Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I want to announce that the business for next week shall be as follows: The Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill will be moved on Monday. Two days later, on 9 February, the Second Reading debate will commence. In the meantime Orders of the Day Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, as they appear on the Order Paper for today, will be dealt with.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) is of the opinion that the Republic’s present economic system, which is based on the principles of free enterprise and the pursuit, in a responsible manner, of the profit motive, is best suited for promoting the economic development of the country and the welfare of all its inhabitants; and
2. (2) notes with appreciation the steps taken by the Government to ensure the maintenance of this system within the framework of the broad national interest.

The motion is clearly qualified, and although it is already clear that no difference of opinion exists in regard to the principle contained in the motion, it is nevertheless a very real matter, particularly in the light, if I may put it that way, of the emotional Press reports that appeared in this regard during the past week. During the session last year this subject was discussed on no fewer than 10 occasions and even in those debates there was in actual fact no difference of opinion. However, I must make it very clear that I want to emphasize the fact through the medium of this motion that the Government believes in free enterprise. I also believe in it and therefore I have moved this motion. But this is not the place of these emotional outbursts in regard to our economy, neither is it the time for them because in this period of economic recession remarks that have been made over the past while can do us a great deal of harm. This is a period during which we must remain calm and not distort facts when we talk about the economy of South Africa.

However, before debating this matter this morning it is necessary to make a few remarks that can serve as points of departure for the purpose of debate. The first premise is that we are living at a time which is characterized by conflict between capitalism, or free enterprise, and the altruism or the process of equalization of socialism. In other words, we are living in a period of conflict between capitalism and communism. In support of my second premise I quote from the Financial Gazette which had this to say—

I think we can take this as our second premise. Thirdly, we are also a developing country and from the nature of things the task of the State in regard to the provision of capital is particularly difficult in comparison with the developed countries of the world. The last statement I want to make is that capitalism can only grow through the recognition of the profit motive and the rewarding of private enterprise. I believe that these four statements do in fact form the basis of our entire economic philosophy. We also take note of the fact that capitalism, particularly during the 19th century, in its absolute form actually embodied the seed of self-destruction, which was what Karl Marx also stated in his book Das Kapital. The system has therefore to be adapted in order to withstand the assault of socialism and also for the sake of the requirements of our modern community and of capitalism and its survival. In its absolute form it can, according to Ayn Rand, be defined as follows—

According to this authoress the only part the State should apparently play in this absolute form of capitalism is the task of protecting the individual and his right of ownership. This state of affairs is of course completely out of the question in the modem State.

In fact, the State has much wider functions. I just want to mention a few of them. The legislative powers of the modem State are intended precisely to protect this system. In the second instance a central authority in the modem State is necessary in order to provide the infrastructure of a country. The State has also to provide security through the medium of its armed forces and the Police, and it has to make economically strategic provision for what cannot be readily supplied by the private sector. Furthermore, co-ordination in the State machine is also necessary in respect of every modem sphere, for example, community health services and numbers of other social responsibilities of the State which in our case have already to some extent been transferred to private enterprise. However, the system of capitalism remains the target of one assault after the other. The hon. member for Yeoville said last year that capitalism had in any case to handle the situation from a defensive position. Socialism is occupying one stronghold after the other; we cannot get away from this fact. Even the so-called bastion of capitalism, namely, the United States of America, also yielded to socialism recently in pursuance of certain election promises made by President Carter. He said, inter alia, that they would have to look at the profits of certain large companies with the view to “a redistribution of wealth”. That is a concept which we have also heard stated recently from that side of the House, although perhaps in another context. The well-known writer, Drüker, describes America, this bastion of capitalism, as “the biggest socialist state in the world” in pursuance of the position of power in which certain pension schemes in the United States of America find themselves. We have therefore to consider the matter against this background. In practice there has never been a completely free capitalist system, neither does one exist, and this includes South Africa. As with freedom of any kind, the State and the individual have to accept freedom with responsibility, otherwise it is not freedom, democracy or capitalism at all. The individual also requires the protection of the State against exploitation, undesirable commercial practices, monopolistic conditions, and in respect of credit control and welfare services. Free enterprise also requires discipline in this connection and here I should like to quote what the managing director of Trust Bank had to say in August 1976 according to Die Burger—

I am convinced of the fact that a large number of people and undertakings in South Africa would welcome a freer economy. I am one of them. However, the State also has an extremely important political responsibility. Steps in this direction have therefore to be taken with the greatest circumspection. In my opinion certain economic specialists in the private sector have only a reasonably limited political insight, and I cannot therefore imagine how these roles could readily be reversed. The other side of the coin is that the experimental governments of Uruguay and others in the past which consisted of five consuls or experts, were dropped after a few years because a political system is the truly tried system of government in the world. However, free enterprise is strongly supported in the motion that I have placed before hon. members today, apart from the morality of the fact that the individual who works hardest or displays the greatest measure of initiative, should receive the largest reward. Where unfortunately productivity has failed in the socialist states it is a fact that the people of the capitalist countries enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, and in South Africa the standard of living is one of the highest. It is, however, a prerequisite to enable free enterprise to flourish that the profit motive should be allowed to flourish as freely as possible and that the word “profit” should not become a swear word in South Africa. Then, however, we must know that surplus capital must be used productively for the promotion of better standards of living, higher productivity and the provision of more employment opportunities for our people, and not in order to exercise political pressure. If we do not comply with these requirements free enterprise will unfortunately fail, as it has already failed elsewhere. There has to be stability, there has to be discipline in our economic system, there has to be responsibility and there has to be balance and co-ordination.

However, there are two questions that arise involuntarily to mind. The first is: Do we already have a form of socialism in South Africa? The other question is then whether we have a form of creeping socialism. Critics of the Government make special mention of the State corporations, the various control boards, transport and communications systems that are supported by a growing bureaucracy, as examples in order to prove this statement.

However, what are the facts in this connection? I want to take the steel industry as an example. In most countries of the world the steel industry is considered to be so strategically important that this industry is in fact nationalized or at least controlled, even in capitalist countries. From the nature of things Iscor came into being through the State in South Africa because, owing to historical considerations, the capital power of the private sector was in foreign hands in 1928. In spite of that, however, the State has since given a firm like Highveld Steel the right to enter into open competition with Iscor. This to me sounds rather like a process of de-nationalization, not one of creeping socialism. Iscor has, however, to survive because of its strategic position and in order to produce the non-profitable profiles to promote our national economy and also for the benefit of the private sector. However, the policy of the Government is to ensure that the activities of the State corporations do not clash with those of the private sector, particularly where Iscor, Sasol and Escom, for example, are not geared primarily to the profit motive. Where in fact the corporations clash with the interests of the private sector they are expected to withdraw. However, the position in South Africa is unique. These corporations were established chiefly because there have been times in our history when it was not possible to perform certain functions, and because the State did in fact have an economic development task, particularly during the depression period in the ’30s, to create employment opportunities for our people.

When we talk about the control boards it must also be said in this connection that there is one thing that free enterprise cannot offer and that is stability, particularly price stability. In terms of “McCauley’s Law”, the law of supply and demand, considerable price fluctuation can be caused, particularly in respect of agricultural produce, and this is undesirable. The retention of bodies of this nature is therefore deemed to be necessary and they have therefore to be protected.

The accusation in regard to the transport system and the communications system in South Africa is to my mind really silly. There is virtually no railways system in the world that operates on a profitable basis.

The last charge against the State is in connection with the so-called “bureaucratic monster” that it has created in South Africa. The impression is created that the Public Service is simply becoming larger and larger and less productive. I do not wish to contend that there is no room for improvement, but let us look for a moment at the facts in this connection. If we make an analysis of all the economically active persons in the public sector in South Africa—and this excludes the corporations—we notice a gradual decrease in regard to State employment. In 1960 State employment involved 8,9% of the country’s economically active people. In 1965 it was 8,8%; in 1970, 8,2%, and in 1975, 7,7%. This remarkable drop in State employment has taken place in spite of the fact that service organizations like the South African Railways and the Post Office are not included in these figures. In fact, during the aforementioned period, the Railways have reduced their staff from 3,8% to 3,6%, while the establishment of the Post Office has remained constant, and this in spite of far higher productivity in both the Railways and the Post Office.

The next question is whether we have creeping socialism here in South Africa. However, there is only one basis on which one can determine this, namely, to compare State expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic product over a specific period. Over a period of 14 years, from 1960, this ratio rose by only 3%, in spite of enormous defence expenditure and the stockpiling of strategic material, inter alia, oil. This is a remarkable achievement. From 1975 to 1976, in spite of heavy Defence expenditure, it rose by only 1%.

The last question that arises is whether the State is in earnest in its intention to allow the private sector and free enterprise to flourish. In the limited time at my disposal I can only mention a few examples in this connection. It is remarkable enough that a serious attack has been made upon the State in regard to the whole question of television. What are the facts in connection with the television question? It is stated that the Government should only have given permission for three manufacturers. I am just wondering whether certain bodies or persons should not have been excluded. But how does one reconcile this with the principle of free enterprise? It is in fact directly in conflict with it. The State is committed to ensuring that price control is abolished to an increasing extent, with the exception of subsidized prices. The State is committed to give the private sector opportunities in South Africa to an increasing extent, but then we also want the co-operation of the private sector in this connection. That is why the Government thought fit to establish a permanent committee in regard to State competition which throughout plays the role of watchdog on behalf of the private sector. There are five members serving on this permanent committee nominated by the private sector. They are nominated by the Federated Chamber of Industries, Die Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Seifsa, The Chamber of Mines, and Assocom. The recommendations of this committee go direct to the Cabinet. This therefore is a truly remarkable democratic principle as far as the private sector is concerned.

The whole question before us is therefore a matter of balance. The regulation of business activities in South Africa is, however, not completely satisfactory, and further analysis and improvements are indicated. Too little control can lead to irresponsibility, too much can undermine initiative and productivity. Free enterprise that does not take into account the demands of our times must fail, while free enterprise that is established on a responsible profit motive can promote the welfare of our country and of all race groups in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Newcastle first placed this motion on the Order Paper as a private member’s motion, I asked myself what the underlying reason was. He is on record as saying, only last year the House devoted a considerable portion of its time during the Commerce and Industries Vote to the discussion of the free enterprise system and Government interference therein. When the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs replies to this debate, he has only to quote columns 8904-6 of his Hansard of last year because the circumstances have not changed. I asked myself whether it was purely coincidental that the hon. member for Newcastle proceeded with this motion, but then the penny dropped with the publication and attention given in the news to the book Assault on Private Enterprise by Dr. Wassenaar. Realizing the seriousness of the economic situation in South Africa and accepting the fact that the hon. the Minister is on record as having said again only yesterday that we are living in serious economic times, and accepting that this debate, being a debate on a private member’s motion, will certainly not develop into a political debate, I cast the following scenario which I think will probably form the background for the discussion that is to follow. I see the Government as the accused, private enterprise—and not the UP—as the plaintiff, Dr. Wassenaar as the public prosecutor and Assocom, the Handelsinstituut, the Sakekamer and also Mr. Len Abrahamse as the witnesses.

What are you?

I think I stand as the spokesman for private enterprise because that is where my experience lies.

A self-appointed judge.

That hon. Minister will know that during my career I was a leader in Assocom, chairman of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce and also of an organization in the motor industry. Therefore I do not speak entirely as a layman. [Interjections.]

I continue. The evidence that is given in this scenario is contained in this book. That is the last mention I shall make of this book, but I feel that there must be some reason for this debate being duplicated in this House.

It is a fact that the hon. member’s motion is one with two definite legs, one stating principle and the other stating practice. I would agree with him that the principles enunciated are ones which we on this side of the House substantially go along with. On the subject of the endeavour to praise the Government’s implementation of the principle in practice, I disagree entirely and I immediately move the following amendment—

On the subject of the principle, let me say that the disastrous economic situation in which the country finds itself today is not because of the principles of free enterprise having been followed, but because of the breaking of the rules of free enterprise. The first breaking of these rules goes back many years when a previous Minister of Finance went on record as having said that this Government would bend the economy to suit its ideologies.

I want to make it quite clear that the debate is taking place today between private business and private enterprise on the one hand and the Government on the other; it is not taking place between this side of the House and Afrikanerdom or even the Nationalist Party. In this world today governments in many countries are being accused of tendencies towards creeping socialism. Therefore I want to put forward the principle that my party stands for and then show where this Government has gone wrong. On the question of capitalism, we believe that the accrual of capital can only be achieved through the profit motive and that it is retained profits that make our economy tick. When the Government absorbs too great a proportion of retained profits, the redistribution of wealth is damaged and there is not enough to go around.

In order to describe the inroads by the Government into the private sector more graphically, let me ask whether any hon. member of this House would willingly take half a loaf of his bread and give it to the Government. Would any hon. member of this House willingly lend his new motor-car to the Government for four months of the year free? Would any hon. member of this House, having a house with five rooms, willingly house four public servants in that house for two to three months of the year? This is an encroachment into private enterprise.

Secondly, referring to the free enterprise system in the economic sense, we believe that economic freedom is total freedom, and one cannot reconcile the Government’s policy of the grand concept of apartheid and other restrictive economic measures, which apply to such a large proportion of our people, with the free economic concept. Freedom is total and indivisible.

Now I want to come to some of the evidence. I shall quote first of all the evidence from commerce and private industry. I have quoted it previously, at the end of last session. This comes not from the UP but from the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and the Handelsinstituut. In Volkshandel of May 1976 we read the following—

Sir, that comes from the Afrikaans private sector. May I quote a similar attitude which was revealed by the president of the Chambers of Commerce of the United States, when he asked: “Can capitalism survive?” He goes on to say—

Sir, I want to go further and quote from a responsible overseas publication, International Currency Review, Vol. VIII, No. 6. Here they are discussing the difficulties in which our present economic system in South Africa has landed us.

Does that deal with South Africa?

This is what they say about South Africa, Sir. I quote—

[Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

They go on further to indicate that if this Government is to get us back on to the road of economic stability, we have to do certain things. This comes from outsiders, Sir, but, they are important outsiders who influence the investment capital flowing into this country. This is what they recommend—

So, one sees that responsible thought has the same format as the thoughts of responsible business interests in South Africa. This article then goes on to indicate the real context of this debate when it says the following—

And that is why we are having this debate now—

The hon. member’s motion, of course, refers to the interests of the whole population. I quote further from this article—

This clash between Government and business first came out into the open during October, when the Prime Minister …

And these are the writer’s words—

That is a lie!

Thank you, Sir. I accept that for the record. [Interjections.] May I say that although commerce in South Africa was disturbed, it reacted courteously to the Prime Minister’s mild allegations. May I say, too, that the Prime Minister should realize that if commerce is not to interfere in politics, equally politics should not then interfere in commerce. For the sake of the record, it is a fact that the early definition of economics was “the science of political economy”. If private enterprise sees a situation developing where we are heading for a crisis confrontation, then it is duty bound to speak out. If we take a look at the present economic climate, where we have had the collapse of the Haak empire, the distress into which Rondalia has fallen, the collapse of Glen Anil as well as the trouble facing the Rand Bank, then I believe it is the responsibility of private enterprise to see that the Government policies which are creating this situation should definitely be opposed. I want to say that we on this side of the House go along entirely with private enterprise in its assertion that the Government, through its influence on private enterprise and its interference in matters which more correctly belong to private enterprise, is injudiciously meddling in the welfare of South Africa.

State corporations and public corporations have been mentioned. It is generally recognized that, whatever the rights or wrongs, the tremendous requirements for overseas capital by State corporations and public corporations are making inroads into that capital which is necessarily needed to be available if private enterprise is to prosper. Bearing in mind that in the forthcoming debates the hon. the Minister of Finance will possibly call for an amount of the order of R2 000 million of this country’s money for the purpose of defence, which will be vitally necessary, let me ask this House where that money comes from other than from the pockets of private enterprise and other than from profits which are made and retained in private enterprise? Anything that assists in reducing the availability of capital for private enterprise must therefore be seen in perspective. We cannot all be rich and we cannot have everything that we want. This country stands on its human resources, which we are not making the most of. It stands on private enterprise, which has achieved over the years the biggest advances, the biggest interests for every individual because of the fact that private enterprise has been allowed a relatively free rein in which to develop our economy.

Today the restrictions and the shackles in which private enterprise finds itself are seriously hindering our economic and productive efforts. I would say, with Mr. Len Abrahamse, that the cost to our economy and the people of South Africa caused by this Government’s policy of apartheid is so tremendously high that this country is denied its very right to exist, in the purchase of arms, because of the wasteful spending of money.

Now, Sir, having moved this amendment, I want to finish by quoting what I believe are words of which this should take account. We have to be seen, as private enterprise, to stand up and make ourselves heard against, not the NP in this case, but the Government which is leading us into these straits. I quote—

Let me conclude with this quotation—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newcastle did this House a favour by broaching this subject once more. It arises, not only from the considerations mentioned by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but also from the consideration of the particularly irresponsible talk of the PRP and other liberalists in regard to the so-called “redistribution of wealth” in South Africa. It arises from the als and organizations, particularly organizations, in their political campaigns to achieve their political objectives.

South Africa is a democratic State with the banner of “free economy” flying at its mast-head. South Africa is not only a democratic State which believes in free democracy, but also a State which abhors communism and rejects socialism. Consistent with that is the right to criticize and the right to differ. These two things are inherent in the democracy in South Africa. This side of the House most certainly believes in these things. We have stated this in season and out of season, both within and outside this House, this and the fact that we believe in the profit motive. I read the following in The Cape Times of 31 January of this year—

Then he is quoted as having said—

This statement is of course so untrue and so false that it borders on a deliberate lie.

Disgraceful!

It goes further however. In the same report it is also said—

This is of course just as nonsensical as it is irresponsible, and all the more irresponsible if one sees it against the background against which South Africa is existing and living at the moment, and if one takes into consideration the threats which are being made against South Africa. I have said that this allegation—the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also referred to it by way of a quotation—that I had allegedly forbidden businessmen to criticize the Government, is so untrue and so false that in truth it borders on a deliberate lie. What I said in this regard I said in public, in the hearing, too, of certain members of the Opposition who are sitting in this House today and who attended the meeting at which I spoke. On 18 October 1976 I made a speech before Assocom, and I want to quote three paragraphs from what I said on that occasion. I quote—

A far cry therefore from my having forbidden people to do so. In actual fact I acknowledged their right not only to discuss the differences; I also told them that they might attack me in respect of those differences if they so wished. After I had elaborated on these matters I went further and said the following—

After I had elaborated on that point, I went further and said the following—

I do not think there is anyone who can object to these statements or who can allege that I criticized or admonished businessmen for having criticized the Government and forbade them to do so.

I have referred to the falsity of the two points as they appeared in the report in The Cape Times. Following that—and this is why I am participating in this debate—a further report appeared in Die Beeid on 1 February, 1977, in which reference was made to what Dr. Wassenaar had said in this regard, and to subsequent comment. It states here—

[Interjections.] I do not think I am doing the hon. gentleman an injustice when I say that he laughed out loud at this word.

Further on the report reads—

The report also states—

Sir, I do not discuss interviews which people have had with me unless the person who had the interview turns it into a public issue. Dr. Wassenaar has now turned this into a public issue, and therefore I have to discuss it. He did have an interview with me and it was not the only interview. This particular interview took place shortly after Dr. Diederichs had retired and had been nominated to become State President. He had an interview with me, and it was very clear, not only from what he told me at the time, but also from this report in Die Beeid that Dr. Wassenaar believed that Dr. Malan, Mr. Strijdom and Dr. Verwoerd had not amounted to much. Nor did he make any secret of his belief that Mr. Havenga, Mr. Louw, Dr. Dönges and Dr. Diederichs, i.e. successive Ministers of Finance, had not known what they were dealing with or what they were doing and that the departmental secretaries such as Dr. Holloway, Dr. Hennie Steyn and Mr. Browne were not very competent people. Dr. Wassenaar made it very clear to me that if I wanted to amount to something, in contrast to my predecessors, I should sack Senator Horwood and Mr. Heunis, should dismiss them and appoint people from the ranks of the businessmen. His standpoint is—and I am not doing him any injustice—is that he has no confidence in members of Parliament, members not only on this side of the House, but on the opposite side as well. He has no confidence in members of Parliament. He is in favour of the American system, namely that one should draw one’s Ministers from outside Parliament and not from among the ranks of the elected representatives. We then argued about this system and we also argued about individuals, and once again I am not doing him an injustice when I say that all the individuals were shot down in flames until only one remained. I then told Dr. Wassenaar that I would not accept the USA system and that I would appoint people to the Cabinet from among the members of Parliament who were responsible to Parliament and the voters of South Africa. I am not prepared to accept any other system. What Dr. Wassenaar’s standpoint amounts to is that one should not appoint people who are answerable either to Parliament or to the electorate. This is such a fundamental difference that I definitely have no intention of adopting that system, and I informed him of this in no uncertain terms. Now I am in the same category as my predecessors, as far as Dr. Wassenaar is concerned.

An attack is also being launched on the officials. These people cannot speak on their own behalf, and I want to say here today— and it is not necessary for me to say this in their defence—that South Africa has over the years had officials at its disposal and, thank God, still has such officials at its disposal today, who are not only rendering the best conceivable service to South Africa, but who are comparable with the best in the world. I say, and I am saying this also in defence of hon. members opposite: South Africa has over the years had Governments and officials which created the climate in which the private sector in South Africa could flourish. Not only does one wish to express one’s gratitude and appreciation towards the officials—for that would present only half the picture—but one would also wish to express one’s appreciation towards the business of South Africa who have served South Africa in the past and are still serving this country as they are doing. I have always said this at all times both within and outside this House, and I should also like to mention this again here today.

Attacks were launched on the State corporations. Time does not permit me to say very much about this today. There are aspects at which one could indeed level criticism. I readily concede that. However, I just want to refer in passing to the fact that groundless references are constantly being made to bureaucracy. Surely the directors of State corporations are not Government officials. All of them come from the private sector. It is not Government officials who are responsible for the management or the policy of such corporations. One can only speak of bureaucracy if these matters are in the hands of officials and if those officials simply continue, without rhyme or reason, to do as they wish.

Surely one cannot have one’s cake and eat it. Those same critics frequently reproach the officials with working according to rules and regulations, and then they talk of so-called “red tape”. We all do this, and in some respects it is true. However, if one does away with rules and regulations, and the officials may use their discretion as they please and give one decision today and another decision tomorrow, then one has bureaucracy. But one does not have bureaucracy when work is done according to rules laid down by this Parliament, by the Parliament, by the representatives of the people. Then such an allegation is sheer nonsense.

I want to repeat my statement. This side of the House has never yet denied anyone free criticism. Whether he is a Nationalist or whether he is not a Nationalist, he has a right to criticize this Government. A friend of mine informed me that he had examined the annual reports of Dr. Wassenaar’s organization over a period and had not found a single word of criticism of the Government in those reports. If there had then been reason for criticism, surely he omitted to do his duty by not expressing it. It would not have been taken amiss of him. It was not taken amiss of him when he was opposed to South Africa becoming a Republic. Every person has a right to take up a standpoint. This is not taken amiss of one.

I want to go further. I want to say that anyone may criticize this Government and it was not only in my speech before Assocom that I said this. This affords those people who are not members of the NP, like Dr. Wassenaar, where they cannot work through party channels, an opportunity to let the Government know what they think and do not think in that regard. I want to make it very clear that this Government, far from having suggested in the past that it was opposed to criticism, in fact a great many talks with the private sector.

Not only my colleagues, the hon. Minister of Finance, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs and all the others who are involved in this, but I personally am also available to these persons, to listen to their criticism and to ascertain from them in what respect the Government is treading on their toes and in what respect the Government can make things easier for them. They have always had an open door and shall continue to have it at all times in future. In a report on Dr. Wassenaar in Die Beeid it is stated, however—

My objection is not that he is criticizing the Government; my objection is that he is gossip-mongering instead of criticizing. There is a vast difference. One cannot react to gossip, but one can react to criticism. Having now made this appeal, I want to say this in short on behalf of the NP: Better people than he have tried to break this Government and bring it to a fall.

Mr. Speaker, I find two very significant things about the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. In the first place I find it very significant that he should have decided to speak at all in this debate. Secondly, I found what he actually had to say very significant. He clearly was not interested in the motion before the House. He clearly was not concerned about the facts that there are banks collapsing, that there are more financial collapses than ever before, that we have the biggest financial collapse in South Africa’s history on our hands at this very moment. He did not have a word of assurance for the country on this score. He was only concerned with the book of Dr. Wassenaar. That is all he was interested in. What did he say about the book? Did he say anything about what is in the book? I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister has even read it. In this book is set out a clearly made-out case. It is not a new case. It has come up for discussion outside the House as well as inside it many, many times. All that has happened in the past is that occasionally perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance would react. However, suddenly this book has appeared and, although it contains nothing new, the hon. the Prime Minister feels it is necessary for him to react. If one analyses what the hon. the Prime Minister said, his motivation is clear. All he wanted to do was to take this opportunity to get up and endeavour to assassinate the character of Dr. Wassenaar, to assassinate the character of the chairman of Sanlam, to assassinate the character of the man who inherits the illustrations mantle of Dr. Tienie Louw, to assassinate one of the pillars of the Afrikaner establishment [Interjections.] That is why he has reacted in this way.

The hon. the Prime Minister could not care two ticks whether the case made out in the book is right or wrong. He is not interested in the economics of the country. What the hon. the Prime Minister is interested in is the politics. He gets up and speaks not on an economic issue, but on a political issue. We must analyse why this political issue is so important to the hon. the Prime Minister. What is the reason why it is so important? The reason is that what Dr. Wassenaar, the chairman of Sanlam, has done is that he has broken the code. He has actually publicly criticized the Government. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister is endeavouring to assassinate his character today. [Interjections.] And why? This is an interesting question.

You are talking a lot of nonsense.

The reason is very simple. It is because the hon. the Prime Minister knows that what Dr. Wassenaar has said is only the tip of the iceberg of discontent that exists in Afrikaner Nationalist circles. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many interjections.

That discontent relates not only to the economic situation, but also to the way the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are running the whole political question of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say in this House that the hon. the Prime Minister has attempted to assassinate the character of anybody else? [Interjections.]

Order! The rules of this House protect hon. members of this House. The rules of this House do not pertain to people outside the House. I am of the opinion at this stage that the hon. member was in order. The hon. member may continue.

The hon. the Prime Minister knows, and if he does not know it he should be told, that in the Afrikaans churches, in the Afrikaans Press, in the Afrikaans universities, in the Afrikaans business circles …

Leave the Afrikaner alone!

… the people of today are very unhappy. They are discussing amongst themselves the problems of the country and they are looking to the hon. the Prime Minister for leadership, but they are not finding that leadership. They are looking to the National Party and not finding that leadership. One person has now had the guts to come out in public and state his case. He will be the first of many more. This is the whole reason why the hon. the Prime Minister thought it was necessary to get up today and to endeavour to assassinate the character of Dr. Wassenaar.

What I really find tragic is that in this moment of our history, at this moment when we desperately need leadership, at this moment when our internal problems are such that we are virtually in a state of bloody revolution in South Africa, when we are threatened on our borders by the enemies of our country, when diplomatically speaking this Government is isolated by our friends in the West, and when our economy is heading for the verge of bankruptcy, when we look to the hon. the Prime Minister for leadership, what does the country get? It finds that it has a leader at the helm who is nothing more than a petty, party-political hack. [Interjections.]

When one looks at the motion and in fact when one thinks about the way in which the Government has gone about the whole economic policy of the country, the one thing that has become absolutely clear is that the Government is suffering from a very severe case of schizophrenia. On the one hand we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister, as we have heard from the hon. member who introduced the motion, that they see themselves as the champions of the free enterprise system. This is how they see themselves. But when one actually looks at the facts, they exert the strongest socialistic influence in the economy that one can expect. This is the schizophrenia that exists amongst the Government when it comes to the economy. If one looks at the motion we are debating, it actually proves this point. The motion states that the Republic’s present economic system is based on two principles, one being free enterprise and the other the pursuit, in a responsible manner, of the profit motive. When we analyse it we see that this statement is actually and factually not correct. The Government may have convinced themselves that this is so, but anyone who actually looks at the situation sees that it is just not correct. The facts now show that 50%, or near 50%, of our gross domestic fixed investment is State-controlled. That is a fact; and 35% of the economically active Whites are employed by the State. These are two facts. This means that we have a mixed economy, a mixed economy on the same socialist model as for instance Britain, or Sweden, or Holland, or any other Western socialist mixed economy. However, in our economy there is absolutely no resemblance at all to that of, say, the USA or of Japan. What is more important is that our economy is becoming more socialist as the years go on. Every time we get statistics we can see that the degree of socialism in our economy is expanding. In the five years from 1970-’71 to 1975-’76 Government expenditure increased by 250%, and the share of gross domestic product consumed by the Government increased by approximately 30%, from 22% to 29%.

Let us deal with that aspect of the motion which refers to the pursuit of the profit motive. The hon. member moves in this motion that the profit motive must be pursued in a responsible manner. What I gathered from his speech is that what he really means by that, is that there must be no exploitation of workers and no exploitation of the buying public. Here again we have a situation which is also patently incorrect. Anyone who is remotely aware of what happens in the South African economy is aware of the fact that Black people are prohibited from any effective participation in our economy. Our Statute Books groan under the weight of laws which effectively preclude the Blacks from competing freely in any meaningful way, either as employers or as employees in our economy. Our laws have created a permanent Black proletariat with not even a statutory right to bargain on a collective basis for the sale of their labour. Even worse, they do not even enjoy free mobility of labour. I cannot conceive of a worse form of exploitation than this.

If one adds to that, as the hon. member for Newcastle does, that this economic system is best suited for promoting the economic development of the country and the welfare of all its inhabitants, it really becomes absurd. What the economic system which this Government has entrenched has done, is that it has entrenched the difference between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in our society on purely racial grounds. It has convinced Black people that the free enterprise system is little more than a means by which the Whites enrich themselves at the expense of Blacks. This is the tragedy that all of us are going to have to live with.

Now we come to the second part of the motion, in which the hon. member who has introduced the motion asks us to express our appreciation for the steps taken by the Government to ensure the maintenance of this system within the framework of the broad national interest. Sir, that leaves me quite speechless. How anybody who is not either moronic or insane would want to maintain this system, a system which this Government has introduced into South Africa, is quite beyond me. In my opinion it can only lead to a total economic, political and social collapse, if the creeping socialism which is taking place does not completely destroy the free enterprise system first. There is also the huge powder-keg which we are sitting on, this huge Black proletariat which is condemned permanently by existing legislation which has the effect that they can have no participation on an equal level in our economy at all. If we think that we can survive these two dangers, we must admit that we can certainly not survive the enormous spending-spree the Government has decided to go on.

Various estimates have been made, but one estimate which seems to be current, is that over the next five years South Africa is committed to a capital expenditure of R25 000 million. I see a shocked look on the face of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs; I think he ought to do his homework. If he would do that, he would find out that it is as I have said. If this is really the case, where is all this money going to come from? We are going to witness a fierce competition between the Government and the private sector, a firece competition for the very limited resources which we have at our disposal. Unfortunately the Government holds all the cards and the private sector cannot compete on an equal ground with the Government. By a mixture of increased taxation—heaven knows, it is already far too high—currency inflation, forced savings and Government loans and increased charges for goods and services provided by State monopolies, the private sector will be forced into astronomical debts which it will have to pay in order to finance the Government’s excess expenditure. The regrettable thing is that the debt must eventually be liquidated. If it cannot be liquidated out of real earnings— and at our present rate of inflation and our present rate of taxation there is absolutely no possibility that this debt can be liquidated out of real earnings—then the only alternative is bankruptcy or hyperinflation. At the present moment we are seeing enough bankruptcies and there will be a lot more. I think it can be said with a fair degree of certainty that unless the opinion of people like Dr. Wassenaar is accepted, and accepted quickly—the opinion of other critics of the Government who point this out must also be accepted—we are going to see, in the not too distant future, whole sections of our economy going to the wall, not because they are bad companies, but because the Government’s expenditure will work itself through to an unbearable load of debt on that particular sector. When the Government eventually sees this happening, it will of course print more money and hyperinflation will come as well.

I earnestly should like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens because I believe the Government is an absolute disaster when it comes to private enterprise, and in fact the whole economy.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one typical example of someone who has flourished under South Africa’s capitalistic system, it is the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The fact that he made such an attack on this system and that he, as a backbencher, flung the crudest insults at the hon. the Prime Minister which I have ever heard in the short time that I have been in this House is something which will cost him dear at some stage in his career. We shall take him to task for this one day. Who is he to accuse the hon. the Prime Minister of being a “petty party-political hack”? I think it is the height of audacity and impropriety. [Interjections.] I should like to remind him in a very friendly way that the hon. the Prime Minister did not refer to this book one single time, but simply referred to newspaper reports on the book. For him to allege that the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the book shows that the hon. member did not even listen properly. He says that there is large-scale unrest and revolt in NP circles and even in the Church. We shall demonstrate to him where the unrest and distrust lies at the next election, because the greatest possible mistrust which the voters in South Africa can have is in the deceptive policy which is advocated by that party.

Mr. Speaker, he says: “We desperately need leadership.” At the moment I think: “We desperately need a proper Opposition as well.” He says: “We desperately need leadership.” I should now like to demonstrate to him why the hon. the Prime Minister stood up here this morning. It was not so much to react to a few statements in a book; it was to deal with a matter which goes much deeper. Do those hon. members not realize that if we have newspaper headlines like “Why South Africa is going communist”, it constitutes an attack—and everything which that involves—on the strongest single argument which South Africa has had so far, namely to range itself on the side of the West, as an outspokenly anti-communist country, and therefore to have the right to appeal to the West for help? This being so, is it not the duty of our leader, the highest person in our hierarchy, to put a stop to this tendency, and everything which will develop from it, immediately and with dramatic effect? Publicity is being given to a book and an attitude which create a slanted impression, something which tells one side of the story and not the other, and does not make a single attempt to give the true perspective. This book has already had its effects abroad and has, in fact, already proved to be counter-productive. Instead of attempting a so-called rescue of the capitalist system in South Africa, quite the reverse is now being achieved, because it is a book which attacks not only the Government and the individuals who make up the Government, but the Afrikaner, who is not going to be ousted from these seats in the foreseeable future.

In other words, it is a warning to foreign investors: “Look, gentlemen, as long as the Afrikaner governs this country it will be heading for communism and there will be no future for your investments in South Africa. ” This is the ultimate effect, and it is counterproductive indeed. Furthermore, because of the special circumstances of our country, people who want to criticize find it very easy to fling all kinds of accusations at the Government. Even if the Government, which has been in power for so long, had, for example, increased company tax by a mere fraction every year, it would have been an astronomical figure by this time. It is quite different in other countries. There one can at least say that some of these measures are the responsibility of the Opposition because they too are in power now and again. In South Africa it is a completely different question. These and other perspectives are not reflected in this book, and these are the things which are going to damage South Africa, more than anything else. Now he comes along and says: “We seek leadership.” We have the leadership of someone who has the far-sightedness and the political feeling to identify these dangers which lie at the root of the survival of this nation and the existing order in this country.

I support this motion enthusiastically, because I believe in the capitalist system absolutely. I reject with contempt any system which will cause one to work according to one’s ability and to earn according to one’s needs. I, together with members on this side of the House, reject it completely. In this way, too, it is very clear to anyone who gives any thought to these matters that there can be no question of an absolute capitalist system in the world today. It cannot exist. Judging from the evolution of government of modern States, it is, after all, very clear that the ultimate test is not what system one serves, but what is in the best interests of one’s country. It is the ultimate test against which the Government tests its actions, and against which the private sector as well as every individual should also test their actions, because these three form the fundamental pillars of the capitalist system. Because there is such a basic interlocking between the political, the social and the economic spheres of life, this side of the House makes no excuse at all for what it has done in the economic sphere, something which the theoretical economist may have regarded as an offence against the capitalist system, but which complies with the highest requirements of the national interest. The Government has a mandate for this from the majority of the voters in this country. We make no excuse for this.

Hon. members made a great fuss about the percentage expenditure of the general government sector. How dare they condemn it out of hand? I want to ask them: Has any optimum percentage been determined to indicate a good ratio for the distribution of Government and private sector expenditure? There is no fixed norm of this kind. There is only one test as far as expenditure is concerned, and this is: What is in the national interest and what will serve the highest ideals of the country? If one looks at the percentage distribution and tries to determine what the result would be of a decrease or an increase in State expenditure, both possibilities have certain advantages and disadvantages, and one must make one’s decision in terms of the social and political demands made on the economy of the country.

I just want to mention a few reasons why our expenditure for the general government sector is so relatively high. In this connection we are not alone by the way; high Government expenditure is the tendency throughout the West, and although this does not mean that the tendency is the right one, we must first examine our circumstances. There is a concentration of people in metropolitan areas. Instead of providing their own services as they used to do in the rural areas or on the farm, a great number of people have gathered here and collectively require certain services. The authorities do in fact provide suçh services and are forced to spend money in order to provide them. The demands made on these services, are becoming higher and higher, and in addition the cost of these services follows an exponential curve of cost increases as they are provided in the vast metropolitan areas. In other words, it is becoming more and more expensive to provide more and more services in densely populated metropolitan areas than in rural areas. Surely these economic facts are obvious to anyone. Furthermore, we are a developing country, and, as is typical of a developing country, we have an immense need for infrastructure, and this is provided by the State, as is the case throughout the world. A man like Dr. Martin van den Bergh, who can definitely not be considered a socialist, said that it has become the custom in the economic world of today for the State to provide the infrastructure where a sophisticated economy has to arise. In addition, the capital requirements of most infrastructure projects are such that we in South Africa in particular can hardly appeal to the private sector time and again to take them over.

In course of time, authorities have also come to play a different role in countries’ economies. It is very interesting, for example, to note that the percentage of economically active people in the agricultural industry and in mining is becoming smaller and that these people are changing over to the secondary and service sectors. Therefore it is very important for the Government to take note of such tendencies before it is too late, to anticipate the results correctly and then to create the right circumstances for dealing with them by taking certain economic and other measures.

Furthermore, I should like to make a point in respect of agriculture. There is a great deal of criticism of the vertical integration which is taking place in agriculture, i.e. that control over all sections of the industry is being centralized, from primary production, through to collection, distribution and, ultimately, marketing, and that it is therefore largely closed to the non-agricultural sector. Incidentally, it should be mentioned that this vertical integration is also taking place in certain public corporations. I do not want to allege that it is justified in all cases, as in agriculture; indeed, the Government is constantly ordering investigations in an attempt to curb the unnecessary annexation of other industries by the Government corporations. Recently I saw some of the reports which were submitted to the commission on the Marketing Act. Those people from the private sector who complain so much about agriculture being closed to them—I am speaking specifically of Assocom, which the hon. member for Gardens made such a fuss about—must tell me whether agriculture is not a typical example of entrepreneurship. We should take note of the risks and responsibilities involved and the management ability which is required. Why do these complainers not join this industry? I suggest that they start at the primary level, with the manual work, or do they want to sit in air-conditioned offices, doing the marketing only and thereby claiming for themselves the cream of the industry? It is perfectly possible for them to get their slice of the cake, too, within this system, if they want it so badly.

In South Africa there are enough opportunities for everyone, and I cannot think that there has ever been anyone in South Africa who had capital which he could not invest profitably anywhere. We have only to look at what can still be done in respect to the enrichment of minerals. We export 60% of our chrome ore and this earns only 30% of the total earnings from chrome ore, while after the alloying processes, 34% of this chrome ore earns 70% of the total foreign currency.

Must we now wait for the Government to create a Chromecor or something of that kind? This is simply one example. There are so many spheres which the private sector can enter and in which it can invest its money. For this reason I believe that it is ridiculous to allege that the private sector should participate at this stage in undertakings like Iscor, Escom, etc. Why should we bring about a mere transfer of capital from the State to the public? In a country which has such a need for capital, is the Government now to say that Iscor’s shares are up for sale to the public? If there are things which must be rectified in these corporations, other means than new ownership must be applied in order to rectify them. If not, the private sector could compete with the public corporation as far as prices are concerned.

The only conclusion which I could draw when I looked at this question of free enterprise and socialism was that neither the public sector nor the private sector nor the consumer can demand the best of all worlds at all times in a country like South Africa. The State must realize—and it does realize— that there are certain things which it cannot and should not do. So, too, there are certain things which it alone can do and which, indeed, it ought to do. In any event, that which the State accomplishes holds immense advantages and potential for the private sector. The State must realize that often its highest and noblest vocation lies not in doing something for itself, but in helping other people to do it as quickly and effectively as possible. Every official, and this does not only hold for officials of State, but also for officials in the bureaucracy of the private sector itself, who withholds his dedication and enthusiasm from the work which he does—and how easy it is to do so for years without its being perceived, because it is so easy to drift along without ever doing anything productive—must know that he is destroying prosperity or that he is an insurmountable stumbling block in the way of the creation of greater prosperity in South Africa. Every consumer who does not play his part in the economy of a capitalist system and who wants to pass his responsibilities on to the Stace, for example to protect him against exploitation, while he has not fulfilled his own role in choosing his purchases; every consumer who spends more than he earns; and every consumer who wants to use his vote to obtain maximum material advantage from our democratic system for himself, is committing an unforgivable offence against himself, against the system, and what is more: against posterity, to whom he is going to deny the system, because there is no more certain manner of undermining the system of free enterprise than for the consumer to pass his responsibility on to the State. Lastly, the private sector must also know that ultimately it must itself be the chief guardian of the economic system and that it is not, as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has once again suggested, the responsibility of the State as well. The private sector is the guardian and it must ensure that it keeps the confidence of the consumer. If it is going to shake the consumer’s confidence by exploitation, by recommended prices and malpractices of that kind, which are so difficult to combat, it will eventually make the greatest contribution itself towards destroying the system which has so far provided it with the opportunity of enriching itself and maintaining a high standard of living. No pressure exerted on the Government by the private sector can ultimately preserve the private sector if it does not make a contribution itself. The rise of societies based on the so-called comsumerism throughout the world and in South Africa, too, is certainly the most pointed warning to the private sector. I believe that everyone has his responsibility in terms of this system. We are partners and we must assist one another and not scratch out one another’s eyes. The ultimate goal must be: What is in the interests of South Africa and the continued and growing prosperity of every one of its inhabitants?

Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since we had such an enjoyable and lively political debate on a private member’s motion in this House. I must admit that the hon. member for Newcastle introduced something here which completely upset the hon. member for Florida. I missed the person who used to speak so calmly and sedately here in the old days. Today it was “more heat than light”. I must honestly admit that, when I heard how the hon. member for Newcastle introduced the motion, I asked myself whether this was a case of Paul, too, among the prophets. I also wondered along which road to Damascus this Paul had walked, having now seen the light and become converted so that he could persuade the NP to introduce a motion here dealing with the system of private enterprise. I have said so previously in this House, and say it again today, and I shall continue to say that the NP is a socialist party to the core. They cannot deny that. Any person who has read the book by the hon. member for Waterberg in which he carries on about the individual in the national context, will know that one cannot deny that. The whole idea of the individual in the national context, which is explained in that book, indicates a socialist concept of nation. That party never gets away from that. However, they come and beat about the bush here and profess to be the champions of the private enterprise system. This does not impress us at all. Everyone is talking about Dr. Wassenaar. I do not know the man and neither does he know me. I would not recognize him in the street if I saw him. Therefore it is not necessary for me to come here and defend him. But no one in the NP can rob that man of what he has done for his people and his country. It is of no use to come here and gossip about the man. He is a great man among his own people and it is not necessary for me to defend him.

†However much the NP may protest, and they protest vociferously, they are a party which stands for the big State, the big tax, the big operation by the State at the cost of the private individual. The hon. member for Florida was getting all upset and worked up about that. The one thing that people have got to understand from the very beginning is that the State has money to spend only at the expense of the private sector. The State does not make a profit, the State does not trade and the State has no assets. The State exists only by reason of the tax it takes out of the hands of the private people, and it can take tax out of the hands of private people only when they make a profit. One therefore cannot help agreeing with the hon. member for Newcastle when he says that this must be based, in a responsible manner, on the profit motive. One accepts that there must be a responsibility on the State to regulate malpractices and so on to a certain extent. However, the purpose of the State is not to deprive the private citizen of investment capital or to compete with the private citizen in investment. I see the hon. the Minister is laughing to himself there so happily. Perhaps he is getting some advice. I know he needs it.

He buys his sources.

That is a point, but he does not have very impeccable sources, if I may say so. If the hon. the Minister is going to participate in this debate, I hope he is not going to come along here and do what he did last time, and that is to posture, strut and create a big scene as if he is the great defender of private enterprise.

What are you doing now?

I am asking you some questions which you will not have answers to in your prepared reply.

I shall give you the answers.

If he wants to participate in the debate, he must put his prepared reply aside and answer the questions that are going to be put to him.

Why do you not put your prepared speech aside?

I shall put it aside right now. It means nothing to me.

It means nothing to me either.

I take as my theme that the private enterprise system makes the NP’s policy of apartheid impossible. For that party to associate itself with the system that it has attempted to introduce in South Africa, and to pretend that it can continue to associate itself with a system that has patently failed, while maintaining that it is a private enterprise party, is pure fallacy and nothing else. What is the reason?

Let us hear the reason.

All right, listen to the reason. Private enterprise is something that is built up in the cities. It is built upon the individual and consequently upon the combined initiative of all the peoples of South Africa. In fact, the motion before this House states:

How does one recognize the welfare of all the inhabitants when the stated policy of the Government is that a majority of the people within the boundaries of the State are in actual fact not there? They are non-peoples. They have no representation and they have absolutely nothing to say about what is going on in the country. They are people who have an existence, but they are there merely as ciphers and factors. Their real existence, however, what gives expression to their participation in the economy and makes them part of the private enterprise system, i.e. their political rights, are to be exercised somewhere else. Let us understand where they are going to be practised. They are going to be practised in the homelands. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us that he sees the homelands as being more bastions for the private enterprise system. What is more, I hope he will try to demonstrate that, because it is obviously a fallacy. Those areas are poor in capital and will have to depend on investment. What have they got to invest in? The whole pattern in Africa and in the world tells us that there are two ways of developing an area. One can either invest capital, or if there is no capital to invest, one can invest the people. That requires State intervention, a State socialism, such as being carried out in country after country throughout the world. There is simply not enough capital in the world to develop those countries to a satisfactory degree or fast enough. I think the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation. The people in those areas are an integral part of everything that is going on. They are part of the private enterprise system. Our future and the system depend on those people. If we do not keep those people on our side, the system cannot possibly continue to operate and will collapse.

Take a country like Malawi which is poor in capital. The President of Malawi, Dr. Hastings Banda, has said to his people: “You may have just so much and no more. You cannot expect more services of different types because you cannot pay for them.” I wish to refer to one of the questions the hon. member for Florida posed. This is not the time for us to determine a threshold across which the State may not go in intruding upon the income of private people and of companies. We must determine our priorities because I am convinced in my own mind that we stand today in imminent danger of so depressing business activity and the entire business community in South Africa through taxation, that we are destroying the incentive that is the absolute source of the free enterprise system. It is the kernel of the whole thing. The individual must be able to get out and do things for himself. This applies to Black as well as Brown people. In fact, it applies to everybody. One must avoid getting to the point where one depresses incentive. As an hon. member asked: “Will you lend your new car to the Government for four months per year free?”

I do not think there is anybody here who does not know people who say: “I could go to work three to four days a week, I could even go to work seven days a week if I wanted to, but I am not going to do it because the Government, through taxation, is taking away more than it is worth my earning.” Everybody knows of people who work two, three or four days a week in an advisory or a consultative capacity and who for the rest of the time play golf and enjoy themselves simply because it is not worth their while to work more than that under the present system. Surely it is time for us to determine our priorities and to establish a threshold beyond which the State cannot go. We must understand that it is essential for us in this country to cut our cost according to our cloth. If we want more, that can only come from increased growth and increased investment, and where is that to come from? Last year the hon. the Minister of Finance said that the only growth in the economy last year was that generated by the State.

I never said that.

Sir, I have a very, very clear recollection of the hon. the Minister saying that when he introduced his Budget.

I said that the State played a very big part in it.

Sir, there was zero growth in the private sector last year. Anyway, I shall accept that the hon. the Minister said that the State played a very big part. The point I wish to make is that State growth is something that is fuelled only by what is taken out of the private sector.

An urgent debate must be started in this country as to whether the private sector, by retaining money in its own hands for investment, cannot generate growth and wealth in this country far more efficiently than the State can do it. It is to reach out to the Black community that makes this so important.

At present we have in Soweto a revolution being led by young Black militants who are socialists and communists. If this system of ours is going to survive, it can do so only by the encouragement and building-up of political movements among the Black population who are going to be committed to this system which we are all praising here today and which we believe in, but which, as far as I am concerned, is merely a sham and a hollow farce as far as they themselves are concerned. You have to create in the minds of the Black people a real attachment and a realization that this Black middle class of people have got something to protect, and not only to protect; they want to see into the corridors of the future; they want to see door after door opening for their children. They do not care so much for themselves; they want to see into the future and know which doors will open in the future for their children. Now, how is this going to be achieved? One of the questions with regard to Soweto that worries me is the total negative leadership that has come from those people, the students, that claim to be directing the revolution. The one thing that we want to see now is a responsible body of people among those Black people who will stand up for the private enterprise system, the system in which we believe and on which every single thing is going to be based.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is smiling or just looking at me.

He is thinking of his lunch.

Oh, is he thinking of his lunch?

I am thinking of something else.

The whole basis of what we are doing is to try to build in this country a society which is based on norms which we have imported, norms which we see in other countries and which we are only too happy and pleased to be able to bring here and attempt to implement for our people. But I say to the hon. the Minister and I say it to this Nationalist Government, the time has come now that one of the most important things that the Economic Advisory Council and the hon. the Prime Minister can do is to look at this question and see whether in fact the private enterprise system can survive when the State is continually expanding its horizons.

The hon. the Minister cannot contest that. Every single year a budget is presented here and every single department wants more money for more projects, for more this and for more that. It is a totally false situation in which we live. I know of no guide-lines laid down and there is nothing that has come from the Government during all the years that they have been in power, as the hon. member for Florida mentioned; after all those years we are in danger of grindling to a halt because the State is taking away from the private individual the money he should be investing. There is no more powerful liberatory force in the world than a free man investing his own money in his own time, through his own effort, who lives his business life 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He can do that far better than any State corporation which invests the money taken out of the pockets of the tax-payer and utilizes it for some other purpose.

The hon. member for Florida spoke about State corporations. I have mentioned this matter before to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The IDC has bought its way into flourishing companies in the private sector. Surely, the whole project should be reversed? There should now be a spinning off into the private sector of so many things. The part of the State should be—as an hon. member quite rightly said, and I agree with him 100%—to take the initial steps to start off projects. The State has got resources which the private individual has not got. But when these undertakings are moving and going ahead and becoming a real factor in the life of our country, why is it necessary for the State to hold them, and not only to hold onto them, but to add to them and create conglomerates inside the whole State apparatus which would far better be directed by private individuals and spread amongst the people at large by means of a shareholding, which means participating in the economy as a whole?

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h 15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by the clock in full flight, I was dealing with certain points which I would like the hon. the Minister to answer. If I may, I want to sum up a few points. The question of the Blacks’ position in the free enterprise society that we are talking about, is one of them. I made the point that the students in Soweto had produced no responsible leadership at all. Up to this day they have been negative, and militantly negative, and it is clearly incumbent now upon responsible Black opinion in Soweto and other places to come out in favour of a free enterprise society. It is the part of Black leadership to do that, and it is the part of White political leadership to create the sort of political system in which that responsible Black political leadership and type of private enterprise can be exercised and can be lived to the full. I have said already that the NP, as I see it, is not the party which can make that possible. [Interjections.]

In relation to that this is, I believe, the importance of what happened here earlier today when the advent of Dr. Wassenaar to this political debate was mentioned. The second point is that taxation is the key to investment. In my opinion the NP is a party which is far too committed to State growth at the expense of the private society. Thirdly, I have said that the control of taxation—and I want to make this point to the hon. the Minister, because they may continue to be in Government for the next 28 years, which the Lord forbid, but it may happen—is going to be the key to any future political dispensation in South Africa, and every single businessman in this country who is thinking about it, must be looking at his future wondering what that, and the future of his company, will be. That is not only the relationship to the present Government, but also the relationship between Black and White, the relationship between Black and White as far as political power in this country is concerned. I have said before that one cannot enrich the Black majority by punitive taxation of the White minority, and anybody who is thinking about politics in this country, about change in this country, about a new balance of power, about creating opportunities for Black political power, cannot get away from the point about who is going to control taxation of the private person and possibly also of the companies. I believe this is an absolutely basic fundamental.

The reason why this party is moving on the basis of the 14 principles to a new dispensation is precisely because this is one of the points that will have to be solved. Where is power going to reside in the hands of people who can tax? Who is going to be able to tax the business community, the Indian business community, the White business community, the Coloured business community and the fledgling Black community which is emerging today in the urban areas? I believe this is something which has to be answered. We have to speculate about it. We have to think about it. If we are going to think seriously about the future of politics in South Africa, that is one of the questions we have to answer. I make the point because we are all talking about abolishing discrimination and getting away from discrimination. However, we shall only get away from discrimination in one way. That is by eliminating the prejudice and the fear which engenders discrimination. That can be done only by growth in the Black community to the point where he can see they have enough, where we can …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, if I thought for one minute that the hon. member would understand, I would spend more time on him, but I do not want to waste my time. I am talking to the hon. the Minister and I want to say that the way to wipe out discrimination, to eliminate it, is only by means of the private enterprise system. That is why we have moved the amendment. Our amendment says that this Government has failed to implement it, to carry it out, to put it into practice here in South Africa. The Government is moving more and more into the situation where the Black man is coming more and more into the market place. He is becoming more and more a factor in power. He is more and more a part of the scene, and if the Government is going to preserve free enterprise it cannot preserve it for White South Africa only. The Government has to preserve it for all the peoples of this country. It is to be preserved for us and for everybody, or for nobody. That is the challenge which that hon. Minister faces in replying to this motion, and that is the reason why we have moved our amendment, which I support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newcastle was accused by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, by implication, of having had an ulterior motive or of at least having had notice when he gave notice of his motion. I thought that, precisely in view of the circumstances in the country, economically and otherwise, the hon. member did this House a favour by creating the opportunity for a rational debate on what I think is a subject of current interest in our country.

As the Prime Minister did? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow knows, for I drew his attention to it in a previous debate, that the accusation to which the hon. the Prime Minister replied today, alleging that he had forbidden the private sector to express criticism, was a mendacious attack. However, I do not want to be side-tracked, particularly not by the future professional academics. [Interjections.] I found it interesting to listen to the hon. member for Randburg, for he and his fellow party members, when they came here, introduced a new element in this Chamber. They represent specifically a certain facet of capitalism. This question occurs to me: For what reason? Is that hon. member acting as the champion of the author of an emotional outburst? Is the reason not to be found therein that he, and what he represents, wish to get at the institution with which this author is associated?

That is correct; that is the point.

I think it would be tragic if this institution were in fact prejudiced as a result of the injudicious utterances and opinions of certain individuals associated with it.

After all, it remains a fact that Governments throughout the world, and our Government as well, are from time to time and remain the subject of the accusation that they are adopting a course of creeping socialism. Surely it remains a fact that Governments throughout the Western World are being accused of increasing interference in the economic lives of their respective countries. Then the following pertinent question arises: What is the motive for this accusation? Is the motive personal? Does this accusation from certain groups in the country not represent a method of breaking the National Party Government by a method other than on the political platform? This question the hon. members must answer for themselves. However, I do want to make this accusation …

Are you accusing Sanlam?

I am not accusing Sanlam.

What a give-away! [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, there you have confirmation of my argument from the mouth of the hon. member for Yeoville. My next question is this: Is there not something sinister in this attack? Does it not represent the real division in South Africa?

The Wassenheimers! [Interjections.]

Does it not represent the fact the the predominantly English-speaking capital does not want to accept a NP Government in South Africa? [Interjections.] I gave the hon. member for Mooi River his chance, and he may as well keep quiet now. Let us analyse for a moment the criticism which came from their ranks, alleging that the Government was treading the path of socialism and was socializing the economic life to an increasing extent. Surely the hon. member knows—indeed, he said so himself—that I have stated the Government’s standpoint in this specific regard repeatedly. I think it is important for us to know that the latest message has emanated from an eminent businessman—and did so in English. One asks oneself for whose consumption this was written. One asks oneself whether such action testifies to the true economic patriotism out of which that institution was born. Is it not important that the official standpoint of the Government should be reaffirmed through this House to see whether it is possible to neutralize to some extent the harm done to South Africa during the past week? I think that that is our task in this country.

The fundamental approach has always been that the economy may best be served by means of the profit motive as incorporated in the private sector and in the objectives of the private sector; with the proviso—and I challenge any member on the opposite side to dispute this—that it is in accordance with the national interests of our country. The PRP and specifically the hon. member for Yeoville are those who are constantly launching attacks on this Government outside this House because it does not take adequate steps to protect the consumer against the exploitation of capital. Can one do that without tampering with the policy?

Yes.

How?

The Government sets a great store by the private enterprise system—I want to reaffirm this—as well as by the contribution it has made, is making and still has to make to the economic development and growth of our country. After all, this Government took steps, long before those members participated in the debate, not only to formulate a theoretical creed, but also to ensure that the accusations which hon. members were making of increasing interference in and increasing competition with the private sector, did not come true. Are the hon. members not aware that the Government, on the advice of the Economic Advisory Council, established a permanent committee in respect of State competition? Are the hon. members not aware of what the terms of reference of the committee were? Guiding principles were laid down as to how the committee should function and these included the fundamental standpoint to which I referred. However, these principles went even further, and indicated the following: Firstly, that the objectives of the State undertaking are in the first instance situated therein that it should create the opportunities for the private sector to produce the greatest possible benefit for the community as a whole. Secondly, if a State undertaking were, upon its establishment, or subsequently, to enter into competition with the private sector, the fundamental objective of the competitive activities should be of national importance. When these undertakings find themselves competing with the private sector—that is to say, competing unjustifiably—these undertakings are expected to consider the desirability of gradually, and without disrupting repercussions, transferring their interests to the private sector. If these State corporations were to transfer these interests today, in the prevailing economic climate, would it lead to the formation of new capital or would it merely result in a reallocation of existing capital? Thirdly, any State undertaking that wishes to enter a new field of activity which by definition is not directly related to its principal objectives, cannot commence such an activity before it has been referred to the committee.

I am emphasizing that the Government not only reaffirmed its standpoint, but that it also took direct steps to ensure that a philosophy was carried into effect, and under these circumstances such an accusation is untrue and unwarranted. This committee is definitely a commendable institution, and I think hon. members will confirm this. However, I do not know how the accusation of creeping socialism—an accusation which implies that a specific tendency must have manifested itself in our economic life over a period of time—can be reconciled with the fact that to date only seven complaints of minor importance have been brought to the attention of the committee.

I think it is important that when we discuss this subject, which is by its nature a topical one, but also a complicated one, our terminology should be the same. The words “capitalism, socialism and public sector” are used in a very loose context. I concede that it is difficult to give a concrete definition of “capitalism”, but I think that for the purposes of our debate one may use it to indicate an economic structure in which private ownership of property and production factors are not only allowed, but also encouraged, and in which the market mechanism is used for the mobilization, application or utilization of our resources. In a broad sense “socialism” would, for the purposes of our debate, mean the opposite, for the emphasis then falls on the national ownership of property and production factors, while the State plan, instead of the market mechanism, is responsible for the mobilization and utilization of the resources. For my purposes “the public sector” includes the State, the provinces, the local authorities, the public corporations, the S.A. Bantu Trust as well as the social security funds. If we wish to discuss the subject in a rational way, we must find quantitative criteria against which we can measure, and then we must not have any confusion over the verbal concepts.

In spite of the positive attitude of the Government on the promotion of the interests of the private sector, the accusation and the cries of socialism are increasing ominously, and “creeping socialism” sounds like an expression with a totally new intensity. What I find perturbing is not the fact—so I believe—that there is no justification for these complaints, but the lack of understanding among the critics in this specific regard and the lack of insight into the problems of the economic systems we are discussing. If we listen to the arguments put forward by hon. members, we find that they are arguing from the standpoint that a system of pure capitalism and free competition as the ideal exists on the one hand, with socialism on the other, and they argue as though there were no grey area in between. As theoretical standpoint it is probably acceptable, but I want to contend that they are making certain fundamental errors of reasoning in this specific regard.

On the other hand it is argued as though capitalism, by definition, implies free enterprise. Surely we know that this is not true, and the hon. member for Randburg knows that it is not true because he has had experience of this. Surely he knows that free competition means freedom of suppliers and of demanders. Surely there is nothing implicit in the principle of private ownership and the pursuit of own interest, the basis of capitalism, which guarantees competition. It is a fact that in the country which is the exemplar of capitalism, the United States of America, one finds the strongest and most effective anti-trust legislation which I know of. Why?

†Because capitalism has often an ugly side to its face and sometimes it requires plastic surgery to rectify the position.

*Let us examine our own situation. Is it not a fact that we do not have full competition in South Africa? Is it not also a fact that competition in various spheres is incomplete? Is it not a fact that there is increasing insistence upon the protection of people in such a situation? The hon. members argue, in the second place, as though any form of State interference places the country irrevocably on an opposite course, towards socialism. This argument is not correct, and finds its origin in a failure to grasp what private initiative means.

Who said that?

The hon. members, as well as the author quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said this, if the hon. member does not know. But what is more: The hon. members make a third error, and so do the critics outside. This error is to compare the tendency for State intervention in one country with that in various other countries without any qualification.

What is the relationship between the State and the private sector? I get the impression that the image which the hon. members opposite, for motives of their own, as well as people outside would like to convey is that these sectors represent opposing forces, while their role is in fact supplementary and complementary to one another. The relationship between the public sector and the private sector in South Africa has a variety of facets which, apparently, are not always recognized by those who criticize the actions of the authorities. They are partners in the process, and the State is also a client of the private sector.

The State allows itself to be led, in the achievement of its objectives, by social considerations, as it has to do in any modem community. I want to emphasize that the premises and the objectives of the public sector in comparison with private enterprise are frequently divergent, and if we do not take this into consideration, we shall have no understanding of the subject we are discussing. What is the objective of the State? It is sustained, stable growth with security of work opportunities and constantly increasing incomes, for the Black people, to which the hon. member referred, as well. I want to repeat this, because he raised it during the debate. He repeated an old accusation and said that the NP, in the formulation of its policy, put the economy at the service of its political ideology. I now want to put a question to him. Can there be any question of development or growth if no stability exists in relationships between groups and peoples in South Africa? It is no problem to me to put the economy at the service of that very regulation of these intense or explosive relationships, for if we do not succeed in doing so, there will be no question of an economy which develops or grows. The objectives of private enterprise lie, quite justifiably, in its motivation, i.e. its profit motives, and it pursues its own interests, frequently in our society at the expense of the general interest and at the expense of other socio-economic considerations. Any Government which fails in its duty in this specific regard will not be worthy of the name of an effective Government.

When does the State in South Africa interfere in and when does it participate in private economic life? There are various reasons and considerations which apply in this specific regard. It does so when it is asked to do so, for frequently the private sector requests State intervention. It asks for this when an industry has to be protected by means of import control. It asks for this in terms of tariff protection against foreign competition. It asks for this when it asks for assistance in order to ensure geographically balanced economic development by means of border area policy. Is that an evil? Secondly the Government is provoked into intervention when exploitation by unscrupulous businessmen takes place, who represent a small minority of a population which is not always able to appreciate the advantages of the free market economy. Why is it necessary to place legislation in regard to trade malpractices on our Statute Book, with the support of hon. members opposite? Is it not to eliminate that ugly facet of capitalism and to save the system and to purify it?

Have you used that Act yet?

It has not yet been brought into force.

Yes, but the committee will be appointed. The question of the hon. member for Constantia is an important one. He is the person who complains about price maintenance in certain subsectors. Is that Act not intervention for the sake of the general interest? Is he not the person who asks me here when the report of the inquiry into monopolistic conditions will be available? Is it not because he knows that there are evils in our system and that we have to take steps to preserve the system by eliminating the evils? However, the Government also takes action when compelled to do so by national or strategic considerations. I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens whether the private sector would, for national considerations, store strategic oil supplies without profit? Would the private sector, for which he is an apologist, provide the financing for Soekor? Would the private sector be prepared, for the sake of the defence of our country, to build armaments factories? [Interjections.] If they want to, why not? Atlas is frequently referred to as an example, but was Sasol not offered to the private sector?

They pay for it by way of taxation.

The taxation is not the point. It was offered to the private sector. There is a fourth reason why the State ventures into the sphere of the private sector, and that is when the private sector does not have the ability or the initiative to establish an undertaking or to carry out certain activities which are essential for balanced development in the long term for South Africa. Almost every day hon. members on that side, for reasons other than economic considerations, talk about the establishment of public corporations. What contribution have they made to the creation of infrastructure in South Africa? What contribution have they made to extending the basis of our industrial development into the hands of the private sector as well? I want to say that when we discuss this subject, we need not spare one another in respect of our standpoints, but we must not find it so difficult either to consort with the truth.

I want to ask a final question, which is this: Is the State going too far with its intervention in the private sector? How do we measure this? Of course it is very easy to make statements and to quote authorities who are attacking the Government for other reasons, without adducing the substantive evidence which can be quantified. I think it is necessary for us to have qualitative criteria which we can apply. I concede at once that it is not so easy to find these. However, I concede that errors have been made in certain cases where our people had to be protected by means of the instrument of price control which, in my opinion, will not have the desired effect in the long run. I am on record as having said this. Errors have been made and profit margins have been determined on low rates, which discouraged investment. However, this does not mean that this instrument should not be used, once again to neutralize the ugly manifestations of capitalism. But I want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that, if we argue about this matter rationally, we can test it against four quantities. Let us consider what the result is. We must also bear in mind that, if the accusation is true, a specific tendency has to be revealed over a period of time. Let us take four quantities. Let us take the contribution of the public sector to the gross domestic product over a period of 15 years as the first quantity. Let us take the share of the public sector in the fixed capital supply of the country over a specific period as the second quantity, and the course of the provision of work or of employment by the authorities of the economically active population as the third quantity. Then we take the spending, or the percentage of the State’s share in public consumer spending, as the fourth quantity. When we measure this, we also measure it against the responsibility which the State has in this specific regard. Now, what are the facts? If one were to take these quantities as a criterion, three erroneous courses or errors of reasoning are revealed. The first error is that the South African economy is more socialized than the economies of the other Western countries. This is not true. The facts indicate the opposite. In 1960 the contribution of the State to the gross domestic product was 23%. In 1975 the contribution of the State was still 23%. Is this an upward tendency? Does this indicate an increasing intervention in or participation in the activities, economically speaking? The second aspect is that Government expenditure has liaison advantages in certain directions for the development in the private sector. It is very interesting to consider the factor of employment, in regard to which accusations are being levelled at us almost every day. Let us consider the percentage of economically active people employed in the public sector, as I have just defined it—this means not only the central Government but also includes all other authorities. Let us take 1960 as a base year. In that year 17% of the economically active people were employed in the public sector. In 1975 14% were employed in the public sector, and then those people are accused of inefficiency. I think we owe it to one another … [Interjections.] These are not the wrong figures.

Are those Whites or the entire population?

They are the figures for the entire population. I shall give the hon. member the figures for the Whites. The figures for the Whites have also dropped, and I shall furnish the figures again. As far as employment is concerned, I repeat that in 1960 17% of the total economically active people were employed in the public sector. In 1975 it was 14%. In 1960 31% of the economically active White population was employed in the public sector. In 1975, 28% was employed in the public sector. Now I ask the hon. member again: Is there an upward curve of participation, measured against the quantities I have mentioned?

Thirdly we frequently hear the argument that as a result of the efficiency of private sector undertakings, we should hand over the S.A. Railways and Harbours and the Post Office in particular to the private sector. It is of course true, and I readily concede, that the profit motive could lead to the production of services at lower costs; that is a truth, but the other side of the coin is also true. If the provision of basic infrastructure had to be left to the private sector, with its motivation— with which we all wish to agree—it would surely lead inevitably to their producing those products which are able to bear the economic costs, and leave the others in abeyance. All one need to do is look at the development of the transportation system in America, which has to rely primarily on motor vehicles [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, by way of summary I should like, in the first place, to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for the clear elucidation of Government policy on this very important matter. I think he did so with inspiration, and made a major contribution today in this debate. I think that a few matters emerged in this debate which are perhaps important. I think the first important matter here is that we should accept that capitalism in its absolute form simply does not exist. The second question which flows from this and which I deduced today, is that the capitalistic system will have to undergo certain adjustments if we wish to win the battle against socialism. We cannot win if capitalism cannot rid itself of its so-called “ugly face”. We must also accept that the private sector in South Africa has an adequate say, up to the highest level of Government, in respect of their interests. What also emerged clearly from this debate was that the Government believes in the right of free enterprise. We accept that there are grounds for improvement. This was made very clear here today. It is also the task of the Permanent Advisory Committee to consider the bottlenecks which still exist.

I am also particularly grateful for the participation of the hon. the Prime Minister in the debate. He succeeded in giving us a new perspective in respect of this matter. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister’s contribution was the most important aspect of this debate, because we then saw the matter against the correct background, and that is important.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I believe one could reasonably have anticipated that a debate on the subject of private enterprise might be a very tranquil one, but one would have been wrong. On the other hand one could anticipate that a debate on a Bill of Rights might be anything but tranquil, although one hopes that this debate will be conducted in a tranquil atmosphere. The two, of course, have some relevance because after having listened to the hon. the Prime Minister this morning I thought to myself that perhaps there should be a provision in the Bill of Rights to protect the businessman who wishes to express his views and who wishes to pursue his lawful occupation. [Interjections.]

If we come to the motion that I have moved and can fairly say that the issue of a Bill of Rights is necessary and desirable, one immediately realizes that this is a matter which has been debated in South Africa for decades and by political scientists and by politicians for much longer all over the world. South Africa presents perhaps the classic situation calling for the constitutional protection of human rights. It is a country in which there are people of different colour, race, nationality, religion and language. Even the majority groups in South Africa have built-in minorities, and political power is exercised in South Africa by a power group within a minority over other minorities and even over a majority.

Surely that is not true!

Of course it is true. It is a fact.

Oh, come on! Of course that is true.

It is a fact. Does South Africa not have a minority Government? Are the Whites in the majority in South Africa or are they the minority? [Interjections.]

That is not true!

How can the hon. the Prime Minister say that is not true?

Of course it is not true!

The hon. the Prime Minister should know that it is true.

You have the wrong end of the stick!

I cannot accuse the hon. the Prime Minister of saying something which is not true, but he should know that the statement he is now making is completely wrong. He should know that. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, if ever there has been a classic case in the history of the world for the protection of individual and group rights, that is South Africa.

The premises which I will advance during this debate can be summarized as follows: Firstly, the rational human being has, in fact, certain basic rights. I hope that will not be disputed. I think that even the hon. the Prime Minister accepts that. Secondly, such basic rights are capable both of definition and of listing. In other words, we know what these rights are and we are able to set them out. Thirdly, such rights have historically been repeatedly infringed. I do not speak about South Africa here, but about the world in general. There is no question that history does show a continuous infringement of human rights. Fourthly, that the mechanism to protect individual rights against the State and other groups and individuals can be evolved, and, I believe, should be evolved. Fifthly, we believe, and I specifically put forward this premise during this debate, that a Bill of Rights is the most satisfactory of such mechanism for the protection of these rights.

In the sixth place I believe that a Bill of Rights will only provide adequate protection if recourse is available to a strong and independent judiciary. And then it needs to be said, in the seventh place, that both the Bill of Rights and the courts must be protected constitutionally so that they may not be amended, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, or impugned, in so far as the courts are concerned, by the executive or by simple legislative majorities which may be available from time to time. The eighth point I want to make during this address is that the validity of entrenched clauses in a constitution has in fact been accepted by South Africa’s highest courts, and therefore it is possible to provide for this entrenchment in our law. The last premise, the ninth one, is that such entrenchment of a Bill of Rights is also possible under a federal constitution which offers further political protection to minorities, as well as to individuals.

If we now come to the concept of the rational human being and his basic rights, we find that this concept is found deeply embedded in Western history. These rights are sometimes called natural rights or moral rights which are the rights of all people in all situations. The Greeks, for example, accepted it. There is the very famous passage where Antigone says to King Creon, when asked why she has buried the corpse of her brother who was an alleged traitor against the King’s ruling—

There was no Bill of Rights in the days of King Creon. King Creon contended, as was said many centuries later, in the famous Sir John Hampshire case, by Mr. Justice Berkeley, that lex was not rex, but rex is lex—that, in fact, the king is the law. He said then, as so many tyrants had said before—we have heard it so often, even in this House—that, above all, anarchy must be prevented. That is sometimes used as the excuse by rulers for all sorts of action even if there is no anarchy.

If we look at this situation, the classical situation that Sophocles set out, how little has the politics of government changed through the ages? The clashes between the authoritarian concept of the complete subjugation of the governed to the will of the governor, as advanced by Hobbes and Locke’s theory, that the governed convey rights to the governor to exercise collective functions for the common good, but with the individual retaining his basic rights—these clashes have continued throughout the ages. Great Britain is an example of a country that has had a long history of this struggle. The highlights were King John’s Magna Carta, the Commonwealth of Cromwell and the British Bill of Rights which was subsequently passed. Other countries have similar rights, but one matter becomes apparent throughout. If once it is accepted that the rational being has basic rights, no amount of philosophy, no amount of writing and no amount of contention can protect such rights against a ruler who has the power to encroach upon them. What is needed is a mechanism which protects the individual against the ruler. A social contract between Locke’s citizen and Machiavelli’s prince is only of value if it can be enforced against the prince.

In a homogeneous State democratic government can be such a protection, as the citizen can remove the ruler by peaceful means. However, those who enjoy power often do not relish losing it—the hon. the Minister of Justice must listen—and so, if elected by democratic means, they use their period of office to entrench themselves and juggle with the democratic machinery. Some African States are classic examples of this and, in the result, the only means of changing a Government is the coup d’etat. This perhaps explains why the large number of coups since Africa’s liberation from colonialism have taken place. In those countries there is no other way of changing the Government. There is no democratic machinery available to change the Government.

In a State which is not homogeneous, which has different races, people of different colours, religions, languages, or which covers a vast geographic area, ordinary democratic process, while desirable, is not by itself enough. One group will be larger than others, minorities will exist and, to this end, other protection is required.

One solution which is often advanced is federalism, as has, in fact, been shown in the USA, Canada, West Germany and Switzerland, among others.

However, standing with this has been the concept of the Bill of Rights. The idea being that a law must exist which cannot be altered at the whim of the majority, which can be enforced against the rulers, and which gives the individual and the minority group a feeling of security and impresses on the Government and the majority that there are basic rights which cannot be ignored. Enforcement against the majority, against the ruler, is a major problem. This can be solved by a rigid constitution which entrenches a Bill of Rights, so that it cannot be altered or repealed by a simple parliamentary majority and a strong independent judiciary, which is necessary and which is similarly protected and whose function it is to enforce the Bill of Rights at the suit of the aggrieved individual or the aggrieved minority. There are many forms of entrenchment. The United States requires a two-thirds majority of Congress and a three-quarters majority of the individual States in order to alter their constitution. Switzerland requires a referendum with a double majority, i.e. of population and of cantons. Other countries use a second House constituted differently from the first House as a guarantee for minorities. We ourselves have in our constitution an entrenched provision, the validity of which was upheld by our Appeal Court in the famous Harris case. In the USA, Switzerland and Germany, judicial tribunals exist to act as the protectors of the minority and of the individual. The mechanism can thus be created and enforcement is possible.

Then the question must be asked: Why then is there objection to a Bill of Rights? Firstly, one has the view of those who with a Bentham will say: “Natural rights are simple nonsense”, or who with a Burke will claim that human equality is, to use his words “a monstrous fiction”. With these one does not wish even to argue. Those who believe in the inequality of man and the absolute power of the sovereign to act at will at all times, cannot be persuaded by sweet reason as they normally have other motives. Yet it is one of their natural rights, the right of that “monstrous fiction”, that they are entitled to hold such views. Those who accept the existence of the rights, but argue against a Bill of Rights, are in a different camp, and even here one will have to examine their motives. Those in our Parliament who oppose a Bill of Rights, might examine the company they keep in such opposition. I hope that the hon. members will bear in mind the other types of persons who oppose Bills of Rights. Karl Marx opposed the concept of a Bill of Rights, as did other Marxist philosophers. Marx regarded the notion of the rights of man as “a bourgeois illusion”. I take it that the hon. member who makes so much noise has the same view. Karl Marx opposed individualism. He contended that man was a species being who would come into his own only when he ceased to think of himself in bourgeois terms as an individual with inalienable rights. That is why we oppose these concepts, because we believe in the inalienable rights of the individual. Despite this and despite Karl Marx, it is interesting that the Soviet constitution speaks of rights of the citizen—it is only lip-service—and contrary to what I have said about the need to have enforcement mechanism, fails to make any provision in this regard. The truth is that not all rulers can be trusted to allow basic human rights. The truth is that not all majorities can be trusted not to oppress minorities. Any minority, therefore, and any human being who values his basic rights, and any numerical majority which is governed by a minority group, must concern itself, not only with a definition of human rights, but also with the creation of lasting mechanisms in order to protect them. That minority group and that human being look towards a Bill of Rights.

I would now like specifically to pose the question: Why does South Africa need a Bill of Rights? As I have said, I believe that South Africa is a classical example. In this concept we need to have a meaningful debate on what the definition of human rights are in South Africa. Even at this late stage in South Africa’s history, we are still unable to agree in this House as to what is meant by discrimination. I believe that what South Africa needs is a debate on the rights of the rational being in this society. What is the rational being entitled to in the form of human rights in the society in South Africa? Are the principles of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 applicable here? Is the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789—it was at the time of the French Revolution and it is still part of the French constitution as enacted in 1958—irrelevant in principle here? Do we have the same philosophy here as was introduced by the ten amendments in the American constitution in 1791 and by the civil war amendments? What is the real philosophy of this Government in respect of human rights? I wish to pose the question as to whether we can come to terms with Africa if we do not by some unequivocal overt act—not merely by words, but by an overt act—make it clear that race will not be a factor on which any basic rights are denied to any individual in South Africa. If we claim to give the individual his natural human rights, how can we continue to restrict him in his personal relationship as we do in statutes that are on our Statute Book? Other hon. members have already spoken this session about the race provisions of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. In South Africa one is not entitled to go to a school with people of your own choice, even if you pay for it and do not rely on the State for money for schooling. These rights are being infringed upon in South Africa, rights which one should expect to be allowed to exist in any society. Let us take a look at a man’s work ambition. Can we in South Africa say that there is no need for a Bill of Rights when we limit the rights of the rational being under the provisions of the Mines and Works Act, under industrial agreements with closed shop provisions which exclude Blacks from certain work, under apprenticeship and work reservation provisions of our law, under the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act, which restricts work opportunities and if under proclamations under the Group Areas Act the right of individuals to exercise supervisory jobs is in fact taken away from them? These are some of the examples, and the question that needs to be asked, is whether a minority group with political power may use that power to bestow privilege on itself and deprive other people of the basic rights. I want to quote Mirabeau when he was in prison shortly before the French Revolution. He was a nobleman and not a man who was of the underprivileged. He spoke of the rights being of such a nature that it is impossible for humankind in any climate to preserve its dignity, secure its developments or to enjoy in tranquillity the blessings of nature.

Interestingly enough, in South West Africa where the Whites are now under pressure, there is talk of a Bill of Rights and of protecting the basics. Must the White man in South Africa only call for a Bill of Rights when his position is in danger? Must he not establish it as an act of faith and as a moral concept when he is in power, as he is in power now in this very place, so that when perhaps he no longer exercises complete undisputed political control, he in those circumstances may have protection for himself on those basic human rights. We in South Africa need a Bill of Rights not merely to do justice; we need it as a safeguard for our own future. South Africa has a precedent for a Bill of Rights in our own constitution. In the former Act of Union, we had both certain franchise rights and language rights entrenched and required a particular majority before it could be altered. The courts in fact supported it. Why then while we have an entrenchment today and a Bill of Rights in respect of one right, the language right, can we not have other human rights entrenched as well? The challenge which must go out to the Government is whether they will not entrench in our constitution, in addition to the language rights, those basic human rights any rational being is entitled to exercise. A Bill of Rights is not a weakening of Government power. In times of emergency a Government can still act, and here I think the authority in the somewhat famous case of Korematsie v. The United States is clear on the point. Mr. Justice Black, delivering the majority judgment, made it very clear that in modem conditions of warfare, insurgency and disorder, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threat and danger. Power to deal with danger must not be confused with the lust for power per se. Machiavelli’s prince was to be all powerful but Voltaire’s prince was to be all powerful to do good but with his hands tied in regard to his ability to do evil. The difficulty as also in the debate that preceded this, was that lip service is not enough. To give an example, section 125 of the Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and demonstration. However, these pious provisions are meaningless to the oppressed intellectual and the suppressed liberal because there is no remedy available to him when that is taken away from him. That is why I argue that no Bill of Rights alone, without the machinery available to the individual to enforce his rights, is adequate.

Revolutions, as history has shown, have often been followed by declarations of rights. We have the example of the American revolution where a declaration of rights came after the revolution. We also have the example of the French revolution where, immediately after the revolution started, a declaration of rights came about. We have the example in England, with the revolt in the Cromwell era and the English Bill of Rights which followed thereafter. What happens is that the revolution takes place, it is successful, and as a result of that a Bill of Rights comes into existence. We have a danger of unrest and of revolution before us. There is a danger of a minority, wielding political power, being deprived of it. Is it not the answer to give our people a Bill of Rights before these events become even more threatening? I would commend to our Government that, instead of allowing history to develop in a way where it may perhaps repeat itself, it takes the lead and, in these circumstances, have the Bill of Rights before there is any real danger of revolution and that it sets the example, not because we are forced to have it, but because we want to have it. I commend for consideration the precedent of other States, of minorities without political power and the consequences that might flow from uprisings. If the Whites do not institute a Bill of Rights while they have the political power, will they be able to ask it from others when perhaps, one day, they might lose that political power? That, to my mind, is the important question and an answer should be given to it during this debate.

Lastly, I want to briefly list what I believe should be in a Bill of Rights. There should be protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language and political views and religion. There should be guaranteed the right to life, to liberty, to security of person and enjoyment of property. There should be the protection against servitude, forced labour laws and similar institutions, of the right to nationality and citizenship, the right to freedom of information, freedom of association, the right to work, the opportunity to choose one’s employer and the right to property, the right to family life, the right to enjoy culture and the right to equality before the law. I believe these are matters which every rational being is entitled to and no one should seek to deprive any rational being of this in the society in which we live.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were seriously to believe everything he said today, particularly everything he insinuated today, then one can only come to the conclusion that this hon. member really does not know what is going on in South Africa or that he does not want to give credit where credit is due. In my speech I shall try to indicate that we need not pay attention to his appeal for a Bill of Rights in South Africa because everything he has asked for is in fact already incorporated in the South African legal system. However, before I start, the hon. member must excuse me if I say to him that I know him and that I know the undertone in his speeches and the speeches of people like him. There is always an undertone of fear to be detected in them. He must excuse me if I say to him that while he spoke, I could not help being reminded of what Robert Bums said—

I do not believe that a meaningful discussion could really take place between the PRP and the NP in this House. I do not believe that we are really within hailing distance of each other, but for the sake of the hon. member’s motion I shall nevertheless try to speak to him this afternoon. The Bill of Rights which his motion is about, advocates an entrenchment of the basic rights of individuals and minorities. However, he failed to indicate what he understood by the basic rights of individuals. He failed to indicate whether he acknowledged thereby the existence of a Communist Party, the right to murder, commit arson, rape and immorality. Apart from those rights, there are not many others for which he could in fact make propaganda. The idea of a Bill of Rights originated with the Bill of Rights of William and Mary of Orange in 1689 and constitutes a very minor subdivision of the British constitutional law. It came more than 400 years after the Magna Carta, and was followed, as the hon. member indicated, by the Act of Settlement and so on. This indicates that the British Constitutional Law went through a very long and difficult process of development before reaching its final form in about the last century. As the hon. member rightly indicated, this was a very long and difficult process in England as well. It was easier in America. After the American Constitution came into being, they adopted their first ten amendments in 1791, in which the English basic rights, as we might call them, were in fact taken over unchanged. The first ten amendments also contained a definite specification of certain individual freedoms which the State might not interfere with. We in South Africa have also had, relatively speaking, a long history of constitutional development. We have had development from a Dutch DEIC refreshment post here to the point of free burgherhood, then the British occupation and subsequently the Batavian Republic, and then again a British occupation, until the Great Trek occurred, which once again concerned the freedom inter alia, of individuals, and then the development in Natal, Transvaal and the Free State, and eventually we had two wars of liberation in South Africa. I want to say that in the whole process of constitutional development, individual and national freedom figured strongly, more strongly than was the case in the British constitutional development. In South Africa the idea of freedom predominated. With the establishment of the Union of South Africa, later the Republic of South Africa, all these principles were ultimately combined in our constitution and other laws and were made part of the whole system of government.

I now want to raise two points. The first is that as regards international and constitutional law, South Africa is unassailably based on Western standards and norms, and that the constitution of the Union was in fact an act of the Mother of Parliaments, the British Parliament. From the time that the constitution of the Union came into being and was adopted in the British Parliament up to the present, nothing unconstitutional has been done by the governments of South Africa, absolutely nothing! What do we have in South Africa today? We have the full heritage of the British, the American, the French and our own constitutional development which we have written into our own system. We have the end-product of centuries of legal development in Europe and Britain as regards constitutional law, civil law, criminal law, law of procedure and so on. Who introduced this to South Africa? Who has done most to give effect to the idea of freedom and basic rights in South Africa? It has been the Nationalist Afrikaners who have done so. The people who stand here today and advocate human rights are the spiritual heirs of those who originally refused these basic rights of Whites and non-Whites in South Africa.

It is nonsense!

I want to say straight out to the hon. member that a Bill of Rights in South Africa is unnecessary. There are two reasons why it is unnecessary. In the first place, all the basic rights of the individual are contained in South Africa’s constitution, its statute law, its common law and in certain conventions. The second important reason is that experience has taught us that such a Bill of Rights is not worth the paper it is written on.

Who said so?

I say so. We are in Africa, and paper constitutions, paper Bills of Rights and Declarations have figured in the whole decolonialization process of all the African States, but what rights have remained in Africa? I do not say this in a derogatory way—I merely want to state it as a fact. What is being left in Africa teaches us that might is right and nothing more.

Is that your philosophy too?

That is not my philosophy. I say it is the lesson of Africa.

*When these Bills of Rights are written, they usually contain a lot of vague generalities, like the blue book of the hon. member for Sea Point. They are so widely stated that one could drive a coach and six through them. If there is one thing we must avoid, then it is the blue book of the PRP and the 14 principles of ex-Judge Kowie Marais.

What are the rights, the individual freedoms, which the NP believes must be upheld in South Africa? Like any other party, the NP believes in the basic rights of the individual and the freedom of the individual. But nor does the NP, as a dedicated and responsible party, hesitate to say that individual freedom in fact also includes licentiousness—political and otherwise. Freedom must be controlled and regulated for the sake of sound and meaningful development, for the sake of freedom, order and peace in the State. Everyone in South Africa enjoys freedom of worship. In South Africa there is freedom of the Press, there is freedom of trade and everyone is equal before our courts.

Tell us about the freedoms that do not exist.

Everyone in South Africa has the right to belong to a political party. There is only one party which is not allowed in South Africa and that is the Communist Party, and the reason why that party is not allowed is the fact that it does not in fact respect basic freedoms. There is freedom of language, religion, worship and culture. Everyone has the right to vote in his own group. The NP goes further and states that every group must be free to govern itself and it assists in this regard and builds on this foundation in accordance with recommendations dating from as far back as the Sauer Commission of 1947. Unfortunately I do not have the time to dwell on this at greater length.

What does the hon. member who introduced this motion, have in mind? Unfortunately I have to go very fast now. The hon. member and those on behalf of whom he speaks, constitute a small vociferous faction in South African politics, a faction with no hope of ever getting into power in this country, either on the United Party or the Nationalist Party side. That is why they now have to make overtures in the hope of achieving a negotiating position in South Africa in an extra-parliamentary way by other means. [Interjections.] In addition they have once again capitulated to Black Power and at the moment they are prostrating themselves before Black Power. In fact they are adopting one of the most evil and dirty methods possible of isolating the Afrikaner from the other people in South Africa so that they can point to him as the scapegoat and so that, when what they are afraid of happens, they can also “Biafranize” the Afrikaner, and say, like that woman in Soweto: “I am English,”

“I am a Prog.” I want to warn them and their people at the University of Cape Town to leave the Afrikaner alone. Basically, the Afrikaner and the English-speaking person in South Africa differ very little in their political views.

I want to conclude by quoting to the hon. member the words of an English-speaking professor from an English-language university. Unfortunately I do not have sufficient time to read enough of what Prof. De Crespigny said. I should just like to quote the following—

He went on to say—

Suffice it to say that South Africa does not need a Bill of Rights because there is an NP which already ensured that all basic rights are present in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is the hon. member’s basic human right to speak in this House and I am afraid it is therefore an affliction with which we have had to bear. Other than that, I can see very little of merit in the hon. member’s speech.

See whether you can do any better.

He did, however, make two points and the first point that he made was in his opening sentence, when he said that all that would appear in a Bill of Rights is already to be found in South African legislation. Is that the correct point that he made? I would ask him to tell me in what South African legislation is to be found the freedom of movement of the Black people of South Africa. I would like him to answer the following: When we speak of the freedom of association, in what South African legislation is to be found the freedom of any person of any colour to belong to any political party they wish?

You do not know your own Constitution.

I would say that there is in fact legislation quite to the contrary. When he makes that statement, I would ask him in what South African legislation will he find the freedom to buy and own land in the area in which he wishes to buy or own land. It will be found that there is legislation to the contrary. The freedom to live with one’s family, near one’s work, in one’s own home on the land owned by one, is a freedom which is to be found totally legislated against. I would therefore say that that particular opening statement was unfortunate one. Not only was it unfortunate, it was palpably untrue.

Secondly, he said that everything in South Africa that has been done over the years has been done constitutionally—like, for instance, the High Court of Parliament in the mid-1950s! That was the constitutional way in which the National Party Government tried to solve a problem which they had at that time. We think for example, of the “packing” of the Senate which in due course was found to be constitutional.

It was done constitutionally, was it not?

Oh, yes!

*That was very clever work.

†For every constitutionally and legally trained person the packing of the Senate was a measure which dissipated the Constitution of South Africa and which I believe is …

May I ask the hon. member whether the British Constitution does not allow for the “packing” of their House of Lords. It is in their legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on English law, but I believe that the British Constitution, which is, as I understand it, an unwritten constitution, can in fact be changed by majority measure. However, in that society which has developed in the traditions of democracy over hundreds of years, no single Government, not even the most rabid Labour Government, has attempted to change the constitution to the disadvantage of people who are not represented in the House at a particular time. I believe that those sorts of moves over the years by the NP Government give more and more weight to the argument that there should in fact be a Bill of Rights in South Africa, and that it should be linked to a constitution which cannot be tampered with.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that one basic question motivates nearly all the political parties in their racial philosophies and in their attitudes towards their policies, and that particular motivation is the question in a country such as ours, which is a unique country, of whether it is feasible to achieve a sense of common interest, where a majority of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—non-Whites all of them—live together with a White population numbering some 20% of the whole, when the differences in the cultures, in the levels of attainment are vast? Is it feasible to try to work towards a joint goal, to provide the foundations of a peaceful society of all the people living together? That, Mr. Speaker, I admit to hon. members here, is an incredibly difficult question to answer. It is a question which is made even more difficult by foreign interference, by militant confrontationists here at home. The legitimate fears, and the not so legitimate prejudices of the Whites are, I believe, a retarding factor in this possible feasibility being translated into fact.

The strongest binding factor is the single economy which feeds and supports the people of the whole spectrum of South Africa. However, although economic considerations are vital, these are not paramount. I think now of one specific comment made in the Tomlinson Report, years ago. I refer to chapter 25, where it is stated—

That is economic considerations and reasoned considerations.

That is what Mr. Tomlinson says. So, it seems, Mr. Speaker, looking at all the facets and taking them into account, that partition in South Africa might possibly provide the shortest road to long-term peace. But this postulates—taking into account, not so much the historical factors with which we have to do, but rather the factors relating to the numbers of South Africa—a negotiated partition.

This postulates a fair and realistic division of the land resources. Such a partition with our complex economy, with the land demands which will be made in South Africa, would encounter, in my view, insurmountable obstacles. I have thought about it, as have many members over the years, very carefully, and I must admit that in our circumstances and in the long-term I can see in fact only one possibility as an alternative to a failing apartheid policy. [Interjections.] There is only one alternative which has the chance of ensuring our survival at this bottom-end of Africa. What is that one alternative I see? I believe that it is a negotiated form of democracy, though it may be a federal one, a regional one, in its devolution of power, but it is a negotiated form of democracy which is not based on race. That is my sincere conviction. This conviction is bolstered by the knowledge that within 25 years we are going to have, living in South Africa, some 50 million people. Less than 7 million of those 50 million will be White people. In that even more modem world, that smaller and more hostile world, there is no way that we Whites can retain the privileges and the powers that the people around us here today enjoy. There is no way in which it can happen. In saying this I know—I and my colleagues fully realize—that as we stand here today no alternative to separate development is at this time possibly acceptable to a plurality of White people. Most particularly it is not acceptable in South Africa unless our fears, the fears of the Whites, relating to their identity, to the question of their survival, are allayed. They want to know what guarantee there is that the Blacks, on achieving a measure of power, will not use that power, for their own ends, to eclipse the Whites as a cohesive people. That is the fear. That is the problem. In an “apartheid” society this fear is very justified, but in a society moving towards a real democracy the answer might, in fact, be a different one. When coming face to face with the stark reality of the present situation that we have here, what are the choices before all of us today? They are to negotiate and to bring about, as soon as possible in the whole of South Africa, a form of democracy encompassing all colour groups. Or, if we refuse to do that, the other alternative is this: To plan now for an era of siege and hostility which will lead to eventual confrontation. It will be a confrontation in which we will stand alone. We will stand alone against 80% of our own population and against 100% of the rest of the world. The vision of that eventuality is, in my view, unthinkable.

What has it got to do with a Bill of Rights?

No, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am approaching the matter in a somewhat slow way, but the point is to be made. We will inevitably need a new constitution, and just as inevitably that new constitution will come. However, in a non-homogeneous, racially divided country I agree with an eminent American jurist who said in 1942 in a case in Virginia—

If it is known that regardless of numbers power over individuals and communities is limited, I believe that some of the tensions which prevail in our society will be dissipated. Now, having got this far, having rejected partition, and refusing to walk the road which leads to confrontation, while yet harbouring the fears which White people do have, there is only one avenue of approach, and that is to agree to set up a non-racial democracy in this country. In doing so one must consider a rigid constitution, incorporating a comprehensive Bill of Rights to be interpreted, finally, by the High Courts of the country. There is no other way. The Bill of Rights must be comprehensive, including all and more of the subjects which have already been quoted as examples in this debate today, subjects relating to the social, economic, religious and political freedom of the individual and of the majority communities. Ample examples of this are to be found in the on-going constitutions of the Free World and are available to us. However, the Bill of Rights—and this point has been made by my hon. friend who sat down a little while ago—is of little value in a constitution which is easy to amend. Lack of confidence in Bills of Rights in South Africa undoubtedly amongst the people in the Government benches probably stems from the fact that the South African Constitution has not withstood the onslaught of legislative genius over the years. Nonetheless, I believe that it is both possible and feasible to frame a widely embracing constitution which is sufficiently strong to protect the provisions of such a Bill. Another essential point that must not be overlooked is that the judiciary must have the power to interpret the Constitution and to negative or remedy legislation or actions which are contrary to the provisions of the Bill of Rights or contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

There are several working examples of this in the world. I believe Canada is not one of the least. I concede immediately that such a concept, i.e. the interpreting of the Constitution and a Bill of Rights by the judiciary, marks a departure from the principle that the supreme legislature is sovereign, and could, I also concede, bring judges into the political arena from time to time. This is a consideration which has not been overlooked.

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

No. I only have one minute left in which to complete my argument. Therefore, the continued independence of the Bench is absolutely vital to this concept. Finally—and I shall be very quick about it because I only have a few moments and therefore cannot deal with it in depth—let me say that in a country where hostile elements are determined to remain hostile, no constitution and no Bill of Rights can provide peace. In those circumstances only force of arms will decide the issues, but force of arms in South Africa could, I honestly believe within our lifetime and within the lifetime of members in this House, decide the issues very much to the detriment of everybody sitting around here today. That is why there is only one acceptable route to follow and that is one of negotiated change at a negotiated rate of change, a decentralized South Africa, a new and rigid non-racial constitution, a Bill of Rights entrenched therein, interpreted by an independent judiciary. I believe that the alternative to that is the road to oblivion.

Mr. Speaker, a Bill of Rights concerns human rights and the protection of human rights. A Bill of Rights is a method of protecting human rights in a country. The cardinal question, however, is this: Under the circumstances prevailing in South Africa, is a Bill of Rights an adequate method of protecting human rights?

The hon. member for Sandton spoke about the political situation at a different stage, and I think that this is the crux of the matter. Both the PRP and the UP are advocating a policy which will in one way or another, give rise to a federal concept in South Africa—“one man, one vote”—a concept which they know—and which they think the voters suspect—will lead to a Black government in South Africa. Why is the image of the Bill of Rights suddenly being built up now? Because those hon. members know that before they can put their policy into operation, before they can have the power in their hands and before they can begin the process which will lead to Black domination in South Africa, the White man in South Africa must first have security for his rights. It is for this reason that they come along with this political bluffing, that as long as one had a Bill of Rights one would have adequate protection of human rights and might as well waive one’s political power. All this is an attempt to throw dust in our eyes. The Whites of South Africa, the NP—and, since we are talking about him so much, the Afrikaner in particular—will not allow themselves to be mesmerized by a Bill of Rights into voting to renounce their political power. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why a Bill of Rights is being introduced under his Party Government in South West?

I want to point out to the hon. member that a Bill of Rights will be introduced in South West Africa at the request of those people as a method of providing them with human rights. It is not being introduced by the Government. It is not this Government which makes decisions about those things. The aim of my speech is to show that a Bill of Rights is not an adequate guarantee under the circumstances in South Africa against the waiving of human rights.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that a Bill of Rights normally appears in a federal constitution. The idea of an inflexible constitution and the so-called supreme authority of the courts, sets one’s mind at rest, and were there to be a sudden trampling upon rights, the courts would pass judgment on this and declare the laws of the federal government to be illegal, and the situation would be very nice. The heart of the question remains what guarantee we would have, if political power were at issue in such a community, and rights were ignored, that the ruling of the courts would be obeyed by the Government of the day. Constitutionally—I stress the word—the courts may in such a federation with an inflexible constitution, declare actions of the Government legal or illegal. Constitutionally, the courts can indeed protect human rights under a Bill of Rights, but what guarantee will we have that it will be enforced? What guarantee do we have that the Government of the future would be prepared to accept the rulings of the courts? Under the given circumstances—as the hon. member for Waterkloof quite clearly stated—a Bill of Rights could be barely worth the paper it was written on. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville and the Kowie Marais’s and so forth, to give us the guarantee that the government of the future will always adhere to the constitution of the day. If problems arise in a country, the fundamental question is: who has his finger on the trigger? We have often seen it happen in Africa. Under such circumstances, a Bill of Rights might have no value.

Most African States began with a democratic constitution and a Bill of Rights. However, what has happened to them? When Lesotho did not care for the outcome of the election in 1970, they suspended the constitution, Bill of Rights and all, and put the Opposition in gaol. I want to ask the hon. members how a Bill of Rights with an inflexible constitution and the supreme authority of the courts could have saved the life of the chief justice of Uganda? I want the hon. member for Yeoville to indicate to us where in Africa a Bill of Rights has contributed towards protecting human rights. Where in Africa has a Bill of Rights made a contribution towards preventing the rights of majorities in any specific community from being trampled upon? If the hon. member can answer that question for us, then we shall talk about the practical aspects of the problem. We on this side of the House are of the opinion that the maintenance of human rights is related proportionately to the morality and the level of civilization and development of the Government of the day. This occurs in a democratic framework such as the one in South Africa. It is my contention that we ought to have less faith in abstract concepts and laws such as Bills of Rights, and more confidence in the quality of our people.

The hon. member for Yeoville told us about other countries in the Western world, but we are aware of the fact that a Bill of Rights works there. It works there because a Bill of Rights is part of Western constitutionalism. It works in tolerant political communities and it works in communities where there is an established parliamentary tradition. For political reasons, therefore, we reject a Bill of Rights as a protection of our rights. I want to point out that as far as a Bill of Rights itself is concerned, it does not always contain such wonderful rights which are effectively enforceable under all circumstances. It is not possible, when one has a Bill of Rights, for human rights to be trampled on unconstitutionally, but constitutionally it is also possible that there may be interference in the rights of people. Human rights are limited legally in the case of a Bill of Rights, chiefly by three things, viz. the rights of others, the requirements for the maintenance of State security and in the third place, the interests of the community in general. This is clearly stated in section 29(2) of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” of the UNO. If one considers how it is applied in practice, we can take a look at the Bill of Rights of Germany, in which the following is stated in section 2—

That sounds very good, but then follows the proviso: “Provided that it does not infringe upon the rights of others and does not offend against the constitutional order or the moral code.” Section 2(2) of the constitution provides: “Everybody should have the right to life and to the inviolability of his person. The freedom of this individual shall be inviolable …” Then this is tagged on at the end: “But these rights may only be infringed upon pursuant to a law.” It is a very wide concept which is being written into this Bill of Rights. I could quote many other such examples. When we look at the position in South Africa, we see that in South Africa a wide measure of protection is afforded human rights. My hon. friend from Waterkloof has already referred to this. The rights to life, inviolability of person, freedom, honour, good name and possessions are maintained in South Africa. In addition, we enjoy freedom of faith, freedom of worship and one’s honour is preserved in South Africa. There is a Bill of Rights in America but quite often one has the impression that the American public media have a licence to drag a man’s good name through the mud on the pretext of the public interest. The simple fact that there is a Bill of Rights does not protect one’s honour. In South Africa, too, there is due freedom of speech. Absolute freedom of speech exists in Parliament and the radio and Press are free to publish what is said in Parliament. We also have in South Africa, and this has already been referred to, a free and independent judicial system, a refined judicial system which is one of the best in the world. However, we have a limitation—and it is often passed off as a limitation on human rights in South Africa—which stems from the necessity of security legislation in South Africa. The so-called limitations which we place on human rights and which stem from South Africa’s security conditions are limitations which would still exist were we to have a Bill of Rights, because the Government of the day must, in any case, still maintain and guarantee the security of the State. It is imperative that the Government have these powers, because a collapse of State security would result in the wholesale flouting of human rights.

In South Africa, the limitations of human rights which stem from our security legislation are few, being only those which are called for by circumstances in South Africa. The extent to which human rights are upheld in the country is dependent on many things other than what is stated in law. It is therefore important to remember that we in South Africa do not have a homogeneous community but rather a heterogeneous community and wherever one finds a heterogeneous community, there is much more potential for conflict. Because there is more potential for conflict, one must resolve and defuse this potential for conflict. The only way to defuse it is to remove the basis of a power struggle and one can only do this if one has a division of political powers and not a sharing of political power. What is necessary for the preservation of human rights on an even greater scale in South Africa is the full implementation of the Government’s policy, because if the Government’s policy is carried through to its logical conclusions, it will be possible to uphold additional human rights with security for everyone. I have in mind, for example, the full participation of all citizens in their respective governments by way of adequate voting rights. I also have in mind, for example, the movement of citizens within their own country because there will be no restriction on movement. I have in mind, furthermore, the abolition in South Africa of a great deal of separation based solely on colour. I also have in mind the reduction of the Government’s essential powers which stem from its security legislation, because the potential for conflict in South Africa will have decreased. We on this side of the House, are convinced that what South Africa needs in order to uphold human rights properly, is not a rigid and inflexible Bill of Rights, while we still have with us all the possible conflicts in South Africa. What South Africa is more in need of, in order to attain its ideals and to preserve human rights in every way, is the realization of the Government’s ideals through the full implementation of its policy at all levels.

Mr. Speaker, I really hoped that we would conduct that debate on a high and unemotional level. However, despite my disappointment in this respect I am nevertheless going to try to conduct this debate on that level. However, before doing so, I just want to reply to a few of the questions raised by the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

I cannot understand why he refuses to use South West Africa as an example—he says it has nothing to do with us—while he uses Uganda and Lesotho as examples to illustrate why we would not do certain things in South Africa. As far as I know those countries have never had a Bill of Rights. In the second place, I want to tell the hon. member for Pretoria Central …

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

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited and I am replying to the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

You are scared.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to say that the hon. member for Edenvale is scared to answer?

Order! Which hon. member said that?

The hon. member over there.

Did the hon. member for Lydenburg say the hon. member for Edenvale was scared?

The suggestion made by the hon. member for Griqualand East is an infamous lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw his statement that the hon. member is scared as well as the words “infamous lie”.

I withdraw both phrases, Sir.

I shall give the hon. member a chance to put a question in due course, but I first want to make a point. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria Central on the importance of political power. However, what the hon. member for Pretoria Central forgets is that basic human rights have always been of crucial importance in our own history. In this connection I can refer him to Adam Tas and to what happened in this House—particularly at the beginning of the last war—when objections were raised to the illegal arrest of people at that stage. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. While dealing with the question of political power, he referred to the “complete division of political power”. I ask: How many times has it been necessary for hon. members of the Government to indicate how it is possible fully to divide power in respect of the Coloured persons, the Indians and the urban Bantu. At the same time the hon. member for Pretoria Central says he is in favour of the abrogation of segregation purely on the basis of race and colour. I cannot reconcile those two standpoints.

I now want to deal with the crux of the motion, and I want to do so in a manner which to my mind is a responsible manner. But perhaps I could give the hon. member for Lydenburg an opportunity to put his question at this stage.

If Lesotho had a Bill of Rights, would you have accepted the outcome of the election there?

I shall deal with this very point later in my speech. [Interjections.] I have never said—and the hon. member is anticipating me now—that a mere Bill of Rights was sufficient protection. If the hon. member would wait a little, I would be able to furnish him with the reply.

† I want to associate myself with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville. I think it is a timely motion, meriting the serious consideration of all responsible South Africans, particularly in terms of the realities of the situation facing us today. I may say that the United Party …

Which one?

… has on various occasions expressed itself in favour of a Bill of Rights. In this respect I could quote from Hansard of 14 May 1951 (col. 6531) a statement by the then Leader of the Opposition. On that occasion he said—

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to detail the points he thought, should be included in such a Bill of Rights. That was 25 years ago. In addition the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the year before last introduced a private motion which was not debated in this Chamber. It read as follows—

In addition this party has consistently proposed that a Bill of Rights should be included for South West Africa, which is, indeed, exactly what has taken place. Furthermore, the party has endorsed the 14 principles of the Marais Committee which, inter alia, provide for a Bill of Rights.

The concept of a Bill of Rights has a long and interesting history in the history of mankind. As you well know, Sir, it started off as a manifestation of the laws of nature. Then it was superseded by a more humanistic approach to it. Particularly important for us is the development that took place in this regard in the British legal system. The Magna Carta of 1215, especially section 29 of it, represented a particularly important development in this respect. It aimed to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the State, against the individual’s rights to property and his right to personal liberty and it asked for guarantees in terms of the principles of justice and right to all. This was followed by the Petition of Right in 1627 and then finally, by the Bill of Rights of 1688. What was important, is that in the development of Britain’s common law, which forms a basic part of our own legal system, a large number of basic human rights were included and protected. Our legal system is part of the British common law system, which thus still forms an essential part of our own legal system. Therefore, I cannot understand why hon. members on the other side object to the concept of basic human rights, because they do in many respects form a basic element in our own legal system.

The American Constitution was actually the first written legal document in more modem times in which fundamental rights and freedoms were entrenched. As you know, Sir, it all started off with the Declaration of Rights of the state of Virginia in 1776. If I may take the liberty, I should like to read out what the declaration said. It said—

These principles were the forerunners of the American Constitution and the Bills of Rights entrenched in the American Constitution by way of the first ten amendments introduced in that constitution and eventually also in terms of the 14th amendment, which made it possible to apply these basic human rights also internally in the various states of the United States.

It was particularly after the Second World War that we found general acceptance in the whole outside world of the need to protect individuals against the arbitrary exercise of the power of the State in a large number of countries. The basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany as promulgated in 1949 is but one example of that. In that basic law, article 1 provides for the protection of human dignity, article 2 for the rights of liberty and article 3 provides for equality before the law. It states that “all persons shall be equal before the law”. Article 4 provides for the freedom of faith and creed; article 5 provides for freedom of expression; article 6 provides that “marriage and family shall enjoy the special protection of the State”; article 7 provides for education; article 8 provides for freedom of assembly; and article 9 provides for freedom of association, etc.

In addition to this basic law in the Federal Republic of Germany there is the declaration of independence by the State of Israel on 14 May 1948. The law of Israel does not include a Bill of Rights, but in the declaration of independence of 1948 it is stated very clearly and explicitly that the State of Israel will rest upon foundations of liberty, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; that it will maintain complete equality of social and political rights for all its citizens, without distinction of creed, race or sex; that it will guarantee freedom of religion and conscience, of language, education and culture; that it will safeguard the holy places of all religions, and that it will be loyal to the principles of the United Nations Charter. Then as far as the Arabs as a group are concerned, the declaration states that “even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent”.

The same principles were embodied in the constitution of India in 1949, and in the Nigerian Constitution of 1959; in 1960 Canada produced a Bill of Rights, an “Act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Time does not allow me to go into detail, but I want to say that after the Second World War a Bill of Rights had become something that was regarded in many States as essential in order to protect the individual against the arbitrary exercise of the power of the State. In addition, apart from the geographical limitations we have since 1949, two more general declarations of human rights were made. One was the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which was accepted in 1948. Later we had the convention of the EEC providing for a Bill of Rights for the 16 member States of the European Community. In South Africa itself, apart from our whole background and tradition of British common law, we had in the South Africa Act two entrenchments, viz. the equality of Afrikaans and English and, secondly, the entrenchment of the political rights of the non-Whites, Africans and Coloureds, in the Cape Province. You know the history, Mr. Chairman, I shall therefore not give details.

Looking at the history of the recognition of basic human rights, there are certain fundamentals. The one is the concept of equality; in other words, that neither on the basis of sex, marital status, religion, ethnic origin nor race should there be a difference between people in the enjoyment of basic human rights.

That is why they are so scared of a Bill of Rights.

With respect, it is the absence of this basic equality in our South African legal system which makes us so vulnerable, not only internally, but also externally. Race has become a dominant factor, essentially affecting basic human rights. Race in South Africa affects the question of marriage, sexual intercourse, employment opportunities, salaries and wages, taxes, residence, occupation, trade union rights, the settlement of labour disputes, travel, education, access to the courts, statutory crimes and contraventions, political rights, separate amenities—in fact, the whole apparatus of apartheid. We cannot get away from the fact that what is accepted in the outside world in terms of a Bill of Rights, i.e. that there should be equality before the law, regardless of race, colour, sex, marital status, etc., is not applicable in South Africa. There are other substantive rights which we have abrogated in South Africa and which, in terms of other Bills of Rights, are regarded as essential fundamental freedoms, e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of association, freedom of protest, freedom to own and carry weapons and in addition to the substantive rights, there are certain what one might call processual rights, rights flowing from the concept of the due process of law, which are also fundamental human rights, which we have abrogated in South Africa, whatever the reasons may be. I do not have to go into the question of arbitrary imprisonment, the exclusion of the courts, the limitation of the jurisdiction of the courts, the onus of proof, the fact that a person should be prosecuted only once for the same basic offence, the right to legal representation, the right not to incriminate oneself, legislation with retrospective effect, and the discretion of the courts to determine the nature of the sentence.

In the time still available to me, I want to say that I believe that in view of our situation in South Africa a Bill of Rights has become essential. Such a Bill of Rights will have to do two main things. The one is to protect the individual, no matter whether he be White or Black, no matter what political persuasion he may have, against the arbitrary exercise of the power of the State limiting the freedoms and liberties and the rights of that individual. Furthermore, regardless of what groups are involved, we will have to create a system which will provide adequate protection for the groups which make up the plural society in which we live, and through the constitution guarantee the maintenance of the identity and the preservation of the cultural rights of those groups who want to maintain their identity and their rights.

In many of these Bills of Rights—and I presume that it will be essential also in our own country—there are basically two limitations to the complete and unrestricted applicability of such Bills. These two limitations lie in the concept of firstly, the salus publica, in other words, the interest of the public at large—and, secondly, the principle that you may only exercise your rights to the extent that it does not injure the rights of others. In other words, Mr. Speaker, your rights end where the rights of the other person start. These are two basic essentials, and I do not propose that it will be possible to have a Bill of Rights unless we have these limitations. However, that is not the point. What we need, is a declaration that these are the principles on which we want to build our State and on which we want to build the relationships among the various individuals and groups in South Africa.

In the last instance, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that a Bill of Rights, important as it is, can only survive if it is contained in the hearts of people. It is only when people believe that that Bill of Rights reflects what they want for themselves in terms of basic human rights, that we can hope that a Bill of Rights will really be maintained under all circumstances. In addition, I want to reply to the hon. member for Lydenburg. A Bill of Rights can only be maintained if it is adhered to at all levels of government. A Bill of Rights which aims at securing the rights of individuals and the protection of minority groups, can only be maintained effectively if the crucial structure within which that Bill of Rights operates, is such that all the groups are adequately represented at all levels of government: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. That is the only way in which it will be possible to prevent the kind of situation where a single group, White or Black, can utilize the machinery of political power to abrogate the basic fundamentals and principles of a Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, I can only state that I believe that justice in South Africa, that the interests of our country, demand that we should very seriously consider, while we are still in a position to do so, introducing a Bill of Rights that will guarantee to individuals, regardless of race or colour, certain fundamental freedoms, a Bill of Rights that will serve to protect all of us against the arbitrary exercise of power by the State, and which will provide for the adequate protection of minority groups by involving all the groups in South Africa in the political structure at all levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, in discussing this subject today, I should like to pose four questions. The first question is whether there is any need for the motion moved by the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon. Secondly, I want to know whether this is not being provided for by the existing political and legal order of our country.

The answer is “no”!

Thirdly, I should like to know whether it is not obviously a recognized principle of democracy—and we have taken over that system in South Africa—that such rights are being guaranteed and protected in South Africa. In the fourth place I should like to know whether the Constitution of our country should be burdened and over-burdened with a measure of this nature.

During the course of my speech, I shall try to deal with and answer these four questions. I believe that the hon. member for Yeoville will agree with me when I say that the concept of “basic rights” is closely associated with the freedom of the individual. This statement definitely does not need any motivation. However, it immediately brings me to the question whether the individual in South Africa is not free after all. Surely, he is allowed to form his own ideas. He is allowed to develop those ideas. He is allowed to exercise his own choice concerning his profession and the work he wants to do in this country. [Interjections.] In short, what it amounts to is that we say to the individual in South Africa: Here is South Africa. Choose what share you want in this country. Develop it and at the end of your career, give an account of what you did with those opportunities.

The only prerequisite is that the individual should act in such a way as to maintain the good order which is indispensable to any orderly community and, furthermore, that he should readily recognize the rights and the right to exist of his fellowman. I am therefore asserting that the basic rights of the individual are properly recognized and protected in South Africa, that he enjoys the freedom of an orderly democracy in South Africa, and that the very Government which is in power at the moment protects, and will protect him with essential measures, when it appears that the individual is in danger of losing his rights and freedom due to disorder.

This brings me to the second question, i.e. whether the motion moved by the hon. member for Yeoville here this afternoon is not being provided for by existing political and legal order. It is clear that in his motion the hon. member for Yeoville insinuates that the rights of the individual in South Africa are being infringed upon in an unfair manner and that minorities in South Africa are being steam-rollered, are simply being ignored. This is obvious from his argument. This is why he wants to introduce entrenched provisions into our Constitution.

The example he uses, the train of thought of his whole argument and of those who spoke in support of him, does not substantiate his case. The measures which are introduced from time to time by means of legislation— and I am not only referring to legislation enacted by the present Government, but also by former governments in South Africa— have been introduced in order to protect rights and minorities. The State is compelled to regard it as its duty to see to the interests of all its people. If it appears that there are certain developments indicating that the interests of individuals in South Africa are in danger of being undermined, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the individual is afforded the necessary protection through certain measures by means of legislation. Here I want to warn against our possibly reaching a stage where we regard restrictive measures as a continual infringement upon the rights of individuals and the interests of minorities. These measures are taken by the legislator in order to provide protection and are motivated by the principle of “live and let live”. Therefore, I want to suggest that our existing political and legal order already provides the machinery which affords the necessary guarantee envisaged by this motion. It is not the task of the Constitution of a country to provide for the guaranteed or absolute rights of the individual.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to security. With respect, I suggest that the security of the individual should rather be sought in the sense of justice of the people and of the community in which he lives. This will afford him the required security. Furthermore, it must be sought in representative and responsible government.

In which way should this security be afforded to the individual? I shall mention only three ways: Firstly, the influence of public opinion which manifests itself every day. If certain things are done which run counter to the interests of the individual, public opinion is there to keep a watchful eye on the matter. Furthermore, and this is important for the people on the opposite side of the House, it depends on the watchfulness of the Opposition. Such an Opposition must, however, be effective and not be fast asleep. It must be an Opposition which should at least have a policy as an alternative with which they will be able to unseat the Government. If that Opposition and its policy are rejected in one election after the other, that Opposition must realize that, in order to be effective, it will have to change its policy and effect changes in order to protect the rights of the individual in this way. Lastly, the individual can enjoy that protection and security through the courts which have been instituted, and through the decisions of those courts.

I now come to the third question which I posed at the beginning, namely whether the rights of the individual in our democratic system are being guaranteed sufficiently. Here I should like to mention that, since the last World War, various Western countries have tried to give expression to the concept of “basic rights” and the concept of “human rights”. This led to such definitions assuming an important part of the principle of the rule of law. For example, in 1951 the United Kingdom recognized and confirmed the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, but did not in any way recognize its enforceable jurisdiction. The European Convention was not incorporated into the British constitutional law, and the argument advanced in this respect, according to the authorities I consulted, was that there was no need for the declaration of human rights, as embodied in the European Convention, to form part of the constitutional law of England. On the contrary, it is interesting that this is emphatically stated by Hood Phillips in the third edition of his book Constitutional and Administrative Law—

If we consider further the facts of the parliamentary system and its development, we come to the final principle, i.e. the sovereignty of Parliament or, to put it more clearly, the legislative sovereignty of Parliament as we know it in South Africa. The motion moved by the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon makes me think that he is afraid that there may be a recurrence of what happened in the 18th century in the English legal system, for example, when Mr. Justice Coke declared—

For example, Blackstone also said—

Fortunately we had the development which brought about legislative sovereignty for Parliament. Today, in the Parliament of South Africa, we have the opportunity to debate Bills, exchange opinions on them and to reflect on them. When such legislation is finally ratified by Parliament and the Senate and signed by the State President, it has the force of law and the courts have no power to express themselves on the validity of the law. What the courts can do, is to interpret the law as laid down by the legislator, but the law is and remains valid.

I now come to my last question, which I shall deal with briefly, due to lack of time. I just want to mention that I do not see any reason at all for the motion which is before the House to be incorporated into our Constitution. I do not see any reason why our Constitution should be burdened with it. If it is felt that rights are in danger of being violated, provision can be made for this by means of ordinary legislation in Parliament, and the Opposition can see whether it can play its role as it should. If it is taken into consideration that there are certain principles which regularly keep an eye on legislation, I want to make it clear that there is no reason why this cannot be done by means of ordinary legislation. I just want to mention briefly: Firstly, there is public opinion, as reflected by the Press and in other organizations. Secondly, there is the fact that the Government is expected, while it is in power, constantly to carry out the policy it advocates during an election. Thirdly, regular consultations should take place with groups before the legislation is accepted. People specializing in certain directions, ought to see to it that legislation is formulated accordingly. I therefore conclude by saying that I do not see any need at all for entrenched provisions—a Bill of Rights—to be inserted into our Constitution. I believe that the basic rights of the individual and of minorities are being sufficiently protected by means of the existing, well-tried measures in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Aliwal made a reasoned contribution to the debate, but I have difficulty with his argument. He states that the circumstances which could possibly have prevailed under a Bill of Rights already prevail in South Africa. If that is the case, why, then, can there be an objection to converting this into a Bill of Rights in any event so that people can be aware of it? I think that this is fair because these things do not exist in fact—there are certain gaps and deficiencies—there is some evasion of the implications of a Bill of Rights in the constitutional framework of South Africa.

In this connection I should like to come back to the hon. member for Pretoria Central, because I found once again that he made a number of most interesting statements about Africa and discussed Africa as if South Africa did not form part of it.

That is not true.

He did speak in those terms, particularly in the part about the “finger on the trigger”, but I shall come to that again. What does such a Bill involve? It reflects the rights and obligations which the interest groups in a society believe ought to be protected. To a certain extent one could almost say that it constitutes practical proof of the minimum degree of consensus necessary in that society for any degree of co-operation among the various groups. What such a Bill in fact says is that if such a consensus is not possible, there cannot be co-operation in that society. That is why it is essential to eliminate certain misconceptions concerning the constitutional function in place of a Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights is not a prerequisite for consensus. Many of the hon. members opposite argued this afternoon along the lines that such a Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for consensus. That is not the point at issue at all; such a Bill of Rights is the result of the consensus achieved. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, then in the nature of the matter, there cannot be any such Bill of Rights. It is fallacy to say that a Bill of Rights can bring about consensus. This has never been achieved anywhere in the world. However, if one states that one is trying to achieve a consensus among the various interest groups in the society with regard to the rights and obligations which these groups regard as important, and they then come to such a decision, only then is a Bill of Rights a possibility in that society.

A second point is that a Bill of Rights per se, as a constitutional measure, cannot be carried into effect. It must be seen within the context of a broader constitutional framework.

We agree.

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria Central kept saying this afternoon that this side of the House was supposedly arguing that a Bill of Rights would solve the problem. We never said anything of the kind. We said that it was an essential element in the constitutional set-up in South Africa.

He convinced you.

No, he did not convince us. After all, at this very moment I am trying to show him that we did not say it. A Bill of Rights simply cannot be regarded as the only guarantee for the rights of people in a society. It is true that it is an important and essential element, but it needs constitutional entrenchment and protection, not only in the constitution, but also in the courts of law, while the police and defence force must also uphold it. The third point, Mr. Speaker, is that in a heterogeneous society like South Africa’s, one cannot have such a Bill of Rights established unilaterally. That is impossible. Due to the nature of the meaning of a Bill of Rights, it is impossible for it to be compiled unilaterally by a specific group. That is why, due to this very point, the point made by the hon. members for Pretoria Central and Aliwal makes no impression at all. We cannot say that, from this situation, a unilateral decision can be taken in this Parliament concerning what the real nature of protection should be for all the heterogeneous population groups of this society. This has nothing to do with a Bill of Rights. This is the basic difference between the argument of this side of the House and that of that side.

This brings us, then, to the next question: Is such a Bill possible for South Africa?

Is it necessary?

I am not asking whether it is necessary, but whether it is possible. This is a practical and not a normative question. The hon. members opposite have themselves already stated that it is quite unnecessary and undesirable. I want to put another question: Is it in any way possible? In South West Africa there are people who think that it ought to be so. They think that it may be possible, too. They are trying very hard to talk to each other in order to come to an agreement on what the nature of such a Bill should be. There are Afrikaners there, too. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central: Is that group of Afrikaners allowing itself to be “mesmerized”? Are the hon. members for South West Africa being “mesmerized”? The hon. Minister of the Interior says: You cannot talk about South West; South West is an entirely different situation. There we have a mandate area: here in South Africa we have a sovereign State. After all, we cannot compare the two.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that that is a territory under mandate whereas this is a sovereign State, has absolutely nothing to do with the internal regulation of the various population groups. [Interjections.] Wait, just give me a chance. If the various population groups in South West Africa decide that they should sit around a table to talk—whether it is a territory under mandate or a sovereign State has nothing to do with that—do you say that they are being pressurized by the UNO? [Interjections.] Of course! I agree. They are sitting around the conference table there in order to conduct discussions with each other. South West Africa has a heterogeneous population. South West Africa had a minority group which governed and administered it for years. Just like South Africa, South West Africa has a division between rich and poor. Just like South Africa, South West Africa has a disproportionate rural and urban economic development. All the essential elements which can lead to conflict, as the hon. member over there says, are to be found in South West Africa, just as they are here. There is no difference.

If I have a choice, I choose political power rather than a bill of rights.

That choice does not rest solely with that hon. member and his party. This the people in South West Africa have learnt. After all, they had that situation for years. When they found that they no longer had that choice, they asked: What must we do? We must talk. What did that talking lead to? To a joint statement of intent. What does a joint statement of intent say? We acknowledge that there are differences and problems of conflict in the society, but we must come to an agreement, because if we do not do that, what is the alternative? The alternative is confrontation and violence. The violence is menacing our borders. Just like South West Africa, we are being threatened by external violence. Just like South West Africa, we must reach a settlement with the people here. We must decide here whether we are going to confront or not. I find it interesting to come once again to the speech by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. In his previous speech in this House he wrote off the parliamentary tradition as unsuitable for South Africa. In this speech—it is stated in Hansard—he writes off a bill of rights as a basis of consensus. If the hon. member is so concerned about consensus, what other constitutional mechanism does he have in mind?

Sharing of power!

Ah, I was waiting for that. He states that the issue is the sharing of power.

Division of power.

Oh, a division of power! I just wanted to rectify the error. The hon. member stated that there was a difference between sharing of power and division of power. I shall be able to accept this distinction if the hon. member will explain to me—I do not mean this as a joke, but in a logical sence and very seriously— how I can share an apple with someone if I cannot divide it up? Surely I must divide it. How else can I share an apple with someone?

You take a bite and he takes a bite.

What is the distinction between division of power and sharing of power? It is a ridiculous distinction. The power being decentralized away from Parliament must surely go to someone else. To the extent that one divides it, one is surely sharing it with someone else. This matter of division and sharing of power is nonsense. It is just make-believe. Just because that hon. member does not want to say that he does in fact agree with us, he thinks up a new concept. An important question is this—and I should also like to put it to the hon. the Minister: If we here in South Africa believe that we must bring about a consensus and achieve co-operation among various population groups, that we must produce a joint statement of intent, how can we believe that parliamentary tradition is worth nothing? How can that side of the House believe that a bill of rights is meaningless, and not worth the paper it is written on? … and tell that to the South Westers!

They did not say that parliamentary tradition was worth nothing.

I refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central in the no-confidence debate, when he asked: Where in Africa—he always wants it to be Africa, but he does not think South Africa forms part of it—has parliamentary tradition worked? Was that the question? Then he said that we in South Africa were prepared to negotiate all problems—apart from the sovereignty and identity of the Whites—on the basis of consensus. What is the mechanism on the strength of which that consensus will be effected? Who is going to decide how that power is divided? Where are they going to come together to decide on that? Is the decision going to be unilateral? If the decision is unilateral, surely one cannot say that a consensus has been achieved. That is just what I am saying.

A Bill of Rights is a reflection of the agreement among groups in the society in which they say: “Look, whether we are at odds or not, these things are sacred to us. We are committed to upholding these things in this country of ours. We are going to entrench them and ensure that no other small group overthrows it.” Now we are talking sense.

Can the hon. member please just tell us how each group of a heterogeneous community which the hon. member advocates can be sure in future that a future government will adhere to the constitution and the Bill of Rights?

I have pointed out this very matter to the Government in the first part of my speech. I think the hon. member for Edenvale did so too. If the majority of interest groups in that society is not committed to the principles contained in a Bill of Rights, there is absolutely no guarantee on earth.

Then we come back to the hon. member’s statement. He must really make this statement to the people in South West as well, because they are working and sweating on this issue. If he now goes and says to those people: “Look, forget about it; it is not worth the paper it is written on”, then he is telling them that the only solution is violence.

Surely you know what the guarantees are there.

Just give me a chance.

The one place differs from the other.

There is no difference whatsoever in the political problems. It is the same political problem as the one we are faced with. Basically it is the same political problem.

[Inaudible.]

A remark has been made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central and I am sure he did not mean it in that way, but he must tell me that. He said that in Africa there is only one thing that counts, and that is, whose finger is on the trigger. Those were the exact words which the hon. member used. Are we in South Africa a part of Africa?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central may not make a speech while sitting in his bench.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am really trying to make is that if we have reached the situation in which the Whites in this country have to acknowledge collectively that this is the only so-called solution to our problems, then confrontation is going to be the only way. I do not believe that that is what they are saying, and if that is not so, why, then, can they not accept the simple and convincing arguments advanced by this side of the House.

Are you not prepared to accept that human rights can be better protected in a situation in which one creates homogeneous political units and thereby removes the potential for conflict in the country?

In terms of academic argument yes, but the fact of the matter is that whatever may be created—this is the underlying theme in this argument— must be the result of joint decision-making. It cannot be the result of unilateral decision-making. This has been the source of political conflict throughout Africa and the world. If we think that we are going to cut that knot by ignoring it and persisting with unilateral political decision-making then we are living in Lotos Land; then we are living in a fool’s paradise.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat and listened to an interesting debate, a debate which may perhaps not always have been aimed at the “Bill of Rights”. Nevertheless, I listened with interest to what was said, inter alia, by the hon. member for Yeoville. He obviously wants something to be added to our constitutional position by means of a declaration of human rights. I do not think it is unfair that before we consider adding a declaration of human rights we should first see what we have and probably first of all make sure of what we want to change in regard to our fundamental rights, if we have any such rights. We have undergone a constitutional development here in South Africa since the day in 1652 when the White man came to this country. This took place first of all under the Dutch Government, namely, the VOC, and afterwards, in line with British constitutional thinking and its development. Everything was tempered by and adjusted to the Roman-Dutch Law which is part of our legal processes. This development has therefore not taken place over a short period; its foundations have been laid here in South Africa, slowly but surely, in order to bring us where we are today in a sovereign Parliament that is fashioned on the pattern of British constitutional thinking. Our legal sovereignty is vested in this South African Parliament and nowhere else. We have also fashioned our fundamental rights on the British pattern, precisely the same provisions, with this exeption that over and above this we have the Roman-Dutch legal concepts. What are these fundamental rights? They are that a man is completely free in every facet of his life, for example, in regard to speech, assembly and all the others that were mentioned by the hon. member. A person is therefore completely free within his community but is subject to certain restrictions. That is our constitutional position. To what restrictions is one subject? One is subject to those laws that have been made lawfully by one’s constitutional authority, one’s sovereign Parliament. If one’s Parliament has passed a law—it makes no difference how that law affects one—then it is correct in law that no matter what one has by way of freedom will fall into line under the law of that Parliament. One has to do this because that Parliament represents one’s community’s joint will, and Parliament has been placed there by that community. Before hon. members make any interjections in regard to the non-Whites, let me say that I shall be dealing with this matter just now. This Parliament represents the sovereign will of our people, and that is why it is correct for them to allow their rights to be restricted by a law that has been passed properly and constitutionally by Parliament. Another limitation that exists is the rights of other people under the common law; therefore, rights which it is not necessary to have passed by Parliament. We all know about this as a result of our background and because of our cultural heritage.

In times of danger it is also our right to take extraordinary steps, through the medium of our lawful Parliament, to place certain powers in the hands of the executive. The executive then receives permission to restrict rights by way of an extension of this Parliament because there is a position of danger. This is set out very clearly in our law, and is expressed as follows in the South African Law Journal:

This is absolutely fundamental to our legal system and is based on the old Roman law mentioned by my hon. friend opposite, namely, the principle of salus populi suprema lex.

These are the three restrictions that one has in respect of one’s fundamental freedoms. Who looks after these freedoms that one has? It can be one’s common law position or one’s judical position. The independent courts that are appointed in a manner that is laid down in the constitution—once again by the common will—look after them. Through the medium of our common will we establish a Supreme Court for ourselves that is independent of ourselves but which is not above ourselves, and which also stands under the sovereign authority of this Parliament. However, it is independent of this Parliament and it has the right to interpret laws in its own way. That is what our whole structure looks like.

I listened with great interest to what the hon. gentleman wanted to give us. I want to refer to points 5, 6 and 7 raised by the hon. member.

Harry, listen for a moment!

Yes", the hon. member would do well to listen to me for a moment. He is very fond of telling other people that they should listen to him; I think that on one occasion he also called my name out. I want him to listen to me now for a moment as well. The hon. member asked what mechanism we have to introduce in order to maintain our fundamental rights. Our courts have to look after that aspect of the matter and our sovereign Parliament has to determine what our rights are. That is what we have, but apparently the hon. member is not completely satisfied with it because he mentioned a number of aspects that have been passed by this Parliament completely lawfully, and which he regards as being basically a lack of freedom. That is wrong because the sovereign Parliament has passed them. In any event, that is how the hon. member feels about them and he now wants to know how they can be changed. The hon. member said that a mechanism, namely, a declaration of human rights, should offer protection in this connection. The hon. member contended that this was the best machinery for that purpose; Parliament and the courts are now no longer the best machinery for doing so. Those two institutions have now to take a back seat because after all now we are going to have a written document. The hon. member went on to say: “It will only be possible with a strong judiciary.” In other words, the Bench has now to receive more power than it has at the moment. A greater right than the sovereign Parliament has now to be built into the Bench so that it can tell Parliament: “You have now intruded upon the basic fundamental rights of the individual and therefore I say, I who am the Supreme Court, that this cannot happen. ” That is what it amounts to. In his next sentence the hon. member said: “Both the Bill of Rights and the courts must be protected against the executive.” In other words, this Parliament as a sovereign authority is no longer good enough and must be limited in its executive authority which was itself set up by this Parliament. The hon. member now wants the courts to be given this right: in other words, this authority has now to be transferred to the courts of law. I have already said that our basic rights are precisely the same as those of the British. The people who say that the law is unjust or that it affects a Black man, a Brown man or a White man unjustly should listen now to what Sir Ivor Jennings has to say in this respect in his The Law of the Constitution (Fifth Edition). He states—

He is also talking about basic rights—

He continues in this vein and, if hon. members will permit me, I should also like to make a quotation from Prof. A. S. Mathews. This is a gentleman who may perhaps be regarded with even greater respect by hon. members opposite than Sir Ivor Jennings. In his thesis entitled “Law, Order and Liberty of South Africa” of 1971 at page 31, he has this to say—

This is the point—

One cannot do otherwise. The question is now whether a declaration of human rights is the correct solution. We have history to act as a guide and we also have examples about us that may help us. Let us see what the writers of constitutional law have to say about a few of the basic rights that are embodied in a declaration of human rights. We have a declaration of human rights of this nature in the American Constitution, which is an inflexible Constitution. It was laid down in that Constitution because the states were all independent. Subsequently, they formed a federation and did not want to forfeit any rights that were not defined. They then said that those rights should be defined and that they would then be satisfied. Mr. Speaker, I say with respect that in many respects these people have written themselves into a corner. What does Sir Ivor Jennings have to say in this regard in The Law of the Constitution on page 258? He says—

Like you do in Parliament.

Yes, just as I did in Parliament. They, however, had the right to wear it outside, and they could wear it in a holster on a belt. It was the man who was quickest on the draw who held the law in his hands. What does Mr. Hiemstra have to say? He says this—

Mr. Speaker, there you see the dangers that are inherent in a declaration of human rights of this nature. The question arises to one’s mind: In our state, South Africa, what is the problem experienced by the hon. member for Yeoville? Why has he made this attack upon the results of certain legislation that has been passed by this Parliament in its sovereign capacity, and why has he put forward these juridicial ideas that seek to upset that sovereignty? After all, that is what it amounts to. He is breaking down the sovereignty of Parliament and transferring it to the courts. I make so bold as to say that it would appear to me—and I want to apologize to the hon. member in advance if I am wrong—that this is the thinking of the minority of the Whites in South Africa who no longer see their way clear, in those parties, to take over this Government. There is enormous frustration there, and I can understand it; this is the frustration of people in perpetual opposition. These people say that sectional Afrikanerdom or, as they call it, “the tribal affiliations”, have now become so strong that they can never break through the wall. They now come to light with all sorts of clever ideas to try to break down the sovereignty of Parliament, and to transfer that sovereignty to the courts which they—and I say this with respect—are now elevating to the position of a sacred cow. That is why the hon. gentlemen approach me every day to ask for a judicial commission. A judicial commission can fix everything. One would swear that the judges have also come down from Olympus, that they are no longer people and cannot therefore subscribe to incorrect points of view. However, as I say, this attitude is based on the frustration that these people experience.

I also want to indicate what I suspect. I am of course going to give the hon. gentleman time to reply to me; he can do so with pleasure. My further suspicion is that the hon. gentleman has used this as a precursor to his party’s policy, because a declaration of human rights is inherent in a federation. A federation is a dispensation consisting of independent units which then meet in a federal Parliament where each has to relinquish some of its rights and has to give those rights to the federal Parliament. The tendency will then be to want to know whether the minority right, or whatever right it might be, is based in a declaration of human rights. This party has recognized the fact—and I think my learned friend will agree with me in this regard—that the logical consequence of the policy of those people is in effect one man, one vote. For that reason he and the hon. the Prime Minister had words when he spoke about the “White minority”. He said this because he was thinking in terms of race; in other words, in terms of a White/Black situation. However, what he is not prepared to recognize is a situation of nations where our White people will in reality be in the majority in this country. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister meant. [Interjections.] No, it is quite right. It is the largest national group in Southern Africa. In any event, let us be very honest with one another this afternoon. I am quite prepared to be honest across the floor of this House. After all, we cannot be otherwise. At any rate, it is this group that has the power in its hands so that any other situation in South Africa can only arise as a result of what this group determines. We come now to the answer to the question of the hon. member over there. Tie asked: But what of consensus? I say: Very well, I talk; I am prepared to talk, to talk with people about their rights and talk about schemes. However, people cannot simply ignore the fact or negate it that we are the sovereign Parliament and that we make the laws that are enforceable. After all, that is how a state is constituted. There is a sovereign Parliament where laws are passed that are enforceable, and that is what we have. Of course, we are prepared to talk to people on the basis of trying to convince them. However, just before I deal with our policy, allow me to take my ideas in regard to the policy of my hon. friend a little further. The hon. member for Houghton and another hon. member said that eventually the Blacks would be in the majority in a common Parliament.

Not necessarily.

It must be so. When one thinks in terms of race—in other words, in terms of Black and White—instead of in terms of nations, in due course there will be more Black people than White people in Parliament as a result of their policy.

And in a federal Parliament?

I am pleased that the hon. member has asked that because it supports the point I am coming to. He wants to establish a federation. Why does he want to establish a federation? This is his idea because he knows that in a Parliament of this nature on a one man, one vote basis—which will be the outcome of his policy—the Black people as a group will have a majority in comparison with the Whites.

Not necessarily.

Let us now for a moment envisage such a Parliament. If there is such a Parliament there will be a number of different Black national groups represented in it, which means that violence will be built into such a Parliament. Let me tell you why. The reason is that there will then be a diversity of group interests that will be irreconcilable with one another.

Like the Cabinet Council.

Just wait a moment. Give me a chance to finish speaking; the hon. member can speak later on. He could have participated in this debate if he had wanted to. We will then have those groups here. Do hon. members think that Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi will be prepared to serve as Minister of Justice in this Parliament under a man like Mangope? They will be at one another’s threats in this Parliament. [Interjections.] They will ignore the rules and they will be at one another’s throats in this Parliament. There is one thing that we must certainly not forget. That White group, with its economic power and its public service position, will start pulling strings in order to manipulate the groups sitting here. Is that not so? Of course it is! My learned friend knows precisely what the problems are. That is why he has come forward now with a “Bill of Rights”. The next step will of course be a federation, and what is the federation idea?

You are transparent, Harry, just like a ghost.

He has two things in mind with federation. [Interjections.] Of course, I talk of nations; he talks of races although he knows that on a racial basis the Black/White ratio is four to one. Therefore, with his party’s system of a free vote for all—that is to say, all the race groups in South Africa—one will have four Blacks here for each White, is that not so? [Interjections.] Wait a moment; just give me a chance. However, he says now: No, look here, the interests of my group may perhaps be affected in such a situation; we must therefore try to establish a federation. The whole attempt at federation is to break down the numerical majority of the Black race groups and to reduce their voting power to that of the Whites. That is the idea behind the federation plan. He wants to know that personal freedom—because he will then regard himself as a minority race group—will then be laid down in a fundamental document, a declaration of human rights. However, this cannot work in South Africa. Hon. gentlemen at the back over there said that our policy could not work. I say that theirs will explode even before it starts. That is the difficulty.

Yours has “ontploffed” already.

Let us look at our policy. There are two basic things that are considered in our policy. Who started homelands in South Africa? Did we? No. The British started them. This was a British constitutional development. Initially, there was a group of protectorates within the Republic. Then, by means of their constitutional development and in the light of the “winds of change” of Macmillan, the British gave those people their freedom; in other words, they established independent homelands. South Africa is now accused of being out of step. No, we are the product of British constitutional thinking. We also have territories which are historically those of the Black man and we are doing precisely what Britain taught us to do. We are also engaged in giving them their freedom. However, what does this mean? It means freedom together with peace. We say: “Freedom for the nations,” and those people can live out their lives as homogeneous groups in those specific areas. The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke about a heterogeneous community. We want to remove the heterogeneous aspect so that we can live in a homogeneous community where we can live in peace.

As in the sporting world.

Do not start bringing politics into the discussion. As soon as the hon. member for Sea Point finds himself on uncertain ground he runs to the swimming bath. We are giving these people their freedom within the pattern of constitutional thinking throughout the whole world in order to make them happy and in order to establish homogeneous nations. However, I am the first to admit that there are still a great number of problems along this road although there are a hundred times more problems on the road of federation and the declaration of human rights than there are on this historic road, a road that is being enlarged upon further in terms of the pattern of our history and our constitutional life. There will be development as there has been in Britain as well, constitutional development, from 1215 when they wrote their first declaration, throughout the struggle against the kings and the power of the kings to the position that has been reached today. That is the way South Africa’s constitutional road is running, but it is a road of peace, love and constructive effort.

In the few moments still left to me I want to explain our dilemma in South Africa. We do in fact have a dilemma. I have noticed this dilemma on many occasions. It is that our friends on the other side of the House have never been able to sit quietly, to think about the matter and to say: “Strip yourself of your prejudice towards the Afrikaner. Get rid of your prejudice in respect of the Afrikaner so that you can sit in your chair this evening and say to yourself: I do not hate the Afrikaner; I am not afraid of the Afrikaner because he is a good person. He is with me in South Africa and I am always able to co-operate with him.” There is a further matter. Let us be honest with one another. Will the hon. member for Sea Point mind giving me a few more moments? I am dealing with a motion moved by a member of his party; it is not my motion. The hon. members belonging to that party should sit down and say further: “Let us accept the fact that the Afrikaner does not seek to oppress the Black man. Let us forget all the liberal stories we get from Soweto and all that type of gossip. Let us look at the position through Africa spectacles and ask ourselves: Should we develop a brand new federation with a declaration of human rights or should we give this separate development, these separate freedoms, problems and all, a chance?” They berated me when I said the day would come in South Africa—and I want to say it to them once again now—when they would take separate development, warts and all. I admit that there are problems. All that I am asking is that the Whites should at least show some unity, that the Whites in South Africa should say: “Let us give the thing a chance.” Let the Whites say to us: “We will come to Parliament and we shall oppose these people but we shall oppose them on the basis of how and when; how we should proceed in order to bring this about, how soon we should do it and how we can draw plans to succeed in doing it. Let us stand together to complete this great task in Southern Africa. It is our historic task so let us do it.” But we just come along here and talk piffle. We talk about declarations of rights that do not form part of our constitution and which now seek to deprive us of our sovereignty. Give us a chance. That is all that I ask the Opposition. Give the policy of the NP a chance. I also want to ask them to accept the good faith of the Nationalist, to accept the good faith of the Afrikaner. I want to ask them this as well: Support us in completing this great task of Africa and let us solve these problems.

I want to conclude now because I want to give the hon. member an opportunity to reply to the debate.

How much time are you giving me? Only two minutes!

I do not know, but you still have five or six minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are still available, I want to reply very briefly to the debate. Firstly, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edenvale for his support of this motion. [Interjections.] I also want to say that I do not believe that a case has been made out against a Bill of Rights. The tragedy about the hon. the Minister of Justice is that he was speaking in exactly the same way, using the same words that were used by the Nationalists in South West Africa only a very short while ago. Yet, eventually, the Minister will have to come in exactly the same way—and I hope it will not be too late—and will have to sit down and negotiate on the same kind of terms as they are now doing. What we are trying to do is to warn the Government of this dilemma in which they are. The tragedy about what has been said here today is that, in so far as we are concerned, we are people of hope because we are committed to negotiate and committed to dialogue. They, on the contrary, are people of despair because they are the people, as symbolized by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who says the only answer is to sit with your finger on the trigger. [Interjections.] That, I want to tell you, spells disaster for South Africa.

I briefly want to talk about the supremacy of Parliament. In order to enable Parliament to be supreme, it must be the governing body of all the people. This Parliament is not the governing body which is elected by all the people of South Africa. This is a White Parliament of White people elected by Whites. As the hon. the Minister himself has said, he has the power; he makes the decisions; he decides what should be done. Then, of course, one cannot say that this is a body representative of all the people of South Africa. With respect, there, are some things which this Parliament should not be allowed to do by a simple majority. Those concern the basic human rights which every rational being is entitled to. That is why a Bill of Rights is essential here. Why, may I ask, is English and Afrikaans entrenched in the constitution of South Africa? Why is it? Why should it be unique? Why should other basic rights also not be included in that? This, in fact, is the weakness of the whole argument. The truth is—and the hon. the Minister knows it—that he sits on the edge of a volcano. For some 28 years he has asked us to give him a chance, but for 28 years he has made an unholy mess of it. Yet he wants us to go on with him on a path that leads to destruction. Our job is to warn him. Our job is to put him on the right road. He asks that we must help with separate development. If it were a possible solution for South Africa, we would be the first to help. But it is not a possible solution; it is not a moral solution, and it is one that is not acceptable. If they want to partition South Africa and come with an honest partition proposal, then that is another story. But they do not come with an honest partition proposal, but with a proposal by which they want to ensure that everything that counts in South Africa is retained for only one section of the population and they want to do it by force. That force can only lead them to destruction, and the tragedy is that it is not only leading them to destruction; it is leading all of South Africa to destruction, every White man. That is the tragedy of the policy of the NP. That is the tragedy of the whole thing. In leading us along this road, it is not only they who are going to be destroyed; it is the Whites of South Africa as a whole who are going to be destroyed; it is the Black man in South Africa who is going to be involved in a confrontation with us all. That is the tragedy of NP policy, and that, in fact, is what goes wrong when it comes to this Government and its proposals.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion lapsed.