Mr. Speaker, when this House adjourned last night I had started to make the point that, in my view, the intensity and the length of the present recession in this country were being greatly increased, firstly because the Government had allowed State expenditure to rise at a much higher rate than the GDP had risen over the last few years. Secondly, it had happened because it was State expenditure during 1975 and the first half of 1976 which was giving buoyancy to the economy, but which was at the same time stoking up inflation, whilst increasing the balance of payments problem, when the Government should have realized the fact at that stage that recessionary influences were at work, and should have started to pull in its horns. The third reason for this was because much of the excess expenditure to which I have referred, was paid for by deficit financing, in other words, by printing money and by increasing the money supply which, of course, was a highly inflationary practice which added to the rate of inflation. Fourthly, it happened because of stop-go practices, which did great damage to business confidence in the business world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House how businessmen can be expected to have confidence when, in the second quarter of 1976, the money supply was allowed to expand by 18%? But then the expansion of the same money supply was cut back to 2% in the following quarter. One simply cannot play yo-yo with the economy; not in that way. This is the sort of thing that leads to bankruptcies. Business confidence is a fragile commodity, and if it is cracked, it takes a long time to be restored.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what I have said to this House adds up to a very serious economic situation, one that can be repaired only gradually, and one where the path to reparation is going to be a hard and a difficult one. I say this because recovery is going to involve changes in the whole Government philosophy, the whole Government ideology. It will require the abandonment of apartheid, the burial of apartheid. [Interjections.] There is no going back to the good old days. It is going to involve a fundamental change in the pattern of State spending so that State spending no longer takes a larger and larger slice of the cake and the private sector is allowed to grow faster than the public sector. It is going to involve a complete reassessment by the Government of its spending priorities with much more emphasis being put on labour intensive ventures, thus helping to create jobs, thus helping to relieve the unemployment position, thus helping to relieve the pressure of capital so that capital can become more and more available to the private sector where it can be more productively used and can increase the productivity of the country as a whole. Finally, I should like to say that I fully support the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have no confidence in the Government. [Interjections.] I have no confidence in it because it has allowed the economic situation to develop into one of economic sickness when what is required is economic health, economic strength and economic vitality to provide the foundation for social reform. I ask the House how the Black population can be expected to believe in a private enterprise system which, after all, is the epitome of a democratic system when that system, as it is managed by this Government, is subjecting them to ever-increasing prices, to a prolonged and severe recession and to all the miseries that are attached to unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, when I came this House in 1961, I received a note from the late Dr. Eric Louw in which he congratulated me and gave me some advice. He advised me, amongst other things, to choose certain subjects and to make a study of them, and he went on to say that he advised me to steer clear of matters concerning the relations between Whites and non-Whites, because there were enough experts and clever people in the House who could speak on this subject. I do not know whether Dr. Louw thought I was not competent to discuss it. In any event, I followed his advice, and to this day I have seldom if ever made any reference in this House to the relations between Whites and non-Whites. However, I feel a need to deal with this subject today, because there are certain things which are bothering me. I am not referring to what is happening within the NP and the Government, I am not referring to the policy of the NP, but to the fact that some confusion has arised in the minds of the people of South Africa, including the people of my own party, as a result of the slogans and actions of our enemies. In saying this, I am not referring only to our political enemies on the other side of this House, but also to our enemies outside, of which communism is the most dangerous of all. People have been clamouring for change in this country, without ever having defined what the word means. Indeed, there is widespread confusion today about what “change” really means and about what the objectives should be when people say that change is at hand. I should like to refer briefly to my predecessor, Mr. Ben Schoeman, about whom an article was recently published in Rapport. According to the article, he gave a shrewd exposition of the matter—

For this reason I feel a need today to discuss this matter and the speakers who took part in the debate before me will understand that I am not disposed to reply to their arguments. All the same, I should like to reply briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He spoke of the shortage of loan funds from abroad and he considered this to be a matter of major importance. He and his spiritual associates are acquainted with a man called Zac de Beer. He is one of their spiritual associates.

They work for him.

Yes, he is one of their big shots.

They really work for one another.

I should like to use the words of Zac de Beer to illustrate to the hon. member for Johannesburg North what one must not do if one wishes to promote South Africa’s position in regard to its loan requirements. In the Financial Mail of 12 November last year, the following report appeared under the heading “I wouldn’t invest in South Africa”—

Exactly; not a South African.

The hon. member supports it, Sir. That only shows that he has no love for this country. [Interjections.] The report goes on to say—

He is just giving it a different name, Sir; he is telling the outside world not to invest in South Africa until such time …

I was there; he did not put it that way.

The hon. member for Yeoville wants to make excuses for him now and to say that he did not put it that way. If that is so, then the Financial Mail is lying. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I shall leave it at that, but this is the kind of problem which we have to contend with inside the country in respect of our political opponents. This is one of the reasons why South Africa is not achieving the success we should like it to achieve.

To come back to the subject of my speech, I should like to say that my basic approach to the political problems in South Africa is that the White man’s right to political self-determination must never ben endangered. This is the basis of my political philosophy. In that connection I cannot quite agree with the hon. member for Maitland. He often speaks of “White leadership”. I cannot quite agree with that. I do not want to dwell on this matter, but I just want to say briefly that your leadership lasts as long as the people you are leading are willing to keep you there.

Yes. That is what I said.

Then, if they decide one day that they no longer want your leadership, you are out.

Correct.

For that reason I cannot give my support to the philosophy of White leadership. I prefer to say that the basis of my approach is that the White man’s right to political self-determination must never be endangered. Sir, I am not the only one who has made this statement. It has been made by the hon. member for Edenvale as well. At the time when we had a commission of inquiry into the political rights of the Coloured people, he submitted a memorandum to the commission. One of the statements he made in it was the following—

Then, as the very first factor, he mentions the following—

I do not know whether this opinion is still held by the hon. member today. This was before he became a member of this House. He went on to say in his submission that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race or colour. I subsequently asked him a question in connection with this matter, because it seemed to me to be inconsistent to say that on the one hand the White man’s right to political self-determination must be retained, but that at the same time there must be no discrimination on grounds of race or colour. I wanted to know from the hon. member how he could reconcile these two ideas. The hon. member replied as follows:

I should like to read what he said on this occasion, for it has a very important bearing on the approach to the problem. He said the following:

This part is important—

I have read this part to the House, because it seems that the hon. member is one of the advocates today of those people who are seeking co-operation with the PRP. I agree with the hon. member’s idea to a large extent, except that I am more realistic than to say that in spite of this there must be no discrimination on grounds of race and colour. I should just like to know how these ideas of the hon. member can be reconciled with the policy of the PRP. The hon. member for Houghton has conceded herself that she said that the result of her policy would be Black majority government. I have no action against majority government, but if someone tells me that he is in favour of Black majority government then I say he is a racist. Why does it have to be “Black” majority government? Why can’t it be simply “majority” government? I am concerned about the situation, and this is why I am raising the matter here today. The idea that there is no alternative to Black majority government is rapidly gaining ground among the people in South Africa. The idea is propagated by the English Press, especially by newspapers such as the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Times. This is why letters such as the one I am now going to read to this House are published in newspapers. This letter was recently published in the Sunday Times under the heading “Change only a foot away”, as follows—

Who wrote that?

It was written by Marcel Robertson of The Bluff in Durban.

Who is he?

I do not know who he is. He cannot be anything but a Prog, but it is in consequence of that idea that I feel the urge today to discuss the matter. As I have already said, I basically agree with what Prof. Olivier said a few years ago, as quoted. However, I want to be more realistic and to say that we cannot continue the implementation of our policy without a measure of discrimination, discrimination in either direction and not necessarily in one direction only. As far as our Bantu policy is concerned, we are providing exactly what Prof. Olivier suggested here in his speech before the commission, namely the right to political self-determination, not only for the White man, but also with special reference to the Bantu population group in an ethnic context, as he put it. We have come a long way on that road and as far as the Bantu are concerned, it is a road which can enable us to eliminate discrimination to a large extent, and which is in fact doing so. I want to place on record today what Dr. Verwoerd told me in 1939 when we were holding a provincial election in Worcester. After the meeting we gathered in the house of Mr. P. A. Malan. There the late Dr. Verwoerd said in a conversation with me: “Never before have I realized so clearly that our policy will lead to the elimination of discrimination. ”

That was in 1959.

It was in 1959. What did I say?

1939.

No, I am sorry. That is really too long ago! It was 1959. This is quite true, for we have come a long way with this policy, and last year, the very year in which we reached the culmination, the milestone, in the development of the policy of the development of separate freedoms, that we had the problems we did. Do hon. members think it was a coincidence that we had the riots during that same year? Certainly not. It was part of a well-organized plan. During that year, when my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, reached this milestone, for which South Africa should erect a monument to him, the enemies of South Africa tried more actively than before to hinder us in the implementation of a policy for which the Government has a mandate from the people. Of course, it suits the communists very well for us to be thwarted in the implementation of that policy. It is also the desire of the PRP as well as the Opposition that we should be thwarted in the implementation of that policy. Let me say to the credit of the PRP that they have already stated that they will not deprive the various Bantu peoples of the freedom they are being given. However, the UP has not said so yet. That party is still fighting us and has still not given any indication of where it would stand if it were to come into power one day.

There is no doubt about the fact that the whole world is going through a difficult time, and South Africa has probably become the target of more communist attacks than any other country in the world. We are in fact living through a third world war, and I should like to refer hon. members to an article by Brian Crozier in Conflict Studies under the heading: “The War called Peace.” In it he writes as follows—

He writes as follows about the date of April 1944—

He goes on to say—

I agree with that, but there is no doubt about the fact that we are indeed living in serious times. The charge which I bring against the Opposition, not only against the UP, but against the PRP as well, is that we are not afforded the opportunity in South Africa of implementing the will of the people. During the war, when the decisions of Parliament and, after the 1943 election, the will of the people were thwarted, people were put in jail and sent to concentration camps. Today, however, we have people in South Africa who enjoy the freedom to do everything they can, in spite of the dangerous position in which we find ourselves, to thwart that injunction from the people to implement a policy for the sake of peace in South Africa.

You have over 400 people in detention, so how can you say that?

Last year I was quoted here by the hon. member for Newton Park as having said that as the gap between the levels of civilization of the various population groups was narrowed, it would become less essential to have apartheid, or call it discrimination if you like. I said that, and there is not the slightest doubt about it. However, I do not have time now to go into that. At the end of the Second World War, apartheid became essential. Because the various population groups had grown closer together economically apartheid became necessary to eliminate points of friction. Previously they had been far apart in spite of differences in the levels of civilization. As far as the Coloured people are concerned, now that they have attained a higher level of civilization, apartheid has naturally become less essential. Consequently, the necessary adjustments are made by this Government from time to time as they are required in the changed circumstances.

Therefore I say that we are not against change. However, I am against the use of this word “change” to mislead our people and to place them on a slippery slope down which they slide at such a pace that they do not know where they might end up. I have said that I am sick and tired of the word “change”, precisely because of the reasons I have just mentioned. Recently, at a meeting at Despatch, I went so far as to say that it was a communist slogan. I want to refer once again to this article by Brian Crozier. I quote:

In other words, this was the injunction to the philosophers, the Marxist philosophers— “change the world”.

Martin Luther!

That is what they are engaged in, and that is what I object to. [Interjections.] Therefore I consider it my task to warn the people. For years, a feeling of guilt has been instilled into the people of South Africa. Another thing which bothers me is the fact that there are people who are seeking confrontation. Our State President said in his opening address that unfortunately there were people in South Africa who believed that the Government should be overthrown, by violent means if possible, and that this was the only way of obtaining true political rights. But those people who are seeking confrontation are here, and the hon. member for Sea Point cannot escape censure. He is the man who has a close association with Gatsha Buthelezi. He and his lieutenants are the people who write his speeches and who tell him what to say. How does he identify himself with these words of his friend, and I quote—

He goes on to say—

Can he identify himself with those words of the people with whom he is constantly associating and co-operating? What did he say at his congress in Port Elizabeth? According to The Daily Mail he said—

If these were his words, I say that this was a lie. This is not true. It is a complete misrepresentation and is aimed at encouraging confrontation in South Africa, if this can possibly be brought about by means of words. I should like to refer him to the words of Bishop Burnett, another spiritual associate of his. He passed the judgment of God upon South Africa because we practise apartheid. I do not have time to read it in full, but he said, amongst other things—

He went on to say:

He is the man who passes the judgment of God upon South Africa because we want to seek peace within the various population groups, because we have had peace and quiet for 28 years. For this reason I say that we must be clear about the aims of the people who predict disaster and clamour for so-called “change”, and about what they consider this to mean, because it is causing confusion.

I have only a few minutes left. It would be quite fair to ask me: what about the future? Where do we go from here? If I may give a frank reply to that, I want to say that in the future we must implement and develop the policy of the NP more vigorously than ever before. That is what the welfare of South Africa requires. We have come a long way already. As far as the Bantu are concerned, we must give them their freedom if they ask for it and if they are willing to accept it. In this way, the Transkei achieved its independence last year without one drop of blood being shed. Merely by signing a few documents, we brought about freedom and peace in the Transkei, and we must continue along that road as rapidly as possible.

What about the Coloured people? It is true that the end of the road for the Coloured people has not been clearly defined yet, but the Coloured people have come a long way already. We learn from figures in the Erika Theron report that in the post-war period of economic prosperity, the Coloured population group made greater progress and received greater benefits than any other population group in South Africa. Did this happen under the UP regime or under the NP regime? Politically, the Coloured people have made tremendous progress. However, do not think we shall be able to satisfy Mr. Sonny Leon. We shall never be able to satisfy extremists. We shall have to decide where to draw the line. We have to make the adjustments within the framework of NP policy and in accordance with the change in circumstances from day to day. But we shall never be able to comply with the wishes of the extremists. For this reason I say to the Coloured population, to those who are reasonable and willing to meet us around a table and to speak to us, “Have patience for a while. You have already come a long way, after all. You have made great progress.” They used to do only menial jobs. Today, walking down Adderley Street round about 4 o’clock or 5 o’clock in the afternoon, one sees many well-dressed Coloured ladies and men walk past. They earn good salaries. In the courts one finds them as attorneys and advocates. Ten or 15 years ago this was not so. In the hospitals one finds them as doctors and in the universities as lecturers and professors. This progress they have made under the NP regime. Those opportunities have been created under the NP policy.

Sir, my time has expired. When I go to bed tonight, my prayer will be that the outside world, and especially White South Africa, should afford us an opportunity to implement the NP policy, for the welfare of all the population groups of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. the Minister speak of the confusion in which he finds the South African public, as also of the fears and the dangers which many of them perceive. I was interested to hear him speak of the right of White self-determination, because these are matters which I myself wish to discuss today. I was also interested to hear the hon. the Minister admit that separate development could not succeed without a certain measure of discrimination being prevalent. In that admission which he has placed before us lies the seed of the failure of the policy of separate development. All in all I would say to that hon. Minister that I think he should stick to transport. He spoke of the rights and the wrongs of his policy.

I believe that there are, broadly, two ways in which an Opposition speaker can tackle a debate such as this. Both ways are compatible yet different. The first method is to discuss the rights and the wrongs of separate development, to approach this debate, which is irrevocably centred round racial affairs, from a moralistic point of view, criticizing the Government’s actions, and its lack of action, on behalf of those who have no voice. Such pleas are powerful; they are powerful in their rectitude, but in my limited experience in this House they cut little ice in this earthy atmosphere. We represent an electorate, however, an electorate of South Africans, the vast majority of whom, like myself, have long since decided that their future and their fortunes are immutably bound up with the future of this Republic.

*As the hon. member for Rondebosch often puts it, there are those who stay and those who leave. Let us discuss for a few minutes our deep concern, of those of us who stay, at the problems confronting us.

†The first question to which we would like to have an answer is this: Can this Government, powerful as it is, provide the road to a secure, a prosperous, a racially contented South Africa?

Yes!

I say that it cannot. And why do I say this? Let me explain. In the first instance, with regard to the homelands which are lacking mutually satisfactory consolidation, land-hungry and the poor relations of this rich Republic: I predict that they will prove in years to come to be uneasy bedfellows. They will provide no balm at all for the legitimate aspirations of the vast majority of the non-White people in this country. Furthermore, this Government stands in deliberate and seemingly unending confrontation with the majority of Black Africans outside the homelands. As a result of this, the very basis of our existence is threatened. I would ask: Is that statement disputed, that the Government stands in confrontation with the vast majority of Black people in South Africa? Because, if it is disputed, let me quote for your ears Dr. C. van der Pol, chairman of the Hulett Corporation, in his opening address a few days ago to the South African Institute of Race Relations. He said—

He goes on to define what he thinks is free enterprise. Let me paraphrase his words and add a few words of my own. Free enterprise is the opportunity to obtain an equal education; the freedom to choose a profession or a trade; the freedom to sell your labour in the highest market; to spend, to invest, to buy and sell, to lose or to gain; the freedom to buy and own land; the freedom to set up your own business, trade or industry; the freedom to create work opportunities by employing other people, to live with one’s family near to one’s work; the freedom to manufacture products; and the freedom to bargain collectively, or otherwise for better working conditions. Finally, it involves the freedom to express political views and influence in the area where it matters, the area where one lives.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how does this Government’s policy measure up to those criteria? Dr. Van der Pol—and I quote him again— puts it this way—

Now, if this is true and if Dr. Van der Pol’s assertion is correct, the problem is fast approaching critical proportions. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. the Minister of Defence when he said the other day: “Ons is ’n volk wat nie wil sterf nie.” I agree with the hon. the Minister of the Interior, when he said: “We refuse to commit national suicide.” I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria Central when he expressed his conviction that he could not support a viewpoint which provided no security for Whites in South Africa. But I ask hon. members whether this continuing impasse is not leading to an inevitable breakdown of our security, step by step nearer to that confrontation which will, in the long term, lead to the very national suicide which the hon. the Minister of the Interior cannot now contemplate.

The hon. member for Vereeniging asserts that the policy of separate development is the policy of freedom. He asserts that. But, Mr. Speaker, my question is: What use is his conception of freedom in a country in which the individual, the citizen, is becoming less free every day, in a country which has so vast an array of security legislation, of restrictive laws in operation that it is described by Prof. W. H. V. Dean, professor of public law at the University of Cape Town, as being a country in a permanent state of emergency? How is it possible in a country where, for example, laws govern where a person may or may not swim, in which laws govern with whom we may or may not go to school or university, in which laws govern which theatres we may or may not visit, what books we may read, what areas we may reside in, whom we may love and whom we may marry, what seats we may sit in and where we may not sit? What is the result of this? What is the end result of this form of society?

Let me ask that hon. member for Vereeniging who spoke of the policy of freedom: If he could not acquire a full education, if he could not freely choose his place and type of work, if he were paid a racially differentiated wage for the work he did, if he—being married— could not own, or even perhaps occupy, a house, if he, for the major portion of his life, could not live with his wife or children, and finally, if he had no forum to which he could address his grievances, would he say that he was free? That is what I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging. Or, would he meekly submit? Or would he reject that system, that system which Dr. Van der Pol says many people in South Africa are rejecting?

I am sure that we know the answer to that question.

What then must be done? The hon. member for Sea Point has for the short term given a lead. He mentioned three points, three urgent matters, the implementation of which will contribute to our greater security. He said, firtly, that we should satisfy the legitimate land requirements of the homelands. He said that if we are serious about the policy of Bantustans and separate development, we must consolidate and satisfy the reasonable requirements of those countries in order to make them viable and want to take independence. He said, secondly, that we must recognize the urban Black man as permanent in the urban areas, and all that flows from this. He said, thirdly, that we must bring the Coloureds into the main stream of the South African economy and the main stream of our body politic. I do not believe these are final answers, but they are the beginnings of a plan which will do far more for the long-term preservation of our identity than all the security laws and restrictive laws that are on the Statute Book and will yet be placed upon it.

The final answer lies not in any White-devised policy—not the Government’s and perhaps not even ours. It will arise from a proper negotiation; not a consultation, but a negotiation, a joint decision-making, a real negotiation and not one based on ad hoc reactions and decisions. We may call it a conference or a “Turnhalle”, a getting together. It is there, at such a negotiation that an agreed solution may be found, not dictated, but jointly decided. It is only there and in such a manner that the free enterprise system may be preserved, no doubt by agreeing to share, because if we cannot share the benefits of free enterprise, we will not save it for ourselves. The hon. the Deputy Minister was very derisive about negotiation with, for instance, Sonny Leon and Gatsha Buthelezi. However, I say to him that if he refuses to negotiate with these people, he will in time, and sooner than he thinks, be forced to negotiate with the Mugabes of Africa, with the voices of darkness and of terror. No convention or conference can succeed if one group dictates who the delegates to that convention shall be. If we wish to achieve consensus which will result in a new order, free of subversion and conflict, it must be made possible for those nominated or selected by their people to be there and to be heard, whatever those persons’ situation may be at the time. Finally, I must point out that only by invoking fast short-term action and by embarking upon a long-term programme of real negotiation can the identity and the security of all our people be assured.

Mr. Speaker, I have followed the debate up to this point and, like others, I have also observed the inherent and fundamental divisions which exist between the various Opposition groups. The general and overall impression that they make on one is that it is really tragic for South Africa to have to experience the fact that there is nothing in the benches on the opposite side which can serve as an alternative to the NP. In general, Sir, I want to make the observation that this makes the responsibility of the National Party very great in the sense that it has to depend on its own abilities, its own ideas and its own vision to lead South Africa alone in a difficult world. Were the hon. members on the opposite side and what they propagate for South Africa to become a reality, we would find that South Africa was moving along the path of a Marxist dictatorship. We shall have to understand this.

I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is not present here this afternoon but he lays claim to academic qualifications and it is said that he could even obtain, or is considering, a post at an educational institution. I want to give him some very good advice, Sir, which is, that it would be a good thing, whenever one draws conclusions or makes statements in the House, at least to co-ordinate and control the facts on which one bases one’s conclusions. I do not want to dwell on his speech. He accused the Prime Minister of supposedly having read businessmen a lecture and of having warned them against meddling in politics. I made a point of asking him whether he based his view on a newspaper report or whether he had read the speech. I am under the impression that he said he had read the speech. What did the hon. the Prime Minister actually say in that specific regard? He began his speech and then made certain statements. Then he said: “Flowing from the appreciation of the close links between economics and politics, it falls entirely within the legitimate activities of business organizations, as I have already said, to comment on the political developments in the country as far as these will impinge on the functioning of the economy”. Surely the Prime Minister in fact identified that as the task of the businessmen? When political events or policy standpoints have an effect on economic life and its progress, businessmen would be shirking their responsibility if they did not speak out or act against them. He then went further and warned them about something else.

Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Constantia. Let me say at once that I cannot fault the factual analysis which he made of the course of our economy. I myself do not have any fault to find with certain conclusions which he came to, although I want to say at once that he did not have all the facts at his disposal. I am not reproaching him for this because they have not yet been published. If I compliment him on his factual analysis of the economic conditions in the country, I cannot pay him the same compliment with respect to his identification of their causes. I want to tell him that his superficial analysis of the causes is in direct contrast to the other analysis which he made. The fact is that the course of the economy in South Africa, for that matter the course of the economy in any other country in the world, is not just the result of internal events but is often the result of events in other countries, in the world at large with which countries are associated. What is more: The course of the economy is not only dependent on internal and external economic events. It is also dependent on political events in other countries of the world, on political considerations. The progress of our economy is intensely dependent on, and is intensely influenced by, the political aspirations and political ideologies of great powers. I now want to know in all seriousness whether the hon. members want us to bring the dispensation in our country into line with what those countries that are advocating change for us want? Are the hon. members on that side of the House prepared to formulate the scope and direction of that change as their policy for South Africa? I do not deny that injustices do occur in my country and I do not deny that there is fallibility because it comprises a diversity of people with specific prejudices in their lives. We cannot deny this fact. I am frequently of the opinion that South Africa needs a change of heart, of attitude and of patriots, in the face of what is threatening it in every sphere outside. Of course the interdependence of political events, both at home and abroad, and the course of economic life, is a well-known fact. To make out, as the hon. members on that side of the House are trying to do, that our economic problems in South Africa are attributable solely to the policy which is followed here, is a mistake, a mistake which, in the light of the seriousness of the situation for our country and for the world, cannot be tolerated. It would be as much of a mistake if I or others were to allege that our political problems must be attributed solely to external factors. For this reason I plead for perspective and I want to issue the warning, for the sake of the motivation of our people, that we will to an increasing extent find evidence of people who will attempt, under various and frequently favourably defined guises—and such attempts are indeed being made—to persuade the general public, the businessmen and the non-White population groups to participate in a process of rejecting our Constitution and of destroying our existing political dispensation, with its weaknesses—-I admit that there are in fact weaknesses—of changing our socioeconomic system so as to replace it with one in which there is no question of freedom, and to replace it with the philosophy of the redistribution of wealth, wealth which is not earned but which is taken.

This must lead to the essence of the struggle against South Africa, namely the nationalization of profits, goods and properties—which is in the final instance what is at issue in South Africa—and the putting of a Marxist dictatorship in its place. This takes place under the slogan “change” without qualifying or quantifying the direction of that change. It takes place under the slogan “a new dispensation” without defining that term, without saying what it means. In this way people whom I believe are patriotic become instruments of the forces that want to destroy us. I wish I had the time to carry this argument further but I want to ask the hon. members whether the time has not come for us at least to admit to each other that South Africa is the target, irrespective of the reasons, of an international strategy and that our only adequate reply to this lies in the acceptance of a national counter-strategy, which means not only that each one of us should do our duty in our respective spheres, but also that collectively we should motivate our people for such a strategy. I do not believe that the majority of South Africans, the Coloured people, the Indians, the Black people and the Whites are in favour of the destruction of these values. I do not believe that the majority of our people are in favour of forfeiting of our dispensation. But I shudder and I am astounded when I think how great the powers of resistance of the Black and Coloured people have to be under this assault on their spirit, an assault which is led by the agents of revolution and aided by the agents of change. I am not prepared to shirk my responsibility in this House by failing to acknowledge these facts, and by not attempting to analyse the circumstances in which my country finds itself.

It is not an exaggeration if I tell the hon. members that this debate is most probably taking place in one of the most difficult economic and political situations that South Africa and the world have yet experienced. I believe that in this connection hon. members will agree with me that it demands some concrete action from us. I think the circumstances of the times demand of the Government, of everyone in the benches on the other side, of the businessmen, of the professional and academic world in our country, of our economists—in fact of our entire population—that we consider our goals, that we reassess the means at our disposal; and that we reflect once more upon the political and economic strategies within the limits of our means. Hon. members will recall that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, stated the Government’s economic policy last year. What was the highest priority in this strategy? The highest priority was an effective Defence Force for South Africa because we must realize that the Defence Force’s responsibility also lies in ensuring the safety within which the economy must grow and within which confidence must exist among those people who have to make all these things possible.

The second element of the policy was that we must maintain our economic strength by improving our balance of payments and strengthening our reserves, by curbing inflation and maintaining growth, so that, within our means and circumstances we could tend to the welfare of the underprivileged. If we want to take a realistic look at the state of affairs today, however, in the light of events since March last year, what becomes clear to us? It is this: Added momentum has been given to our country’s defence priority. The hon. members will certainly not wish to debate this point with me.

Then there still remains the second objective of the policy and that is to strengthen our balance of payments so that it can support our growth as high priority. It is for this reason that the strengthening of our foreign reserves is just as important. And although the inflation rate—and I shall refer to this later— dropped considerably last year and more specifically during the last quarter of 1976, so that it is below 9% per year, we still do not have reason to be pleased with it. I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this connection.

Let us take a look now at the third objective, which is economic growth. I do not differ with the hon. member for Constantia when he says that we have been experiencing a declining business cycle for the past two years. Nor do I differ with him when he says that there is cause for grave concern at the fact that it was the most serious one since the Second World War. Nor do I differ with him with respect to his allegation that we are falling behind in the pursuit of our economic goals. The relationship between international political and economic circumstances is of real importance in this respect.

I want to mention two facets which are the result of the low growth rate in 1975 and 1976. Some hon. members have already referred to them. In the first place I am referring to the extent to which our compulsory increased spending on defence places an additional, a greater burden on us when it comes to the financing of our defence measures from the dwindling national product, from a dwindling national per capita income of the population. Secondly, there is the fact that we are having to deal with increasing unemployment in the country.

Then the hon. member for Hillbrow alleges that, according to his information, it costs R25 000 to obtain the statistics on unemployed Blacks. In the USA the costs involved in obtaining these statistics is the most expensive in the series. It costs them R4,5 million per year. Is the hon. member prepared to apply the international definition to Black labour? Why, then, does he speak in the House in terms of statistical considerations in a society which is not comparable to the one to which he refers? Do you know, Sir, what I reproach him for most?

You can set your own norms.

I reproach him most for putting South Africa’s chances of survival— he sees that we are concerned with survival politics—at one in a thousand. Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to describe my reaction, but you will certainly be able to interpret my thoughts. And when these things happen the hon. member is prepared, in the face of all these things, to occupy himself with such frivolous and superficial matters. I want him to consider reading the report of the International Finance Corporation. In the light of the serious consequences of a continued low growth rate, superficially minded people will argue that it is now an ideal set of conditions to stimulate growth. The hon. member for Constantia at least knows that what we are experiencing at the moment is a classic example of conflicting economic objectives. He will not be able to deny this.

What about petrol?

Yes, I am still coming to that. I want to make the observation that if that hon. member, like others, had been prepared to advocate that we strengthen our country by eliminating waste, that we should not blow the limited assets we have through the carburettors of our motor cars, he would have made a contribution towards the security of South Africa. The picture I want to paint is a sombre one; I concede that. The picture I want to paint is in my opinion, however, a realistic one. There are rays of hope, such as the increased exports which could improve our growth. There are business cycles in the world and we are part of the world. Besides this, special features are present. I have already referred to them. For example, there is the intensity of the depression and of the inability to adapt in good time to changing circumstances. There are some other important factors too, viz. the events on our borders and the events in Angola and Mozambique. Even the events in Rhodesia have an effect on economic life in South Africa. Surely it has had an effect on the flow of capital between countries, and therefore on South Africa as well. I want to ask that we should all understand that we cannot have a fourfold increase in our import accounts for oil, and that we cannot afford, together with defence spending which must, of necessity, rise and a shrinking national income, to allow all the other luxuries as well. Then I ask: Why are the hon. members not prepared to tread this difficult path with us and to inspire our people so that they can realize that while we must practise survival politics, it means that we will have to adjust our standard of living to the country’s total means?

There is another important point to which I want to refer. That is to attribute the fact that the capital flow to South Africa has diminished, that it has changed in terms of conditions, and that it has changed in terms of instalments, solely to South Africa. To attribute these things solely to our country is surely untrue. Surely countries from which we traditionally obtain our funds have also been affected in the long term by recession conditions, to such an extent that it is estimated that their total ability to form capital is now only 40% of their previous potential.

I have little time left. In closing, I want to say that I think it is necessary for all of us in this country to come to a new understanding of what happened here, that we should not superficially brush aside the problems to which I have referred by simply placing the blame for them on the Government. I am prepared to help bear the blame. Sir, let us have our political differences. Let us have our differing points of departure on what is or is not good for our country, even on a variety of political matters. But I am simply asking whether South Africa’s interests do not demand at this stage that that politicking there on the other side amongst each other and against us, to come to an end. Can we not, in these times, at least stand together to motivate our people for the difficult times and tasks which lie ahead for us? I think that, in view of the course of historic events, in view of our experience, those hon. members should cease their flights of fancy about political dispensations which will have no viability in the complex composition of South Africa’s population. I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether there is apartheid in Angola. I want to ask him whether the winds of change which were to have meant freedom for Africa, did in fact mean freedom. I want to ask him in how many countries there are majority governments. I want to ask him to advocate a model for South Africa, to champion a political dispensation for South Africa which cannot mean only one thing, viz. the abdication, not only of the White man as such, but also of that which the White man means in South Africa in terms of political, economic and social systems.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I will be touching upon some of the points raised by the hon. the Minister who has just spoken, but I would like to say that he did suggest that we were wrong to ascribe our economic difficulties—I agree with him where he said they were very sombre indeed—solely to the political policies of the Government. Nobody ascribes them solely to the political policies of the Government. What we say is that the difficulties in which the country finds itself are gravely aggravated by the policies of this Government. I hope to develop that a little further in the course of what I have to say.

I listened with interest to the New Year broadcast by the hon. the Prime Minister, and I was impressed because of the candour with which he spoke of our situation in the year 1977, as he saw it. He painted a picture—and I will use the same phrase that the hon. the Prime Minister used—as sombre as any that I have seen or heard of in the time that I have been in this House. I believe we would benefit if we dwelt a moment or two on the salient features of that message. He said, firstly, that we in South Africa are a source of embarrassment and annoyance to the Free World. He said that, in addition, the communists had not lost their ambitions for the domination of the Free World and, indeed, of this sub-continent in particular. He said the communists had superiority in the world of conventional weapons of war. He said we were a convenient whipping-boy for the Third World and so enabled it to preserve its fragile unity. He said also that the Free World had shown that it was not prepared to stand up against the Third World. He said also that recent decisions of the United Nations had encouraged the communist world to think they could have a free hand to act as they pleased in this sub-continent. He said Angola had shown that Russia could do much the same in this sub-continent as she had done in Hungary as far as the Western World was concerned. Finally, he said—and this, to me, is the most important aspect of it—the reality of our situation was that we might have to defend ourselves alone against any onslaught by the communists, because the Western World would neither defend us nor give us arms.

Sir, that is indeed a sombre statement to make, and nothing that has been said from the Government benches so far in this debate, has led me to believe that the gravity of that situation has been fully appreciated by hon. members opposite. The hon. the Prime Minister—and let me say it again—has publicly stated that we may have to face a communist onslaught alone, because the West, our traditional friends, will neither defend us nor give us arms. He said that not in a vacuum, but at a time when the newly elected American President is committed to negotiate with Soviet Russia for a treaty to limit the development of nuclear arms. This is the only sphere in which the West at the present time has superiority, and the principal power of the West is committed to negotiate to limit that. The hon. the Prime Minister said this at a time when Russia has a lead in conventional arms. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that events in Angola, South West Africa and Rhodesia have caused a lack of confidence abroad by businessmen in South Africa. Additionally, he has said that that lack of confidence, abroad and here, has been aggravated by the events in Soweto, Langa and elsewhere.

Sir, I could add to that catalogue of woe yet another one, viz. that, as far as I can judge it, the present weather conditions point to this year being a year of agricultural drought and depression. Now, let us accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s forecast in the terms in which I have summed it up. I believe we can do that, gloomy and sombre as it is, because, to a large extent, I believe, it is a correct assessment of the facts of today.

The question, then, is immediately posed to the Government: Is this country in a fit state to face an onslaught of communism alone? That is the key question to the survival of this country at the present time, and that presents a second question, which is: What are the requirements for success here in those circumstances? I believe, firstly, that one of the requirements for success is a well-trained and adequate army. I believe we probably have that, certainly in comparison with the other States in Africa. A second essential requirement is sufficient arms and equipment, and either the ability to produce those armaments, or an assured supply of replacements. We have a limited capacity in that regard, so far as I know, and should that war require heavy equipment, tanks, heavy guns and aircraft, the possibility exists, as the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated, that our supplies from abroad might be terminated. But what is perhaps, so far as I can assess the situation, the most important aspect of our capability to exist, is that we must have a population the majority of whom support the Government’s prosecution of any war and who believe in the cause for which the country is fighting. There must be a preparedness to support the Government with a measure of enthusiasm and a firm belief in the righteousness of the cause for which their country is fighting. It was that alone that enabled Great Britain to survive in the 1940s and it is largely that spirit which has enabled the survival of the Afrikaner people in this country.

Let us look at our situation in South Africa in the light of that last criterion. As far as I can judge, there is very little difficulty in respect of the Whites of South Africa, but can the same be said of the balance of the people who inhabit this sub-continent? What assurance has the Prime Minister, in these circumstances that I have outlined, that he can carry the balance of the population with him? The key in our situation is those population groups which inhabit the large industrial and opolitan centres of South Africa, in fact, our industrial work force. They are, apart from the Whites, the urban Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians. Two of these groups have mainly been involved in the violence and rioting which have beset this country for the last six months or more. The Government repeatedly says—and it has been said over and over again in this debate—that that violence was largely the work of agitators who, we are told, managed to stir up a largely contented population, and the inference goes further, against a benevolent Government. In the four minutes of his speech which he devoted to these matters, the Minister of Bantu Administration, who is not here, said precisely that. Sir, does that assertion bear a moment’s examination? Nobody can deny that these riots took place on a massive scale. They immediately spread from the point of initiation on the Witwatersrand to many parts of South Africa. They were quite obviously meticulously and carefully planned by a large number of people in a network all over the country. This was done despite the very considerable powers under the security legislation which this Government has taken over a period of more than ten years, and despite a large and highly efficient security police force which we have in South Africa. It succeeded, and this is significant, on a large scale, despite numerous deaths and injuries being suffered by the rioters themselves. It is quite obvious that the Government knew nothing of either the preparations or the immediate outbreak of these events.

The significant part of all this is that large numbers of ordinary people were prepared to face death or injury in these riots, and were prepared to destroy property under those circumstances. Can anyone in his senses say that that measure of success by the rioting groups could be achieved by a few agitators working on a contented population whose leaders were backing the Government, because that is the summary we were given by the hon. the Minister in charge of this group, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? I say, “Of course not.” Nobody in his senses can accept a facile solution of that kind. Agitators there undoubtedly were. Unfortunately we live in an era when they will always be with us, but in the best communist tradition—and the hon. the Minister of Justice read it out to us from a document he had—they exploited deep-seated grievances amongst the people that rioted. Many of those grievances were legitimate grievances, which made them even easier to cotton on to. If that is not so and if my argument is wrong, why was it only the urban Blacks and the Coloureds who were involved in these riots? If it was an artificial creation of a few agitators, “opstokers”, as we are told by the hon. the Minister, why is it that the White children and students were not involved? If it is so easy to agitate and incite an otherwise contented population, why were they not involved? Just think, Sir, how much more serious it would have been had the Whites been involved in the riots. The reason is quite simple; it is because the teachers and the parents of the White children and students are largely a satisfied community, whereas the Coloured and the urban Bantu and their teachers and their parents were to a large extent not a satisfied community. That is why, Sir, it succeeded in the one respect and not in the other.

Why did it spread so quickly? Am I to understand that this was organized and co-ordinated by school-children? Of course not, Sir. I say again that it is axiomatic that the communist technique is to latch on to legitimate grievances and to build up riotous situations by those means. That is what happened in this instance.

Since the start of the riots, virtually nothing has been done or said by this Government to change the circumstances under which that violence broke out. How, in these circumstances, can the country face the possibility of a communist onslaught alone, as the hon. the Prime Minister indicated, with the slightest degree of confidence as long as this Government is in the seat of power? Let us face the facts. Despite what we have heard said in this debate—and this is important; I hope the hon. the Minister will listen—the fact is that this Government does not receive the support of any significant group of non-White people in this country. The very leaders of these people who have achieved their positions of pre-eminence in terms of the policies of this Government, have one after the other indicated that they are using their positions not in order to further the development of the system, but in order to break the system down. They have said it over and over again, and they are the elected leaders of these communities. They are the leaders with whom the Government is in constant negotiation.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, how on earth can you face a communist onslaught alone when you do not have the backing of the majority of your people, your industrial work force? That, Sir, is the nitty-gritty of the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. I say to the hon. gentleman, in so far as the Cape is concerned: How can you defend the Cape against such an onslaught when you have a sullen and seemingly disaffected Cape Coloured population to deal with? There has been a material change in the attitude of the Cape Coloured people since this time last year. [Interjections.] If we do not accept this, we are bluffing ourselves. One of the tragedies of this debate is that of all the hon. Ministers who are responsible for the people who were involved in these riots, namely the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, his three Deputy Ministers and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, only one has entered the debate so far, and that was the petulant pedagogue, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and he spent only four minutes of his speech dealing with his portfolio and with the riots that have taken place. [Interjections.]

What is to be done in these circumstances? I believe, as has repeatedly been indicated since the beginning of the debate by hon. members on this side of the House, that the Government’s policies and attitudes must be changed, not in some unknown and undefined manner, as was indicated by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, but along the lines we have indicated. The Government should introduce a system which will make the groups that I have referred to, proud to be South Africans, proud to support the Government of the day, and proud to support the free society and the free economy which we have in South Africa. Until we are assured of that support, we cannot be assured of our position here in so far as aggression is concerned. To put it more precisely, these groups must have a share in decision making and in government. They must feel part of the free enterprise economic system, they must appreciate and share in the benefits of that system and they must be prepared to defend the free enterprise system against communism. Quite simply, that means that they must prefer it to the communist economic system. It also means that they must be encouraged to become owners of land and property in freehold. This applies to the Coloured, the Indian and the urban Black. It is in this regard that the Government finds itself unable to move, and this, to my mind, is crucial. We must build up a class of property owners both in the urban areas among the urban Blacks and in the rural areas amongst the tribal Bantu. At the present time, as far as this continent is concerned, the White man is seen as rich and the Black man is seen as poor. Nothing fits better into the communist technique than this situation. The White man is not rich because he is in government in South Africa or anywhere else. He is rich because he understands and has mastered the free enterprise economic system. It is that system which produces wealth and not the fact of government. Socialism does not produce wealth. One cannot find a better example of that than Great Britain. Socialism merely redistributes existing wealth, but it does not produce it. It is the private enterprise system which produces wealth. The United States of America, Japan and Western Germany are proof of that. The role of government in the sort of society which I envisage, is merely to maintain law and order so that the private enterprise system can work and produce wealth. At the moment the Africans here and all over Africa unfortunately believe that they merely have to get Black rule, in other words, to become the Government, to automatically become rich and acquire wealth. That is the greatest fallacy in the world. One of the greatest criticisms that can be levelled against this Government is that in the 28 years for which it has been in power, it has done almost nothing to destroy the belief that to acquire wealth, one must become the Government and that once one has become the Government, the cornucopia will open and fall into one’s lap. This Government has done almost nothing in that time to encourage the Black man to become a property owner, which is the basis of the free enterprise system, to understand and share in the benefits of the free enterprise economic system, and to be prepared to defend it against the socialist and communist systems. This Government has done almost nothing in that regard and it is the key to our survival in the present time. To this day nearly all the development in the homelands is done through large, socialistic corporations, and that I deplore.

Because of the seriousness of the times I have listened to this debate with great attention and I have sat here throughout. A number of things have emerged. Has it all been a bad dream, or have we lived through one of the most serious periods of rioting and destruction that this country has ever known? If it is correct to describe it in those words, what do we get in the first major debate from the men who are responsible for our affairs? As I have indicated, largely silence and a few petulant irrelevancies from the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In situations of this kind—and it is unfortunately the key to our situation—what is the defence of the NP when all else fails? Tragically, it is exactly the same today as it was in 1961 when I first came here and it was used on every occasion that I can recall when the NP was really in trouble. It has two legs and it presupposes that the NP has a proprietary right to the loyalty of all Afrikaans-speaking people. I say this to my friends, as the clergymen say, in all brotherly love, more in sorrow than in anger. The first leg of this defence, the final back against the wall defence of the hon. gentlemen, is that the members opposite are the chosen of the Almighty and that they have not yet completed the course ordained by Him for them. That was the punch-line of the Prime Minister’s New Year message and it was the punch-line of the speech of the Minister of Information and others in this House. When I think of some of those who have graced the benches opposite in the years gone by, I often wonder why the Deity should have chosen them as against myself!

There is a second leg to this defence, and it emerged largely from the speech of the hon. member for Standerton. It goes along these lines: The hon. gentlemen opposite, to the exclusion of almost everybody else, are fearless, clean living, disciplined, god-fearing, upright, hard-working, principled people, as I say, more or less to the exclusion of all others. Consequently these characteristics will pull them through and these characteristics fit them for Government over and above all others.

You are talking a lot of nonsense. [Interjections.]

I think it is time that it was said that there are amongst others in South Africa, and certainly from amongst the group from which I stem, just as many people possessed of those qualities as there are among the gentlemen opposite. These are qualities of a pioneer stock and there are as many from that stock on this side of the House as there are over there. I would like to say this in view of the defence which has been put up and which, as I have said, is put up so often: I think that it can be fairly said of the English-speaking section from which I stem that they have just as much to be proud of in the way of the maintenance of standards, of identity and in courageous endeavour as any other section in this country. The sooner we accept that and the fact that we have a common destiny together in South Africa, the better we will solve our problems.

But, Sir, the total irrelevance of that type of call can be demonstrated in another way. In the years gone by wars were fought here and abroad largely between the Whites, and the non-Whites were to a large extent spectators both in the fighting and in the industrial development which supported the armies. That is no longer the case. In Africa today, it is not only the Whites who are involved in the wars, and success in war is no longer dependent upon the endeavours and resolutions of the Whites alone. Indeed, I think I have demonstrated that in South Africa itself we are now dependent upon the other races, both in respect of the armed forces and in respect of the maintenance of supplies for the armed forces, and if we cannot see it here, surely we have managed to see it in Rhodesia to the north of us. Everybody is involved, and that means that success in government today is not merely to win a majority in a White Parliament from a White electorate. Success lies in demonstrating to the country that one has the ability to meet the legitimate aspirations of all its people because all those people will be involved, not only in the fighting, but also in the support for the fighting forces. So one might very well be a representative of a minority, and minorities are not uncommon in Africa today. Pretty well every country is governed by a minority. The only difference is that they are Black and we are White, and perhaps we govern better. However, merely obtaining a majority at the polls from a White minority electorate demonstrates no more than that one has successfully pandered to the fancies and privileges of that electorate. It is no longer the gauge of success in South Africa of 1976. The gauge of success is not merely to win an election, but the ability to draw to one’s standard the loyalty and support of all those who are necessary to carry out a successful war. That means that one must be able to draw on the loyalty and support of all races in South Africa.

If that is the standard of success as far as government is concerned, then I believe it can be said that this Government has failed. Does anyone imagine that Mr. Ian Smith would have survived for as long as he has in Rhodesia had he not drawn support not only from those who elected him but also from all others in Rhodesia? I believe there is a lesson for us there as well. The position has been reached where the Nationalist Party can no longer go it alone, because if it attempts to do so, it becomes irrelevant, if it is not already irrelevant. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has pointed the way. He has pleaded for a new and broader based dispensation in this country, a dispensation which can draw people from all sections, from that side and from this side, to try to create conditions such that all races—and as far as I am concerned this is a prerequisite in our present situation—can be proud, firstly, of being South Africans and, secondly, of the fact that the Government of the day, whoever it may be, can, without looking over its shoulder, rely on the loyalty and the support, in both the fighting forces and on the home front, of all races if there should be a communist onslaught from abroad.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down said a number of things that are worthy of consideration and a number of things that were very contentious. At the end of his speech he took the liberty of saying that the NP had actually become irrelevant. Good heavens! Where is there a party that has become more irrelevant than the party to which that hon. member belongs? That party has become so irrelevant that an English language newspaper, in a leading article on 14 January, even before the occurrences on the grounds of which six members were expelled from the caucus, had something to say about it. The article reads as follows—

It goes on to say—

It stated further that the spade with which the UP was being buried was wielded by Sir De Villiers Graaff himself. It is therefore not fitting for a member of the hon. Opposition to talk of this side of the House as being a party that has become irrelevant.

The hon. member referred to the New Year’s speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. That was a message that was given in all earnestness. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister succeeded in making all sections of the population very keenly aware of the reality of the situation and the seriousness of that situation. However, it was not crisis thinking. I think those were very sober words, words that were intended to bring home to people the fact that if the worst were to happen—not that we expected it to happen or that we were moving or working in that direction—we should know that we would then have to rely only upon our own inner reserves of spiritual energy, military strength, economic strength and so forth. As I interpret the hon. the Prime Minister he did not however thereby intimate that we were heading for confrontation or destruction in a sort of fatalistic frame of mind. It is of course our aim, as far as we can, to gain the greatest possible sympathy and even support of Western countries. It is our aim to convince people to appreciate what the position in South Africa is and the problems with which we are struggling. But then, in the same breath, we also want to say that when people ask a price that is too high we are not prepared to pay that price. We are not prepared at the cost of our basic freedom, even of our lives, to get into step with a world that will be satisfied with nothing less than either national sucicide or capitulation in favour of a Black majority government throughout the whole of South Africa.

If what the hon. member intimated is true—that there is no appreciation on the part of Afrikaner Nationalists for the contribution that the English-speaking people have made towards the building up of South Africa— then there are various things that are completely inexplicable. For example, what the hon. the Prime Minister has over the years, since he became Prime Minister, said to the English-speaking people, and also what his predecessor did to include English-speaking people in the Government and in the NP—of course, within the framework of separate development for the various nations—is inexplicable. [Interjections.]

It is not as much a joke to us as it apparently is to hon. members on the other side. They have nothing to boast about. There are also various other things that are inexplicable. If hon. members do not think that we saw possibilities in the development of non-White nations or did not have respect for their identity, they must just for a moment remember who the people are who over the years have made a very great contribution towards the evangelizing of the non-White nations as well. It would then be completely inexplicable that, for example in the case of the DR church, the Mother church has fewer adherents than the daughter churches which draw their members from the non-White nations. This is the case because we saw the possibilities for those people. If this were not so, the independence of the Transkei, the possibility of which we envisaged and co-operated towards the realization of an ideal, would make no sense. This is precisely the proof that we do in fact appreciate the value peculiar to a specific group of Black people who themselves appreciate that value which is peculiar to them. Otherwise it would not have made any sense. One could go on in this way.

I should like now to deal with the hon. member’s accusation that not much has as yet been said about the disturbances, and should like to refer to a few matters he raised. I am sure he will pardon me if I do not reply to each little point he raised. I think that the hon. the Minister of Justice dealt with important aspects in connection with the handling of the disturbances. I do however want to state that if it had not been for the fact that we could rely upon the goodwill of by far the vast majority of Black people and Brown people, the disturbances could have assumed far greater proportions. Can the hon. member explain why it is that in Durban and in Bloemfontein there were either no disturbances or only unrest on a very restricted scale? That, after all, is a fact we have to take into account. We were not dealing with a nationwide fire that had broken out. Of course, the situation was serious in certain respects. The point that I want to make is that if we had had to deal with a full-scale revolt on the part of all Black and Brown people, the picture there would have been totally different. That is why it behoves that side of the House as well as this side of the House to express appreciation to those law-abiding Black and Brown people who in the face of great provocation and incitement kept their heads, stayed calm and did their work or tried to do their work where they were not prevented from doing so.

Did you write to Gatsha? [Interjections.]

I do not want to deal with that matter any further, but I am sure I will be permitted to say that we are not going to allow the hon. Opposition to forget how strange a world we see about us as far as they are concerned. There may perhaps be something to learn from this on the part of somebody who has not been in politics very long, namely, to realize that strange things certainly can happen in politics. However, there are certain matters which will remain inexplicable to the end One of these matters that will remain inexplicable to the end is that one can pretend that one stands by certain fixed, basic principles, that one regards certain elements in the world as enemies of one’s party or of one’s cause or of one’s country, and then, when it suits one, turn around and embrace those same enemies as allies in a struggle against another political party. I shall illustrate what I mean. I think we may just as well write an epitaph for the UP. In fact, they themselves have undertaken to do so. We can add the RIP on the understanding that it does in fact mean “Rest In Pieces”! Another strange thing is of course that a party that seeks to disband, that no longer has the courage to live, has quickly first of all, before it dies or before its final disbandment, to expel a few of its children so that they cannot be present at its deathbed and perhaps shed a tear at its dissolution.

I am not going to allow the hon. member for Durban Point to get away scot-free just like that. This is another of the things that to my mind is inexplicable in this situation. The hon. member made a particular showing here, and it is to this member I am referring when I make the following quotation. When an hon. member sitting in the backbenches of the PRP was elected at Durban North, the hon. member for Durban Point cried great crocodile tears and actually made use of the discussion under the Vote of Defence in order to express his sorrow in this regard. He said (Hansard, Vol. 62, col. 6160)—

I am not quoting this for the sake of malicious pleasure; I am doing so because in a certain sense I am concerned about the fact that an Opposition which one really does not want to see disappear entirely is now following the road along which it is prepared to cast in its lot with people who at a certain stage were regarded as the enemies of South Africa; that it is prepared to cast in its lot with these people without there having been a conversion or a change of heart on the part of that party, a party that is hand in hand with the enemies of South Africa, and that it is prepared to cast in its lot with those people in a common front against the NP. No governing party likes to see its Opposition making progress but I think—and I do not say this tongue-in-cheek—that I shall be truly sorry if the UP disappears from the scene in such a dishonourable manner—if I may put it that way—and becomes part of another constellation where it will be prescribed to by the people who it said were hand in hand with the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let me go further. When he was asked whether he was prepared to co-operate with those people, the same hon. member—perhaps in a moment of anxiety or excitement—said that he was even prepared to co-operate with the devil. Under specific circumstances, of course. I feel that I must warn that hon. member that he should know better the person with whom he wishes to co-operate; he ought at least to realize that there are people who know him better than that. To say now that he would even co-operate with the devil, if it were ostensibly in the interests of South Africa, is absolute nonsense. The hon. member must not pretend that he does not know the devil. In any case, I want to warn him to be careful. There are hon. members who do not know as much about the devil. Then there are also other hon. members who know the devil far too well to try to seek his co-operation.

I want now to address myself to the hon. member for Houghton. She is also something very strange in this House in relation to the things she says; at any rate, she strikes a very foreign note in this hon. House. In reply to a question by the hon. the Minister of Labour whether her party would be prepared to give recognition and free movement to Marxists in South Africa, we had an acknowledgement from the hon. member for Houghton, or words to that effect. Her reply was that the Marxists would be given the opportunity to put their point of view in South Africa. Am I correct?

Well, you allow Fascists!

The hon. member must not try to evade the question. We are dealing now with the Marxists. The hon. member is prepared to give Marxists the opportunity to put their point of view in South Africa. Surely there is no sense in giving people the opportunity to put their point of view and not at the same time also giving them the opportunity of organizing politically the opportunity of nominating political candidates for a parliamentary election. In principle therefore those people have the freedom, the possibility, the opportunity to devote their energies to coming into power in South Africa. Surely there is no fault to find with that sort of logic. I should like to recommend to the hon. member—whether or not she will accept my recommendation is another matter—that she read a work that was written by Anthony Harrigan and issued by the Nasionale Handelsdrukkery here in Cape Town. The title of the book is Defence Against Total Attack.

Did you read it during the Second World War?

Long, long ago! The writer says the following—

Mr. Speaker, one cannot offer those people a free, democratic parliamentary system and at the same time undermine it. Of course we know that this is precisely what they want. The writer states further—

We have to be tolerant; we have to show great tolerance towards people who are purpose and strategy is aimed at the overthrow of the existing order; people whose whole enemies of everything that is valuable to us in South Africa. I can make further quotations if necessary.

I want to go a little further. The hon. member for Houghton read out something in connection with the language question but then she got off the subject as fast as she could. This was in connection with the language question as being the cause of the disturbances in Soweto. I wonder whether the hon. member did not read the Rand Daily Mail of 17 June 1976 because in that newspaper Winnie Mandela—I do not want to say that she is a friend of the hon. member for Houghton …

Of course she is a friend of hers.

It would appear to me that the hon. member is in any event not prepared to deny it. However that may be, Winnie Mandela said—

She went on to say that all they did was to see which car belonged to a White man and then to set it on fire. She stated further—

Before the hon. member accuses me across the floor of the House in regard to the use of Afrikaans as medium of education in secondary schools in Soweto, it will do her no harm to read that little report and study the evidence that has in the meantime been given before the Cillie Commission. She would then learn that an accusation in regard to Afrikaans as language medium in secondary schools in Soweto has ceased to be relevant as a factor in probing the causes of the disturbances.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Yeoville would do well to be quiet for a moment; I still have a great deal to say which may affect him.

But you are running away.

I am still only busy with the introduction. [Interjections.] As the hon. member for Sea Point is also now becoming rather vociferous—I do not want to say that one of these days he may yet drown in a swimming bath—I must point out that if he continues to move from one abode to another in that way, things may perhaps go wrong. I lived in Pinelands for nearly eight years and I understand that he also lived there. He moved from Camp Street to South Way and our neighbours there know why he moved from Camp Street to South Way— because Camp Street is a thoroughfare for Coloureds and Kaffirs and it is too risky to live there. If the hon. member wants evidence of this, I can let him have it. [Interjections.]

You are referring disgracefully to Black people.

If the hon. member for Pinelands has the courage to challenge me in this regard, I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In view of the fact that the courts have ruled that the term “Kaffir” … [Interjections.] Sir, I am subject to you and not subject to the noise that comes from the hon. gentlemen on that side. [Interjections.]

Order! It is not a point of order. I have allowed the hon. the Deputy Minister to continue … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much noise that I could not hear you. May I raise a point of order?

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

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

The hon. member has raised his point of order and I have given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary for me to assist you, I say that I second your ruling, but it is not necessary. I am sure the hon. member must realize that I was quoting. That closes the matter.

Whom did you quote? [Interjections.]

There is something which to my mind is very strange. I refer to something that I received in Parliament, and I think other members of Parliament have also received it. It is a circular headed: “A message for 1977 to those in authority and to White South Africa”, and it comes from the “Ministers Fraternal of Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga, Cape Town.” I wonder whether the hon. member for Pinelands had a hand in this. [Interjections.] The hon. member who spoke before me made an accusation against this side of the House to the effect that we, as it were, thought we had a high calling and that we were the elect, or whatever it might be. He should look at this pamphlet in order to ascertain just how people can take it upon themselves to say that they are speaking in the name of the Almighty, and then not just generally as part of their calling but in respect of the White people as the governing party in South Africa. This circular reads as follows—

Sir, before I comment in this regard, I want to make this further quotation—

I now want to ask these brothers this: Was the murder of Dr. Edelstein also in Christ’s name? Why do you assume the mantle of Christ to such an extent that not one small piece remains for another Christian belonging to another culture and nation, so that he should also be able to have a small portion of it? Christ is being monopolized here by a “ministers fraternal” in order by this means to make the grossest accusation against the White people among whom there are after all a few Christians as well! I feel constrained to say as the apostle Paul said—

These ministers say—

In other words, they had hoped that the riots and disturbances—and in some cases they were worse than disturbances—would have the desired results; in other words, here we have people, ministers, supporting the disturbances in the hope that those disturbances would achieve certain political results. I want to say to these brothers: “I may perhaps have a mote or a beam in my eye, but before you refer to that mote or beam in my eye, just examine your own eye in order to see whether there is not perhaps a mote in it.”

These same people then come along and say: “Scrap differentiated education.” I hope at a later stage, during the discussion of my Vote, to have the opportunity to discuss this matter in greater detail. Here we have people asking—and one wonders at whose ehcouragement or inspiration this is taking place— that differentiated education should be scrapped. Education that is aimed at the specific requirements of specific communities is apparently evil. This can only come from the liberalist circle where all people are treated equally, where there is no difference and where there is no question of communities. I should like to enter into a discussion with the hon. member in regard to communities and organisms and so forth because she only thinks in a holistic sense, and then she sells her apartheid in Houghton. Suggestions of this nature are completely at variance with the considered point of view of Unesco. This is a point of view which intrudes upon certain groups who feel that their identity is being threatened and who work towards ensuring that their education has a specific cultural stamp. This intrudes upon the point of view of our own Black people who occupy responsible positions in South Africa. If hon. members could have had discussions with us together with, for example, the Cabinet of Qwa-Qwa—and they do not come only from Witsieshoek but from throughout the Free State—and were to listen to those people when they speak about “our culture, our nation, our children, our customs” and object to the fact that their children are dominated in a school where, for example, the Tswanas are in the majority, they will realize that these people appreciate the fact that specific provision is being made for their children who have a specific cultural and national background. I have many quotations here but I do not want to weary the House with them. If I do not complete my argument, Mr. Speaker, I promise the hon. member for Yeoville that I shall return to the question of the disturbances. I want to make this point in connection with education because, after all, we now have the allegation that the education of these people is inferior. They do not take account of the fact that all the prescribed books are selected and that care is taken that they are of an equal standard. Care is taken that the basic curricula are drawn up by inter-departmental committees in which Black people also participate and to which they make a contribution. They do not take account of the fact that the final matriculation examination is a standard examination. I said last year that the Senior Certificate of the hon. member for Pinelands is worth just as much as that which is obtained at a high school, or rather a senior secondary school, in Soweto. It is worth just as much, and vice versa, if you want to put it that way.

How many of the teachers are matriculated?

I would very much like the hon. member for Houghton to raise that point again when my Vote is under discussion here. I should like to quote to the House what Chief Minister Mangope had to say about this system of education that was taken over holus-bolus from Europe. He says this—

This is the attitude of a Chief Minister who is now asking that his nation become independent on 6 December. I could go on in this way but I only have a few minutes at my disposal in which I should like to refer to the question of the language medium.

The policy of 50:50 in secondary schools is not simply a fad that has come into being in the ’70s. This has been the practice since 1955, and I can tell hon. members that at the start of the ’70s we made inquiries from Black school boards and carried out a survey. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Yeoville is listening attentively because it seems to me that there are possibilities for him. The school boards consist of Black people and they expressed their opinion on the question of the language medium in secondary schools. What was the result? 63% of them voted for a 50:50 dispensation, 32% for English as language medium and 5% for Afrikaans as language medium. In 1974 we made a survey in Soweto and had discussions with the principals of schools. I have here a note from the department to the effect that during those discussions it was decided at a local level in Soweto to have uniformity at standard five level as far as possible. What is of importance here is that in standard five a pupil is prepared for the secondary school. In standard five therefore one has to prepare for the medium that is going to be used in the secondary school. If then Afrikaans and English are going to be used on a 50:50 basis in secondary schools, as was arranged with those people, one has surely to make provision for it. The preparatory work has to be done in standard five, and the discussions took place because this would affect the change-over to a different medium in Form I. Arithmetic and Social Study were decided upon, the last-mentioned subject being an optional one. This policy springs from an agreement with Black people in Soweto and elsewhere and has been applied in such a way that these people have been able virtually to contract out of the agreement and to ask that they be given permission to drop the use of Afrikaans in all subjects if they do not have the necessary teachers or prescribed books. They have therefore been able to do this.

The result is that, at the end of 1975, the position in Soweto was that in precisely half of the 38 secondary schools not one single subject was taught through the medium of Afrikaans. Morris Isaacson is the leading one, and this is a school whose activities are well worth investigating. I think the Cillie Commission will give its view in this regard. The school is opposed to Afrikaans but there is not one single subject that is offered with Afrikaans as a medium. This was already the position in 1975 long before there was any question of disturbances and so forth. I have a great deal of information at my disposal and I shall be able to reply to hon. members’ questions. There are at the moment 41 secondary schools in Soweto and of these there is only one in ten senior secondary schools that offers one optional subject in Afrikaans. Does this then look like a situation providing grounds for accusing this side of the House of having forced Afrikaans down the throats of children? [Time expired.]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one cannot necessarily agree with everything the Deputy Minister has said, although one may describe his logic as relentless, or as the French have it, one may say “C’est formidable”, provided one is able to understand it!

†I have been overseas since the last session and in recent weeks I have been in Rhodesia. My impressions overseas are that, in foreign eyes, our continued existence as a civilized State is indeed at stake. It is also my conviction that, given the opportunity, we South Africans have both the ability and the will to overcome the dangers that face us and to solve the problems if we stand firmly by our principles and by our right as a sovereign nation to do so. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, undoubtedly, South Africa is the main target of the enemies of Southern Africa. South Africa, in their view, must be overthrown and must be turned inside out while Rhodesia and South West Africa are merely obstacles in the way of achieving the main target.

Who are our enemies? Lenin said in 1920 that the expulsion of all colonial powers was vital to the achievement of world communism, and I am afraid to say that no matter how much we may protest, we are nevertheless regarded as the last of the colonial rulers by many countries and by many politicians throughout the world—in my opinion, quite wrongly. What is the aim of the communists?: World revolution leading to a despotic world government. Out of the First World War, came the League of Nations, and out of the Second World War, the United Nations. If, God forbid, there is a third world war then the one-worlders would thereafter aim to achieve their objective, namely world government, the last step in their master plan for world domination.

Who else are our enemies? Those who wittingly or unwittingly support this communist aim. They are the international socialists and the liberals of the English-speaking world. They are, in the words of Lenin, “the useful fools” or—the words that I prefer to use—“the willing tools”. Liberalism has become the cover-name for any purpose destructive of nationhood, familyhood and religion. It is the hallmark of a permissive society where normal standards and decency are destroyed. These forces— that is to say, a combination of these forces—have combined to bring about our downfall and they back extreme Black nationalist movements as their instruments.

People ask, and they may well ask: What of the West? Will they not help us? In my experience we have friends, many friends; we receive much sympathy, and there is much goodwill towards us, but if you ask whether they will give practical help, the answer is “no”. We live in a fool’s paradise if we think that the West will come to our aid. Whether we like it or not, the West simply do not appreciate the arguments that we put forward for our existence, namely the value of our strategic position and the value of our mineral wealth, because they do not wish to do so, or, if you like, because it is not expedient for them to do so. They can, nevertheless, rely on us to help them in their times of need, and they know it. They believe, however, that by taking the side of the Black majority in South Africa, they will win the ultimate favour of Black nations in Africa. I believe that they cannot be more wrong, because the communists can always outbid them. Let us not harp on the fact that the West is decadent, that the West has declined and that we are misunderstood. We know that this is the case. It is a fact that South Africa is regarded by the West as an embarrassment and even South Africa’s policy of separate freedoms, like that opted for by the Transkei, is unacceptable to the West in their search for the favour of the Third World because those policies stem from us.

And what is more, the West is determined now to play a leading role in solving Southern Africa’s problems for Southern Africa. Theirs will be an active and not a passive role from now on, in my opinion. That is why there is international political and economic pressure being applied to us by the West, and that is why Mr. Young, the United States representative to the United Nations, yesterday publicly announced a harder line to be taken against South Africa. The interest in Africa by the West is of comparatively recent origin. The real interest in the dark continent is only about 20 years old. Twenty years ago Africa was under imperial rule but it was, in fact, no matter what one thinks of colonial rule, a continent of law and order. However, from 1960 until now we have witnessed Western liberalism assisting in the achievement of the aims of Lenin. The head of the Commonwealth, Macmillan, became the Chamberlain of the 1960s by shelving his country’s responsibilities for keeping peace in its colonies when his “winds of change” speech started a mad stampede to independence and Black majority rule. Macmillan, more than any other man, ushered in an era of metropolitan duplicity, betrayals and fiascos, in all of which the West, and Britain particularly, played the main role. A new Commonwealth has emerged in which the founder members—the old established members— have either acquiesced in the demands of their new partners or have been thrown out or silenced. State after state, lacking those material resources and the experience necessary to qualify them for statehood, have been stampeded into independence, votes for all, one man, one vote once, and then a free for all! Strong men are replaced by stronger men, and the last 10 years have become the decade of the rule of the gun in Africa. The new nations joined forces with the Afro-Asian block and the Soviet groups to take over the United Nations. I once heard it said of the United Nations that it should be called the Benighted Nations! I could not agree more because that is where the root cause of all the West’s troubles lies and where threats and distortions and the buying of support reign supreme. Today, as we know, a simple majority is the rule of the day in the United Nations and Western vetoes are used with hesitation only after careful calculation of the cost in terms of support that might thereby be lost, no longer on a basis of principle. I would say that after the last couple of sessions of that organization, in which the relentless and vicious vendetta against South Africa has reached a crescendo, with the recognition of the ANC and the PAC as a sort of government in exile for South Africa, one wonders whether we should continue to be humiliated without even the right of a reply. There must be enormous hidden benefits if they can outweigh the apparent disadvantages.

Our neighbour, Rhodesia, is today under unbearable pressure. The liberal West, i.e. led by the United Kingdom and the United States, is trying to force Rhodesia to do its will, something that no other African country or combination or groups of African countries could ever achieve. Let us look at this small country. It is menaced on all its borders. It enjoyed 70 years of peace and steady growth till its turn came to resist a hand-over to those unfit to govern a 40-year-old self-governing dominion on the basis of merit. Had it not taken its independence, in exactly the same way that America did, does anyone really think Britain would ever have given it to her, except on the same basis that Mr. Crosland and Mr. Richard today wish for a settlement, i.e. on the basis of a hand-over to specified terrorist leaders. Nothing will satisfy such gentlemen, and others of their ilk in the rest of the world, except the total and abject surrender of everything White to everything Black, provided it is extreme and preferably Marxist. Mr. Smith said, only 11 years ago: “We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.” I believe he was right. I believe we in South Africa are called upon now to play a role of world-wide significance. What is Rhodesia today? It is the second most advanced industrial State in Africa, a well administered, modern State with little obvious evidence of racial tension although it is fighting for its life on the borders.

Indeed, to me there seems to be plenty of inter-racial goodwill and a willingness among the Black and White people I met in Rhodesia to try to find each other in the interest of peace, and not a seeking of war. It does not interfere with its neighbours. It seeks nothing from anyone other than a chance to do business as usual and to work out its partnership policies on the basis of advancement by merit and not by skin colour. Its Black population has in the last 70 years grown from 400 000 warring Black tribesmen to four million people as a result of the educational and medical services, the economic growth and prosperity and the law and order brought to Rhodesia by the very people whom the Western World now wishes to abdicate from their power and their responsibility. Rhodesia has survived 11 years of unprecedented world malice, spleen and venom spearheaded by successive British Governments and the BBC and other English news media who in the last few days have piously pleaded that they want a “fair and reasonable” settlement but that Mr. Smith, who agreed to the Kissinger terms, now stands in their way—and that after Mr. Smith had publicly accepted the Anglo-American proposals in the way that he did.

Who are defending the borders of Rhodesia? I visited the borders of Rhodesia. That country is being defended by a Black and White army in which the Black Rhodesians predominate. Who is maintaining law and order in Rhodesia?—A Black and White Police Force in which, I understand, the Black police predominate, both in the townships and in the tribal trust areas. Against whom are they fighting? They are fighting against gangs of terrorists trained in communist countries and in their African satellites and using weapons made in Russia, China, East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—exactly the same situation as that which we find on South Africa’s borders where our young soldiers are fighting against the same enemy who are using exactly the same weapons. The Rhodesian security forces must be among the best in the world and there morale is certainly high.

All that moderate and reasonable Rhodesians of all colours whom I met—and I met many of them—are asking of us is that we, who are opposed to boycotts and sanctions, should carry on as before so as to give them the opportunity to work out their own destiny for themselves without outside interference. Just as it is in South Africa’s own interests that law and order and territorial integrity be maintained in South West Africa so that the people of that territory can decide their own future, so it is imperative that Rhodesia should be given a further opportunity to find its own solutions in internal negotiation and not as a result of external war after the farce of Geneva, and, once again, in recent days as in recent history, apparent British intransigence—shades of the Buccaneer breach of contract, shades of the Simonstown Agreement which was vitiated unilaterally by the British Government! To this end this Government has a very heavy responsibility as a peace seeker. It is in our interests that law and order and efficient government be maintained at all times in Rhodesia because, should those break down, the consequences will spill over into the Republic as has happened in the case of Angola and Mozambique. Besides seeking peace, South Africa can play, I believe, an outstanding role as a peacemaker and a peace-keeper. We are an African State. We know Africa far better than the British or the Americans will ever know it. Indeed, some of them have prescribed solutions for African countries without even visiting those countries. We in South Africa are no longer a small and insignificant nation or part of a larger group of nations: We are an individual nation; we are a strong nation; we are strategically important; and we are rich in our own resources.

The resources I refer to are not only material resources but also physical resources in the form of all the peoples making up South Africa. We have the military power to stand up for ourselves and only a major power could bring us to our knees. We are so placed that we can play a significant role in determining the future of Southern Africa and keeping peace in this part of the continent and, in doing so, not only can we determine our own future, but we can also secure it. We must be strong militarily and we must be strong economically, but we must also be strong in our belief in ourselves and in our belief in that which we stand for; and that applies not just to me and those of my colleagues who sit here in Parliament. All our people must share in the same resolve that we have to defend ourselves. They must also be given something they wish to conserve and preserve. When I say “given”, I mean that they must be allowed the opportunity to “achieve” for themselves and not just to receive a hand-out. All our people must be able to feel that what they have, is better than that which is offered them by someone else. In other words, I say that things must be done in South Africa with urgency to raise the standards of all our people and to raise their stake in South Africa. How can this be done? I have been here for 10 years and in public life a little longer, but I have no hesitation in saying that the only way in which this can be done is by finding consensus among moderates here in this Parliament to do those things which are human and which our Christian consciences tell us must be done, if we are all to share my conviction that indeed we shall one day overcome our dangers, that we shall solve our problems. In doing so, we shall be an example, not only to Africa, but also to the rest of the world of how different races, at different stages of development, can find a peaceful solution to enable them to coexist in close proximity to each other or else within the same constitutional State. A very heavy onus, indeed the initiative, must come from the Government, and, if it does, an echo will resound throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. The time has never been more ripe!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown has been the third speaker from what I would call a “maiden party” in this House. As the maiden speech from a member of a maiden party I suppose it is traditional to congratulate him. He expressed strong views, and by having expressed strong views now he will certainly not create tension within his party. If he had done so last year, as in fact he did, he would have created tension within his party, because the UP has an innate ability to transform stepping-stones into stumbling-blocks. The UP must be pitied because with the tension that exists within it, they realize that they no longer have a useful purpose to fulfil and therefore appointed an ex-judge to liquidate their affairs.

*Mr. Speaker, in a lighter vein, I should like to say that in bygone days already it was the aim of the Ossewabrandwag to destroy the UP. But now ex-judge Kowie Marais has succeeded in doing something which Hans van Rensburg and the Hon. John Vorster were unable to do.

†Mr. Speaker, I have here a quotation from The Argus of last night referring to the expected march of scholars in Soweto which was to have taken place yesterday. I want to refer specifically to the following—

I would like to know what sources these are. Are these possibly sources that would change Soweto into Sovieto?

If this is so that the hon. member for Houghton has any close contact with sources close to developments in Soweto, we can surely accept that the developments to which this article refers, are not developments of a normal nature, but are most probably developments of—to use a mild word—a disruptive nature. If she has close contact with sources of a disruptive nature, I would like to pose a question to her. Has she any information of actions which might be illegal? If, in fact, she has such information, has she ever considered—as a good South African—to pass on such information to the relevant authorities, be it the Minister of Police, be it any other authority? Has she ever considered informing the authorities of any preknowledge she might have of disruptive organizations and developments? I doubt whether she has.

Now, I would like to know … I am sorry the hon. member for Yeoville is not here at the moment, for I would like to know from him whether he too has any contact with these sources of information, and if so, what his attitude would be. Now, we have another aspect here. It is no longer just the PRP that we have to deal with. We have to deal with a possible new dispensation, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, a new dispensation, a working arrangement between the UP and the PRP. Now, I would like to know whether there is anyone in the UP … Is the hon. member for Mooi River prepared to co-operate with members of a party that have close contact with sources of information in Soweto that possibly deal with subversive— or, at least, disruptive—elements? If this is the type of new dispensation which the Opposition is moving towards, thank heavens that at least some of them had the courage of their conviction as members of the Opposition to break away from this new dispensation. We certainly do not require a strengthening of the Government. We have a strong enough party in this House. What we require, is responsible opposition. The question that I would like to pose to members of the UP, those members who appear to be enthralled by a Natal stand, is whether they, in fact, are in accord with this new dispensation, this working arrangement with the hon. member for Houghton, with the hon. member for Sea Point and—I do not think I am doing him an injustice—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is in exactly the same group of thinking as the aforementioned members?

Mr. Speaker, I am quite convinced of one thing, and that is that the overall majority of residents of Soweto have not the least interest whatsoever in disrupting life in Soweto or anywhere. In fact, we have a good example when there was a reaction by Zulus who … Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the hon. House of the hit song of years ago: “Give me five minutes more.” [Interjections.] These Zulus, when they were reacting against some of the disruptive elements, were stopped by the police from taking the law into their own hands. They then pleaded with the police: “Give me 10 minutes more”. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal with some aspects raised by the hon. member for Sea Point. I see he is not here at the moment, but I think it is necessary to raise these issues nevertheless. He said—

I have no argument with “the domestic product”, but he said that there should be a more equitable apportionment of land and resources. I should therefore like to ask him or any other member of his party—in fact, the hon. member for Johannesburg North might tell me—whether the PRP believes in the system of private enterprise or does it believe in or prefer socialism? If they believe in private enterprise, are they in accord with what Mr. Sonny Leon is reputed to have said? He said that he is in favour of the nationalization of the gold mines so that the resources of the country can be redistributed in order that the riches of the country can be re-allocated for the upliftment of the non-Whites. I should also like to know whether this cry of a more equitable allocation of land and resources is merely a parrot cry of have they considered the practical implications thereof? If they have considered the practical implications thereof, are they prepared to say that everybody must sacrifice their land for a redistribution of land? I am convinced that this is nothing more than a parrot cry to serve the interests of the enemies of South Africa.

We see yet another development. In last week’s Sunday Tribune we saw in a report that Chief Buthelezi is seeking a mandate for a new multi-racial alliance. The report reads—

It will be named “PRPI”—Progressive Reform Party Inkatha. Just as an aside, I have been told by at least one leading Zulu that the Inkatha is very much akin to a Zulu Mafia organization and that anyone who does not agree with the dictates of the chief of the Inkatha, is threatened with physical violence. Yet, the PRP is prepared to form an alliance with this organization, not a working arrangement, but a political alliance and so much so that Chief Buthelezi says that they have been encouraged by the response of the PRP to this proposal. He added—

I want to know whether this will be on a basis of nationalization or on a basis of free enterprise. The PRP owes this House an answer to that question. Mr. Speaker, he goes further and says—

I do not know whether that is on the basis of Zambia’s nationalization of the copper mines. He continues—

He is speaking not of the gross national product, but of wealth. I should like to know again from the PRP: Do they believe in socialism and in nationalization? Is that what they favour? Are they prepared to tell Mr. Harry Oppenheimer that that is what they stand for? If so, they must do so. They must be clear and concise.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke in similar terms on another aspect.

*The hon. member said the following (Hansard, col. 58)—

The hon. member said quite clearly “inside and outside Parliament.” In other words, he was also referring to an extra-parliamentary Opposition—

Is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and a few of his cronies in the United Party, with the PRP and Inkatha? Is that the clear-cut Opposition that is going to develop outside Parliament this session? I find it amazing to see in which way the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has arrogated to himself already the leadership, because what does he say?—

Then he adds a little bravado, almost like Mickey Mouse does after he has had a drink—

Just listen to that Mickey Mouse! I should like to know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout thinks in terms of an extra-parliamentary solution together with the hon. member for Durban North, the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. captain of Inkatha. Is that the extra-parliamentary solution which will be seen in this session?

Sir, in conclusion I want to deal with the hon. member for Mooi River.

†Much has been said on the subject of Afrikaner unity. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to it. He said that the Prime Minister wanted to maintain Afrikaner unity at all costs. I want to make on thing clear. The Afrikaners cover the whole political spectrum in South Africa, from Bram Fischer to Beyers Naude to Van Zyl Slabbert to Japie Basson to Theo Gerdener to Myburgh Streicher to John Vorster and even to Albert Hertzog. What sort of Afrikaner unity is this that stretches from Bram Fischer to Albert Hertzog? Has the NP ever excluded anyone from playing a full role in the political life of South Africa? Surely the Government has been elected and must govern. It cannot for ever play games; it must govern. Therefore, on the basis of its election, it must continue. The hon. member for Mooi River believes that the Afrikaner has a mission to perform in South Africa, but he wants the Afrikaner to change his whole being, his whole identity. Why then, Mr. Speaker, is he not happy within the UP under the leadership of such Afrikaners as De Villiers Graaff, Japie Basson, Harold van Hoogstraten and Derick de Villiers? Why was he so keen last year to rid his party of such Afrikaners as the hon. member for Bryanston? Why did he allow such Afrikaners as the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for King William’s Town to hive off, because his hon. Leader was courting Afrikaners such as the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Randburg … ? [Interjections.]

What does the hon. member for Mooi River mean when he says that the Afrikaner has a mission in South Africa, if he does not mean the Afrikaner’s political make-up as led by the hon. the Prime Minister? He obviously means—in a political sense—the Afrikaner as led by the hon. the Prime Minister but then, like a chicken about to be hatched, he feels constricted by the shell around him. However, he hesitates to break out of the shell because he fears the unknown of the world around him. The shell has cracked, he peeps out and sees the sun but ducks back into the shell and shouts: “Sun, you have a mission in Darkest Africa, but first you must undergo a change. You are too bright for me to join you in that mission.” The Opposition must stop this game of playing off English against Afrikaner because we cannot afford it. The Afrikaner, in the very real sense, covers the whole political spectrum of South Africa, but does the English-speaking South African play his full role? It is not the NP—and I am not Afrikaans speaking at home—that prevents anyone from playing a full role in political life in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Kliprivier. Most of his remarks appeared to be of a personal nature, directed to various other members, some of whom are here and some of whom are not. I think it would be unprofitable for me to try to reply to these points on behalf of either those who are absent or those who are present.

Therefore I wish to refer to a subject which has been touched on at various times during this debate, namely the question of relations between South Africa and the West. Various remarks and comments have been made on the relationship which exists between Southern Africa and the West. This is a most important subject. It obviously lends itself to a great deal of patriotism, a great deal of defiance and to various remarks which could achieve great popular acclaim. However, it is also a subject which, to my mind, requires very close and careful examination. A lot of things have changed during the last year and a half. To merely continue making the same sort of noises about this situation and this relationship is not very helpful. I should like to start with some of the remarks which were made by the hon. the Prime Minister on the subject in his New Year’s message. He said, for example—

He went on to say—

That is a point of view which, on the face of it, could command a wide degree of approval, I suppose, grim though the message is. There were other Minister who went on in the same way. The hon. Minister of Defence said this—

He said—

*Other remarks were also made. I do not wish to repeat them all, but the fact remains that it is being generally accepted on that side that the Free World, the West, has become weak—“soft” is one word that has been used—and that it is not prepared to protect Southern Africa against communist onslaughts, that the West is not really interested and that it wants to concede everything to Black countries and the communists and that the West has left us utterly in the lurch. I want to question whether this is really the case. It is true that we have problems, and I would agree with much of the criticism which has, for example, been levelled at UNO. Things are said there and resolutions are adopted there that are by no means realistic and that can in no way be reconciled with the realities as we know them. This does not benefit UNO, for it lowers its prestige because it can be seen that it still continues to adopt resolutions and does so with attitudes and politics which cannot really be reconciled with the realities in the world as it is now. I agree with that, but I question whether we must deduct from this criticism, which we find disappointing us, that the West in fact has no role to play in Southern Africa and whether we should not look at the realities instead and decide whether the West is not perhaps going to play a role in Africa which is much greater and much more important than we are inclined to admit or accept at the moment.

†Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say that we stand here alone, threatened, deserted, a prey to communists, and that the West is soft and will give us no aid. If this is, in fact, true and a realistic view, we face a sorry future. If we stand alone and have to face a communist onslaught in its full strength, as has been seen in other parts of the world, and if the West has, in fact, abandoned us, we would have to use resources which would tax our essential needs to an extent which would deprive us of all hope of doing those things for our people which are essential if we are to progress into the next century. We will have to revise our whole external outlook and we will have to take a new look at our strategy. We will have to incur new expenditure and we will have to adopt a new kind of economy which will deprive South Africa and South Africans of all the hopes they have for increased progress and prosperity and, indeed, for increased racial peace in this sub-continent. These are the implications if it is indeed true that we stand alone against a communist onslaught and the West has no part to play and has no intention of playing any part.

I must say that I take a more optimistic view than that. It is terribly important that, in considering these matters, we should not merely be guided by sentiment and prejudice, but that our appreciation should be accurate and correct. The Government has misconceived the situation to this extent. If these views, which I have quoted, represent what the Government really thinks, and is its true analysis of the situation, I believe that there is a misconception and that that misconception is due to one essential fact which is that the price for Western co-operation is certain basic changes in the fundamental policy of this Government. Since it is unwilling to face up to those changes, however, it prefers to scold and accuse the West, to say that the West is unreasonable, to pretend that there is no conciliation and that there are no reasonable dealings or productive arrangements possible with the West because the West is demanding of the Government those things which it refuses to change.

What is the reality about the West’s interest in Africa? Since Angola, which was a watershed in our external relations, it has become perfectly clear that the West—and here I am speaking of the responsible West, i.e. the countries we normally refer to as the Free World—far from becoming less interested in Africa, and becoming disengaged in Southern Africa, has, in fact, come a good deal closer. What is the explanation for the presence of Dr. Kissinger in Southern Africa? What is the reason for the renewed activity of the British Government, through Mr. Richard and others, in Southern Africa? Why does Senator Mondale, when he goes on a European tour, to strengthen Nato, essentially, and to discuss the sinews of Nato, have, as one of the major items on his agenda, relationships in Southern Africa? Why is it that in seeking approval for the appointment of Mr. Andrew Young, the new ambassador for the United States to the United Nations, one of the things he has to clear himself on before such appointment is approved by Congress is this question of relations with Southern Africa? The fact is that Southern Africa has suddenly become a major issue for the West. It was never on the front burner before. It has been moved onto the front burner and the West is, in fact, keenly interested. Far from regarding Southern Africa as something to be ignored and left alone, and South Africa as something to be left to fight its own battles, the West is indeed seeking, in many ways, to get into the Southern African situation in such a way that it may exert pressure and influence in Southern Africa.

Why is it doing this? The fact is that the West, and America in particular, is involved in a global strategy. This global strategy is nothing new. The struggle has gone on for a long time, but since Angola something has happened concerning that global strategy. South Africa has become a part of that global strategy. I would like to quote what was said by Dr. Kissinger quite recently in a speech in Philadelphia. He said—

The United States, he said, could not remain indifferent to the trends in Southern Africa which have “implications not only for the peace, independence and unity of Africa, but for global peace and stability”. If America is involved in this degree, then quite clearly America is not going to let go of Southern Africa, and neither will the other Western powers because they, through their Nato alliances and the other combinations by which they resist the onslaughts of communism, will indeed support America in trying to ensure that a settlement is reached in Southern Africa which will firstly enable them to conduct their Southern African anti-communist exercise successfully and, secondly, which will enable them to conduct it in such a way that the manner in which they do so will not embarrass them in the other theatres of the world where this conflict is going on. There is talk in Washington of a containment strategy. There is talk there of various techniques or strategies by means of which one faces up to the communist threat. It is described in this way: In the first stage, where a situation of confrontation arises between the Free World and the communists, each of the major protagonists stakes out a claim. Each shows extreme interest. It may do this in various ways, for example, by visits of Secretaries of State, a Dr. Kissinger or a Mr. Podgorny, or by showing other direct interest in the area. It may back this up with military or economic aid and with speeches. It might even rattle the weapons it has. This is a kind of indication that claims are being staked. If in fact this confrontation continues to the point where it is likely to become highly dangerous and to draw the main protagonists, the East and the West, into direct conflict, there is then a withdrawal in terms of the agreed strategy between the East and the West that they will avoid ultimate conflict. They then also persuade their proxies, the people in the area, to withdraw and, in fact, to pull apart.

This is the kind of controlled strategy which is spoken of in Washington as being the way in which the East-West struggle is bèing conducted. I do not say that there is an exact analogy in Southern Africa at the moment. However, the analogy applies in part. What I am saying is that the West is already practising a particular kind of strategy in respect of those areas of the world which they believe have become part of the global conflict of East versus West. In trying to win this particular conflict in this particular area of Southern Africa, as I say, we will see more of the West and not less of them. If we have complained in the past of lack of interest on the part of the West, of a reluctance on their part to immerse themselves in the affairs of Southern Africa, I think we may yet have cause to complain that they are too much with us. I think we will find that both the East and the West will be too much with us. We will have cause to hope and to pray that the West will in fact take a stronger line, a deeper interest in the affairs of this sub-continent and that they will not merely go away.

The fact remains that the West is seeking to deal with the affairs of this southern sub-continent on a basis which will avoid Black-White conflict. This is the essential, basic purpose. They are seeking to avoid Black-White conflict because such a conflict creates an advantage for their opponents. Black-White conflict creates the sort of situation in which the Russians, the communists, will thrive. Therefore, by definition, in order to prepare a pitch on which the communists cannot do well, one must somehow eliminate Black-White conflict. In attempting to do this, there is no question that the West will bring great pressure to bear on South Africa for reform and change. They will not do this because they wish to interfere in our internal affairs for some high moral purpose. International relations is a much tougher game than that. They want to clean up Black-White conflict situations in Southern Africa and they will stop at nothing to do it because they are determined to win the global conflict. This is why, when Mr. Young was approved as ambassador to the UNO, he in fact had to say that, if necessary, he would be prepared to take strong economic measures against us in order to clear up this Black-White issue. We may approve of this or disapprove of it. It does not really matter very much in international affairs whether one approves or does not approve and whether certain measures are fair or unfair. One has to deal with the facts as they are. This is the situation we now face.

I want to say that there is really only one realistic conclusion we can draw from all this. These things are happening; it is too late to wish them undone. Firstly, what we must do now is to make a realistic appreciation of these things to understand what is happening and not merely to make these remarks about the West being useless, which we have heard from various parts of the House. The West is our only potential ally. Whether we like the West or not, whether the West is fair to us or not, or whether or not the West is always reasonable and votes against the resolutions we dislike at the United Nations—and of course, we can express opinions on these things—the fact is that the West is there, that the West is the only real antidote to a major onslaught from the communist world, and that we have somehow got to learn to live with the West. It seems to me there are two ways in which we can do this. The first is what is going on now, which is that we ourselves are not taking those initiatives which will eliminate Black/White conflict quickly enough; or if we are, the West does not think so. The West does not see evidence of it. The West is prepared to take steps, to apply pressures and in general to force the issue in this region of ours. The day is now past when South Africa, as the strongest power in this region, could itself take initiatives and persuade people to solve their problems. We are little more than a spectator in this game now. The East/West thing has taken over; we are just watching like spectators at a tennis match—left, right; left-right. We really do not have a major part to play any longer. We certainly cannot expect to be more than consulted. We are certainly not playing a decisive role in this matter because the name of the game has changed.

To say these things is perhaps not popular, but these things must be said if we are to be realistic and to judge these matters correctly. We have then the option of seeing the West coming increasingly into our area, necessarily into our area because of the counter-threat from the other side. In this process, either under threat or by other compulsion, or because of necessity, we will have to come to terms with the West whether we like it or not. If we come to terms with them they will impose, directly or indirectly, modes of conduct, ways of Government, attitudes which we will not like. What South African wishes his internal policies to be dictated to him by an outside power? Not one of us. The fact is that this is coming closer and closer and the situation is already arising where these kinds of pressures will be applied. I doubt whether we really have any answer to them. The alternative is that we do these things ourselves, of our own free will. Rather than let other people force modes of conduct and policies upon us, let us genuinely, realistically, reassess our position. Let us decide which things we have merely grown used to and think are essential to us. Let us decide which things we have merely grown used to and think are essential to us. Let us not be like the brontosaurus in the story of evolution. When the other animals learnt to fly and to crawl and so forth, the brontosaurus in his own pride and certainty—strength, if you like—did not adapt and the result is that the brontosaurus disappeared from the world. I would rather see that South Africans changed a great deal, even changed away from some of the things which are familiar and which they hold in affection, than that they should become extinct like the brontosaurus. This is perhaps a dramatic way of presenting it, but the facts are before us. The world in which we now live in Southern Africa has changed radically. It is no good saying the West is gone, the West is idle, the West has all these faults—maybe it has, maybe it has not—but the fact is that the West is the only other power in the world that has the strength to confront what is surely coming and what the hon. the Prime Minister and others have rightly predicted is coming, i.e. a major, growing influx or assault from the communist world. They are on their way. What are we going to do about it? To say we will stand alone without the West and face the whole world without any support from the West is absolute, arrant nonsense and we all know it. If we stand we will either be destroyed where we stand or we will destroy ourselves in trying to do so because of the enormous drain it will create on all our resources. We therefore have no choice but to deal with this matter according to the realities. My purpose in standing up here is not to defend the weakness of the West, nor to apologize for the United Nations, whose actions I condemn; my purpose is to plead for realism in looking at the problems which face us, and for adaptations where necessary, of our own accord, before these things are forced upon us.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react to the speech by the hon. member for Von Brandis, because he spoke about the important far-away things in the international world outside. I should like to speak about the small, nearby things around us, and I should like to return to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is a flabbergasting proposal, Mr. Speaker, I have underlined a few words in that proposal. He mentions “no confidence”, “a crisis” and the motion requests a “new dispensation”, “a permanent, peaceful dispensation”, “new hope”. One is surprised by the fact that, at a time like this, a motion of this nature can be moved by a party which has no confidence in itself, by a party which is staggering from crisis to crisis. I looked up the meaning of the word “crisis” in the dictionary. It says that it is a “point of change”.

Mr. Speaker, does it not indicate a crisis of the first water in a party which has been advocating pluralism for years, and which is now on the point of embarking upon a course which must lead to a “common society”? A new political dispensation is mentioned in this motion. It is this very party which has advocated one political dispensation after the other in the course of years and has rejected each one in its turn; a party which speaks of peace but has found only discord in the search for that political dispensation; a party which mentions hope, new hope, in its motion, but which itself has come to the point where it has given up all hope so that nothing has remained for it but the dismal certainty that it has no answer to the problem of South Africa, that it has become irrelevant in South African politics and is on the point of disappearing. The UP can say to itself, to quote the immortal words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: “Thank you and good-bye.”

Why is the hon. Opposition in such a sorry plight today? The Opposition is in this critical position today because it wants to attempt the impossible. These people believed—and there were some of them who truly believed it—that, hidden away somewhere, there had to be an undiscovered alternative to separate development. They went on a crusade in search of it, possessed by an obsession to find that alternative. There were times when the hon. the Opposition cried “Eureka” in triumph and in joy, like Archimedes of old, saying that they had now found that alternative, only to discover once again that it was still not the real thing.

The PRP is heading in the same direction. Not very long ago—only about 15 months ago—they changed their policy. I want to predict that this party—if it exists long enough—is going to hold a record which will surpass that of the UP as far as changes of policy are concerned. They are already on the eve of a new policy, a new policy which they are going to accept when their new party is formed. They take it much further than the UP. The UP has at least retained its name for more than 40 years. The PRP has changed its name twice already and is now forming a new party for the third time, as a result of which it will change its name once again.

The people outside ask how much longer the hon. Opposition wants to prolong this debate, the debate on its search, its futile search, for something which does not exist: An acceptable alternative to separate development. Driven on as if by instinct, the hon. Opposition has searched for that alternative. They have spent time and energy on it. They have appointed commissions—the Mike Mitchell Commission, the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission, the Kowie Marais Commission … they have come up with constitutional gimmicks. They have spoken of “checks and balances”, “protective devices”, “bills of rights” … They have come up with a rich variety of federations. They have come up with qualified franchise in its various nuances. They have debated this alternative which they were seeking; they have argued with one another; they have split and formed new parties. What is the result of all this? They are empty-handed today. It was a fruitless and futile exercise and a wild-goose chase. These people had to discover that there is no gold at the foot of the rainbow after all. All the energy wasted and time spent in searching for something which is not there simply represent the years which the locusts have eaten. The game was not worth the candle.

Now one wonders whether the Opposition will not show some realism and realize that in the eyes of the world, there is only one acceptable alternative to the policy of separate freedoms—the hon. member for Parktown is extremely amused—and this is “one man, one vote”. So far the hon. member for Houghton has been the only one who has made vague movements in this direction. Even the hon. member for Parktown—and I accept that he is a very honest liberal—is not prepared to stand for the policy of “one man, one vote”. [Interjections.] In this debate there has been a discussion of the problems which are facing us. Indeed there are problems, but problems are there to be overcome. I believe, together with the hon. member for Simonstown, that we have the sense of calling, the will and the faith to surmount those problems. We are determining our priorities and at the moment we are giving preference to a physical and economic attempt to apply the policy of separate development forcefully, dynamically and consistently. This must be accompanied by a spiritual attempt in which we show the will, make the sacrifices and create the climate for carrying out this policy.

It is a vast programme which the Government has undertaken. It is a programme which can appeal to one’s imagination and this is why the young people are behind us today. After all, it is a challenge, and young people want challenges. This is something which makes one’s pulse race, something to excite their idealism and their willingness to make sacrifices. Our young people feel it a compelling and urgent task—a task like that of no other country in the world—to lead other people to the path of freedom which we have only recently found ourselves. Most of the speakers referred to Soweto as proof of the problem of our country. Conditions like those in Soweto are as contrary to our policy as they could possibly be. The population concentration in Johannesburg as a result of the discovery of gold also created other requirements there and industries were established. This resulted in more and more jobs in the secondary and tertiary sectors. An economy was built on very often cheap Bantu labour. Blacks from all eight our homelands converged on the Witwatersrand in their tens of thousands. People even came from beyond our country’s borders in order to make a living there. We transported the raw materials to the PWV area, often from the homelands and the decentralized areas. After that workers were drawn from these areas to make a living on the Witwatersrand.

There was an ethnic jumble, which is as contrary to our policy as we could possibly imagine. A process of acculturation had begun. One had people without an identity, who became the breeding ground for the riots. This ethnic jumble of Johannesburg is our heritage. We remember very well the conditions which prevailed in places like Sophiatown, Martindale and others under the UP Government during the war years, when they converged there in their tens of thousands, when the Resettlement Council found them in those slum conditions. No less than 80 people lived on plots 50 by 50 feet and children did not know who their parents were. They lived in the most miserable conditions, where one would not allow a dog to live. This is proof of “man’s inhumanity to man” which arose under this United Party Government. A process of acculturation started there and this formed the breeding ground for a condition which was highly inflammable. Therefore our priorities in this country are decentralization—this is going to be the slogan of the decades ahead— decentralization, decentralization and decentralization once again.

Every new factory which is erected in certain metropolitan areas and which is dependent upon Black labour, every additional load of raw materials which is transported to certain metropolitan areas, every new influx of Black workers to that area, will contribute to a social and political problem, which may become almost insoluble in the years ahead. In this way too—and this is the dynamic programme which this Government is implementing—every job which is created in the decentralized areas contributes towards a more orderly, more viable and more peaceful South Africa. We are shifting the economic activities from the metropolitan areas to the decentralized areas.

We need more than a fine structure. It is not difficult to sit in one’s study and conjure up this fine structure; we need the co-operation of those people for whom the structure is meant. We must win the hearts of those people. We must make our policy acceptable to people and this is our greatest task and highest priority. The Government is going to succeed in this task. We are going to succeed in this psychological communication programme, of making the Blacks our allies and achieving consensus, as we achieved it with the people of the Transkei.

It is of much more than passing importance that in a time like this, when we are faced with immense problems, the Government is at its strongest. The Press and the Opposition have searched frantically for a crack in the Government. I have heard that the actual expection is that a group may be drawn from the National Party as well for this new party. To me, this is the most unrealistic and the most ridiculous view one could imagine, because I do not know of any people like that. We are apeaking very frankly now. It is of more than passing importance that, in these difficult times in which we are living, the Government is at its strongest and the Opposition at its weakest. We do not say this out of malicious joy. We do not find it amusing to mock those people. Years ago, it was amusing, but it is no longer amusing today. This strength of the National Party at a time like this places an immense responsibility upon us, a responsibility which is placed upon us by the weakening of the Opposition. For the sake of a safe, peaceful, and prosperous South Africa, we shall have to accept that responsibility with courage.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the hon. member for Port Natal had to say. He spoke enthusiastically and I am pleased that he enjoyed his contribution. However, I shall return to that hon. member’s speech later.

Throughout the debate I listened to all the speakers on the Government side very attentively and with a great deal of interest in order to try and determine whether they are aware of the immensely important debate taking place in South and Southern Africa at the moment. I was not interested in bombast and rhetorical vagueness. The speech by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, for example, was characterised by this. Nor was I interested in playing the fool or in sophistic pseudo-arguments. We had a great deal of that. What I actually want to know is to what extent hon. members on that side of the House confined themselves to the actual debate, because the settlement of this debate is going to determine the future of White and Black in South Africa. The debate deals with one question only, namely what the role of the White man is going to be in South Africa and Southern Africa over the next ten years. This is the fundamental question asked by every White man in South Africa, irrespective of the political party to which he belongs or his political convictions. The same fundamental question is also in the minds of young parents who are sending their children to school for the first time, as well as in the minds of the aged when they ponder on the heritage of their descendants. This question was an entreaty of every South African, White and Black, during the six months after 16 June last year when they were waiting for the hon. the Prime Minister to give us the necessary guidance in respect of this problem. However, this question was largely ignored and evaded by the speakers on that side of the House, except for two speeches, namely the speech of the hon. the Minister of the Interior and that of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I shall return to these two speeches in a moment. As far as this central question is concerned, one can divide the standpoints of the rest of the Government’s speeches into two general categories. The one standpoint is that that side of the House expects of every White man in South Africa to fight to the death before the NP will be willing to give up any fundamental aspect of its policy. This was what was implied by what they said. Am I correct?

Yes.

There an hon. member says it himself. This standpoint having been advanced, the hon. the Deputy Minister immediately said that this was not the case …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he said that before we give up “every aspect” of our policy, or of any particular aspect?

No. I said before they will give up any fundamental aspect of their policy, the Government will expect the White man to fight to the death. What fundamental aspects of the policy is the hon. the Deputy Minister willing to give up? We must have clarity in this connection, because another standpoint is also being advanced together with this standpoint, namely the standpoint of the PRP. Then the Government asks the Opposition: What is your alternative? These two standpoints testify to an irremediable political ignorance. Nowhere in the world does one have the situation of a small powerless opposition being able to put a realpolitik alternative to a government. The realpolitik alternative is not put on this side of the House; it is put outside the House. The hon. the Minister of Justice had the extreme form thereof in his hands here in the House: the bomb and the grenade. This is what we have to find an answer to. We, as the Opposition, can suggest a compromise here between the obstinacy of the Government and the obstinacy of those arguments and can only hope that the Government will listen to us. If it does not want to listen to us, it still has to address itself to that debate. This is the true problem with which it is faced. Therefore, we as a White Opposition on the horns of this dilemma, have a contribution to make by pointing out the central questions at issue, the questions which have to be answered, and by providing answers to them.

However, the Government must not then evade those questions, because if the Government puts the price of its own position of power too high in the political market of supply and demand, then in view of the conflict situation we are in, violence is the only alternative. This is what we are already faced with. The central question is the very one which the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education asked, namely: “What is the price of negotiation? What is the price of the change which the Government holds out as a prospect?” One reaction to this question was: If violence and conflict must come, then let them come. This is what we have been told.

This is the role which has been prescribed for the White man for the next ten years, except in two speeches on the Government side. The hon. the Minister of Information and of the Interior was not present a moment ago, but his speech was one of these speeches and I should like to return to his speech. There was a hint of reconciliation and reasonableness in these speeches. The hon. the Minister of the Interior said that we were fallible, that we make mistakes, that we must avoid conflict and improve human relations. On the other hand the hon. member for Pretoria Central said that as long as the security and the identity of the White man was not threatened, all problems in South Africa could be settled or negotiated on the basis of consensus. Is this correct? The hon. member said that as long as one did not threaten the security or identity of the White man, all problems …

And sovereignty.

Yes, and sovereignty—all the “ty’s” you deal in. As long as one does not threaten them, all other problems can be tackled. These are encouraging words, but in this connection I want to quote the immortal words of the hon. the Minister of Community Development—as a matter of fact he stole them from George Bernard Shaw—who said: “It is all just words, words, words!” What does all this mean? [Interjections.] Surely it points to an alternative other than the alternative I mentioned first, namely: “We shall fight, struggle and disagree.” This alternative says that the problem of the existence of White and Black in South Africa must be made negotiable. There must be negotiation. Therefore, two alternatives have come out of the debate conducted this week, of which one has been stated overwhelmingly and the other has been strongly stated by the Opposition but by some members on the opposite side, too, to a certain degree. The one says: “Fight, struggle, disagree.” The other says: “We must negotiate.”

Where do you get that from?

Confrontation or negotiation, violence or negotiation: These are the only two possibilities which have been spelled out for the White man over the next ten years. [Interjections.] It is pointless to make a fuss about it, because it is the truth—it is clear from the speeches. As far as this problem is concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister is a very lonely person, because he has to make the final decision as to which of these possibilities will apply to the White man in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister must tell us clearly which of these two will determine the immediate future role of the White man. If it is to be confrontation, he must tell the people of South Africa now, as Churchill did: “All I can offer you is blood, sweat and tears.” However, if we are going to adopt the course of negotiation in the problem of the existence of White and Black in South Africa, there are a few cardinal questions which must be asked, and I should like to address these questions to the member for Pretoria Central and the hon. the Minister of the Interior. The hon. the Prime Minister is unfortunately not present at the moment. I want to ask them how they see the role of Parliament in this situation of negotiation? The hon. member for Pretoria Central said that the Parliamentary tradition in Africa, as well as in South Africa has become obsolete. Does the hon. the Minister of the Interior agree?

I did not say so.

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said it repeatedly. He said that the parliamentary tradition was obsolete and that it had no role to play in Southern Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

At the moment there is a Cabinet Committee which is inquiring into how we can change these things and it has been said in the Press that a report will be made on this. The hon. the Minister of Defence is serving as chairman of that committee. The other alternative which is being advanced is the question of a say at Cabinet level. If Parliament is no longer to be a forum for negotiation, there must be something else, viz. a say at Cabinet level for the various population groups. If one wants to call it a “say” or anything else, there is one golden rule which must apply in effective negotiations and that is that in effective negotiation there cannot be one-sided decisions. As soon as one has one-sided decisions, negotiation cannot take place. This is the difference between consultation and negotiation. When one consults somebody, one is free to accept or reject his advice. However, when one negotiates with someone, one must make a compromise with him. One must make an agreement. There can be no political settlement of a negotiation situation if there is one-sided decision-making for South Africa. Just ask the people at the Turnhalle conference. They discovered it the hard way. Does the hon. the Minister of the Interior agree with the hon. member for Pretoria Central that as long as the identity, sovereignty and security of the White man are not threatened, all problems are negotiable? What does the hon. the Minister feel about this? Then I ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central: If this is the case, how does he react to the proposals of the Leader of the PRP to the hon. the Prime Minister? Is more land negotiable for the homelands?

On what basis?

Is it negotiable?

On a socialistic basis?

Is it negotiable? Does it threaten the identity, the security and safety of the White man? [Interjections.]

Order!

Is the question of more political rights for the Coloureds negotiable? How does this threaten the identity of the White man? [Interjections.] Is the permanent position of the urban Black and his full citizenship negotiable? How does this threaten the identity and security of the White man? Is the Immorality Act negotiable? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister of the Interior is here, and I ask him once again: Is the Immorality Act negotiable? I am simply testing the logic of the argument, because otherwise everything is simply words after all.

It is not important.

It cannot be said that these questions are not important. I want to assure hon. members—and they know it themselves from experience—that these questions are being asked outside the House. These questions are being asked in the Sowetos and Guguletus of South Africa. These questions are also being asked in the homelands. We in these benches, in this party, have always dedicated ourselves to the politics of negotiation.

Agitation politics.

We have always said that there must be politics of negotiation. For this, we have been denounced as capitulators and cowards. It is not the first time in the history of the White politics in South Africa that this has been done.

Smuts said that too.

It also happened in the Volksraad of the Republic of the Transvaal.

There was never such a republic.

These matters were also debated in the Volksraad of the Republic of the Transvaal. Gen. De la Rey and Paul Kruger argued there as to whether we should fight Britain or not. Kruger said it had to be war; De la Rey said “no”.

But De la Rey was a good South African.

However, De la Rey was denounced as a coward by the people in the Government benches. [Interjections.]

Order!

I now quote De la Rey’s answer, and I quote from the book The Lion of the West by Johannes Meintjies—

Together with De la Rey I just want to say that we in these benches, in our very modest manner, have no patience with loudmouths either.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal briefly with something that was said by the hon. the Minister of Defence, and I quote: “Die Leier van die Opposisie verontagsaam die betekenis van die dreigement teen die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. ” I do not believe that we do this at all. In fact, we are deeply concerned about the threat to South Africa. We are perfectly aware that the Russians have been imperialists since Catherine the Great, and anybody who reads a little in sociology or history today can see how dialectical materialism and Marxism are entering the very minds of Western thinking. Sometimes even we ourselves, who reject Marxism, find ourselves thinking in terms of a class struggle. We also see that the position in South Africa is exploited by the dialectical materialists. Some of us had the opportunity to see the film Last Grave at Dimbaza, and we saw quite clearly an attempt by the propagandists to depict a situation in South Africa of a classic bourgeoisie and proletariat struggle, in which the proletariat was Black and the bourgeoisie was White. All Whites were depicted as rich, successful, vigorous and athletic, with Black servants, while all Blacks were depicted as miserable, deprived, exploited, apathetic and complacent in their misery.

From 1906 until this decade we have not had an active imperial factor in Capricorn Africa. In the 1890s the imperial factor in Capricorn Africa was the British Empire, and to a lesser extent the German Empire of the Kaiser. The South African Republic was the victim of British imperialism, and I do not believe that anyone would dispute that it was British imperialism which was the major factor in causing the Anglo Boer War. Before the Anglo Boer War the British connived at internal disorder. They organized the famous Jameson raid, or were involved in it, and they assisted the “udlanders” to cause riot and insurrection in the South African Republic, in fact a very similar situation to the imperial factor which is at present at work in South Africa, the Russian imperial factor. The point is—the previous speaker perhaps emphasized it by his quotation—that the Government of President Kruger gave a credibility to that unjustifiable imperialism …

Nonsense.

… through their exploitation of the Uitlander question. It is not for me to postulate what would have happened in history. British imperialism was a powerful force. They might have found something else to exploit, but they exploited the injustice of the Uitlander question to justify their intervention in the affairs of the independent South African Republic. Many burgers, including General De la Rey, realized this at the time and they attempted to point out to Kruger that he could blunt the effect of British imperialism by dealing with this injustice. In exactly the same way the Nationalist Government is giving credibility to Russian imperialism in Capricorn Africa. In the Angolan affair we had a classic demonstration of how apartheid has made us untouchable even to our allies and those who desperately want our help.

I do not believe that there is anybody in this House who does not know of people—if they themselves are not in the same position—who are desperately worried, who are sick with worry, about this country. I believe that there are thousands upon thousands of people who are very deeply concerned. The thinking people and the people who read and travel, know that the Nationalist Government is the unintentional but most powerful ally of the Russians. I want to suggest four reasons for this. The first reason is that the Nationalists have polarized Black and White. They have contributed to creating confrontation in South Africa. The second reason is that the Nationalist Government have radicalized Black South African society. The present Government is not a conservative Government. It is a radical, revolutionary Government. It has cut South Africa to pieces; it has changed our traditions; and it has destroyed the whole fabric of South African society as it was before 1948. We must understand that the present situation in which we find ourselves is a direct result of the radical policies of the present Government. Furthermore, the Government has created a Black proletariat which fits perfectly into communist philosopy. The Government are the ones who describe Black people as being there for their labour only. They are the people who built hostels for migratory males, hostels which in “Last Grave at Dimbasa” are described as “labour camps”. They are the ones who have contributed to assist the Russians in their endeavours to create a Black proletariat in this country. They have deliberately avoided giving Blacks freehold title to land until recently.

Furthermore, the Nationalist Government have tribalized White South African society. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to explain himself. In his New Year’s message he took a swipe at Lesotho and a few others. He obviously thinks that he, as Deputy Prime Minister designate, is going to have an opportunity to be Foreign Minister as well. He said—

I want to ask him why he referred to only “tens of thousands”? Apparently, he does not have to qualify the Afrikaner, but the English-speaking fellow South Africans he has to qualify. As a young man to an older man who has been in politics for a long time, I want to say to him: “Hou op met sulke goed!” [Interjections.] People in South Africa are becoming so concerned at the situation that normal conservative people who would qualify as high Tories in any other society, would be liberals by the standards of this Government because of the racial discrimination which is being applied.

The fourth reason why I believe that this Government is an ally of the Russians is that they have alienated us from Africa because they have not understood the distaste which the Black man has for racial discrimination. The Black man does not expect a free Press and no detention without trial. He does not want a liberal society; he simply does not want to be judged in terms of his colour. This is something we have got to try to understand. I believe we can understand it if we recall a situation such as existed just after the Anglo-Boer War. At that time Milner could easily have said to the people: “I have brought Scottish teachers here; I have given you a better education; I have taught you modern hygiene; I have given you money to build your farms”. However, was that what the Afrikaner wanted? Of course not. Man does not live by bread alone. Throughout this debate we have had speakers on that side telling us how much has been done, how four million people have done so much for twenty million people. I want to tell hon. members opposite that the more they do for them, the more those people will be aware that man does not live by bread alone. The Black man wants his human dignity respected. That is why it was so gladdening to hear the State President say that he respected the human rights (menswaardigheid) of every person.

I visited Kenya last month. By African standards Kenya is a fairly free country. Indeed, compared with other parts of Africa, it is a very free country. There we have a non-racial society in operation. There we see Black people who resent intensely and simply cannot understand racial discrimination. I spoke to many Black people there in influential positions and none of them want the White man out of South Africa. The thinking ones know that the White man is the key to the development of Capricorn Africa. What they want to get rid of is racial discrimination and the arrogance of the White man who always knows better.

I want to make an appeal to the Government. It is denying one of the greatest tribes of Africa its birthright, its duty and its calling. The Afrikaner people—I am not talking about members of the Nationalist Party only—have a contribution to make in Africa, a contribution which very few other tribes in Africa can make. But they must not make a God of their tribalism. The volk or tribe known as the Afrikaner is one of the first important significant tribes of Africa. I believe that these people are in danger of becoming irrational. I want to ask Dr. Mulder, our hon. Minister of the Interior, what he meant when he said: “In die voortbestaan van ’n volk ken ons geen reels nie”. As he holds a Christian world view and is consequential, one hopes that that means that all tribal shibboleths must be done away with in the struggle to find justice and righteousness in our situation, but if it means that means justify ends and that one’s tribal, one’s volks interest must be put above any other, I believe it is most unfortunate. I therefore do urge him to explain himself in this regard, because I believe it is inconsistent with the Christian character which one expects and knows that he claims. I hope he will give an explanation to the country, not least to his “kerkraad” and “dominée”.

The NP Government is like a monkey which has its hand in a calabash and it is holding on to the pumpkin-pips of his blind ideology, is incapable of dropping that ideology, of pulling its hand out of the calabash and escaping into the freedom of this great country of ours. That is hy the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken the trouble to sacrifice the very structure of the Opposition, because he knows that we must not be party to the attitude of the monkey with his hand in the calabash who is going to be caught or shot because he cannot realize that he must escape from his blindness and enjoy a special freedom.

I therefore, have great pleasure in supporting my leader’s motion of no-confidence in this Government.

Mr. Speaker, in as much as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was a clergyman, I shall probably be permitted to say that while I was watching the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during the week he reminded me throughout—not only in this debate, but also through his recent actions—of Job. Job sat down among the ashes, and his friends were there with him. But I do not know for how long, if there are friends of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with him among the ashes, they will remain there with him.

Sir, because I should like to leave this thought with my hon. friend to reflect on tonight, and in view of the lateness of the hour, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.