a successful South African State, based on the principles of free enterprise. Communism cannot live with us because communism is a tyranny, and a tyranny of the sort that cannot stand the luxury of a comparison with what South Africa should be for Black and White. Communism cannot compete with us. It cannot compete with us for the imagination of people. It cannot eompete with us for what can be offered to entire populations. It cannot compete with us for the future that can be offered to the Black people in this country. Why then are the members over there concerned about communism? It is because their system has failed to grasp the minds of those Black people and to give them that assurance. They have failed, and the NP, as it sits there today, is a living example of failure. They have done what they can do. This is something which happens with all historical parties and movements. They have a genesis, they have a time of flowering, they have a time of success, and after that time they go to seed. There is then a time for death and for passing away, and the NP has reached that stage in South Africa today. They have done every single thing that they can do for the people who are primarily their supporters, the Afrikaner people. They have lived out the mission that they had and they can offer nothing new today …

Leave the Afrikaner people and come to the problem. You are desperate.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking specifically to that hon. gentleman, and I say that I will not leave the Afrikaner people because they hold the key to my future, as a person who is not a member of the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.]

If you can’t beat them, join them!

Sir, the hon. gentleman says, “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Let me say that for a person like myself it is an impossibility to join a party like that one, which has entrenched within it an inner group of people, self-selecting, self-perpetuating, who set their own standards and who define what is a “goeie Afrikaner” and what is not. They are a group of people who take all the important decisions and to whom I as an “Engelsman” am a total stranger and a “vreemdeling”. One of the greatest problems that we face in this country is precisely that; the party on that side closed its mind to the contribution that can be made by people like myself and others who are not of their language group. [Interjections.] They can say what they like, Sir, but where can that party show us English-speaking people who have come into that party and who have played a part right from the ground level all the way up through the party and who have been listened to? Can they show us any such person who has been able to influence the thinking of that party? [Interjections.] They can perhaps mention one or two people only. The hon. Frankie Waring, for instance, was an elected candidate of that party [Interjections.] Somebody over there says I am a “Boerehater”. Let us understand one another. I believe the Afrikanervolk has a mission to perform in this world, a mission which can be performed by nobody else, and I am concerned, because it cannot be performed under the aegis of that NP. Let me sketch for you, Sir, the mission which I believe lies before us, and not only the NP or the Afrikanervolk, but before White South Africa as a whole. We have a mission to perform which can reinspire the entire Western world to launch an onslaught on the Communist Party and the communist forces in this world, which can eliminate them, but that cannot be done until we have within ourselves the correct spiritual and mental approach and the realization of what we stand for and what we are. That can only come from a White population which is conscious of its historical mission.

We are conscious of it.

Mr. Speaker, they are conscious of it but they are unable to carry it out because they shut off from themselves the communal wisdom of the White population, and that party can therefore not meet the demands of today. That party is the party which stands in the way of the Afrikaner realizing what he could and should be doing in the world. That is why there is no confidence in that party. That is why our leader has taken the initiative to say to people who support that party that there is another direction which can lead them to a position from where they can influence the entire history of the world.

The history of the world is going to be determined here in South Africa. There are met here in South Africa today the two great historical forces of our time, namely communism and the Western civilization that we characterize as Christian. The confrontation is building up here and now in South Africa. Every single member of this House, every Black man and White man in South Africa, is involved. This confrontation is going to be decided by the attitude of mind that we are able to inculcate into the Black man. It is based on the Western system of the individual. This system is alien to Africa. We brought it here of our own and are trying to graft it on to the alien stock of Africa. Unless we are going to win this struggle, we do not have a remote hope of repelling the advance of communism in our country. We must admit one thing straight away, namely that the tribal system upon which the lives of so many of our Black people are based, is a socialist system in itself. It is very easy to superimpose the system of communism on to that of socialism and to destroy that what we are achieving in the uraban areas, precisely those areas which are today in revolution against the Government. The young people of the urban areas have rejected the Government. This is where the confrontation is taking place, and this has brought us into the position in which we find ourselves, because of our success in introducing the idea of the individual as compared with the idea of the tribe into the minds of the Black people. This is a historical process of the greatest magnitude and the utmost importance. As far as I can see, hon. members on that side of the House are completely unaware of it, completely uninterested and do not know what to do about it. We took part in the work of a certain commission and have heard about the redistribution of land, wealth and power. The NP was busy doing this long before the student radicals of Nusas and Saso began preaching it as a credo. What we have been experiencing in our time is merely a demand from the Black man to the NP, namely that they want a share in the wealth and riches of this country. That is what is happening. It is the refusal by that party to recognize that as a legitimate and fair aspiration on the part of Black people, even those Black people who have adopted our ways and customs, that is bringing us to the confrontation which we have today.

You are talking nonsense.

If that hon. member had the mental ability to understand what was happening, I might respect that remark.

You know that you are talking nonsense.

That hon. member does not have the remotest idea of where it starts and where it is going to end.

We have to move towards a situation where we can safeguard the aspirations of all our peoples. It is not a difficult problem, because there is a basic goodwill amongst all our peoples. The Government have taken steps to separate from us certain of the Black population. We still have left with us the Coloured population, the Indian population and some of the Black population. Surely, bearing in mind what is at stake for us, for the Black people and for the world, it must be possible for us to find a system according to which we can work together. It must be possible; it is a constitutional arrangement and formula amongst people who, together, have everything at stake. The proof that this solution is possible we have in South West Africa where it is being done by groups of people who have everything in common and who have come together to find a common solution.

It is not the same as in South Africa.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says the situation is not the same in South Africa, but I want to tell him that the stakes are bigger and the rewards for those who seize power in South Africa are bigger. The riches at stake in South Africa are bigger and the cries to the Communist Party in South Africa are bigger. The fact is that we remain a White group, an Indian group, a Coloured group and Black people of different groups inside the borders of whatever will remain when the Government policy has been carried to its logical conclusion. That is a fact which nobody is going to evade; one cannot get away from that fact. There will be in that system a Black majority and one cannot evade a Black majority, one cannot shut one’s eyes or turn one’s back to it. It is going to be there for all time.

It is incumbent on us to find a system, and that is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done. He has said that this party, which has for years opposed the Government, on the question of Bantu homelands and on questions of Black and White, is now determined to move in a new direction to look for a new initiative and for new people who will associate themselves with us. We are prepared to pay our own party as the price, and as the hon. member for Durban Point has said, it is a heavy price to pay. It is our own party, the party we have lived for. It is the party which I have joined on 21 January 1951, when I returned from the university overseas. I have worked with the party ever since, and this party is to be the first victim, if one can call it that, of the Leader of the Opposition’s initiative. We have given our party to the new initiative, we have given the things we have fought for and suffered for all these years. [Interjections.] It is time for the hon. members to understand one thing quite clearly: That the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made an initiative which says to all people who can support the basic principles as set out by the Kowie Marais Committee to come together. How many of the hon. members on the other side really in their heart of hearts dispute those 14 principles? How many in their heart of hearts find those things unacceptable?

All of us.

This debate has been going on now for two days, yet nobody has challenged the findings of that committee.

They are not relevant.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is relevant at any time in South Africa and that is any attempt which is being made to find a new situation which can accommodate the desires of the Black people inside the Republic of South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister there say they have no place, no rights, no legitimate aspirations? Those are the people that will be inside what is going to be the Republic of South Africa when all those Black States which are going to become independent have gone. Does the hon. the Minister seriously maintain that? I ask him.

He says it is not relevant to discuss it here.

It is relevant to discuss it.

It is part of your strategy.

Mr. Speaker, this is going to decide the future of every single White man, Black man, Coloured man and Indian man here in South Africa, because we have to find a solution. Those people will be here for ever; they are not going to go away; they will not evaporate, and they cannot simply be made over into something else.

They are going to be living here and they bear upon their shoulders the burden of the entire economy of South Africa. They are moving up and up into the economic society of South Africa every single day. The contribution they are malting is growing bigger and bigger. How can the hon. the Minister and the NP simply turn their backs and say that they are not really here and that it is immaterial and irrelevant when people want to decide on a new system which is going to accommodate the wishes of those people? That party cannot accommodate the wishes of those people; that is a simple fact which stands “soos ’n paal bo water”. That party, if they had been able to accommodate the wishes of those people, would have done so years ago. I have sufficient confidence in the people who govern this country that they do not deliberately go out to seek confrontation. But they are locked in a historical situation which does not allow them to come with the solution that we want. The Leader of the Opposition has taken the initiative, an initiative which I believe is the right one. That is why I am here in this party. I do not believe in seeking to perpetuate the UP as it was, but we can contribute to a solution …

“Vrystaat!”

Mr. Speaker, “Vrystaat”! The voice of wisdom from the “Vrystaat”! What I want to say is that we have an opportunity which all the people in South Africa should seize, take advantage of, or at least think about. There should at least be speculation about what this could mean for White and Black South Africa, because I believe that in the hearts of Black South Africans there is at least now a glimmer of hope that somewhere in the minds of the White people in this country there is some thought of a possible new dispensation which will gather to itself the majority of the people, something which is real and which breaks away from, breaks down and gets away from the absolute stalemate which this Parliament and these parties in this House represent. Therefore I support the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to reply to the arguments of the hon. member for Mooi River because he has already raised the basic arguments that he advanced here in connection with Afrikaans, English and the NP in this House on various occasions. The hon. member said that the NP has a hold on the Afrikaner and that this prevents the Afrikaner playing his rightful role. He said that there was no place for people of other language groups in the NP. There is however a place in the NP for every White citizen of South Africa who believes in maintaining the identity and sovereignty of the Whites and who believes in the principles and policy of the NP. It does not matter whether that person is English or Afrikaans speaking. The hon. member said our party does not have the policy and the principles that can accommodate the desires of people of a different colour in South Africa. In this connection the hon. member for Sea Point said that the NP does not have a strategy or a plan for peace for the future.

I want in my speech to devote a few moments to the strategy of the NP for peace and progress. We have in this connection to look at the ideals of this party and the people this party represents. We in the NP have great ideals for our people and also great ideals for our country. We have the ideal of peace. This country, this Government, has never interfered in the affairs of other countries. We have minded our own business. We have in all respects and at all times tried to strive for good relationships in South Africa. We are a country of peace and our desire is peace for South Africa. However, we also have another desire or ideal and that is security for everyone living in South Africa whether White, Brown or Black or a member of an Asiatic group. People only have peace of mind if they are sure that their living will not be affected, that their property will be protected and that their children will have a future. However, it is also the ideal of the NP to ensure the social progress of the people living here and to create that progress for them. It is the desire of the NP to improve the quality of life of every citizen in South Africa and to reaffirm that quality. Besides this the NP and the people it represents also desire to create fundamental political and human rights for everyone living here, throughout South Africa, irrespective of the race, colour or faith of those people.

We now come to the important question in connection with strategy. How does one achieve one’s ideals, those great ideals which our party cherishes, those great ideals of the nation that is represented in this Government and this party? What is the strategy one uses to achieve those great ideals? We know that when one speaks of strategy, one has to have regard to the circumstances prevailing in various places. The strategy that succeeds in one country will not necessarily succeed in another country where circumstances are different. A strategy that can achieve great success under specific circumstances can in other circumstances be destructive of a people. We in the NP know that the strategy of a majority government in a unitary state has been successful in many countries of the world. We know that a great deal of success has been achieved with the strategy of one man, one vote in the unitary state, as is the case in many countries of Europe and in other places. We know that this has been successful in France, in Germany, in America, in England, in New Zealand and in Australia. We know that the strategy of majority government in a unitary state, a strategy of one man, one vote, is not necessarily wrong. We hold the view, however—I should like to prove this—that in South Africa, under the circumstances prevailing here, the strategy of a majority government in a unitary state, the strategy of one man, one vote, will not be able to achieve the great ideals of this nation and of this party. The strategy of one man, one vote is the wrong strategy for South Africa because of the circumstances prevailing in South Africa. The strategy of one man, one vote is not a practical strategy in order to establish human rights in South Africa to the satisfaction of everyone living in this country. That is the wrong strategy for that purpose.

It is so easy to talk about one man, one vote. Then, too, it also sounds so fine and so just. It sounds so fair to say: “My policy is one man, one vote,” as spelt out in the Kowie Marais principles. The 14 principles of the Kowie Marais Committee reflect the strategy of one man, one vote. What is more, no mention is even made of one man, one vote on a qualified basis as is advocated by the PRP. There is no reference at all to any franchise qualifications in the Kowie Marais principles.

Read them again.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that I know what that document contains. If he can show me where it is stated in that document that the franchise that has to be given to the citizens has to be given on a qualified basis, I shall eat that document whole.

Read it.

I shall allow myself to be tempted to do so. In the second principle we find—

In the third principle we find—

In the fourth principle we read—

And so it goes on; there is not one word about a qualified franchise. The acceptance of these principles does not by any means mean that hon. members on that side are in favour of a qualified franchise.

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

I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to ask his question later on. As I say, the principle of one man, one vote sounds so fine but the successful application of this principle in a unitary state presupposes circumstances we do not find present in South Africa. It presupposes circumstances that are not present in South Africa. The circumstances in which the principle of one man, one vote can succeed are, inter alia, the following: Firstly, the state concerned has to be a reasonably homogeneous state. Every state in which that principle has succeeded and continues to be successful as a means of establishing human rights is a homogeneous state and not a heterogeneous state like South Africa. Secondly, in every country where the principle of one man, one vote is successful today there is a long history of a parliamentary tradition. The people in those countries are used to living under a constitution as a result of their tradition and history.

There is a high degree of literacy in all the countries where the policy of one man, one vote is being applied successfully today. In other words, those countries have a constitution which is not only sovereign on paper but which is in fact sovereign as it is applied from day to day in those countries. Those countries have a sovereign constitution which we know cannot be rejected in any way at all. The constitutions of those countries are sovereign as embodied in each country’s constitution, and the constitutions of those countries will always remain. The people of such a country are also prepared to live under that constitution. One has to seek those factors. They have to be present. One has to be sure that they are in fact present before one can introduce a system of one man, one vote in any state. This is our objection to the Kowie Marais principles. As the hon. the Minister of Community Development has said, they are fine words but in practice they provide no security. It is a fact that the circumstances in South Africa are in many respects the same as those in Africa. This is the reality of the case. That is something we have to take into account. We are part of Africa. If we want to see what will be successful in South Africa, We also have to look at Africa. We must not simply look at other countries whose circumstances are different to those in South Africa. What is the situation in South Africa? In the first place the situation in South Africa is that we in South Africa are to a large extent heterogeneous. In every one of the Black states where democracy has failed there have been heterogeneous circumstances. In these various countries there is more than one nation living within the borders of a particular country. We have the same circumstances in South Africa. We have an ethnic division. This is a term I do not much like but we can talk about an ethnic division. Partition on a national basis may actually describe it better. We have various national groups within one specific country which are not able to harmonize their differences under a sovereign constitution. This is something we have experienced in Africa. We have various national groups in the various countries of Africa, different nations where the one does not want to live under the other and where each wants to be able to enjoy its own right to self-determination. That is the situation in Africa today.

We have no tradition of a parliamentary democracy in Africa. That is a fact. In circumstances where we have no tradition of a parliamentary democracy the hon. Mr. Kowie Marais and people who think as he does want us to throw in our future together with people in a constitutional circumstance where there is no history and no experience of a parliamentary democracy. We know that our various Black nations are self-governing and that none of them is fully democratic. It is however the wish of those nations to make use of their traditional patterns of authority themselves and to interweave them with the democracy prevailing there. That is the wish of that nation; that is how they want it. Now we have suddenly to live together with the people who do not want a democracy and who have given no indication in South Africa that that is what they want in practice. As far as Africa is concerned I think we can make the important statement today that the more heterogeneous a community is, the greater the potential for conflict within that community. We can make the statement that the more heterogeneous a community in Africa is, the less democratic that community is. However, we can also make the statement that the more homogeneous a community is, the more democratic that community is and the smaller the potential for conflict in that community. One man, one vote has been tried in Africa many times. One man, one vote has a history of failure in Africa. The history of Africa shows clearly in the first place that democracy in Africa has failed. In the second place it shows not only that democracy has failed in Africa but, what is more, it shows that any form of power sharing has failed in Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said just now by way of interjection that the only place where the system of one man, one vote has been successful, has been in a federal system of government. That is the most arrant nonsense that I have ever heard. What about Nigeria? Nigeria is a federation today and there is no democracy at all in Nigeria.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the sharing of power in the form of federations has failed in Africa, and I have already given these details in Parliament in the past. Without exception, every federation that started in Africa has failed. We think of Zaïre, the former Congo of 1961, where a federal system failed. We think of the Cameroons where there was a federal system up to 1972 which also failed. We think of the eight French colonies in West Africa where the system failed. We think of the federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyassaland which also failed. The same thing happened to the federation between the former French Sudan, which is now Mali, and Senegal. We know that Senegal and Gambia tried to form a federation in 1962 but that too failed. We think of the federation of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania in 1963 which also failed. Besides the fact that the sharing of power within the framework of federations has failed, the sharing of power within the borders of every heterogeneous state has also failed and, as a result, the problem of government in those states has been solved either by a one party system or a military government. One man, one vote, a majority government, has a long history of failure in Africa in regard to the establishment of human rights in any way at all, and we in South Africa will not allow ourselves to be caught in the same way. It should be noted that, as a result, most of the blood that has been shed violently in Africa has been shed because of conflict between Black and Black. That blood was not shed because of conflict between White and Black, but because of conflict between Black and Black. We sitting in this House, we, the Whites of South Africa, ought also to take note of this fact. I want to deal with the most important reason for this. Why is it so that a policy of one man, one vote has failed in Africa? Why is it so that the principle of one man, one vote has failed in a heterogeneous community? The answer to that is because the policy of one man, one vote does not solve the problem of a power struggle in a country. It is said that “the name of the game is ‘power’ ”. It is true that every nation wants to govern itself. It is precisely because of this fact that a nation automatically involves itself in a power struggle with every other nation that tries to govern it.

The problem of Africa is the problem of a power struggle, and the potential problem of South Africa is a problem of a power struggle. It is not simply a power struggle between White and Black but also a power struggle between Black and Black. A great deal of blood has been shed in Africa in the power struggle between Black and Black. Because this is so, because this power struggle exists, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior so rightly pointed out, it is a downright lie to talk of a majority government when there is a Black government in power in a country. Angola, inter alia, is a living proof of this truth. There is no constitution in Africa that can solve the problem of a power struggle. When we talk about Africa and the failure of the struggle to establish human rights, it is however important that we should also refer to Botswana. Botswana is regarded as being one of the most democratic countries in Africa; according to many it is in fact the most democratic country in Africa. As it happens, Botswana is also the most homogeneous country in Africa. That is why it is the most democratic country in Africa.

Now, however, we are faced with the question—and I want to say this in reply to the hon. member for Sea Point—of what our strategy is. What is the strategy of this Government? What is the strategy of the NP? That strategy has to comply with certain specific requirements. In the first place, it has to be able to deal with the possibility of a conflict between White and Black, otherwise it is not a strategy that can work. The strategy for the future has to do specific things. It has therefore, in the first place to handle the possibility of a conflict between Black and Black. If it does not succeed in doing so, it is not a strategy that can work. For that reason, as the strategy for achieving our ideals, we say it is our policy in the first place to acknowledge the diversity of nations in South Africa. In the second place it is our policy to acknowledge the fact that each one of the various nations in South Africa has the right to self-determination. In the third place it is our policy, as part of our strategy for peace, that each of the nations is entitled to develop its right to self-determination to full independence. Our policy is accordingly the only practical strategy for the realization of our ideals in this country.

In this connection now we have to talk about consensus. Consensus between White and Black has become a popular idea. This Government is in favour of consensus between White and Black. There is no doubt in that regard. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development with his department is working daily in order to bring about consensus between White and Black. However, consensus between White and Black means that the White people agree and the Black people agree, not that the Black people outvote the White people and that we then have consensus. The consensus that we want is a consensus which has to comply with the following requirements: In the first place, we as Whites in this country are not prepared to enter into a consensus in regard to the downfall of the White nation of South Africa. In the second place, we are not at all prepared to enter into a consensus in regard to the forfeiting of our security and the forfeiting of our sovereignty in favour of a security and a sovereignty which will result in an unknown multi-racial community. It must also be clearly understood that we as Whites are not prepared in any way to enter into a consensus in which a potential power struggle between White and Black and between Black and Black cannot be avoided. One can have whatever consensus one wants but if one does not solve the power struggle problem between White and Black and between Black and Black one will not have achieved a consensus which can withstand the test of time. We in the NP believe in consensus, but we believe in a consensus that ensures the avoidance of a power struggle. The Transkei became independent and the question arises as to whether the outside world is going to recognize the independence of the Transkei. However, the Transkei is a living proof of the consensus that was achieved between four million Xhosas and four million White people here at the southern point of Africa. The Transkei is a state which came into being through consensus. The Transkei is the final product of consensus between White and Black, something that could only be brought about through the application of the policy of this Government, and under no other circumstances. There are about 60 bilateral agreements between our Government and the Transkei. I do not know what the precise number is, but those agreements cover a variety of matters and therefore embody a consensus between ourselves and that country. There is also consensus between ourselves and the BSL countries in regard to a variety of subjects. That is a consensus that is only possible, as I have already said, because of the fact that there is no power struggle between ourselves and those countries.

Basically one can divide our South African policy and what is happening in South Africa into two parts. As I have already stated, the first is the independent homelands and everything I include in that. When we talk of independent homelands and of the self-determination of the people in South Africa we are not talking about apartheid. This great policy, this great ideal of the NP is not apartheid; apartheid is something else. Apartheid consists of measures that were taken with good intentions and for good reasons for the sake of good order and the elimination of friction. In many respects apartheid has a historic origin. It is in respect of the apartheid aspect that many changes have taken place in South Africa over the past while. It is the Government’s declared policy to eliminate every form of discrimination, and the implementation of the policy has been accompanied by the abolition of apartheid measures. However, this must never be confused with the achievement of the great ideal which is part of the assurance of our future.

The hon. the Prime Minister stated clearly—unfortunately time does not permit me to quote his speech in full—that the great ideals of the NP are not at all negotiable. Nobody can talk to us about them, neither do we wish to talk to anybody about them. I am referring now to the protection of identity and the expansion of the various sovereignties. However, the hon. the Prime Minister also said—

The world must know that we are maintaining a policy of national development because we believe in it; it is the crux of our policy. The problem we experience with the Opposition is that the Opposition Press and the outside world simply stare blindly at certain apartheid measures that exist in South Africa and wish to give no recognition whatsoever to the great bona fide ideals of the NP Government and the steps that are being taken to achieve them. The opposition to the Government, both internally and externally, seeks only to tie the NP to certain practical apartheid measures, many of which have in the meantime been changed and many of which will be changed in the future. They create a false image of the NP by that means, and a false image of this Government and of this country. I want to tell you, Sir, that these apartheid measures are practical measures, measures having a practical necessity. This practical necessity is malleable and changes from time to time, as the hon. the Prime Minister clearly stated. If something becomes unnecessary, we abolish it. The world must also know that those measures are not connected in principle with the achievement of our ideal. As far as many of those measures are concerned we in South Africa today find ourselves in a transitional stage.

As we live in difficult times, I am sure we have every right to ask the Opposition, the newspapers and the people who agree with them: Judge us rather by our actions because just look at the harm your criticism, your unjust and unfair criticism, has done South Africa. This is so because you simply stare blindly at aspects which in many respects are only of a temporary nature, because you deny the great ideals of this nation, because you deny the achievements that have been gained in order to reach these ideals. You direct the attention of the world to the wrong things in South Africa; you polarize White and Black and generate poor human relations in South Africa. Our task for the future is a big one. The task of the Government in the future is the implementation of its authority and the achieving of a vast consensus throughout South Africa. That is the only way in which it can be done. The Government’s task is a self-imposed one—the establishment of homogeneous political units without balkanizing the South African economy.

That is why, as Nationalists in this part of the world, we see for ourselves a constellation of politically independent units which will co-operate with one another intimately on a consensus basis in the interests of everyone. However, we see states which, although politically independent, are and will remain economically inter-dependent. This policy of the NP, this great ideal we are striving to achieve, complies in all respects with the principle of morality. It is a policy which every well-meaning South African can defend with pride under all circumstances. It is a policy which complies with the acceptable international standards of self-determination. It is a policy which complies with certain fundamental principles as embodied in the United Nations Charter. It is necessary for us to tell the people today that all well-meaning South Africans, all White people and all Black people, must realize that, with this Government, with this Cabinet and with this Prime Minister, it is possible to build a strong South Africa with the states that will emanate from South Africa. By this means this territory in which we live, this southern portion of Africa, will become a bulwark against Communism, and by this means this territory will become a rich region where the standards of living of millions of people, which are already far better that in the rest of Africa, will improve even further. With the support of all its people this Government will be able to achieve a vast consensus at this southern point of Africa to the permanent advantage of all of us who live here.

Mr. Speaker, with the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria Central, we have now moved away from the Cabinet Ministers to the commoners. I must say that I am very grateful that the hon. member for Pretoria Central took his example not from the hon. Ministers that we heard from yesterday, but rather from the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who at least attempted to begin a debate from that side of the House and resisted the temptation to tell yet a few more rather poor jokes.

I wish to put two questions to the hon. member for Pretoria Central, because I think that on these two questions hangs the whole validity of his argument as we have listened to it. I quite seriously want to know from the hon. member, firstly, whether it is the intention of the NP to form a parliamentary democracy in South West Africa. Is it “yes” or “no”?

It depends on the people.

It is quite clear from the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria Central that no parliamentary democracy can work in Africa, and if he is saying that, he is deliberately undermining the possibility of that emerging in South West Africa itself.

Where is your peace prize?

I have it in my pocket.

Secondly, the hon. member for Pretoria Central talked about the ideals of peace and security of the NP. I accept those ideals, but they become nothing less and nothing more than nice words—the hon. member used the same term in connection with the 14 principles—until we test them out so that we can see how they are spelled out in action and particularly in the laws of this land.

I want to return more specifically to the speech that was made by the hon. the Minister of Labour yesterday. I regard it as one of the most disgraceful and irresponsible speeches that I have yet heard in this House. It is made even more serious by the suggestions that one hears from time to time, namely that he is in direct line as a possible successor to the hon. the Prime Minister. All I can say, despite the inept leadership of the present Prime Minister, is “God help South Africa” if that is the kind of leadership we are going to have in the future. Yesterday the hon. Minister had a full half hour, but never once referred to the very serious situation existing in South Africa. He spent most of the time putting certain inane questions to members in these benches and to members of the UP. In the final part of his speech the hon. the Minister really showed us what he actually wanted to say. He described the party I represent in this House as “die party van onheil”. [Interjections.] Do I understand the hon. the Minister correctly?

Quite correctly.

If this is so, I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister and to his colleagues who are directly responsible for the governing of South Africa. After I have put these questions, this House and the country can perhaps decide to which party his description really applies. In the first place I should like to know from the hon. the Minister and his colleagues which Government has brought into being the iniquitous race classification system which has brought untold misery and division into the lives of many South Africans. Is it this party or that Government? Which Government, in terms of the Immorality Act, defines morality not in terms of the Christian civilization, but in racial terms? Is it this party or that Government? Which party, in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, has prevented people from becoming married purely on the grounds of race? Which party discriminates in the amounts allocated for education so that the Black children are always at a disadvantage?

Rubbish!

Does that party not do it? If you look at the per capita expenditure on every African child in comparison with that on every White child, you will see what I mean. If that party does not understand what they are doing, then they should not be doing it at all. Which party detains people without trial? Is it this party or that Government? [Interjections.] Which group has been responsible for at least 1 200 bannings during the last 20 years, thereby confining large numbers of people to a twilight existence? It is that party.

If the hon. the Minister of Labour feels that this is not his responsibility, although it most certainly is, then let us turn specifically to his own portfolio. Which group is responsible for the long list of discriminatory laws relating to the employment of Black people in South Africa? If we are looking in terms of security and peace and fairness, as we have heard from the hon. member for Pretoria Central, then the laws that obtain in the whole field of employment are directly counterproductive to the very stated aims and ideals of the NP. For example, Mr. Speaker, it is this Government that prevents employers in urban areas employing Africans except where they qualify in a particular area. If a company has branches all over the country, they cannot simply transfer their people from one city to another city or another town or another area. It is not possible because of the laws of this Government. Therefore, who is it that is supporting the Communist Party when they deliberately disallow freedom of movement in South Africa—this party or that group over there? One thinks of the Environment Planning Act of 1967, which prevents employers from giving employment to people who have no jobs. Who must accept the final responsibility? Who makes it impossible for a man who is trained as a bricklayer, for example, to do the job of a bricklayer in the urban areas? I notice that hon. members do not now have the answers. Who is responsible for the Mines and Works Act, No. 27 of 1956, which means that Black workers cannot get certificates of competence in order to do the jobs that are necessary to be done in South Africa and that they cannot continue along the ladder? Who bases industrial relations in this country on the Industrial Conciliation Act, No. 28 of 1956, which deliberately excludes Blacks as employees? Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not this party. It is not this party that is the big danger to South Africa. It is that party and it is that hon. Minister who has to accept the responsibility for this. Which Government, in its determination to “bleed the Black unions to death”, has recently banned 27 people, all of whom were directly related to the training of Black workers and the informing of the Black workers of their rights under the law?

Whom did you quote?

A Government spokesman.

Who was it?

I will give you the name in a moment. Which hon. Minister as recently as November last year said that there would be no change in job reservation or the recognition of Black unions? Despite the incredible problems that face this country it is the present hon. Minister of Labour who had such a good time telling jokes yesterday. Was it not the Deputy Secretary of Labour who stated in the same month, namely November 1976, in the midst of the burning of South Africa—and I quote directly from his speech which was reported in the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce Bulletin:

It is the Government’s policy not to allow the advancement of Black workers into higher-rated job categories in the White economy at the expense of the White workers and that it should not result in Whites occupying positions subservient to non-Whites.

That, of course, is not discrimination!

Yes, this is not discrimination; this is absolute discrimination, and it was said by the Deputy Secretary for Labour. One assumes that if the hon. the Minister of Labour is sincere and genuine in his determination to get rid of race discrimination, he will speak to this man and get somebody else in his place.

Only last session I raised the enormous, far-reaching problem of migrant labour, upon which so much of our labour is based. The hon. the Minister dismissed this with one sentence and said that I had not talked about labour matters, so he would not answer my speech. When we view the loss of life and the destruction which took place recently in Nyanga and the unrest in Guguletu and Langa, here on our very doorstep, because of clashes between the residents and migrant workers, cannot this system be described not only as immoral, not only as dangerous but also as the product of a system “van onheil”? Is this not the real fruit of the policies of the NP? Over all this legislation lurks the spectre of Black unemployment. As has been pointed out, the hon. the Minister, in a speech lasting half an hour, made not even a scant reference to it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Statistics is not nearly so complacent, for he stated in a speech only last year “that the greatest problem facing South Africa”—and I am not sure whether I am quoting correctly because it is from a newspaper—“is the great unemployment figure”.

I said the “possible great unemployment figure”.

All right. Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, according to the newspaper, and I am not sure whether I am quoting him correctly: “Unemployment was a significant factor behind the current unrest which was not yet necessarily over.”

I said that in the context of the question of migratory labour and that that caused the unrest.

I accept that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the clarification. And the hon. the Deputy Minister is absolutely right. The head of the Bureau for Economic Policy and Research at Pretoria University stated only last week—in fact, the same day—that the total unemployment was marching towards 700 000 at a rate of 12 000 per month, a figure which Dr. Van der Merwe himself describes as a conservative figure, whereas other people would put it a great deal higher. One thing is very clear. Unemployment is a major problem and is not receiving the attention from this Government which it deserves. The hon. the Minister of Defence said yesterday—and this is a direct quote: “Hier staan ’n volk wat nie wil sterf nie.” He was referring to the people sitting behind and alongside him. We feel exactly the same way. We do not want anyone to die in this country, but we are saying that by its inflexibility and its outworn and unsuitable policies, this Government is putting our whole society and all its people at risk. Against the background of the international hardening of opinion and the increased unrest in South Africa, we see a party that is having to be dragged, struggling and kicking, to the waters of change instead of moving there as rapidly as possible.

There are so many ways in which we can describe the very real problems facing this country. Someone has suggested that there are two kinds of leadership in Africa. On the other hand there are those who talk softly and wield the big stick, and on the other those who shout loudly and use the flywhisk. What we have seen in South Africa, in recent days, is a third kind of leadership which shouts loudly and has a gun in one hand and a stick in the other. Its genius lies in its ability to threaten, cajole and punish, but its bankruptcy lies in its lack of an enlightened policy, and therein lies the tragedy. The reason why we oppose this Government as strongly and as hard as we can is because we refuse to be taken towards the edge of a precipice by that party.

Mr. Speaker, I have one or two questions which I should like to put to the hon. member for Pinelands. Firstly, I should like to ask which party objected to Bantu walking through certain parts of certain parks. I also want to ask him which party objected and said that Bantu were not allowed to use the swimming pool in Sea Point.

That is untrue and you know it too.

I am also grateful …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May one member say that what another hon. member has said is untrue and that the hon. member concerned knows that it is untrue?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall saying that, but if I did say it, I shall withdraw it and simply say it is untrue.

The hon. member may continue.

In spite of the many points which that hon. member raised here which he used to sling mud at the NP for what that party was supposed to have done, I am pleased that I belong to the NP.

So am I.

I too had a share in carrying out those things which he mentioned. It was no disgrace to me to place the Immorality Act on the Statute Book. It was no disgrace to me to ban mixed marriages.

What does the Bible say?

Yes, many people read the Bible. I can understand that.

What does the Church say?

I am grateful that we could have a share in this and that this party did those things, to protect from danger not only the Afrikaner—as that hon. member said—but also the South Africans, the Whites in this country. We can be proud of this. This is why this party has grown from strength to strength, and should we go to the ballot box tomorrow, we would return even stronger. Why would we return even stronger? Because we have a divided Opposition. The no-confidence debate began yesterday and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced a motion of no confidence in this party. This reminds me of the old joke which I often like to tell about the cats courting in the Ark. Noah thought they were fighting, but in actual fact they were courting, and eventually the two cats left the Ark with a whole lot of kittens. In that case the numbers increased. However, a kind of courtship has taken place here between the Opposition and the PRP, as well but the numbers of the UP have not increased, but decreased. They are even worse off than before. This kind of courtship does not pay. Six of their best members are sitting over there, members who, I believe, had to think very seriously before they decided to take that step. They were probably very concerned and probably wondered whether they should take that step or not. I want to add that they are the members who were probably the most loyal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In these circumstances we now have to listen to a motion of no confidence. I do not believe that it will ever be repeated in the history of South Africa. That mighty party, which I came to know as a young man—although I always opposed it—that mighty party of 1939 to 1948 is so weak today that I make bold to say that they have no right to be here. It seems to me that the Opposition members and the Leader of the Opposition have lost the support of the English Press completely. It seems to me that they have also lost the support of the English-speaking South Africans in this country. Their numbers have decreased, and now they are apparently going to embark on a coalition with the PRP, but I do not know if it is going to work.

My thanks to the speakers on this side of the House who participated in the debates and also to the hon. Ministers who once again pointed out the dangers to us and told what we should do if the impossible should ever occur and the party on the opposite side should come into power. At the end of his speech the hon. member for Pinelands once again cast a reflection on our Police and our Security forces, who always protect this country against riots in difficult circumstances. I do not want to say any more about the riots. After all, we know what the cause of these riots was.

I want to deal with the Opposition for a moment. The Opposition must tell us what its plan for the future is. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared to support wholeheartedly the principles which those six loyal members who stood by him through thick and thin, moved today by way of an amendment. If he is prepared to do so, I want to tell him that he simply cannot form a coalition with the PRP. In those circumstances he cannot accept them as comrades, because should he do so, it would mean that he, as leader of that party, would be betraying his conscience and the supporters of his party who have remained loyal to him for all these years. I can beat my breast and say that it is very good for the National Party that things of this nature are happening …

Why is he betraying them?

I said that if he continued with his coalition with the PRP, then he would be betraying those people who have supported him throughout the years, because the political objectives of those two parties differ from one another. Those two roads simply cannot meet. I should like to ask whether it is not perhaps simply an attempt on his part to get the English Press, which brought about his downfall and sowed discord, on his side once again. The same Press which originally helped him to build up the mighty party which he used to have has also helped to break him. Is he not courting them too? South Africa needs an Opposition, but it must be an Opposition which will support this country in all circumstances. They may disagree with us in many spheres, but in respect of many matters and problems they must support the country.

The National Party is not South Africa.

But the National Party is governing South Africa and that is what counts. The National Party is governing South Africa whether the hon. member for Orange Grove wants to accept it or not. The National Party is responsible for the laws which are placed on the Statute Book. The PRP may rage and fume, but the National Party will continue along this road.

Today we are living in a changing world. Not South Africa alone, but the whole world has had to fight a great battle in the economic sphere over the past year or two. Now we in South Africa must not be labelled as people who do nothing in respect of the large number of unemployed which we have today. Everything possible is being done to help those people. America, which is probably the most powerful country in the world financially, has also experienced this recession. In America, too, there are millions of people, White as well as non-White, who are unemployed. They also have their problems and we trust that America’s economy will recover to such an extent that they will be able to find employment for all those people. The same conditions prevail in France, Germany, Japan and England as well. A tremendous economic struggle is being experienced in England. Surely it is not fair to bring this charge against the National Party. We are caught up in the economy of the whole Western world. If problems arise in the free world, we may expect the same problems to arise in our country sooner or later.

In this connection I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he is opposed to influx, Does he wish us to open the sluice-gates and allow the people to pour in, or must we eliminate influx? If he advocates influx, I want to ask him whether he realizes to whom he is doing the greatest disservice. In that case would he not be doing the greatest disservice to the non-White who comes to work here? Is this not what will happen if we open the sluice-gates? Who will find a job under those circumstances? The hon. member does not want to answer me. That is one of the matters for which he holds the National Party responsible. Those control measures have been placed on the Statute Book for the benefit of the non-Whites. It is to the advantage of both the Blacks and the Coloureds.

We saw what chaotic conditions were created because there was no control over the massive influx of coloured people to the cities. I spoke of this last year during the previous session and pointed out the dangers in this connection, and this was held against me. This is the case; we simply dare not allow it. We dare not allow those things. This tremedous recession is not only affecting the non-Whites; it is also affecting the Whites. However, I have confidence in the National Government, because it is a Government with vision; it is a Government which has drive and which takes action. These people will surmount this great problem. I also believe that there are better times ahead, that we will overcome this problem and that our people, every one of them—irrespective of colour or race—will be able to earn their daily bread. It is not fair to lay the blame for this on the National Government. There are well-off people in the ranks of the PRP, and I should like to put the following consideration to them. They should act according to their beliefs. They should pay the non-Whites in their employ much more than other businessmen pay their people. They should pay the maids who work in their homes the same salaries as they might pay to a White person. I have no objection to this; they may do so. Set an example, but do not point a finger at me without setting any example yourselves. Now I challenge the PRP and I ask one of them to stand up and say: “This is what I do for the non-White in my service. ” I know what happens to the leftover crusts when they have finished eating. They do not go to the maid’s room, they are thrown in the rubbish bin. Go and ask the Blacks who work in Soweto whether they enjoy the same privileges in Houghton as they do in an Afrikaner home. Ask them whether they enjoy the same food as the White people have at their table. That hon. member who was involved in the building industry, did he pay his Bantu labourers more?

Yes.

The hon. member must tell them what he paid them.

Did he pay them R100 or R140 per week, as in the case of White labourers?

Some of them.

Some of them? Then the hon. member is discriminating.

There is one thing which I want to say to the hon. member for Mooirivier, because he attacked the Afrikaner once again today. In Kenya, Kenyatta, who conducted murder raids with the aid of the Mau-Mau, left the Afrikaner alone because there, in a strange country, the Afrikaner was honest towards the Blacks. When I worked for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, I spoke to many Bantu, and they often told me the following: “The food which is left over from the table of the rich man in Houghton is never given to me or my children to take home. It is given to the dogs or thrown in the rubbish bin.” I could lay my hand on the Bible as proof that I am not telling a lie now. It was not only one person who told me this story, but many. I questioned them about this. This is the difference between us and them. This is why the Blacks believe the Afrikaner and this is why Matanzima believes that he has the support of the Afrikaner and of the NP of this country today. He believes this because he knows that the success he has had is due to the National Government. He also knows that the success he will have in the future will be due to the National Government. He also knows that, by means of co-operation, that new State will become a worthy State. He also knows that he will receive recognition. Then there is also the case of Bophuthatswana which D.V. will receive its independence at the end of the year. They will know that it is thanks for the NP that they are getting their independence. They know that we will not desert them, that we will accompany them along the road and that we will experience the pangs of birth with them until such time as they become a full-fledged State.

Then I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to rise in this House and condemn the UNO and all the nations who will not recognize the Transkei and Bophuthatswana.

He has already done so.

The hon. member is talking nonsense. He has not done so.

The hon. member has been dreaming.

No, I have not been dreaming. I was very sorry for that hon. member yesterday, and if I had seen him at night, I would have had a nightmare.

Now I say to the six members who have been driven from the UP that in future, when these States have received their full independence, when the Transkei has its own national anthem and its own flag, they must speak out if they want to strengthen South Africa’s position. They must say: “The six of us, although we differ from the NP, accept the Transkei as a free independent republic.” You are going to do so. Say this about Bophuthatswana as well, and do not say it only in this House, but say it elsewhere in the world as well. Do not remain silent as the poor Leader of the Opposition does. The Lord knows, I pity the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I cannot save him.